[Pages S6430-S6455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand under the order, Senator
Sessions is to be recognized to speak for a period of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BAUCUS. I have consulted with Senator Sessions. I asked if it was
OK if I proceeded for 5 minutes preceding his remarks. Accordingly, I
ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Pay Raise for Soldiers

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of our troops. There are
few things as important as the gift of one's labor, one's love, one's
life. Our soldiers are asked to make generous sacrifices of these
precious commodities every day. Our finest young soldiers work 19 hours
a day in hot, dry, dangerous places such as Fallujah and Kabul. They do
so because they have a deep love of country. Many of our soldiers make
the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. Increasingly, we are asking
more and more of our soldiers. In April, Secretary Gates announced he
is extending the tours of duty for active-duty soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan from 12 to 15 months. Our troops have already accomplished
so much: deposed Saddam Hussein, toppled the Taliban, responded to the
threats posed by vicious terrorists around the world. They have done
everything we have asked of them. I was, therefore, disappointed when I
came across a newspaper article this weekend noting that the
administration opposes a modest pay raise for American soldiers.
The House Defense authorization bill includes a one-half of 1 percent
increase in military pay above the President's request. For the average
new enlistee, this will amount to roughly $75 per year in extra pay--
clearly, not enough to cover additional costs: school clothes for kids,
a family trip to the ballpark, a few tanks of gas at the prices we are
stuck paying.
The increase is aimed at reducing the gap in pay between comparable
military and civilian jobs that stands at about 4 percent today. Even
after the proposed increase, that gap will remain at least 1.4 percent,
clearly not keeping up with civilian pay increases.
Of the billions of dollars we spend on the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, it would seem absurd to oppose this small pay bump, but that is
exactly what the administration is doing. In a May 17, 2007, letter to
the House Armed Services Committee, the President's budget director
announced the pay increase included in the House bill is
``unnecessary.'' I believe it is necessary. I believe it is necessary
to do anything we can to provide for the welfare of our fighting men
and women. Salaries for newly minted enlistees start at about $15,600
per year. To put this in perspective, new enlistees with three or more
dependents are eligible for food stamps.
Among the sacrifices we ask of our men and women in harm's way, going
hungry should not be one of them. In addition, the administration
opposes a $40 per month increase in allowances for the widows of slain
soldiers. Again, this is a modest bump in benefits and pales in
comparison to the sacrifice these families have made. Forty dollars a
month extra won't make it any easier to face another day without a
loved one who is lost, but it could help pay the rent, keep the heat
on, and relieve a bit of stress for families facing a new world without
their spouse. That is why I am urging the administration to reconsider
their opposition to a pay increase and additional survivor benefit.
Supporting our troops is something we all agree on, Republicans and
Democrats alike.
I ask the President to reconsider his opposition to increased pay for
our soldiers and aid for this war's widows. We may not all agree on
what we should do in Iraq going forward, but I believe we can and
should reach a simple accommodation on troop pay.
Mr. President, I see my friend getting prepared. I ask for 1 or 2
minutes' indulgence.

children's health

Mr. President, in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, the book
of Ben Sirah counsels: ``Observe the opportunity.''
This year, the Senate has the opportunity to improve the health of
millions of American children, for the next decade.
The Senate has the opportunity to renew and improve the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.
Let us seize the opportunity.
There is no greater health care priority for me this year.
In a few short weeks, the Finance Committee will consider legislation
to reauthorize and strengthen this successful 10-year-old program.
Many of us were present in this Chamber when we created CHIP in 1997.
Since then, this program has proven to be a true success.
Since its inception, CHIP has brought health insurance to more than
40 million low-income children.
It has saved the lives of many children, and it has improved the
availability and quality of care for many more.
In my home State of Montana, Fawn Tuhy has some pretty active kids.
Montana is a State full of active kids, and active kids get hurt.
Fawn's 2-year-old needed stitches after hitting her head. Fawn's 6-
year-old broke his arm twice.
Fawn's medical bills could have sunk their family of six. But she
credits CHIP with keeping her kids healthy, and her family afloat.
CHIP has made that kind of difference for millions of Americans, in
the last 10 years.
Among families with incomes less than about $34,000 a year--that is
twice the poverty level--the share of uninsured children has dropped by
a quarter.
CHIP has held the number of uninsured children down, even as the
number of uninsured adult Americans has increased.
But Congress cannot rest on its laurels. We have to continue CHIP. We
have to build on its success, and we have to do it before CHIP's
funding expires, on September 30.
The Finance Committee is poised to act, with a markup early next
month.
In this reauthorization, we will pursue five principles:
First, we must provide adequate funds to keep coverage for those who
have it now.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office reported that CHIP needs
an additional $13.4 billion, just to maintain current coverage.
Maintaining level funding is just not good enough. If funding stays
flat, then 4 million American children could lose health coverage, over
the next 10 years.
Second, we must also reach the 6 million uninsured children who are
eligible for either CHIP or Medicaid coverage but not enrolled.
CBO says that the best opportunity to further reduce the number of
uninsured children is to target CHIP enrollment toward more families
whose incomes are below twice the poverty level.
Third, we must support State efforts to expand CHIP coverage to more
kids. States have found innovative ways to reach as many uninsured kids
as possible. States have acted according to their unique abilities and
needs.
Fourth, we must improve the quality of health care that children
receive.
We are making great strides to improve the quality of health care for
adults through Medicare. Yet there is no comparable investment in
quality

[[Page S6431]]

standards for children. We can and must do more.
Fifth, whatever we do, we must not add to the numbers of the
uninsured.
Right now, Federal waivers let some States provide CHIP coverage to
pregnant women, to parents of eligible children, and even to some
adults without children.
Congress may not want CHIP to cover all those groups in the future,
but we must not pull the rug out from under anyone who has health
coverage today.
Too many CHIP recipients are already in imminent danger. Right now,
14 State programs are facing shortfalls for this year--even before
CHIP's 10-year authorization expires.
I worked hard to include funds to cover funding shortfalls in the
supplemental appropriations bill.
But even if we fix this year's shortfalls, many more States will face
funding gaps in the coming years. We need to ensure greater
predictability and stability of CHIP funding.
Ten years ago, we simply did not know how much funding CHIP would
take. We know much more now, and we should make the appropriate
financial commitment to keep kids healthy. We must take a forward-
thinking approach.
We must consider the likelihood of continuing increases in health
care costs, and we must consider likely population changes.
We must consider that a child born today may have a shorter life
expectancy than his or her parents. But that is what we face, due to
the threats of obesity and related illnesses. So reauthorization must
strengthen prevention and early screening benefits.
As we tackle CHIP, we should keep in mind the deep need for broader
health reform. There are still too many families whose health stories
don't have happy endings. CHIP cannot help them all. But it should help
more.
One morning last year, Kearstin Jacobson woke up in Whitefish, MT,
with a severe headache. Tests showed that the high school senior had a
clot, preventing the blood flow from her brain.
Kearstin got wonderful care. But it cost almost a quarter of a
million dollars, and her family did not have health insurance.
So even as the hospital staff wheeled Kearstin out of the emergency
room, this young lady with a life-threatening condition was worried
about money.
She was telling her parents how concerned she was about the financial
burdens that her care would cause.
Kearstin feared that her parents would be paying for her care for
many years to come, and they are.
This year, Congress has a historic opportunity to help families like
Kearstin's.
We have an opportunity to make a good health policy for children even
better.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support CHIP.
I extend my hand to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's
work together.
CHIP is not a Democratic priority or a Republican priority. It is an
American priority.
America's kids are depending on us to do this right. We must not
disappoint them.
Let us observe the opportunity to improve the health of millions of
American children. Let us observe the opportunity to give peace of mind
and financial security to millions of families. And let us renew and
improve the Children's Health Insurance Program.
I thank the Senator from Alabama and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was sharing with my colleagues before
the leadership break a number of issues about the immigration bill.
Perhaps it will cause some to think unless it is improved, it should
not be passed. Some will be encouraged, hopefully, to support
amendments that could make it better. To some, I am sure it will make
no difference. They intend to vote for it, maybe, or against it, as it
is today. But I am glad we will now have all week. The Democratic
leader has changed his previously stated view that we would vote this
week. We brought the bill up only last night. If it was written in
formal bill language, it would be one of the longest pieces of
legislation ever considered in the Senate, maybe the longest piece of
legislation since I have been here, other than perhaps an omnibus bill,
but not a legislative bill.
We need to be thinking about the basic principles that are important
to immigration reform. That is what I wish to continue discussing. The
Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said:

One thing's for sure, if this bill gives them any
preferential treatment towards citizenship over people who
came into the country in the proper way, that's a nonstarter.

I have made a number of points about some of the things that actually
are in the bill that provide for a person who came into our country
preferential treatment toward the process of being a citizen that are
not given to somebody dutifully waiting outside the country to be
called up when their time comes. I want to point that out in a number
of ways.
For example, only illegal persons would be eligible for these Z
visas, visas that would allow them to live and work here forever, as
long as they are renewed every 4 years. That visa would not be
available to anyone currently living in the United States who came here
to work legally or someone who did not overstay their visa but went
home when they were supposed to. So if you came here for a work visa
and your work visa is 1 year, and you are complying with the law, and
you don't want to go home at the end of your year, you still have to go
home. But if a person broke into the country illegally and they don't
want to go home, they are given the Z visa, they get to stay, and they
get to apply for a green card that leads to citizenship. Even if they
entered the country last December 31, getting past our National Guard,
the new fences and the Border Patrol, and got into the country as late
as last December, a single person with no skills, that person is
eligible for the Z visa and could be here forever.
A Z visa plan is a better plan than the plan we had last year, I have
to say, but it still has some real problems with it. Namely, it still
leads to citizenship.
My colleagues say: Well, nothing is perfect. Yes, there are things in
it I don't like, but we have to do something.
Well, why don't we fix things such as that? If it is not right, why
should it be in the bill? We don't have to let the Z visa be a pathway
to citizenship, it could just be renewable forever.
Well, they say, we can't touch anything that affects the core of the
bill. All of us--the senators in the secret room--have agreed.
Who agreed? This group that met for several months with one another
and outside groups, and they wrote up this bill and plopped it down on
the floor last night. Until last night, we were still on last year's
fatally flawed bill that should never, ever have become law. Although
it passed this Senate, it never had a dog's chance of passing in the
House. That is where we are, and I am concerned about that.
A third example of preferential treatment is Z visa holders get legal
status 24 hours after they apply, even if their background checks
aren't complete. The bill says ``No probationary benefits shall be
issued to an alien until the alien has passed all appropriate
background checks or the end of the next business day, whichever is
sooner.'' Nobody else gets immigration status benefits if their
background check is not complete. Fourth, visa holders are exempted
from a long list of inadmissibility grounds, including fraud or
misrepresentation to obtain an immigration benefit and false claims for
U.S. citizenship, and their prior deportation or removal orders can be
waived, even if they never left, if they can show extreme hardship to
their illegal alien family members.
An illegal alien who applies to be a Z visa holder is exempted. That
includes anyone that got here before January 1 of this year. They can
walk in and they get a Z visa. They don't have to pass a background
check to get the visa immediately--at the end of the next business day.
Presumably, they will check pretty quickly. But what if we had hundreds
and thousands of people showing up with convictions for crimes and that
kind of thing that makes them ineligible, how are we going to find
them? They will have the probationary z visa.
If they have participated in a scheme to obtain immigration benefits
or have

[[Page S6432]]

falsely claimed with official documents to the U.S. Government that
they are a citizen, this is a crime under Title 18, section 911, that
does not bar them either. What would happen if an American citizen made
a false claim to the Government? Title 18, section 1001, false claims
to the Government is a Federal felony that can put you in jail for 2
years, 5 years. But if you made a false claim to be a citizen or some
other benefit under immigration law and you are one of the people who
came here illegally and not through a system, you get immunity from
those cases, whereas a citizen does not. We have to be careful about
what we do in legislation such as this. This is why amnesty deals are
important. We should not be put in the position of ever having to do
this. We said we would not do it again. After 1986, we said we were not
going to ever do another amnesty again because it was so painful. It
worked so poorly. All it did was encourage additional immigration, as
those who opposed it in 1986 predicted.
It is very interesting. I looked back at the debates. You could see
who was right and who was wrong. The people said: This is going to be a
one-time thing. Don't worry about it. This will end the backlog and
bring people out of the shadows, and we don't have to enforce the law
on these people. Let them stay, and we will give them for one time
amnesty. We won't do it again.
Others said: Wait a minute. This is a principle of importance. How
can we say in the future we won't give amnesty if people come
illegally, when we did this time? Doesn't this put us on the road to
repeat amnesty in the future? Aren't we afraid it won't work?
What happened? After the 1986 bill, 3 million people claimed the
benefits of amnesty. Twenty years later, we now have maybe 12 to 20
million that will be claiming amnesty. There are consequences to making
these kinds of choices. That is a preference given to people who have
come illegally over someone waiting outside the country to come
legally.
Fifth, a Z visa holder will be able to get a green card through their
own separate point system and without being subject to the regular
annual numerical limits. This is a huge benefit to them. In other
words, they will not have to compete with other persons around the
world on a merit basis, as we are supposed to be moving to, but, in
fact, they will have an inside track. They will not be in a line that
has the standard numerical limit, instead they will have their own
like, so that at most they will have to wait only 5 years for a green
card after they are eligible for one.
That makes clear to me--I think it is clear to anyone--the way the
bill is now written there is a preference given in quite a number of
areas on the question of citizenship, as well as other questions,
frankly, that they get benefits over persons who came here waiting to
come legally or came locally.
In fact, another thing they have left out of the bill--and it was in
last year's bill--they do not have to pay back taxes. So the illegal
alien community that has been working here for half a dozen years--and
we hear there are so many of them, and many of them have decent-paying
jobs. I think that is true, quite a number do have decent-paying jobs
and are supposed to be paying taxes. If they did not pay their taxes,
they don't have to pay them as a condition for getting z visa amnesty.
American citizens have not been exempted from paying their taxes for
those same years. That is just true.
You may say: Well, you are just harping and complaining, Sessions.
Well, I pay my taxes. Most Americans pay their taxes. If somebody has
come here illegally and makes $50,000, $80,000 a year--some do--and
they did not pay taxes, we are just going to wipe that tax debt out? I
do not think so. It is not a principle, to me, that I could adhere to,
instead it is one I would dispute.
So what about the chain migration question? Are we eliminating that?
And what should we do?
Let me say it this way--and this is accurate, and there are other
ways to look at it--it is accurate to say that instead of eliminating
chain migration, which was one of the principles in the talking points
that circulated around as this new bill was drafted, the bill actually
escalates chain migration two to three times over the next 8 years.
That is an indisputable fact.
Not only are the current chain migration numbers maintained--the
140,000 that was eliminated is now used to adjust backlogged chain
migration applications.
They did eliminate chain migration. No new applications will be
accepted. Let's go back and be fair about the bill. The bill eliminates
chain migration in the future. That is an important thing. Chain
migration means collateral relatives; it does not mean your wife or
your child. They would get to come with you. If you are a citizen or a
permanent resident, your wife and children get to come with you. It is
the question of the brothers and sisters, adult children that perhaps
are married and have their own families, or aging parents that are part
of chain migration.
If a person comes, then you can bring your brother and sister. If
your brother is married, the wife comes with your brother. If they have
three children, those come. If she moves forward to a green card or
citizenship, she can also bring in her relatives. Then the wife can
bring in her brothers and sisters. So that is how this system works. It
is unrelated to skills and the productivity of the person intending to
come. It is unrelated, therefore, to the national interests of the
United States. It is unconnected to them. It is their interest they are
concerned about and not the national interest, which is to make sure
the persons who come are honest, hard-working, decent people with
skills and capabilities to be successful in America.
So how did all this work out in reality? Not only are the current
chain migration numbers maintained--the 140,000 was eliminated, so to
speak, but it will be applied during the 8-year period after the bill
to provide more green cards, increase the numbers of green cards for
family migration, most of which are for chain migration persons who are
waiting to get green cards as a result of their applications over a
period of time. So if a brother applies to come to the United States
with a wife and child, because they have a brother here who is a
citizen, they apply and they are put on a list. This is non-skill-based
immigration. It is purely based on kinship. Those numbers have been set
aside to allow the people who are backlogged to clear, and it is going
to take 8 years, they estimate 8 years. As we look at the numbers, it
looks as if it could well be longer than that. It looks as if the
backlog will not be eliminated in 8 years but could be much more.
So what we will do then I am not able to say because we have not had
a chance to read the bill sufficiently from last night. So I just would
say we are concerned about that aspect of it. So the first 8 years we
can expect, as we calculate it this way--hold your hat--in the first 8
years, there would be family-based green cards--not skill based--lots
of them chain migration-based green cards--issued in numbers over
920,000 each year. That is almost a million each year who would come in
under that program, unrelated to skill-based immigration that the bill
purports to establish.
I will admit, after that 8 years, if the bill is unchanged--and who
knows what would happen in that period--there would be a bigger shift
to merit-based immigration and well over a million people will enter
the country legally--probably closer to 2 million per year under this
plan--whereas the current number of legal immigrants each year into
America is about 1 million. So it is going to increase quite a bit the
number of people entering the country with green cards, but it is not
going to shift us to a merit-based system until at least 8 years go by.
That is a serious defect, in my mind.
They say: Well, it is implemented for those who qualify. That is
right. Out of a million, a million and a half, 2 million--closer to a
million and a half to 2 million--who will be coming legally in the next
8 years, only 150,000 of those will enter based on the Canadian point
system, merit-based system. That is not much. It is a disappointment to
me that the hopes that were held out for a system like Canada's point-
based system were not realized. I am disappointed in that.
I will read an example prepared by the Senate Republican Policy
committee, which did a nice study on merit-based permanent immigration.
It is a look at Canada's point system.

