NEGRO LEAGUES BASEBALL MUSEUM; Congressional Record Vol. 152, No. 42
(Senate - April 05, 2006)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S2863-S2896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NEGRO LEAGUES BASEBALL MUSEUM

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk 
about last night's passage of S. Con. Res. 60, a resolution that 
designates the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, MO, as 
America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. I can't think of a 
more appropriate time of the year to have passed this landmark 
legislation than this week--opening week of the 2006 baseball season. 
The passage of this historic resolution will allow an already fantastic 
museum to grow and become even better.
  That would be reason enough to pass a resolution here were the museum 
on any other subject. But on this subject, which is so significant to 
the history of America, it made the resolution, I think, even more 
important. I am grateful to the Senate for passing it last night.
  Many of baseball's most noted stars of the past century got their 
beginnings in the Negro Leagues. Greats such as Hank Aaron, Ernie 
Banks, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Willie Mays, Satchel Paige, and of 
course, Jackie Robinson eventually brought their fast-paced and highly 
competitive brand of Negro Leagues baseball to the Major Leagues. In 
fact, much of the fast-paced style of baseball today is owing to the 
influence of the Negro League's brand of ball.
  Unfortunately, before the color bar was broken, many skilled African-
American ballplayers were never allowed to share the same field as 
their White counterparts. Instead, such players played from the 1920s 
to the 1960s in over 30 communities located throughout the United 
States on teams in one of six Negro Baseball Leagues, including teams 
in Kansas City and St. Louis in my home State of Missouri.
  The history of these leagues is an interesting one. In the late 1800s 
and early 1900s, African Americans began to play baseball on military 
teams, college teams, and company teams. The teams in those days were 
integrated. Many African Americans eventually found their way onto 
minor league teams with White players during this time. However, racism 
and Jim Crow laws drove African-American players from their integrated 
teams in the early 1900s, forcing them to form their own 
``barnstorming'' teams which traveled around the country playing anyone 
willing to challenge them.
  In 1920, the Negro National League, which was the first of the Negro 
Baseball Leagues, was formed under the guidance of Andrew ``Rube'' 
Foster--a former player, manager, and owner of the Chicago American 
Giants--at a meeting held at the Paseo YMCA in Kansas City, MO. Soon 
after the Negro National League was formed, rival leagues formed in 
Eastern and Southern States and brought the thrills and the innovative 
play of the Negro Leagues to major urban centers and

[[Page S2864]]

rural countrysides throughout the United States, Canada, and Latin 
America.
  For more than 40 years, the Negro Leagues maintained the highest 
level of professional skill and became centerpieces for economic 
development in their communities. The Negro Leagues constituted the 
third largest African American owned and run business in the country in 
those days. They brought jobs and economic activity to many of the 
cities around the United States and played in front of crowds of ten, 
twenty, thirty, forty, and even fifty thousand people. These crowds 
were integrated. White and Black fans came to watch the Negro Leagues, 
and they sat together.
  In 1945, Branch Rickey of Major League Baseball's Brooklyn Dodgers 
recruited Jackie Robinson from the Kansas City Monarchs, which made 
Jackie the first African American in the modern era to play on a Major 
League roster. That historic event led to the integration of the Major 
Leagues and ironically prompted the decline of the Negro Leagues 
because, of course, Major League teams began to recruit and sign the 
best African-American ballplayers.
  If you stop and think about it, the integration of baseball was the 
first of the major events in the civil rights movement in this 
country--well, not the first, because that movement, of course, had 
begun early in the last century. But it was the first significant 
widely known event. Baseball was even more than it is today America's 
game. The effect of this on the national consciousness, the progress 
that made toward equality and justice for all people, cannot be 
underestimated. That event occurred because of the Negro Baseball 
Leagues. Without those leagues, we would not have the pool of ability 
and excellent baseball players from which Branch Rickey was able to 
draw when he came to an agreement with Jackie Robinson. Ironically, 
though, that event, which led to the integration of the Major Leagues, 
prompted the decline of the Negro Leagues, because Major League teams 
began to recruit and sign the best African-American players.
  The last Negro Leagues teams folded in the late 1960s. Much of the 
storied history of these leagues was packed away and forgotten until 
1990 when the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum was founded in Kansas City, 
MO, to honor the players, coaches and owners who competed in Negro 
Leagues Baseball. This museum is the only public museum in the Nation 
that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the experiences 
of the participants of the Negro Leagues from the 1920s through the 
1960s.
  It is not a hall of fame, Mr. President. We don't want it to be a 
hall of fame. The Negro Leagues' baseball players belong in the Major 
League Hall of Fame. They were segregated long enough. It is a museum 
that exists in order to educate and enlighten people, and to allow them 
to enjoy the experience of the Negro leagues in the United States.
  Today the museum educates a diverse audience through its 
comprehensive collection of historical materials, important artifacts, 
and oral histories of the participants of the leagues. The museum uses 
onsite visits, traveling exhibits, classroom curriculum, distance 
learning, and other initiatives to teach the Nation about the honor, 
the skill, the courage, the sacrifice, the humanity, and the triumph of 
the Negro Leagues and their players.
  This resolution designates the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in 
Kansas City as America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. This 
designation will assist the museum in its efforts to continue the 
collection, preservation, and interpretation of the historical 
memorabilia associated with the Negro Leagues. This effort is a must if 
we hope to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the experience of 
African Americans and the African-American ballplayer during the trials 
and tribulations of legal segregations.
  The full story of the Negro Leagues should be preserved for 
generations to come and the passage of this legislation gives the 
museum another tool to do just that.
  I highly recommend a visit to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum for 
anybody who is in Kansas City. Whether you are a baseball fan or not, 
you will be moved by what you see and the stories you are told at the 
museum. You will be encouraged and inspired in every way by seeing how 
these players confronted the injustices of their times, and with great 
spirit and energy overcame all obstacles placed in front of them.
  This museum is a first-class operation of 10,000 square feet in the 
historic 18th and Vine neighborhood in Kansas City. It entertains 
60,000 visitors a year. There is a number of key features to the 
museum, but I think the passage through which you can walk and see a 
timeline of the Negro Leagues' development, and then next to it a 
timeline of important events in American history and the civil rights 
movement, is very enlightening and very moving. You will learn about 
these leagues and the players as people, and through that and through 
their experiences, you will learn about the times. These were not 
downtrodden men who played in this game, nor were the owners or the 
fans.
  They were joyous. They played a game they loved, and they played it 
extremely well. Yet in the context of everything they did was the legal 
and social situation in the United States they were battling, over 
which they eventually triumphed.
  Those who visit will be encouraged and inspired by seeing how those 
players confronted the injustices and other difficulties of their time 
with great spirit and energy and overcame the obstacles in front of 
them.
  I congratulate everybody at the museum who continues to work so very 
hard to make sure the story of the Negro Leagues is a piece of history 
that is preserved for future generations. The passage of this 
legislation is an important way to honor the museum, its employees, all 
its volunteers and supporters for their years of tireless advocacy on 
behalf of the baseball legends of the Negro Leagues.
  I especially thank and congratulate Don Motley, Bob Kendrick, Annie 
Pressley, and Buck O'Neil of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum for 
their dedication and assistance in passing this resolution.
  I also thank Senator Durbin for cosponsoring this resolution with me 
and others who cosponsored it as well.
  I am not going to take up much more time of the Senate. I know we are 
taking a little break from the important immigration debate, but I 
can't pass up the opportunity to put in a good word about my friend 
Buck O'Neil and the tremendous work he continues to do for the Negro 
Leagues Baseball Museum. Buck is a true American treasure whose 
illustrious baseball career spans seven decades. It has made him one of 
the game's foremost authorities and certainly one of its greatest 
ambassadors.
  I am not going to go through all of Buck's statistics as a player, as 
a manager in the Negro Leagues, or as the first African American who 
became a coach in the Major Leagues. He did so with the Cubs. In that 
capacity, he discovered superstars such as Lou Brock, for which I am 
very grateful. If he had been in control of the Cubs' front office, 
they would not have traded Lou Brock to the Cardinals for Ernie Broglio 
in 1964, and they might have won a couple pennants themselves. So I am 
grateful Buck was not the Cubs' general manager at the time. I don't 
think he would have made that mistake.
  In 1988, after more than 30 years with the Cubs, he returned home to 
Kansas City to scout for the Kansas City Royals.
  Today Buck serves as chairman of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum he 
helped to found. The work he has done after he retired from the game 
may be even more significant to the history of baseball than his 
exploits as a player or manager. Nobody has done more to build this 
museum and to call the rest of us to remember the significance of Negro 
Leagues Baseball than Buck O'Neil.
  He has reminded us that the leagues are significant in so many ways 
on so many different levels. They represent a triumph of the human 
spirit, tremendous sportsmanship, high quality of play, and were of 
vital importance to the African-American community of the time, and 
they led directly to the integration of the Major Leagues.

[[Page S2865]]

  The work of Buck O'Neil and the museum led the Hall of Fame to hold 
special elections earlier this year to elect a class of Negro Leagues 
and pre-Negro Leagues ballplayers into the 2006 Hall of Fame induction 
class. On February 27, 2006, the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown announced 
that 17 former Negro Leagues and pre-Negro Leagues players and 
executives would be inducted into the Hall of Fame in July 2006. That 
was largely because of the efforts pushed by Buck and the Negro Leagues 
Baseball Museum and concurred in by Major League Baseball. It was a 
bittersweet day for me and many of us in Missouri because the one name 
missing from that list of 17 players and executives was Buck O'Neil.
  I certainly think there is nobody who meets the criteria for 
induction into the Hall of Fame more than Buck. If you look at his 
statistics on the field as a player, his years as a scout, his years as 
a manager and a coach, even more than that, his years as an ambassador 
for baseball, a happy warrior for the Negro Leagues and the Negro 
Leagues Baseball Museum, it more than qualifies him for admission into 
the Hall of Fame. I hope we can find some way to correct this oversight 
quickly.
  In closing, I thank the Senate for its patience. I thank my friend 
and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his assistance and 
support in moving this legislation swiftly through the Energy 
Committee.
  I thank the colleagues who supported the legislation and allowed it 
to pass by unanimous consent last night. The story of the Negro Leagues 
is a story of true American heroes who contributed to this Nation on 
and off the field and confronted life with courage, with sacrifice, and 
eventually with triumph in the face of injustice. I hope the Members of 
the Senate will take an opportunity when they are in the area to learn 
more about these heroes by visiting what I hope and believe will soon 
become known as America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in 
Kansas City, MO.
  I thank the Senate, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, if I may ask a question of the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Talent for his 
leadership on this important issue. As a person who lives in Mobile, 
AL, I am proud of Satchel Paige. I assume he will be in the museum.
  Mr. TALENT. Yes; he has a big place in the museum.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Satchel Paige was denied the right to fully participate 
in American baseball until the very end of his career. That was a 
tragedy. It was really a tragedy. It is something our Nation cannot 
take pride in and should feel great sadness over. A number of other 
Negro Leagues players came from Mobile, which is a great bastion of 
baseball excellence, including Willie McCovey and Hank Aaron, among 
others, who developed out of that history of excellent baseball.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri for his leadership. I think it will 
be an important addition to our national heritage to have this museum.
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the Senator for his comments.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I wish to pay homage to Buck 
O'Neil a splendid athlete, a peerless ambassador of baseball, and a 
wonderful man who has become an American icon beloved by millions.
  Many people first got to know Buck O'Neil as a major contributor to 
``Baseball,'' Ken Burns's landmark documentary on our national pastime. 
While narrating the history of the Negro Leagues and the breaking of 
the color line in Major League Baseball, Buck passed along not only his 
prodigious knowledge of baseball and the society it helped to change 
forever but also his indomitable spirit, joy of living, and love of the 
game.
  Before becoming a television star, Buck O'Neil was a baseball star in 
the Negro Leagues. As a first baseman and manager between 1937 and 
1955, he played on nine championship teams and three East-West All Star 
teams, won a batting title, starred in two Negro Leagues World Series, 
and managed five pennant winners and five All Star teams. As manager of 
the Kansas City Monarchs, he mentored more than three dozen players who 
eventually made it to the Major Leagues.
  In 1962, Buck O'Neil became the first African-American coach in the 
Major Leagues, where he helped the Chicago Cubs' Ernie Banks, Billy 
Williams, and Lou Brock develop the skills that led them to the 
Baseball Hall of Fame.
  Today, at age 94, Buck is still bubbling over with enthusiasm for 
baseball, life, and his fellow human beings. He continues to serve on 
the Veterans' Committee at the Hall of Fame and as chairman of the 
Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City.
  On May 6, 2006, the San Diego Padres will honor Buck O'Neil as part 
of their Third Annual Salute to the Negro Leagues. I am honored that 
this statement will be a part of that salute, and I send my great 
admiration and appreciation along to Buck O'Neil and all of the other 
great players of the Negro Leagues.
  Mr. President, I know that you and all of our colleagues in the U.S. 
Senate will join me in sending our best wishes to Buck O'Neil for this 
very special day and for many more years of great service to baseball 
and the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Missouri as 
well for his great words on behalf of the contribution to baseball that 
has been made by some of our country's finest sportsmen.
  I thank my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his good 
work in this Chamber. I also note he and I were participants in a codel 
that just went into Iraq and Afghanistan. The issues we face around the 
world on national security are so important that it is going to require 
a coming together of our country to make sure we are working toward the 
creation of a better, safer, and more secure world.
  I want to speak briefly to the bill that is currently before this 
Chamber, and that is the immigration reform bill in its comprehensive 
form that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe from a 
national security and homeland security perspective this Chamber is 
working on one of the most very important issues facing our Nation 
today, and that is the issue of making sure we take our broken borders 
and the lawlessness coming across the borders and create a system that 
is comprehensive in nature to address that lawlessness.
  I believe the legislation which came out of the Judiciary Committee 
does that, and it does so by making sure, first and foremost, that we 
are strengthening our borders, and secondly, making sure that within 
the interior, we are creating the kind of immigration law enforcement 
program that is going to be effective; that looking at the immigration 
laws and simply ignoring them is a chapter which will go away if we are 
able to get our hands around passage of this bill. And finally, dealing 
with the reality of the 11 million workers in America--those workers 
who toil in our fields, those workers who work in our restaurants, 
those workers who work in our factories, and all of those who make the 
kind of lifestyle we have in America possible--we need to address those 
issues with respect to what some have said is the big elephant in that 
room, and we need to do it in a thoughtful and humane manner that 
upholds the rule of law of our Nation.
  I want to speak briefly about the importance of border security and 
what this legislation does.
  In the days after 9/11, when we have hundreds of thousands of people 
coming into this country, without any sense of where they are coming 
from, whether they come here to seek a good job and to be a part of the 
American dream, or whether they come as terrorists across the border, 
it makes the statement that we need to make sure we are doing 
everything within our power to strengthen those borders. This 
legislation out of the Judiciary Committee does exactly that. It does 
so by adding 12,000 new officers to make sure our borders are being 
patrolled. We go from a staff level of about 12,000 Border Patrol 
officers up to an additional 12,000 and that will get us to almost 
25,000 people who will be deployed along our borders to make sure we 
can enforce the law.
  It creates additional border fences in those places where we know now 
there are significant streams of illegal and undocumented workers 
coming back

[[Page S2866]]

and forth across the borders. So it creates those additional fences.
  It creates virtual fences by deploying the kind of technology that 
allows us to detect movement across our border.
  It also makes sure we create the avenues for checkpoints and ports of 
entry so we don't have the massive backup on the borders on either 
side.
  I believe the border security aspects of this legislation are where 
Republicans and Democrats should come together in the name of national 
and homeland security, and we should be supportive of this legislation 
for that very purpose.
  Second, this legislation is also about enforcing our laws. It is 
about making sure we have an immigration system where everyone in our 
country is standing up for enforcing the rule of law.
  We will do that by providing an additional 5,000 new investigators to 
make sure those laws are being enforced. Today there are many 
violations of our immigration laws that are taking place across every 
one of our States in America, and yet our immigration laws simply are 
on the books. They are not being enforced. A law on the books that is 
not being enforced is almost like not having a law at all. So what we 
will do is hire 5,000 additional investigators and create the law 
enforcement capacity to make sure those laws are being enforced in the 
interior.
  In addition, when apprehension occurs of someone who is here 
illegally, it is difficult to find a place to house these individuals 
until they are deported. This legislation calls for an additional 20 
detention facilities. Those 20 detention facilities will give us the 
capacity to process those who are breaking the laws of immigration.
  The legislation also addresses a very important issue that is 
critical to State and local governments. State and local governments 
have been dealing with the influx of undocumented workers and illegal 
aliens in our country for a very long time. Yet there has been no 
system providing them compensation for what they are doing to try to 
enforce the laws at the State and local level, essentially on behalf of 
the Federal Government because this is a Federal issue, after all. What 
this legislation will do is provide reimbursement for the States for 
the detention and imprisonment of criminal aliens.

  The legislation also requires a faster deportation process. I go back 
to the old adage of justice delayed is sometimes justice denied. We 
have people who are sometimes waiting in the system for months and 
months and years and years without coming to any kind of resolution. 
This legislation will require a faster deportation process.
  There are significant provisions in this legislation that will make 
additional criminal activity for gang members, money laundering, and 
for human traffickers. We know human trafficking across the borders 
creates tremendous hardship on people. It also demeans people and 
results in the deaths of many people. We know there is gang activity 
along the border that deals with drug trafficking and a whole host of 
illegal activity. We need to make sure those involved in that kind of 
criminal activity are brought to justice.
  Finally, in terms of enforcing our immigration laws, it is important 
we address what has become an industry in this country in terms of 
production of fraudulent documents and identification cards used in 
this country. President Bush's wish to create a tamperproof card that 
will go along with this guest worker program is a step in the right 
direction because it will get us to the point where we will have a 
tamperproof card and we can avoid the identity theft and identity fraud 
we see going on in this arena.
  Finally, I want to address a third point in what I consider to be 
this law and order bill, and that is our penalties that come along with 
this legislation for the 11 million undocumented workers who are in 
this country. There is a monetary penalty that is applied. In addition, 
unlike all Americans, there is a requirement that those who are here 
and undocumented have to register, and they must register on an annual 
basis. For all of us who are Americans, there is no requirement of 
registration. If we don't want to have a Social Security card or if we 
don't want to have a license or if we don't want to be a part of the 
Government, our right as an American citizen is not to register. For 
this group of people, we are going to require them to register with the 
U.S. Government.

