Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the amendment of Senator Gregg to deal with the lottery provision that is currently in the code involving immigration. We have many odd and curious provisions in our immigration law, but I suppose the lottery provision is one of the most odd and most curious. It seems to me to be unprincipled, without any real thought as to how it would effect a policy that is good for America. What kind of thing is this, that you do a lottery to let people come in from around the world?

His approach would be to say: Let's focus two-thirds of those slots on people with higher skills and higher education. I want to speak in favor of that and say, really, we need not only to do this two-thirds, but it would be better, in my view, to do the whole lottery program in this fashion. In addition, we need to reevaluate entirely this bill which is before us today to ask ourselves with some thoughtfulness how we can make future immigration policy beneficial to our country. It ought to benefit us. Everybody who comes here, no matter how poor or uneducated, according to the witnesses we heard at our one hearing, is benefited economically.

The poorer they are the more they benefit. They benefit, but the question is, What about the United States? Do we benefit? Is it a net gain for the United States?

We had a number of professors who testified--Professor Freeman, Professor Siciliano, Professor Chiswick, and others whose names escape me--and talked about this quite openly. These are the fundamental facts that should be part of any thoughtful, comprehensive reform of immigration in America.

The facts are these: People with college credit, people with a college degree uniformly contribute more to this country in taxes than they take out in benefits. The people who come to our country with less than a high school education, a high school dropout or somebody who just didn't have the opportunity, they don't have a high school degree--and over 50 percent of illegal immigrants entering our country today are without a high school degree--those people, it is uniformly agreed by professional economists who studied this issue, most of whom testified at our committee, strongly favor immigration but they all agree they will on average--not every single one but on average--draw more from the U.S. Treasury and U.S. coffers than they put in.

Does that tell us anything? What is happening in Canada? What is happening in France right now? What has already happened in Britain, Australia, Switzerland, and the Netherlands? These countries have reevaluated their immigration policy. They are focusing on bringing in people who benefit the country.

We cannot accept everybody. Isn't it a simple principle? There is no way this country can accept everybody who would like to come.

The leading expert on immigration--I think universally agreed on immigration--such as Professor Voorhas from the Kennedy School at Harvard, he himself is an immigrant. He immigrated here from Cuba. The name of his book, probably the most authoritative book on the entire subject, is entitled ``Heaven's Door.'' What is that? ``Heaven's Door'' is entry into the United States.

For a poor person in the Third World who has been abused by a legal system that does not work, who does not have clean water, who does not have a legitimate job, who does not have electricity, getting to the United States, the title of his book, is like going through Heaven's door. It is a tremendous thing.

But the world has a lot of people in it. We already have a lot of people in the United States. We have to ask ourselves: How many can we welcome? What people will achieve their dreams and aspirations most successfully here, people who are high school dropouts or people who have a greater education?

We also need to ask, as Canada does: Do they speak English? Australia does. They ought to speak English before they come here.

What is it about letting in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people on the theory that they might one day learn English, and that would be a requirement for citizenship. But if we have gotten more applicants than we can accept, why would we not want to ask ourselves whether we should give extra points, a higher listing on the list, if they already speak English? They would be guaranteed to be more successful here and more likely to assimilate, more likely to be promoted, more likely to be a boss over other people. If you can't speak the language, how can you ever rise to be a supervisor?

Those are important things, I submit, and not considered in the legislation before us at all.

Senator Craig's amendment is a very good amendment. It focuses on a critical matter. Let me tell you what my staff has concluded from their careful study of the bill. We believe that as it is presently written today only 30 percent of the people coming into this country will come in as a result of their skills or education. That is a pretty stunning number. Only 30 percent coming into our country will have their entry evaluated, their skill level or their education level, whereas 70 percent will come into our country for other reasons.

For example, if a young man came to our country under the new guest worker program that would be made law today, and that guest worker program would allow him to come into the country to file for a green card the first day he arrived here, within 5 years from that he can apply for and obtain as of right his citizenship in the United States. That will happen under the bill. Within 6 years, the person could possibly be a citizen of the United States coming in under a program which the bill says is a temporary guest worker provision. They say it is a temporary guest worker section of the bill. It has big letters, ``Temporary Guest Worker.''

But on the first day they get here, their employer can ask for a green card. A green card means you have legal permanent residence. Within 5 years of getting that card, they can become a citizen. A legal permanent resident means if you never seek citizenship you can stay in the country once you get that green card for the rest of your life.

What I am saying is, under this provision a young man can come in-- and he is 20 years of age. If he works 5 or 6 years, he becomes a citizen. Now he is 30, and he has a 50-year-old brother, a 60-year-old, a 70-year-old mother and father. They can be brought into this country under chain migration, whether or not they have any skills or any education that would be relevant to their success in the United States of America.

Think about this: Let us say they are both from Honduras. Let us say this is a young man who was valedictorian of his school in Honduras, who had a chance to take an English course and took English and learned it well, was able to go to a technical college and became skilled in electricity, and he applies at age 21 to come to the United States. Would he not have the advantage over a 50-year-old brother or a 70- year-old mother of someone who is already here when those people who may or may not have any skills which would be beneficial to the country could likely became a drain on the Nation's resources?

That is how we have 70 percent of the people coming into our country under the new provision who are supposed to be in a comprehensive reform of the immigration system? That does not make sense. We need to focus more on providing opportunities for people to enter our country who have the greatest potential to succeed. It is perfectly proper and legitimate for us to ask: What is the worker status, the wages that are being paid in a given area, and do we have a shortage?

In my view, the Department of Labor should not allow surging immigration when we have certain fields in the United States where there are more workers than there are jobs and you let a bunch of people come in from out of the country to take what few jobs there are leaving Americans unemployed.

We need to consider all of those things. But, fundamentally, when you make a choice between two individuals--a younger person, a person who speaks English, a person who has skills--who is going to be far more successful? If they are successful here themselves, and if they benefit and if they are blessed by the great freedoms and economic prosperity and the free market we have in America, if they are blessed by that, they will pay more taxes to the Government than they draw from the Government. That is a pretty good thing, I submit.

One reason I have been so critical of this legislation--and I remain steadfastly convinced that it is not worthy of the Senate of the United States--is the legislation seems to have given no thought to these issues whatsoever. We certainly never had a hearing to deal with it, to my knowledge. A lot of things we haven't done that we could have done. We could have studied more, we could have had more experts come in and testify and help us craft the legislation. We should have brought in immigration people who work for the Government of the United States to find out what is working and what is not working.

I talked to the person in the Dominican Republic, the American consulate official who meets with those people in the Dominican Republic who would like to come to the United States. He seemed like a very nice guy. He made some mention about sham marriages. So we talked about that.

As a U.S. attorney prosecuting a case where people created a sham marriage for immigration purposes, he said they won't even talk about prosecuting a case in the Dominican Republic. And he has seen lots and lots of sham marriage cases that were never prosecuted.

Why do they have a sham marriage? Because if you are married to somebody who is in the United States, they can take their wife and their children. That is the way to get people here. So they create a sham marriage.

But he told me that 95 percent of the people in the Dominican Republic who were approved to come to the United States were approved under the chain migration or family connection provisions in our code.

Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming because they have a skill that would benefit us and that would indicate their likely success in our society. They come in because some other family member of a qualified relation is here as a citizen or even a green card holder. That is how they get to come. They are creating a false document to show these are relatives or their spouses and they are married when it is not so.

As I have said a number of times on the Senate floor, 60 percent of the people in Nicaragua in a recent poll said they would come to the United States if they could, and I understand 70 percent of the people in Peru, when polled, said they would come to the United States if they could.

What does that mean? Think about it.

Mexico, all of Central America, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Morocco, all of the African nations, the Middle East, Bangladesh, China, India, Taiwan, the Philippines--all these nations around the world with great people in them--wonderful people but in each one of those countries are significant numbers of people, I submit, who would come to the United States if they could. Wouldn't it be a good policy for our Nation? Wouldn't it be the right thing to think seriously about who should come, like Canada and Britain, and as France did last week, and refocus our attention on accepting a certain number of people but making sure those people bring skills and talents with them to indicate they would be a positive benefit to our society rather than a net drain on society?

That is a challenge. We simply cannot accept everyone who wants to come. It is painful to bring people who are not able to speak English or effectively take advantage of the opportunities our country has. When they do not do that, they do not do well. They tend to pull themselves apart and continue to speak their own language. They do not advance and assimilate and become part of the great melting pot we are so proud of as Americans.

It is a big step forward to take this lottery, to put two-thirds of those people who are in it, who are now chosen by random chance, without any regard to skills or abilities or language or those matters, to at least set them aside for high-skilled positions for education, science, mathematics. It would be a great benefit to our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to have been here this evening to hear the remarks of Senator Specter about his friend Judge Becker. I came to know him and respect him greatly myself. I remember it was Judge Becker this and Judge Becker that as we wrestled with the asbestos litigation. Senator Specter, I knew, had such extraordinary respect for him. I guess it probably would be fair to say that in the last year, if there had to be a 101st Senator, he might have been the one we would name because he met time and time again with Senators and groups and interests and people to try to work out an asbestos bill that would be effective.

I came around to the thinking that he was exactly correct and agreed that he and Senator Specter had the right approach to that historic piece of legislation.

I am very sad we never could move it forward, but Judge Becker provided a great and extraordinary contribution to the legislation. In getting to know him, talking to him about other judges, he talked about Bill Pryor, a judge from Alabama who was recently confirmed. He knew and studied his record. I came to feel that he was a fine and decent person who loved his country and just didn't want to retire and sit around. He was right in the middle of things to his last days on this Earth.

I thank Senator Specter for allowing us the opportunity to get to know him. I hope he will convey to Judge Becker's family our admiration and respect for him.

I am not surprised. I am not surprised at all that he would be focused on policies that are important for America, even during his suffering.

I thank Senator Specter for letting us get to know him.

Mr. President, cloture has been filed on the immigration legislation, and I suspect cloture will be obtained on the immigration bill. We will have a vote later on in the week. The train is moving. People simply want to do something, and I suppose that is where we are headed.

I wish to make a couple comments about it. First, the difficulty we faced was that the bill which came out of the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate, which was essentially the Kennedy-McCain bill, was not good legislation. In fact, it was so broadly problematic that I thought and said from the beginning there was no way we could file amendments to fix that bill. It was unfixable. It had too many basic problems that had not been evaluated carefully, that should have been thought through carefully before it was ever filed.

Senator Specter just left the Chamber. He supports immigration. We started in the Judiciary Committee a few months ago--really just a couple of months ago--and his bill was a lot better than the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee. The chairman's mark had a number of provisions in it. It did not have an automatic path to citizenship, for example. So we spent several days talking around at the committee. Senator Frist said he wanted this bill on the floor a certain date. That was a Tuesday. He wanted the bill out of committee. On Monday, we were still talking about various technical, complex legal issues and debating them and worrying about law enforcement issues, and, boom, the Kennedy-McCain bill is offered as a substitute to the Specter bill in committee. With about an hour's debate, this several-hundred page bill became the bill in committee.

A few minutes later with very little debate, the agriculture jobs part was added to the bill, and that is what came out of committee. It was incredibly broad, huge in its increase in legal immigration into the country, as well as I think inadequate enforcement and overreaching in amnesty and a lot of other issues.

So here we are trying to pass this legislation. I guess we have done it now. I spent some time pointing out some of the difficulties, and I will continue to do so. I will say this: The legislation that will hit the floor presumably this week and will be up for a vote should not be passed by us.

I have four amendments on which I would like to have votes. I know what is going to happen. Cloture has been filed, and I will be lucky to get one vote on the four amendments I will be filing tonight, to get legislative council to approve them and worry about germaneness and a lot of other things, but I am ready to file these amendments and will file them.

I want to talk about those amendments, and I ask the American people and my colleagues to think about some of the issues in these four amendments and ask: Should not, when we set about establishing a new immigration policy for America, which has consistently been a 20-year policy--we did one in the midsixties and we did another one in 1986. Here we are 20 years later in 2006 passing another one. We are going to pass a bill that could set policy for quite some time. It ought to be a good bill. It should be a bill of which we are proud.

It should be a piece of legislation that considers the relevant issues facing our country and tries to fairly and decently and justly treat people who want to come here in a legitimate way, but fundamentally what we should be asking ourselves is how many people this country can accept and what kind of skill levels should they have, what expectation do we have that they will be successful when they come to this country and be able to take advantage of the opportunities that are here, to be able to pay taxes to the Government more than they draw from the Government, and those kinds of questions. That is what we are about. I submit that the legislation fails in that regard.

I have four amendments. One is a numerical limit amendment. It would cap the immigration increases caused by the bill to the numbers CBO and the White House tell us to expect, 7 million under amnesties and 8 million in new immigrations in the next 10 years. We had somewhat of a dispute. This bill is 600 pages. It is exceedingly complicated. It has a host of different categories. It has caps that apply and numbers that don't apply to caps and are exempted from caps. It is hard to figure out how many people might actually come.

The Heritage Foundation and my staff have concluded that we are looking at four times the current rate of immigration. It was 5 to 10 times the current rate of immigration until we discussed these huge numbers at a press conference last Monday, and Tuesday we adopted an amendment to knock that down. We think the immigration in that country will range from 73 million to 93 million people over the next 20 years. That represents approximately four times the amount we now allow in, which is a little less than 1 million a year, so it will be a little less than 19 million over 20 years, five times current rate, four times current rate at a minimum, we think.

The administration and CBO say some of those numbers were not good enough, and they came up with some figures.

That amendment would be designed to say: OK, we will look at your numbers and see if we can just make that the law so it won't be confusing. At least we will know what the numbers are. If the administration numbers are correct and the CBO numbers are correct, they are too high, way too high, but at least we would know what they are. At least we wouldn't have to worry that they might go and explode out of reason.

Another amendment we will be offering is the amendment to eliminate the

earned income tax credit for illegal aliens and those who adjust status under this bill. Once illegal aliens become citizens, they will once again be eligible for the earned income tax credit, which is nothing more than a Government payment. It is a Government subsidy to low wage American workers, and it is very large. I will talk about that in a minute.

Chain migration. We will offer an amendment that would eliminate certain chain migration provisions in this bill. If we want to admit more skill-based immigrants, we must reduce the right of immigrants to bring in certain categories of relatives automatically and they have an automatic right on the list to be able to come in. We need to make that choice. Why is this Senate dodging that issue? I don't know. Other countries, as I have noted just a few moments ago, are going in exactly the opposite direction. They are focusing less on some sort of connections and more on work skills.

Then I will offer an amendment that deals with green cards for future flow H-2C workers. This would be an amendment to make sure that H-2C workers who come in the future--not those given amnesty under this bill--will be subject to the annual numerical limits on employment- based green cards when they apply. There is some dispute about that. We were told originally: Oh, yes, they apply, the caps apply, these limits apply. And then we read the legislation carefully, and under that provision, it says: If you qualify for a green card, the Secretary shall give you the green card. And it appears that ``shall'' means you will get it whether the caps apply or not, or whether the caps would apply.

I shared earlier thoughts about the large numbers and the CBO numbers in that amendment. I have discussed it. I would like to take a few moments to discuss the earned income tax credit limit.

This amendment would do two things. One, it would clarify existing law that makes illegal aliens ineligible to claim the earned income tax credit and postpones the ability of illegal aliens who are given status by this bill to claim the earned income tax credit until they become citizens. So the amendment is clearly a moneysaver. It is also a way to make sure that illegal aliens are more likely to contribute more in taxes than they are taking out. The inability to claim the earned income tax credit should be one of the things added to the list of items illegal aliens will have to agree to do in order to receive the benefits of the amnesties contained in title VI of the bill. Other items on the list include a background check, a medical check, and payment of back taxes, and being required to not claim the EITC until the illegal alien becomes a citizen is a natural addition to that list.

The EITC tax credit was established in 1975. It is a refundable tax credit for families that can offset income taxes or provide a tax credit directly to the family. According to IRS data for 2003, 22 million households received $39 billion in EITC payments, an average of $1,782 per household or $2,100 for any families with children.

Now, let me just repeat that. This is a huge Government program. And most of the low-income people don't owe any taxes. If you are making below $20,000 a year, you are unlikely to pay any income taxes. If you have children, you certainly are not going to be paying any income taxes. So how do you get a tax credit if you don't pay any taxes? Well, they send you a check. That is what they do. You file your tax return at the end of the year, and if you have worked and your income was lower, they send you a check. We looked at the numbers. If you are a minimum wage worker and you make around $14,000 a year, that family would receive a check, a subsidy from the Government of 4,700-and-some- odd dollars.

So this was designed to encourage Americans to work. It was a plan to make work more attractive for people on welfare. Do you remember all that talk: Well, you can make more money on welfare than you make working. So a brilliant Congress, a number of years ago, came up with this idea that we would just give people extra money if they would work. It will be less than welfare, so why not do it? OK. That is what we did. But it was not designed to reward illegal aliens for coming into the country illegally, for heaven's sake. But that is what this bill does. As soon as they get that regularized status, they get it.

Now, this would allow them to get the earned income tax credit if they become a citizen but not before. That is not required of us. It is not required of the Senate that we should provide a $2,000 bonus check to individuals who work in our country, who seem to be happy to get the wages they are being paid, a $2,000 bonus check from Uncle Sam as a result and as an incentive for coming into the country illegally. That is a really big issue.

To qualify for the credit, married couples filing jointly who earn certain sums of money would qualify. For example, a single mother with two children, the earned income tax credit provides a tax credit for 40 percent of every dollar earned, up to $11,340. A family that earned between $11,000 and $14,000 received a maximum credit of $4,536, not $4,700. After the floor of $14,810 is reached, the credit is slowly reduced until the income cap of $36,000 is reached. It is only then that it is eliminated. For 2006, the maximum amount of the earned income tax credit is $4,556 for a worker supporting two kids and $2,747 for a worker with one child, $4,012 for a child of eligible employees and adjusted for inflation.

Now, a Social Security number is required in order to reap the benefits of this tax credit, and those applying must have a valid Social Security number and be a resident alien. Valid Social Security numbers are given out to all legally working people in the United States--legally working aliens. Legal permanent residents and citizens have Social Security numbers.

Under the tax law, resident aliens are citizens of a foreign country who are either lawful permanent residents of the United States or have been physically present in the country for at least a certain specified amount of time during the past 3 years. They are taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens, and thus they qualify for the refundable tax credits.

According to the IRS, under the residency rules of the Tax Code, any alien who is a nonresident alien--an alien will become a resident alien in one of three ways: No. 1, by being admitted to the United States as or changing in status to a lawful permanent resident under the immigration laws; No. 2, by passing a substantial presence test, a numerical formula which measures days of presence in the United States; or No. 3, by making what is called the first year election, a numerical formula under which an alien may pass the substantial presence test 1 year earlier than under the normal rules.