[[Page S6433]]

Remember now, there are a number of categories of issues we will deal
with. One is a temporary worker program. We are going to have two votes
on that, I understand, this afternoon. I intend to support Senator
Bingaman's amendment, although I have not seen it. But based on what I
know about it, it would reduce the number of people who would come in
under the temporary worker program from 400,000 to 200,000.
Now, this is all, in my view--I do not want to be too cynical--a
little bit of a put-up job. I talked to administration officials
earlier in the year, and I asked: Well, how many would be expected to
enter under the temporary worker program? They said: Well, about
200,000.
So the bill comes out, and it is 400,000 per year, and you stay for 2
years. There is an escalator clause in it that could take the cap to
600,000. So under the bill that was plopped in last night, you would
have 400,000 the first year--and it could be fifteen percent more than
that with the escalator clause--plus 400,000-plus the second year. Now,
at that point, in the second year of the new program, you have about
900,000 temporary workers here competing for jobs in our economy--at
one time, almost a million. That is a big number. That is bigger than I
think anybody ever intended.
So we are going to have an amendment this afternoon, and it is going
to allow the Senators to impact the agreement, and they are going to
bring those numbers down, and we are all going to pat ourselves on the
back, I guess, and go back to our working people in our communities and
union people and say: See, we knocked that business bill down to a
rational number that is much better. Now we may be able to vote for the
bill. But I have to tell you, that was the number I was told some
months ago was the appropriate number by an official in the Bush
administration who certainly is not timid about asking for temporary
workers in America.
So I am inclined to support the Bingaman amendment. I do, however,
have concerns about the Dorgan amendment because it strikes me that a
good temporary worker program is good for America; it just needs to
work, it just needs to be effective. I can tell you one good example. A
portion of my State and a large portion of Louisiana and Mississippi
were devastated by Hurricane Katrina. There is tremendous construction
work there. A lot of people moved out of the neighborhoods and no
longer live or even work there. So immigrant labor in numbers larger
than you would normally expect to be needed were needed and were
helpful and remain helpful. So a good system of temporary workers would
consider those kinds of things because those workers in New Orleans,
right now, are not likely to be putting Americans out of work or even
pulling their wages down any noticeable degree.
I think a temporary worker program is good. I am not inclined to vote
for the Dorgan amendment, as I understand it at this moment. But we do
need to work to examine the temporary worker program that is in this
bill because it still has defects.
Now, let's take an example of a would-be seeker of permanent
residence as they apply to Canada according to the RPC paper. This is a
made-up example of how the system works.
Stella, an individual from Cyprus, desires to reside permanently in
Canada. She has a master's degree in computer science. For that, she
would get 25 points. She has a job offer from Nortel. That would give
her 10 points. She has 3 years of paid work experience in her home
country. Canada gives her 19 points for that. She is 23 years old, and
because she is younger and Canada prefers younger people--
unfortunately, for some of us, she is younger--she gets extra points
for being younger, an extra 10 points. She has a moderate to good
proficiency in English. She gets 10 points for that. So she has a total
of 74 points. She has met the minimum of points required to apply for
permanent residency in Canada. But she previously studied in Canada,
and that gives her another 7 points. And the fact that her sister
resides in Toronto gives her another 5 points--for a total of 86
points. She can apply to be a permanent resident at the Canadian
Embassy in Cyprus and would be eligible promptly--immediately. So that
is the way the system works in Canada. It is something that I think
without doubt should be a part of our immigration reform.

So we are a nation of immigrants. We are at a point in our history in
which the influx of immigrants into America is as high as it has ever
been. Once, I believe, in our country's history we peaked at this high
of an immigration rate, but along came the Depression and World War II
and we almost stopped immigration entirely. We went to very low
immigration rates. Then we have gone back into a new cycle of very
strong immigration.
It looks as if there is not any likelihood that this Nation will stop
this current rate and go back to zero. Most of us believe immigration,
properly handled, is good for America, but we do have to consider the
actual numbers. The numbers cannot be too great, or it takes jobs from
Americans and can, in fact, create cultural problems that wouldn't
occur if it was a little slower. So we have a situation where we would
like to see immigration continue.
Now, if we are going to maintain a very high level of immigration at
historic highs for America, it only makes good sense and common sense,
it seems to me, that we would look around the world and we would give
points like Canada does to the persons who are most likely to be happy
and prosperous in our country, who are most likely to not go on
welfare, most likely to have good jobs and pay taxes, who will help us
balance the budget rather than causing a drain on the budget, and in
fact attract people who really desire to be an American and who want to
be a part of our society and deeply desire to make a permanent move,
and who want to create a new allegiance from their prior country to
their new home in the United States. That was the ideal of American
immigration, and I certainly think that remains our ideal today. We
ought to keep that in mind as we go forward.
Doing the right thing, creating the right number in the right
categories with the right skill sets, while at the same time having a
legal system that really works, is within our grasp.
Forgive me if I am disappointed that the framework which I thought
had so much great potential has not been fleshed out with statutory
language that meets the ideals of that framework. My concern is it is
so far from the ideals of that framework that it is not a good choice
for us at this moment. There will be time for us to fix it on the
Senate floor. There will be time for us to pass amendments that could
make it better, but it is troubling to me at this point.
I hope our colleagues who are involved in actually writing this bill
will not be so hard-headed about their commitment to sticking together
on the core principles that they all agreed to and pull out all the
stops to make sure they have the votes to not allow any significant
amendments. We do need some significant amendments to make this bill
appropriate.
Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I think there is a previous unanimous
consent agreement by which I will be recognized for the purposes of
offering an amendment. The Senator from Georgia has asked if he could
be recognized in morning business for 10 minutes. I have no objection
to that, providing that I be recognized following the presentation by
the Senator from Georgia so that I might offer my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota for his graciousness in allowing me 10 minutes.
Two years and five months ago, I made my first speech as a United
States Senator on the floor. It was a speech about the issue of
immigration, both legal and illegal. A year ago today I made another
speech about immigration on the day I offered an amendment

[[Page S6434]]

that has become known as the trigger amendment on immigration.
I rise for the third time in 2 years and 5 months to talk about the
most significant issue facing the United States of America as far as
domestic policy is concerned.
Our borders to the south have been leaking far too long and in too
great of numbers. We have had an immigration policy that for the better
part of 21 years has been to look the other way as people flowed across
our southern border to calibrate on a low basis legal immigration to
say we are doing something about it, while millions come into this
country. It has to come to an end. It is the reason the controversy is
so great over this issue today.
I, first of all, want to thank the Members who have worked with me
over the last 6 weeks on the concept of putting a trigger in the
underlying bill, to be the trigger upon which immigration reform either
takes place or doesn't. There is so much misinformation out there right
now about this issue, so I want to spend the remainder of my time
talking about what trigger must be pulled in order for immigration to
be reformed.
The underlying bill we are debating today says the following: No
program granting status to anyone who enters the United States of
America illegally may be granted until the Secretary of Homeland
Security has certified that all the border security measures in section
1 are completed, funded, and in operation. There is no wiggle room.
There is no Presidential waiver. There is no possibility of the
Secretary saying: Well, maybe we are OK. This is absolute.

Let me tell my colleagues what those five are. No. 1 is 370 new miles
of walls. Many of us got this in the mail last year. When Congress
attempted to debate a flawed immigration bill that called for no border
security, they mailed bricks because they wanted barriers. This bill
calls for 370 miles. It calls for 200 miles of obstacles on those areas
where vehicles might come across the border. That 200, plus the 370
miles of walls, is 570 miles.
It calls for four unmanned aerial vehicles, eyes in the sky, 24/7,
each with a 150-mile radius. That 600 miles, added to the 570 miles, is
1,170 miles. Then it calls for 70 ground-positioning radar systems with
a radius of 12 miles, or 1,680 miles of seamless security. That 1,680
on top of the 1,170 is almost 2,800 miles of seamless security. There
are not 2,800 miles on the border. We have redundancy all along the
border.
The next trigger is 27,500 detention beds on the border so when
somebody is intercepted, they are held until their court date comes up.
No more catch and release. Then, importantly as well, 18,000 Border
Patrol agents have to be trained and in place and functioning. We have
14,500 right now. That is another 3,500. Those agents, by the way, are
trained ostensibly in Georgia at FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center. They are trained on border security, on intervention,
and on capture. Then, it requires the seamless border security. It
requires the ID that is biometric and is secure. It ends the largest
growth industry on the southern border, and that is the forged document
industry.
When those five triggers are in place and when the Secretary of
Homeland Security has certified them, then and only then is the
immigration reform in place because we have stopped the bleeding.
There are a lot of people talking about this issue of immigration
from a lot of different standpoints, but I know one thing: When you go
to the doctor, you don't want him to treat the symptom. You want him to
treat the cause. If you are cut, you want him to sew up the cut, not
just put a Band-Aid on it. If you hurt and you hurt badly, you want him
to x-ray and find out whatever that source is.
We know what the source is in America. The source is we have a 2,000-
mile land contiguous border with a country that is less developed than
ours and has less opportunity, and the United States of America is a
magnet without obstacle for them to get in. We have to stop the source
of the problem or we will never be able to reform it for the future.
I come to this debate as a second-generation American. My grandfather
came here in 1903 from Sweden. In 1926, he became a naturalized
citizen. It took him 23 years to follow what is the only right pathway
to citizenship, and that is legal immigration.
I stand before my colleagues today to say the American people want
border security. I want border security. If it is the trigger for
immigration reform, it ensures that we will never have to repeat the
mistakes of 1986 and that America once again will restore confidence in
its borders, confidence in its immigration policy, and legitimacy with
its people.
I am where I began. There is no wiggle room in this trigger. There is
no waiver. There is no looking the other way. If we in Congress don't
fund the money, it doesn't work. If the President doesn't do what he is
supposed to do, it doesn't work. If the Secretary of Homeland Security
doesn't do what he is supposed to do, it does not work.
The American people, for the first time, have an ironclad guarantee
that our biggest problem, and that is an insecure border in the south,
will be fixed and fixed forever.
I again thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for giving
me the chance to make this presentation.
Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 1153 to Amendment No. 1150

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am going to offer an amendment. I
believe by a previous unanimous consent agreement, I will be recognized
for offering an amendment. I don't know whether my amendment is at the
desk.
I believe my amendment is at the desk, and I will offer that
amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer, who is a cosponsor of
that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
and Senator Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1153 to
amendment No. 1150.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1153

(Purpose: To strike the Y nonimmigrant guestworker program)

Strike subtitle A of title IV.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we will hear ample discussion today--and
we heard it yesterday and we will hear it the rest of this week and
perhaps another week going into the month of June--about this issue of
immigration. It is not an insignificant issue; it is a very significant
issue with great policy implications for our country. We will hear that
it is a moral imperative that we deal with the issue of immigration.
We have a lot of moral imperatives in this country, and particularly
in this Chamber of the Senate. I don't disagree that the issue of
immigration is one of them. There are people living among us in this
country who have been here 10, 20, 25 years who came across the border
decades ago. They found work here, raised a family here. They were
model citizens. I understand that we are not going to round up people
who have been here for 2\1/2\ decades and deport them to say: You have
come illegally and therefore you are not entitled to stay. That is a
different sensitivity, however, than what is in the underlying bill
that says: By the way, if you came here by December 31 of last year, we
will deem you to be here legally.
I think there are serious problems with that approach. What about
someone overseas who has been waiting to come to this country and they
know that we have a legal method of coming to this country. There are
quotas for each country, and we allow people to sign up and make
application and then over a period of time their name comes to the top
of the list and they are able to come to this country under their
immigration quota. Some, perhaps, have waited 5 years, some 10 years
and are now near the top of the list.
What they discover today is they would not have had to wait 5 or 10
years for a legal mechanism by which to come into this country. They
could have come across the border at the end of last December, and by
this legislation would have been deemed to be legal, would have been
deemed to have been here legally.

[[Page S6435]]

I understand this country is a magnet for people from across the
globe who would like to come to this country. I was flying via
helicopter one day some time ago between Honduras, Nicaragua, and El
Salvador. Regrettably, the helicopter I was flying in on ran out of
gas. I learned one of the beautiful laws of the air that afternoon.
That is, when you are in a flying machine and it runs out of fuel, you
will be landing very quickly.
We landed, and we were safe, but, nonetheless, in the mountains and
jungles, somewhere--we were not sure where--in an Army helicopter. We
were there 4 or 5 hours before other helicopters found us and pulled us
out. While there, the campesinos came walking to see who had come down
in these helicopters. So I had a chance with some hours to talk to the
campesinos, the poor people from around the area.
I recall visiting with one woman, a young woman in her early
twenties. She told me she had only three children. She seemed
disappointed by that fact. It was explained to me later that because
they have no social security system in her country, you have as many
children as you can in your childbearing years, hoping that enough of
them will survive, and if you are lucky enough to grow old, you will
have enough children to provide for your support. That was a form of
family social security. Only three children, she said.
I said: What do you aspire for yourself and your children?
Oh, that is easy, she said through an interpreter. To come to
America, to come to the United States of America.
I asked why.
She said: The United States of America, that is a country with
opportunity and hope for me and my children. Standing there in the
clearing near the helicopters, this young woman was telling me what
people would tell you in many parts of the world. They would aspire to
come to the United States because this is the land of opportunity.
Ask yourself what would happen were this country to have no
immigration quotas, no immigration restrictions, no border security of
any type, and instead a public policy that said the following: To those
of you who live on this planet, let us say we welcome you. Come to
America. See the United States. Stay here. Live here. Work here. We
welcome you. We welcome any number.
I ask the question: How many people would migrate to the United
States and from where? Before you answer, let me explain that this
wonderful planet we live on circles the Sun, and on this planet there
are, I believe, close to 6.5 billion neighbors, many of them living in
very difficult conditions. Half of them have never made a telephone
call, one-half of them live on less than $2 a day, and 1.5 billion do
not have access to clean, potable water on a daily basis. It is a
challenging planet on which we live.
So if the United States of America, this great beacon of hope and
opportunity, said to the rest of the world: Times have changed, we no
longer have any immigration laws, come here, join us, live here, be a
part of the American experience, we would, I venture to say, have tens
and tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of people journeying to this
great country. Why? Because many live in abject poverty. Many, if they
can find work, are working for 10 cents or 20 cents an hour in unsafe
plants, in unsafe working conditions, in circumstances where they would
be put in prison if they decided to organize the workplace. That is a
fact of life in many parts of the world. We would be overrun by those
who wish to come to this country.
As a result, what we have done is understand that immigration is good
for our country. It refreshes and nurtures a country such as ours. So
we have a process by which legal immigration occurs, with quota systems
from various countries around the world, and immigrants come to live in
this country.
I venture to say that almost every Member of the Senate found their
way to this country or found their way at least to this Senate by
looking back in the rearview mirror and seeing some unbelievable
ancestors--mine were the same--people who came to this country with
nothing.
One of my ancestors was a woman named Caroline. She came to this
country with her husband. Her husband died of a heart attack, and with
six children--think of this, six children and virtually no assets at
all--she got on a train and went to the southwest corner of North
Dakota and pitched a tent on the prairie to homestead. She, from that
tent, built a house, raised a family, and operated a family farm. Think
of the strength and courage of that Norwegian woman who decided: I am
going to do this.
All of us have that story in our backgrounds. So we understand the
value of immigration, the value of immigrants, and we provide for it in
a quota system by which we accept people from around the world.
Last year, nearly 1.5 million people came into this country through
that system. In addition, there were other people who came in as
agricultural workers. In addition to that, there were people who came
in illegally. So here we are on the floor of the Senate saying: Now we
have about 12 million people who have decided to come to this country,
no, not through the process by which we accept immigration on a legal
basis but come to this country in other ways--get a visitor's visa,
come in, get dropped off by an airplane, never go home, stay here
illegally, or they come across the border, walk across the border
without a visitor's visa and decide they are going to stay here without
legal authorization. So we have, some say, 12 million people who are in
that status.

The underlying bill says: Let's decide, as a matter of course, we say
to all who came into this country or those who came to this country up
until and through December 31 of last year: OK, you are no longer an
illegal immigrant. You entered without legal authorization, but as of
this day forward, when this legislation passes, you have legal
authorization to stay. We will give you an opportunity to work and an
opportunity to gain citizenship.
In addition to that, which is the ingredient of a compromise that was
created in the last week, this legislation says we wish to add
something called guest workers or temporary workers. I will talk at
some length about those temporary workers. The issue of temporary
workers is an important one because we live in a time in this country
where there is downward pressure on income for American families.
This morning, Tuesday, a whole lot of people, millions of people got
up this morning to put on clothes and go to work. When they got to
work, they discovered, as they do every day these days, that there is
no opportunity for upward mobility at their job. In fact, every day
their employers are trying to find ways to push down wages, eliminate
retirement, and eliminate health care.
What has happened in this country, with what is called the ``new
global economy,'' is dramatic downward pressure on income for American
workers.
I couldn't help but notice a story recently--I mentioned this on the
floor of the Senate a while back--that Circuit City, a corporation most
people know about, decided they were going to fire 3,400 of their
workers. Those folks got up in the morning, went to work that morning,
probably kissed their spouse goodbye and said: Honey, I will see you
this evening. I love my job. I do a good job. I have been there 8
years. I know my business. But they found out when they got there that
the corporation that has a chief executive officer who makes $10
million a year decided they are going to eliminate 3,400 of these
people. We are going to fire them. Why? Because they make $11 an hour,
and we want to rehire people at a lower wage. So 3,400 people came home
that night and said to their families: I lost my job. No, it wasn't
because I did something wrong, it wasn't because I was a bad worker, it
wasn't because of performance. My company told me that $11 an hour was
too much money, and they want to replace me with someone with less
experience and someone to whom they can pay a lower wage.
There is dramatic downward pressure on income all across this country
for American workers, and that is especially true for workers at the
bottom of the economic ladder.
I don't need to go through all the data, but it is unbelievable when
you take a look at what is happening in this country. Those at the very
top are getting wealthier, much wealthier, and those at the very bottom
are being squeezed with substantially less income.

[[Page S6436]]

Incidentally, the bill that has been offered--this document--has been
put on all our desks a few minutes ago, or in the last hour or so. This
is the immigration bill. I think I can speak with certainty that no
Member of the Senate has read this. It just became available. So I
assume everyone will have their evening reading going through a bill
that size and a bill of such importance.
Earlier, I stated that if we had no immigration quotas and no
restrictions, we would have massive numbers of people who live and work
in poverty, who in many cases can't find a job at all in other parts of
the world, who are experiencing famine and war, pestilence and disease,
who would want to find their way to this country.
It is interesting. You can now go to your computer and Google
``Earth.'' If you haven't done that, I encourage people to do that.
Google ``Earth,'' and you can, from the air, come down and find out
what is happening on Earth--any spot on the Earth. So if you Google
``Earth'' and try to evaluate what is happening on this planet, the
United States doesn't look so much different than anyplace else. It is
just a piece of property on this planet of ours. But it is a very
different piece of property, a very unusual piece of property. It was
born and nurtured by those who wrote a Constitution starting with the
words ``We the people'' that has created the most affluent country on
Earth, with a dramatic expansion of the middle class and opportunity
that is universal opportunity--universal education, saying that every
child can become whatever their God-given talents allow them to become
in this country of ours.
What a great place we have created. But given what is happening on
this planet, we have had to at least provide some order and some
limitation with respect to immigration into this country because so
many would want to come. So we have a legal system of import quotas.
That is a system that many have used. They have waited for years to be
at the top of the list to come to this country. But it is a system that
many have ignored, instead deciding they wanted to get a visiting visa,
jump on an airplane, and when it lands, disappear into the populace,
never to be seen again, and stay here illegally, or others have come
across on foot, across the Rio Grande or from other areas, deciding to
remain here without legal authorization.
Border security has become very important. It was something discussed
at great length in the year 1986, when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was
passed by the Congress. That was a period of time when we had an
immigration crisis. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill was designed to address
the immigration crisis. It was going to shut down employment
opportunities for illegal immigrants by providing employer sanctions.
It was going to provide for border security, employer sanctions, and it
was going to shut down this system and, therefore, we were going to
solve the immigration problem. Even as that bill was passed, it
provided for amnesty for 3 million people at that point who had come
here illegally.
Well, we know that since 1986 that didn't work. All the promises that
were offered then have been promises that were not kept. So we find
ourselves, from 1986 to 2001, with Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and
others associated with al-Qaida deciding to launch an attack on our
country and murder a good number of Americans, thousands of Americans,
on that fateful day of 9/11/2001. All of a sudden, we have another
spurt of interest in border security. Not with respect to specifically
the issue of immigration but border security with respect to keeping
terrorists out of our country. Because if you don't control your
border, if you don't know who is coming in and keep track of them, you
have unbelievable security problems for this country.
So we, at various times, have had these spurts of interest with
respect to border security. Now we come to the year 2007, and the issue
again is a comprehensive immigration bill--but as a portion of it,
border security. Of course, border security ought to be, should be,
some say will be, but certainly must be the first and foremost
important element of any immigration reform. If you can't provide for
border security, let us not spend a lot of time thinking about how we
are going to keep people out if you can't keep them out. Border
security is first and foremost the responsibility of any immigration
reform plan--border security that works.
Yes, it is important for terrorism; it is also important with respect
to this bill dealing with immigration. If border security is important,
and I believe it is the most important issue at this moment, then other
issues--if you have solved the border security issue, and I don't
believe this piece of legislation has--other issues are also important
as well, one of which is the issue I came to talk about, and that is
the issue of the guest worker amendment.
The guest worker amendment in this compromise on immigration provides
that 400,000 people who are not in this country now, who are living
outside of our country, will be able to come in to assume jobs in our
country per year--400,000 a year. The bill says there are 12 million
people who came here illegally who will be given status to stay here
and to work here. That is what the bill says. So it gives us 12 million
people who will have legal status. It says to someone who came across
December 30, 2006: You are going to be deemed to be here legally, or at
least have legal status to stay, and we will give you an opportunity to
work. So we have 12 million in that circumstance.
In addition, there is a provision dealing with guest workers. My
understanding is that provision comes at the request of the Chamber of
Commerce and big business that want an opportunity to continue the flow
of cheap labor. That is not the way they would describe it, that is the
way I am describing it. This is a country in which we are seeing more
and more jobs being outsourced in search of cheap labor overseas,
particularly to China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, and the
same interests that wanted to move American jobs overseas in search of
cheap labor, enjoy the opportunity to bring, through the back door,
cheap labor from other countries.