  There is a whole host of other things that is required of these 11 
million people, including the requirement that they learn English, 
including the requirement that they pass a criminal background check 
and that they pass a medical exam, and the list of requirements goes on 
and on and on. I believe the legislation that was produced by the 
Judiciary Committee is, in fact, a law and order bill. It addresses a 
very fundamental issue that is of paramount importance to all of us in 
this Nation and that is the security of our Nation and the security of 
our homeland.
  Finally, I conclude by making a statement about the humanitarian 
issues that ought to concern all of us with respect to our broken 
borders. I heard my good friend Senator John McCain at the outset of 
the consideration of this legislation by the Senate a few days ago, 
talking about what he had seen in Arizona and how the Arizona Republic 
had reported that, I believe it was in 2004, 300 people had been found 
in the desert. Later he discussed how in the following year there were 
some 406 or 407 people who had been found dead in the desert, people 
who had died of thirst and hunger, rape and pillage and murder, out in 
the desert. Perhaps it is only in America when we see those kinds of 
conditions that we as an American society say, That ought to be 
unacceptable to us as a country. How can we have 300, 400, 500 people a 
year die in the deserts of Arizona? That is the kind of inhumanity that 
ought to cause all of us as leaders in our country and all of us in our 
society to say, We must do something about this.
  I was moved by Senator McCain's description of some of the people who 
were dying in the desert, including the story of the 2-year-old girl 
who had died in the desert and the 13 year old who had died clutching 
her rosary in that desert in Arizona.
  I believe America can, in fact, come to grips with this problem. I 
believe we have an opportunity here in the Senate to deal with this 
issue. I am very hopeful my colleagues, both my Democratic colleagues 
and Republican colleagues, who are working on this issue will not let 
this historic opportunity we have pass us by. It is this time, it is 
this day, it is this week where I believe we as a nation can come 
together and develop comprehensive immigration reform that is long term 
and that will be long lasting.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Salazar. We did indeed 
have a most important trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey, 
and were able to delve into some of those matters that are so important 
to our national security and check on the quality of care our troops 
are receiving. I enjoyed that very much. He is a fine addition to our 
Senate. I think we have a lot of agreements on this legislation, and 
some disagreements. I appreciate the opportunity we have to discuss 
these issues.
  This debate is often centered around whether we are dealing with 
amnesty here, and I believe this legislation, by all definitions, is 
amnesty. But first I want to ask the question: Why is this so? Why is 
it that people care about whether we use a word such as ``amnesty'' to 
describe what this legislation that is before us today is? Why is that 
important?
  It is important because most of us, when we were out campaigning for 
election, promised not to do amnesty again. Many people in this body 
who voted for the 1986 amnesty bill agreed it was amnesty and said they 
wouldn't do it again. The President of the United States, President 
Bush, despite all of his intentions to try to enhance legal immigration 
in our country, has always said he did not favor amnesty. So that is 
the deal. I think the American people have a right to expect that those 
they elect to office will honor what a fair interpretation of the 
meaning of that word is. If you promise not to support amnesty, then 
you shouldn't support a bill that is amnesty.
  You can redefine words to make them mean most anything you want. My 
definition of an activist judge is a person who redefines the meaning 
of words to have them say whatever he or she would like them to say so 
they can

[[Page S2867]]

accomplish a result they consider to be desirable. But words do have 
meaning. We can have some understanding of what these issues are about, 
and I want to discuss it in some detail.
  Senator Kennedy said:

       Many have called this adjusted status amnesty. I reject it. 
     Amnesty means forgiveness, not pardon.

  Well, I don't know exactly what that means. He said: This bill is not 
amnesty.
  He goes on to say: ``Amnesty is not a pardon.''
  Senator Durbin, the assistant Democratic leader, said: ``Amnesty 
basically says, We forgive you.''
  He goes on to say:

       Amnesty, very simply, is if you have been charged and found 
     guilty of a crime, amnesty says, we forgive you. We are not 
     going to hold you responsible for your crime.

  But only if you have been charged and found guilty, apparently.
  Senator Feinstein says: ``Amnesty is instant forgiveness, with no 
conditions. And there are conditions,'' she says, ``on this'' bill.
  Senator Specter said:

       Amnesty is a code word to try to smear good-faith 
     legislation to deal with this problem. It is not amnesty 
     because the law-breakers have not been unconditionally 
     forgiven of their transgressions.

  And Senator McCain said also:

       There is no requirements. There must be no requirement 
     whatsoever to call this bill amnesty.

  He said:

       Amnesty is simply declaring people who entered this country 
     illegally citizens of the United States and imposing no other 
     requirements on them. That is not what we do, Mr. President.

  So in an effort to redefine this situation to mean what they want it 
to mean, they have said unless there is no condition whatsoever, you 
can't have amnesty. But people agreed that 1986 was amnesty and placed 
quite a number of conditions--some more significant than the ones in 
this bill--on those who were given amnesty.
  Those of us who are familiar with the law world--I served as a lawyer 
the best I could for a number of years, and I know Madam President is a 
lawyer--we know what Black's Law Dictionary is. It is a dictionary 
lawyers use to define words in their legal context. Black's Law 
Dictionary, as part of its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' says 
this:

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

  Black's Law Dictionary, the final definition of legal words, says the 
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for people 
here. It had conditions on it. It had some conditions on it; it just 
didn't have many conditions on it. So everybody recognizes it as 
basically amnesty, and that is why they called it that.
  Again, I am not trying to use a code word here. What I am saying is 
there is a systematic effort in this body to redefine the definition of 
amnesty so they can tell their voters back home that although they 
opposed amnesty, this bill is not amnesty, and that is why they voted 
for it. That, unfortunately, I would have to say, is where we are.
  What does the Democratic leader in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid, 
say about what amnesty is? Does he say that 1986 was amnesty and it had 
quite a few restrictions on the movement to full benefits of 
citizenship in the United States? This is what the Democratic leader 
says. This is what he said on September 20, 1993, when making a speech 
on the floor in the Senate; it is part of the Congressional Record. He 
said:

       In 1986 we granted amnesty, and I voted against that 
     provision in law. We granted amnesty to 3.2 million illegal 
     immigrants. After being in this country for 10 years, the 
     average amnesty recipient had a sixth-grade education, earned 
     less than $6 an hour, and presently qualifies for the earned-
     income tax credit.

  The earned income tax credit is if you don't make enough money to pay 
income taxes and don't pay income taxes, not only do you not have to 
pay them but they give you money back. The average benefit for a person 
who qualifies for the earned-income tax credit, I would say 
parenthetically if anybody is interested, is $2,400 per year.
  So that is what Senator Reid had to say about it in 1993, that the 
1986 law was amnesty. I don't think anybody disputes that 1986 was 
amnesty.
  He made another speech. We have a chart and I want to refer to it 
because I want to drive this point home. On March 10 of 1994, the 
Democratic leader in this body today, Senator Reid, said this:

       In 1986, Congress gave amnesty and legal status to 3.1 
     million individuals not lawfully residing here. . . . Even 
     after Congress has passed massive legalization programs, 
     millions of individuals do not lawfully reside in the United 
     States today.

  That was true in 1994, a mere 8 years after the bill passed.
  He continues:

       And many more continue to cheat the rules and continue to 
     enter unlawfully.

  That is a true statement, I submit, this very day.
  So did the Democratic leader have any doubt that 1986 was an amnesty 
law? I don't think so. In fact, everybody knows it was. That is what we 
defined it as.
  I want to go over some of the provisions in that act and compare it 
to the provisions in today's act. Let's talk honestly here. There is no 
mystery here. I would submit, as several of the proponents of this 
legislation have tried to do, that you only have amnesty if you put no 
condition whatsoever on the person who is here illegally--and they put 
some conditions on those persons. Therefore, they say, Oh, no, I know 
we promised not to pass amnesty, but this isn't amnesty because there 
are conditions on the people who are here illegally. So there is no way 
to do this but go over it truthfully and analyze it and see what the 
facts are.
  This was passed in 1986. What did it require, this amnesty of 1986? 
It required continuous unlawful residence in the United States before 
January 1, 1982. That is 4 years before the passage of the 1986 act--
more than 4 years, because I am sure it didn't pass January 1. So for 
more than 4 years you had to be here unlawfully before this act applied 
to you. That is a restriction, isn't it, on amnesty, under the 
definition of those who want to say the current act is not amnesty?
  But what does the 2006 act say? Physically present and employed in 
the United States before January 7, 2004--employed in the U.S. since 
January 7, 2004; continuous employment is not required. So the key date 
here is that you have to have been in the country before January 7, 
2004. So we are requiring under this bill that you have to live in the 
country illegally for 2 years before you get on this amnesty track.
  Under the previous law, they required 4 years. So with regard to 
1986, I think it is a tougher standard, I submit, than we have in 
today's standard. I don't think anybody can dispute that.
  Then you have a fee. They say they are paying a fine, a big fine. 
Well, in the 1986 act, they say there will be a $185 fee for the 
principal applicant, $50 for each child, a $420 family cap. Now we have 
a $1,000 fine, but it does not apply to anybody under 21 years of age; 
they don't pay anything. They paid $50 per child back in 1986. They 
don't pay anything. I submit that is about a wash. There is a little 
difference in money. You had an inflation rate; what difference is 
$1,000 to $420?
  Both of them say you should meet admissibility criteria. That means, 
I suppose, that you are not a felon. That is one of the main criteria. 
Both of them said that. Surely we are not going to be taking in felons 
into the country. In fact, regarding this bill to which Senator Kyl and 
Cornyn have offered an amendment--which apparently is being blocked by 
Democratic Leader Reid from ever getting a vote--they are contending 
that this criminality requirement is not in this bill. In fact, this 
bill is weaker than the 1986 bill on the question of that issue of 
whether you have a criminal record.
  In 1986, people were worried about welfare claims and so forth, so 
they put in language that said you are ineligible for most public 
benefits for 5 years after your application. They said if you are going 
to come here to be a citizen of the United States, we do not want you 
come here to claim welfare. We are going to prohibit you from claiming 
welfare for at least 5 years. After that, if you get in trouble and you 
need help, we will help you. But you have to come here not with a 
desire to gain welfare benefits in our country which exceed the annual 
income of most people in a

[[Page S2868]]

lot of areas of the world. So they put that in. There is no such 
requirement in our bill. None of that. You can immediately go on 
welfare, presumably, under the legislation that is before us now.
  It does require a background check and fingerprinting, but presumably 
that was done in 1986, also. But it focuses really on the crimes a 
person may have committed while they were in the United States. I don't 
think it has a mechanism under this act to actually go back to the 
country of origin--whether it is Brazil or Canada or Mexico--to see if 
they have a criminal history there. That is a weakness in the system. 
But even if it does, those systems are so immature and nonexistent, it 
would not be very effective, I suggest.
  This requires an 18-month residency period. This one authorizes 
immediately a 6-year stay in the country. So they said you have to stay 
18 months before you make your application for adjustment to permanent 
resident status. In this bill, you have to stay 6 years, so that is 
tougher. And you have to work. What are people here for if not to work? 
Spouses and children don't have to work. People are here to work. It is 
only a minimal work requirement--not continuous employment--and the 
proof level is very weak. Regardless, presumably the people who are 
here want to work, and they ought to be able to prove that they have.
  Then you adjust to permanent resident status. That is the green card. 
In 1986, it required English language and civics. So, in 2006, it is 
English language and civics, a medical exam, payment of taxes--really? 
Presumably the people are paying their taxes. And Selective Service 
registration. So you earn your right to stay in this country by coming 
into the country illegally and paying your taxes. Thanks a lot.
  Then the final step is, in 1986, you paid an $80 fee, $240 for a 
family. In this bill, it is a $1,000 fee and an application fee.
  All I am saying is, if you add those up, I don't think a principled 
case can be made that 2006, in terms of conditions of entry and amnesty 
in our country, requires any more stringent requirements on them than 
in 1986, which Senator Reid and everybody else, including ``Black's Law 
Dictionary,'' have concluded was amnesty.
  I say to my colleagues, I would be very dubious of someone who comes 
up to you and says: Now, Senator, I know you promised in your campaign 
repeatedly, just as President Bush did, that you would not support 
amnesty. Don't worry about it. This bill is not amnesty.
  I am telling you, the American people are pretty fairminded, and they 
know perfection is not possible for any of us. But this has not been an 
issue which has not been discussed. Everybody has talked about the 
failure of the 1986 bill. As a result, we wanted to do something 
different. We said we were not going to do that again and we were not 
going to grant amnesty. I submit this bill does. I wish it were not so.
  We can pass legislation that will work. I have repeatedly said we can 
pass legislation that has good enforcement. We can pass legislation 
that provides fair treatment to the millions of people who are here. 
They are not all going to have to be removed from our country and be 
arrested and prosecuted. That is not so. That is not part of any plan 
here. But we do need to recognize that we should not give every single 
benefit to someone who came illegally that we give to those who follow 
the law and come legally.
  Senator Leahy, who says this bill is not amnesty, even admits this is 
amnesty in 1986. He says:

       Opponents of a fair comprehensive approach are quick to 
     claim that anything but the most punitive provisions are 
     amnesty.

  I am not claiming that.

       They are wrong. We had an amnesty bill. President Reagan 
     signed an amnesty bill in 1986.

  I suppose he voted for it.

       This is not an amnesty bill. Our bill is more properly 
     called what it is, a smart, tough bill. The amnesty bill was 
     signed by President Reagan in 1986, and this is different.

  But it is not different. Fundamentally, it is the same thing. I 
submit that is indisputable, and that is why we have a difficulty here. 
Some of those masters of the universe, sitting up in those glass towers 
who write editorials, and the Chamber of Commerce, they don't 
understand what it is like to campaign for office, look your voters in 
the eye, and discuss directly with them the issues facing our country, 
and to make commitments to them about what you are going to do once you 
get elected. They can redefine the meaning of words and think that is 
just fine. They can just say whatever they want to and then write their 
editorials. But they don't have to answer to the people they looked in 
the eye and directly told they would not support amnesty.

  In fact, the President, despite his drive to fix immigration and to 
enhance the flow of immigration into our country, has said a direct 
path to citizenship--by Scott McClellan, just less than 2 weeks ago. 
Scott McClellan said a direct path to citizenship and amnesty are two 
things they don't favor.
  Why is this important? After 1986, we ended up with a big problem. 
Things were not working well in our country. So 6 years after this 
happened, in 1992, we did an evaluation by an independent commission of 
that part of the act which dealt with agricultural workers as part of 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act. That was the name of it, the 
``Immigration Reform and Control Act.'' We told American voters--or 
those in the Congress at that time did--that we are going to control 
the immigration system.
  The congressionally created Commission on Agricultural Workers issued 
a report to Congress that studied the effects of the 1986 agricultural 
amnesty on the agricultural industry. They did a study on it because 
Congress wanted to find out what had really happened with regard to 
that legislation they had passed. One of the first things the 
Commission acknowledged was that the number of workers given amnesty 
under the bill had been severely underestimated. They said this:

       The SAW program legalized many more farm workers than 
     expected. It appears that the number of undocumented workers 
     who had worked in seasonal agricultural services prior to the 
     Immigration Reform and Control Act was generally 
     underestimated.

  That is page 1 and 2 of their report, the executive summary.
  What else did the Commission find? Did it tell us that the 1986 
amnesty of 3 million farm workers solved our agricultural labor 
problems? Was that the fix that people thought it would be? How did it 
work?
  No, their answer was this:

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

  That is page 1 of the Report of the Commission of Agricultural 
Workers, executive summary.
  What did the Commission recommend that Congress do? What did they 
recommend, this independent, bipartisan Commission? Did the Commission 
recommend that we pass a second legalization program such as the one 
for agricultural jobs that has been made a part of this bill, offered 
in committee and is now part of the committee bill that is on the 
floor? Did they recommend that as a second program to solve the illegal 
alien agricultural workforce dilemma that was still in existence in 
1992, 6 years after the amnesty that was supposed to end all amnesties 
occurred?
  No, the Commission concluded just the opposite. They found:

       The worker-specific and industry-specific legalization 
     programs as contained in the Immigration Reform and Control 
     Act should not be the basis for future immigration policy.

  That is page 6 of their report.
  What did the Commission suggest that Congress should do? They 
concluded that the only way to have a structured and stable 
agricultural market was to increase enforcement of our immigration 
laws, including employer sanctions, and to reduce illegal immigration.
  You talk to anybody on the street, and they will tell you the same 
thing. You talk to Americans. Overwhelmingly, 80 percent believe we are 
not enforcing the laws effectively on our borders, and any legalization 
today without an effective enforcement program in the future will bring 
us back to an amnesty situation just like we face now, just like they 
faced in 1986.

[[Page S2869]]

  The Commission said this:

       Illegal immigration must be curtailed. This should be 
     accomplished with more effective border controls, better 
     internal apprehension mechanisms, and enhanced enforcement of 
     employer sanctions. The U.S. Government should also develop a 
     better employment eligibility and identification system.

  This was 1993, 13 years ago. What has been done about it? Let me 
repeat that. We need to establish a:

       . . . better employment eligibility and identification 
     system, including a fraud-proof work authorization document 
     for all persons legally authorized to work in the United 
     States so that employer sanctions can more effectively deter 
     the employment of unauthorized workers.