Under these rules, legally present work-authorized aliens who pass the substantial presence test will be treated, for tax purposes, as resident aliens. They are able, then, to claim EITC. Under these rules, even an undocumented illegal alien who passes the substantial presence test will be treated for tax purposes as a resident alien. If they are using a fraudulent Social Security number, they can apply for the EITC. If they are using a legal IDIF number, they cannot apply.

Under S. 2611, the bill before us today, if illegal aliens pay their taxes legally today, they do so with an individual taxpayer identification number they are given for tax purposes. The ITIN cannot currently be used to get the EITC because a Social Security number is required to claim the EITC. They are not eligible to get a Social Security number.

So under S. 2611, illegal aliens will become legally present and work authorized immediately upon passage of the act. They would then be given Social Security numbers and will pass the substantial presence test, making them automatically, at once, eligible to claim the very generous benefits of the EITC.

The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this and tried to figure out what the cost would be. American taxpayers would pay this. This would be a new cost on the taxpayers, created by the very bill that is before us today. Under the current legislation, in S. 2611 as initially offered and came out of the Judiciary Committee, the preliminary CBO score revealed the following about directed spending contained in the compromise. They say this:

CBO and Joint Tax Committee estimate that direct spending

outlays would total about $8 billion for the first 5 years,

2007

through 2011, and $27 billion for the first 10 years. Most of

those costs are for the earned-income tax credit and for

Medicaid and food stamp programs. Costs in subsequent decades

would be greater than in this first 10-year period.

``Costs in further decades would be greater than the first decade.'' Mr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has worked on numbers like this. He was the architect of the welfare reform. He said to us recently, a group of Senators: Senators, this is how this Government gets out of control. This is how things go wrong. You don't start out to pass a bill that is going to cost $29 billion. You don't think it through. You pass the legislation, and a new Congress 20 years from now wakes up and says: How did this ever happen? We don't have the money to pay for this. We made this obligation way long ago. How are we going to get out of it? Maybe we should cut back.

Then all the protests start because you can never cut a program, it seems.

He warned us about that. That is exactly what is happening with this particular provision in the legislation.

Once the Hagel-Martinez bill became S. 2611, I, along with five other Senators, asked CBO to provide a comprehensive score so we would know how much this amnesty provision would cost the taxpayers. The final CBO score estimates that, of the 2007-2016 period, 10 years, this bill would increase outlays for refunding tax credits $29.4 billion, the largest direct expenditure in the bill--$29 billion.

I had a conversation a few moments ago with a fine Senator who is concerned about spending. He was sincerely asking me about the cost of enforcement at the border and at the workplace in our country. Where are we going to get this money so we are not just putting it to our grandchildren? I don't know how much it is going to cost. We spend $40 billion now on homeland security every year. Maybe this is going to cost $5 or $6 billion. A lot of it will be one-time costs, setting up computer systems and border barriers and in purchases of equipment. A lot of that will be repetitive, like border patrol and bed spaces or removing people from the country. But it will not exceed $29 billion, trust me. It will be a fraction of that.

Mr. President, $29 billion is a lot of money under any circumstances, I have to tell you. You can buy three aircraft carriers for $29 billion. They have 4,000 people on them. Mr. President, $29.4 billion will be added. These refundable tax credits will include EITC and child tax credits, where most of the cost is clearly attributable to the EITC. To clarify, the credit first reduces an individual's tax liability. If the credit exceeds the tax liability, the excess is sent to the individual in the form of a check from Uncle Sam. These refunds are classified as outlays in the Federal budget. They are classified as outlays. They are not classified as tax deductions because they are, in fact, outlays. They are, in fact, payments from Uncle Sam sent in the form of a check to individual Americans.

In conclusion, I would note the bill increases the amount of refundable tax credits by increasing the number of resident aliens, people who are illegal today, converted to resident aliens. Although this bill grants amnesty to those who came illegally, it is not required, in my view, that they be absolved from all consequences of coming here illegally nor be provided every benefit we provide to those who come legally. Certainly nothing is strange or unusual in that.

If we decide to give certain benefits to people who came here illegally and not give them to others, what is wrong with that? For example, we are going to allow them to stay in the country. At least overwhelmingly, they will be able to stay in the country. We are going to forgive them for being prosecuted. Do we have to then also reward them for their illegal activity by providing a sizeable check every year from the Federal Government? No, you don't have to do that. If they become a citizen one day, fine, they are entitled to the same benefits of every other American citizen. But not in the interim.

My amendment clarifies existing law to make sure that illegal aliens--existing law--who pass the substantial presence test cannot use fraudulent Social Security numbers to claim the earned-income tax credit, and it postpones the ability of illegal aliens at a given status, some sort of legal status by the bill, to claim the earned- income tax credit until they become citizens. I believe that is the right approach. It is unthinkable that we would provide this kind of incentive when it really has no necessity.

Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts about another amendment. It deals with chain migration. It would reduce chain migration by eliminating the provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act that allow parents and adult brothers and sisters to immigrate to the United States based solely on their family connections. Chain migration refers to the mechanism by which foreign nationals have the right to immigrate to the United States by virtue of one single characteristic: they are related to someone who previously immigrated to the United States. Chain migration does not refer to spouses and dependent children of immigrants. That does not encompass wives and children. Nothing in this amendment would say that a green card holder, a legal permanent resident or citizen would not be able to bring spouses and children. That will remain the law under this amendment. No changes are made whatsoever. But for immigrants who become citizens, chain migration refers to their ability to bring in parents, brothers and sisters, and spouses, and children of their brothers and sisters.

You get to bring in your parents, your brothers and sisters, and the spouses and children of your brothers and sisters. People who immigrate based on this family relationship are in no way evaluated for their skill levels, their age, their English proficiency, or if they are needed by the American economy whatever skills they have. How they will benefit the United States is completely irrelevant to this process. The only relevant characteristic is their family connection.

Until the late 1950s, American family immigration policy focused solely on the nuclear family; only spouses and minor dependent children of the immigrant were allowed to immigrate solely on their family connection.

In the late 1950s, family migration policies of the United States began to extend beyond children and spouses. Immigrants were allowed to bring in their adult unmarried children. You are here, you can bring in adult children from that foreign country. But they are unmarried, and you can bring them. Immigrants who became citizens were allowed to bring in their married adult children and their parents and their brothers and sisters, parents and brothers and sisters, and adult children can bring in their own spouse and their children. If the extended spouse has parents and siblings, they, too, can get in line to immigrate to the United States based solely on the family connection.

To show you a little bit how this works--it sounds a bit complicated. By viewing the charts behind me, maybe we can make this a little bit clearer.

Here are the people in green. That means they possess a green card. You can get green cards in any number of ways if you come in under the language of this legislation that is so inaccurate. Let me say it that way.

Under the rubric they call a temporary guest worker, the first day you are here, your employer can apply for a green card, and within a month presumably you will get that green card. Once you become a green card holder, you become green on that chart, but you also became a permanent resident of the United States, not a citizen.

What happens when you become a permanent resident? You can immediately bring in your spouse and your children, maybe half a dozen children. You can bring in all of those children.

One thing about this amnesty is this: There are a lot of people who are working in our country today who have not brought their families. They have not been that interested in bringing their wives and children here, but under the bill, we give them legal status. We allow them to become a green card holder in short order, and then they are automatically allowed to bring in their spouses and children.

Five years after they get the green card, they can apply to be a citizen. So 5 years, they become a citizen. Here is the family now, this group here, green. They come over. This is the nuclear family: Father, mother, and two children. The mother is now legal. She can

bring in her parents; he can bring in his parents.

What about brothers and sisters? Each one gets to bring in their brothers, and then they can bring in their wife and their children.

This lady has one brother. She allows that brother to come in as a relative within the category, and then he can bring his wife and his children.

What about her? She probably has brothers and sisters, too. Once she gets in and gets in the system, she can bring her brothers and sisters and her parents into the system. The father here can bring in his brother or sister, and she can bring in her husband and her two children, or however many they have.

I believe somebody detailed once on the floor of the Senate that one family brought in 85 under this system. It is not at all impossible to imagine. Can you see how it can happen? One person comes in, and as a result of the family connections he brought in 85. I think that was Senator Allen Simpson in the debate 20 years ago in 1986.

It is a remarkable story, how the nuclear family, 5 years after they become citizens, can bring in their parents.

What can the parents do? The parents can bring in their parents, if they are still alive. They really can. Maybe they are 90. They can bring in their brothers and sisters. All the uncles can come in through the parents. The wife can bring in brothers and sisters. Then the wife brings in her brother, who brings in his wife and two children, and she brings in her parents. It just goes on and on.

We would like to do the right thing. We would like to be generous. Someone made the argument, I guess at one point in time it seemed like a good idea to have that policy. But every now and then, when we review a bill once in 20 years, you would think we would have discussed this. It has not been discussed, to my knowledge. Not a single Senator has discussed it on the floor of the Senate, to my knowledge. No amendment has been offered on it. It was not discussed, I don't think, but maybe just in passing in some of the Judiciary Committee debate of which I was a member. It is a serious matter.

Obviously, we ought to do a better job of thinking through who should come to America. I keep thinking about a valedictorian in the Dominican Republic, some small town in Colombia, Peru, or Brazil, top of his class, learned English, speaks it well, and wanting to come to the United States of America. We have a limited number of people who come. He can never get in because grandparents, great-grandparents, brothers and sisters and grand-nephews are coming in under migration, crowding those numbers out. With regard to all of these people, there is no requirement of any educational level, no requirement of any job skills or any other capability.

I think we need to make progress. There is no reason in the world we shouldn't be discussing that in an effective way. Over the past 5 years, approximately 950,000--almost 1 million--extended family members immigrated to the United States and immediately received a green card-- lawful permanent resident who will never have to leave.

The numbers equal about 20 percent of all aliens who immigrated to the United States in the last 5 years. Immigration, therefore, makes up a significant portion of family-based immigration.

If we want to discuss the percentage of family-based immigration and increase the percentage of skill-based, it makes sense that we would deal with this issue. I think this amendment needs to be considered. I am disappointed that we really have not had time, with cloture being filed we will not have time to seriously discuss that.

Let's talk about one more issue. I don't mind saying I cannot be sure that we have dealt in years with a bill more important than this one. Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation said this bill is so significant it compares with the passage of Social Security and Medicare, in his opinion. He has been a student of these things for several decades. This is a huge piece of legislation.

What has happened, a group has gotten together. They have reached a compromise. We were told flatout the other night that one of the amendments could not be accepted because the people who put the compromise together would not accept it. They would not accept the amendment because they said it violated the compromise, the compromise would fall apart, and we could not amend it in that fashion. And it failed. The machinery around here is working.

We will have an opportunity to talk about this additional issue tomorrow. I will plan to do that then. I am proud at least to have had the opportunity to talk about this. The fact is, we are not going to be able to vote on this. We will be lucky to get a vote on one of them, and then this will be voted on. I assume it will be passed and sent to the House of Representatives. If we are fortunate, the House of Representatives will say it has to be better; we will not accept it; we are going to insist on that before we pass it.

Who knows what will happen in the political processes of our country?

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have had some good debate this week on the immigration bill that is before the Senate. We made some progress toward improving the legislation. I think to some degree the good and decent and deeply felt views of the American people are beginning to be heard--but not clearly enough in this body. We still need to listen to them more.

I submit that on every single issue the American people have it right. We discussed last night and debated last night some key issues. I know one of the supporters of the bill described this as a difficult issue, complicated, emotional, but we are trying to do something. He suggested that was courageous and we should be not afraid to move forward. Well, we do need to move forward but we did not have to move forward on this bill. We could have moved forward, as the House did, taking the first step to ensure that we have a legitimate legal system of enforcement that works, and then we could move on to the comprehensive solution of what to do with the illegal alien population and the future immigration policies of the United states. We can do that separately, or we can try to do them together at the same time.

I was inclined to believe that we weren't ready to deal with this issue comprehensively. That is why I thought the House's idea wasn't so bad. But it was complained about on this side, with great moral superiority, that their approach to security first was somehow bad and not worthy of respect.

I think it is very worthy of respect. In fact, I think this bill would show that we probably would have been better off to have followed their lead. This is the great Senate of the United States of America, and we are not here just to do something, anything. We are here to do the right thing. We are here to confront one of the big issues of our time, and to do it in a way that is consistent with our laws and our values and the values of the American people. That is what we should do. That is our responsibility to our constituents, to our posterity, to the heritage we have been given. That is absolutely our responsibility.

I will tell you, and I will say it plainly, and others may not, but this legislation fails miserably in that regard. It is unworthy of the Senate. It should never pass, it should never become the law of the United States of America. It does not meet our highest ideals. It does not create a system that is consistent with the national interest of the United States.

Let me say with regard to the work that we did this week, I will sort of run down and point out some of the things that occurred, some good things occurred, and some things that were not so good that occurred. Also, in my time today, I want to move from that to a more thoughtful discussion of what any good immigration reform bill should have in it, what issues it should deal with, and point out how this bill is defective in the most fundamental way it lacks the basic principles of any good immigration reform bill.

We started out on the floor of the Senate with a 614-page bill , My staff, Cindy Hayden and her team, discovered that the bill on the floor that they were urging passage of would have brought 78.7 to 217 million legal immigrants into the United States in 20 years, equal to 26 to 66 percent of the entire total population of the United States of America of 298 million. That is what we were being asked to vote on.

I believe we were correct. We were the only group, apparently, to have ever researched this, and I think that includes the authors themselves.

Those who were opposed to this bill were being accused of wanting to lock up people and close our borders and not let anybody in and do all these horrible things, which was never the case. We simply said let's talk about a good policy for America.

We attempted to deal with the important issue of making sure enforcement will happen. I raised it in the Judiciary Committee and got a modest amendment on this issue passed. The Presiding Officer, Senator Isakson from Georgia, went right to the heart of the issue and drafted a very good amendment that I thought had a very good chance to pass, and should have passed, and it deals with this fundamental problem, most clearly demonstrated by what happened in 1986.

In 1986, they passed comprehensive amnesty and immigration reform. Those who were in the Senate then--I was not yet here--and remember the debate know it was an amnesty to end all amnesties. It was supposed to create a legal immigration system, and we were told we would not have to do this again. Those concerned about it warned, however, one amnesty begets another amnesty. The more you go down that path, the easier it is. This sends a signal to the world that we are not serious about our laws. In that one bill in 1986, we passed the amnesty, and we authorized a number of things to occur that were supposed to result in an effective legal system. Well, the amnesty became law just like that. But the other things that the enforcement side took--the required funding and congressional assistance, and mostly Presidential leadership--never occurred. It didn't occur.

So Senator Isakson came up with an amendment this week that I thought was pretty good. It basically would have ensured that the borders were secure before any of the amnesty provisions could be implemented. They are telling us constantly that the borders are going to be made secure if we pass this bill, so let's hold their feet to the fire and say this time the American people want to have a little hold on you before you grant amnesty again. Let's be sure the borders are secure first, that Congress won't forget that goal after the bill passes. Without the Isakson language, the amnesty provisions in the bill take effect the day the bill is signed. But we didn't accept that amendment. Instead, we will remain in the position where we hope that we will have immigration enforcement in the future. We accepted the Salazar trigger amendment that simply requires the President to determine that the bill's amnesty and guest worker provisions will ``strengthen the national security of the United States.''

That is not sufficient. That doesn't go to the meat of the issue like Senator Isakson proposed. And why was it rejected? Why was it rejected? I have had a suspicion and a growing suspicion over the years that this Congress is always willing to pass some bits of legislation dealing with immigration. But if any piece of legislation hits the floor of the Senate that will actually work, that is when the system pushes back and, for one reason or another, one excuse after another, it never happens. So I think this would have worked, and that is the reason it got rejected.

What else occurred, good and bad, through the week? My amendment was accepted 83 to 16 to put 870 miles of physical barriers on the border, 370 miles of fencing, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers--a good amendment, consistent with what the Secretary of Homeland Security and the President said they desired. We probably need more, but we need at least that. It was accepted.

Amusingly, I saw in the paper--I wasn't there when the final vote was counted, but I saw in the paper that 17 Senators changed their votes, mostly on the other side, the Democratic side, after it became clear the amendment was going to pass. Many Senators, for months, have been rolling their eyes

and said we don't need fences. That is not very good. That is not a good thing to do. Fences will work, trust me. They will work. But that, of course, begets the objection, I suspect. But when we voted, it was interesting that we ended up with a vote of 83 to 16, suggesting that the American people are beginning to have their voices heard a little bit in Congress.

Then perhaps the most significant amendment that was adopted was a Bingaman amendment. It would reduce the incredible escalating number under the new H-2C visa foreign worker program. Under the original bill, the numbers were unbelievable. The amendment reduced the total number of immigrants that would have come into the United States if that bill became law from 78 to 217 million to a lower 73 million to 93 million. That was a strong vote for that provision and we make progress in reducing the numbers.

However, this bill, S. 2611, still enacts a four- to fivefold increase over the current levels of legal immigration into America over 20 years. Current law would bring in 18.9 million over 20 years. Did you get that? This bill, if passed today, even after the Bingaman amendment passed by a substantial majority, would still bring into our country three, four, five times--at least four times, I suggest--the number of people who can come into our country legally today.

That is a huge number and will lead us at the end of 20 years to have the highest percentage of foreign-born Americans this Nation has ever had in its history, including the great migration period between 1880 and 1925. It is a colossal bill still in terms of those numbers.

The Senate also accepted, after rejecting it 3 weeks ago when the bill first came up--the bill was pulled from the floor because we couldn't get a vote on Senator Kyl's amendment to make certain that criminals are not given amnesty under the bill. It was a simple amendment to say criminals, felons, couldn't be given amnesty, and we couldn't get a vote on that amendment. It was so bad apparently, the Democratic leader was so determined to block this vote, that Senator Frist pulled the bill down.

As time went on, we were ready to vote on that amendment, and they accepted it, not graciously, but they took it. It certainly makes sense that we do that.

The Senate rejected the Vitter amendment by a substantial amount--66 people voted against it--which would strike the bill's provisions that adjust the illegal alien population to lawful permanent residents, the so-called amnesty provision.

The Senate narrowly accepted the Cornyn amendment, 50 to 48, which protects U.S. jobs for workers by making sure the H-2C visa holder can only apply for green cards if they have actually worked--they are supposed to work--if they actually worked for 4 years and their employer attests they will still have a job after they are given a green card, and the Secretary of Labor determines there are not enough U.S. workers available to fill the job position.

Then the very next vote, a companion amendment by Senator Kennedy which was adopted with 56 votes, gutted that protection, in effect, and it no longer requires that the employer promise to continue to employ an H-2C alien.

Federal benefits was a key vote yesterday. The Senate shockingly rejected the Ensign amendment 50 to 49--close, close vote--that would have prevented aliens from collecting Social Security benefits as a result of their illegal entry into the country, their illegal work, and their illegal presentation of a Social Security number. Fraudulent presentation of a Social Security number and criminal entry into the United States, and this bill provides they can draw Social Security. We had an amendment to clarify that issue, and the Senate voted to keep the provision in the bill.