So we have what is called a guest worker or temporary worker
provision. Here is how it works. I don't know how one can construct
something this Byzantine, but it nonetheless got done. Here is how this
system will work. A so-called guest or temporary worker will be able to
come in, and 400,000 of them will come in the first year. They are able
to stay for 2 years. They are able to bring their family, if they
choose. Then they have to go home for 1 year, take their family home
with them, and then they are able to come back 2 years later. So they
are here 2 years working, then they go home for 1 year; then they can
come back for 2 years, then they have to go home for 1 year; then they
get to come back for 2 years. That is the case with 400,000 a year.
This grid shows you what it looks like and what it adds up to do. If
you talk about the years of employment, you are talking about 18, 19
man-years of employment here with respect to this grid. It is a kind of
Byzantine proposition. We say: Come here and work, bring your family
and stay here 2 years. Then you all go back and stay where you came
from for 1 year. Then everyone is welcome back for 2 more years, but
you have to leave again and stay back 1 year and then come back for 2
more years.
I guess there is a provision that if you bring your family one of the
first 2 years, which is your choice, then you only get to come back
twice for 2 years. I don't know how you concoct something like that. It
makes no sense at all. But aside from the merits of deciding that we
don't have enough workers in this country so we need to import cheap
labor, aside from that, how on Earth would you construct this approach
to importing cheap labor?
I wish to make some comments about this suggestion that we don't have
enough people in this country to assume jobs and, therefore, we must
have a temporary worker or a guest worker program. There are plenty of
big businesses, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that take that
position: We need to bring in people who aren't here now to assume
American jobs. I mentioned earlier we are suggesting that is the case
at a time when a whole lot of people at the bottom of the economic
ladder in this country are trying to keep up and not doing well at all.
This chart shows from 1979 to 2003--and this is from the
Congressional Budget Office--what has happened with

[[Page S6437]]

respect to income for the various income groups. Look at what has
happened to the top 1 percent. A 129-percent increase in income in
nearly a quarter of a century.
Look what has happened to the bottom fifth in a quarter of a century.
In a quarter of a century, these folks who are going to work every day,
the people you don't see very often, they are the people who pass the
coffee to you across the counter or help out at the gas station and do
those kinds of jobs, they get a 4-percent increase in 25 years.
Unbelievable.
In that circumstance, in an economic circumstance where the people at
the top are doing well, where there is substantial inequality of income
with greater income going to the people at the top and much less income
going to the people at the bottom, we are told we need to bring in
additional workers from overseas.
We are told they are to be brought in because, for example, in the
area of food preparation jobs, we just can't find enough American
workers. There are just not enough people, we are told, in food
service.
Let's look at food service jobs: 86 percent of the people working in
food service in this country are legal citizens, U.S. citizens, or
legal immigrants. We are told these are jobs Americans will not take,
so let's bring in some guest workers. Explain this. Explain how it is
that, at least in food preparation, 86 percent of the people working in
those areas are Americans or people here legally.
If you want to bring in people at the bottom of the economic ladder,
low-wage workers, you know what that does to the other 86 percent. It
pushes down. It puts downward pressure on income. We don't have to
debate about that. That debate is over. That is exactly what that does.
We are told we have other industries like that, such as the
construction industry. We can't find enough people in the construction
industry. But 88 percent of the people in the construction industry in
this country are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Once again, we have
people who would love to bring in low-wage workers at the bottom to put
downward pressure on wages. But it is simply not true that we need low-
wage workers to come in, more workers to come in because we cannot find
Americans to do this job.
I understand those who support the temporary worker provisions by and
large want lower incomes. I am talking about the interests outside of
this Chamber. There are plenty of them who want to pay less income.
Transportation jobs--93 percent of the workers in transportation are
U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Is someone going to debate this
issue, that we cannot find Americans to work in these jobs? Clearly,
that is not the case.
I understand there are those who have these jobs who do not want to
pay a decent wage for them. There are a whole lot of companies that do
not want to pay a decent wage. They want to strip the retirement
benefits away, they want to strip health care benefits if they ever
gave them in the first place, and then they want to try to depress the
income to the extent they can. I understand that. But it is not the
right thing.
What is the moral imperative in this country? We have a moral
imperative to stand up for all of the people in this country who get up
in the morning and go to work and do a good job and hope at the end of
the day they get a fair day's pay. Productivity is on the rise in this
country. Productivity increases but workers' incomes do not increase.
Why? Those who hire them do not have to increase those incomes even as
workers become more productive because they have a supply of cheap
labor coming in.
Transportation jobs--you can't find Americans to do them? Not true.
Manufacturing jobs--94 percent of manufacturing jobs are jobs that
are performed by American citizens or legal immigrants.
I have made the point before that there is no one in this Chamber who
has lost their job because of a job being outsourced. But there are so
many Americans who understand this. There is a man named Blinder. He
used to be the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He is a
mainstream economist. With respect to the outsourcing of American jobs
to China and other areas of low wages, he says there are 44 million to
52 million jobs that are able to be outsourced or tradable. He says not
all of them will leave our country. But, he says, even those that stay
will have downward pressure on their income because they will be
competing with 1.5 billion people in the rest of the world, many of
whom work for pennies an hour.
As American workers confront that issue, we are told we can't find
enough workers in manufacturing and we need to bring in temporary
workers who do not now live here. That is not true. Most of the workers
in manufacturing are U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.
If someone wants more workers, I will tell you where you can get
them. Go find the people who used to work for Levis. They don't make
Levis in this country anymore. They got fired. Find the people who used
to work for Fruit of the Loom underwear. They got fired, too. They must
have some opportunity for some manufacturing jobs if you can find them.
Find the people who used to work for Huffy bicycle. Their jobs went to
China. They got fired. Go find the people who worked for Radio Flyer
Little Red Wagon. They got fired. Go find the people who worked for Fig
Newton cookies. They got fired. Their jobs went to Mexico.
I could talk at great length about where you might find American
workers who lost their jobs because they couldn't compete with 20-cent-
an-hour labor in China.
In my State of North Dakota, last week we received some pretty somber
news. The Imation Corporation decided they were shutting down their
plant in Wahpeton, ND, with 390 workers. After I pried it out of them,
I discovered that slightly less than half of those people are going to
lose their jobs because the product of their work is going to go to
Juarez, Mexico, where you can pay 1/10 the wage. That is what is facing
the American worker, that downward pressure on income.
Now we are told in this bill, let's ignore that. What we need is to
bring in some more temporary workers to assume jobs Americans will not
take. Again, how about paying a decent wage in this country? How about
paying a decent wage? You will find plenty of people to take these
jobs.
There is a study by Professor George Borjas at the John F. Kennedy
School of Government, and he talks about the impact of immigration from
1980 to 2000, 20 years, on U.S. wages by ethnicity of workers. Over the
last 20 years, as a result of immigration--that is low-wage workers
coming into this country and putting downward pressure on wages--the
average wage is down 3.7 percent; for the average Asian, 3.1; average
White, 3.5; average Black, 4.5; Hispanic, minus 5 percent in wages. The
fact is, it doesn't require a huge study to understand the consequences
of that. We all understand that would be the result of bringing in a
low-wage workforce. That is not unusual at all.
Let me be clear. None of the discussions we are having now have
anything to do with agricultural workers. In addition to the temporary
worker program, there is a separate program dealing with agricultural
workers. So you have three things: You have legal immigration through
import quotas and so on; then you have agricultural workers, well over
1 million of them, I believe 1.5 million in legal immigration; and then
you have a temporary worker permit which, if you add up with the chart
I have shown you, you are talking about millions of jobs. We are told,
no, this doesn't matter much because, frankly, businesses say they just
can't find Americans to take these jobs.

I believe that is not the case. I understand what is really at work.
What is at work, in my judgment, is the handprints of those who want to
bring in additional cheap labor. I do not support it.
The amendment I have offered is an amendment that is simple on its
face. It addresses that provision, that title in this immigration bill
that deals with temporary workers. I am not talking about the status of
the 12 million people. I am talking about the creation of a status for
people who are not in this country now, for people who live outside of
this country who, as a result of this bill, are going to be told: You
come on in to this country. We will give you a temporary worker status.

[[Page S6438]]

You can come for 2 years at a time, 3 times, a total of 6 years. I do
not understand the urgency of putting a provision like this in this
bill.
I am told again, as we are always told, if you offer an amendment
that is successful, you will kill this bill because it is a fragile
compromise. It is the old argument. It is about the loose thread on a
cheap sweater. You pull the thread and the arm falls off. God forbid if
you pass an amendment, it is going to destroy this compromise.
In my judgment, part of offering amendments and getting amendments
agreed to to improve this legislation should be beneficial even to
those who represented a part of this compromise.
I say clearly that I think immigration has, for as long as this
country has existed, refreshed and nurtured this country. I support
immigration through the legal means of immigration quotas each year. I
also support, at this point, strong, assertive border enforcement,
border security. Let me describe why we have failed so miserably.
Here is a chart. When you talk about the need for border security and
employer sanctions, here is a chart that shows what has happened in the
last 6 or 7 years with respect to enforcement. As you see, there is a
decline in the worksite enforcement to almost zero. It has gone back up
a little bit. I haven't put the last 2 years on there. But you will see
enforcement with respect to employer sanctions and worksite enforcement
has gone down to almost zero. This administration didn't do anything
with respect to worksite enforcement.
Let me describe what has happened with respect to fines that have
been levied. In 1986 they passed an immigration bill and said we are
going to impose fines if someone would hire illegal workers. Here is
what has happened with the fines. It was $3.6 million nationally,
across the whole country in 1999. It is down to $118,000 in 2004. That
is pathetic enforcement. That is not enforcement, that is just looking
the other way.
Yet we come to this floor with an urgent problem with immigration,
and the compromisers say: Let's put all these things together to
legalize 12 million people, up to those who came across on December 31,
and let's decide, as well, we are going to bring additional people in
who do not now live here. That doesn't make any sense to me.
One of the moral imperatives, as I indicated, is to stand up for the
interests of workers in this country yes, all workers in this country.
Let me conclude. There is so much to say, but let me conclude by
telling a story about a piece I saw in the New York Times one day. It
was just a small piece. It was a few years ago. It was about a New
Yorker who died. I thought it was a curious piece, so I asked a staff
person: Can you track down and see what this little news item in the
New York Times is? They did.
It was a man named Stanley Newberg who died in New York City. Stanley
Newberg, my staff discovered, was a man who came to this country with
his parents to flee the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis. Stanley
Newberg and his parents landed in this country as new immigrants.
Stanley was a little boy, and he followed his dad around the lower east
side, apparently, peddling fish. This young boy walked with his dad
peddling fish in New York City as a very young man.
As his parents made a living peddling fish, Stanley learned English.
Then Stanley went off to school and Stanley became a pretty good
student. Then Stanley graduated from school, he went to college, he
graduated from college and then got a job in an aluminum company. He
worked in this aluminum company, did really well, was a good worker,
and he rose up to manage the aluminum company and then eventually he
was able to buy the aluminum company.
So here was Stanley Newberg, this young boy who came with his father
and mother to this new country and walked in the lower east side of New
York peddling fish and now owns an aluminum company in this country. It
is a very wonderful American success story.
Then Stanley Newberg died. They opened his will and that became the
subject of a very small item in the New York Times. Stanley Newberg's
will left $5.7 million to the United States of America. He said ``with
deep gratitude for the privilege of living in this great country.''
This little boy who followed his daddy peddling fish, who went to
school, became a successful businessman and then died, wanted in his
will to remember this country and left $5.7 million to the United
States of America ``with deep gratitude for the privilege of living in
this great country.''
This country did not become this great country by accident. ``We the
people,'' the framework of our Government, a wonderful Constitution, a
series of initiatives that created a body of law, initiatives in the
private sector, the genius and the entrepreneurship of inventors and
investors and business men and women--it is a wonderful place.
But we have obligations. As I indicated earlier, if we had no
immigration quotas we would be overrun by millions, tens of millions of
people who want to move from where they are on this planet to this spot
because this is the land of opportunity.
We have a process of legal immigration. That process needs to work.
First and foremost, we need border security. Second, it seems to me, we
need to be sensitive to find a way to deal with the status of those who
have been here a long while. Third, and most importantly, we ought not
decide to bring legislation to the floor of the Senate that says: On
behalf of those big interests, big economic interests that want to hire
cheap labor through the back door--even as they export good American
jobs through the front door--we ought to say this provision needs to be
stricken.
My amendment is very simple. On behalf of myself and Senator Boxer, I
offer an amendment to say: Strike this provision.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly in opposition to the
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I certainly concur with
several of the comments he made, about the need to secure our borders,
about the need to have a workable immigration system, and the need for
reform that ensures the rule of law is restored in the United States.
Where I differ with him is in his belief that we can actually achieve
these goals if we have no ability for temporary workers to come to the
country. His amendment would eliminate the temporary worker program
from this bill.
Now, there are several reasons why a temporary worker program, within
certain constraints, is a good idea. The first reason is because it
will help to relieve the magnet for illegal immigration. This is one of
the things President Bush has talked about frequently.
The reason most of the people are crossing our border illegally is to
get employment. There are jobs available for them. Some people say this
is work Americans will not do. That is actually not true. In all of the
different work areas, whether it be construction or landscaping or
working in a hotel or motel, whatever it might be, roughly half the
people working in those industries are American citizens. But there are
not enough American citizens to do all of the work that needs to be
done. So naturally the law of supply and demand sets in here. People
come across the border illegally, and they take that work. What we want
to do is both close the border, secure the border of the United States,
but also eliminate the magnet for illegal employment here, because the
reality is desperate people will always try to find some way to get
into the country.
It would be nice if, instead of having to rely strictly on fences and
Border Patrol agents, we also relieved the pressure so American
employers would have the workers they need and there would be no
opportunity for illegal workers to come into the United States. Another
way we have done that, by the way, is to have a very good employee
verification system put into this legislation.
But the key here is to, in effect, have a pressure cooker safety
valve. When there is too much employment need here to match up with the
number of workers, then we let off the pressure by allowing some visas
or temporary

[[Page S6439]]

workers to come here temporarily. In the bill they either come 10
months out of the year--that is the seasonal workers--and then return
home, or they can get a 2-year visa, which enables them to come here
and work for 2 years, then go home for a year. They could reapply. They
could reapply twice for a total time of 6 years. But in between each 2-
year time period working in the United States, they would have to
return to their home country for a year, in order to try to prevent the
situation in which they put down a stake in the United States and
believe after a period of time they are entitled to stay here, thus
raising the same kind of problem we have had in the past where a group
of people come here and then do not want to go home, and somehow
America doesn't have the will to enforce its law, in this case to
require them to go home.
That is why the program was set up the way it was. The concept here
is if you relieve that pressure for employees, by having an opportunity
for people to temporarily come here as the guests of the United States
to work here under our conditions and our rules and then go back home,
that will both serve our needs and serve their needs. That is the
rationale for a temporary worker program.
Now, why wouldn't you want to immigrate all of the people here as
legal permanent residents? Well, obviously you are talking about
millions of people, as the Senator from North Dakota said, in addition
to the quotas we currently have. But, secondly, you need to have some
ability to adjust. Let me mention the construction industry in my home
State of Arizona as a good example of this.
Two or three years ago we could not find enough workers to build
homes in Arizona. The reality is, the Home Builders Association was
candid in saying this, that if they had to guess, they would guess
about half of the people building homes in Arizona were illegal
immigrants. They had the legal papers, but we all know that is a joke.
That is why we have to have a workable employee verification system,
which we have put into the bill we are now debating. But the law
currently is not good in terms of verifying employment documents.
So you have a construction boom that is occurring in Las Vegas,
Phoenix, Tucson, and other cities in the Southwest, and we need workers
desperately. About 6, 8 months ago, the market began to taper off, and
today we are in a situation where we have an excess of workers for the
jobs available. The market has not tanked completely, by any means, but
there is clearly a downturn in the housing construction industry in
Arizona. So we do not need nearly as many workers now. Now that is
depressing wages.
The Senator from North Dakota is correct in one respect here with
regard to wages. If you have a greater supply of labor than you have
jobs available, you will depress wages. That indeed has happened in
some sectors of our economy, particularly in some low-skilled areas.
But the reason is because you have a glut of workers. The workers who
came here illegally find it very difficult to go home. Moreover, they
will undercut the wages of American workers or depress those wages.
They are here and they are depressing wages. Wouldn't it be better to
have a temporary worker program, where everyone is working within the
law so when we need the temporary workers to build houses, for example,
we issue more of these 2-year visas, but when we don't need them, we
stop issuing the visas? When those visas run out, we wait until we need
more workers. Then we issue more visas. That is the way the temporary
worker program is designed to work.