  What a commonsense statement that is. Wasn't that what they promised 
back in 1986 when we were going to have an amnesty to end all 
amnesties? Remember that they said this would be a one-time amnesty and 
we were going to fix the enforcement system and therefore the American 
people would go with us on that. We are going to do this one-time fix 
and be generous to those who violated our laws. But trust us, we are 
going to fix the enforcement system in the future. That is what 
happened.
  We have known that for 14 years--that the key to securing our borders 
and ending illegal immigration includes more border enforcement, more 
interior enforcement, and a foolproof worksite verification system. 
Still, we are not prepared to do that. We are told we should do the 
same thing we did in 1986 on a much larger scale.
  I note that in 1986, we estimated there were 1 million people here 
who would claim amnesty. That is what people were told when the bill 
passed. After the bill passed, how many showed up? Three-point-one 
million people, three times as many.
  I don't know where they are saying 12 million people, and that is how 
many will be given amnesty now, not 1 million. They are saying there 
will be 11 million and that those would all be given a direct path to 
citizenship.
  Let me point this out. When you adjust to permanent resident status, 
you get a green card. You are able to stay here permanently, as long as 
you live here, and after a period of time--5 years--you can make 
application and you become a citizen. If you haven't been convicted of 
a felony in the meantime, presumably if you don't pay your taxes and 
don't get caught for it or don't get convicted of it, you can still do 
so. Presumably you are drawing welfare or Medicare benefits and those 
things, you can still make application.
  We added up the years. Maybe about 11 years in this process, 10 
years, maybe, in the 1986 act, and about 11 years in process. They are 
saying it takes 11 years for you to become a citizen. That is what it 
took for anyone who came here in the first amnesty and became a 
permanent resident. They didn't get to become a citizen the next day; 
they had to go through the same process as this amnesty requires.
  Let me explain why 1986 was a failure and why we can have every 
expectation that 2006 will be a failure. I am going to be frank with 
our Members. I don't believe this is an extreme statement. I am 
prepared to defend it. I believe everyone here who is honest about it 
will admit it.
  In 1986, we passed amnesty, and it became law as soon as that bill 
was signed. Those people were eligible to be made legal immediately in 
our country and placed on a track to citizenship that day--the day the 
bill was signed. What did we have about enforcement? We had a promise 
that we were going to enforce the law in the future. We are going to 
fix this border, and we are going to have workplace enforcement.
  That was a mere promise. It never happened because I don't think any 
President wanted it to happen. We went back to the problem when 
President Carter was here, President Reagan, President Bush, President 
Clinton, and this President Bush. None of them have demonstrated that 
they actually intend to enforce our border laws.
  I used to be a Federal prosecutor. I used to deal with law 
enforcement issues. I actually prosecuted one day--I think when I was 
an assistant U.S. attorney--an immigration case, a stowaway on a ship. 
A bunch of them stowed away on a ship. I know a little bit about it.
  But those actions which are necessary to make the legal system work 
were never taken by our Chief Executives. We in Congress can study the 
problem at the border, we can see what those problems are, and then we 
can pass a law to try to fix it. We can say we want more border patrol, 
we want more fencing, we want more UAVs, a virtual fence. We can pass 
those things, but unless the executive branch really wants it to 
succeed, then--even then, we may not get the thing to work.
  The truth is, they should be coming to us. President Bush comes to us 
and says what he needs to win the war in Iraq, and we give it to him. 
If he came to this Congress--I hate to say it because I think he is a 
great President and a great person, and I support him on so many 
things. But he has never come to our Congress and said: Congress, this 
border is out of control; I need A, B, C, and D, and I will get it 
under control. So now he wants us to grant blanket amnesty to 11 
million people, and after you do that: Trust me, I will get the border 
under control. That is a sad fact. Securing the border is the 
President's responsibility.
  What about Congress? We were in committee and we were debating the 
bill. I offered an amendment to add 10,000 detention beds for the 
Border Patrol. I do not know how many they need. I think that is not 
enough. We are at 1.1 people coming into our country illegally every 
year. The number of people other than Mexicans who really need to be 
detained, sometimes for an extended period of time, has surged. We need 
the detention spaces to make the system work. Do you know what they all 
said, Democrats and Republicans? Fine. We accept that amendment. 
Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment to speed up the hiring of 
new Border Patrol agents. They accepted that. Then it hit me. All who 
have been in this body for some time know the difference between 
authorization and spending the money, appropriations. In this body, 
people authorize all the time.
  I just left one of the finest groups of people you would every want 
to meet outside--national forensic science leaders from around the 
country. They came to see me because I supported a bill, and we passed 
it, the Paul Coverdell forensic sciences bill. It was to add $100 
million to help jump-start forensic sciences in America. Do you think 
that $100 million was ever appropriated? Certainly not. I think we may 
have gotten to $20 million one year. Because you authorize money to be 
spent for forensic sciences or for immigration enforcement does not 
mean that it is ever going to get spent. It has to go through the 
appropriations process. Maybe they want to spend it on a project back 
home. Maybe they decided we need more money for Katrina, health issues, 
education, whatever. At the end of the day, you don't get the money. So 
we have at least two major problems: One, will it ever be appropriated 
and two, if the money is appropriated, will the President actually use 
it effectively?

  I admit that this Congress authorized a budget that set forth a 
projected expenditure for immigration enforcement that is larger than 
the President requested, but it remains to be seen if it will ever be 
funded.
  Those are the things which cause us great concern. So I would 
challenge quite directly the people who support this bill and say this 
is going to be different than 1986 to come down on the floor of this 
Senate, look at their colleagues and people who may be watching back 
home directly in the eye, and assure them that we are going to have the 
money and we are going to have the will to enforce this legislation.
  I was on a radio talk show earlier today. I was asked about 
enforcement actions that were taken against certain big businesses 
recently. They all called their Congressmen and complained, and the 
enforcement sort of went away. You have heard those stories. Do we have 
the will to actually make this happen? I think we could. I am not 
hopeless about this. I think we could, but I don't get the sense that 
we are there yet.
  I have compared it to leaping across a 10-foot chasm but leaping only 
8 feet, and like the Coyote and the Roadrunner, you fall to the bottom 
of the pit. That is where we are. We have some things in this bill 
which make enforcement much more likely to occur, but it does not all 
get there yet. We need to do a number of things.
  For example, employment: The workplace law and provisions in the bill 
are

[[Page S2870]]

not effective and do not cover all employees of an employer. It is a 
critical step. You have heard it said that this bill has fencing in it. 
It is the most minimal amount of fencing; it is nothing like a 
legitimate fencing.
  I wish to say this: Good fences make good neighbors. There is nothing 
wrong with a fence. There is nothing in the Scripture that says you 
can't build a fence. You have thousands of people coming across the 
border in a given area, and you have just a few Border Patrol officers, 
and they are trying to do their duty every day. And you say it is 
somehow offensive or improper or against the Lord's will to build a 
fence to try to contain it so you can maximize the capabilities of the 
limited number of Border Patrol agents who are out there putting their 
lives at risk this very day to try to enforce these laws? They arrest 
1.1 million a year. What possible objection could we have to legitimate 
fencing?
  They built one in San Diego; it was an unqualified success. They said 
it could be breached. I am told the one in San Diego has never been 
breached. What happened on both sides of the fence, where lawlessness, 
crime, gangs, and drugs were disrupting entire neighborhoods? Those 
neighborhoods have been restored. They have come back strong. They are 
prospering. The property values are up as a result of bringing some 
lawfulness to a lawless area.
  Let me say this. Why is it that there has been such an aversion to 
fences? I will tell you why. Because those who want to have open 
borders, who have no desire to see the laws enforced, know, first of 
all, that it will work; and second of all, they have used it to twist 
the argument and to say that anybody who favors a fence wants no 
immigration, they want to stop all immigration, they just want to build 
a fence around America--totally mischaracterizing the need for a 
barrier on our borders. That is not fair. That is wrong.
  The amendment I offered would have increased substantially the number 
of border-crossing points, so lawful people could come back and forth 
far easier and at less expense with a biometric card. They could enter 
and exit the country with it. This could work. We can make this work. 
We need more legal exit and entry points, and we need to block the 
illegal entry points. If we do that and we send a message throughout 
the world that the border is now closed and no longer open to those who 
want to come illegally, I think we will have a lot less people 
wandering off in the desert, being abused by those who transport them, 
and putting their lives at risk and many of them dying.
  That is what you need to do. I am prepared to support any legislation 
that would increase legal immigration. When we end illegal immigration, 
we are going to need to increase the opportunity for people in numbers 
to come here lawfully, and we need to increase the exit and entry 
points.
  Another thing. I mentioned this biometric card and entering and 
exiting the country. Let me tell you why some of us are concerned about 
promises in the future.
  We passed, 10 years ago, the US-VISIT program. It is supposed to do 
just what I said. A person comes to this country legally, comes with a 
card. It is a computer-read card, and the person is then approved for 
entry. They need a biometric identifier, a fingerprint, and it can read 
that. You are allowed to come in. It also calculates when you leave, so 
people who do not leave can be identified and removed because they 
didn't comply with the law.
  Well, 10 years after passing that bill, we still don't have that 
system up and running. They tell us that this summer, we will have some 
pilot program which can actually identify those when they exit in 
certain border places, which, of course, means it is no system at all.
  We authorized 10 years ago a perfectly logical, sensible system to 
monitor the legal entry of people into our country, monitor their exit. 
What we have learned, particularly after September 11, is that many of 
the terrorists were overstays. They came lawfully, but they did not 
exit on time.
  We need additional bed space. This is so basic. Not an unlimited 
number of beds, but we need more. What is happening is, people come 
across the border, and particularly those other-than-Mexicans cannot be 
readily taken back across the border and dumped if they are from 
Brazil, Russia, or China. What do we do with these people? They need to 
be held and they need to be transported back. We are doing that, to 
some degree.
  But what happens when we do not have the bed space? This is what 
happens. I read a newspaper article in the committee a couple of months 
ago on this very subject. People come in from foreign countries. They 
come into the border, enter illegally, head off across the desert, they 
see a border patrol officer and they are told to go up to the border 
patrol officer and turn themselves in.
  Why would they do that? The border patrol officer puts them in the 
van or his vehicle and he takes them another 100 miles inside the 
border to the Customs and Border Protection Office and they are taken 
before an administrative officer. What does the administrative officer 
do? He does not have any beds or place to put them, so he says we will 
have a hearing on whether you are legally here. We will have a hearing 
and we will set it in 30 days. I will release you on bail; come back in 
30 days.
  How many do you think come back? The newspaper reporter said at the 
place he examined, 95 percent did not show up. So all we have done is 
send the border patrol agents out to pick them up and transport people 
into the country illegally. That does not make sense. We have to have a 
certain amount of detention space.
  We have an insufficient number of Border Patrol agents. There are 
just not enough. We need to get to that tipping point where people 
realize it is not going to work if they try to enter illegally. We 
added some Border Patrol agents in committee, but they say it takes 
years to hire them. That is why we passed, 5 years ago, legislation to 
add increased numbers of Border Patrol agents. Senator Kyl got that 
through. Being on the Arizona border, he knew the problem. What 
happened? They still have just now been hired 5 years later. They say 
it is hard to hire enough people.
  I was reading recently a book on World War I. When World War I 
started, we had 130,000 people in our Army, and 18 months later we had 
4 million people in uniform, 2 million of them in France. To say we 
cannot add 10,000 trained Border Patrol agents and get them trained in 
a prompt period of time is not credible. There has been a lack of will 
to see this occur. Who is to say if we pass this legislation we will 
have a renewed will in the future? The American people have a right.
  We had a hearing on Monday in the Judiciary Committee. It dealt with 
the problem of the appeals being filed by people who object to being 
returned to their country. Since 2001, 4 years, we have had a 600-
percent increase in appeals to the Federal court, court of appeals. You 
can legitimately appeal a determination you are in the country 
illegally, but a sixfold increase in 4 years? What has that resulted 
in? It has resulted in a 27-month delay before your case is heard.
  What does this tell an immigration lawyer who is meeting with a 
person who has been apprehended and who has an appeal pending about 
being deported and the guy or the woman does not want to leave the 
country and says, if you appeal, even if it is frivolous, it will be 27 
months before anyone ever reads it or makes a decision. That is why we 
are having this surge. That system is broken.
  Senator Specter, Judiciary Committee chairman, had legislation in his 
bill in the Judiciary Committee to help fix it--not completely, I 
didn't think--that made a substantial step toward fixing this broken 
system. They offered an amendment in committee to strip that language 
and it passed. So not only did we not improve the bill and have not 
improved the bill with regard to fixing the broken system, but we 
stripped language that would have made a good step forward in fixing.
  What does that say about the intent of the Members of this Congress 
to actually see the immigration law be enforced?
  I repeat once again, our nation is a nation of immigrants. We believe 
in immigration. We have been enriched by immigration. But our Nation is 
a sovereign nation and it has a right to decide how many people come 
and what kind of skill sets they bring. Once it makes that decision, it 
should create a

[[Page S2871]]

legal system that will make sure that occurs. We have not done that.
  As a result, in 1986 we provided amnesty, which no one disputes. Not 
Senator Leahy, not Senator Reid. We gave amnesty in 1986, thinking we 
could fix it once and for all. And 20 years later we end up with not 3 
million people here illegally but at least 11 million people here 
illegally and no enforcement mechanism close to being in place that 
would actually work. I encourage my colleagues to think carefully. We 
can fix our border enforcement. We can increase the number of people 
who come here illegally. We can tighten up the workforce workplace very 
easily. We can make this system work.
  As we tighten up the border, we eliminate the magnet of the 
workplace, we can reach that magic tipping point where all of a sudden 
the message is going out around the world that if you want to come to 
America, the border is closed. You better wait in line and file your 
application and come lawfully because if you come unlawfully, it won't 
work. Then we will have a massive flip. We will not see so many bed 
spaces. We may not even need as many Border Patrol agents as we have 
today. But that message is not out there. In fact, the opposite is out 
there. If we pass this bill, it will be business as usual. We should 
not do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Washington.


                             Port Security

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to report on some of the 
progress we have made in our effort to secure our Nation's ports and 
our cargo container system.
  This morning, I testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs about the GreenLane Maritime Cargo 
Security Act which I introduced last year with Senators Collins, 
Coleman, and Lieberman. That critical and effective bill is on the fast 
track both in the House and in the Senate.
  While that hearing was starting, we received another urgent reminder 
of why we need to improve our cargo security in this Nation. This 
morning, this very morning at the Port of Seattle, 21 Chinese nationals 
were discovered. They had been smuggled into the United States in a 
cargo container. That incident is a stark remainder that we today are 
still not doing enough to keep our cargo container system secure. This 
appears to have been a case of human smuggling, but that cargo 
container could have been filled with anything from a dirty bomb to a 
cell of terrorists. Today our country is vulnerable to a terrorist 
attack. Time is not on our side.
  I will spend a few minutes this afternoon outlining the threat and 
explaining how our legislation helps. By using cargo containers, 
terrorists can deliver a one-two punch to our country. The first punch 
would create an untold number of American casualties. The second punch 
would bring our economy to a halt.
  Cargo containers carry the building blocks of our economy, but they 
can also carry the deadly tools of a terror attack. Today we are not 
doing enough to keep America safe.
  In the Senate it can feel as though the dangers at our ports are 
millions of miles away, but in recent years some in our Government have 
said they could never have imagined the devastation caused by recent 
disasters.
  Let me make this crystal clear. On March 21, 2 weeks ago, a container 
ship called the Hyundai Fortune was traveling off the coast of Yemen 
when an explosion occurred in the rear of that ship. Here is a photo of 
what happened next. About 90 containers were blown off the side of the 
ship, creating a debris field 5 miles long. Thankfully, there were few 
fatalities and the crew was rescued. They are still investigating the 
cause. It does not appear at this time to be terrorist related.
  Imagine this same burning ship sitting a few feet from our shores in 
New York, or Puget Sound, off the coast of Los Angeles, Charleston, 
Miami, Portland, Delaware Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine we are 
not just dealing with a conventional explosion but we are dealing with 
a dirty bomb that has exploded on America's shore. Let me walk through 
what would happen next.
  First, there would be an immediate loss of life. Many of our ports 
are located in or near major cities. If there was a nuclear device 
exploded at a major port, up to a million people could be killed. If 
this was a chemical weapon exploding in Seattle, the chemical plume 
could contaminate our rail system, Interstate 5, Sea-Tac Airport, not 
to mention our entire downtown business and residential areas. At the 
port there would immediately be a lot of confusion. People would try to 
contain the fire. But it is unclear today who, if anyone, would be in 
charge.
  Then, when word spreads that it is a dirty bomb, panic is likely to 
set in and there would be chaos as first responders try to react and 
people who live in the area try to flee.
  Next, our Government would shut down every port in America to make 
sure there were not any other bombs or any other containers in any one 
of our cities. That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our 
economy right into a brick wall and it could even spark a global 
recession. Day by day we would be feeling the painful economic impact 
of such an attack. American factories would not be able to get the 
supplies they needed. They would have to shut their doors and lay off 
workers. Stores across our country would not be able to get the 
products they need to stock their shelves.
  In 2002, we saw what a closure of just a few ports on the west coast 
could do. It could cost our economy about $1 billion a day. Now, 
imagine if we shut down all of our ports. One study concluded that if 
U.S. ports were shut down for just 12 days, it would cost $58 billion.
  Next, we would soon realize we have no plan for resuming trade after 
an attack--no protocol for what would be searched, what would be 
allowed in, or even who would be in charge. There would be a mad 
scramble to create a new system in a crisis atmosphere.
  Eventually, we would begin the slow process of manually inspecting 
all the cargo that is waiting to enter the U.S. ports. One report has 
found it could take as long as 4 months to get it all inspected and 
moving again.
  Finally, we would have to set up a new regime for port security. I 
can bet you that any new rushed plan would not balance strong security 
with efficient trade.
  The scenario I just outlined could happen tomorrow. We are not 
prepared. Nearly 5 years after September 11, we still have not closed a 
major loophole that threatens our lives and our economy. Time is not on 
our side. We must act.
  I approach this as someone who understands the importance of both 
improving security and maintaining the flow of commerce. My home State 
of Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. We know 
what is at stake if there were an incident at one of our ports. That is 
why I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce, to help us find where 
we are vulnerable and to evaluate the best security practices. It is 
why I have worked to boost funding for the Coast Guard and have fought 
to keep the Port Security Grant Program from being eliminated year 
after year.
  Right after 9/11, I started talking with security and trade experts 
to find out what we need to be doing to both improve security and to 
keep our commerce flowing. Ten months ago, I sought out Senator Collins 
as a partner in this effort. I approached Senator Collins because I 
knew she cared about this issue. I knew she had done a lot of work on 
it already, and I knew she was someone who would get things done. Since 
that day, we have worked hand in hand to develop a bill and move it 
forward. I am very grateful to Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman 
for their tremendous work on this issue as well.
  The GreenLane Act, which we had a hearing on this morning, recognizes 
two facts: We must protect our country and we must keep our trade 
flowing.
  We know we are vulnerable. Terrorists have many opportunities to 
introduce deadly cargo into a container. It could be tampered with any 
time from when it leaves a foreign factory overseas to when it arrives 
at a consolidation warehouse and moves to a foreign port. It could be 
tampered with while it is en route to the United States.
  There are several dangers. I outlined what would happen if terrorists 
exploded a container in one of our ports.