Social Security is in trouble now. Thankfully, the Senate accepted the Cornyn amendment that assessed a $750 fine to illegal aliens that will go into the State impact assistance account, and the money will be used to help the States pay for costs that are connected with immigration.

The Senate accepted an amendment by Senator Inhofe on a 63-to-34 vote, 34 Senators voting no, stating that English is a national language and strengthening the citizenship test where one is supposed to know something about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and crew, and the history of the United States. It would strengthen that a bit. But 34 Senators voted against that amendment. It was adopted. We are moving forward.

My good friend, Senator Cornyn, who is as positive and effective a Senator as we have had join us in quite a long time, said that we made a lot of progress this week. I say we made some progress. I want to share with my colleagues why I think there are serious problems in the legislation.

Last week, I detailed 15 loopholes in the bill that is before us today. Of those 15, maybe 4, 5, 6 have been fixed in significant part, leaving 8 or 9 that have not been fixed. I will not go over those at this time, but I do want to say that those concerns I raised last week are very real. They really need to be fixed. Those loopholes need to be closed. Those concerns need to be dealt with. I am prepared to debate or negotiate with anyone about the importance of those points I made last week. I think most American people would agree with me on every single one of those issues.

Today I wish to talk about a more broad concern with the bill and its potential impact. I again emphasize that we are sensitive to the good and decent people who come here. Those of us who are unhappy with the way this bill is written are not against immigration and not against immigrants; we are not for closing our borders and not for not having anymore immigration. That is all foolish. We are not for arresting people by the tens of thousands and hauling them out of the country. That is not going to happen. But, I don't think the view of the House of Representatives, that we ought to deal with enforcement first and demonstrate that we can create a lawful and workable system first, is immoral, impractical, or radical. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Secondly, I am not aware of any Member of Congress who favors hostile or extreme measures in dealing with the issues today. We want immigration to occur. We will expect to see some increases in immigration, but we want it to be legal, under policies and terms that are appropriate for the United States of America.

The American people are with us on this issue. They expect us to create an immigration system that works and is legal. They don't want to reward those who break into our country with every single benefit we provide to those who come legally. To me, that is, indeed, amnesty.

The American people do not think big business and advocacy groups should be able to meet in secret and create some great design of a plan, foist it on the Senate, and that we can't consider it, review it, and reject it if we need to.

That is basically part of the debate we had last night. It was argued: Well, there has been a great compromise. Sessions, you and the American people, your views weren't part of it, but we know better for our country than you do. And if you amend this section, the compromise will collapse, and the bill may not get passed. You can't change this bill.

The section we were trying to change was the section that is as bogus as any part of the bill. It is the section that is captioned in big print: temporary guest worker. That is what the President has been saying he favors. He told me that personally a couple of days ago. He told me, when he flew to Alabama, that he believed in temporary workers. But it is not so that this bill creates a temporary worker program. I challenge any one last night to tell me that what I am saying is not true.

Under this bill, under that rubric of big print language, ``Nonimmigrant Visa Reform, Subsection A, Temporary Guest Workers''-- what it really says is if you come into this country under this work visa you get to convert your status to a green card holder--a legal permanent resident that can then become a citizen. Somebody said last night: Why are people afraid to discuss this issue? I say to the supporters of the bill: Why are you afraid to tell the

truth about your bill? Why do you title the section one thing and then write it to actually do another?

Why are you putting in here ``temporary guest workers'' when there is nothing ``temporary'' or ``guest'' about them. Why? Are they afraid the American people will find out what is really in that provision which would have brought in, had it not been amended by Senator Bingaman, perhaps 130 million new people into the country permanently? What kind of temporary program is that?

How does it work? This is the way it works: You come in, get a job; you come in under this guest worker proposal, and within the first day you arrive, your employer can seek a green card for you. If you qualify--and most will--then that green card will be issued, and you are then a legal permanent resident. You are a legal permanent resident within weeks or months of entry into the country, and within 5 years of being a legal permanent resident and having a green card, you can apply for citizenship. If you know a little English and don't get arrested and convicted of a felony, you will be made a citizen by right under that provision. So it is not a temporary guest worker program. We need one in the bill. It is not there. That is what the President says he supports.

The American people don't think we ought to huddle up, have some groups come in and meet with a few Senators and have them foist on the American people an immigration bill that ignores their concerns about legality and their legitimate concerns over the depressing of the wages of American citizens. That is not a myth. The law of supply and demand has not been abrogated with regard to wages and labor.

In terms of lawfulness, decency, morality, and the national interest, the American people are head and shoulders above the Members of Congress who are asserting and pushing this flawed legislation. A huge majority of the American people have been right on this issue for decades. It is the executive branch and the Congress that have been derelict in their most solemn duties. If the American people had been listened to and not been stiff-armed by an arrogant elitist bureaucracy and political class, we wouldn't have 11 million to 20 million people in our country illegally today.

The American people have been concerned about this issue--and the polls have shown it--for 20, 30 years. So what is our national interest and what policies should we pursue? What about border workforce enforcement? Any good bill would include a good enforcement system at the border and workplace.

We should focus our policies on higher skill needs, college degrees, instead of low-wage workers. Serious consideration should be given to how we welcome new immigrants into the American world and have them reach their fullest and highest aspirations. We are not able to do that under the current system, and we certainly should fix this illegality and actually provide some mechanism for a large number of people to come out from the shadows, as they say.

We should consider seriously the impact of wages on the American workers, and we need to consider what other developed nations, such as Canada, Britain, and France are doing. How are they confronting these questions? Why don't we do that? I will tell you why we don't. It is because this bill is totally incompatible and inconsistent with the principles those advanced nations are following.

All of this must be done with the full recognition that America cannot accept everyone who might want to come here, and that is just a fact.

I recently took a trip with Chairman Specter of the Judiciary Committee to South America. We were provided State Department news clips. There was an article about a poll in Nicaragua that said 60 percent of the people in Nicaragua would come to the United States if they could. Sixty percent of the people of Nicaragua said they would come to the United States if they could.

We next stopped in Peru, and I asked one of the officials at the Embassy about that poll and asked him did he think it was true. He said they just had a poll in Peru earlier this year--I mean this year, both these polls were this year--earlier this year, he said, and 70 percent of the people of Peru said they would come to the United States if they could. What about the whole world? We have people who want to come from India and China and South America and Brazil and Haiti and the Dominican Republic and the Middle East and Bangladesh and Taiwan and the Philippines. These are good people. I am not putting any of them down. I am just saying for an absolute fact--an absolute fact--that we cannot accept everybody who would like to come here. Therefore, we should decide how to create a system that makes the laws enforceable and then enforce them, and we ought to seek to bring in people who provide the greatest asset to America.

So we will be confronting another issue we need to confront, and that is chain migration. Once a person comes in and they get that green card and then they become a citizen, once they get the green card, they can bring their wife and children. They may have six children. And the wife gets to come and the children get to come. Then, in addition to that, once they become a citizen, they can bring their parents and their brothers and sisters, even if it is a large number of them. They can bring, through this chain migration system, huge numbers of people who may not be what our Nation needs at the time. Maybe there is a glut in the skills their brother or sister has. Maybe those things would mitigate against them. And maybe there is some college graduate in the Dominican Republic who is anxious to come but does not qualify, cannot get in because the visas have been used up by this chain migration process, which makes no sense and needs to be altered.

Also, we need to consider the impact on the Federal Treasury. Even as a green card holder and as a citizen, you are entitled to an earned income tax credit. Most of the people legalized or coming in under this bill would be lower wage workers, and the earned income tax credit for those who qualify amounts to a tax refund to a lower wage worker on average of $2,400 per worker, per year. So they would qualify for the earned income tax credit, their parents would qualify for SSI health care, Social Security benefits as we have in this bill, welfare benefits, education, and health care. The bill calls for instate tuition for illegal immigrants. That is still in here via the DREAM Act. Those kinds of things are in this bill.

So we have had a week of some productivity, but we have much more to do in creating a bill that is fundamentally worthy of this Senate and that will deal in an effective way with where we are heading in the future.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from Washington, Senator Wyden. I don't know how long he wants to speak. I have some more to go. If he is not going to be particularly long, I would--

Yes.

Probably longer than that. A good bit; probably 30 or so minutes more. So I would be pleased to yield to the Senator if he is ready and pick up after that. I think I am going to be closing out the Senate when we finish up, anyway.

Sounds great.

So one of the most significant issues facing America today is how many immigrants will be allowed to enter the United States and become citizens. I am not sure we have given any thought to that. As I said, when we announced at the beginning of this week that the numbers could be as high as 200 million people allowed into the country, I don't think most Senators had any idea that was so. My staff worked that up at about the same time the Heritage Foundation did their own independent analysis, and they were very close in numbers to ours. I hope that played a role in our ability

to pass a bill the next night that did bring those numbers down. As I say, we are now looking at about 73 million to 93 million more people legally coming into our country in the next 20 years.

I wish to emphasize this: Don't think those are small numbers. We are a 300 million-person country right now, and I am talking about 4 times the legal immigration rate presently existing in our country. Under the current law, we would have 19 million come in over 20 years. Under this bill, we would have 73 million to 93 million coming in by a short 20 years from now.

I asked the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on April 19 to examine the full impact of the legislation and what we could do about it. I asked that we examine what the estimated numerical impact is of the immigration proposal and how does the future chain migration of family members impact the total immigration numbers under the proposal. I asked that we have hearings on what will be the legislation's estimated fiscal impact on the Federal Treasury as well as State and local governments; how will the entitlement programs such as Medicaid, TANF, and food stamps be affected; what level of immigration in the future is in our best national, economic, social, and cultural interests; and what categories of immigrants in terms of skills and education should compose the overall level of annual immigration. I stated that we need to have a national discussion on this issue. The American people need to be involved.

We had one committee hearing, and it lasted about 2 to 3 hours and three or four Senators came. The individual provisions of the bill have never been examined by any committee. Let me state that again. The individual provisions of the bill on the Senate floor have never been examined by any committee. But every witness who came to that one hearing acknowledged that high-skilled immigrants are good for the economy and that low-skilled immigrants are a net drain on the economy--on average, not every single one. Many of them turn out to be productive and go on and be productive. But on average, from an economist point of view, based on the data we have, they tend to take out more in taxes than they pay in taxes.

I sent a second letter asking for further committee hearings. I wanted to examine the numerical figures in the bill, the fiscal impact, but we never had any hearings on that.

So we did our studies on the legislation, and we came out with these numbers. We did our calculations, and we believe the numbers would run from 80 million or more people coming in over 20 years to perhaps 200 million people. Two hundred million would be two-thirds of the current population of the United States of America.

So we worked hard on those numbers. I don't think they were ever seriously challenged. This is the way it ran. Under current levels of legal immigration, there would be 18.9 million people coming into the country. If we had passed this legislation as it originally was when it hit the floor, we would have had 78.7 million at a minimum coming in--4 times the current level of immigration--and it could have hit the maximum of 217 million, according to our calculations--about 11 times the current level of immigration. So those are huge numbers. I think they caused great concern.

After the amendment Senator Bingaman offered was passed and it took out that 20-percent-per-year escalator clause on the 325,000-person guest worker program per year--under this new program, if you hit that 325,000 one year, automatically the next year's limit was 20 percent more, automatically the next year would be 20 percent more, and automatically the next year would be 20 percent more. I think that would have sent a clear signal to the entire world that the United States was going to accept huge numbers of immigrants, and I believe we would have had applications flooding in and it would have been a very serious problem. We did pare that back to 200,000 per year without any 20 percent increase over 20 years, and that made the huge difference I just mentioned. So now about 73 million to 93 million will come in over 20 years, 4 to 5 times the current rate.

I submit that is still far too large a number. We have had no real serious national discussion about what impact that would have on working Americans, what impact it would have on our welfare and our cultural ability to assimilate and welcome foreign visitors and workers who come to our country, and I think it would cause us great difficulty. So we still need to talk about that.

I ask my colleagues and those in the media, how much have you heard this discussed? How many people in the Senate have actually discussed and debated and acknowledged how huge a change this is and whether it is the kind of change we should carry out? Has it even been discussed? Oh, but they say, we have to pass something. We just have to pass something and get it off our plate. You know, the Senate has a lot to do. We are busy. Let's just move on it. Let's just show courage. Let's just move it on and get something to the House.

Oddly, some of the people who have been making the most fun and complaining about the House of Representatives for their enforcement approach are now justifying and asking us to pass the bill on the basis of, well, it will get better after we go over to the House. They tell me to not be so worried about all of these provisions because the House Members will never agree to it and we might make the bill better in conference.

That is kind of an odd argument to make. If you are so holy and so righteous, why don't you come down here and defend these numbers they tried to slip by 3 weeks ago without a single amendment being considered by the Senate. They tried to move that through here. Finally, it blew up and Senator Frist pulled the bill down, insisting that at least there be some amendments considered as we move this piece of legislation forward.

So, Mr. President, in a few minutes I will share a few more remarks on some of the specific concerns I have involving this philosophy of the bill in a few moments. I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I yielded the floor to Senator Wyden a few moments ago, and I wish to complete some thoughts.

I documented without any real dispute that the provisions in the bill before the Senate today will increase legal immigration into our country by an extraordinary amount, by four to five times the current levels. That is a huge increase.

At the same time, we have done the research on it, and I will not go into the details, but the programs that allow most of the people to come into our country favor low-skilled workers. We think from 70 to 90, maybe 92 percent of the workers who will come in under the provisions of the bill in the Senate today will come in as low-skilled workers. That is very significant because it is quite clear from every professional, independent, pro-immigration economist who has analyzed it that low-skilled workers do not tend to pay as much in taxes as they take out. They become a net drain on the Treasury of the United States. That is an important issue. If we are going to do comprehensive reform, why haven't we discussed this issue? I ask my colleagues and those who promoted the legislation before the Senate today, has that been discussed with the American people? Have we had extensive hearings in committees on this question? The answer is no.

In fact, if you read the bill, you will discover there has been a studied and carefully carried out plan to conceal how many people will come in under the temporary guest worker programs when, in fact, what they mislabel as a

temporary program is in fact a permanent worker program that leads on a direct path to citizenship in fairly short order. I am talking about the future immigration programs in the bill here. I am not talking about the other 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who may claim amnesty under this bill.

If we are going to do a comprehensive plan, why don't we think first and foremost about what our Nation needs, what the implications are for immigration, how it has enriched us in so many ways in the past, how many wonderful, decent people come here. But we also need to ask ourselves, what are the limits of immigration? What are the aspects of it that could be better handled? We need to think these things through in a careful, legitimate way, focusing on the legitimate national interests of the United States of America, because it is not our policy and cannot be the policy of any nation to allow immigrants into their nation solely on the basis that it is good for the immigrant.

I don't want to be harsh about this. I am not being unkind. We want to have immigration. I will support an increase in legal immigration over the current levels if it is a reasonable increase focused in the right direction and promotes the interests of the United States. We will have more coming in, but we need to ask the question of how we should do it, who should be allowed to take advantage of the limited number of slots we can legitimately bestow on those who come here.

It cannot be their choice, but there seems to be talk here that reminds me of entitlement talks, rights talks, that someone in a foreign nation around the world has some sort of right to come to America, an entitlement to come to America, that we cannot deny them. Where did that come from? That is not true in any other nation in the world. It is an example of muddled thinking.

It is Mr. Barone who wrote a book called ``Hard America, Soft America.'' Sometimes we need to just have clear thinking. Some things you just need to make a decision about. One of those is the number of people who can come into our country is limited. A great nation, a wise nation, wants to make sure the people who come into the country best suit and best foster that nation's progress. How simple is that?

Let's talk about the national impact of low-skilled workers versus high-skilled workers. I asked for a series of hearings. We got one hearing. It went 2 or 3 hours. We had good professors, but only three or four Senators showed up. I have some of the testimony from that hearing and some other information relevant to that important question that I will read from in a minute. Shouldn't we be talking about those things? We are talking about a lot of issues that may be hot buttons and of concern, and I am pleased we have a fence at the border, but at the same time, the great Senate of the United States needs to think about the future.

This is what we learned. The economic experts who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2006, at the immigration economic impacts hearing agreed that low-skilled immigrants unavoidably depress the wages of American workers in low-skilled job categories. They held, it is fair to say, a common consensus. Some are pro- immigration, and they argue benefits and other things, but they all held a common consensus that high-skilled immigrants are better for the economy than low-skilled workers. Low-skilled workers are an overall net drain on the economy.

Professor Richard Freeman, the Herbert S. Ascherman professor of economics at Harvard University, testified, among other things:

One of the concerns of when immigrants come into the

country is that they may take some jobs from Americans or

drive down the wages of some Americans. Obviously, if there

are a large number of immigrants coming in, and if they are

coming in at a bad economic time, that's very likely to

happen.

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

I think America makes a huge gain, and much of the gains

are to us. Some of the gains are to the immigrants, of

course.

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

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

immigrants.

He goes on to say:

Having a lot of immigrants coming in at the top, it does

make it more difficult for some young Americans to advance in

those fields, but we can recompense the young Americans with

other policies.

He goes on to note:

It's very important to understand that the biggest

beneficiaries from immigration tend to be the immigrants,

particularly if you are a low-skilled immigrant.

He adds this:

If you are a poor immigrant, your income in the United

States will be six to eight times what it is in Mexico.

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

If you look at the fiscal/economic impact, which is the

Government's coffers impact, it might be true that lower-

skilled workers, just like all of us, have a negative impact

on the fiscal bottom line. And so we may have a modest net

negative fiscal impact for all low-wage workers in the United

States, not just immigrants. This is not unique to

immigrants, documented or undocumented.

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

Dr. Barry Chiswick, head of and research professor at the Department of Economics at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said this:

What about the impact on low-skilled American workers? How

does a large amount of new labor into the country impact

American workers of low skill?

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

There is a competition in the labor market, and the large

increase in low-skilled immigration that we have seen over

the last 20 years has had a substantial negative effect on

the employment and earnings opportunities of low-skilled

American workers.

He goes on to add:

The large increase in low-skilled immigration has had the

effect of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities

of low-skilled workers who are currently resident in the

United States.

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

He goes on to say:

The last amnesty [in 1986] actually encouraged additional

low-skilled immigration in anticipation of further amnesties.

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

He goes on to add:

Over the past two decades, the real earnings of high-

skilled workers have risen substantially. The real earnings

of low-skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased

somewhat.

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

Dr. Chiswick goes on to say:

We need to provide greater assistance to low-skilled

Americans in their quest for better jobs and higher wages,

and one of the

ways we can help them in this regard is by reducing the very

substantial competition that they're facing from this very

large and uncontrolled low-skilled immigration that is the

result of both our legal immigration system and the absence

of enforcement of immigration law.

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

Dr. Chiswick also shared with us his thoughts about the cost of low- skilled immigrants, and he notes:

Low-skilled immigrants make greater use of government

benefits and transfers than they pay in taxes.