The alternative some people want--well, there are two alternatives.
Either you allow the illegal situation to continue, which nobody
wants--that is not a solution--or you adjust all of the quotas Senator
Dorgan was talking about and let everyone come in as a permanent
worker.
That totally upsets our immigration quotas, for one thing. Secondly,
you do not have the flexibility of moving up or down depending upon
what the labor requirements or demands are. Again, in housing, if we
had let all of these workers come in as green card holders, as legal
permanent residents, they are here and there is no ability to send them
back where they came from. They have a legal right to be in the United
States for the rest of their lives. That is why you do not want to try
to deal with temporary, especially low-skilled worker categories, with
extra green cards. That is why you have a temporary worker program, in
addition to relieving the magnet for illegal employment.
Let me make a couple of other points here. The Senator from North
Dakota says even the temporary worker program will depress wages. Well,
there are two reasons why that is not true. The first is it is adjusted
based on the labor needs. So at least ideally you never have a glut of
workers, an oversupply of workers compared to the demand. The market
works to set the wages at the proper rate.
If you have green cards, for example, you can easily get a depression
in wages, because you never can adjust that downward once the workers
are here. Secondly, in order to get a temporary worker under this bill,
you have to advertise at a wage which, in effect, is the average wage
that is being paid in that area in that industry. Now, you have to do
that to be fair to American workers, because otherwise what would
happen is you say: Hey, I have got a construction job; it pays $8 an
hour. Well, there are not very many Americans who would do heavy
construction for $8 an hour, so nobody shows up.
Then the employer goes to the Department of Labor and says: Well,
gee, I could not get an American to take the job. Let me have some
temporary workers. You cannot do that. If it is a carpenter--I am not
sure what the wage is; maybe it is $18 an hour, maybe more. If he says
I need 10 carpenters, he has got to say the wage I am paying is $18 an
hour. Then if American workers are out of work and want to work for
that wage, that is the average wage in that industry in that place, and
they can come in and work with the knowledge that they are not
receiving a depressed wage.
If you have Americans willing to do the work, then there is no
temporary worker. But if there is not an American to come do the work,
the temporary worker comes in at the same wage that is paid to everyone
else, so there is no wage depression under this temporary worker
program. I think that argument is not an argument to eliminate this
program.
Finally, the Senator from North Dakota began his argument with
something that is absolutely true. He made the point that we cannot
allow everybody in the world to come to a better place, to come to the
United States. That is absolutely true. We have got a big heart, but we
have only got so much room.
As a result, we have an immigration system that tries to establish
quotas, and it establishes areas of immigration in which we will allow
people to come here: countries from which they can come; some family
immigration; some work visas; asylum, and all of the other categories
we have. Then we draw a limit. We say that is it, except for certain
categories, except for the nuclear family.
A temporary worker program allows us to remain true to that general
immigration philosophy we have always had in this country. That is to
say, when we need more workers temporarily, we will bring them into the
country, but when we no longer need them here, they return home. That
way you are not, as the Senator from North Dakota said, opening your
doors to all of the people in the world who want to come here. I agree
with him; we cannot do that. But when we have a need that is not being
satisfied and we have advertised the job for the same wage Americans
are earning, and we cannot get an American to do that work, then it is
appropriate to say to a foreign national: If you want to come here and
work under our conditions, abiding by our rules, we will allow you to
do that and, of course, when you are done, you will return home.
That is the essence of the temporary worker program here. It is a
good program. I hope my colleagues will appreciate that there are
strong reasons for including it in this legislation, as I said,
starting with the proposition that it will eliminate the magnet for
illegal employment that exists today.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment of the Senator from
North Dakota.

[[Page S6440]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
we are debating right now is a long and complicated bill that touches
on a number of important issues. It addresses the concerns I believe
all of us have about securing our borders, something I strongly
support, and that is long overdue. It addresses the need to hold
employers accountable when they knowingly hire illegal immigrants,
something which certainly under the Bush administration has not been
the case.
This bill addresses the very contentious and difficult issue of how
we respond to the reality that there are some 12 million illegal
immigrants in this country today, and how we can carve out a path which
eventually leads to citizenship, which is something I support.
But today I want to concentrate on one major aspect in this
comprehensive bill, and that deals with the Dorgan amendment and the
whole issue of guest laborers. That point centers around the state of
the economy for working people in the United States and, in my view, my
strong view, the negative impact this overall legislation will have for
millions of Americans.
Let me begin by pointing to this quote, this quote right here, from
Mr. Randel K. Johnson, the vice president of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, which was reported in the New York Times on May 21, the other
day. This is what Mr. Johnson said:

We do not have enough workers to support a growing economy.
We have members who pay good wages but face worker shortages
every day.

Mr. President, let me suggest that Mr. Johnson and many of the other
big business organizations and multinational corporations that have
helped craft this legislation are not being quite accurate when they
make statements such as this. The major economic problem facing our
country today is not that we do not have enough workers to fill good-
paying jobs. Rather, the problem is we do not have enough good-paying,
livable wage jobs for the American people, and that situation is
getting worse. Over the last 6 years, 5.4 million more Americans have
slipped into poverty, with the national minimum wage remaining at a
disgraceful $5.15 an hour.
By the way, Mr. Johnson's organization, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
opposes raising the minimum wage.
With over 5 million more Americans slipping into poverty, where are
all those good-paying jobs these workers can't seem to find? Over the
last 6 years, nearly 7 million more Americans have lost their health
insurance. Where are all those good jobs that provide benefits such as
a strong health insurance package? Where are all those good jobs Mr.
Johnson talks about when millions of Americans are losing their health
insurance completely or are asked to pay substantially more for
inferior coverage?
In the last 6 years since President Bush has been in office, some 3
million American workers have lost their pensions. If all of these good
jobs are out there, why are more and more Americans slipping into
poverty, more and more Americans losing their health insurance, and
more and more Americans losing their pensions?
From the year 2000 to 2005, median household income declined by
$1,273. For 5 consecutive years, median household income for working
age families has gone down. In other words, despite Mr. Johnson's
assertion about all of the good-wage, good-paying jobs that are out
there waiting for the American worker, the reality is, all over our
country people are desperately looking for jobs that pay a livable
wage. The real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers
has declined steadily from $27,060 in 1979 to $25,646 in 2005. While
women have done somewhat better in recent years, real median weekly
earnings for males has actually gone down since 1979. Despite Mr.
Johnson's assertion, the economic reality facing our country is that
the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the gap
between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider and wider.
I am assuming most Members of the Senate took economics 101 in
college. One of the major tenets of free market economics is the law of
supply and demand. Under that basic economic proposition, if an
employer is having a difficult time finding a worker--and Mr. Randel
Johnson tells us that is the case--then the solution to that problem on
the part of the employer is to provide higher wages and better
benefits. That is what the free market economy is supposed to be about.
That is what supply and demand is all about. If you are having a
difficult time attracting workers, you pay them higher wages and better
benefits, and they will come. I wonder how it could be that with a
supposed scarcity of workers out there, wages and benefits are going
down. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If Mr. Johnson were
right, you would expect that wages would be going up, benefits would be
going up. In fact, the opposite is true.
What this legislation is not about is addressing the real needs of
American workers. It is not about raising wages or improving benefits.
What it is about is bringing into this country over a period of years
millions of low-wage temporary workers with the result that wages and
benefits in this country, which are already going down, will go down
even further.
Let's talk about what really is going on in our economy today. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document entitled
``May 2005 Occupational Wages and Estimates'' which comes from the
State of Vermont Department of Labor. That is the latest such report
available.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

MAY 2005 VERMONT OCCUPATIONAL WAGE ESTIMATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting
SOC Occupation title units Employment Mean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41-2011............................... Cashiers...................... 399 9,950 8.71
41-2031............................... Retail Salespersons........... 537 9,910 11.88
25-9041............................... Teacher Assistants............ 183 5,840 n/a
43-3031............................... Bookkeeping, Accounting, and 1,660 5,710 14.14
Auditing Clerks.
29-1111............................... Registered Nurses............. 309 5,560 24.07
35-3031............................... Waiters and Waitresses........ 170 5,420 8.97
43-6014............................... Secretaries, Except Legal, 860 4,660 12.91
Medical, and Executive.
43-9061............................... Office Clerks, General........ 889 4,190 11.17
25-2021............................... Elementary School Teachers, 117 4,040 n/a
Except Special Education.
37-2011............................... Janitors and Cleaners, Except 640 4,020 10.51
Maids and Housekeeping.
53-3032............................... Truck Drivers, Heavy and 315 4,000 15.64
Tractor-Trailer.
43-6011............................... Executive Secretaries and 938 3,840 17.28
Administrative Assistants.
47-2031............................... Carpenters.................... 182 3,550 16.20
49-9042............................... Maintenance and Repair 600 3,280 15.06
Workers, General.
43-5081............................... Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 333 3,240 10.19
43-4051............................... Customer Service 421 3,220 13.48
Representatives.
25-3099............................... Teachers and Instructors, All 132 3,070 n/a
Other.
31-1012............................... Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and 96 2,890 10.47
Attendants.
35-3021............................... Combined Food Preparation and 146 2,860 8.58
Serving Workers, Inclu.
25-2031............................... Secondary School Teachers, 75 2,770 n/a
Except Special and Vocati.
21-1093............................... Social and Human Service 109 2,740 13.40
Assistants.
53-7062............................... Laborers and Freight, Stock, 238 2,650 10.75
and Material Movers, Hand.
35-2021............................... Food Preparation Workers...... 257 2,570 9.04
37-2012............................... Maids and Housekeeping 160 2,530 9.68
Cleaners.
13-2011............................... Accountants and Auditors...... 730 2,490 26.10
37-3011............................... Landscaping and Groundskeeping 229 2,440 11.32
Workers.
43-4171............................... Receptionists and Information 542 2,400 11.22
Clerks.
41-1011............................... First-Line Supervisors/ 514 2,360 19.43
Managers of Retail Sales
Workers.
51-2092............................... Team Assemblers............... 70 2,330 12.71
43-1011............................... First-Line Supervisors/ 743 2,230 22.36
Managers of Office and
Administr.

[[Page S6441]]

41-4012............................... Sales Representatives, 408 2,210 24.81
Wholesale and Manufacturing,
E.
53-3033............................... Truck Drivers, Light or 263 2,100 12.77
Delivery Services.
49-3023............................... Automotive Service Technicians 132 2,040 14.66
and Mechanics.
35-2014............................... Cooks, Restaurant............. 130 1,920 11.46
11-1021............................... General and Operations 950 1,830 46.22
Managers.
39-9011............................... Child Care Workers............ 79 1,810 9.97
35-9021............................... Dishwashers................... 164 1,760 8.06
51-1011............................... First-Line Supervisors/ 464 1,650 24.46
Managers of Production and
Ope.
35-3022............................... Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, 91 1,600 8.33
Food Concession, and C.
43-5071............................... Shipping, Receiving, and 428 1,590 12.96
Traffic Clerks.
25-2022............................... Middle School Teachers, Except 88 1,580 n/a
Special and Vocational.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--n/a = not available because employment or wage estimate was either not reliable or not calculated; + =
indicates the top reportable wage, actual wage is at least this high and probably higher.

Source: Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey--released May 2006.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me discuss the 10 largest categories of employment
in my State of Vermont and the wages workers earn who do that work. We
will talk on some of them, not all 10. The occupation in Vermont with
the most employment is that of being a cashier. Those are people who
obviously work at retail stores and who take in money, make change. The
average wage for this category of worker 2 years ago--these are the
latest figures we have seen--was $8.71 an hour. Many of those workers
have inadequate or no health care at all. That is $8.71 for that
category of work in which more Vermonters perform than any other. Are
these the good wages to which the Chamber of Commerce is referring?
In that same survey, the second largest job category in Vermont is
that of retail salespersons. That mean hourly wage was, as of 2 years
ago, $11.88 an hour. That is better than cashiers earn but less than
$26,000 a year.
On and on it goes: bookkeepers in Vermont, $14.14 an hour; waiters
and waitresses, $8.97; secretaries, $12.91; office clerks, $11.17 an
hour; janitors and cleaners, $10.51 an hour.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of jobs
available today in northern Vermont and in the Littleton, NH, area as
posted by the Vermont Department of Labor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Vermontjoblink.com, May 22, 2007]

1. Flagger
City: Newport, VT
Order Number: 47463
Basic Job Information: $10.00-$10.00, Full-time
Required Education: No Educational Requirement
Required Experience: No Experience Requirement
Flaggers are needed to work throughout the state. Employer
will train and certify--no experience is nec., however ALL
applicants must have valid VT Driver's License, their own,
reliable transportation, and a telephone in their home. Work
hours will not be flexible--40+ per week. Applicants must
also be 18 years old. Please have company application
completed before coming to course--DOL to hold. Those
planning on attending course (to be held on May 29th from 9
am to noon CCV-Newport) must . . .

2. Dispatcher/Scheduler
City: St. Johnsbury, VT
Order Number: 47466
Basic Job Information: $11.00-$11.00, Full-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 1 Year 0 Months
The Dispatcher/Scheduler reports to the Executive Director.
Primary responsibilities include carrying out all procedures
in dispatch, verifying client eligibility for Medicaid and/or
other program subsidy. Verifying and changing appointments,
questioning necessity or nature of treatment to the closest
available facility. Schedules the passenger with a driver,
notifying driver of specific information regarding trip/
passenger. Schedules all rides with taxi companies at clients
requests for . . .

3. Web Designer
City: Saint Johnsbury, VT
Order Number: 47470
Basic Job Information: $12.00-$25.00, Full-time or Part-
time
Required Education: Associates Degree
Required Experience: 2 Years 0 Months
Web Technician Responsibilities include, Basic Web HTML
maintenance, creating and sending weekly newsletters to e-
mail data base, Creative internet marketing, and
understanding and set up of merchant account cart options.

4. Home Care Attendant
City: St Johnsbury, VT
Order Number: 45721
Basic Job Information: $7.53-$7.53, Part-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 0 Years 3 Months
Home Care Attendant opening offering flexible schedule,
weekdays and every other weekend required. Duties include
providing household management assistance and minimal
personal care to clients in their homes. May include light
meal preparation, doing errands, cleaning, laundry and some
socialization skills. If you enjoy helping others, working
independently and having flexible hours you should apply.
There is a shift differential for weekends/evenings. Training
and orientation are provided . . .

5. Operations Manager
City: Lydonville, VT
Order Number: 46723
Basic Job Information: $40,000.00-$50,000.00, Full-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 3 Years 0 Months
Earth Tech operates the Lyndon Wastewater Treatment
Facility on behalf of the local community under an operation
and maintenance contract. The Operations Manager will oversee
the daily operations and maintenance of a .750 mgd extended
aeration activated sludge secondary treatment plant with 3
employees. The plant has an ATAD system, Air Scrubber, and a
Land Application program. Responsibilities include monthly
reporting to the ANR, the client and Earth Tech. This
position is responsible for . . .

6. Residential Crisis Counselors
City: Newport, VT
Order Number: 47441
Basic Job Information: $0.00-$0.00, Full-time or Part-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 0 Years 6 Months
Dynamic new crisis program is looking for mature,
responsible, empathic counselors to work with adults with
complex issues who need brief crisis intervention. Counselors
will work with a team of clinical professionals providing
supervision, peer recovery support, crisis intervention and
discharge planning. All shifts and weekend coverage
available. (This is shift work and not live-in employment).
Will provide training. Full time & part time positions
available.

7. Assistant Director. Adult Outpatient Services
City: Newport, VT
Order Number: 47442
Basic Job Information: $0.00-$0.00, Full-time
Required Education: Masters Degree
Required Experience: 4 Years 0 Months
Administers, coordinates and manages programs and services
for Adult Outpatient Services, Mental Health & Substance
Abuse, for St. Johnsbury area. This includes clinical and
administrative supervision, budgetary controls, initiation
and review of policies and procedures, and participation in
quality control, assurance and improvement. Takes an active
role in the development and implementation of new programs
and services. May be assigned to act as the division
director.

8. Store Clerk
City: W Danville, VT
Order Number: 47452
Basic Job Information: $8.00-$8.00, Part-time
Required Education: No Educational Requirement
Required Experience: 1 Year 0 Months
Job is fast paced therefore you must be able to multi-task.
Lifting, stacking, cooking and cleaning involved. Must be
customer service oriented and be able to run a cash register.
Waitstaff experience a plus. Employer is looking for a self
motivated, independent, reliable person. This job has
potential of moving into a management position. Serious
applicants only please.

9. CNC Mill or Lathe Setup Operator
City: Bradford, VT
Order Number: 46876
Basic Job Information: $11.00-$16.00, Full-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 3 Years 0 Months
3-5 years experience on CNC equipment. Experience editing
programs and/or programming would be a plus. Learning to
program could be included in this position. Candidates need
good math skills and attention to detail. Knowledge of
geometry and trigonometry highly desirable. Full time
position 6:30-3PM Monday-Friday with some flexibility of
schedule possible.

[[Page S6442]]

10. Teacher
City: Lyndonville, VT
Order Number: 47415
Basic Job Information: $1,000.00-$1,000.00, Full-time
Required Education: Bachelors Degree
Required Experience: 0 Years 6 Months
This is a teaching position for an alternative high school
for 9th through 12th grades with teaching experience in Math
and Social Studies. This position would most likely involve
troubled youths. This is a salaried position for the academic
school year of 2007-2008. There is also a possible one-on-one
paraeducator position opening with experience relevant to the
above. This one would be an hourly position. Applicants must
pass a criminal background check.

11. Real Estate Title Abstractor/Searcher (Legal Secretary)
City: St Johnsbury, VT
Order Number: 47423
Basic Job Information: $10.00-$13.00, Full-time or Part-
time
Required Education: Associates Degree
Required Experience: 0 Years 6 Months
Full or part time Real Estate Abstractor/Searcher (Legal
Secretary) needed. Qualified applicants will have excellent
computer and communication skills as well as good writing,
grammar and compositions skills, willing to learn, dependable
with valid drivers license and reliable vehicle. Employer
prefers someone with an Associates Degree and 3-5 years
office experience. Job duties will include travelling to
Orleans, Essex and Caledonia counties to search for land
records.

Construction Laborer/Bridge Carpenters
City: Concord, VT
Order Number: 47409
Basic Job Information: $11.00-$11.00, Full-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 0 Years 6 Months
Local construction company is seeking construction laborers
and bridge carpenters to work in various sites throughout
Vermont and Northern New Hampshire. Current jobs are located
in Bradford, VT and West Lebanon, NH. Applicants must have a
valid drivers license and employer would prefer someone with
some construction experience. Job includes heavy physical
work and occasionally work on Saturdays.

13. Loan Admin Support Staff
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47359
Basic Job Information: $0.00-$0.00, Full-time or Part-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: No Experience Requirement
The successful candidate will perform a variety of clerical
and administrative functions working within the Loan
Administration department. Responsibilities include
maintaining and updating loan files and insurance files,
order supplies, reconcile loan checks, completing all loan
files, and assisting the administration personnel when
needed. This position is full time and comes with Career
Opportunities and excellent benefit package.

14. Receptionist/Switchboard Operator
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47360
Basic Job Information: $8.00-$10.00, Full-time or Part-time
Required Education: No Educational Requirement
Required Experience: No Experience Requirement
The successful candidate will greet and direct visitors in
professional manner, sorts and distributes incoming mail,
keeps current information up to date on locations, absences,
travel plans, and is responsible for all incoming calls. The
right candidate must have excellent communications and
computer skills. This position has career opportunities, and
comes with an excellent benefit package.

15. Director of Operations
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47362
Basic Job Information: $0.00-$0.00, Full-time or Part-time
Required Education: Some College
Required Experience: 5 Years 0 Months
The right candidate will have direct leadership to ensure
high quality patient care, fiscal responsibility, and
employee satisfaction. Responsibility includes the overall
business management. In addition to strong technical skills,
you should be comfortable working in a team environment and
fostering cross-functional teamwork. The individual in this
role needs to have business savvy and be able to take
initiative to identify/communicate/resolve discrepancies and
drive process improvements.

16. Soldering
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47363
Basic Job Information: $8.00-$12.00, Full-time or Part-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 1 Year 0 Months
Previous experience in manufacturing as a machine operator
is a plus.
Candidate will be responsible for soldering cables, working
with hand tools, hand held machines, as well as assembling.
On the job training is available.