[[Page S2872]]

But they could as easily use cargo containers to transport weapons or 
personnel into the United States to launch an attack anywhere on 
American soil.
  The programs we have in place today are totally inadequate. Last May, 
thanks to the insistence of Senators Collins and Coleman, the 
Government Accountability Office found that C-TPAT was not checking to 
see if companies were doing what they promised in their security plans.
  Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do find something suspicious at a 
foreign port, they cannot today force that container to be inspected. 
So we have a clear and deadly threat. We know current programs are 
inadequate. The question is, what are we going to do about it? We could 
manually inspect every container, but that would cripple our economy.
  The real challenge here is to make trade more secure without slowing 
it to a crawl. That is why Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, and I 
have been working with the stakeholders and experts to strike the right 
balance. The result is the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. That 
bill provides a comprehensive blueprint for how we can improve security 
while we keep trade efficient.
  At its very heart, this challenge is about keeping the good things 
about trade--speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to the bad 
things about trade--the potential for terrorists to use our engines of 
commerce.
  Our bill does five things.
  First, it creates tough, new standards for all cargo. Today we do not 
have any standards for cargo security.
  Secondly, it creates what we call the GreenLane option, which will 
provide an even higher level of security. Companies that join it have 
to follow the higher standards of the GreenLane cargo. Their cargo 
would be essentially tracked and monitored from the moment it leaves a 
factory floor overseas until it reaches the United States. We will know 
everywhere that cargo has been. We will know every person who has 
touched it. And we will know if it has been tampered with. The 
GreenLane essentially pushes our borders out by conducting inspections 
overseas before cargo is ever loaded onto a ship bound for the United 
States. We provide incentives for companies to use the highest 
standards of GreenLane.
  Third, our bill sets up a plan to resume trade quickly and safely, to 
minimize the impact on our economy.
  Fourth, our bill will secure our ports here at home by funding port 
security grants at $400 million.
  And, finally, our bill will hold DHS accountable for improving cargo 
security. DHS is long overdue in establishing cargo security standards 
and transportation worker credentials. We need to hold DHS accountable, 
and our bill provides that infrastructure to ensure accountability and 
coordination.
  I thank all of our cosponsors and our partners. I especially thank 
Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership. She chaired the hearing 
this morning, and her expertise and her commitment were clear to 
everyone in the hearing room.
  I also thank Senator Coleman for his leadership and his work as 
chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator 
Coleman has helped expose our vulnerabilities and has worked to develop 
solutions.
  I also thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership and support. I 
commend our cosponsors, including Senators Feinstein, Snowe, and 
DeWine.
  I would add, we are also beginning to see progress on the House side 
with the SAFE Port Act. I thank Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane 
Harman for their leadership on that side.
  Today we have a choice in how we deal with cargo security challenges 
facing us. But if we wait for a disaster, our choices are going to be 
much starker. Let's make the changes now, on our terms, before there is 
a deadly incident. Let us not wait until a terrorist incident strikes 
again to protect our people and our economy.
  Two months ago, the people of America woke up and spoke out when they 
heard that a foreign government-owned company could be running our 
ports. That sparked a critical debate. Now we need to set up a security 
regime that will actually make us safer. Until we do so, none of us 
should sleep well at night. A terrible image such as this one--a 
burning container ship with a dirty bomb in one of America's harbors--
could be on our TV screens tomorrow. So this Congress must act today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to return to the issue before us 
and which has been before the Senate for the last week and a half, and 
to say it has been my pleasure to work on the issue of immigration 
reform and border security ever since I have been in this Senate--a 
little over 3 years now.
  As a Senator from a border State, it will come as no surprise that I 
have actually spent a fair amount of time along the border talking to 
my constituents, as well as visiting Mexico and other countries that 
are a source of a large number of immigrants who come to our country 
seeking a better life.
  I believe that experience has given me some insight into what the 
challenges we have are when it comes to border security. Of course, we 
have proposals before this body to deal with this issue of our porous 
borders and the need to find some way to deal with the workforce 
demands of this growing economy of ours.
  We need comprehensive immigration reform. I have consistently called 
for comprehensive reform because I believe we will not fix the broken 
immigration system unless we address all aspects of the problem; that 
is, border security; interior enforcement; worksite enforcement; and 
the 12 million who are in our country without authorization, finding 
some way to allow them to reenter our immigration system legally, and 
to give them a second chance living in the country, not in the shadows 
but out in the open, and enjoying the benefits and protection of our 
laws.
  This is, as we have all discovered, an exceedingly complex issue. And 
no one--no one--has a monopoly on all wisdom or on suggestions for ways 
to improve the system. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has one 
amendment pending that I believe will improve the proposal on the floor 
of the Senate, which is the bill produced by the Judiciary Committee. 
He has sought a vote, and I have joined him in seeking a vote, on that 
amendment to the bill that is on the floor. I have several other 
amendments that have been filed that will also, in my opinion, improve 
the work of the committee.
  But we have been denied an opportunity to have those amendments 
considered and voted on by the Senate because the Democratic leader has 
simply refused to allow any amendment that he personally does not agree 
with to get a vote. We have had three votes in the last week and a 
half, relatively--I should say completely noncontroversial votes--but 
the Democratic leader has refused to let the Senate vote on Senator 
Kyl's amendment.
  This is particularly troubling to me because it is one that I believe 
the American people would wholeheartedly agree with, and that--whatever 
we decide to do with regard to the 12 million people who are currently 
living in our country in the shadows and outside the law--we ought to 
make sure whatever we do does not include a blanket amnesty for 500,000 
or so felons, individuals who have committed at least three 
misdemeanors, and those who have had their day in court, who are under 
final orders of deportation or who have agreed to voluntarily leave the 
country once they have been caught in the country illegally.
  Those individuals, either because they have had their day in court or 
because they are, in fact, felons or people with criminal records, 
ought not to get the benefits, whatever they may ultimately be, of the 
amnesty that is proposed in the underlying bill.
  This is especially troubling to me because, as I have said earlier, 
if you look at what happened in 1986, with the Immigration Reform Act 
that was passed then, Congress, in effect, told America you should 
trust us to enforce the laws, but, of course, as we now know, that did 
not happen. Indeed, when the amnesty was granted in 1986, some 3 
million people stood to benefit from that amnesty.
  I have demonstrated here on the floor that that amnesty, which we all 
agree, in fact, meets that definition, was a complete and total 
failure. The reason why it was a complete and total failure is because 
the American people were,

[[Page S2873]]

in essence, told one thing and Congress did another.
  I believe the American people will forgive an awful lot of mistakes, 
but they will not forgive being fooled twice. The proposal that is on 
the floor now, the committee bill that is being proposed, would, in 
fact, be a repeat of what happened in 1986, except to the extent that 
it is actually even worse because in 1986, in order to get the benefit 
of the amnesty, you could not be a felon, you could not be a person 
with at least three misdemeanors, but under this bill, as offered and 
as voted out of the Judiciary Committee, you can. Thus, you can see the 
importance of having a vote on this amendment, which we have been 
denied, even though it was offered last Friday.
  Now here we come up on the midweek, and we are going to have a recess 
of Congress for the next 2 weeks after this Friday, and I am afraid 
that because of the lack of movement and progress on this bill, there 
are going to be some who are going to be blamed for our inability to 
move forward. And I submit--I hate to say this, but I submit that the 
blame lies on those who simply denied the greatest deliberative body on 
the planet from the chance to actually consider and vote on amendments 
to this bill.
  This is not democracy. This is not what we are trying to export to 
other countries that have known nothing other than the boot heel of a 
tyrant. This is not our finest hour because what we are seeing is the 
minority leader on the other side simply denying democracy in 
action. It is intolerable and inexcusable.

  It is clear to me that if we are unsuccessful in getting this bill 
through the floor and passed and an opportunity for the process to 
reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House version, 
should we get a Senate version, the blame will lie at the feet of the 
Democratic leader.
  One of the things Congress promised the American people in 1986 was 
there would actually be a fraud detection system as part of the amnesty 
that was then granted to make sure it would actually be successful and 
that we would not have to find ourselves in the condition we are in 
today where at the time we had 3 million who benefited from the amnesty 
and now today the potential number is 12 million. We know the potential 
for amnesty is a huge magnet for those who come to this country in 
violation of our immigration laws. I don't want to find the Senate, 5 
or 10 or 20 years from now, saying: In 1986, it was 3 million who 
wanted to benefit from amnesty. In 2006, it was 12 million. And 20 
years from now we find the number is 24 million.
  We know this is a national security problem. We know that we have, as 
a sovereign nation, a right to protect our borders. We know there are 
on average 2,300 people coming into our country each day. Each day the 
Democratic leader denies us an opportunity to fix that problem, to 
allow the process to go forward, we are seeing 2,300 more people come 
into the country illegally. I hope and pray it is not a criminal, a 
terrorist, someone who intends to do us harm but, indeed, it could well 
be.
  The Democratic leader supports a bill that would grant an automatic 
path to citizenship for 12 million people who are in this country in 
violation of our immigration laws, yet he won't allow a vote on an 
amendment that would bar felons and repeated criminal offenders from 
participating in the program. He argues that he likes the bill voted 
out of the Judiciary Committee and doesn't believe that amendment will, 
in fact, improve it. He certainly is entitled to his opinion, but he is 
not entitled to obstruct the process. He is not entitled to dictate to 
the Senate or the American people what this particular legislation will 
look like.
  I simply don't understand why this amendment, that would bar felons 
and repeat offenders and which actually clarifies that they can't be 
given whatever benefit will be conferred by this bill, would create any 
controversy whatsoever. If the American people were polled or asked, do 
you think we ought to bar convicted felons, do you think we ought to 
bar repeat criminal offenders from the grant of amnesty, I think they 
would say yes. If given an opportunity for a vote on the floor, this 
body will say yes, because we are representative of the American 
people. Yet we have been denied that chance for a vote.
  There is simply a credibility gap with the American people on 
immigration and border security. Congress needs to openly debate and 
vote on amendments so there is transparency regarding who will receive 
green cards and whether there are sufficient protections against fraud 
that ran rampant during 1986, with the amnesty that was granted at that 
time. As someone who has worked on this issue and devoted time to it, I 
want nothing more than the opportunity to debate and vote on 
amendments. I am interested, and I believe most Senators are actually 
interested, in trying to find a solution to this problem. But we are 
met with obstruction and a refusal to let the process move forward. It 
is simply unacceptable.
  We cannot debate and vote on amendments until there has been an 
agreement on who will participate in the program and the extent to 
which fraud can be detected and prevented. Yet the Democratic leader 
does not believe it is necessary to secure the confidence of the 
American people that Congress is not giving amnesty to felons or repeat 
criminal offenders. Without public debate and votes with regard to the 
foundation of this proposal, none of us will be able to return home and 
defend the broader policy implications of this complex legislation.
  The Kyl amendment has been pending since last Thursday. Not a single 
Senator has voted to table that amendment. Yesterday we went through a 
strange exercise where, in order to determine how we can obtain some 
progress on this bill, there was actually a motion to table the Kyl 
amendment that would bar felons and repeat criminal offenders. Every 
single Senator who voted voted not to table the amendment. Ordinarily 
that would indicate an agreement with the amendment. Yet we were not 
given an opportunity to vote on the amendment. The amendment ordinarily 
would be accepted by the manager of the bill or would be subject to a 
voice vote and become part of the larger bill, but that didn't happen 
because we, unfortunately, have some people in the process who are not 
interested in finding solutions. They are not interested in allowing 
the process to move forward but, rather, they are more interested in 
trying to jam their solution down the throat of the rest of the Senate 
and to deny the rest of us a chance to offer suggestions and to get 
votes.
  I don't like to lose any more than anyone else, but I am willing to 
submit to this body amendments that I have and on which I wish to have 
a vote. I hope to persuade my fellow Senators that these amendments are 
actually an improvement over the bill that is before the Senate. But if 
this body decides, 51 or more Senators decide, to vote against those 
amendments, I am willing to accept that. That is democracy. That is 
majority rule. But to simply defy majorities and the process and say, 
if I don't like it, I am not going to allow anybody else to amend it, 
is unacceptable. In an institution known as the world's greatest 
deliberative body, it brings this body no honor to obstruct the process 
and to try to jam this unacceptable bill down our throats.
  The current committee bill disqualifies from the legalization program 
any alien who is ineligible for a visa. The Kyl-Cornyn amendment would 
clarify that by saying any alien who is ineligible for a visa or who 
has been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors would be 
ineligible from the legalization program.
  There are certain crimes, including felonies, that do not disqualify 
an alien for a visa. This amendment, therefore, ensures that no felon 
or repeat criminal offender will obtain an automatic path to a green 
card and permanent residence in the United States.
  This amendment is exactly the same text that was in the 1986 amnesty. 
In other words, the very amendment Senator Kyl and I have offered to 
exclude felons and three-time misdemeanants was part of the 1986 
amnesty. So the proposal on the floor is even weaker than the amnesty 
granted in 1986.
  All we are trying to do is to bring it on a par with that amnesty of 
1986. Crimes that do not automatically disqualify an alien for a visa 
and would not, therefore, be covered by the Judiciary Committee bill 
that is on the floor include assault and battery, manslaughter, 
kidnapping, weapons possession--for example, possession of a

[[Page S2874]]

sawed-off shotgun--contributing to the delinquency of a minor, 
burglary, including possession of tools to commit burglary, malicious 
destruction of property, possession of stolen property, alien 
smuggling, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, and 
money laundering. Unless we are able to get a vote on the amendment 
that is now pending that Senator Kyl and I have offered to exclude 
felons and three-time misdemeanants, the proposal this body is asked to 
accept would give amnesty to people who have engaged in alien 
smuggling, manslaughter, kidnapping, or illegal possession of a sawed-
off shotgun.
  The American people will forgive a lot, but they won't be fooled 
again. And they won't forgive us if a minority of this body tries to 
jam down the throats of the rest of the Senate provisions which would 
allow the entry of these individuals into the United States and would 
confer a blanket amnesty and a path to a green card and legal permanent 
residency in the United States. It simply defies common sense.
  I have a number of additional amendments I intend to offer and intend 
to ask for a vote on. I will not be satisfied--and I submit there are 
other Senators who will not vote to close off debate--until we get a 
chance to have these considered on the Senate floor. One amendment, No. 
3310, addresses the confidentiality provisions. The Judiciary Committee 
amendment that is on the floor contains provisions that would prohibit 
the use of information furnished by an applicant to be used for any 
purpose other than a determination on the application. While the 
committee amendment would allow the information to be shared with law 
enforcement entities upon their request, the information could not be 
used by the Department of Homeland Security to investigate fraud in the 
program.
  It is also worth noting that these provisions almost word for word 
were included in the 1986 amnesty but are missing from the proposal 
that is now on the floor. These confidentiality provisions have been 
cited by Government authorities as one reason why there is so much 
fraud in our immigration system, particularly the amnesty that was 
granted in 1986.
  For example, the testimony of Paul Virtue, former Immigration and 
Naturalization Service general counsel, in 1999 before the House 
regarding fraud in the prior amnesty program:

       There is no question that the provisions of [that 1986 
     amnesty] were subject to widespread abuse, especially the 
     Special Agricultural Worker program that granted agricultural 
     workers who had performed 90 days of qualifying agricultural 
     employment within a specific period temporary lawful status 
     that automatically converted to permanent lawful status after 
     one year.
       Nearly 1.3 million applications were filed under [this 
     Special Agricultural Worker] status, about double the number 
     of foreign farm workers usually employed in the United States 
     in any given year.
       Much of the fraud that occurred under the IRCA

--the 1986 amnesty bill--

     is attributable to statutory limitations placed on [the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service].
       The confidentiality restrictions of law . . . prevented INS 
     from pursuing cases of possible fraud detected during the 
     application process. The agency was further thwarted by the 
     courts, which ruled that INS could not deny an application 
     simply because the supporting documentation was from a 
     claimed employer suspected or convicted of fraud.