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

But he says:

Low-skilled immigrants make greater use of government

benefits and transfers than they pay in taxes. So in terms of

the public coffers, they serve as a net drain. Whereas high-

skilled immigrants have the opposite effect. And the

consequences of low-skilled immigration are pretty much the

same whether they are in legal status or illegal status,

although the net effect on the public coffers is actually

more negative for legal immigrants who are low-skilled

immigrants.

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

He goes on to say:

And if you do the analysis separately for high-skilled and

low-skilled immigrants, what you would find is that even in a

period of surplus, low-skilled immigrants would be paying

less in taxes than the burdens that they would be putting on

government expenditures.

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

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

And Professor Chiswick responded:

Just like low-skilled natives, yes.

Mr. Siciliano responds:

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

And Mr. Chiswick replied:

But low skilled natives are here. And low-skilled

immigrants, do we want them in?

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

Two-thirds of the immigrants coming into the United States

annually come in under kinship criteria.

That is chain migration.

Only about 7 percent are skill tested. For only about 7

percent do we really ask the question what will you

contribute to the American economy?

He goes on to say:

We need to alter our immigration policies to increase the

focus on attracting high ability, high-skilled immigrants.

What we want to do is attract those immigrants who would have

the largest positive contribution to the American economy,

and they will be highly skilled immigrants, immigrants with

high skills in literacy, numeracy, scientific knowledge,

technical training. Current immigration law pays very, very

little attention to the skills that immigrants bring to the

United States.

That is his statement. It is something we need to think about as we pass a bill that pretends to be comprehensive.

Professor Harry Holder, also testifying at our hearing, who was associate dean and professor of public policy at Georgetown University, another pretty good university, said this about the impact of low- skilled American workers:

There are jobs in industries like construction that I think

are more appealing to native born workers. And many native

born, low-income men might be interested in more of those

jobs, although employers often prefer the immigrants,

especially in residential construction. Now, absent the

immigrants, employers might need to raise those wages and

improve those conditions of work to entice native born

workers into those construction, agriculture, janitorial,

food preparation jobs.

I believe that when immigrants are illegal, they do more to

undercut the wages of native born workers because the playing

field isn't level and the employers don't have to pay them

market wages.

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

I agree with Professor Chiswick. We are not ready to open

the floodgates of immigration. We will continue to have

controls on immigration. And we need to find cost-effective

and humane ways to limit those immigrants.

So we didn't get five hearings. We didn't get a national dialog. We had one hearing for a few hours and a number of professors, pretty much those professors who consider themselves pro-immigrant, and that is what they told us.

Let me share a few more points on that subject from another individual. The Washington Times, on May 8, published a column by Alan Tomlinson. He is an official with the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation. He went back and did some studies and dealt with this allegation that without ever increasing flows of immigrants, representatives of numerous industries have warned their sectors will literally run out of workers and the economy will collapse. He was not so impressed after he did some studies. He said:

Most statistics available show conclusively that far from

easing shortages, illegal immigrants are adding to labor

gluts in America.

Think about that. He says that we don't have a shortage, we have a glut.

Specifically, wages in sectors highly dependent on

illegals, when adjusted for inflation, are either stagnant or

have actually fallen. When labor is genuinely scarce and too

many employers are chasing too few workers, businesses

typically bid wages up in the competition to fill jobs. When

too many workers are chasing too few jobs, employers

typically are able to cut wages, confident that beggars can't

be choosers.

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

The Labor Department data revealed that the wage-cutting

scenario is exactly what has unfolded recently throughout the

economy's illegal immigrant heavy sectors.

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

According to the data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, through inflation-adjusted wages for the broad

food services and drinking categories, wages fell in real

terms 1.65 percent between 2000 and 2005.

If there is a crisis to get cooks and dishwashers, how are they able to cut salaries? How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that salaries went down? This is one of the areas where we have the most numbers of illegal immigrants.

He then goes on to talk about the hospitality industry, which includes hotels. They say we have to have a person who puts that chocolate on your bed every night and makes up your bed and comes in and puts your toiletries in a line for you, whether you want that or not. You have to have them. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data, according to him, who studied them, show that inflation-adjusted wages fell nearly 1.1 percent from 2000 to 2005. So hotels are booming, and they are building new hotels, and they say they cannot get workers.

Why are wages not going up? Perhaps if they pay a little more money to decent American citizens, they might be able to get more to work. They may have to charge $180 instead of $170 a night for a room. Is that going to destroy the American economy? I think not. Maybe the average American worker would be better able to participate in the prosperity that is going on.

He talked about the construction industry. He says that, interestingly, from 1993 to 2005, wages in that sector only increased 3 percent. That is 12 years. The wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the construction industry area only increased 3 percent in 12 years. From 2000 through 2005, at the height of the housing boom, inflation-adjusted wages actually fell 1.59 percent. So we have this crisis in workers, and wages are falling.

He then talks about food manufacturing. They make up a big part of that. Let me point out that even in the construction industry, the illegal immigrants make up only 12 percent of

the workforce. So this argument that you cannot get anybody who is native-born to work in construction is bogus. The one thing that hurts me the most when I hear President Bush say it is when he says these are jobs Americans won't do. I reject that. He should never say that. These are good jobs, honorable jobs, filled by honorable American people. In the construction area, almost 90 percent are American workers, and there is nothing they won't do. They may not do something because they don't get enough pay or benefits or retirement, but the jobs themselves are noble contributions to America. They go out and build something--a wall, drywall, a roof on a house--and that is a lot better than some of these lawyers and other people who contribute very little, I submit, to the net economy.

They talked about the 14 percent of the workers in food manufacturing, including animal processing. That includes chicken plants, slaughterhouses, and beef-processing plants. You have heard that we cannot get workers there. Pew Research says that illegals make up 27 percent of workers in that category. That is the highest sector, it looks like, according to this. What happened to their wages from 2000 to 2005? They say they cannot get people to work in the chicken plants. That is what they say in Alabama--they cannot get workers and we might have a real problem without the illegal workers. If so, how did adjusted wages fall 1.4 percent during that period of time?

He goes on to note that examining more closely the pattern within the 2000 to 2005 period provides compelling evidence that illegal immigrants have been used deliberately to force down wages. In most industries that used illegal immigrants heavily, inflation-adjusted wages rose modestly during the first years of the current decade. Yet, soon after, they dropped significantly.

What about the guy who wrote the textbook on economics, Robert Samuelson? I think he would be considered a liberal. Robert Samuelson produced an op-ed on May 17, 2006, this year. He deals directly with the question of immigration. This is what he said:

The central problem is not illegal immigration, it is

undesirably high levels of poor and low-skilled immigrants,

whether legal or illegal. Immigrants are not all the same. An

engineer making $75,000 annually contributes more to the

American economy and society than a $20,000 laborer. On

average, an engineer will assimilate easily.

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

Mr. Samuelson adds this:

Hardly anyone is discussing these issues candidly. It is

politically inexpedient to do so. We can be a lawful society

and a welcoming society simultaneously, to use the

President's phrase, but we cannot be a welcoming society for

a limitless number of Latin America's poor, without seriously

compromising our own future and indeed the future of the many

Latinos already here. Yet, that is precisely what the

President and many Senators, Democrat and Republican, support

by enforcing large guestworker programs and an expansion of

today's legal system of visas. And in practice these

proposals would result in substantial increases in low-

skilled immigrants.

What are other countries doing? I will wrap up with these thoughts. What are other nations around the world doing as they consider their immigration policies?

In Australia, immigrant applications are considered under either the general migration program, which includes skilled or migrant spouses and those sponsored by family members already settled in Australia, or the humanitarian refugee program. For fiscal 2004-2005, the Australian Government set a goal of 120,000 migrants, far less than our number; 42,000 places for family members; 72,000 for skilled business migrants; and 13,000 for the humanitarian and refugee program--though actual arrivals were just over 123,000.

Under the skilled migration program in Australia, applicants are given points for different criteria. In the fiscal year 2004, the pass mark for general skilled migration was 120 points. So they have a points based system. As it turned out that year, you had to have 120 or more or you were not approved. Points were awarded for age--lower age tends to be better--skill, English language ability, specialized skills, job offers in demand fields, or completion of an Australian university degree. If a foreign student comes here and finishes at the top of their class at Georgetown or the University of Alabama, they have to leave for at least 2 years. Somebody can come in here for a low-skilled job and get a green card the first day they come in. How silly is that? But that is what Australia does. They give 5 additional points for a capital investment in Australia of at least $100,000. Australian work experience, fluency in the Australian community language, and skilled occupations are given various points.

What about Canada? They accept six major categories of immigrants: skilled and independent workers, business immigrants, provincial nominees, family class, international adoptions, and Quebec-sponsored immigrants. Refugees are also counted in immigration statistics. They do not have a country-based or worldwide quota, but they establish annual targets. In fiscal year 2004, approximately 236,000 people were accepted for permanent residence in Canada; 113,000 were skilled, 62,000 family, 10,000 business, 6,000 provincial nominees, and 32,000 refugees. There is a pretty good mix there. Far higher--over half of that number clearly are people with high skills, high education, and business capability.

The strictest preference system is used in Canada for skilled workers and is based on a point system. Under the current system, applicants must obtain at least 67 out of 100 points and have at least 1 year of work experience within the past 10 years in a management occupation or in an occupation normally requiring university or technical training, as identified by the Canadian occupational classification system. Points are awarded for education, languages, employment experience, age, employment, and adaptability. So they have standards. In our system, people come in basically under entitlements. If you meet this standard, you get to come in regardless of your skill.

What about France? Two days ago, France's lower House of Parliament approved a new immigration bill supported by one of the top Cabinet members. The Parliament approved a bill that would allow the country to selectively choose which foreigners can live and work in that country and would require that immigrants learn the French language. You know, they care about that French language. We need to care a little more about the English language.

I remember when Chirac walked out of the European Union conference because a Frenchman, in speaking to the delegation, spoke to them in English. He was so offended that a Frenchman would speak English at an international conference, he left. That is a little bit much, I think, but I don't think there is anything wrong with a nation that is proud of its language and wanting to preserve it.

So this French bill could make it easier for the country to screen out poorly educated immigrants in favor of highly skilled workers.

It would tighten restrictions under which immigrant workers can bring their families to France. That is chain migration. You get to bring your family no matter what skills they bring to the Nation. It would abolish the right of illegal immigrants to receive residency papers after living in France for 2 years. So in a way, it abolishes amnesty. It abolishes the right of illegal immigrants to receive residency papers, even after they have lived in the country for 10 years. The bill passed by 367 to 164 and will be debated in the French Senate next month.

An article I happened to catch on the airplane the other day in the Economist, a London-based newspaper, said Americans are nativists, not internationalists. Why don't we talk about some of these EU countries that are supposed to be so progressive? This is

what the Economist wrote on May 6 describing the background of France's immigration policy and the reason for their legislation:

Until the mid-seventies, immigrants to France came to work. Since the law was tightened in 1974, the inflows have changed. Today, only 7,000 permanent workers arrive each year, down from over 107,000 in the late sixties. Three-quarters of legal immigrants to France are family related. Not skill related, family related.

France has a low proportion of skilled immigrants. France's

Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, argues ``that under the

pretext of protecting jobs at home, France has created a

system that let's in only those who have neither a job nor

any useful skills.''

How about that?

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

Mr. Sarkozy's proposal, in many ways, simply follows the

practice of other countries, notably Australia, Canada,

Switzerland, as well as Britain and the Netherlands. In each

case, the policy is based on a recognition that there is no

such thing as zero immigration, and that a managed, skill-

based immigration policy will not only control inflows, but

will also bring benefits to those countries.

Madam President, we have focused on a lot of hot button issues, some of which are very important, but we have not given serious thought to the fundamentals of what we are doing here, and what impact it will have on our country. We are not giving any thought to what the Netherlands, what France, what Britain, what Canada, and what Australia are doing. We are not in any way following their model. In fact, we are ignoring the testimony of some of our Nation's most prestigious economists on those issues.

As a result, we have a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate. It should never ever become law, and it is a sad day when those who are supporting this legislation are reduced to quietly going around and suggesting: Don't worry about it being so bad, we just have to do something and maybe the House of Representatives will save us.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his good work because we are now a Nation of people of different faiths, different skill sets, different backgrounds, different colors of skin, and different nationalities. Where we once were apart, now we have become Americans. The thing that makes this country effective is being able to communicate with one another in a common language. I think that is an ideal of America that is important. I think any Nation, historically, that has divisions based on language, begins to have a lot of complications and problems. So I am pleased that Senator Alexander and Senator Inhofe have worked hard on this, that they have come up with language that also includes more extensive training and learning on behalf of new citizens about what it means to be an American. No one has been more articulate over the years on this than Senator Alexander.

I offered an amendment on it and worked with Senator Inhofe and Senator Alexander and others, and we have reached a common accord with an amendment I think everyone can support that will help unify us as a Nation and make sure we are one people, all Americans, adhering to the highest ideals of this great country.

Senator Inhofe, thank you for your work and, Senator Alexander, I appreciate your leadership also.

Mr. President, regarding the Ensign amendment, I will say a few things. No. 1, Social Security is a benefit this country provides to American citizens and people lawfully in this country. That is what it is about, the benefit. For the most part, people get more out of it than they put into it. That is one reason it is going bankrupt.

The people covered by Senator Ensign's amendment have done a number of things that are illegal. They have come into the country illegally or they would not be here, or they would be legal and would be not covered by his amendment. They have worked in the country without authorization, and you are not allowed to work in this country if you are not here legally. So they have committed a second illegal act. In the course of working in this country, they may have submitted forged, false, stolen, or bogus Social Security numbers--a separate crime, if you examine the U.S. Code. Maybe they have even broken other laws.

As Senator Ensign pointed out, so many of these numbers are other people's numbers, seizing their identity and causing all kinds of confusion and disruption in their lives.

Under the language of the bill, not only do they get protection from prosecution for violation of these laws, they would be given the benefits of Social Security. Although he clearly makes--properly so--an exemption for those who came into the country legally under a visa, got a legal Social Security number but overstayed, at least they had a legitimate Social Security number.

Mr. President, I had an opportunity, for strange reasons, in my career as a prosecutor and as a private lawyer to deal with contracts based on illegality. I had a situation in which a client--a young man-- was sued by a home builder on the note that he signed to the home builder. The reason he signed that note was the home builder loaned him the downpayment to buy a house. The mortgage and the Federal act required that the deposit or downpayment be your own money or you could not fund it by a mortgage. The builder was in on the deal. He was there at the closing of the loan. He got the big check, so when it came to suing on

that note, I defended the client and said the court had no jurisdiction over the case. There is a principle of law--in our English American tradition--founded on fraud, stating that a contract founded on illegality cannot be enforced in court.

So that person who comes into our country illegally and submits a false Social Security number has no legal right to expect to ever collect on that amount. Also, in addition to legally not having a right to that, they have no moral right to that. To have a moral right to come to court, you ought to have clean hands. You should be a person that is legitimately here and then you can make a legitimate claim. I see no reason these persons who come here in order to work and, as a cost of doing business, accept and sign up for Social Security without any expectation whatsoever that they would ever draw those Social Security benefits, should now be awarded by this legislation that would allow them to get it. They would say they paid into it, so they are entitled to it. Not so, in my opinion.

I see how you can make this remark, but I think we are too far down the road of an entitlement mentality. This whole bill contemplates people having an entitlement to come to America, to bring in their parents and children, and they are entitled to have them ultimately be on Medicare and go to hospitals and be treated, even though they are not properly here.

We need to clarify our thinking. We are a great nation, a nation of laws. Let's think this through. That is all I am saying. I submit to my colleagues that the process by which an immigrant who comes here illegally, works illegally, and illegally submits a false, bogus, fraudulent Social Security number as a price to get the job and be paid, that is no entitlement to claim that money--not legally because it is founded on a false claim and a false premise, and not morally because they knew they weren't entitled to it when they came. They knew they were here illegally and they never expected to receive it.

I think the Senator from Nevada has proposed an amendment that is important. It asks us to think, for a change, in this body about what it is going to do, and what it will do to our Nation's bottom line and with regard to the message we send regarding whether we are serious that people should follow the law.

We need to quit rewarding unlawful conduct. Unlawful conduct should have penalties and should result in detriments, not benefits. That is what we are saying. If we don't get that straight in this debate, whatever new laws we pass about immigration, whatever new policies we set, how much of a joke will they be? Will they be the same joke, the same mockery of law that we have had for 20 years since the last amnesty we issued? That is what the American people are asking us to do. Let's create a system that actually works.

Sometimes you have to make decisions. Somebody who came here illegally and worked illegally and submitted an illegal Social Security number is not entitled to draw on the Treasury of the United States. I thank the chairman and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his hard work on this amendment and his thoughtfulness.

The Senator from Arizona just tells us that he and a few masters of the universe have met somewhere in some room to which I wasn't invited--I am not sure many other Senators were invited--and they have decided that this bill as written is the compromise and if any of it is changed, well, the compromise collapses and the bill fails. So, if I am hearing the Senator from Arizona correctly, he thinks we should all just give it up and quit offering amendments. But I don't think that is the way the Senate does business. I know the Senator from Arizona is a smart man and so are some of the others who have worked on this bill and worked out all of these compromises with Senator Kennedy.

When they were working out these compromises did they consult the American people? I submit they haven't consulted the American people. The American people, when they find out what all is in this bill, they are going to be more upset with it than they are today.

More is wrong with this piece of legislation than can be explained. I took an hour or so Friday, not condemning the philosophy of comprehensive immigration reform, not condemning steps to make the legal system work properly in a way that we can be proud of, I talked about why the legislation is insufficient and flawed and is unable to do what the sponsors say.

Senator McCain doesn't back down from a challenge, and I don't intend to back down either. I am not going to just hide under my desk because he and Senator Kennedy have worked out a compromise. They think we shouldn't even make an argument against it, I suppose.

Let me just show you what the bill says. In big print up here: ``Title IV--Nonimmigrant And Immigrant Visa Reform.'' All this rubric at the top in big letters: ``subtitle A, Temporary Guest Workers.'' It says, ``Temporary Guest Workers'' in big print--not even the normal print. It says ``temporary'' and ``guest'' I don't know how many times in this provision.

The President told me--and he has said publicly a half dozen times-- he believes in a temporary worker bill. I suppose his lawyers, maybe they thought it must be temporary, right? Well, it is not so. Let's take the people who will be allowed to enter our country in the future under this bill. This bill say that they can come in as a guest worker, temporary, and they can come for 3 years and then they can extend and stay another 3 years.

So that means it is temporary, right? Wrong. All you have to do is read the language of the bill, and as Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn have pointed out, and you discover that the first day the temporary workers are here they can apply for a green card through their employer. And what is a green card? It makes them a legal, permanent resident. Permanent resident, not a temporary guest workers.