17. Shipping / Order Processor
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47365
Basic Job Information: $11.00-$11.00, Full-time or Part-
time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 1 Year 0 Months
Excellent opportunity to work for a small business with
worldwide clientelle. This position entails the following
responsibilities: prepare product for shipping using various
shipping methods, ability to lift 30 lbs on a frequent basis,
all aspects of order processing including, but not limited to
the following: quote/bid prices, customer service, invoicing,
purchase orders to suppliers, and all accompanying paperwork.
Experience in a manufacturing environment and a resume is
required. Thi. . .

18. Machine Operator
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47212
Basic Job Information: $8.00-$10.00, Full-time or Part-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: No Experience Requirement
Previous experience in a manufacturing environment as a
machine operator is a plus.

19. Payroll Administrative Assistant
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47215
Basic Job Information: $10.00-$14.00, Full-time or Part-
time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 2 Years 0 Months
This position is full time and is responsible for payroll,
payroll taxes, general ledger, inventory, excellent follow
through and communications skills.

20. Sales and Marketing Analyst
City: Littleton, NH
Order Number: 47217
Basic Job Information: $8.00-$12.00, Full-time or Part-time
Required Education: High School Diploma or Equivalent
Required Experience: 2 Years 0 Months
This position requires a candidate who is detail oriented,
multitasking, and can work in a fast pace environment.
Excellent benefits come with this opportunity.

Mr. SANDERS. These are the jobs which are available today. If any
Member of the Senate wanted to retire today and they wanted to run up
to northern Vermont or to the Littleton, NH, area, these are the jobs
which are available today, posted by the Vermont Department of Labor:
If you wanted to be a flagger, you can make $10 an hour; if you want to
be a dispatcher, $11 an hour; home care attendants, thousands of home
care attendants taking care of the elderly and the frail make all of
$7.53; store clerk, $8 an hour; construction laborer, $11 an hour;
receptionist, $8 to $10 an hour; shipping, $11 an hour; machine
operator, $8 to $10 an hour. On and on it goes. Those are the jobs
available today in northern Vermont, what we call the Northeast
Kingdom, and the Littleton, NH, area.
Over the years in Vermont and throughout this country, people have
been trying to understand a very important concept: How much money does
an individual and a family need in order to survive economically with
dignity? That means having an adequate home, having a car that works,
paying your electric bill on time, having some health insurance, having
childcare for a child if that is what you need. That whole concept is
called a livable wage--the means by which an American citizen can live
in dignity.
For a single person living alone in the State of Vermont, that wage
is $14.26 an hour. That is substantially more than the wage being paid
in Vermont for a cashier, which is what more people do than anything
else. If you are a single parent with one child, that livable wage is
$21.40 an hour; single parent with two children, $20.59 an hour; two
parents, two children, and one wage-earner, $24.89.
What is my point? My point is a simple one: Despite the Chamber of
Commerce assertion that there are all these great-paying jobs out there
and the major problem facing our economy is that we just can't find the
workers to do them, I can tell you, in the Vermont-New Hampshire area,
there are thousands and thousands of decent, hard-working people making
10 bucks an hour, 11 bucks an hour, 12 bucks an hour, less than that,
and many of those workers have no health insurance. Many of those
workers are having a hard time making ends meet.
Here is my concern about this legislation. At a time when millions of
Americans are working longer hours for low wages and have seen real
cuts in their wages and benefits, this legislation would, over a period
of years, bring millions of low-wage workers from other countries into
the United States. If wages are already this low in

[[Page S6443]]

Vermont and throughout the country, what happens when more and more
people are forced to compete for these jobs? Sadly, in our country
today--and this is a real tragedy--over 25 percent of our children drop
out of high school. In some minority neighborhoods, that number is even
higher. What kind of jobs will be available for those young people?
This is not legislation designed to create jobs, raise wages, and
strengthen our economy. Quite the contrary. This immigration bill is
legislation which will lower wages and is designed to increase
corporate profits. That is wrong, and that is not an approach we should
accept.
Today, corporate leaders are telling us why they want more and more
foreign workers to come into this country to compete with American
workers. I find it interesting that just a few years ago, during the
debate over our trade policy, this is what these same people had to
say. Let me quote. According to an Associated Press article of July 1,
2004, Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, was quoted as saying that he ``urged American companies to
send jobs overseas'' and that ``Americans affected by off shoring
should stop whining.'' Then he told the Commonwealth Club of California
that ``one job sent overseas, if it happens to be my job, is one too
many. But the benefits of [outsourcing] jobs outweigh the cost.'' That
was from an AP story, July 1, 2004.
Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, said in January of
2004: ``There's no job that is America's God-given right anymore,'' as
her company Hewlett-Packard has shipped over 5,000 jobs to India,
outsourced almost all of their notebook PC designs, production, and
logistics to Taiwan, and manufactures much of their product in China.
Ms. Fiorina may have had a point. A few years ago, she lost her job as
CEO due to poor performance. But unlike the thousands of jobs she was
responsible for shipping overseas, Ms. Fiorina walked away with a $21
million golden parachute.
I should add that Hewlett-Packard, among many other corporate leaders
in outsourcing, just coincidentally happens to be one of those
corporations most active in the immigration debate. In other words, if
these large corporations are not shutting down plants in the United
States, throwing American workers out on the streets, moving to China,
where they pay people 50 cents an hour, what they are doing is
developing and pushing legislation which displaces American workers and
lowers wages in this country by bringing low-wage workers from abroad
into America.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Vermont will
yield for a question.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on that point, I was thinking of something
our colleague from Arizona said a few minutes ago. He talked about the
fact they are going to provide substantial border security, No. 1. Then
later he said the reason we have to allow guest or temporary workers--
400,000 of them--to come into this country is if we do not let them
come in, there will be more tension for illegal immigration. Well,
where is the illegal immigration going to come from if you have secured
the border? If you have not secured the border, isn't it the case that
what you have simply done is said we are going to have 400,000 people
come across the border or come into this country and assume jobs? Do
you know what we will do? Let's just call them legal. Isn't there an
inherit contradiction in what we just heard--and we will hear again, I
am sure--the proposition that we have to have temporary workers because
if we do not, people will come in illegally? How will they come in
illegally if you have secured the border? And shouldn't you first
secure the border in a way that is credible?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I agree with my friend from North Dakota.
But he will remember something else. Doesn't this argument about
passing legislation that will stop illegal immigration ring a bell in
terms of the debate we had over NAFTA? Does my friend from North Dakota
remember that one of the reasons we had to pass NAFTA was to improve
the economy in Mexico so workers there would not be coming into this
country?
It sounds to me as if it is the same old tired argument. It certainly
has not worked with regard to NAFTA. Since NAFTA has passed, among many
other things, there has been a huge increase in illegal immigration.
The point the Senator makes is quite right.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, this is
another piece of evidence that in this kind of discussion in the
Congress, you never have to be right; all you have to have is a new
idea--and you just keep coming up with new ideas that are wrong.
The Senator is perfectly correct with respect to NAFTA. In fact, the
same economists who were giving all this advice about NAFTA, who were
fundamentally wrong, are now giving us advice on this issue and telling
us how they are going to create new jobs and all of these related
issues.
The fact is, at its roots, isn't it the case that what this kind of
temporary worker provision does is put downward pressure on the income
for American workers and bring in low-wage workers to assume American
jobs? Isn't that the case?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, that is exactly right.
I know the Senator from North Dakota has been very strong on this
issue. We are looking at two sides of the same coin, with the result
that the middle class gets squeezed and workers are forced to work for
lower wages. That is, on one hand, a trade policy which corporate
America pushed through the House and the Senate that says we can shut
down plants in America, run to China, pay people there pennies an hour,
and bring those products back into America. They have laid off millions
of American workers. On the other side of the economy, we still have
service jobs in this country, some of which may pay a living wage. Many
of them do not. American corporations and companies say: We need to be
able to make more profits, so if we cannot shut down restaurants and
McDonald's in America and take them to China, well then, I guess what
we have to do is bring those workers back into the United States. But
as the Senator from North Dakota just indicated, the end result is the
same: more and more workers experiencing cuts in their wages, poverty
in America increasing, and the middle class shrinking.
Let's not forget--I think a lot of people do not know this, and the
media does not necessarily make this point--behind a lot of this
immigration legislation stands the largest corporations in America, one
of them being Microsoft, having played a very active role in this
debate. Here is what the vice president of Microsoft said, as quoted in
BusinessWeek in 2003:

It's definitely a cultural change to use foreign workers,
but if I can save a dollar, hallelujah.

Four years ago, Brian Valentine, Microsoft's senior vice president,
urged his managers to ``pick something to move offshore today.''
The CEO of Microsoft has said--this is Steve Ballmer; this is
relevant to this debate--``Lower the pay of U.S. professionals to
$50,000 and it won't make sense for employers to put up with the hassle
of doing business in developing countries.
Lower the pay of professionals in America.
What I find interesting about corporate America's support for this
type of legislation is their arguments now distinctly contradict the
arguments they made when they told us how good outsourcing is for this
country and how good our trade policies such as NAFTA and permanent
normal trade relations with China would be. What hypocrisy. One day
they shut down plants with high-skilled, well-paid American workers and
move to China. That is one day. On the next day, after having shut down
a plant with highly skilled workers, they have the nerve to come to the
Congress and tell us they cannot find skilled workers to do the jobs
they have. Give me a break.
I think we all know what is going on here. Greed rather than love of
country has become the driving force behind corporate decisions. While
corporate profits are at their highest share of gross domestic product
since 1960--up more than 90 percent since President Bush took office--
median earnings are at their lowest share since 1947. In other words,
as a result of all of these policies, people on top--corporate

[[Page S6444]]

America--are doing very well. The middle class is struggling. While
millions of workers are working longer hours for lower wages, the CEOs
of major corporations are now earning 400 times what their employees
make.
Today, in America, the top 300,000 Americans earn nearly as much
income as the bottom 150 million Americans combined. Today, in America,
the richest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and
we now have the most uneven distribution of wealth and income of any
major nation on Earth. That is the reality, and these immigration
policies, these trade policies, are directly causing this disparity of
wealth and income.
We hear over and over again from large multinational corporations
that there are jobs Americans just will not do and that we need foreign
workers to fill those jobs. Well, that is really not quite accurate. If
you pay an American or any person good wages and good benefits, they
will do the work.
In June 2005, Toyota, in San Antonio, TX, announced the opening of a
plant. That plant received, in a 2-week period, 63,000 applications for
2,000 jobs. That story has been repeated all over this country. If you
are going to pay decent wages, they will come and they will do the
work. Yes, it will be difficult to attract an American worker to work
in, say, a meatpacking house if the pay is 24 percent lower today than
it was in 1983--24 percent lower. But guess what. In 1980, when the
wages of meatpacking workers were 17 percent higher than the average
manufacturing sector wage--because they had a strong union--American
workers were prepared to do that difficult and dirty job. They did it
because they were paid well. They had a union. They had dignity.
I have talked about the crisis in terms of low-wage jobs. Now let me
say a few words about the problems facing our country in terms of
higher wage jobs.
While our corporate friends bemoan the lack of skilled professionals
and want to bring hundreds of thousands of more employees into this
country with a bachelor's degree, an M.A., or a Ph.D., earnings--while
this process goes on--of college graduates were 5 percent lower in 2004
than they were in 2000, according to White House economists. In other
words, for college graduates, their earnings are also in decline. But
what this legislation does is expand the opportunity for people with
M.A.s and Ph.D.s and B.A.s and B.S.s to come into this country. When it
comes to the H-1B visa, our corporate friends tell us Americans cannot
do it. We cannot do that work. We are either too dumb or just not
willing to do the following jobs.
Let me for a moment mention some of the eligible occupations for H-1B
visas that Americans are, apparently, too dumb to be able to do:
information technology/computer professionals, university professors,
engineers, health care workers, accountants, financial analysts,
management consultants, lawyers--my God, if there is one thing in this
country, one area where we have too many, it is lawyers; I am not sure
there is a pressing need to bring more lawyers into this country--
architects, nurses, physicians, surgeons, dentists, scientists,
journalists and editors, foreign law advisers, psychologists, technical
publication writers, market research analysts, fashion models--fashion
models--and teachers in elementary or secondary schools. I just did not
know we were incapable of providing teachers in our elementary or
secondary schools.
Having said that, I do recognize we do have a serious problem in
terms of labor shortages in some areas. That is true. But, in my view,
our major strategy must be to educate our own students in these areas
so they can benefit from these good-paying jobs. These are the jobs
which are paying people good wages. Rather than bringing people from
all over the world to fill them, I would rather our kids and
grandchildren were able to do these kinds of jobs.

Let me give you one example. Right now, it is absolutely true that we
have a major shortage of nurses in this country. That is true. But at
the same time as we have a major shortage of nurses, some 50,000
Americans last year applied to nursing schools, and they could not get
into those schools because we do not have the faculty to educate
Americans to become nurses. How absurd is that? So it seems to me,
before we deplete the Philippines and other countries of their stock of
nurses--doing very serious harm to their health care systems--maybe,
just maybe we might want to provide educators in this country for our
nurses. The same thing is true of dentists. It is a very serious
problem with regard to shortages of dentists. Yet in dental schools all
over this country we lack faculty to educate people to become dentists.
While there is a dispute as to whether we do have a shortage in
information technology jobs, there is no doubt we should make sure that
enough Americans--far more Americans--are better educated in math and
computer science than we are currently doing.
The bottom line is we need to take a very hard look at our
educational system and, among other things, make college education
affordable to every American while we increase our focus on math and
science. How absurd it is that hundreds of thousands of low-income kids
no longer are able to go to college because they cannot afford it, and
then we say: Well, we don't have the professionals we need in this
country; we have to bring them in from abroad. So the long-term
solution is making sure college is affordable and improving our public
schools so our people can fill these jobs.
As this debate on this bill continues, I am going to do everything I
can to make sure any immigration reform legislation passed by this body
has the result of lifting wages up and expanding the middle class,
rather than doing the contrary.
Mr. President, thank you very much.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to cooperate with my friend from
California. I have been here for the debate with the Senator from North
Dakota, and I want to respond.
If the Senator needs 5 or 8 or 10 minutes----
Mrs. BOXER. Ten minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Then I will be glad to withhold and speak after that
time.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator so much.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, can the Chair tell me when I have gone
about 9 minutes, and then I will wrap up.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if the Senator will permit me, I ask to
be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, would the Chair inform me when I have 1
minute left of my 10 minutes so I can wrap up at that time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). She will.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon--I wanted to be
here for this entire debate, but I have been chairing a hearing over in
the Environment and Public Works Committee, where our attorney general,
Jerry Brown, is here to make a very strong and persuasive case for our
State and 11 other States to begin to take on the issue of global
warming in terms of emissions of movable sources, mobile sources--cars.
I came over as soon as I could.
I am so grateful to Senator Dorgan for once again showing the
leadership to offer us an amendment that I think has tremendous merit
and that is to strip from the immigration bill this guest worker
program. I wish to make it clear that this guest worker program has
nothing to do with the agricultural jobs program that is in this bill
that I support, a bill that has been vetted at hearings. We know there
is a need. There seems to be very little, if any, disagreement on that
portion of the bill.
But this is a generalized guest worker program. I did hear the
comments of Senator Sanders. I wish to associate myself with his
remarks. Senator Sanders makes a brilliant point. How many times have
we seen workers huddled in a corner with tears in their eyes because
they received a notice that they have been laid off--not by the tens,
not by the twenties, not by

[[Page S6445]]

the hundreds but sometimes by the thousands. Big employers in this
country seemingly with nowhere to turn tell us: Oh, my goodness, we
have to compete, we have to pare down our employment, and they lay
people off. Those same employers are now begging for a guest worker
program. Why? You have to ask yourself why? I do have a degree in
economics, but I would say that was a long time ago. You don't need a
degree in economics to understand what is at stake. These large
employers want a large, cheap labor pool that they can draw from. My
colleagues on the other side say: Oh, we are protecting those workers.
Oh, they will be fine.
No, they will not be fine. How many workers do you know ever in the
history of America who have to leave after 2 years and wait a year to
come back to a program, leave after the next 2 years, come back, and by
the way, how powerless are these workers, these temporary guest
workers? They know if they say one thing to criticize, perhaps, a
manager or to complain or to beg for a sick day because they have a
sick child at home, when they know they have no power, everything rides
on their being able to come back into the country because the employer
says they can come back in. We are setting up a system of exploitation.
We are setting up a system with this generalized guest worker program,
a system that will put downward pressure on the American worker. We are
already worried about what is happening with trade.
Many of us have been saying for years: Where are the workers' rights
in these trade agreements? Where are the environmental standards? Now
they claim they are coming in with these agreements. I will believe it
when I read the fine print. But the point is we are already in trouble,
our workers are, competing with workers from around the world. Now we
are bringing them in here, 400,000 a year, every single year, millions
of workers.
Now, I know my dear friends who put this together tried their best to
bring us a fair bill, but this is not fair. I know my friends who
worked so hard to put this together said: Well, we have to give up
something to get something. I know that, believe me. I just brought my
first bill to the floor as a chairman. It was tough, very tough. I
understand that. But there is a point at which you have to say: Time
out; let's look at this. This isn't good. I say we make this bill so
much better if we can strip out this generalized guest worker program.
I think Senator Sanders has shown us, by way of his research, that this
whole thing is a phony request that we need these workers, when we
already know that big business is laying off our workers.
I think we have to look at what we are about to do. The underlying
bill takes 12 million undocumented immigrants, most of whom are in the
workforce already, and they put them on a path to legality. I support
that. If they have worked hard and if they have played by the rules and
if they are good people, I support that. It is not amnesty. I have seen
what this bill does. They have to pay heavy-duty fines. They have to
get in the back of the line. That is fine. But on top of the 12 million
workers, we then have our regular program of green cards. Madam
President, 1.1 million receive green cards; 1.5 million in 2005 were
given temporary worker admission. So here we have a circumstance where
we are legalizing 12 million people, most of whom are workers; we have
another 3 million who come in every year, plus we have our regular
immigration system, and now we are adding on top of that 400,000
workers a year.
Now, according to the Economic Policy Institute, nearly 30 million
Americans make an average wage of $7 an hour. The plight of these
working poor is not getting better. In fact, real wages for the bottom
20 percent of American workers have declined from 2003 to 2005. Let me
repeat that. Real wages between 2003 and 2005 have declined. People
cannot live on $7 an hour, to be honest with you. I was going through
my son's old pay stubs when he worked his way through college in the
1980s. He worked as a clerk at a grocery store. He made $7 an hour in
the 1980s; $11 on the weekend. A good job. That is what a lot of the
workers still make. That is not right, to stagnate like that. It is not
right.
Now, you add to the fact that our workers are losing ground; you say
400,000 guest workers. By the way, if we did this industry by industry,
it might make a little more sense, but oh, no. These workers can come
in and go anywhere. They can go anywhere. So it is a pool of cheap
labor at the expense of the American workers. It is as simple as that.
I don't think it takes an economics degree to understand it. Our
colleagues say: Well, these are jobs that American workers would not
take. Baloney. We heard the jobs. A lot of them are good jobs.
We are going to work on this. We may not make this amendment. I hope
we win it. I think everyone who cares about American workers today
should vote for the Dorgan-Boxer amendment and strip this guest worker
program from the bill--leaving the AgJOBS in place, of course--but
strip this from the bill. Get rid of this terrible program. If that
doesn't work, there will be amendments to cut it in half and maybe
more. Let's do that. I will have amendments to make sure there are some
checks on this program, that if more than 15 or 16 percent of the
workers don't obey the rules and stay here, even though they are
supposed to go back, the program will be finished, over, done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. So there will be a series of amendments on this guest
worker program.
I also will have an amendment that has the Department of Labor
certifying that this guest worker program is good for America. It is
good for the American worker. If they cannot so find, they will tell
us, and we will have to reauthorize this program every single year.
This is written in a way that no matter what the unemployment rate, no
matter what is happening on the ground to our workers, 400,000 guest
workers come in. Imagine that. Imagine that. Imagine a time in America
where we could be up to 8 percent, 9 percent, 10 percent unemployment.
I have lived through those days, and I know the Senator from North
Dakota has as well. But there is no automatic change in this program.
We will still have 400,000 workers a year coming in. We have to put a
check and balance on that program.
So I want to be able to vote for an immigration bill that is fair and
just. This program is unfair. It is unjust. It will place downward
pressure on the American worker who is struggling as we speak.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am going to address the Senate on a
different but very important issue and ask that these remarks be placed
in the appropriate place in the Record and then address the amendment
that is before us.
I see my good friend from Florida wishes to address the amendment,
and we have notified our leaders that we are hopeful we will be able to
get a vote in the not-too-distant future, for the benefit of Members. I
wanted to speak now briefly, if that is all right.
The Senator from Florida has been waiting a good deal of time, so if
he would like to take 10 minutes and speak, I plan to be around here
anyway, so if he would like to do that, I will be more than happy to do
that.
Mr. MARTINEZ. That would be fine.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after the
Senator from Florida speaks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I wanted to speak on the subject of
the Dorgan amendment and maybe try to set the record straight on some
things.
It is obvious that there is a different point of view on the relative
merits of this amendment and also on the situation our country faces
today relative to labor. I come from a State where the unemployment
rate is barely above 2.5 percent and where, frankly, there is a
shortage of workers to do any number of jobs, from picking citrus to
working in our hotels and many other tourist attractions. That is a
fact of life. When you talk to the hospital administrators of our
hospitals, they will tell us without a doubt there is a shortage of
nurses. Our Governor very wisely has