  Let me say that again. He said the confidentiality restrictions 
contained in the underlying bill here that I want to amend thwarted the 
INS from denying an application simply because the supporting 
documentation was from an employer ``suspected or convicted of fraud.''
  In 1986, just a few million amnesty applications were filed, but 
under this bill, Congress is now considering an amnesty for 12 million 
immigrants who are in this country in an unauthorized status. We need 
to make sure we don't hamper the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service's ability to detect fraud. Yet this amendment would repeat the 
worst failures of that 1986 amnesty.
  One other amendment I have filed and intend to call up, if we are 
ever given a chance to have amendments and votes on this bill, is 
amendment No. 3309.
  The committee amendment pending on the floor, which I offer this 
amendment to improve, would create safe harbors for illegal aliens who 
have filed applications for conditional immigration status.
  To be clear, these are not aliens who have yet established 
eligibility, or have even gone through background and security checks. 
They have simply filed an application with the Government, and their 
application might be in a stack of 10 million other applications.
  Under this committee amendment, the one pending on the floor, to be 
clear, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to issue a 
travel document and an employment authorization document to an alien 
before the agency has even determined eligibility under the program. 
Travel documents are as important as weapons. Yet this section would 
require the Department of Homeland Security to issue a travel document 
to all illegal aliens simply because they have filed an application.
  Under the underlying bill, an illegal alien may not be detained, 
ordered deported, or removed while the alien has an application 
pending. That means any illegal alien can simply file an application to 
avoid deportation, and many will, of course, because it could take 
several years, and probably will take several years, for the Department 
of Homeland Security to process all applications.
  Another disturbing point is there are also no carve-outs for criminal 
aliens or other dangerous illegal aliens who would normally be subject 
to mandatory detention. This underlying bill could be interpreted as 
not allowing the Department of Homeland Security to detain any alien, 
irrespective of how dangerous that alien is to society.
  While the amendment does say an alien may be deported if the alien 
``becomes ineligible,'' that is prospective and it means any illegal 
alien could only be subject to deportation for criminal activity that 
occurs after they filed their application.
  We should be unwilling to create a significant loophole for criminal 
illegal aliens who could avoid deportation or detention by simply 
filing an application with the Government.
  The underlying bill would require the Department of Homeland Security 
to allow any alien apprehended before the program is operational, which 
could be several years down the road, to apply for amnesty after the 
program is up and running. If it does indeed take several years, that 
means our immigration enforcement system, which right now apprehends 
more than a million illegal aliens a year on the southern border, would 
grind to a halt because any alien who is apprehended could simply file 
an application or indicate an intent to file an application, and the 
Government would be required to stop the removal process to allow that 
to occur.
  Mr. President, I know there are other Senators who wish to speak. I 
am going to stop in a moment to give them that opportunity.
  My point is there are many commonsense amendments that I believe 
would garner the support of a majority of the Senate because they are 
commonsense amendments. But as long as we are blocked from having those 
amendments called up and considered and voted on, then there is no way 
that Members of this body should vote to close off debate, vote for 
cloture, because we will be producing a product that is simply unworthy 
of the trust that has been placed in us by the American people. I 
believe that no individual Senator and, indeed, no leader of either 
party should be allowed to refuse to allow this process to move 
forward. I think what is going to happen, because I think we are on a 
path toward failure--at least between now and Friday--and what we are 
going to see is the blame game.
  There is going to be an attempt by those who have blocked this 
process from going forward to point the finger of blame at those who 
have voted against ending the debate because we cannot get a vote on 
our amendments. I want to make it clear where the fault lies. That 
blame should be squarely placed at the feet of the Democratic leader, 
who has denied us an opportunity to have a vote on these commonsense 
amendments--amendments that I believe the American people would agree 
with and, if given an opportunity, I believe the Senate would agree 
with.

[[Page S2875]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. We are on the bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with some interest to my 
colleague. I have to observe, though, he said that now we are going to 
see the blame game, and he tells us where the fault lies. Well, that is 
the first chapter of the blame game. I have not been out here with 
respect to amendments. I have been chairing a hearing for a couple of 
hours. But I say this to those who are talking about these amendments: 
Those of us on this side of the aisle have certainly had a great deal 
of experience with having our amendments not considered by the Senate. 
Most recently, we had an amendment to a bill that would have dealt with 
this issue of the Dubai company taking over American ports. The United 
Arab Emirates' wholly-owned company, Dubai Ports World, was going to 
take over the management of American shipping ports. We attempted to 
offer an amendment, but it shut the Senate down because the majority 
party didn't want an amendment such as that offered.
  I have been trying for a couple of years to offer an amendment on the 
reimportation of prescription drugs to drive down prescription drug 
prices in this country. We have been thwarted on that. I could go on at 
some great length. To the extent there is a complaint that some have 
not been able to offer amendments, we understand that pretty well. We 
have been in that position for a couple of years now, including my 
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who offered an amendment that 
would have effectively prohibited our country from engaging in torture 
with respect to those whom we have apprehended during wartime. That 
amendment on the prohibition of torture shut down the consideration of 
the Defense authorization bill last year month after month because the 
majority didn't want to vote on the McCain amendment on torture. So 
there is plenty of practice that has existed in this Chamber for 
prohibiting amendments.
  Again, I don't know what the approach has been this morning on the 
floor because I have not been here. When I listen to discussions about 
why can we not offer amendments, that is a cry that has been echoing in 
this Chamber for a couple of years, much to the regret of those of us 
who have had amendments to offer. It is a cry that has not been heard 
by the majority party, which now jumps to the front of the line to 
complain today.
  I want to talk about this issue of the underlying bill, the 
immigration bill and guest workers. I should also start by saying I 
don't have any particular claim to understanding or expertise in this 
area. I don't serve on the Judiciary Committee. I was not someone who 
helped write the underlying bill. So I don't come to the floor to claim 
to be an expert on the legislation. But I have spent a great deal of 
time in the last year or so doing research in a range of areas for a 
writing project dealing with American jobs and American workers, so I 
claim to know something about that.
  I claim to know, for example, that we have lost somewhere around 3 
million-plus jobs in this country, most of them having moved to China 
or Indonesia or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka--but most perhaps to China. We 
have lost millions of jobs in this country in the last 3\1/2\ to 4 
years. American workers, middle-income workers, and particularly 
workers at the bottom of the economic ladder, have been devastated by 
what has happened with this race toward globalization and the race by 
the largest American corporations to produce where it is cheap, and 
then sell their products in our marketplace. All of that is going on in 
a very accelerated way.
  Now we see, with the bill brought to the floor of the Senate, not 
only do we have a strategy in this country of allowing the export of 
good American jobs, now we will have a strategy of importing additional 
low-wage jobs.
  I will review some numbers, if I might. We have somewhere around 11 
million to 12 million people who have come into this country illegally 
and have stayed here. Some have been here a long while, and some 
recently arrived.
  Is it surprising that we have a lot of people who have come into this 
country and stayed in violation of the law? No, it is not surprising to 
me. We live in a big world, and a lot of people in this world don't 
have the opportunities we have in this country. We have built something 
very special in the United States. This is a country that provides 
basic rights for people. It took us some while to perfect all that, but 
having struggled through the issues of civil rights, workers' rights, 
and women's rights, we have created an extraordinary country in which 
workers can band together to collectively bargain and negotiate. We 
have made decisions about the workplace and the right of a worker to 
work in a safe workplace, child labor laws, minimum wages, 
environmental protection, so you cannot produce a product and emit 
poisonous chemicals into the air and water.
  At the same time, we have created circumstances where businesses can 
earn a profit, and a good one. This is an economy in which we have a 
vast consumer base, with the most affluent consumers in the world. All 
of that coming together created a country that is unparalleled on the 
face of this planet. So if you go anywhere in the world, and 
particularly impoverished areas in less developed countries, you will 
find, in discussing this with those people, that many would say they 
want to come to the United States of America. If you ask the question 
``why,'' they will say it is because there is opportunity there, jobs 
there, better income, better pay. That is what you find. I have found 
that in many parts of the world, particularly in less developed 
countries.
  Think for a moment what would be the case if tomorrow the United 
States said: Look, what we have built here is quite wonderful. We 
understand it is unique and we want to share it with everyone. We have 
no immigration quotas and anybody who wishes to come here can come. 
Tomorrow, you are all welcome. Come and stay as long as you want.
  What would be the consequences of that? We all know the consequences 
of that. Those who are living in impoverished conditions from other 
parts of the world will find their way to this country. We will be 
importing poverty and we will have a massive number of people migrating 
to the United States of America, because they would see this as an 
opportunity. So we don't have a circumstance where we say that anybody 
who wants to come tomorrow, come on, this is wide open, and stay as 
long as you want. No. We have a series of quotas for immigrants. We 
have immigration quotas by country, by category, and then we allow 
people in based on these quotas.
  I will describe exactly what we now face. We have 11 million to 12 
million people who are here illegally. Last year, according to data I 
have seen, 1.1 million additional people tried to cross the border from 
Mexico into this country, but they were denied access. So 1.1 million 
were kept out who wanted to come in. And 400,000 to 700,000 who wanted 
in illegally got in illegally and are here. They came last year. 
Another roughly 150,000 people--according to estimates I have seen--are 
here on a temporary basis, H-2A or H-2B. Another 175,000 people came in 
last year legally, as family members and quotas, just from Mexico. That 
is what we face.
  Now, at the same time we face these pressures of people wanting to 
come into our country, particularly in most cases low-skilled and low-
wage workers, we face the largest trade deficits in the history of the 
world. We face the wholesale movement of American jobs overseas. So we 
see the two elements of the worst marriage of public policy; those are 
the export of good American jobs to China and elsewhere, and the import 
of low-wage workers to take the jobs of those in this country who are 
at the bottom of the economic ladder. That is about corporations, big 
companies, about their strategy, which has been embraced and given a 
bear hug by this President and the Congress, controlled by the 
President's party, standing for corporations and their interests. 
Export American jobs, do another trade deal, cause more American jobs 
to leave this country. Import cheap labor.
  Why? They say: We want to import more cheap labor because we cannot

[[Page S2876]]

find Americans to do the work. So not only does the bill on the floor 
of the Senate describe that we will create a legal status for 11 
million to 12 million people who are here because, practically 
speaking, nobody is going to round them up, or arrest them, or detain 
them, or export them--we will create a status for those folks--but in 
addition to that, it says let's also create a new guest worker program 
of 400,000 people per year each year, with an escalator of being able 
to increase that by 20 percent each year, which over 6 years could 
amount to 4.7 million more people coming into this country who now live 
outside of this country.
  And so the bill provides a guest worker program saying we not only 
want to deal with the legalization of those who are here illegally--
millions and millions and millions of them--we also want to add 
potentially another 4.7 million. And, by the way, there is more than 
that, but that is just the piece about which I am talking. On top of 
that would be the provisions dealing with the new agricultural workers, 
which was an amendment offered in the committee.
  So where do these 4.7 million people go--the ones who are now living 
outside of our country who come into our country legally--under this 
legislation? They go to find jobs in competition with American workers.
  Let's talk about low-skilled, low-wage American workers.
  This Congress, as stingy as it has been for low-wage, low-skilled 
workers, has decided for 8 years it will not increase the minimum wage. 
Boy, it is Katy bar the door if it comes to helping somebody at the 
top--tax breaks, unbelievable tax breaks for people at the top.
  One of the world's richest people told me the other day when I was 
talking with him that he pays a lower income tax rate than the 
receptionist in his office. Why? Because the priority in this Chamber, 
the priority in this Congress, the priority of the President, is to 
drive down income tax rates for people who have capital gains. Who has 
capital gains? The wealthy. They have most of the capital gains. The 
wealthiest Americans are now paying the lowest tax rates, and this 
Congress can't be quick enough to see if they can't offer another gift 
to those at the top of the income scale.
  I have nothing at all against those at the top of the income ladder. 
God bless them, that is what America is about; it is about success. But 
that does not justify saying that those who are the most successful 
shall pay the lowest income tax rates in our country, and that is what 
is happening. At the same time, Congress can't move quickly enough to 
provide the lowest tax rates to those with the highest incomes. It says 
to the people with the lowest incomes: We don't have any interest in 
increasing the minimum wage. Sit there for 8 years, let inflation work 
against your purchasing power; doesn't matter to us, we don't intend to 
increase it. I think that is a terrible mistake, but that is the way 
people at the bottom of the economic ladder have been treated in this 
country now for many years.
  Now they will be treated again to the prospect of saying: Let's have 
some more people come in; let's not just deal with this 11 to 12 
million, let's have more people come in on top of that because we can't 
find Americans to do that work.
  Why can't we find Americans to do that work? Let me read something 
from Robert Samuelson, a Washington Post editorial. I fully agree with 
this. He talks about:

       It's a myth that the U.S. economy ``needs'' more poor 
     immigrants.

  He is speaking especially of the guest worker provisions.

       The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 
     4.9 percent of the current labor force, reports the Pew 
     Hispanic Center. In no major occupation are they a major-
     ity. . . .
       Hardly anyone thinks that most existing illegal immigrants 
     will leave--

  Or be rounded up, arrested, or deported. I understand that. I think 
all of us probably understand that. I think there should be some 
enforcement of employer sanctions which we created but have not 
enforced, which would make a big difference with respect to illegal 
immigration. Here is what Samuelson said:

       In 2004, the median hourly wage in Mexico was $1.86 
     compared to $9 for Mexicans working in the United States, 
     says Rakesh Kochhar of Pew. With high labor turnover in the 
     jobs they take, most new illegal immigrants can get work by 
     accepting wages slightly below prevailing levels. . . .
       But what would happen if new illegal immigration stopped 
     and wasn't replaced by these guest workers?

  That is an assumption. First, I don't buy the assumption that even if 
this bill is passed with legalizing 11 to 12 million immigrants and 
then allowing up to 4.7 million new people to come in who are now 
living outside our country, I don't buy the notion that we have plugged 
the border. I don't think we in any way inhibit illegal immigrants from 
coming across the border. I know my colleagues are talking about 
tightening the border and employer sanctions, and I will talk about 
that in a minute. Employer sanctions was the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. 
That was a miserable failure, and I will explain why.
  Again quoting Samuelson:

       But what would happen if new illegal immigration stopped 
     and wasn't replaced by guest workers?

  At some point higher wages would be going to American workers.

       President Bush says that his guest worker program would 
     ``match willing foreign workers with willing American 
     employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.'' 
     But at some higher wage, there would be willing Americans.

  As long as you can bring illegal immigrants, which is what has been 
happening, into the country and they can work in the shadows and 
employers can employ them for subminimum wage, I understand why 
employers would not be employing American workers because they have a 
steady stream of workers they can employ below the minimum wage.

       Business organizations understandably support guest worker 
     programs. They like cheap labor and ignore the social 
     consequences.

  That is what is at work here. What is at work here is the same 
corporate interests who are exporting good American jobs are supporting 
this bill because they cannot only export good American jobs on the 
production side, but for those jobs you can't export, you can import 
cheap labor. And that is what this is about: Export good jobs and 
import cheap labor.

  Let me talk for a moment about the debate over the Simpson-Mazzoli 
bill two decades ago at a time when we were told we had a significant 
immigration problem. That was a bill about border enforcement, 
strengthening enforcement at the border, and also creating employer 
sanctions.
  The purpose of that bill was to say to employers: Don't you dare hire 
illegal immigrants; if you are hiring workers who are illegal, you are 
going to be in trouble, you are going to be slapped with a fine and 
subject to enforcement actions. So I went back and read the 1985 and 
1986 debate about Simpson-Mazzoli. I won't embarrass anybody by reading 
it on the floor of the Senate. It was fascinating debate in the House 
and the Senate. This was nirvana. This was the entire solution. It was 
going to work like a charm because if you say to employers you dare not 
hire people who are not here legally, you shut down the job, you shut 
down the magnet, you shut down illegal immigration, end of story.
  The fact is it didn't work at all. We have people in my State, the 
State of North Dakota, today--in fact, I think there is a story in 
today's paper about illegal immigrants working on some energy plants in 
the middle of North Dakota, found to be illegal. The question is: Is 
anybody going to take action against the employer? That would be a 
Minnesota employer, by the way.
  Most of our troubles come from Minnesota. We joke about that.
  If a Minnesota employer hires illegal workers, and he is caught, are 
there any problems for the Minnesota employer? No, no, not even a slap 
on the wrist; just a pat on the back. Nobody is going to prosecute. 
Nobody is going to fine them. Nobody is going to take enforcement 
action. It is exactly why we are in the situation we are in today. 
There are no sanctions for employers who hire illegal aliens.
  I want to say very clearly that I don't in any way, because I oppose 
this guest worker program that will bring 4.7 million people in to 
compete with American workers at the bottom of the economic ladder, I 
don't in any way want to diminish the dignity and self-

[[Page S2877]]

worth of immigrants. I don't mean that at all. I know in most cases 
these are hard-working people, good families. Most of us have come from 
immigrant families at some point in our lineage. Because someone would 
come out and say, as I do today, that I don't support this proposal 
offered by the President and offered on the floor of the Senate, saying 
not only are we going to legalize or give legal status to 11 or 12 
million people who came here illegally, but in addition to that, we are 
going to allow 400,000 people a year with a 20-percent escalation 
clause for the 4.7 million additional people potentially in 6 years to 
come into this country, I am not going to support that. That is a 
strategy for corporations to provide a ladder of cheap labor coming 
into this country, displacing American workers.
  We have a serious crisis in this country with respect to the plight 
of America's workers. A lot of people who worked hard all their lives, 
worked for companies and were proud of it are now discovering their 
jobs are not safe, their jobs are not secure. In many cases, their jobs 
are gone--gone to China, gone to Indonesia. Yes, they can find another 
job. The statistics show they find another job at 20 percent less 
income. In most cases, they have lost their pensions; they have lost 
their health care. These are middle-income American workers, and the 
low-income workers, the people at the bottom of the ladder, the people 
who are high school dropouts, they work hard, they struggle, and now 
what they have confronted in recent years is a corporate strategy of 
being able to hire illegal immigrants at subpar wages, so the jobs are 
not there for them.
  We have a lot of people come to this floor and want to offer 
amendments. They say they speak for this immigration bill, and they say 
they speak for immigrants. Again, let me emphasize, I don't want to 
diminish their concern for immigrant families. I don't want to do that. 
That is not what I am about. But I want to come to this floor to say a 
word on behalf of American workers because nobody is coming to this 
floor to talk about American workers, American jobs, and what it means 
to our country's future to have good jobs that pay well with retirement 
benefits and health benefits.
  The current strategy we are employing in this country today, a 
strategy embraced by this President and this Congress, a corporate 
strategy that says let us export good jobs and import cheap labor, that 
is a strategy that undermines our economy.
  I am interested in the long-term economic health of this country. We 
have a lot of kids who will grow up in this country, American kids, who 
want opportunity. Every single set of parents wants to leave a country 
that is better for their children. They want to leave a country that 
provides more opportunities for their children, and that is simply not 
the case these days, regrettably. It is because we have an economic 
strategy that is off track, and we need to put it on track. I have 
ideas about how to do that. Others do as well. But one of those ideas 
would not include suggesting that we ought to displace American workers 
with 4.7 million additional immigrant workers who now live outside of 
our country but who will come into our country to assume low-wage jobs 
and displace jobs for low-wage American workers. That would not be 
included in my suggestion of how to fix what is wrong in our country.
  There is so much to say about this subject. I know there is great 
passion. I have heard it from all of the groups. I have used a lot of 
statistics. This is not, after all, about statistics or data. It is 
about hopes and dreams and aspirations. It is about human misery. It is 
about living in the shadows. It is about all of those things. So I 
understand the passion that exists on the floor of this Senate about 
this matter. But I also, as one Member of this body, lament that there 
seems to be so little effort and so little activity on this floor about 
the passions and the hopes and the dreams and the inspiration American 
workers have about their future.
  I have indicated previously, I know we have this global economy and I 
know part of that global economy plays a role in this immigration 
debate. People say you are a hopeless xenophobe who doesn't get it. We 
all see over the horizon, and you somehow are nearsighted. My sense is 
that we as a country will have our better days ahead of us if we adopt 
public policy which is thoughtful and, yes, which has as a self-
interest the long-term economic well-being of our country.