Five years after that green card is issued, they are entitled to apply for citizenship, every single one of them that enter under this so-called temporary provision. That is the truth, but it is not the message we are being told.

Earlier today I thought about offering an amendment or a resolution to bar anyone in the Senate from using the phrase ``temporary guest worker'' when they talk about this bill because it is so bogus. It is an utter and total misrepresentation. As I just explained, and as the Senators have just explained, everyone coming in under this provision for the indefinite future get to become permanent workers. I challenge anybody to dispute that. They have the ability to become a legal permanent resident, and after that, they get to go and become a citizen. So it is just not a temporary worker program, it is permanent immigration. That is the deal.

Now, President Bush, as much as he believes in immigration and has been supportive of it, he has made clear that this is not what he wants. He supports the principles behind the Kyl-Cornyn amendment. We need to listen to him. This is a big amendment. And I do not think the Members of this body should feel in any way that they are not able to reject this bill and improve it by legislation because some group says they have reached a compromise and nobody can fix it, when they have made mistakes, and there are a lot of mistakes. This is just one of them. But I don't believe this Senate has ever seen--since I have been here, a piece of legislation of such monumental consequence have a misrepresentation as great as the allegation that the bill deals with temporary guest workers when it absolutely creates an automatic path to citizenship.

So why don't we do it right? Why don't we do what Senator Kyl and what Senator Cornyn say and fix it, make it actually do what we the bill claims it does, make it temporary?

A green card is valuable. It entitles people to great benefits of the United States alone, even short of citizenship. So we have benefits that accrue like the earned income tax credit, like the food stamps and benefits of that kind as you come to be on the path of legal permanent residence. A legal permanent resident can bring their family into the country, their wife, and their children. When they become a citizen, which they will have a right to do in 5 years, they will then be able to bring in their parents who would probably soon, as a matter of demographics, be eligible and in need of substantial health care as they age, which the American taxpayers would provide them in one form or another. They can bring in their brothers and sisters. They all are eligible to come under the chain migration provisions of existing law.

This is a huge provision of the bill, is all I am saying. It is a major increase in the amount of people who will come into the country lawfully. It is a program that allows permanence and citizenship for every single person who comes in under this provision. It is not a temporary guest worker program. It is contrary to the whole message the American people have been told repeatedly that they are somehow dealing with, which is a guest worker program, when it is a permanent citizenship track. It is against what the President of the United States believes in. In fact, he has now endorsed the Kyl-Cornyn amendment because he has been saying all along he thought we ought to have temporary workers in not such a large number that would be coming in permanently under this provision.

There will be other provisions by which people can come and get on the citizenship track. But the temporary guest worker provisions of the bill should be simply that. I think that will meet the needs of workers; I think it will meet the needs of businesses. I think it will be the right way to handle this matter. I think it is what the American people have in their minds and think we are talking about. Unfortunately, if they heard that message and think that is what we are doing, it is not. Unless the Kyl-Cornyn amendment passes, we will not have a temporary guest worker provision in the bill.

The choice is clear. If Senators actually believe what they have been saying about what they are trying to pass, that they want a temporary guest worker program, then they should support Kyl-Cornyn. If not, they ought to come out of the shadows and stand before the American people and say that the temporary guest worker words printed right here in this bill--well, they don't mean what they say. They ought to tell us plainly and simply that they know that this is a provision that takes people straight to permanent resident status and straight to citizenship, so when we vote, Americans will know where we stand.

I thank the Senators from Texas and Arizona for offering the amendment and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I say with regard to what has just taken place, these are complex areas, and we need to be careful about protecting our free speech rights. Nobody denies that. But you have to be careful, too. I was thinking that if a spy comes into our country and gets secure information and gives it to our enemy, we put him in jail, and they can be convicted, I guess, of treason. If a reporter gets information and publishes it to our enemies and to the whole world, they get the Pulitzer prize.

I think we have to be careful about how we word this. I am sure we will come up with a pretty good solution.

Mr. President, I say with regard to what has just taken place, these are complex areas, and we need to be careful about protecting our free speech rights. Nobody denies that. But you have to be careful, too. I was thinking that if a spy comes into our country and gets secure information and gives it to our enemy, we put him in jail, and they can be convicted, I guess, of treason. If a reporter gets information and publishes it to our enemies and to the whole world, they get the Pulitzer prize.

I think we have to be careful about how we word this. I am sure we will come up with a pretty good solution.

Mr. President, perhaps as we go forward, we can finish up in less time than that. Maybe our colleagues on the other side will yield back some time. I think this is an amendment that we need to talk about in some significant way. This amendment deals with barriers at the border. I think this is something for which there is a growing appreciation, and it is not in the bill today.

Before I go into that, let me say to my colleagues and those who may be listening that we need to spend yet more time with this legislation. It is a 614-page bill. Few of our Senators have had the opportunity to study it or to understand in any significant degree the breadth of it. There are things in it that absolutely do not represent good policy and need to be reconsidered. I hope our colleagues will do that.

The vote last night on the Bingaman amendment was a very important one. It took the maximum number of people who could enter our country under the so-called guest worker provisions from around 130 million over 20 years, at a maximum, down far below that to probably 9 million. That is in only one provision of the bill. However, I remind my colleagues that while that was one of the most egregious provisions in this entire legislation, this legislation still calls for massive increases of legal immigration into our country, even with that change we effected last night.

My staff worked hard on this, and I don't think anybody has even considered the numbers until the last week or the last few days. That analysis concludes that as the bill is now written----

I will yield if I can reclaim the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3979.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleagues, Senator Santorum, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Vitter, and Senator Bunning be made original cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, my colleagues need to know that we still, after the positive step we took last night, are looking at increasing immigration into our country by a significant amount. Those totals will range, depending on how it plays out, from a minimum of 63 million to 93 million. That is 3 to 5 times the current number we now allow, and would expect to allow, over 20 years, which is 19 million people allowed to come into our country legally. This would raise that number to between 63 million and 93 million. It is better than where we were yesterday, but I still submit that it is a number that has not been carefully thought out. We have not analyzed how to do this with a number that is still too great, in my opinion.

We hear over and over that this is a guest worker proposal, it is a guest worker plan. There is nothing ``guest'' about it. Every person who comes in under this legislation, as it is now written, as it is now on the floor of the Senate, will be able to enter for a significant period of time. They will be able to apply for a green card shortly thereafter. That means you are a legal, permanent resident. After 5 years, you can apply for citizenship. So this is not temporary.

As President Bush mentioned yesterday several times--a temporary worker program--it is not temporary. It is a permanent move for people to enter our country to become citizens, and that is a matter far more significant than some have suggested to us. I think it is important for us to all know that. Please, we need to know that. Anybody who says ``temporary worker'' in discussions with the media or on the floor of the Senate ought to have their hand spanked a little bit.

Next, the legislation continues and accelerates an emphasis on low- skilled workers. All of the economists that we have heard testify in the Senate Judiciary Committee--and we have not had a lot--agreed that low-skilled workers tend to be a net drain on the economy and utilize more in Government benefits, welfare, and health care than high-skilled workers. Any program that we pass ought to emphasize high-skilled workers. This bill doesn't do that. This bill does nothing about the chain migration in which people who work their way to citizenship can bring in their parents, their brothers and sisters, adult children, regardless of the needs of the United States for workers, regardless of what skills they may have and whether we need them in the United States. Under this bill, citizenship is an automatic right. That ought to be confronted. The economists and public policy experts we have heard from raise that point and say other countries are not that way.

So this is the Senate. We are supposed to be the thoughtful branch. This is one of the most important issues this Senate has faced in decades. The people of the United States really care about this. They are concerned about it. They want us to do the right thing. That will include creating a legal system that is enforceable and will increase the number of legal immigrants into our country.

But how will we do it? Will we do it in a principled way that is helpful to our Nation's future or will we continue to willy-nilly provide, in effect, entitlements to people from all over the world to come here regardless of the needs of the United States?

Some say: We just need to pass something. Don't be nitpicky, Sessions, just pass something. We will get it to conference and somehow it will be fixed there.

I have my doubts about that, No. 1. No. 2, this is the Senate. We will be casting votes on this legislation, and we ought not vote for anything that we know is not good public policy.

A critical part of the immigration reform that we need to effect for our country is to make sure that our legal system, which is so utterly broken on this issue, is repaired. It needs to work. Can anyone dispute that? Today, we understand that 1 million people come into the country legally each year. The estimates are that 500,000 to 800,000 will be coming in illegally each year--almost as many legal immigrants.

I see Senator Vitter in the Chair, who is such a knowledgeable and articulate spokesman on this issue. I happened to see the mayor's debate in New Orleans last night, and Hard Ball asked them what about illegal immigrants? They had to have them to do the work in New Orleans. There was a discussion about it. What is the answer to that? Of course, you don't need illegal immigrants to do the work. Of course, if we craft a good immigration bill, when you have a crisis like Hurricane Katrina, we would be able to have temporary workers come in in whatever numbers are necessary to do that work. That is what a good bill would do.

That is a crisis that calls for an unusual amount of workers. Why don't we draft something that would actually work in that circumstance? Not anybody, no one, should come in and justify illegality. If the law is not adequate, let's fix it. The truth is, I think it is adequate today.

A critical part of moving us to an effective, enforceable, honorable, decent, legal immigration system is to send the message to the world that our border is not open, our border is closed. There are a number of ways to do that. I think that is important because we need to reach a tipping point where the people who want to come to our country know without doubt that coming here illegally is not going to be successful, and their best way to come here is to file the proper application and wait in line. Isn't that the right policy?

So how do we go from this lawless system, a system that makes a mockery of the laws of this great Nation, the United States of America, to a system that works? We send some signals and we do some things appropriately. President Bush did one of them the night before last when he said we were going to use the National Guard. That is a signal to the world that business as usual has ended, that we are going to create a legal system that works. We want him to follow through on that and with all of the other requirements that go with it. But it is a good step and a good signal, and it will help us improve that system.

Another way is to have more Border Patrol agents. We need that. We have authorized some more in this bill but not enough. It is a matter of critical importance, and we will need to fund that--the Senate and House--and not just to authorize it. Isn't that an essential part of it if we are going to change from a lawless system to a lawful system?

Another thing that we absolutely need, and every expert knows, is to increase the retention space. We have to end the catch and release. When you catch someone who comes into this country through Mexico or Canada from a country that is other than Mexico or Canada, where they are not contiguous to the United States, how do you get them home?

How do you return them? You have to put them on a boat or train or plane, and that is not always easy to do. So do you know what has been happening, friends and neighbors? They catch them around the border, and they are released on bail and asked to come back at a certain time so they can be taken out of the country. How many do you think show up to be deported? They violated the law to come here, so we release them on bail and ask them to show up so they can be deported. How laughable is that? One reporter did an analysis in one area of this system, and 95 percent did not show up. Surprise, surprise. Why do we release them? Why do we not hold them until they can be deported? Because we don't have sufficient bed space.

Part of reaching a tipping point in creating a legal system is to make sure we don't eviscerate the work of our law enforcement agents by having them turn loose the people they just went out in the desert to catch. How simple is that? But it is critical, and it is not there yet. So people who say they want a stronger border have to support, in my view, more detention spaces.

This amendment also deals with a critical component of creating a legal system that works, and that is fencing. It sends a signal that open border days are over, and it will greatly enhance

enforcement. It will pay for itself many times over the years. It is a reasonable proposal. It does not overreach. It builds on the provisions that are in the bill.

Senator Kyl in committee had a number of provisions dealing with Arizona and fencing along that border. It builds on those provisions and keeps that language in the bill but provides and directs that we have 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of barriers sufficient to keep vehicles from crossing the border. We are at a point where we need to take this step if we are serious.

The bill before us today, S. 2611, is the fundamental base bill from which we are working. Its language calls for repair and construction of additional fencing in very limited areas along the southern border, mostly in Arizona, as I just mentioned. But for the most part, this provision simply calls for the repair of fences that already exist in the Tucson and Yuma sections of Arizona.

Other than this limited amount of fencing, provisions contained in title I of this bill call only for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive plan for the systematic surveillance of the border, and section 129 calls for only a study to assess the necessity, feasibility, and economic impact of constructing physical barriers along the border. Just a study.

This amendment attempts to go forward and create a real solution to the problem. It directs that the Secretary of Homeland Security construct at least 370 miles of triple-layered fencing, including the fencing already built in San Diego, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along the southwest border.

These are not extreme numbers in any way. In fact, they are the numbers given to a number of Senators in a briefing a few weeks ago by Secretary Chertoff himself, President Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security. He said this is what he believes at this point in time he needs. It directs that this be done. It sends a signal to our appropriators that it should be funded, and it authorizes the President and the executive branch to go further than this and build such other fences as they may find appropriate.

We will have objections for reasons I am not sure why, but I suspect we will have objections. One of the points I have been making for some time when it comes to fixing our immigration system is that we have quite a number of Members of the House and Senate and members in the media who are all in favor of reforms and improvements as long as they don't really work. If it really makes a difference and will actually tilt the system from one that is illegal and will change the status quo and move us to a legal system, somehow, someway, there will be objections to it.

I submit that we are going to have objections to this modest proposal to build 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of barriers according to the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security because it is going to work. That is why. We will have a lot of other reasons, such as it might send a bad signal. But good fences make good neighbors. Fences don't make bad neighbors. Go to the San Diego border and talk with the people. There was lawlessness, drug dealing, gangs, and economic depression on both sides of the border. When they built the fence and brought that border under control, the economy on both sides of the fence blossomed, crime has fallen, and it is an entirely different place and a much better place. That is just the way it is. We have to do this, and it is time to move forward.

A state-of-the-art border security system should be robust enough that it would not be easily compromised by cutting, climbing, tunneling, or ramming through with a vehicle, when combined with high- tech detection devices, motion sensors, body sensors, and seismic or subterranean sensors. A good barrier should make intrusion time consuming enough that a border unit could respond to the attempted intrusion before they are successful. That is what a fence does. To be worth our efforts, it does not need to be 100 percent impenetrable; it simply needs to improve significantly the status quo, and I am confident this amendment will do that.

Mr. President, it is great to see my colleague, Senator Ben Nelson, in the Chamber. He is dealing with a number of important issues today, but he has understood the importance of security at the border from the beginning. He has articulated clearly and effectively his vision for that and has recognized that unless we demonstrate to the world and to our own people that we have border security done first, then nothing else is going to be meaningful, and we will be right back where we were in the beginning.

I know Senator Nelson has to leave, and I am pleased to yield to him such time as we have remaining to speak on this amendment. I have been pleased to work with him on this issue.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire wanted to speak on a different subject, and I believe he has cleared that, and it would not count against the time on this amendment. I would be pleased, if there is no objection, to allow him to speak on that subject now.

I ask unanimous consent that I be able to claim the floor afterward.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire because it is very important that we have, as the chairman of our Budget Committee, someone who can add and someone who has a memory. We forget how things happen around here, and Senator Gregg has a way of reminding us of how we get in these fixes. It is very valuable to us.

I would respond to my colleague from Massachusetts that $4 billion to $5 billion is an estimate for the fence across the entire 1,980 miles of border. This amendment calls for 370 miles, some of which has already been built. It is called for by the Secretary of Homeland Security. It does, indeed, focus mostly on urban areas, and it gives him great flexibility in deciding where to put it.

Does it cost some money? Yes. But I want to tell every Member of our Senate community that the American people expect this. If it takes a sequester

across the board and takes a half of 1 percent of every budget to get this thing done and fix immigration, that is what they want us to do.

I am delighted that Senator Vitter of Louisiana is here and also wants to speak on this issue. He is an original cosponsor.

I would also note, and add for the Record, that Senator Graham, our Presiding Officer, and Senator Inhofe wish to be original cosponsors, as does Senator Kyl from Arizona. I ask that be part of the Record.

I yield such time as Senator Vitter uses.

I thank the Senator from Arizona. There is no more harder working, no more knowledgeable Senator in this Senate on the issues involving the border than he. I thank him for his eloquent remarks.

I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Senator Cornyn of Texas who, like myself, is one of the most knowledgeable people in this Senate who has been engaged in this debate from the beginning and whose advice and recommendations I have valued throughout. So I will yield to Senator Cornyn for such time as he may choose to use.

Madam President, we are at a point where everybody in this body--and overwhelmingly, the American people--wants to see a lawful system of immigration in America. We can all disagree about what to do about the people who have come here illegally already. There are a lot of ideas about that. We can disagree about what our policy should be in the future, but we pretty well have been unified on that point. The 370 miles of fencing that we are talking about, plus barriers for vehicle traffic in a larger amount, has the support of Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff and the administration. They believe it is a good expenditure, and they are prepared to help find the money to fund it because it will save money in the long run. It is a one-time expenditure and will be a multiplier of the effectiveness of every single Border Patrol agent.

As we have heard from Senators Cornyn and Kyl, who have visited the border on a regular basis, we have borders that run right through the middle of towns and communities. How could we possibly put enough agents at every corner, every street to guard it? We need to do better and we can do better.

I am amused by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, saying there is going to be 1,000 miles of fencing. I had originally offered in committee 700 miles. That is what the House passed. We have now come in and listened to the administration and proposed a modest figure of 370 total, counting portions of the fence already built in San Diego, and those being refurbished in Arizona. The House is at 700. So the argument that it is going to be a fence across the whole border or the argument that we are going to build 1,000 miles of fence is not very plausible. Frankly, if the Senate is at 370 and the House is at 700, we are not likely to come out with a compromise at 1,000. What kind of argument is that?

Then we heard the argument that it is going to bankrupt America. We spend over $800 billion a year. We can't find a billion dollars to fix this problem? We certainly can. They ask: Will it work? I say let them go to San Diego. Let them go there and talk to the people on both sides of the border where the whole county showed a 56-percent reduction in crime, and on both sides of that fence the economy is booming. It is safe and secure. The smugglers and dope dealers are gone, and things are much better off. It is a positive development. Why are we having opposition to it?

Senator Kyl came close to the truth when he said: Whenever anything gets proposed--I am paraphrasing--that might actually work, we get an objection to it. What about a good identifier card? They say something like that makes sense, but every time we get close to having a good biometric identifier card that would actually work, we get all kinds of objections.

There is no doubt that some people believe in open borders. There are people who do not want to see this immigration system become a lawful system. I will repeat, we are a nation of immigrants. We are going to increase the number of immigrants. I will support increasing the number of lawful immigrants into our country by a reasonable amount, not three to five times the current level that is in this bill today, even after we reduced the numbers last night. Three to five times is way out of the range of what should be accepted. But we are going to increase immigration. We are not against immigration. I reject that. We want to travel across the border, particularly our

Mexican border. It is a very busy place. Senators Kyl and Cornyn are familiar with that border, and they wouldn't support anything that would back that up.

I am confident we are on the right track. We have checked with a series of contractors and looked at the numbers. The best estimate we get is that the kind of premier fence we are talking about would be at most $3.2 million per mile, and that would, at 296 miles of new fencing cost approximately $940 million, not $14 billion. Where did that come from? That is not so. It will probably cost around a billion dollars.