[[Page S6446]]

created some programs to enhance the number of nurses in our State by
providing expanded educational opportunities. But the fact remains, we
do have a problem. From time to time, there are needs for workers that
our Nation simply cannot meet. To say otherwise simply would be
ignoring the reality we face today.
So as we speak to this issue, I wish to try to go through several
aspects of the bill that I think are important to keep in mind as we
talk about this guest worker program. The eligibility requirement for Y
workers, this is what the workers must do. They have a valid labor
certification issued within 180 days. They have to have eligibility to
work. They must have a job offer from a U.S. petitioner employer, and
they must also have the payment of a processing fee and the State
impact fee. Whatever State they are going to be going to, there is
going to be an impact on that State as it relates to health care and
schools and whatever else, and that impact fee will be paid to the
States. They have to have a medical examination and, very importantly
for our national security, a complete criminal and terrorism-related
background checks. They also must not be inadmissible or ineligible,
meaning if we have deported you before, you need not apply.
Here is something else. For the Y-3 visa, they must have a wage 150
percent above the poverty level for the household size, and if they
come with their families, which Y-3s would be allowed to in very
limited numbers, they also must have insurance for their family as they
come.
Now, if a worker fails to timely depart at the time that his
temporary worker status is up, they will be barred from any future
immigration benefit except where the applicant is seeking asylum. So it
means that when the time is up, if you don't leave, you have quit
playing the game, you are not coming back.
Here are some of the requirements that are placed on the employer
before they can bring in an employee to work under this program. The
employer of the Y visa worker must file an application for labor
certification and a copy of the job offer. They have to pay a
processing fee, so that this is a pay-as-you-go program. They must also
make efforts to recruit U.S. workers for the position for which the
labor certification is sought. Now, they must start recruiting no later
than 90 days before the filing day for the application to the
Department of Labor, and they must also, as part of their requirements,
advertise in the area where the job is sought to be filled.
They advertise with labor unions, other labor organizations, and the
Department of Labor Web site saying: Please come work for me, we have a
job available. Then and only then, if there is a certification that the
job goes unfilled, could a guest worker come to work on our shores.
The Secretary of Labor and the employers must attest that it will not
displace, nor adversely affect, the wages or working conditions of U.S.
workers, and that the wages will be paid not less than the greater of
the actual wage paid by the employer to all similarly situated workers
or the prevailing competitive wage.
We are doing this because there is a need, not because we simply want
to. It is obvious that all of us would love to see American workers
flourish first and foremost, but the facts are such that this is a
necessary thing that we must have in our economy.
As to the issue of whether it will help border security, I happen to
believe if we have a legal means for people to come across the border
to meet that same supply and demand we are talking about--there is a
demand for workers, there is a ready and available supply--those two
are going to meet one another, and we are going to enhance our border
security.
But would it not help border security if we also had a legal means by
which people could come and work in this country? Of course, it will.
That will give us a safety valve. It will give us an opportunity for
legal workers to come to work for a period of time to fulfill a need
when necessary--after certification, after advertising, and for the
prevailing wage in that area. I think it is a reasonable thing to do.
It is part of what our economy needs.
I could get into all kinds of other issues, such as wage scale and
foreign trade and issues such as that, but I don't know that they are
relevant to the subject at hand.
I do hope my colleagues will support defeating the Dorgan amendment
because I believe this amendment would not only do great harm to the
bill, it would be the end of this very comprehensive immigration bill.
At the same time, in this bill I think we have, negotiated through this
process, carefully balanced the needs of our economy with the rights of
workers, as well as made sure that we are keeping a good balance
between the needs of the economy and also that which is necessary to be
fulfilled by a foreign workforce.
I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the Senate floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend from Florida for his
comments and helpful statements.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:45
p.m. today be for debate with respect to Dorgan amendment No. 1153,
prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in
order prior to the vote, and that the time be divided as follows: 20
minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan and the remaining time
equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy and Kyl or
their designees; and that at 5:45 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in
relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 12 minutes.
Madam President, we have the Dorgan amendment that is before us and
will be acted on at 5:45 pm. It effectively eliminates the temporary
worker program that provides for 400,000 visas a year. Let's understand
where we are. It is important to look at the total legislation to
understand each part of it.
First of all, Madam President, we have very tough border security
proposals. That has been talked about and will have a greater
opportunity to talk about those enormously important provisions.
Secondly, it has very important interior enforcement proposals. That
is very important. It does not exist today. It didn't exist in the 1986
Act. I opposed the 1986 Act. President Reagan signed the Act and
amnesty was part of it. But, the 1986 Act was a different proposal and
legislation and has no relevancy whatever with this. So, this
legislation has tough border security and tough interior enforcement
provisions.
The legislation does have an impact on chain migration, which will be
an issue to debate and discuss later. The legislation does include a
temporary worker program. There are provisions that many in this body
felt were extremely important. They are included in this legislation.
We've also included in this legislation assurance to the 12 million
undocumented immigrants that are here that they will be safe and secure
and not deported like a number of families were deported in my own
state of Massachusetts in the city of New Bedford.
The legislation also eliminates the backlog. Some families have been
waiting 20 years to be reunited with their families will now be
reunited over eight years. That is enormously important. It has the
AgJobs bill. I listened carefully to my good friend from California
being opposed to temporary workers, with the exception of temporary
workers in agriculture. We have an AgJobs bill for farmworkers who
probably have the most difficult backbreaking job in America. This bill
gives them the opportunity to emerge from the shadows and into the
sunlight. This is enormously important. Many of us remember the
extraordinary work of Cesar Chavez, who was a leader on the issue of
farmworker rights. This bill gives the workers the respect they
deserve. This amendment would deny many families the opportunity to see
their children of undocumented workers get help and assistance after
the children have worked hard, played by the rules, graduated from
school but would be unable to continue their education.
This bill is a real sign of hope for many families. These are the
concepts in the temporary worker program, which are the target of the
Senator

[[Page S6447]]

from North Dakota. He wants to get rid of the temporary worker program.
We believe, as the Senator from Florida pointed out, even if you have a
secure border--we are hopeful of having secure borders--it won't stop
illegal immigration.
As the Governor of Arizona who probably knows as much about this as
any other member of the United States Senate, has pointed out, you can
build the fence down there, but if it is 49 feet high, they will have a
50 foot ladder. Talk to the Arizona governor. The fact of the matter
is, some workers will come here illegally, or legally, one way or the
other they come in. That is where the temporary worker program comes
in. We say if we close this down, if we eliminate this program, you
will have those individuals that will crawl across the desert and
continue to die as they do now. Or you can say, come through the front
door and you will be given the opportunity to work for a period of time
in the United States--two years--and return.
Who are these people we are talking about? If an employer wants a
temporary worker, what does that employer have to do? First of all,
that employer has to advertise at the local unemployment office.
Second, they have to advertise at their workplace. Third, they have to
advertise in the newspaper. Fourth, they have to offer the job at the
prevailing wage to any American. All of that applies. Prevailing wage.
Even if the employer is not paying the prevailing wage to the others,
he still has to pay it to the new employee and if they do more they
have to pay to the guest worker what they pay to the other workers. If
they pay an average of $10 at the facility, they have to pay $10 here.
Also they cannot have guest workers in high unemployment areas as
well. Now, that is the situation. Now, what do they get when they
actually arrive in here? What kind of protections do they have? This is
what they will have. If they are guest workers, they are treated
equally under U.S. labor laws. They are not treated that way today.
They are not treated that way today, but under our legislation they
will be. The employers provide workmen's compensation. So they are
provided by protections under OSHA. If they have an accident they get
workman's compensation. The employers with the history of worker abuse
cannot participate in the program. And there are strict penalties for
the employers that break the rules. Now, what is happening today? What
is happening today?
We have listened to the Senator from North Dakota. Let's keep it as
it is today. Let's look at the program today. Look what happens to
undocumented workers that were exploited. This is what is happening
today in America. This is what happens today. That is what the Senator
from North Dakota wants. He wants to continue what we are doing today.
Here is the New Bedford example. Workers rights were trampled on.
They were fined for going to the bathroom, denied overtime pay, docked
15 minutes pay for each minutes they were late, they would be fired for
talking while on the clock, forced to ration on toilet paper.
Why? Because they were undocumented. Without this program, temporary
workers will come here and be exploited. That is the history of
immigration. Read history. It is sad. That is what has happened. There
is exploitation. That is what we are trying to deal with. That is what
we are trying to deal with.
One in 10 workers is injured every year by sharp hooks, knives,
exhausting assembly line speeds or painful damage from repetitive
motions. Workers are subject to chlorine mist, lead to bloody noses,
vomiting and headache. Undocumented workers don't report their injuries
because they live in fear they will lose their jobs and be deported.
That is what the problem is. That is what we are attempting to
eliminate. And the idea that you just write an amendment and eliminate
that is reaching for the stars. It just ain't the way it is.
It isn't me that is saying this. But you take the Governor Napolitano
and others who have studied it and lived it, they understand it. So
that is what the alternative is. Either we are going to have a program
that is limited. Might not be the program that I like but, it is the
program that is in there. Those workers are going to come on in here.
They are going to have protections. If you close and try and slam that
door, it isn't going to work. It is not going to work. That is what we
have seen over a period of time. They are going to come in as long as
the magnet of the American economy is there. That is what is happening.
And the idea that you just say, oh, we're offering an amendment and
just going to eliminate this and then everything will be all set,
everything will be all worked out, everything will just be fine. It
just defies logic, understanding, experience and the history of this
issue. Under this program, those that come in here will have the kind
of worker protections that they should.
And finally, we won't have the situation that we have now where you
have the undocumented workers come in here. They drive the wages down
because they'll work for virtually nothing. And that drives American
wages down.
You want more of that? I don't. You want more of that? I don't. I
don't. So I would hope that this amendment will not pass.
Madam President, I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I believe Senator Kyl has 19 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 \1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized
for 8 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, we will put Senator Kennedy down in the
``undecided'' column on this issue, but I was very much persuaded by
his argument.
The goal is to create a balance that will allow this country to move
forward and not replicate the problems of the past, allow us to move
forward and learn from our mistakes of the past, allow us to move
forward in the best traditions of this country, and allow us to move
forward in order to be competitive in a global economy.
The temporary worker program is one of the key elements of this bill.
Why do we have 12 million people, plus, probably, here illegally? I
think most of them came, hopefully they all came, not to destroy
America but to earn more money here than they could in their home area.
The problem is they are doing it illegally. They are subject to being
exploited. There are no controls over how these people are being
treated. There is no control over how they are paying taxes. It is a
lose-lose. It is a losing situation for the economy and it is a losing
situation for the worker.
If we do away with the temporary worker program, the only thing I can
promise you for sure is the next Congress and the next generation of
political leaders will look back on our time in shame. They will be
cursing us because we failed to rise to the occasion and to logically
deal with a problem that is crying out for a solution.
Providing a temporary worker program allows people from other parts
of the world to make their life better on our terms. They will pay
taxes. They won't be exploited. And before they get one of these jobs,
we will have to advertise it in the area in question to American
citizens. Only when an American citizen refuses to do a job in question
can the temporary worker be hired, and at a competitive wage in order
to take care of our people and also to take care of our economy.
This is a win-win. People from other places in the world can come
through in an orderly process, get a tamperproof card, so we will know
who they are. They will have a visa where they will never have to worry
about being afraid of the law while they are here, as long as they obey
the law. They can do jobs American workers are not doing at a
competitive wage. That is a blessing to this country.
Everybody in the world doesn't want to come here to get a green card.
There are a lot of people who want to come for a temporary period of
time and improve themselves and go back and improve the country from
whence they came. If we want to be competitive, we need to have the
workforce vis-a-vis the rest of the world to make us competitive. If
you take the temporary

[[Page S6448]]

worker program out of the mix, then you are going to ensure in the
future more illegal immigration. If you don't have a temporary worker
program that is regulated, you are going to ensure exploitation.
From the economic side and the humanitarian side, we need to do this.
If this amendment would somehow pass, then we will have repeated the
fundamental mistake of the past. We will not have fixed a thing, and we
will have ensured that more people will come here illegally, because
the magnet will still attract them. We will ensure they get exploited,
and we will hurt our economy because we can't regulate this workforce.
The Y card will be tamper proof. People will have to give a
fingerprint; they will have to sign up; they will be regulated in terms
of how they are treated; they will be paid a competitive wage, and we
will know where they are and what they are up to; and we will allow
them to work here and go back to where they came three different times,
6 out of 8 years, to better themselves. If they want to be a citizen,
they can apply for a green card. The more points they earn during their
temporary worker period, the more competitive they will be.
If they go to school at night, as my good friend Ken Salazar has
suggested, if they get a certificate in an employment area and learn a
skill, they will get points. If they get a GED, if they work hard
during the day and improve themselves at night, then they get rewarded.
Let me tell you about the individuals we are talking about. They work
hard. Neither one of my parents graduated high school. They started a
small business, a restaurant, where they opened before the sun was up
and closed at 10 o'clock at night. They worked like dogs. When they
were sick, they went to work, because there was nobody there to take
their place.
The people we are talking about here are coming from other parts of
the world and who are good workers. I am confident they will have a
chance to prove their worth to our country, add to our economy, and
make us a better nation. Some of them will want to become citizens, and
they can. We need the Ph.Ds from India and other places, but we also
need people like my parents, who will come and work hard, play by the
rules, better themselves, and find a niche in our economy. Without a
temporary worker program, we are going to ensure people come here in
fear, live in fear, get exploited, and don't contribute to our economy.

This bill is as balanced as I know how to make it. I am always
openminded to better ideas, but I am close-minded when it comes to
destroying it. A temporary worker program is the key to not repeating
the mistakes of the past, which is exploitation, not controlling who
comes here, not having economic control over your workforce, and
leaving people to be exploited. If it stays a part of this bill, we all
can hold our heads up high and say we created a win-win situation that
says to the hard-working person, who looks to America as a place to
start a new life, to learn a skill, to improve themselves, there will
be a place for you. Those who want to stay after their temporary worker
period is over, you can get points to stay, and the more you do, the
more you better yourself, the better chance you will have.
To me, it is exactly what we have needed for years. My good friends,
Senator Kennedy and Senator Salazar, and so many others, have sat down
and tried to make this temporary worker program meet our economic needs
and be humanitarian in its application. I think we have done a darned
good job. For the sake of this country and all we stand for, let us
keep this bill moving forward.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I ask how much time we have on our
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. And on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes
25 seconds, and the Senator from North Dakota has 20 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself the 11\1/2\ minutes we
have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I first say how good it is to see
the Senator from Colorado in the chair as debate on this first crucial
vote on this bill winds down. Because while sitting in the chair and
presiding is a functional part of the Senate's normal operation, in
this debate, for the Senator from Colorado and this Senator from New
Mexico, it means a little more than that. My neighboring Senator, the
new Senator from Colorado, has indeed spent a great deal of time and
effort and applied some very good common sense, when others were not
applying it, to this bill. He has done more than his share to see to it
that we arrived here today at this point and can move ahead with a very
difficult bill, with some very difficult propositions being put forth,
and I commend him for that.
Let me say to those who are listening, I still want, at some point
before we close debate, probably within the next 5 or 6 or 8 days, to
talk to the Senate about my family and the whole history of how we got
here--how we survived the immigration laws, which were very complicated
50 or so years ago when I was a little kid. They were so complicated
that my mother was arrested by the Federal Government because they said
she was not a citizen. She was arrested right in front of all of us
children, only to find out there were some technical problems with her
efforts to become a citizen. We had to sit there and watch her march
off, as some people talk about happening to them today.
But today I want to talk about where we are with a complicated bill
and what should happen tonight. First, many Members worked hard and
long with two Cabinet members to weave together a very interesting bill
to manage illegal aliens and aliens who want to come to this country to
get ahead, as my folks did when they got on a boat and went to France
and ended up in Albuquerque from the little town of Lucca in northern
Italy. They came and followed the laws of that day. Others want the
same thing.
The important thing to know is that relevant laws, and what has
happened to immigrants, and how those laws have been applied to those
people, is in shambles. Americans know that. Every day they tell us
about something happening on the border, and then they remind us of
those things because they are very upset and angry citizens. And what
they are upset about is that we have a body of laws but those laws
aren't being enforced because we are right up alongside some countries
that are poor and whose people want to work and make more money than
they can make at home by getting over here and getting a job.
Everybody should understand that the big problem here is the problem
of economics. People from Mexico and other countries in or near this
continent want to make a living and they can't make a living at home.
Things are in disarray because that big force, that economic force,
drives these people who have families they want to send money to, who
are trying to get away from starvation. That is pushing everything into
the ground and pushing people from what they should do to what they are
doing, and lo and behold, there is a huge illegal immigration problem
everywhere you turn.
In putting the pieces together, those who wrote the bill we have
before us decided that, among all of the pieces, we needed to have a
legalized temporary worker piece to this American fabric of a bill that
will control guest workers henceforth. When we are finished, we will
have a law that works against and in favor of, depending upon who you
are and what you are doing, and will regulate the law applying to guest
workers and undocumented aliens.
There is no question, according to those who worked so hard on this
bill, that we need a temporary worker component in the bill. So they
put it in there. It is a 2-year program. You get a special card, and
you can work for 2 years as a temporary worker and then you must go
home for a year. This is a temporary worker permit. It is different
from anything else in the bill. Those who worked so hard to piece the
bill together so that it would work said: Among the things we have,
let's

[[Page S6449]]

make sure we have a temporary worker permit.
This is not for agricultural workers only, and anybody who thinks it
is does not know what is happening in America. The illegal aliens are
working in all kinds of jobs. It would shock you to know what
industries. If this bill works and these undocumented workers turn
themselves in, we are going to have a great big shock in America when
we find out who these individuals are, what they do, where they work
and how they make a living. When those 10 to 12 million Americans show
up and agree that they want to take a chance on America, that will be
one phase of this bill. But even after that is finished, we will decide
tonight whether there will be room for the next 50 years, or until we
change it, for new people to come here and take a place as temporary
workers in the United States, as described and defined, for 2 years,
and then they must go home. They must stay home a year and then come
back. Do we want that?
Those who have worked hard on this bill say a resounding: Yes, we do.
We need it. It is part of the entire panorama of the pieces of the
bill, and taken all together, we ought to vote aye and this part of the
bill ought to stay intact. That will be the first indication tonight
that we understand that those who worked hard to put this bill together
deserve our confidence regarding this very important piece of
legislation for temporary workers.
I hope everybody who is interested in a good law will keep this piece
in the bill tonight when they vote. With that, I understand there are
others who might want to speak on our side. I had the remaining time
because no one was here, but since Senator Specter is here, I am going
to yield. Whatever that does for him, I am glad to do it. I yield back
any time I have.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 20 minutes;
the Senator from Massachusetts, 4 minutes 25 seconds; the Senator from
Pennsylvania, 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania wish to make his
statement at this point?
Mr. SPECTER. Not now.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me be recognized and ask I be notified when I have 5
minutes remaining. It will be my intention to close debate on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a Byzantine argument. This has
been interesting to listen to. It reminded me, sitting here, of Will
Rogers. He once said:

It's not what they know that bothers me, it's what they say
they know for sure that just ain't so.