  But this global economy has marched and now galloped forward without 
adequate rules with respect to jobs and income and opportunity in this 
country, and too few people seem to care about the diminished 
circumstances facing most American families and most American workers. 
That, too, should play a central role in this discussion. That, too, 
should be a part of the consideration here in the Senate. Regrettably, 
it has not been. My hope is that perhaps in the next 48 hours it will 
be, finally.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority 
leader be recognized at 3:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I take offense at the characterizations of 
the Democratic leader about obstructing this legislation, particularly 
from those from southern border States who, in addition to the 
culpability of the Federal Government, should take the blame for some 
of the failures of these last few years that have perpetrated these 11 
million, 12 million illegal immigrants upon the United States. I 
respect the comments of the Senator from North Dakota, putting those 
responsibilities, some of them, on the businesses of Minnesota, but I 
must say that the businesses of Minnesota and perhaps other Northern 
States have, to their credit, resisted the imposition of workers from 
other countries upon themselves--again, to their credit. It is from the 
States of southern borders, those businesses which have allowed this 
illegal immigration to go unchecked and which have, I believe to their 
discredit, employed these individuals.
  It surprises me--in fact, I would call it the rank hypocrisy of those 
who have stood here today representing these States whose businesses 
have allowed these illegal immigrants to be employed, who have 
benefited and profited from those employments, and who now are suddenly 
trying to take aggressive action to impose these sanctions upon all 
businesses. I believe strongly that Minnesota businesses and others in 
Northern States have been forced to accept illegal immigrants because 
of the failure of States on the southern border to stand up and to 
protect their borders, in addition to the Federal Government. I deeply 
object to those who are claiming that somehow that is the failure of 
Northern States such as Minnesota.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 3232 be called 
up.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am disappointed that my colleagues 
across the aisle will not let those of us who have good faith 
amendments to call them up, debate them, and have a vote on them. This 
is most troubling

[[Page S2878]]

because, while I disagree with many of the provisions in the bill, the 
border security provisions are absolutely critical. The majority of 
Americans consider border security to be one of the most important 
priorities considered by Congress. In holding up the amendment process, 
the Democrats are holding up the chance to move forward on these 
critical border security issues. This legislation is too important to 
fall victim to politics as usual.
  As I said, I strongly disagree with this legislation in its current 
form. I think the provisions relative to agriculture are not in the 
best interests of farmers and agribusiness people. I can't tell you how 
many phone calls and letters and emails I have received from my 
constituents in Georgia as well as from farmers across the Nation 
voicing their objection to many pieces of the Judiciary Committee bill 
and encouraging me in my efforts to make some important changes.
  So I was astounded to hear the minority leader yesterday suggest that 
the Judiciary Committee's bill is good enough for him and therefore 
should be accepted whole hog by the Senate. That is not the way the 
Senate works. This body is based on the concept of debate. To suggest 
that this legislation should reflect the will of the 18 members of 
Judiciary Committee and ignore the will of the full Senate is to 
belittle the enormous implications that will result from whatever 
legislation the Senate passes.
  I recognize that a number of pending amendments are going to require 
the Senate to make some difficult votes. But we cannot try to avoid 
these votes for political expediency. The American people deserve to 
know where their Senators stand on these critical issues. And every 
Senator has the right to try to shape this legislation.
  The folks on the other side of the aisle need to stop playing 
politics as usual--which is obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. This bill is 
too important and their antics are going to prevent us from having a 
bill that actually means something and isn't just a repeat of the past. 
Georgians and the American people deserve more than politics as usual--
they deserve a thoughtful and thorough debate.
  Even though I am not allowed to offer my amendment at this time, I 
would like to take a few moments to speak about it. And at this point I 
would like to ask unanimous consent that Senator Brownback be added as 
a cosponsor to amendment No. 3232.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Judiciary substitute bill mandates 
that the minimum wage that must be paid to workers admitted under the 
H-2A program shall be the greater of: the applicable state minimum 
wage, the prevailing wage, or the adverse effect wage rate, often 
referred to as the AEWR. In almost every case in every State, the AEWR 
is significantly higher than the local prevailing wage. Interestingly 
enough, the U.S. Department of Labor does not determine this AEWR. AEWR 
wages are based solely on a U.S. Department of Agriculture's National 
Agriculture Statistics Service quarterly survey--a survey that has been 
published by the Department of Agriculture for decades; a survey that 
was never intended for the purpose for which the Department of Labor 
utilizes the collected data.
  The AEWR reflects the average wage for disparate field and livestock 
work over a multistate area. Packing house work--an occupation filled 
by a large number of H2-A workers--is not surveyed. The NASS survey 
result is the average of all agricultural wages, including the wages 
that are paid to workers whose higher production levels entitle them to 
additional incentives or piecework pay. The U.S. Department of Labor 
then uses this average wage without regard for differences in 
occupations, skills and seasonality by turning that average into a 
minimum guaranteed wage for purposes of the AEWR.
  To put this in terms my colleagues can understand, this would be like 
if you took a survey of all congressional salaries, from Senators and 
Congressmen to staff assistants, and then took the average of those 
salaries and mandated that the average wage must be the minimum amount 
paid to any congressional staffer.
  Agricultural employers who use the H-2A program to avoid breaking the 
law by hiring legal workers are put at a distinct competitive 
disadvantage when compared to growers who use the available 
undocumented workforce. In fact, this competitive disadvantage caused 
by the additional expense of using H-2A is a major factor in the 
agricultural industry's increasing dependency on an illegal workforce.
  Those employers who have been utilizing an illegal workforce have not 
been paying those illegal workers anywhere near the adverse effect wage 
rate. Most troubling to me is that in the Judiciary Committee's bill, 
once agricultural employers transition those illegal workers to blue 
card workers, there is still no mandated wage floor for them! 
Therefore, H-2A growers will continue to experience unfair competition 
if the AEWR is not replaced with local prevailing wages.
  I would also like to point out that the wages required of employers 
of workers admitted under every other temporary, non-immigrant visa 
category is a local prevailing wage rate determined by the U.S. 
Department of Labor through specific occupational surveys by the 
various states.
  I believe this should be the case for the H-2A program as well. 
Moving from an Adverse Effect Wage Rate requirement to a prevailing 
wage would allow the use of a more localized, occupation-specific, 
competitive wage when growers access legal workers through the H-2A 
program. This would naturally raise wages for some farm workers and 
better reflect the economic realities of the area in which the work is 
performed and the type of work being performed. It would also encourage 
agricultural employers to participate in a program designed to protect 
and identify the workers on our Nation's farms.
  I urge you to support the amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I will sound, unfortunately, 
like a broken record for the next 15 minutes or so.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will object to an amendment being called up at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has been recognized. 
The quorum call has been lifted. No other unanimous consent request has 
been made.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. It is important to stress again and again we 
must focus on border security first.
  When I first announced and then introduced my border security bill 
last fall along with my colleagues, Senator Sessions and Senator 
Coburn, people across America were talking about securing our borders 
but there wasn't any action.
  No bill in Congress was moving because most of the efforts tried to 
tackle everything and ended up doing nothing.
  I proposed changing the way we address immigration reform and 
introduced a bipartisan bill that focuses on border security first.
  Until we secure our borders, the U.S. will never be able to control 
the deeper problems of illegal immigration. I repeat: without securing 
our borders first, the U.S. will never be able to deal with its illegal 
immigration problems.
  That is why, I, along with my colleagues Senator Sessions, Senator 
Byrd, and Senator Vitter are offering our bipartisan border security 
bill as a complete substitute to the bill that Senator Specter and the 
Judiciary Committee have offered.
  We all have great respect for Senator Specter and the hard work by 
the Judiciary Committee to complete the bill they reported out last 
week under difficult time constraints. It is a good thing that we have 
so many people working together trying to find solutions to our illegal 
immigration problem. But it is important that those efforts are not 
lost because we tried to tackle everything and accomplished nothing. 
Those efforts are why we must focus on border security.
  My colleagues and I are convinced that there is only one way we are 
going

[[Page S2879]]

to find consensus and see real action this year, and that is if we take 
the very important step of securing our borders first.
  Our proposal would add 3,000 border patrol agents per year for 5 
years and enhance border security technology.
  It also adds:
  1,000 new investigative personnel dedicated to stopping immigrant 
smuggling;
  10,000 new Department of Homeland Security investigators dedicated to 
worksite enforcement; and
  15,000 immigration enforcement agents dedicated to fraud detection.
  At the same time, we give employers the tools they need to confirm 
the status of prospective employees to ensure that they are following 
the law.
  If the companies have completed the verification process they will be 
protected in their hiring decisions. And the companies will not need to 
be concerned with verifying documents nor will they have to be in the 
business of making sure that documents handed to them are not 
fraudulent. However, if a company ignores this process and hires 
illegal immigrants anyway, our proposal enhances the penalties for 
breaking the law.
  We believe that this is an important component for securing our 
borders and addressing the problem of illegal immigration. By removing 
the motivation behind most illegal immigration--securing employment 
through fraudulent documents or unscrupulous employers--we can take 
another important step towards resolving our illegal immigration 
problems.
  In addition to aiding employers identifying illegal immigrants, this 
proposal also helps border security agents to stop immigrant smuggling, 
human trafficking, and other border offenses. This will ensure that 
gangs, organized crime, and individuals looking to exploit illegal 
immigrants for profit are prosecuted and prevented from putting 
immigrants in harms way.
  Currently, these offenders are difficult to prosecute and are soon 
back committing new offenses of the same old crime.
  I understand there has been some confusion about who this provision 
of the Border Security First proposal targets. I would like to set the 
record straight and make absolutely clear that this section is not 
aimed at prosecuting any religious or humanitarian groups that assist 
individuals in need. These people are not prosecuted now nor will they 
be in the future--nor should they be.
  Instead, we need to stop the criminals who are smuggling people for 
financial gain and commercial profit. They are the ones hurting 
immigrants, not our religious and nonprofit groups.
  I would also like to clarify for the record that this proposal does 
not make illegal immigrants in this country felons. It merely seeks to 
secure our borders as a first step towards resolving our illegal 
immigration problems.
  I continue to push for border security first because I believe that 
it is our responsibility to work together to find a solution to this 
problem confronting our Nation. Our fellow Americans expect no less 
from us.
  I continue to push for border security first because it makes common 
sense.
  We all agree that the borders need to be secured.
  And with a problem as pressing as illegal immigration, it is 
important that we work to build a consensus and that we concentrate our 
efforts on getting something accomplished that moves us along the path 
towards resolving this problem.
  The disagreements we face all stem from the additional problem of 
what to do with the illegal immigrants already here. I am for securing 
the border first--and then developing a plan for the illegal immigrants 
already here. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to begin 
solving this problem because we concentrated on the things we disagree 
about rather than working to make sure we accomplished what we all 
agree needs to be accomplished first.
  Unless we secure our borders first, the problem will only continue to 
worsen and the number of illegal immigrants we need to address will be 
larger than it is now.
  Unless we secure our borders first, the U.S. will never have a firm 
grasp on the interior problems we have as a result of illegal 
immigration.
  Unless we secure our borders first, we will never be able to 
adequately address the remaining issues that illegal immigration 
present.
  Unless we secure our borders first, we will miss this opportunity to 
begin solving a problem and we will have failed to properly do our jobs 
for the American people.
  By implementing tough new changes to secure our borders we can take 
an important first step toward addressing illegal immigration.
  Today as we continue this debate and we continue to think about the 
bill that is before the Senate, we need to redirect our attention and 
put border security first so we can then go on. The ``do everything'' 
bill that is before the Senate today will end up doing nothing. The 
reason is if it is passed by this Senate and goes to the conference 
committee, it cannot be squared with the House version that has already 
been passed. It will be easier to square the circle than it will be to 
bring these two disparate bills together, and that is why we need to do 
something to secure our borders first.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I am broadly 
supported by our caucus, because we come to a moment in time where 
people are looking at the Senate, America is looking at the Senate, and 
asking: Why? Why are we at a point where we are addressed with a 
problem that is not insurmountable--seemingly insurmountable at times 
but a problem which can be addressed, which addresses the issues that 
are so fundamental to our country--issues of national security, issues 
of fairness, issues of compassion--challenges that if not addressed 
will continue to grow, thereby threatening the security of the American 
people, who are watching.
  Republicans are here--we see it right here on the floor right now--
and we have been here since last Wednesday on a bill doing what the 
American people expect; that is, identifying a problem, discussing a 
problem, putting together amendments in order to take a bill to the 
floor and, therefore, improve a bill. And yet we are being denied that 
basic opportunity.
  Right this very moment, we are here to address a national problem, a 
problem that is pressing. It impacts every American listening. I 
mentioned the word ``fairness'' because it is basically a matter of 
fairness--of fairness to a group of people, the 12 million undocumented 
people here in this country today, who, yes, came here illegally, but 
who are listening and watching right now and asking that question, Will 
my plight be addressed and addressed appropriately?
  It has to do with fairness to the Senate, where each of us came here 
probably for different reasons, but to participate in governing and 
moving America forward to a future that we know will be safer, that 
will be healthier, that will be more prosperous; and fairness for our 
constituents, who are scratching their heads right now, at first maybe 
saying, well, there it is, the Senate, once again, not able to address 
problems, but then, after a moment, saying that is wrong; those are the 
people who are sent to Washington to represent us, to address the 
toughest, most fundamental problems that are out there today, and that 
is our secureness, our security, to address issues that affect internal 
enforcement of the laws of the land, a nation of laws, and, yes, a 
nation that has captured the richness of our immigrants.
  Twelve million people are living in the shadows. I would argue that 
today our Democratic colleagues are living in the shadows by not 
standing up and addressing the problems, the challenges, the 
opportunities that have been identified. The minority refuses to vote. 
They refuse to give us simple votes, up-or-down votes, on issues we can 
debate on the floor, that we are ready to debate.
  The other side of the aisle is refusing to govern. That is why we 
came to the Senate. They refuse to come to the

[[Page S2880]]

table to even attempt to address the problem. They are willing to let 
these 12 million people continue to struggle. They are willing to let 
our national security, by not addressing the problem, be compromised. 
They are willing to let our health care, our education, and our 
immigration system be crippled.
  I come to the floor to make the statement that the immigration system 
is broken, and yet the Democrats today do not have the courage to 
address the problem, to fix the problem. They show a lack of courage, I 
think, conviction, and leadership to fix the problem. You fix the 
problem by doing something, not coming with a solution and saying: This 
is it; take it or leave it. It is to allow us to have an amendment 
proposed, to debate that amendment, and then to vote on that amendment.
  What happens, then, when we take an issue that is totally 
nonpartisan--it is not a red State, blue State, liberal, conservative, 
Democratic or Republican issue--and all of a sudden politics gets 
injected into it? Thus I ask the other side of the aisle to please put 
the politics aside and allow this body--100 individuals--to cast votes, 
take up amendments and vote on them.
  There have been a lot of media reports saying that caucuses are 
fractured--our caucus is fractured and the Democratic caucus is 
fractured. I think that in many ways can be overplayed, but it does 
reflect the fact--not the fracturing but the diversity of ideas, good 
ideas, that need to come to the floor and be debated in order to solve 
these huge problems that are out there: on the border, first and 
foremost; interior enforcement at the workplace; the temporary workers, 
the 12 million people.
  We have ideas right here. There are 50 different people with a bunch 
of ideas, yet not one is being allowed to come to the floor, lay down 
their amendment, have the manager take up the amendment, debate it, and 
then vote on that amendment. And we are not going to all agree. That is 
what the Senate is all about: to debate, to deliberate, to discuss, and 
then to act.
  I think our side has shown our courage to come forth and address a 
problem. There are not clear-cut answers and not answers everybody is 
going to agree with. But by working together--not Republican and 
Democrat, but by working together, each of us operating with our own 
convictions, allowed to vote with our own convictions, we can move this 
process forward.
  It comes back to fairness again. It is the fairness for each of us. 
It is the fairness for the 12 million. It is the fairness for the 
immigrants who want to come to this country, yes, legally so they will 
have a clearly defined system.
  I want to thank the members of my caucus for coming to the table. It 
is a tough issue, the whole immigration issue. It is a broken system. 
It demands to be fixed. They are ready to fix it, but right now the 
other side of the aisle is not allowing us. Without fail, all of our 
people have come forward with good ideas. We do not all agree with each 
other--but to work together in a constructive way, bringing out the 
very best of this body, when, I would argue, over the last 24 hours we 
have seen the absolute worst.
  I do believe the American people deserve better. And again, as I 
opened, I said the American people have to be scratching their head. 
Now I used to say this is another insufferable attempt of the other 
side to block, to obstruct, to postpone, to delay, but now I think it 
is beyond that.
  We know the American people care passionately about this issue. It is 
time for us to come together--not Republican versus Democrat--and allow 
these amendments, in an orderly way, determined by the managers, to be 
debated and voted upon so we can move this country forward, where we 
know if we act we will be safer, we will give hope where there is no 
hope today, we will respond with compassion, because I have confidence 
in the system itself.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader 
yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my questions to the majority leader are 
whether the conduct of the Democrats is consistent with the usual 
practice of the Senate, which allows Senators to offer, at a minimum, 
germane amendments to pending legislation, and whether the position 
taken by the distinguished Democratic leader is consistent with the 
practices and protocol of the Senate?
  His approach was summarized in a news conference yesterday that I 
spoke about on the Senate floor--I had a minor confrontation with the 
Democratic leader yesterday--where a question was posed by a reporter. 
Quote:

       Senator Reid, the Republicans are saying that you are not 
     allowing amendments to be voted on on the floor. Is there a 
     reason for that?