Remember, as Senator Cornyn reminded us, 1.1 million people are being arrested each day at that border, 1.1 million. How much does it cost to detain and process those people and deport them and move them out of the country or release them or catch and release, in which they then abscond and don't show up to be deported? Is it not better to reduce the number of arrests by creating an effective system that prevents crossing the border rather than all the expense of detecting and apprehending and deporting?

We have had some good discussion. We have talked about these issues in a number of ways. With regard to the San Diego fence, according to the FBI crime index, crime in that county dropped 56.3 percent between 1989 and 2000, after the fence was erected. Vehicle drive-throughs in the region have fallen between 6 to 10 per day before the construction of the border infrastructure to only 4 drive-throughs in 2004 for the year. And those occurred only where the secondary fence is incomplete.

According to the numbers provided by the San Diego sector of the Border Patrol, in February of 2004, apprehensions decreased from 531,609. The American people need to hear this as well as Senators. In 2004, the apprehensions on the San Diego, CA, sector of the border only were 532,689 apprehensions. How expensive is that? Those figures were in 1993. And in 2003, after the fence was built, it dropped to 111,000 across that whole sector.

So the idea that the fence had no impact and everybody went around it is not true. It sent a message that we were serious about creating a border that works, and it reduced by four-fifths the numbers of arrests. How much money did that save? How much time did that save? And it left the Border Patrol officers available to do a lot of different things.

In 1993, authorities at the San Diego border apprehended over 58,000 pounds of marijuana coming across the border from Mexico. In 2003, after the fence, the tide of drugs was reduced and only 36,000 pounds of marijuana were apprehended, and cocaine smuggling decreased from 1,200 pounds to 150 pounds. That is some of the progress that was made.

This is a narrow amendment, concentrating on the most important 800, 500, or 350 miles of fencing, with 500 miles of barriers. It is focused and it is what the Department of Homeland Security says they need. It is reasonable in cost. It will save money considerably over the long run. It is a one-time expenditure, but it can save us from having thousands of permanent investigators, permanent prison bed spaces, and things of that nature. The key to it is to change the perception and the reality of how we are doing business.

Let me conclude with that thought. It is important for this country to make clear to our own citizens and to the world that a lawful system is going to be created, that this is no longer any open border. Once that happens, and once that is absolutely clear, we are going to have fewer people attempt to come in. It is that simple. How do you do it?

Well, the President's call out to the National Guard is one signal that things have changed. Business as usual is over. Utilizing fencing is important. Increasing bed spaces and increasing agents along the border are important. All those things can help us reach a tipping point, a magic point on the seesaw or the balance scale. When it tips, it is going to tip so that people will find out it makes more sense to apply to come here legally, according to our laws, rather than coming in illegally. It will add to the workplace enforcement on top of that, and you will become serious about immigration.

We can do this. It is not hopeless or impossible. For a reasonable cost, we can tip the scales from illegality to legality. That is what the American people are asking us to do. A vote for this amendment is a step in that direction.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, on the Vitter amendment, I thank Senator Vitter for his amendment. Yesterday, Senator Dorgan offered an amendment to remove the guest worker program in its entirety, and I supported that because I believed it was flawed. Eventually, last night, we came back with an amendment that pretty much fixed it, that whole guest worker program, which I thought was good.

I think Senator Vitter's amendment points out and allows us to focus on the fact that this amnesty provision in the bill or regularization provision in the bill--whatever the fair way to describe it is--also has serious flaws. By supporting this amendment, it would be my intention to say let's make it better because I do believe we are not going to reject the people who are here and try to eject all of those people who have come illegally. We need to treat them in a decent and fair and caring way.

But also the rule of law is important. I think we ought not to develop a procedure that essentially provides every benefit to someone who came illegally that we would provide to those who come legally. So I will be supporting the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 10;30 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service Broadband Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on May 17, 2006, at 4 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the roles and missions of the National Guard in support of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2006, at 4;30 p.m., in close session to receive a briefing from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a hearing on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the following pending nominations: Dale Klein to be a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Molly O'Neill to be an Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Physician-Owned Specialty Hospitals: Profits before Patients?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iran's Political/Nuclear Ambitions and U.S. Policy Options.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Robert J. Portman to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Suicide Prevention Programs and their Application in Indian Country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Section 5 Pre-Clearance'' on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

Panel I: Fred Grey, Senior Partners, Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan, Gray and Nathanson, Montgomery, Alabama; Drew S. Days III, Alfred M. Rankin, Professor of Law, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut; Abigail M. Thernstrom, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, New York, New York; Armand Derfner, Attorney, Derfner, Altman and Wilborn, Charleston, South Carolina; Nate Persily, Professor Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed Business Meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, Progress or More Problems: Assessing the Federal Government's Security Clearance Process.

Mr. President, I would like a brief few minutes.

Mr. President, I would just ask for 5 minutes in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment.

I am for it. I know Senator Dorgan's time is limited. I would ask for maybe 3 minutes.

I will try to wrap up briefly.

Mr. President, I believe this section of the bill as drafted is flawed. It goes further than the drafters and the American people or the President would want it to go. I am not sure how we can fix it at this point. I think the way to concentrate everybody's mind and get it fixed would be for the Dorgan amendment to pass.

Let's start over and talk about how we are going to handle this. My staff has looked at these numbers and tried to be as objective as they possibly can to see just what this would allow to occur in America if it were to pass, and I am confident that it includes more than people would think.

First of all, it is absolutely not true that this is a temporary worker program. It is called guest worker, which sounds like ``temporary worker,'' but it is not. A person will come into our country under this program--325,000 the first year. Their employer can apply, the day they get here, the first year, for a green card. A green card gives them permanent residence in the United States, unless they get convicted of a felony or something. They get permanent residence. Within 5 years, they can apply for citizenship. So there is nothing temporary about this so-called guest worker program.

The President mentioned this morning a couple times, I understand--I heard it a bit, one clip on TV--that he favored a temporary worker program. This is not a temporary worker program.

Second, the numbers are extraordinary. Some of you who have been listening to me today are pretty good mathematicians. It is 325,000 the first year. But if that number is reached, automatically it kicks up 20 percent. The next year, if that number is reached, it is 20 percent; the next year, 20 percent; the next year, 20 percent. Those are pretty big numbers. In fact, if it were to stay at that 60 percent level, the numbers would be extraordinary. If you took the congressional resource number, that when a person comes in under this provision as a guest worker and they get a green card and are able to bring in their family, they have calculated 1.2 family members they would bring in for each guest worker. And if you add up those numbers of what we can reasonably expect over a 20-year period, it would be 133 million people. I don't think we will be at 20 percent every year. There are some factors that would show that is not the case. But that is what the bill authorizes, 20 percent automatically, if the caps are reached each year. If it went up at about 10 percent a year, you would still have a very significant increase in just this one program.

When you talk about 100 million people, you are talking about one- third of the current population of the United States being admitted under a low-skill worker program, called a guest worker program, that does not require high-skill abilities.

We need to completely redo it. I believe that; I really do. I urge my colleagues to think seriously about this, what we are voting for. I know the motive and I know the desire to do the right thing. We are a nation of immigrants. We are going to allow immigration in the future to continue. When we do, we will increase legal immigration into this country, and I will support that. But the rate of increase provided for in this provision is unjustifiable and, therefore, I support the Dorgan amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I have the opportunity to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had one hearing that dealt with these issues and dealt with some of the issues the Senator has been talking about specifically. Professor Richard Freeman--and these were pretty pro- immigration panels, but I think they all agree with Senator Dorgan-- Richard Freeman holds the Herbert Asherman Chair, professor of economics at Harvard University. This was his quote just a few weeks ago at a hearing:

One of the concerns when immigrants come in that way, they

may take some jobs from some Americans and drive down the

wages of some Americans and, obviously, if there is a large

number of immigrants coming in and if they are coming in at a

bad economic time, that's likely to happen.

Is that consistent with the Senator's views and that of Professor Samuelson?

I would, briefly. I think it sort of confirms what you are saying. We had a subcommittee hearing on this, and the second professor, Dr. Barry Chiswick, the head and research professor at the Department of Economics at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said:

[T]here is a competition in the labor market. And the large

increase in low-skilled immigration that we've seen over the

last 20 years has had a substantial negative effect on the

employment and earning opportunities of low-skilled

Americans. . . . [The] large increase in low-skilled

immigration has had the effect of decreasing the wages and

employment opportunities of low-skilled workers who are

currently resident in the United States.

Does that comport with the theme of the remarks of the Senator?

Here is Professor Harry Holzer at the same committee hearing, three out of five witnesses, most of them pro-immigration witnesses. He is an associate dean and professor of public policy at Georgetown. He says:

Now, absent the immigrants, employers might need to raise

those wages and improve those conditions of work to entice

native born workers into those [construction, agriculture,

janitorial, food preparation . . . ] jobs.

I believe when immigrants are illegal they do more to

undercut the level of wages of native born workers.

So I think he also would agree with the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for his comments. I happened to be in South America a few weeks ago, and I noticed in the State Department news clips that there was a poll taken in Nicaragua, and it said that 60 percent of the people of Nicaragua would move to the United States if they could. Then I asked the Ambassador of Peru about it, and he said: Well, that is interesting. We did a poll down here just a couple of months ago and it was 70 percent. So I think Senator Dorgan has raised an important point, and that point is this: The United States must decide how many people and what skill sets we need in our country to strengthen our country. We simply cannot allow everybody in the world to individually decide they would like to come here and then to grant that request. It simply is not possible. I think what we would see in the months to come and the years to come is that more and more people would choose to come here, and as word got out if this bill were to pass in its present form, that they would decide to come here. The numbers could grow to exceed a level that most people think not possible today.

I had a press conference this morning, and we dealt with the question of the numbers of people that would be allowed into our country if this legislation were to pass. The numbers are staggering. Also at that press conference was Mr. Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the man who did the basic research on the welfare reform bill, one of the more respected individuals in Washington in terms of numbers and public policy. He stated at that press conference that this legislation is some of the most important legislation ever to come before Congress, and he compared it as rivaling in significance to Social Security and Medicare. That is what he said this morning. So we have to think seriously about the legislation that is before us.

Yes, we want to treat fairly and justly those people already in the country--even those who are here illegally--and figure out a way to do that right, and that is very significant. We also want to work hard on the border and to make sure we have a legal system that works in this country, and we have been doing some work on that. I don't think we are there yet. This bill does not get us there, but we can talk about it and perhaps make some progress.

I would say there is a deeper issue that is part of S. 2611 that has not been discussed publicly until this morning, and that is how many people might be admitted under this bill. My staff, Cindy Hayden and her Judiciary team, have been working for a week to try to figure out just how many people could be admitted. Right now, under current law, this country would admit 19 million new residents over 20 years. Under the legislation that is proposed today, over a 20 year period, we would admit a minimum of 78 million people--four times the number admitted under current law. In fact, as this chart shows, the number of people we admit could be as high as 217 people. If the base numbers in this bill grew at the maximum acceleration factors automatically built into the bill, acceleration factors that kick in not with regard to Congress or with regard to the Department of Labor making any certification of need but simply because people show up and apply to come into our country, they could actually hit 217 million people. That is a stunning number. That is two-thirds of the present population of the United States of America. I don't think it is going to hit 217 million, but I do think it is going to exceed 78 million.

Mr. Rector ran his numbers, and they came out very similar to ours. His top number for people admitted over 20 years was 200 million instead of 217 million. Based on his judgment about what might actually happen, he thinks that the number will be 103 million people over 20 years, five times the current rate of immigration into our country today. Based on this finding, that would mean that 20 years from today, 25 percent of the people in this country will not be native born citizens. That is a huge thing. What does that mean to jobs and employment and wages? We haven't thought that through. What have we done to make sure that the people who come here are welcomed and can be met, affirmed and raised in the traditions of America which have created the land of opportunity that attracts people here?

What about those people who came into our country legally or those who may be given amnesty under this bill? They are out working at a little above minimum wage and then, boom, every year, larger and larger numbers of people come in, keeping them down at the minimum wage level, not allowing them to build up their salaries. Those are all problems that we have not thought through in a significant way, but they are big problems. These are huge problems. But there is momentum to pass something. What we hear in the Senate is we need to pass something, to send some sort of signal, I guess, politically or otherwise, that we care. We have to do this.

We need to think. This Senate is supposed to carefully and thoughtfully consider legislation before we pass it. I am going to talk a good bit about it as time goes on throughout this debate. There are so many important things contained in the legislation, so much experiment, unthought-out policies that could be detrimental to our future, that we must discuss them in an effective way.

I guess it was about 3 weeks ago when the bill was previously on the floor and they tried to ram this thing through here. The Democratic leader would not even allow an amendment and they almost passed it. Some of us had to battle and push back. Senator Frist, the majority leader, finally said we can't operate under this procedure. We are not going to deny our Members the right to have an amendment in the Senate on a piece of legislation that may be as important as Medicare and Social Security. For heaven's sake, that was the scheme of things.

Now we are supposed to move a 600 page piece of legislation through here, with an agreement that only 20 amendments are guaranteed to get a vote, and then we will pass the bill at the end of the week. I don't think we can really fix it by the end of this week, frankly. I don't think there is enough knowledge in the Senate about what is in the legislation to make it possible

for us to reach an agreement on how to fix this.

When we had this issue blowup recently--I guess that is the word you would call it--and they tried to move this through and Senator Reid said we would not have any amendments and it was pulled down, I raised the point at that time that we did not fully comprehend the importance of what is in it. We need to study the bill. We need to study the policy behind the bill. Around the country, I called for hearings in the Judiciary Committee, a national discussion on what would be the appropriate way to handle the people who are here illegally.

We are going to handle them in a nice and fair and generous way. What about the people who want to come in the future? What are we going to do about them? We can discuss that. Trust me, that is much larger in this piece of legislation. The people who are allowed under this bill to come here in the future dwarf the 11 million who are here now. We need to have a national dialog, but we have not had it.

We ended up having one hearing, about 2 hours long, maybe a little more. I think three or four Senators came in and out during the hearing. I was there. We had five economists. They made some important points, although not in depth because of the shortage of time. They noted that the bill as written emphasizes low-skilled workers, and all of them agreed that a low-skilled worker--over half of those now coming in do not have a high school education--cost the economy more than they bring in. All the economists agreed on that. A low-skill worker is not a net benefit for America at this point.

They questioned chain migration. They suggested we should question more about the skill sets of people who want to come here. They discussed the fact that there is strong evidence that workers' wages, middle-class and low-end-skill wages today are depressed by larger numbers of immigrants who come in who are willing to work for less.

Why would we think the law of supply and demand worked for every other component of our American economy but doesn't work for labor? How silly is that? Those are some of the things we discussed in the one hearing we had in the Judiciary Committee.

Friday, I came down to the Senate floor. I made a speech just this past Friday, detailing 15 loopholes in the base bill. Each of those loopholes is very significant and raises important questions we need to address. I will point out briefly what some of those are.

Under the bill on the floor today, illegal aliens with felonies or three misdemeanors can get amnesty. That is not what the American people want or what we should want.

Illegal aliens who have previously filed fraudulent asylum applications, prohibited by law from getting amnesty or citizenship today, can get amnesty and are put on a path to citizenship.

There is no continuous work requirement. They say the people are here to work, but the bill doesn't require continuous work in any significant way.

They allow evidence that can be produced to prove you have been in the country or been working that is very dubious and will clearly lead to fraud. The bill says you must accept just and reasonable inferences as evidence and that you can have documents from day labor centers and that an alien can file his or her ``sworn declaration,'' and they must be accepted as evidence that the alien satisfies the work requirement.

I pointed out that the bill is fundamentally unfair because it benefits only those who broke the law and not those who followed it and got their work visas to come to the United States or those who left the country when their visa expired as they were supposed to.

Another loophole was that the annual numerical cap is not a cap at all. If it is met each year, it automatically goes up 20 percent without any thought going into that, or discussion.

Furthermore, in-state tuition will be made available to illegal aliens, reversing carefully considered and fully debated law that we passed a number of years ago in the Congress.

These are mostly enforcement loopholes. They deal with amnesty provisions and the enforcement provisions of the bill. They are part of this 614-page bill. But until today, no one has discussed publicly what S. 2611 would do about future immigration or how significant that could be. So we will be discussing that during the course of this debate. I am going to talk about it. I will not be able to complete those remarks tonight, but we will be talking about it the rest of the week, and I think we will see a national discussion begin as a result of the efforts of my staff, and that of the Heritage Foundation, independently, to conclude what the numbers will be.

Who and how many people will be admitted on the path to citizenship under this bill? I think we in the Senate, unfortunately, are blissfully ignorant of the scope and impact of the legislation.

I think most Members of the Senate still believe that the bill language that says ``guest workers'' is language that means temporary workers when the truth is that virtually all those who will qualify in the future under this bill are not temporary in any way but will be able to stay permanently in this country and will be placed on a direct path to citizenship. That is a fact.

On April 19, when we were trying to decide how to handle all these monumental issues, I wrote to the Judiciary Committee and asked to have hearings on the full impact of this bill which is now before the Senate. I asked a number of questions--see if you don't think these are fair questions to ask about a piece of legislation of this significance.

I asked: What is the estimated numerical impact of each of the proposed immigration programs? Wouldn't you like to know that? What is the numerical impact? How many will come in?

No. 2, how does the future chain migration of family members impact the total immigration numbers on the proposal? We don't know that number. As a matter of fact, in all the numbers we have worked on, we have not tried to calculate it.

Next, what will be the legislation's estimated fiscal impact on the Federal budget, as well as State and local governments' budgets? How much will it impact the Treasury of the United States, the taxpayers? Does anybody know that? The answer is no.

Next, how will entitlement programs such as Medicaid, TANF--welfare-- and food stamps be affected? Do we need to know that? Sure.

What level of immigration in the future is in our best national, economic, social, and cultural interests? What is the interest of the United States? What do we need as a country? What would be good for us?

We believe in immigration, we want immigration to continue. I think we might even probably agree that we should increase the number of people who come legally into our country. But what level is correct? Have we discussed that? Have you heard any debate about that?

I next asked what categories of immigrants should compose the overall level of annual immigration. What categories? So I said we need to have a national discussion.

We had one hearing. We had a group of professors for about 2 hours to discuss the general economic principles relating to immigration. It just was not satisfactory. We did not examine in any way the specific provisions of this 600-page piece of legislation.

I sent another letter on April 28 asking our Judiciary Committee to hold five hearings and focus comprehensively on the effects of the proposed legislation. That did not occur. There have never been any hearings on the specifics of this bill. Therefore, as we have gone through it, my staff and I, trying to figure out the numerical impacts of the bill, we came up with some significant numbers. I will not go into the full detail of that tonight. I will talk more about it tomorrow.