I am listening to this, and I am hearing, first of all, we have
border security in this bill. We are going to beef up border security.
We have it fixed.
Then I hear this: We have to have a guest worker provision. We have
to have temporary workers come in because: One way or another those
immigrants are coming across the border. You try to close that door, it
is not going to work.
This from the people who wrote the bill. Two of them have said it. It
seems to me what they are saying is we can't stop illegal immigration
so let's try to figure out who is coming across and call them legal.
That is what this looks like to me.
Let me say it again. Those who put this bill together say: One way or
another, these people are coming in. We are not going to stop them. You
can't close that door. It would not work. The solution? Make them
legal.
What does that say to people across the world who have decided they
want to come to the United States of America, and there is a quota by
which their country can allow some people to come in, we will accept
them. They put their name on the list 8 years ago and they have been
waiting patiently to be able to come to our country legally. Now they
discover that on the floor of the Senate some people put together a
plan that says: It is true you waited for 8 years and you are still not
here and you may be near the top of the list, but all those who came
here through December 31 of last year, we will now declare that they
are here legally.
What does that say to a lot of people around the world who thought
this was on the level, that our immigration quotas were real quotas?
If this amendment fails, the one that says let's get rid of the
temporary worker provision which will bring millions of additional
people into this country at the bottom of the economic ladder--if this
amendment fails, it doesn't mean we are not going to have immigrant
workers. There will be a million and a half who come in legally with
the quota system and the relatives and so on; and there will be over a
million a year who come in working in agriculture, because this is not
about agriculture. You are talking about over 2 million a year, even if
my amendment fails.
But we are told: No, this amendment has to fail. We have to keep this
temporary worker provision in the bill because if it is not in the
bill, we have this finely structured, crafted bill that is not
perfect--everybody who worked on it said it is not perfect. We get
that. We knew that when we saw it. But if you pass this amendment, that
changes this bill and the whole stool collapses.
There has been no talk about American workers today. This is about
immigration. I understand that. But we have a whole lot of folks at the
bottom of the economic ladder who went to work this morning struggling,
trying to make ends meet. It has been 9 years since we increased the
minimum wage in this country, 9 years for those American workers out
there struggling at the bottom of the ladder.
I mentioned a while ago what is happening to American workers. You
know it. Read the paper. Circuit City says: You know what, we have
decided we are going to fire 3,400 of our workers. Because they are bad
workers? Oh, no. They are making too much money. The chief executive
officer of Circuit City makes $10 million a year. The average worker
was making $11 an hour. So we decided we are going to get rid of them.
They have too much experience and we don't want to pay $11 an hour, so
3,400 people get fired.

Bo Anderson, the top executive agent for General Motors in
purchasing, calls in all the companies making parts for General Motors.
Here is what he said to them: You need to outsource your jobs to China
to reduce costs. Get those American jobs moving to China right now.
Pennsylvania House Furniture--I have told this story before. Governor
Rendell told me about that. Fine furniture made by Pennsylvania House,
top-of-the-line furniture with Pennsylvania wood and craftsmen who made
great pieces of furniture. La-Z-Boy bought it and said: You know what,
we will move all those jobs to China. We will ship Pennsylvania wood to
China, bring it back, and we will still call it Pennsylvania House
Furniture.
On the last day of work, when all those craftsmen lost their jobs,
the last piece of furniture to come off that line they turned upside
down and all those workers, those craftsmen at Pennsylvania House
Furniture, signed the bottom of that piece of furniture, knowing it was
the last piece of furniture they were going to make as American
workers, craftsmen who knew their jobs and made great furniture. The
last piece--they all signed it.
Somebody in this country has a piece of fine furniture called
Pennsylvania House, signed by all the craftsmen who got fired because
those jobs went searching for 20-cent and 30-cent-an-hour labor.
I am telling you, the same economic interests, the same corporate
interests that are finding ways and searching for ways to ship American
jobs overseas in search of 20-cent and 30-cent-an-hour labor are the
ones pushing this provision through the back door.
I have heard precious little discussion today about the plight of the
American worker. They say we don't have enough workers, can't find
workers. One of my colleagues said we have jobs in America that
Americans will not do at a competitive wage.
Oh, really? Is that the case? Or is it the case they are not paying a
competitive wage and don't want to have to pay a competitive wage? I
thought maybe we would have some people here who studied economics 101,
about supply and demand. You are having trouble finding workers? Maybe
increase

[[Page S6450]]

the price of that job a little bit, increase the wage offer a little
bit. You know these people who work in the hospital corridors keeping
it clean at night, the people who make the motel beds, the people who
are across the counter of the convenience store. You can't find
workers? Maybe you better pay a little better wage. That is supply and
demand, isn't it? But you don't have to do that if you can bring in
people at the bottom of the economic ladder, bring in millions of them.
This Byzantine plan, let me tell you what it is: 40,000 temporary
workers a year, they can stay for 2 years, they can bring their family
for 2 years if they wish. Then they have to go home for a year and they
have to take their family with them. Then they can come back for 2
years. Then they have to go home for a year, can come back for 2
additional years, but if they brought their family either during the
first or second stay, they can only come back twice for 2 years. You
think that is goofy? That is the plan. I am telling you, if you can
read, open it up and read it and ask yourself whether that makes any
sense at all.
Do American workers have a stake in this plan? You are damn right
they do. American workers have a big stake in this issue, and I hear
precious little attention to the plight of the American workers. People
say they can't find them. I will tell you what, go read the newspaper
and figure out who is throwing them out of work today. These jobs
migrate to China. I can stand here for 15 minutes and tell you the name
of companies that have laid off thousands, tens of thousands, in fact,
3 million and counting more jobs in search of cheap labor overseas. You
want to go find somebody to do your work? Find the people who got laid
off because their job got outsourced to cheap labor. You don't have to
bring in millions of additional people--no, not 400,000 a year. Add
that up over 10 years, 400,000 a year, plus an escalator, plus stay for
2 years, go home for a year, come back 2 years, go home for a year,
come back for 2 years, do that every year and you are talking about
millions of low-wage workers coming in to assume low-wage jobs in this
country.
I wish to put in the record at this point letters from folks who run
some of the labor organizations in our country: Terry O'Sullivan,
Laborers International Union of North America; Joe Hansen, United Food
and Commercial Workers, the presidents of those unions; James Hoffa,
president, Brotherhood of Teamsters; Newton Jones, international
president, Boilermakers Union; Bill Samuel, director of the AFL-CIO; Ed
Sullivan, president of Building and Construction Trades--they all say
exactly the same thing, support this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent the letters be printed in the Record and I
reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

May 21, 2007.
Dear Senator: On behalf of our more than 3 million members,
our Unions write to urge your support for true immigration
reform, but in opposition to immigrant worker abuse. That is
why our Unions have joined together to support Senator
Dorgan's effort to strip out the new guestworker provision of
the compromise immigration legislation.
The compromise legislation has good and bad elements, but
as the New York Times noted just yesterday, ``The agreement
fails most dismally in its temporary worker program . . . It
offers a way in but no way up, a shameful repudiation of
American tradition that will encourage exploitation--and more
illegal immigration.
This is not a deal that we would have negotiated, nor one
that our members--if they had an opportunity to ratify--would
accept. Neither should the United States Senate.
Senator Dorgan's amendment to eliminate the new guestworker
Y visa program is the right approach at this time. With a
positive plan to provide earned legalization to as many of
the 12 million undocumented workers as proposed, it is hard
to justify the need for an additional 400,000-600,000 workers
at the same time. This new visa program is a Bracero-type
guestworker model, forcing workers to toil in a truly
temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and abuse
by those seeking cheap labor. In addition, we are all aware
that the current guestworker programs are badly in need of
reform. Those reforms should be addressed before any broad
new expansion takes place.
We appreciate the difficulties in brokering a compromise on
this critical issue, as well as the conflicting perspectives
that need to be addressed. However, on this critical issue,
we have made it clear from the very beginning that an
agreement which forced future immigrant workers to be
obligated into indentured servitude would be anathema to us.
We are disappointed that such a provision was included in the
legislation, but are gratified that Senator Dorgan will be
offering an amendment which will permit Senators who oppose
this provision a positive vote to improve the legislation,
and take a stand in support of worker's rights--both domestic
workers and immigrant workers.
We strongly support Senator Dorgan's amendment to strike
the guestworker provision and urge your support for it as
well.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you
have questions or need more information, please feel free to
contact Yvette Pena Lopes of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters at 202-624-6805, Bevin Albertani of the Laborers'
International Union of North America at 202-942-2272, or
Michael J. Wilson of the United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union at 202-728-4796.
Sincerely,
James P. Hoffa,
General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Terence M. O'Sullivan,
General President, Laborers' International Union of North
America.
Joseph T. Hansen,
International President, United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union.
____

International Brotherhood of Boilmakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
Fairfax, VA, May 22, 2007.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers &
Helpers, I write to express our concern over the pending
immigration legislation. which includes an enormous
guestworker program that would allow employers to import
hundreds of thousands of temporary workers very year to
perform permanent jobs throughout the U.S. economy.
This new Y visa program will force workers to labor in a
truly temporary status with a high risk of exploitation and
abuse by those seeking a cheap workforce. In addition. the
current guestworker programs are badly in need of reform.
Those reforms should be addressed before any broad new
expansion takes place.
For this reason, we urge your support for the Dorgan-Boxer
Amendment to strip out the Y guestworker provision of the
compromise immigration legislation. The Y visa would lock
millions of new workers into a life of virual servitude. This
is not a deal that we would have negotiated, nor one that our
members--if they had an opportunity to ratify--would accept.
Neither should the United States Senate.
If the Dorgan-Boxer Amendment fails, the Senate will then
have an opportunity to curtail the size, scope and potential
negative impacts of this new program. The Bingaman Amendment
would cap the Y guest worker program at 200,000 each year and
eliminate the escalator that allows it to grow as much as
600,000 guestworkers a year.
Certainly, our Union understands the difficulties in
brokering a compromise on this crucial issue, as well as the
conflicting viewpoints that need to be addressed. However, on
this issue. any agreement which forces future immigrant
workers to be obligated into a virtual indentured servitude
would be deplorable to us.
The Boilermakers urge you to support the Dorgan-Boxer
Amendment and the Bingaman Amendment, which will permit
Senators who oppose this provision a positive vote to improve
the legislation, and take a stand in supprt of worker's
rights--both domestic workers and immigrant workers.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you
have questions or need more information, please contact
Bridget Martin.
Sincerely,
Newton B. Jones,
International President.
____

American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
Dear Senator: The pending immigration bill includes a
massive guestworker program that would allow employers to
import hundreds of thousands of truly temporary workers every
year to perform permanent jobs throughout the U.S. economy.
Without a real path to legalization, the program will ensure
that America has two classes of workers, only one of which
can exercise even the most basic workplace rights. For this
reason, we urge you to support the Dorgan-Boxer Amendment to
eliminate the Y guestworker visa program from the bill.
If the Dorgan-Boxer Amendment fails, the Senate will then
have an opportunity to curtail the size, scope and potential
negative impacts of the poorly crafted Y guest worker
program. The Bingaman Amendment would cap the Y guest worker
program at 200,000 each year and eliminate the escalator that
allows it to grow to as much as 600,000 guestworkers a year.

[[Page S6451]]

The Y visa would lock millions of new workers into a life
of virtual servitude. It does not belong in a bill whose
alleged purpose is to relieve 12 million currently
undocumented workers of the very same exploitations. The AFL-
CIO urges you to vote for the Dorgan-Boxer and Bingaman
Amendments.
Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director,
Department of Legislation.
____

American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the twelve international unions
of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO,
I urge you to support the Dorgan/Boxer Amendment to strike
the guest worker provision from the compromise immigration
legislation.
Throughout the debate on comprehensive immigration reform
the Building Trades have opposed the creation of a new guest
worker program. We feel that American workers have enough
downward pressure on their wages and the last thing they need
is to have an influx of hundreds of thousands of temporary
workers every year competing for their jobs at substandard
wages.
If the Dorgan/Boxer Amendment fails, we ask for your
support to curtail the size and scope of the guest worker
program by supporting the Bingaman Amendment. The Bingaman
Amendment would cap the guest worker program at 200,000 each
year and eliminate the escalator that allows it to grow as
much as 600,000 guest workers a year.
On behalf of America's construction workers and all the
workers that would be negatively impacted by the
implementation of the proposed guest worker program, we urge
you to vote for the Dorgan/Boxer and Bingaman Amendments.
Sincerely,
Edward C. Sullivan,
President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WEBB. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield 5 minutes of his
time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 9 minutes. He has 11
minutes remaining.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield 4 minutes to my
colleague from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I did not come to
the floor to speak on this amendment. I have long admired the Senator
from North Dakota in his sometimes lonely attempts to preserve the
well-being of the American worker. But I couldn't sit and listen to his
comments without saying a few words in support of this amendment.
There seems to be a trend running through the Congress that disturbs
me. It is a trend of omission. I do not see enough people who are
willing to stand up and speak on behalf of the people who are doing the
hard jobs in this society. We can talk about all the benefits of
different portions of this bill, but at the same time we are faced with
a set of realities, not only with respect to the American workers but,
in a broader sense, with respect to people in this country who are
having to do the hard work of our society. Who is speaking for them?
This used to be the function of the Democratic Party, to speak for
them.
We are in a situation in this country right now where corporate
profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of our national wealth.
Yet wages and salaries as a percentage of our national wealth are at an
all-time low. How does this happen? One of the ways that it happens is
exactly what the Senator from North Dakota is talking about. We have
these programs that benefit Wall Street, and they are not necessarily
benefiting the people who are doing the hard work of our society, the
wage earners who are getting cut out because of an underground economy.
I support, in many ways, the move toward giving permanent status to
people who have come to this country illegally at one point and who
have put down roots and who want to move into the mainstream of our
society. But this particular portion of this bill is not designed to do
that. It is designed to increase the difficulties that we already have.
It is not a compromise, it is a fabrication.
I have that concern also when it comes to what we are doing on the
Iraq bill. We are sending a supplemental back right now that is not in
any way going to support the troops who are having to do the hard work
in Iraq. We are going to be talking about benchmarks.
There is nobody in the Pentagon, there is nobody in the
administration, there are precious few people in the United States
Congress who are aware, in a measurable way, of what we are doing to
the well-being of the ground troops who are having to go back to Iraq
again and again.
If this is a conflict that is requiring that sort of commitment on
the ground, then why isn't the administration talking differently about
the number of troops it needs? Because the people who volunteered to go
in the military are supposed to go again and again and do their duty.
Well, they are probably on their third and their fourth tours. I put
in a bill, along with Senator Hagel, that said you cannot send anybody
back to Iraq unless they have been home as long as they have been gone.
That, to me, is common sense if you have ever been deployed. I have had
a father who was deployed. I have been deployed. I have had a son who
has been deployed. I know what it is like. There are a lot of people
who know what it is like. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be forcing
the administration on that end.
We see it in areas such as what has happened to our gas prices here.
We are going to get a vote on the Attorney General, apparently, a no-
confidence vote. How about getting a vote on how the American people
are getting ripped off at the pump? Those things can be documented. You
can have all of the economic theories in the world about why these gas
prices are going up. Gas was $24 a barrel when we went into Iraq. It is
now close to $70. The people who are making money off of that are
making money largely off of foreign policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senator has used
4 minutes.
Mr. WEBB. Fifteen seconds, Mr. President. There is a theme in this.
The theme is that this is the party that is supposed to be taking care
of the people who are doing the hard work of our society. There is no
shame to stand up and say that what the Senator from North Dakota is
proposing is for the good of the people who are doing the hard work of
our society.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains under my control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield that time to myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the
amendment by the Senator from North Dakota. This identical issue was
considered by the Senate a little more than a year ago, on May 16 of
last year, when Senator Dorgan made a similar motion, and I, in my
capacity at that time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, moved to
table. The tabling motion was agreed to 69 to 28.
I submit that the same reasons which justified the rejection of the
Dorgan amendment last year are applicable here. We have a situation in
the United States where according to the Bureau of Labor Statics, the
national unemployment rate for April, last month, 2007, is 4.5 percent,
which constitutes virtual full employment. So there is a need for extra
workers.
In structuring the bill, we have provided for flexibility so that the
number can be raised or lowered depending upon what circumstances
exist. We have taken steps to protect American workers who are
available to fill the jobs with a statutory requirement that there will
have to be extensive advertising before the guest worker program can be
utilized and workers can be employed.
Last year, the bill was considered by the Judiciary Committee. This
year we did not follow that process. Perhaps it was an error. Instead,
we had very extended meetings over the course of the past 3 months,
hour upon hour, customarily with as many as 12 Senators sitting to work
out the issues.
This issue was considered at some length. But last year when the
matter

[[Page S6452]]

was before the Judiciary Committee, we had very persuasive, really
compelling testimony by a number of prominent economists in support of
the guest worker program.
On April 25, 2006, we had Harry Holzer, professor of public policy,
Georgetown University, April 25, 2006, before the Senate Judiciary
Committee testifying that most economists believe immigration is a good
thing for the overall economy, that it lowers costs, lowers prices, and
enables us to produce more goods and services and to produce them more
efficiently.
We had testimony of a similar nature from Dan Siciliano, executive
director of the program in law, economics and business at Stanford Law
School on April 25 of last year. Similarly, Richard Freedman, professor
of economics at Harvard University, testified on April 25, expressed
his view:

I think all economists believe from evidence that
immigration raises not only the GDP of the United States
because we have more people now to do useful activities, but
it also raises the part of the GDP that goes to current
residents in our country.