  And Senator Reid responded, and I quote:

       We are happy to take a look at amendments that don't damage 
     the integrity of the bill, but if it is going to be, in the 
     estimation of the unified Democrats, an effort to denigrate 
     this bipartisan bill, then they won't have votes on those 
     amendments.

  My question is, is it up to a Senator or a caucus or a party or the 
Members on one side of the aisle to take a look at the amendments and 
decide whether they damage the integrity of the bill and to set a 
standard that if an amendment is going to be, in the estimation of the 
unified Democrats, an effort to denigrate this bipartisan bill, then 
they won't have a vote on that amendment? Or is it the practice and 
protocol of the Senate to allow Senators to vote for amendments as 
individual Senators see the situation in their own right?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in response to my colleague and the manager 
of this bill, it is clear that by protocol, precedent--and I would even 
take it back to something more basic than that--and simple fairness and 
respect for individual Members, Members be allowed to come forward and 
offer their amendments and then, yes, discuss it with the Democratic 
leader, the Republican leader, and especially the managers of the bill. 
But to think that the minority party can cherry-pick which amendments 
will be considered and no other amendments will be considered is 
totally outside of the realm of both practice, protocol and, again, 
fairness of the body itself.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished majority leader for a very 
poignant, accurate, conclusive response.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I just hope that my friends on the other 
side of the aisle--and there isn't a single Senator over there I don't 
consider a friend and have great respect for--I hope they remember this 
exchange between the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the 
majority leader today, as we wind down this session of this Congress. I 
want them to remember this because you don't have to have a very long 
memory to understand what has happened in the Senate with our inability 
to offer amendments. The most recent that I can think of, of course, 
was the Dubai Ports situation on lobbying. The next thing I can go back 
and look at is the PATRIOT Act, where the distinguished majority leader 
filled the tree.
  There is no need--we went through this yesterday. There is no need to 
do this. But the Senate, in the 200-plus years it has been in 
existence--even though the rules are somewhat difficult to accept, they 
are here. And they are here for a reason. Because over the generations 
of the Senate, there is always the ability to have an endgame. There is 
a way to proceed orderly on a piece of legislation. And what we should 
do on this, if everyone is so upset with what is taking place here, is 
in the morning we will have an opportunity to invoke cloture. All 
germane amendments will be allowed, if they were filed before 1 o'clock 
today. There would be an opportunity then to debate these amendments 
and vote on them. So there is no more orderly way to proceed to a 
matter than cloture.
  I wish to switch a little bit here and talk about something that is 
extremely personal to me. I have been a legislator for a long time. The 
first job I had in public office was in 1964. I have been involved in 
government for 42 years. I was a city attorney, served on county 
boards, the State legislature, and other such opportunities that the 
people of the State of Nevada have given me. I don't want this to be 
true confessions,

[[Page S2881]]

but I want to relate to the Senate that the biggest mistake I ever 
made, the largest error I ever made was 15 or 18 years ago, as a Member 
of the U.S. Congress, when, with my chief of staff, my dear friend 
Reynaldo Martinez--he and I played baseball together. He was a star on 
that team. I wasn't. But we beat everybody. We were the California 
Scholastic Federation champions when I was a sophomore in high school.
  He was my chief of staff. He is retired, a wonderful man. He has 
credentials in the Hispanic community. He has had a school named after 
him in Nevada. He has a youth center named after him. He is a very 
famous Nevadan and my dear friend.
  A group of people came and talked to us and convinced us that the 
thing to do would be to close the borders between Mexico and the United 
States; in effect, stop people from coming across our borders to the 
United States. This period of time for which I am so apologetic--to my 
family, mostly--lasted about a week or two. I introduced legislation. 
My little wife is 5 feet tall. We have been together for soon to be 50 
years. As I said here on the floor a few days ago, her father was born 
in Russia. He was run out of Russia. His name was Goldfarb, his family. 
They were Jewish. My wife heard that I had done this. She does not 
interfere with my legislation. Only when I ask her does she get 
involved in what I am doing. I didn't ask her about this. She, in 
effect, said: I can't believe that you have done it. But I had done it.

  To compound this, I held a meeting a day or two after being 
confronted by my wife, a meeting in Las Vegas. It was a townhall 
meeting to explain this travesty that I called legislation. My friend, 
Judge John Mendoza, was there, somebody who, when I lost my Senate race 
in 1974 by 524 votes, spent all night with me consoling me, but he was 
in that audience. Larry Luna, Larry Mason, Isabelle Pfeiffer, people I 
had not talked to about this, in addition to my wife, pointed out the 
errors of my way. I have done everything since that meeting in Las 
Vegas, in conversation with my wife, to undo my embarrassment.
  I have nothing against my friend, the junior Senator from Alabama, 
for bringing up what I had said those many years ago today on the 
Senate floor. I have no problem with that at all. But I do want to tell 
him and the rest of my friends in the Senate, that is a low point of my 
legislative career, the low point of my governmental career. That is 
why I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform today. People in 
America are counting on us to move forward with comprehensive 
immigration reform. They recognize that this country's national 
security depends on securing our borders and fixing our immigration 
system. They all want us to do this, Democrats and Republicans, to come 
together and do this.
  I still believe that the bill before us is a compromise. I believe it 
is a good bill. It is up to my Republican friends to decide what they 
want to do. They can work with us to move forward and vote cloture and 
have some amendments that are germane postcloture. My friends, the 
majority, can move forward with a bill that will fix our borders and 
reform the immigration system or continue to stonewall. It is in the 
eyes of the beholder who is stonewalling. I think what we have here is 
a compromise. We have a real bipartisan opportunity to fix our 
immigration system. Thanks to the hard work of the Democrats and 
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we have a bill that will do it.
  So I hope that tomorrow morning, an hour after we come into session, 
that there will be a bipartisan vote to invoke cloture, move forward 
with this legislation, look at those germane amendments, vote them up 
or down, and move forward with the process.
  I, first of all, want everyone in this Chamber to know that there is 
no animosity between the two leaders. We have jobs to do. We do the 
best we can to fulfill those responsibilities. But as far as the two of 
us are concerned, there is no ill will toward me from Senator Frist. He 
has never shown that on a personal basis. I have attempted not to do 
that with him. I will say on one occasion I did, and he brought it to 
my attention. I acknowledged that, and I understood what he was 
critical of. It was constructive criticism, and I took it as that.
  I hope we can move forward. There have been proposals made by both 
sides. My friend's proposal on this side of the aisle was not 
acceptable. My proposal to him was not acceptable. But it is only 4 
o'clock. Maybe something will happen before tomorrow morning's cloture 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as I said in my remarks a few minutes ago, 
the disappointing thing to me is the situation we are in, in that in 
all likelihood, unless we have a radical departure in the next hour, 
the course we are on is to leave here in a few days having accomplished 
nothing for the American people. The American people expect more.
  We all know that the institutions of government in today's world are 
watched by the American people because we were elected on their behalf 
to identify problems, to struggle and work through those problems 
through a process that has worked well for a couple hundred years, and 
that is debate and amendment. We have a bill on the floor that came out 
of the Judiciary Committee, a process I am actually proud of.
  It has been confusing to people, I know, but I basically said: There 
is a problem out there that we know is there. It is getting worse. It 
affects the safety and security of the American people, plus the 
compassionate side, people dying crossing the borders, plus 12 million 
people who are having to wake up every day in the shadows out of fear 
that in some way somebody is going to come and touch them in a 
devastating way or not being able to report a domestic violence 
incident because it exposes them. That is wrong.
  We have the opportunity--because of leadership, and working with the 
Democratic leadership, we got a bill to the floor, knowing 3 to 4 
months in advance that we would be here now spending time on it--to fix 
the problem, to solve the problem. And maybe it is the surgical 
personality in me that says, if somebody in the room has cancer, you 
cut it out. You just don't sit there and talk to them and say: Come 
back in a few weeks or a few months or a few years, because they die 
from not acting and fixing it.
  That may be too much my approach, but stepping back from that, I know 
this is a process here whereby if we start now and take the first 
amendment from last week, the Kyl amendment, which was introduced and 
has been discussed and debated, and last night we voted not to table 
it--why don't we take it and vote on it and go straight through, and 
then we would have the opportunity to effect a bill. I think we can 
improve the bill. I think it would get 60 votes for cloture, and then 
we could have a bill that would solve the problems that are out there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is well known that there are a number 
of Senators who have been engaged in active negotiations and are trying 
to come to an agreement so that we could get this very difficult and 
challenging issue behind us. There are Senators Graham, Martinez, 
Domenici, Brownback, Hagel, and Specter, who led the legislation 
through the Judiciary Committee, and Senators Gregg, Obama, Salazar, 
Durbin, and especially Senator Kennedy. We have all been involved in 
negotiations and discussions morning, noon, and night, as have our 
staffs, as well as various outside groups. We are always very close to 
agreement. I cannot say we are going to reach agreement, but it is not 
for lack of knowledge, expertise, or dedication in trying to solve this 
issue.
  Senator Frist has encouraged us. We have met with him constantly and 
he has offered his encouragement as a leader and we are grateful for 
that. We are close. If we can reach an agreement, I think it would have 
60 votes in this body. I haven't seen an issue in recent years that has 
so much emotion associated with it. Nor do I know of one that probably 
defines the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and what kind of 
a nation we are.
  The occupant of the chair, Senator Martinez, and Senator Salazar 
brought a perspective to this issue which is very valuable. Both have 
added life experiences on this issue. So it is not for lack of 
knowledge or expertise or talent, and we are very close.

[[Page S2882]]

  But there has been a shadow on our discussions. The fact is the 
Senate has not moved forward with debate and amendments and votes. The 
Senate is supposed to do that. That is what this body is supposed to be 
all about. Now for a week and a half we have not been able to have a 
vote on a single issue. We should not be afraid to debate these issues 
and to vote on them. That is what we are supposed to do. We don't have 
to wait for cloture every time before we debate and have votes. Senator 
Kyl and Senator Cornyn have devoted thousands of hours to this issue. 
They deserve a vote on their proposal. That is the way the Senate is 
supposed to function.
  There are those on the other side who have amendments that probably 
would be very tough votes for those of us on this side. We are here to 
take tough votes. That is what we come here for--to take tough votes. I 
could argue, as we do maybe too often, legitimately that this is one of 
the greatest challenges we face in our time--securing our borders, 
taking 11 million people out of the shadows who are exploited every 
day, fulfilling the job requirements that we all know are necessary to 
ensure our economic future.
  I want to assure the Democratic leader that those of us on this side 
follow the leadership of our elected leader. We cannot vote for cloture 
when it is proposed by the other side. The majority rules. The majority 
sets the agenda in the Senate. For there to be an expectation that 
somehow we would vote for cloture as proposed by the Democratic 
leader--I imagine if my friend from Nevada were in the majority, he 
could take great exception to the Senator from Tennessee filing cloture 
and then expecting the other side to follow that.
  We have a short period of time. I hope as these negotiations 
continue--and we are close, I must say. I think my friend from 
Massachusetts would agree, although I must say he is very interesting 
to negotiate with. But I also point out that his word is good.
  I hope people will listen to the Senator from Florida, who is in the 
chair. I hope people will listen to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. 
Salazar, and others who can explain to us better than anyone how urgent 
it is that we resolve this issue. Americans are unhappy with us, in 
general. But this issue has aroused passion in a way that few of us 
have ever seen across this country. In Los Angeles, Phoenix, Arizona, 
and New York City, and around the Nation, it seems to me we owe every 
American a resolution on this issue.
  Can we please move forward with amendments, start voting, and then 
come to a resolution of this issue. I thank both leaders for their 
indulgence and my colleagues for their active involvement in this 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sure it was an oversight by my friend 
from Arizona in just mentioning Senator Salazar, but also Senator 
Menendez has been involved in the things we have done over here, and he 
is a great addition to our caucus.
  My friend from Arizona, who has established his credentials as being 
courageous as none of the rest of us have, except perhaps Senator 
Inouye, said we should not be afraid to take votes. So my suggestion--I 
made it yesterday and I make it today--is that there has been 
significant debate on the Specter-Leahy substitute. It is now before 
this body. We should not be afraid to vote on that. As I said, we are 
willing to vote. We don't need to have cloture. We can have an up-or-
down vote on that right now. That is one alternative that could be 
considered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think our point has been made. If we are 
going to address an issue that deserves to be addressed and that the 
American people expect us to address, we have to change course here 
from the last several days. It is going to require amendments and 
debate and allowing amendments to come to the floor. There is no 
comparable bill. The Medicare bill had 128 amendments; the highway bill 
had 47; the Energy bill had 70. But to think we can make progress on a 
bill flying through the Senate without the opportunity for debate and 
amendment is unrealistic. It is outside of the realm of what the 
American people expect and what our responsibilities are as Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I so appreciate that the majority 
leader has called this to the Nation's attention because we have been 
working on this bill for almost 2 weeks now. The majority of the body 
has not had its say. The Judiciary Committee worked very hard on this 
bill. However, it is a bill that I could not possibly invoke cloture on 
before we have had a chance to have input and the opportunity to change 
it in the direction that the full majority of this body--hopefully, a 
resounding majority of the body--would support.
  The House of Representatives passed a bill that probably not one 
Member of the Senate would support. That is not going to be the final 
position of Congress. The Senate is taking a different approach. The 
Senate, in general, agrees that there should be a guest worker program. 
It has been very difficult to come up with the right solution on how 
our country handles the 12 million people who are here illegally--a 
solution that is fair and equitable for the citizens of the United 
States and ensures law and order on our borders. It would be wrong for 
Congress to pass a bill which indicates border security is business as 
usual, or that the laws of our country can be broken with no penalty 
whatsoever. Most of us want to pass a guest worker program that allows 
people to come back and forth legally into our country, help our 
economy, earn their benefits and be able to keep them--not in the 
underground, but aboveboard. Most of us want that.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us does not provide the right 
solution. Yet, we are sincere in our desire to amend it. That is what 
our leader is trying to say. I think it is wrong for the Democratic 
minority to hold up amendments and not allow those who have worked for 
hours, days, weeks, and months on this bill, to offer alternatives, 
hear debate, and start shaping a bill that would put our country in the 
right direction, secure our borders, keep our friendship with Mexico--
our neighbor to the South, and treat people fairly.
  Passing a bill that achieves these objectives is a goal I think we 
can all reach, but not if we cannot have amendments and are forced to 
vote on cloture. I could not possibly vote for cloture, nor could all 
but one or two on our side. That is not bipartisan. It is not the 
process we have followed in this Senate.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let us proceed 
with amendments. Don't waste the next 24 hours. Let Senator Kyl have 
his chance to have his amendment voted on. Let others who have ideas 
have their amendments voted on.
  I think one area we have not significantly addressed, one I would 
like to be able to talk about, is an alternative for people who do not 
seek citizenship in America. There are many wonderful Mexican workers 
in our country who want to remain citizens of Mexico, who intend to 
stay with their families in Mexico, but who desire the economic 
opportunities in America. Why would we not provide them an opportunity 
to come out of the shadows, to work and earn their pay in the open, and 
then go home? Why should they wait in a 10-year line for U.S. 
citizenship, which they do not seek?
  Clearly, we have not fully vetted this issue. The Judiciary Committee 
worked hard to produce a bill, a bill which I do not support. Yet, they 
certainly worked hard, did their homework, and were very thorough. We 
need to have a chance to work on that bill with the rest of the Senate 
because most of us are not on the Judiciary Committee. Immigration is 
an issue that affects all of our States and our country as a whole. We 
need to address it in a sincere, productive way that will come to the 
right solution. The only way to do that is to allow the Senate to 
debate and vote on amendments. If we can come to a consensus, and have 
a 75-to-25 vote, or a 90-to-10 vote on a final bill, then we would have 
produced the right solution. We will not be able to do that if we 
invoke cloture before voting on amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am seeking recognition, standing on the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Chair heard the Senator from 
Kansas first.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I tell my friend from Illinois that I 
will be very brief.