I will point out again that these are the charts which show the 20- year impact of 2611. These numbers can be calculated based on the provisions of the bill, but it takes a lot of time and effort. We have charts that go down each provision to calculate what the minimum numbers admitted would be and what the maximum numbers admitted would be.

Under this piece of legislation today, if the caps, the upper limits on the immigration numbers that automatically go upward if they are ever met, don't go up at all and people bring in their families, their spouses and children

who then become citizens, at a minimum 78.7 million people would be admitted over 20 years. That is four times the 18.9 million that the current law allows for today. Who has discussed the impact of that? And absolutely it is going to be more, in my view, than 78.7 million, for any number of reasons I will discuss.

In fact, if all the top quotas were hit, that number would hit 217 million, according to our calculations. The Heritage Foundation calculated the number to be about 200 million, I believe. Though that is the top number, Mr. Rector says a careful, conservative analysis of the legislation would lead him to believe that over 100 million people would actually come into America on a path to citizenship in 20 years. That is his best judgment. If somebody doesn't agree, I would like hear about it. One hundred million is five times the number that now can come into our country. It has not been discussed until today. Nobody has really discussed it but us today, that I know of. It is time to talk about that, wouldn't you think? Did anybody even know this was in the legislation? They would have passed this bill without an amendment just a few weeks ago. That was the plan around here, to move it on to conference. They say: Let's just get it out of here. Don't worry about what is in it, Sessions. Don't bother to read it, it is 614 pages. You know you will find something you don't like. That is kind of the talk going on around here.

We decided to read it. My staff actually came away stunned by the breadth and the size and scope of this legislation.

We need to talk about it more. I will have a few amendments. I am not going to try to file too many amendments. But we will talk about it as time goes.

I urge my colleagues to not say to yourself: Well, we need to pass something or I think I will vote for this bill, and maybe they will fix it in conference.

This is a piece of legislation that is extremely important to the people of this country of the United States. It is extremely important for our future as a Nation.

Mr. Rector said it is a matter of huge importance to our Nation.

We need to think about it.

If it is not the piece of legislation you thought it was, if it provides amnesty when they said it didn't, if you thought the workers were temporary and guest workers when they are permanent and on the route to citizenship, and you had no idea the number was going to be 100 million new people in the country permanently on the path to citizenship, five times the current number, then I ask you to vote no.

Let us back up here. Let us fix this bill or let us not pass this bill.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I want to share some thoughts about the immigration legislation that we will be dealing with next week. The bill before us is a massive piece of legislation--over 600 pages, as I recall, and deals with a number of extremely important issues. Little, if any, thought has been given, and certainly no debate and discussion or seeking of economic and scientific information to help us decide what our future immigration policies should be.

I have studied that legislation in some depth. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and have some fine lawyers on my staff. We have been digging into it, and have become more and more troubled as we studied what the legislation actually means and says. It does not do what it purports to do, which is to create a guest worker or temporary working policy for America. It has a number of other problems with it that I think deserve the most serious consideration.

Few, if any, issues that we face in this Senate have greater long- term consequences for our country than immigration. That is a fact.

Why are the American people so interested in this? Why have they expressed such concern about it? Because it is very important. We are responsible for them, and we have an obligation to them to think about this very carefully. Unfortunately, we have not done so. It is an idea that we have to do something. Yes, we need to do something. Let us all agree on that.

I have suggested that we should first proceed, as the House of Representatives did in a bipartisan, substantial majority vote decided, to deal with enforcement first, and establish some credibility with the American people that we can and will enforce whatever laws we have. To pass a new law and enforce it no better than the one that we have enforced in the past is no good.

That is the biggest frustration out there with anyone in our country who believes in law and order, policy and fairness and decency. You don't allow people to break in line ahead of others. How much more basic can it be than that? That is what we learned in elementary school. That is what we follow as adults in this country, but that is not what we are doing at the border.

We all know the system is broken. It has made a mockery of the law, and it is a terrible challenge for us, but one that we need to confront.

We decided in the Senate, and the President believes, we can't fix the law enforcement system first--we need to fix the entire scheme of immigration.

We have not had enough serious hearings on the fundamentals of what we are doing. I have asked for five hearings in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee on the economic and social implication of immigration. We were given one. It was a very valuable hearing but not enough, in my view. Certainly, I do not think the average Senator is fully engaged and aware of the serious concerns this legislation raises.

I will take a few minutes to go back over what I called in a speech a few weeks ago loopholes in the legislation. Some of that speech was based on the original Kennedy-McCain bill. I made that speech right after a compromise, the so-called Hagel-Martinez bill, hit the Senate. I will go back over these fundamental problems with the legislation. It indicates the weaknesses that exist today under the bill which will be in the Senate beginning next week.

As we go forward into the week, I will be discussing, and perhaps others will as well, deeper flaws in the legislation that deal with the fundamental guiding principles of this legislation: What should we be doing? How many people should be allowed into this country? What skill sets should they bring? How should those decisions be made? How can we create a system which is enforceable, which will work to allow the country to decide what is in its best interests with regard to those who come here?

They say we are not supposed to talk too much next week. We are just supposed to come to the floor, offer amendments and maybe ask for 30 minutes of debate. We can have 20 amendments, and we will talk for just 30 minutes on those amendments on each side. We have been told: Don't talk too much, Senator, because we have to move this bill and get it off our plate. They do not want to talk about it too much because people back home might find out what is actually in the bill. That is the honest truth. On both sides, Republican leadership and Democratic leadership want to move something through. But ``something'' is not good enough. We ought to do the right thing.

Now I will talk about some of the flaws that continue to exist in this bill. I begin with loophole No. 1, illegal aliens. People here illegally are going to be part of this mass amnesty. We have discussed amnesty and whether the provisions in this bill are amnesty. I have to say I spent 30 minutes in the Senate going back to the immigration laws passed in 1986, and everyone admitted 1986 was amnesty when they passed it. They promised they would enforce the law in the future. They got the amnesty, and they didn't enforce the law. In 1986, they said there would be 1.5 million people claiming amnesty, yet over 3 million people claimed amnesty. They claimed we would have lawful immigration in the future, and now we have 11 million people here illegally. Why should the American people not have some doubts about the promises of Congress and the President to carry out a legal system that will work?

Let me point out a few of the things we are dealing with. ``Blacks Law Dictionary,'' which is the premiere dictionary that virtually every lawyer in America has on his desk, has a definition in its section on amnesty, and it is defined as the 1986 Immigration Act. It is included as one of the definitions of what amnesty is.

What I suggest, essentially this current bill is probably less tight, less enforceable than the 1986 act. If amnesty has any meaning, this bill is amnesty. I don't want to get into any more debate about it, but I do not back down on the fundamental concept that the legislation before the Senate today is basically an amnesty for the people who came here illegally in violation of our law. They have to do a few things, they have to take some steps, but in no way will they be denied the fundamental things they sought when they came here illegally.

We are a generous nation. We know we have a real problem. We are not intending in any way to make all of these people who have come illegally leave the country. We will have to work through this in some generous and humane way to make sure we treat this sensitively and justly, but it is a difficult problem when we reward people who violate the law, for their very violation of that law. It is not a principle that should be lightly traversed.

Now here are just some of the loopholes.

Loophole No. 1: Illegal aliens with felonies or three or more misdemeanors will not be barred from getting amnesty under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Different crimes make different aliens inadmissible and deportable or ineligible for benefits. As written in this bill, on page 347, it only requires an alien to show they are not inadmissible to qualify for the amnesty. However, some felonies make an alien inadmissible under the act and others do not.

The Kyl-Cornyn amendment that we will deal with next week that was blocked by the other side previously was designed to fix this loophole. Senator Reid refused to allow these amendments to be voted on when the bill came up before because he did not want to have his Members recorded as voting for anything. I am not sure too many on our side want to have any votes, either, but it was clear that the Democratic leader was intent on moving this bill forward without any votes or as few votes as possible so we would not have to deal with some of these issues. This was a hot issue. We tried to get a vote on it, and we could not get a vote. So the Kyl-Cornyn amendment which was blocked was designed to fix this loophole. It will keep aliens with felony convictions or three misdemeanors from being eligible for amnesty.

Why do we want to give amnesty to felons? The United States ought to decide who it wants to be part of its citizenry. Since we cannot accept everyone in the world who would like to come here, why in the world would we not want to say: If you have a felony conviction, you are not one of them. We will invite someone who is honest and decent who will contribute positively to our country's growth, development, and culture. We could not even get a vote on this to fix it.

We have to make this change. Hopefully, we will get a vote on it this week to fix it. I believe we will have a vote in favor of not allowing felons to be given amnesty, but I am not sure, given the mood of the Senate today.

Loophole No. 2: Aliens previously barred from receiving immigration benefits for life because they filed frivolous asylum applications will be able to receive amnesty.

This is an interesting reversal of existing law. If you come in and make some bogus claim that you are entitled to asylum, you can still get amnesty. We have had a lot of problems with people coming from a country, where maybe they were arrested for a legitimate crime and fled to the United States, saying they are being persecuted back home, and they want asylum. After looking into their claim, we find out it is bogus and they were actually an armed robber in their home country. We barred them from being able to get an application for any benefits under the immigration laws. It is a form of saying: We are not going to tolerate that. This bill reverses that.

Under INA section 208(d)6, if the Attorney General of the United States determines an alien knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application, he is to be permanently ineligible for any benefits under the INA. This bill would change that. On page 345, it says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the secretary

shall adjust an alien who meets the requirements for amnesty.

No provision of the bill states that the alien is ineligible for amnesty if they previously committed immigration fraud by filing a frivolous asylum application. The bill gives benefits to aliens previously barred from all immigration benefits. We give amnesty to them. If we want to keep those who have committed immigration fraud in the past from getting amnesty, we have to change that. We need to change that by closing this loophole.

Why did they put that in there? Who wrote this bill, I keep asking. I am sure the sponsors of the bill do not know the implications of all of these provisions. I don't know who put this together.

Loophole No. 3: All aliens who are subject to a final order of removal who fail to leave pursuant to a voluntary departure agreement, or who are subject to the reinstatement of a final order of removal because they illegally reentered after being once removed from the United States are eligible for amnesty.

Pages 358 to 359 of the bill clearly state that certain grounds of inadmissibility in the act will not apply to aliens who apply for amnesty under the bill. The current inadmissibility provisions that are waived include aliens with final orders of removal for document fraud. If you file a false claim to the Government as an American citizen, that is a felony. These charges are providing false documents, offenses that are felony offenses.

I repeat, the current inadmissibility provisions that are waived under this bill that will be in the Senate this week include aliens with final orders of removal for document fraud. They have been apprehended, caught, found to be here as a result of making false claims to the Government, failed to attend removal proceedings, were allowed to be out on bail, asked to come to court and answer the charges, and did not show up. They violated a court order to show up. They did not attend their removal proceedings. We call them absconders. And aliens who already have final orders of removal and many other categories are exempted.

This means aliens who have already received their day in court, they have had their cases fully tried and have failed to depart the United States unlawfully, will now be rewarded for not leaving. They will qualify for amnesty. They will be able to become citizens of the United States. This will include many of the 37,000 Chinese nationals China has refused to take back whom we have ordered deported. If we want to enforce the laws against illegal aliens who already had their day in court, this loophole must be closed.

Loophole No. 4: Aliens who illegally entered multiple times, which is a felony, qualify for amnesty.

The first time you come into the country illegally, it is a misdemeanor. If you are apprehended and deported and you come back the second time, it is a felony. Aliens who have illegally entered multiple times--that is, chargeable with felonies--are eligible for amnesty. The bill, on pages 12-23, requires that the illegal alien be continuously present in the United States since 2001 to qualify for amnesty. However, the bill allows the alien to have left the United States for ``brief, casual, and innocent departures.''

Let us remind ourselves that criminal laws are being broken each time an illegal alien crosses the border of the United States. Title 8, section 1325, of the United States Code says that illegal entry into the United States is a misdemeanor the first time and a felony thereafter. I don't think multiple illegal felonies are casual, brief, or innocent. It rewards those who have not followed the law.

Loophole No. 5: The bill allows aliens who have persecuted anyone--a persecutor on account of race, religion, national membership in a particular social group, or political opinion--to get amnesty. It fails to make persecutors ineligible for amnesty.

I would have thought this was an oversight until we noticed that on page 375--there are a lot of pages in this bill, over 600--line 22 makes these heinous acts bar aliens here between 2 and 5 years from amnesty. The same bar is left out for the 8.8 million aliens who have been here for more than 5 years. This can only be interpreted by any court as an intentional decision that Congress has made to allow persecutors who have been in the country more than 5 years to be able to stay here. I do not think we want to do that. Let's close that loophole.

We are told that people who come here come here to work, and for many that is certainly true. And many are fine, decent, good workers. Loophole No. 6, however, is that there is no continuous work requirement for this amnesty. We have been told that you have to earn your citizenship, earn your amnesty by working. But there is no real requirement for that.

To be eligible to adjust from illegal to legal status under the bill, the alien

must simply have been ``physically present in the United States on or before the date that is 5 years before April 5, 2006,'' and have been employed ``in the aggregate'' for ``at least 3 years during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006,'' and employed for ``at least 6 years after the date of enactment'' of this bill.

But it does not say--on pages 346, 347--that the alien must be employed continuously or that the requirement of employment be full- time employment.

The bill will be interpreted to allow the alien to be eligible if they have been employed in the United States either full time, part time, seasonally, or self-employed. It also allows the time of employment to be shortened if the alien is in attendance at a school or is under 20 years of age.

The employment requirement under the language as written is as broad as possible. Essentially, any alien who worked in the United States for 3 out of 5 years at any time prior to April 5, 2006, will fulfill these requirements. This is not any kind of rigorous standard. It is designed to let everybody qualify. It is so broad that if the Immigration Service were to try to go to court and challenge it, almost any alien would be able to meet and defeat the challenge and be able to have a judge--who is required to enforce the law as we write it--not enforce that law.

Loophole No. 7: The bill tells the Department of Homeland Security to accept ``just and reasonable inferences'' from day labor centers and the alien's ``sworn declaration'' as evidence that the alien has met the amnesty's work requirement.

Under the bill, the alien would meet the ``burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence''--that is all the burden is, a preponderance of the evidence--``that [he] has satisfied the [work] requirements'' if the alien can demonstrate employment ``as a matter of just and reasonable inference.''

An alien can present ``conclusive evidence'' of employment in the United States by presenting documents from Social Security, the Internal Revenue Service, employers, or a ``union or day labor center.''

The bill then states:

[I]t is the intent of Congress that the [work] requirement

. . . be interpreted and implemented in a manner that

recognizes and takes into account the difficulties

encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment due

to the undocumented status of the alien.

What does that mean? It means it is unenforceable, if you want to know the truth. I was a prosecutor for 15 years, a Federal prosecutor. How are you going to enforce the language? What kind of prosecutor is going to go to court when the Congress has basically said: ``It is our policy that anything goes. Any documents they present, any inference that is raised would be sufficient to allow this to occur?''

Then it goes on to say that even if the lax standards I mentioned cannot be met, in order to make sure everybody meets the standard of being allowed to work here, it allows them to self-submit affidavits, ``sworn declarations for each period of employment.''

The invitation for fraud cannot be clearer. Congress is telling the Department of Homeland Security to take the illegal aliens' word for it, to accept pretty much anything as proof of work.

These provisions are all contained on pages 349 and 350. If we want to make sure the fraud that occurred in the 1986 amnesty does not occur again in the 2006 amnesty, these loopholes have to be closed. Why do we have these standards? Because politicians want to say that everybody here are workers, and we are not going to give amnesty to people who are not workers. OK. That sounds good. But when you read the bill, it does not require that. There is no way this can be enforced. And the authors of the legislation know it. They know it cannot be enforced. That is why they wrote it the way they wrote it, to let everybody qualify. So it is not true that this is a bill that requires earned amnesty by work. It does not.

Loophole 8: The bill benefits only those who broke the law and not those who followed it and got work visas to come to the United States or those who left when their visas expired.

I want you to understand this, colleagues. It is important to point out the unfairness that is inherent in the bill. Page 346 lays out the requirement that you must have been ``not legally present in the United States on April 5, 2001.'' So to qualify for the benefits here, you had to be illegally present in the United States on April 5, 2001. Illegal presence allows people to qualify for the amnesty and the pathway to citizenship that the amnesty provides.

The bill goes on to define ``not . . . legally present'' to include visa overstays--an ``alien who has violated any conditions of his or her visa''--making sure that illegal alien visa overstays qualify for amnesty.

So if you were here legally on April 5, 2001, meaning you followed the rules, and you got a work visa to come here, you will not get any benefits from this amnesty. If you had a visa in 2001, but it expired before April 5, and you, therefore, followed the law and left the United States before April 5, you will not get the benefit of this amnesty. This amnesty benefits you only if you did not leave the United States, as the visa required, and you stayed here illegally or you came here illegally.

Another loophole, No. 9, deals with this guest worker concept. The bill's future flow ``guest worker'' program in title IV of the legislation leaves no illegal alien behind. It is not limited to the people outside the United States who want to come here to work in the future, but includes illegal aliens currently present in the United States who do not qualify for the amnesty programs in title VI, including aliens here for less than 2 years.

Now, we are told if you have been here for less than 2 years--you came since we started talking about this legislation in 2004--that you do not qualify for the benefits of the program, and have to go home. That has been part of the mantra. You have heard that debate: If you have been here for less than 2 years--and the reason for that is, We are giving notice to people around the world who might want to come here: Don't rush into our country while we are considering this amnesty, to take advantage of it, because if you come in after we started discussing it, then you are not going to get the benefits of it--a fairly legitimate approach to things, I would suggest. And we are told the legislation does that. But it does not do that, I have to tell you.

Under the language, you can qualify for the new H-2C program to work as a low-skilled, permanent immigrant even if you are unlawfully present in the United States today. The bill specifically says:

In determining the alien's admissibility as an H-2C

nonimmigrant . . . paragraphs (5), (6)(A), 7, (9)(B), and

(9)(C) of section 212(a) may be waived for conduct that

occurred before the effective date. . . .

By waiving these grounds of inadmissibility, the new H-2C program is specifically intended, I submit, to apply to, No. 1, absconders--those are people who were apprehended, ordered to leave the country or ordered to come to court, and they have skipped and did not leave and did not come to court; 400,000 of those we are trying to find this very day to deport them to enforce the law--No. 2, it applies to illegal aliens who were in removal proceedings and signed a voluntary departure agreement but violated that agreement and did not leave, and, No. 3, it applies illegal aliens who were already removed from the United States but who illegally reentered.

The bill covers everybody. No illegal alien will be left behind. No illegal alien will have to go home--not this 2-year group, as has been said. So once again, the rhetoric about the legislation does not match the reality.

Loophole No. 10: The annual numerical cap on this program is completely artificial. The bill's sponsors say that the new H-2C guest worker program is limited to 325,000 people and their families per year.