This year, on May 3, earlier this month, the Assistant Secretary of
Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor, Leon Segeuira, testified that
there were three fundamental reasons the United States needs
immigration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The time for the
Senator from Pennsylvania has expired.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. The three reasons were the aging workforce we have, the
necessity to maintain a higher ratio of workers to retirees, and,
third, that immigrants contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship.
So I think we have a record basis that this guest worker program is
useful, helpful to the economy, and that it is very important to the
economy to have an adequate workforce.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, as the sponsor of the
amendment, I would prefer to conclude the debate. So if Senator Kennedy
has additional time remaining, my hope is that he would take that time
so I may conclude.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes
20 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair let me know when I have 20 seconds left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what we are trying to do in this
legislation is have secure borders. Secure borders, not open borders.
Secure borders.
Part of having a secure border is making sure the people who are
going to come in are going to come in legally. The idea that you can
have a secure border and close it completely is something that has
never happened before and will not happen now.
The idea that you eliminate completely the guest worker program means
what? It means you are going to have border guards who are going to be
chasing after landscapers out in the middle of the desert and racing
after people who might be working in gardens or as bartenders in the
future.
You want your border guards to be going after terrorists and
smugglers. How do you do that? You give a pathway for people to come
here legally. When they come here legally they get the protections of
the labor laws. If you do not do that, you think you can eliminate this
program? You are going to have people who are going to come in
illegally and they are going to be exploited day in and day out. When
they are exploited day in and day out, it is going to depress wages.
That is the way it has been. That is the way it is today.
That is the difference. Maybe you don't like this particular guest
worker program. It is better than many others. Maybe you would like to
shape it somewhat differently. That is the issue plain and square,
plain and square. We are trying to take illegality out of this system:
illegality at the border, illegality at the workplace, illegality in
exploiting the undocumented, and illegality from the people who are
here, if they are going to pay their fines, work hard, go to end of the
line. We are trying to reduce illegality.
If there is anybody in this Senate who believes you can just say, no,
we are going to close that border, 1,800 miles, and that is it--I would
like the chicken pluckers to pay $10 or $15 an hour. They do not do it.
They are not going to do it. Who are you trying to kid? Who is the
Senator from North Dakota trying to fool?
These are the realities, the economic realities. No one has fought
for increasing the minimum wage more than I have. But you have got
realties that employers are not going to pay it. They are going to
exploit people if you can get them here undocumented.
So that is the issue, Mr. President. I believe we have a reasonable
program that makes sense. I think it makes sense from a law enforcement
point of view. I think it makes sense in terms of protecting the wages
of American workers under this program.
We are going to make sure that all of those who are coming here with
the guest worker program are going to get the prevailing wage, they are
going to be protected by OSHA, if they get hurt on the job they are
going to get the workers' compensation. They are going to get those
worker protections. If they are working on construction sites, they are
going to be covered by Davis-Bacon.
You can either do it legally, or you can do it with the undocumented.
That is not just the Senator from Massachusetts, that is Governor
Napolitano who knows something as the Governor of a border State who
has pointed this out time in and time out, Mr. President.
So I would hope this amendment would not be accepted.
I yield the floor, and I reserve whatever time I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 4 minutes 52
seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, would the Chair advise me when I have 30
seconds remaining?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me stand up and say a word on behalf
of chicken pluckers. I had no idea that was the debate. But they will
never get $15 an hour as long as we bring in cheap labor through the
back door to pluck chickens.
I am more interested in the issue of manufacturing. I am interested
in people who got up this morning and packed a lunch pail and they are
going to have to shower after work because they work hard and they
sweat and they do not get paid very much. They have waited for 9 years
for an increased minimum wage; it has not come. They are worried about
whether they are going to be there. They are worried whether they are
going to be called into a meeting someday and be told: Your job is
gone. We are either moving your job to China or we are bringing in
someone from the back door to take your job at much lower pay.
That is what workers face now. No one in this Chamber will face it.
Nobody. We all get up and put on a white shirt and a blue suit. We come
here and talk. No one is going to lose their job. None of it is going
to be outsourced, and no one who comes through the back door is going
to jeopardize a job in this Chamber. It is not going to happen on an
editorial board in a newspaper. It is just the folks this morning who
got up and had an aspiration of going to their job and working hard and
providing for their families. They are the ones who are wondering: What
is my future?
Now, let me make a very important point. The assumption is that if we
defeat the temporary worker program we are not going to have
immigration. The fact is, we are going to have a million and a half
people coming into this country under legal immigration having nothing
to do with this program. We are going to have over a million people
coming into this country for agricultural jobs having nothing to do
with this program. Oh, we will have immigration. It is just that those
who wrote this said: That is not enough. We want more.
Now, my colleagues keep saying: Well, if we dump this thing called
temporary workers, they are just going to

[[Page S6453]]

come here anyway. They are going to be illegal.
Wait a second. I thought you were going to provide border security.
Now you are telling me there is no border security because if you do
not decide to call them legal, they are going to come anyway. If that
is the case, point to the area of this bill that says that you provided
border security. You know, this is like Groundhog Day. We have been
here once before, 1986. We are going to secure the border. Twenty years
later, 12 million people are here without legal authorization. Now we
are going to secure the border.
But now we are told at this hour, just before the vote on my
amendment: Oh, by the way, if we don't provide for temporary workers to
call those coming in legal, if we do not do that, they will come in
illegally anyway. So, then, where is the border security? Is that a
false promise? One of these two options is the case. You either have
border security, and people are not going to come here by the hundreds
and thousands because they can't, or you have no border security so you
have decided we will just name them all legal and call them temporary
workers.
My colleague cited a Harvard economist. Many of these economists
cannot remember their home phone number, and they are giving us their
thoughts on what is going to happen 5 years from now.
This one, Professor George Borjas from the John F. Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard, said: Here is what has happened to U.S. workers.
U.S. workers have lost income in the 20 years as a result of
immigration. That is not disputable. Is anybody here disputing that? I
don't think so. We have had downward pressure on U.S. income as a
result.
This proposition in this bill says: You know what. That may be the
experience, but we have not had enough of it. We want more. We want
more of it.
Again, finally, if you decide to vote against my amendment, I want
you to have a town meeting and explain it.
We allow 400,000 workers in the first year. They can come for 2
years. They can bring their family, if they wish. Then they have to go
home for a year and take their family with them. They can come back
after going home for a year, for 2 more years. Then they have to go
home for another year. Then they can come back for 2 more years unless
they decided to bring their family with them in the first place. In
that case, they get two stays for 2 years, with 1 year back home in
between. We will do that cumulatively, and what you have here in 10
years is roughly 12 million man-years of work by people who come in,
leave, come in, leave. By the way, how many of you think these people
are going to leave?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to put in the record the
extraordinary story that was in the Washington Post today, ``First
Called to Duty, Then Citizenship,'' about green card workers, members
of the Armed Forces. We have 70,000 who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. So
many of them are working toward earning their citizenship and defending
America. It is a great story. I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From washingtonpost.com, May 22, 2007]

First Called to Duty, Then Citizenship

(By Brigid Schulte)

In a crowd of nearly 100 eager faces of newly sworn-in
citizens on the grounds of Mount Vernon yesterday, three men
in the front row stood out. Their black shoes shone to glossy
perfection. Their backs were ramrod straight. One wore the
crisp white uniform of the Navy. Another, the drab khaki of
the Marines and a third, the dress uniform of the Army. Two
had campaign ribbons from serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Until yesterday, the sailor, the Marine and the soldier
were among more than 40,000 ``green card'' service members--
non-citizens serving in the U.S. military. After swearing to
defend the Constitution, Petty Officer Reginald Cherubin, 30,
Marine Sgt. Brian Joseph, 38, and Army Sgt. Jeremy Tattrie,
24, joined another group: the more than 26,000 service
members who have become U.S. citizens since the Iraq war
began and the Bush administration expedited the citizenship
process for military members. Seventy-five service members
have received their citizenship posthumously since then.
It was the sight of Iraqis pulling down Saddam Hussein's
statue in 2003 that led Tattrie, a Canadian by birth who was
then in college in Florida, to join the military.
``I felt the call to duty,'' he said, clutching one of the
small American flags that immigration officials had just
passed out. ``I just felt the urge to serve my country.''
Even though when he enlisted, the United States wasn't,
technically, it.
The three were sworn in as the military and the country are
engaged in a vigorous, divisive debate about what place
immigrants should have in the armed forces and society at
large.
The ceremony at George Washington's home took place as
lawmakers on the other side of the Potomac River began
debating a controversial immigration bill that would, among
other provisions, grant legal status to virtually all
undocumented workers, create a temporary worker program and
tighten border controls.
The bill also calls for allowing the military to be a path
to citizenship for a limited number of undocumented
immigrants--those who were brought to the United States when
they were younger than 16 and have been living here for at
least five years.
The ceremony also came as some military experts want to
open the armed forces to undocumented immigrants and foreign
recruits to fill the ranks as the Army and Marines plan troop
increases.
Critics fear a flood of recruits lured solely by the
promise of legal status. ``A very large number of non-
citizens could change the purpose of the military from the
defense of the country to a job and a way to get a foot in
the door of the United States,'' said Mark Krikorian,
executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies,
which advocates restrictions on immigration. ``It becomes a
kind of mercenary thing.''
Others argue that a liberalized policy could improve the
armed forces. Margaret Stock, an immigration lawyer, Army
officer and law professor at West Point, noted that during
wartime, military brass can already sign up undocumented
immigrants, some of whom have received citizenship.
``I think that it's great for the military to allow people
to enlist who are qualified to be in the military,'' Stock
said. ``Having papers doesn't tell me whether someone's
qualified or not.''
Official military policy is to accept legal permanent
residents with green cards, although Congress in January 2006
gave military leaders wartime powers to enlist anyone they
deem ``vital to the national interest.''
At Mount Vernon yesterday, the three military men remained
stoic as they were swarmed by photographers and TV cameras
and held out by federal officials as the best that
immigration has to offer.
``There's too much immigrant-bashing going on,'' said Dan
Kane, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Service. Featuring the three military personnel ``sends a
powerful message that immigrants make a meaningful
contribution to the United States.''
Legal permanent residents serving in the military were
given the right to apply for citizenship immediately by a
wartime executive order signed by President Bush in 2002. In
peacetime, permanent residents in the military are required
to wait three years.
Nonetheless, there has not been a rush to obtain
citizenship, according to Emilio Gonzalez, USCIS director.
``After the executive order, we have not seen hordes of
people joining the military,'' he said. ``These people don't
join the military just to become citizens. These people
joined the military because they wanted to serve.''
Cherubin, who immigrated in May 1999, joined the Navy a few
months later and is based at Anacostia Naval Station, was the
first to be called to receive his citizenship papers
yesterday.
After high school in Haiti, there was nothing for him. He
just waited for the day when his father, already in the
United States, would call and say his visa had come through.
``When you live in a country like Haiti, you don't think
about your future,'' Cherubin said. ``You live day by day.
The biggest dream you could possibly have is coming to the
United States.''
Cherubin joined the military so he could go to college. It
wasn't until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that he found a
sense of purpose to his life in the Navy. An aviation
planner, he was deployed to an aircraft carrier and readied
F-18 hornets for bombing runs over Afghanistan.
``To be part of that, to be among the first people over
there fighting back, it was a beautiful feeling,'' he said.
During the ceremony, Glenda Joseph slipped to the front row
to snap a photo of her husband. She'd been after him to get
his citizenship for the 14 years they'd been married. He'd
always wanted to but procrastinated. Then he was deployed for
10 months, running convoys throughout Iraq, and there was no
time.
Based in Quantico, Joseph is an aviation assignments
monitor and is charged with moving 10,000 Marines around the
globe. He moved from St. Vincent to Brooklyn, N.Y., with his
family when he was 6. He's been in the Marines for 16 years,
has earned two bachelor's degrees and is working on a
master's degree.
It was time to make it official.
``At least,'' he said, ``now I'll be able to vote.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

[[Page S6454]]

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It strikes
the temporary worker provision. It does not mean there won't be
immigration coming into this country. We will have 2.5 million people
coming in under legal channels, agricultural work, so on. This is
extra. We are told that 2.5 million is not enough. When you cast this
vote, cast this vote on behalf of American workers who want American
jobs that pay well, and that has been all too hard to find recently.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 1153.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 64, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

YEAS--31

Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Casey
Clinton
Coburn
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Inouye
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Stabenow
Tester
Vitter
Webb
Whitehouse

NAYS--64

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Dodd
Johnson
McCain
Obama
Schumer
The amendment (No. 1153) was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank all of the Members.
If we could have your attention, please. We are lining up the
amendments for tomorrow. I think Senator Graham has an amendment.
Senator Bingaman also has an amendment that is going to reduce these
numbers down to some 200,000. We had that issue that was raised before.
So we are trying to line up some amendments, trying to go back and
forth during the morning. We would like those who have amendments and
who are prepared to go, if they would talk with Senator Kyl or myself,
and we will try to do the best we can to both give the Members the
information and to work out a process.
We thank all of our colleagues for their cooperation.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I inquire whether we are going to bring up
an amendment one at a time and that has to be voted on and disposed of
or whether there will be an opportunity to offer multiple amendments
and then work with the managers of the bill to try to queue those up
for a vote at the appropriate time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I thank the Senator. I think for the start of this
debate we ought to try to do them individually. I think that is what
the leaders had decided. We can see. As we make progress with the
legislation, we can consult. But it does seem to me we ought to just
take these. We have had a good debate, an extensive one on this issue,
and it is enormously important. I think at the start of this we would
like to do them individually. We will do the best we can to cooperate
with people and their schedules, but I think we ought to try to at
least follow that. Then we can see, as we make progress on the
legislation, whether the leaders will decide on a different strategy to
move them.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for one more
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Mr. President, I am glad to yield.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the response, and certainly
we want to do this in an orderly fashion. But I think the majority
leader and the Republican leader were very farsighted in extending the
time beyond this week where we could actually consider amendments on
the bill because I think there is a real need to have a full and fair
debate and a free opportunity to offer amendments because, frankly,
there are a lot of people who do not know what is in this bill yet. The
final bill text was, I guess, filed last night, laid down at 9 o'clock.
So it is very hard to fashion those amendments until we have bill text
back from legislative counsel and the opportunity to craft those
amendments.
So my only point is I hope we are going to continue to have the
opportunity to offer those amendments, to have the debate, to have
those votes, and not get into a time crunch. Two weeks seems like a
long time, but with the kind of amendments, the number of amendments I
know are going to be offered, I think we need to have this opportunity
for a full airing of the issues and an opportunity to vote on those
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we want to have a full and complete debate
on this bill. But my experience has been that if we do not follow
having one amendment--if the managers do not like it, they can move to
table it, or there are a lot of things you can do. But where we run
into trouble is where you stack up a bunch of amendments that are
pending because that is when the managers lose control of the bill. The
people who have offered all the amendments control what goes on with
the legislation.
So unless something untoward happens, I think we are so much better
off having people offer amendments. If they are dilatory, the managers
can move to table. If that does not work, then we can try something
else. But for the foreseeable future, why don't we try to move through
this one at a time.
I think the debate today has been excellent. There have been no
surprises to what Senator Dorgan was going to do. I thought what would
be the right thing to do is have--we have had a Democratic amendment.
If the Republicans want to offer an amendment, let them offer the next
one, and go back and forth. The next Democratic amendment, as far as I
understand it, is the Bingaman amendment; is that right?
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, we are working that out. Senator Graham may offer
his amendment. Then, there would be an amendment--I expect the Bingaman
amendment will be in the morning, some time in the mid, late morning.
Mr. REID. My only point is----
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. We are trying to go back and forth. We are working
together, Senator Kyl and ourselves. If there seems to be two
amendments on the same subject, we are trying to deal with those
issues.
Mr. REID. Even tonight--there is an event for the spouses--if people
want to stay and work, that is fine, they can do that, too. There are
no time limits on how late we can work. I want people to feel they can
work as late as they want. And we can have some late votes. I don't
think there is anything wrong with that.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me just make the point that the key
is how many votes are allowed. We were on this measure for 2 weeks last
Congress; there were 32 votes. This process

[[Page S6455]]

will work fine provided we get votes and move along and follow in an
orderly process. But if that breaks down, the Senator from Texas has a
point, that we need to get some amendments in the queue and try to
handle them as rapidly as we can.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas raised probably
four or five points that I know of in the course of these discussions.
We are familiar with the general subject matter.
If I could have the attention of my colleagues, he had raised
probably four or five issues that related to the title II. I listened
to him this morning at the breakfast, and he raised a point on title
II. So if he wants to, we are prepared to move ahead with the Senator's
amendments. We are familiar with the general area. I know there are
going to be drafting issues, but we are glad to accommodate that. We
don't want the technical aspects to slow the process.
So we are familiar with those subject matters. The Senator could get
a hard look maybe over tonight about the particular areas and then talk
with us tomorrow, and we will make sure we have the time and that we
are prepared to go ahead. We are more than ready to be here. We had a
good afternoon. We enjoyed it. We started on it at a quarter to 3 and
worked until 6:15. We are prepared to go this evening or tomorrow or
tomorrow night or the following night. We are not trying to rush
anybody, but we are prepared to do business.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
<bullet> Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I enter this statement in the
Record in support of the Dorgan-Boxer amendment to strike the temporary
worker program from S. 1348. While we certainly should fill jobs for
which there is a shortage of American workers, it should be done on
specific needs and based on traditional visas. I believe that the
introduction of a large stream of low-skilled foreign workers would
have a negative impact on the wages of American workers. Finally, I
fear that the inherent flaws in this proposed system will, in time,
recreate the very same undocumented worker crisis this bill seeks to
eliminate. A graduation event for my daughter requires me to be away
from Washington, D. C. on the afternoon of May 22, 2007, and
regrettably prevents me from officially registering my support of the
Dorgan-Boxer amendment.<bullet>
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
<bullet> Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, unfortunately, I had to miss today's
vote on the Dorgan amendment to strike the new Y visa worker program in
the bill. As currently designed, the temporary worker program in this
bill is designed to fail.
The program in the bill proposes to create a new 400,000 person
annual temporary worker program that could grow to 600,000 without
congressional approval. It expands the existing seasonal guestworker
programs from 66,000 up to 100,000 in the first year and 200,000 after
that. At the end of their temporary status, almost all of these workers
would have to go home. That means at the end of the first 3 years, we
would have at least 1.2 million of these new guestworkers in the
country with only 30,000 having any real hope of getting to stay.
As we have learned with misguided immigration policies in the past,
it is naive to think that people who do not have a way to stay legally
will just abide by the system and leave. They won't. The current group
of undocumented immigrants will be replaced by a new group of second-
class workers who will place downward pressure on American wages and
working conditions. And when their time is up, they will go into the
shadows where our current system exploits the undocumented
today.<bullet>
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________