However, the cap has a built-in automatic escalator. If the 325,000 limit per year--the cap on the number who can come here legally--is reached, the cap automatically adjusts itself to make more room, by adding an additional 20 percent, which is 65,000 more visas the first year. So if somewhere in the year the cap limits are being met by people who want to come here, that very year the cap goes up by 20 percent. And then, the next year, automatically the cap will not be 325,000, it will be that number increased by 20-percent. And if that cap number is met, it goes up that

year 20 percent. And the next year, that additional 20-percent increase will be the cap.

It is an utterly escalating cap, without any thought whatsoever as to how many people this country needs in our workplace or otherwise in the Nation. They can be readily assimilated and made a part of this glorious and wonderful country. What kind of language is that?

We calculate if this cap is reached each year, the number of people allowed under this one program to enter this country legally, 10 years from passage--hold your hat--would be 2,012,314. I am not kidding. That is an automatic provision in the act. We have given no thought, no serious evaluation, whatsoever, to how many people ought to be brought into this country.

And even if the cap never increases and stays at the 325,000 per year, we will have a minimum of 1,950,000--almost 2 million--low- skilled workers who are permanent immigrants in the first 6 years of the program, which is the length of an H-2C visa if the individual does not file for a green card.

In 10 years, we will have immigrated 3,250,000 low-skilled workers and their families. Understand, each and every one of these 3 million people who would enter under this provision alone--and there are others where the impact is large--all of these workers will be eligible for green cards.

What does that mean? A green card means you are a permanent resident. They say these are temporary workers and guest workers. Within the first year, they can obtain a green card if their employer requests it. After 4 years, if their employer doesn't and they don't have an employer, they can self-petition for a green card. This is a big change in our policy since immigrants under this provision were supposed to be workers and it allows them to petition for a greencard even thought they are not working for anybody. They can self-petition under this bill. That is a big change. This is pretty thunderous in its impact.

Loophole No. 11, a new H-2C guest worker does not have to prove they are essential to the economy to come to the United States or to stay or to apply for a green card once they are here. Nothing about the H-2C ``temporary guest worker program'' is temporary. They can say it is temporary until they are blue in the face, and it is just not so. That is why we need to be talking about this legislation. To be eligible for an H-2C visa, an alien merely has to establish that they are ``capable of performing the labor or services'' they have an intent to perform in the United States. So page 250 of the bill only makes them prove they are capable of performing a labor they have an intent to perform when they come here, and they have received a job offer from an employer who has complied with the requirements.

To stay in the United States once they enter, the H-2C holder simply cannot be ``unemployed for 60 or more consecutive days.'' If they are unemployed for that period of time, they are supposed to leave. Such a requirement, of course, is absolutely and utterly unenforceable. Who is going to be checking on this? They will say: It is not enforceable. If a guest worker is out of work for 60 days, 2 months, it is obvious that the economy does not depend on them. The fact that H-2C status only terminates after 60 consecutive days of unemployment means an alien is still essential to the economy and able to stay in the United States if they are working for as little as 1 or 2 days every 2 months. That is what it means. If somebody has to try to enforce this law, that is the kind of thing they would be dealing with when they go to court.

More importantly, no Government entity is going to spend their time searching over the country to determine if aliens have been out of work for 55 or 65 consecutive days, because the bill allows the alien worker to move from employer to employer and then, as noted on page 263, specifically exempts employers from having to notify the Department of Homeland Security when the alien is fired or voluntarily quits. This will ensure that the Government will never have the information it needs to enforce the 60-day requirement. Employers are not required to notify. If they bring in somebody, they certify they need them to work, they have them work for 6 months, they no longer need them and lay them off, there is no requirement that they notify the Department of Homeland Security or Labor or Commerce that they are no longer needed.

The bill contains, more importantly, no economic trigger enabling us to send workers home when the economy dips. This has been a matter of some dispute. I hear it asked by Senators. I have been asked several times. Some have stated publicly to the contrary. We have read the bill. This is what the bill says about the economy. What if we go into a recession and have brought in these 3 million workers. Now we have 40 million workers in the next 3 or 4 years, 5 years, 8 years, and we go into a recession. They are temporary workers. What is the deal? They go home? Do we not use those workers? We don't need them any longer and they have to go home? No, there is no trigger that reduces the number of workers here if the economy goes into recession. It is not in this legislation. There is an automatic increase every year, as I noted, if the applicants reach that level. It can go up to as much as 3 million a year, but there is no way to reduce it unless we pass a bill in Congress.

More importantly, once the H-2C worker is in the United States, they will be here permanently. On day one, when the alien begins to work in the United States, their employer can sponsor them for a green card. If they come here under this program, the employer can sponsor them for a green card that first day. That means 5 years later, they can be a citizen entitled to all the benefits. As a green card holder, they are entitled to bring their wife and children immediately. Five years later, they can become a citizen. Five years later, the wife can become a citizen. Do you know what the wife can do then? She can bring her children in as a green card holder. He can bring in his brothers and sisters, and she can bring in her brothers and sisters, once they become a citizen under the chain migration rules. It has tremendous implications for us.

Those are matters that are very important. I have a couple more points. I see my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. I think I can wrap up in about 3 or 4 minutes, if that is OK with him.

I would also say, I am honored to have worked with Senator Byrd, the senior Senator from West Virginia, former Democratic leader and majority leader of the Senate, on a realistic approach to immigration. I asked, are we able to enforce our borders, are we able to do things together. We had Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, both Democrats. We worked together. We presented some very good proposals. Not enough of them have been accepted and made part of this legislation, unfortunately. But there is a genuine bipartisan concern here that we are moving too fast and getting the cart before the horse in a lot of different ways.

Loophole No. 12, a work requirement for a blue card can be satisfied in a matter of hours, under the AgJOBS portion that was added in committee with about 30 minutes of debate. Under the AgJOBS component of this substitute bill, illegal alien agricultural workers who worked 150 workdays in agriculture over the last 2 years will receive a blue card allowing them to live and work permanently in the United States. Let's get that straight. We keep talking about the guest worker program, the seasonal worker program. Why we don't have that in the bill, I can't understand. Almost every provision puts people on the route to permanent citizenship.

So under the AgJOBS portion that was adopted in committee without debate, agricultural workers who have worked 150 workdays--that is not a full day--over the last 2 years, less than half time, will receive a blue card, and that will allow them to live and work permanently in the United States. However, because current law defines an agricultural workday as 1 hour of work per day--that definition is reinstated in the bill on page 397--an alien who has worked for as little as 150 hours in agriculture over the last 2 years will qualify for a blue card.

Loophole No. 13: Once an illegal alien worker receives a

blue card, the blue card never expires. Blue cards, the new

category of cards given to aliens who are amnestied under the

AgJOBS provision of this bill,

never expire. The blue card holder can choose to pursue a

green card, legal permanent resident status, by working for

more hours in agriculture, but that is not a requirement to

stay in the United States.

Page 399 specifically states:

An alien in blue card status shall be provided an

employment authorized endorsement or other appropriate work

permit, in the same manner as an alien lawfully admitted for

permanent residence.

This means that once the illegal alien has a blue card, he or she can live in the United States and work in any job permanently. They can adjust to a green card status and move on the path of citizenship, bringing in their aging parents and have them receive the great benefits of health care in America.

Loophole No. 14, free legal counsel: The AgJOBS amendment goes as far as to provide free legal counsel to illegal aliens who want to receive amnesty, page 421. In a paragraph entitled ``eligibility for legal services,'' the bill lays out that recipients of funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act can ``provide legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section.'' So not only will AgJOBS give amnesty to 1.5 million illegal aliens, it would have the American taxpayer pay the legal bills for filling out the applications of those 1 million illegal aliens.

Finally, I will mention loophole No. 15. There are a lot of other provisions that concern me. I will only mention 15. It deals with the DREAM Act. The bill makes in-State tuition and other higher education benefits available to illegal aliens. Current law, some years ago, was passed to deal with a perceived abuse in the system.

So the current law that is in effect today says:

[A]n alien who is not lawfully present in the United States

shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a

State (or a political subdivision) for any posteducation

benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is

eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration,

and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national

is such a resident.

The DREAM Act portion of this bill, page 503 through 520, eliminates this provision and will allows a benefit to those who came here illegally even when all United States citizens are not afforded those same privileges. The bill goes further making other types of higher education assistance available through the illegal aliens that receive amnesty under the bill, student loans, Federal work study programs and Federal services to access this assistance.

One of the first things you want to do if you want to reduce illegal immigration is not provide benefits to people who come illegally. How much more commonsensical can it get than that? You don't provide inducements, generous social benefits that we would like to provide to more people in the country but can't, to people who come here illegally. That does not make sense and it is not a principled position.

I will conclude by saying, I urge my colleagues, with the greatest sincerity, to look at this legislation and to think about these loopholes I have mentioned. While they are very real and evidence an intent by whoever drafted the legislation to go far beyond what they are publicly saying the bill does, read it carefully and make sure that you feel comfortable supporting it. When amendments come up, we will fix some of these things, although there will not be sufficient time in the debate or sufficient amendments allowed to fix all the problems. They need to vote for those amendments to make the bill better. More importantly, we have continued to study the legislation. My concerns have deepened that we have an unprincipled, not well thought out policy for future immigration that increases legal immigration to an extraordinary degree, far beyond what those people think is part of this legislation.

It is permanent and it allows those who are outside our Nation to decide when they come. It is similar to an entitlement. If you are a veteran, you walk up and you get your entitled benefit. If 10 times as many people showed up for that benefit as we expected, all of them get that benefit--American citizens, veterans. That is an entitlement.

In this legislation, we basically create an entitlement to let people who are noncitizens of the country decide how many are going to come in, without this Nation making those decisions. Canada has a point system. They limit immigration, and they review it based on what their needs are. The more the immigrant has qualities and education and training that meet what they need, the better chance they have of entering. If you don't have qualifications and abilities that are relevant to Canada's needs, you don't get in. Our bill does none of that. I urge my colleagues to be more focused on the actual wording of the legislation.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for showing leadership and recognizing that we need to do better in this legislation on immigration.

I suspect that the Senator from West Virginia might talk about Mother's Day. I have had the honor to be in the chair--and I see Senator Isakson--when Senator Byrd in previous years has spoken about his mother on Mother's Day. I think we are all in for a treat.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, let me acknowledge the work of Chairman Cochran, Senator Shelby, and the Appropriations Committee in crafting this bill.

I would also like to commend Dr. Coburn, Senator McCain, Senator Ensign, and so many a number of my colleagues who have been out on the floor discussing the need for fiscal restraint.

As much good as there is in this bill, and it is mostly good, I will be voting against it.

We must stop the practice of using emergency spending designations to meet needs that can be met in the normal budget process.

This supplemental has some important provisions in it related to the war on terror and the Hurricane Katrina recovery.

For example, in relation to the war on terror, $10.2 billion is allocated for the Department of Defense's military personnel; $39 billion is allocated for operation and maintenance accounts in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; $15 billion for procurement for various accounts; and $8 billion for various other defense-related expenses.

Other war related expenditures: $82 million for the FBI operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $5 million for the DEA's Intelligence Program, and $4 million for ATF's costs in Iraq.

These are all important programs that should be funded to help fight terrorists abroad.

The bill provides needed funds for Hurricane Katrina.

It provides $2 billion for border security, fully offset, which was included in Senator Gregg's amendment.

That being said, there are a number of items in this bill that do not belong in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Many of these are very important projects that have merit.

Many of these programs are worthy of Federal funding, and, when the regular appropriations season gets underway, I will work to see if there is a way we can fund them.

But the question before us today is not whether they have merit because undoubtably most do.

The question is not even whether they should receive Federal funding.

Here is the question we must ask with respect to each of the needs that are being funded in this bill: Are they emergencies?

The Senate version of the appropriations supplemental bill is $106.49 billion, over $14 billion more than the President's request of $92.22 billion.

Because these are designated as ``emergency funds,'' they are not factored into the budget.

As far as Washington is concerned, they ``don't count.''

But they do count.

There is no magic pot of money that can be tapped for emergency needs.

This is straight deficit spending.

There are times when emergency spending is justified, but if we abuse it, we might as well not even have a budget.

What is emergency spending?

The emergency appropriations process is set up to be an exception to the normal appropriations cycle so that money can be spent for unexpected occurrences that come up throughout the year, such as additional war costs or unexpected disasters.

This money is not factored into the regular budget.

The other body exercised fiscal restraint when they took up the supplemental bill and actually managed to bring the bill's top line number down from the Presidents's request to $91.95 billion.

However, during the Senate markup, the bill expanded rapidly.

According to the National Journal, money was added at a rate of more than $80 million per minute during the 2-hour markup.

Of course, it is not important how fast the money was added or how much is in the bill.

The only things that matter are:

Are these meritorious programs?

Are they Federal responsibilities?

Are they emergencies?

Senator Gregg, a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee and my chairman on the Budget Committee, wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal on April 18 entitled ``The Safety Valve Has Become a Fire Hose.''

The piece gives an excellent explanation of the problem with abusing the emergency spending process.

While Senator Gregg and I disagree with regard to 2-year budgeting, we have no disagreement on the proposal he outlines in his article, which is 1-year budgeting, which means, let's live under the budget we have now and have a sequester if we exceed it.

In the piece, Senator Gregg states:

there are two sets of books, and [only] one is subject to

the budget controls.

Adding superfluous spending to the emergency supplemental is a way to cheat the system and get around having to actually pay for the money we spend.

Here are a few of the most egregious provisions in the bill:

First, some of the funds in this bill are spent as far out as fiscal year 2010 and beyond.

Money being spent 5 years from now is not an emergency, and can be allocated and paid for through the regular budget process each year.

If we need money to start these projects, we can give money for the first year. But all other money should be subject to the oversight of an authorizing committee and the regular budget process.

Secondly, $594 million allocated for the Federal Highway Administration to go to projects on ``the current FHWA ER backlog table,'' which lists storms back to 1999.

Our budget specifically outlines the criteria for emergency spending. It is as follows:

(A) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or

beneficial);

(B) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up

over time;

(C) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring

immediate action;

(D) subject to paragraph (2), unforeseen, unpredictable,

and unanticipated; and

(E) not permanent, temporary in nature.

If funds are in fact needed to meet needs from a hurricane in 1999 or an ice storm in 2001, that should have been reasonably foreseen in 2005, when we were drawing up this year's budget.

The backlogged highway repairs for these storms could have been paid for through the regular appropriations process or the $286 billion transportation bill that passed last year.

Emergency supplementals are for unanticipated costs, not costs anticipated 5 years ago.

Emergency spending should be an exception to the appropriations process--not the rule.

There are ways to pay for emergencies, and there are ways to pay for past emergencies.

The items on this chart that predate the last fiscal year are not emergencies and should not be treated as such in the appropriations process.

They should be paid for, just like the relief efforts on all other past emergencies.

According to National Taxpayers Union President John Berthoud, since 1996 the Federal Government has spent over $450 billion under the ``emergency'' designation--an extra $1,500 for every person in America.

Nearly all of our 50 States maintain emergency, contingency, reserve, or ``rainy day'' funds to help cover unanticipated spending needs. This would not only help to smooth out spikes in deficit spending but also help to prevent politicians from taking advantage of urgent situations to grow other Government programs.

We need to better prepare for these type expenses, like our States do.

The President in the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill drew a clear line in the sand. Let me read from the SAP:

However, the Senate reported bill substantially exceeds the

President's request, primarily for items that are unrelated

to the GWOT and hurricane response. The Administration is

seriously concerned with the overall funding level and the

numerous unrequested items included in the Senate bill that

are unrelated to the war or emergency hurricane relief needs.

The final version of the legislation must remain focused on

addressing urgent national priorities while maintaining

fiscal discipline.

Accordingly, if the President is ultimately presented a

bill that provides more than $92.2 billion, exclusive of

funding for the President's plan to address pandemic

influenza, he will veto the bill.

The statement could not be clearer.

The day after he sent up the SAP, I sent a letter to the President, which was signed by 35 other Senators, committing to sustain any veto of this bill which violates the principles outlined in the SAP.

I have every confidence that our congressional leadership and our President, and their ability, working with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, can find a way to make a good bill fit within the numbers outlined by the President.

This supplemental debate highlights a larger issue.

We need budget process reform.

We need a line-item veto. Senator Frist's bill, S. 2381, Provides that rescissions packages submitted by the President shall be treated with fast-track authority. But this bill is just the beginning.

We need to reform Congressional Budget Office scoring in the following ways:

Dynamic scoring. Senator Ensign's bill, S. 287, addresses this issue. Changes in tax law will be scored to take into account real-life effects on the economy.

Tax/spending parity. CBO scores should treat tax expirations and spending expirations the same.

Long-term scoring. We should require CBO scores to have more detailed estimates for long-term costs of authorizations and direct spending.

Database of authorizations. We should require CBO to produce a database with a comprehensive catalog of all authorized spending, user- friendly, searchable and sortable by expiration date and category, and total authorized amounts, appropriated amounts. Database should be available online, searchable, sortable, and provide overall total amounts.

We also ought to move to a 2-year budget.

Senator Domenici has been spearheading this issue. His bill, S. 877, is an excellent bill. Under his bill, all budgeting and appropriating occurs in first year of a Congress. The second session focuses on oversight.

Database for Federal grantees. We should require the creation of a database of Federal grantees so taxpayers can log on and find out who is spending their money and how.

Government shutdown protection. This provision would provide that if appropriations bills are not enacted by the beginning of the fiscal year, programs continue at previous year's level.

Spending firewall. We should create four firewalled categories of Federal spending: defense, international, domestic, and homeland, which would be binding and in the budget. This would ensure that security needs would be met and could not be raided during the appropriations process to pay for social spending.

Pay-go for emergency spending. Automatic across-the-board reduction in spending for emergencies. Provide that emergency spending automatically triggers an across-the-board rescission in all spending. Senator Gregg mentioned a program like this in his Wall Street Journal piece.

Mutiyear caps. We should provide that 302(a) discretionary caps carry over for the life of a budget resolution, including the ability for the Appropriations Committee to issue 302(b) suballocations. Currently, if we have no budget, we have a top-line discretionary cap but no way to enforce it. We should provide a mechanism for the Appropriations chairman to issue suballocations in the event that a budget is not passed.

Commission on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies. Senator Brownback's bill, S. 1155, takes the concept of BRAC and applies it to wasteful domestic spending programs.

Efficencies. We should allow up to 2 percent of any Department to be transferred to pay down the national debt if efficiencies are found. The current system requires bureaucrats to be inefficient. We give them a big pot of money and say: You must spend this. We should encourage, not discourage, frugality.

Entitlement commission. We should provide for a commission to review entitlements, provide recommendations for reform, and provide fast- track consideration for reform proposals.

Earmark reform. Finally, we need to finish the process we started on the lobbying reform package, which is earmark reform. Senators McCain and Lott have led on this important issue.

I look forward to consideration of budget process reform later this year.