[[Page S2883]]

  I understand all of the discussion has been about cloture. It has 
been about the process of the Senate. It has been about denying 
Members--in this particular case, on our side--the ability to offer 
amendments. Let me say that we are about to go on a 2-week recess 
without doing anything about trying to secure our borders. We are doing 
some things, but we are not doing the things we need to do. There are 
32,200 reasons why we should move and why we should reach 
accommodation, if we possibly can, to pass a good immigration reform 
bill. That is 32,200 people who will be coming across our borders 
during the 2 weeks we will be in recess. And 2,300 are coming across 
per day as of today. There have been about 150 come across our borders 
illegally while we have been speaking.
  As a matter of fact, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, I know how this affects our national security. I know all 
the talk has been about procedure and germaneness and allowing 
amendments. But let me talk a minute about national security.
  Mr. President, 1.2 million illegal aliens were apprehended as they 
came across our borders last year. Two or three times that amount were 
not apprehended. If you lived in Tucson, the number was about 439,000 
who were apprehended. Two or three times that amount were not 
apprehended. If you lived in Yuma, in California, that number was about 
140,000 approximately, and in McAllen, TX, there were 135,000 in just 1 
year.
  Of the 1.2 million who were apprehended who came across illegally--I 
am not talking about the ones who came across and were not 
apprehended--165,000 were persons coming from countries other than 
Mexico. Where did they come from? We are talking about the Middle East. 
We are talking about Southeast Asia. We are talking about Eastern 
Europe. We know because we have apprehended people from Afghanistan, 
Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. We have actually apprehended people from 
Iran, 10 of them, and Somalia and Venezuela.
  I want to say something about these folks. Their goals may be to find 
a job and be part of the American dream, but they may not be as well. 
And truthfully, I think that is only a snapshot of the reality.
  I think the intelligence community can tell you who we caught, but 
they can't tell you who we haven't caught. So at 2,300 people coming 
across the border who are illegal every day--every day that we argue or 
that we don't argue it, that basically we don't have an opportunity to 
consider the amendments and move this bill forward, national security 
is being threatened.
  I want Members to consider that and see if we can't work toward some 
solution that will allow a series of amendments to be considered and 
move on with this bill. Otherwise, in the next 2 weeks, I have to tell 
my colleagues, the people of Kansas are going to look at me or, for 
that matter, every Senator and say: What on Earth are you doing going 
on recess for 2 weeks when you have 32,200 more people coming in, most 
of whom are not vetted and some could be injurious to the national 
security of the United States?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I asked my staff how many amendments have 
been filed to this bill. The number is 228 amendments; 228 amendments 
have been filed to this bill. If you follow the proceedings of the 
Senate, you know there is no way on Earth we can consider 228 
amendments and actually vote on this bill by the end of this week or 
even by the end of next week. It is physically impossible. Decisions 
will have to be made, as they are made on every single piece of 
legislation, on which amendments will be cut, which amendments will be 
considered.
  I have had amendments that I thought were extremely important that 
didn't make the cut. That is the nature of this Chamber. Sometimes we 
have to step back and say at some point we will have to vote on a bill 
if we want a bill passed.
  Our concern on this side of the aisle is that if we get mired down in 
the amendment process, we have a fundamental problem. What we are 
witnessing here you cannot analogize to a baseball game because in a 
baseball game, there is no clock. In the Senate, there is a clock, not 
just by day but by week. And at the end of this week, we are scheduled 
to go on recess.
  For that reason, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the 
Senate, filed a cloture motion yesterday. Under the Senate rules, that 
means that tomorrow morning at about 10 o'clock, we will vote as to 
whether we want to close off debate, close off the amendment number at 
228, or let more amendments pile on.
  What is the likelihood that we would consider and pass this bill this 
week if we allow all amendments to be filed that each Member wishes? 
There is no chance whatsoever.
  What Senator Reid believes and I share is that we have a historic 
opportunity. We may never get this chance again. The last time we had 
any serious debate about immigration reform was more than a decade ago. 
Honestly, the situation has gotten worse in this country ever since. 
Now we have a chance. We have a chance because on a bipartisan basis, 
the Senate Judiciary Committee produced a bill. It is not perfect, but 
it is a good bill, strongly supported by Senator Kennedy on our side 
and Senator McCain on the other side, supported by Republicans and 
Democrats who brought it out of the committee 12 to 6.
  Our fear is that if we allow this process to mire down with hundreds 
of amendments, the clock will run out; we will have missed our chance.
  It pains me to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say 
there is no way we can vote for cloture, there is no way we can vote to 
close down the amendments that are going to be filed here. We have to 
stand together as a party. I think there is more at stake. I think this 
bill, this bipartisan bill, is evidence that both parties can come 
together and must come together if we are going to solve an intractable 
problem, such as the problem of immigration reform.
  America is not going to remember whether we considered 1 amendment, 5 
amendments, 10 amendments or 20 amendments. America will not remember 
whether Senator Kyl's amendment was called first or fifth in order. But 
America will remember with this vote tomorrow who was on the right side 
of history, who was on that side of history that said we have to move 
forward to reconcile a serious challenge in this Nation.

  The Senator from Kansas talks about security. I am happy to report to 
him that every bill under consideration dealing with immigration has 
strong security provisions. There is a provision offered by Senator 
Frist to make our borders stronger. Virtually the same provision is 
being offered on the Democratic side of the aisle in a bipartisan bill. 
There is no argument about enforcement, strengthening our borders, 
knowing who is here, where they work, where they live, and what they 
do. If we are going to be a secure nation, that is essential.
  There is no argument about employer enforcement. It has to be part of 
an enforcement system.
  Where we do have differences of opinion, of course, is what to do 
with 11 or 12 million people already here. We think we have struck the 
right balance, giving people an opportunity over an 11-year period of 
time to earn their way to citizenship. If they work hard, if they have 
a job, if they pay their taxes, if they have had a criminal background 
check, if they are learning English, if they know about our Nation's 
history and its civics, if the people who are asking for this clearly 
are good citizens, people of good moral virtue, those are the ones we 
want as part of our Nation.
  I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say unless we can 
call one amendment or five amendments before 10 o'clock tomorrow 
morning, we would as soon see this process stop. That would be 
unfortunate. Voting for cloture doesn't mean there is an end to 
amendments. It means there is a limited time for those amendments 
pending, some 30 hours. We still have time to debate and amend this 
bill, and we will. But Senator Reid and I share in the belief that we 
need a process that brings this to a conclusion. There is no way we can 
deal with 228 amendments and have this bill completed this week. That 
is why we moved forward on this effort to try to file cloture on a 
bipartisan basis and move this bill to final passage.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S2884]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I thank our majority leader for 
coming to the floor and pointing out what is happening because I think 
this is a miscarriage of justice, very unfair, and is an indication of 
what is fundamentally wrong with the Senate these days. It is important 
that in the light of day, the American people be told why immigration 
reform, on which the American people feel very strongly we should act 
and I believe they feel we should put great focus on border security, 
is long overdue.
  We made runs on it in the past. I was around when we passed 
immigration reform, by title at least, in 1986 and again in 1996. It 
didn't work. We have to do more for border security. We have to decide 
if we want a temporary worker program, how is it going to be assigned, 
what are the responsibilities for it to be implemented, and exactly how 
are we going to deal with, again, 11 and 12 million people who are in 
this country.
  Frankly, I have very little to say on this subject because I am not a 
member of the Judiciary Committee. I do not consider myself an 
authority, an expert on the substance, as is my colleague from Arizona, 
Senator Kyl. He worked on it. He is on the Judiciary Committee. They 
discussed it, considered it for weeks and months. I have a lot of 
respect for the work that was done in the committee.
  I have been proud that our majority leader, Senator Frist, has forced 
this issue to a head. Some people have said: Wait a minute, we are not 
ready, we haven't had time to cook this issue; there are too many 
problems. We should have done this last year, and our leader has been 
saying since January this issue must be addressed. It is overdue, and 
it is going to be addressed. And, frankly, he told us when it was 
coming up--last week. He forced an action in the Judiciary Committee. 
Maybe it was a forced action, but it was time we acted.
  I have made the point in a variety of forums in the last couple of 
days that this is what the Senate ought to be doing. This is a big, 
important, difficult issue. The American people expect us to act 
instead of sweeping around the edges on salami issues and all kinds of 
other issues. This is a big issue. This is an important issue. This is 
about who we are and who we are going to be.
  Thank goodness the Senate is living up to the expectations our 
forefathers had for us: to take up a tough issue, have a debate, have 
amendments, and have votes. And all of a sudden people say: Oh, we 
can't have votes; we can't vote on amendments on both sides of the 
aisles. Senators are saying: I don't want to have to cast a tough vote. 
Hallelujah, finally we are going to do something that matters around 
here.
  Will we get it right? I don't know. I have been trying to listen to 
both sides of the debate. I want action. I hope it is the right one. 
But we are never going to know until we go forward and consider this 
issue and get it done in a responsible way.
  If forced to vote on the bill that came out of the committee right 
now, I would vote against it. I don't think we have found a third way. 
I don't think we have found the sweet spot. I think we have to have 
more responsibility.
  Illegal aliens are illegal. This is a very difficult, sensitive 
problem. We have to think about it. But I don't think we can say: OK, 
gee, say you're sorry and pay a fine and everything will be OK. It has 
to be more serious than that.
  I was looking forward to amendments. Some people will say: Oh, vote 
for cloture, let's get this over with; there are too many amendments. 
We haven't voted on one amendment. We have been dragging around here 
for over a week now. Senator Kyl has tried every way in the world to 
get a vote, and the minority in the Senate is blocking even a vote on a 
critical amendment by a senior Senator in the leadership of the 
majority, I might add, because they don't want to vote.
  Frankly, for floor people, I note there are some ways this issue can 
be stuffed down the opposition's throat. I don't want to do that. I 
thought we were going to rise to the occasion and have a bipartisan 
debate.
  This is the Senate. This is not the House. And, by the way, I have 
been a party to stuffing the minority, and people didn't agree with me. 
I filled up the tree. I filed cloture instantly on bills and on 
amendments. But almost every way, almost every time it backfired on me. 
I admit it now. I remember filling up the tree and blocking Senator 
McCain from offering his amendment on campaign finance reform. I did it 
more than once. I told him I was going to do it. In the end, he won.
  This tactic that has been employed by the Democratic leadership 
blocking even a vote on amendments on an issue of this magnitude is 
outrageous and, quite frankly, I am offended cloture has been filed by 
the minority leader. It is not unprecedented. It has been done 18 times 
in the last 10 years. Yes, I did it, too, and again, it doesn't add to 
anything. It destroys the potential for good will.
  I will vote against any cloture motion filed by the minority leader. 
He does not manage the Senate. The majority leader does. And even when 
I disagree with him--I admire Senator McCain standing up and saying: I 
am not going to support that. Senator McCain has the high hand, he has 
the winning hand probably, but he said: Wait a minute, you can't block 
Senators from even having a vote on their amendments, even though he is 
going to vote against them and speak against them.
  What have we done here? This approach cannot stand, it will not 
stand, and what I am going to urge our leadership to consider doing is 
if we don't get something worked out by sunrise, then the Senate 
Democrats are going to be cut out. There is a way we can get an 
agreement between the Republicans in the House and the Senate, the 
majority in the House and the Senate, and force it to the floor whole-
hog and say: Vote for it, up or down. It can be done. I don't want to 
do that. I object to that. But when David Broder writes these articles 
about how he can't understand why the majority doesn't work with the 
minority, hey, Mr. Broder, take a look at the Senate today. This is the 
kind of conduct which makes it impossible for us to get our work done 
and makes the majority decide to just ignore the minority.

  I am one of those people whose votes hang in the balance. I am not 
locked into a position. I probably am willing to go further toward what 
the Judiciary Committee did than some of my colleagues. But I am 
offended by this, and it may affect my overall vote on the final 
product.
  This bill has the potential to be bipartisan. It has the potential to 
be a major achievement by the Senate and by the Congress and, more 
importantly, for the American people. I hope our leadership will say: 
Oh well, maybe we just didn't talk enough to each other, and let's work 
this out. Let's go forward. We are not going to be able to finish this 
legislation this week. So what. Take next week. Take next month. This 
issue is too big, too important. The illegal alien problem we have in 
this country--and the need for immigration reform--is doing serious 
damage to our country. There are good aspects to the bill, but there is 
damage being done and the relationship between people is not moving in 
a positive way. This is where we show whether we are statesmen or 
political hacks who are just trying to find a way to avoid a tough 
vote.
  I plead with my colleagues: Let's find a way to go forward on this 
and get a solution we can all vote for and feel good about. Right now, 
we should be ashamed of what we are doing and the way we look.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments of the 
Senate's time to try to put this legislation at least into some 
perspective, as someone who has worked on legislation dealing with 
immigration for some period of time, so the American people can have an 
understanding of what this debate is really all about.
  I think all of us understand what has been well stated here, and that 
is our borders are broken and porous. Ten years ago, we estimated that 
about 40,000 were coming into this country illegally and we were 
catching maybe almost half of them. Now the estimates are from 400,000 
to over 1 million, and we are catching 5 or 10 percent of them. We have 
increased expenditures by $20 billion in terms of law enforcement and 
building fences and increasing border

[[Page S2885]]

guards 300 percent over the period of the last 10 years, and it doesn't 
work. It has not worked, and it is not working today. Although there 
are a number of our colleagues who believe it offers the best way to 
try to get a handle on our borders.
  That was the position which was taken by the House of Representatives 
and passed by the House of Representatives, effectively criminalizing 
every individual who is undocumented here in the United States and 
criminalizing any individual who might have been indirectly helping 
that person, whether it was a minister, a member of the clergy, or a 
nonprofit organization such as a humane group that operates in a 
feeding program or looks after people who have been in shelters. That 
is why Bishop Mahony, the cardinal of Los Angeles, said that the House 
legislation was such a vicious piece of legislation. Those aren't my 
words; those are his. That was the position of the House of 
Representatives. Many of us who have worked on immigration issues 
believe that is not the answer.
  The fact is, it was the majority leader who introduced similar 
legislation in the Senate of the United States which to many of us 
represented the position of the Republican Party. That was the position 
which was introduced by the majority leader. There wasn't a great deal 
of turmoil or opposition at the time he did that, so that was why many 
thought that was going to be the position of the Republican Party. That 
is at least one aspect of this debate and discussion.
  Another aspect of it: Some 3\1/2\ years ago, the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, introduced legislation dealing with immigration in 
a more comprehensive way--rather than just law enforcement, looked at 
other factors in addition to law enforcement. Over 3 years ago, I 
introduced legislation that looked at a number of different aspects in 
terms of legalization and other kinds of approaches but different from 
those of Senator McCain. At about that time, Senator Hagel and Senator 
Daschle introduced different legislation. This was all before the 2004 
election.
  Then, after the election, when we saw that these different pieces of 
legislation which were introduced were not working, Senator McCain and 
I worked together and in May of 2005 introduced common legislation. We 
were convinced of a number of things. We were convinced, first of all, 
about the importance of securing our borders from a national security 
point of view. You have all these individuals who are coming in here, 
and in the wake of 9/11, we don't know who they are, and this presents 
a national security issue. If you have millions of immigrants who are 
virtually underground because they are undocumented, this is a national 
security issue. When we find out that Homeland Security is worried 
about different cells in different parts of the country, and we know we 
have millions of immigrants who are subject to exploitation because 
they are undocumented, this is a national security issue.
  So we looked at it and said: What are the features that are going to 
be necessary to deal with national security, because that is very 
important, and to deal with the fact that there is this magnet, drawing 
people to the United States, the magnet of the American economy so that 
strong individuals who want to provide for their families, work hard, 
play by the rules, and provide for their families are offered jobs by 
American employers? So they come here and send money back to look after 
their children and families, to develop a community. Many hard-working 
individuals have come, and many of them have enlisted in the Armed 
Forces of our country. More than 70,000 are serving in the Armed Forces 
of our country. Permanent resident aliens are in the Armed Forces 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  So we said: What is necessary is we have to bring these people out of 
the shadows. How are we going to do that? We have to entice them out so 
they feel they can be a part of our American system, and how is that 
going to happen? Since they cut in front of this line instead of 
waiting their turn, if they were to follow the immigration laws, we 
would say: You have to go to the back of the line. You have to go to 
the back of the line. You have to wait until that line is cleared up. 
You have to pay a fine, pay your taxes, abide by the laws of this 
country, work hard, and then, 11 years from now--11 years from now--you 
will be eligible to become an American citizen. The other side says: We 
can't do that because that is amnesty. That is amnesty.
  It is very interesting that whenever we talk about the undocumented, 
in many instances men and women who work hard, who are trying to 
provide for their families, who are devoted to their religion--98 
percent of the undocumented are working today. Working. These are 
qualities which we admire--people who work hard, provide for their 
families, have beliefs in their God, are attentive to their church, 
care for their children--all qualities we admire. But that is too bad; 
we are just going to send them back or criminalize them. We are going 
to send them back.
  So we have a difference here in the Senate. We have an agreement that 
we have to get a border and it has to be secure. We have the 
undocumented, and the question is, How are we going to deal with them? 
And we have differences in this body. Many say we have to send them 
back. We heard speeches even earlier today saying that we can't permit, 
under any circumstances, that they remain here in this country. There 
has been no talk about how they are going to do it. Of the 240 
amendments that are before us, I didn't see any asking for $240 billion 
to get the buses out there to ship them back, while their children, who 
are American citizens, are pleading that they remain here, and their 
children are going to school and want their parents to stay. No, no. 
Let's just get a bumper-sticker solution and call it amnesty. Bumper 
sticker: It Is Amnesty. Bumper sticker: Bad. It is just a bumper-
sticker solution, rather than dealing with a complex issue.
  So Senator McCain and I worked on this issue. We worked out the 
program, the penalties, the requirements for people who are here to be 
able to earn their way toward the possibility of citizenship, bring 
them out of the shadows, treat them in a humane way, understanding that 
we have a problem and an issue. And as much as those on the other side 
of the aisle might bellyache about this solution, they don't have any 
answer, other than criminalizing it. That is the answer they have: 
criminalizing. So we have what I consider a just solution. It may not 
be the right one, it may not be, but at least it is--I believe and the 
majority of the American people believe that earning your way to be a 
citizen in this country is an acceptable way to treat these 
individuals.
  So then the issue is, we have a magnet here in the United States. Now 
we are talking about the border. How are we going to lessen the 
pressure on the border? There are a number of things in our bill. One 
is that we want to try to cooperate with Mexico, the countries of 
Central America, in terms of trying to work out more effective ways and 
means of being able to do it. There are a variety of different ways. 
The Mexican Government has indicated that. I think there are a variety 
of different ways of trying to do that to lessen the pressure. We have 
basically the only proposal that gives any consideration to that 
whatsoever, and I think it can be extremely meaningful.
  We find the remittances, as they go back to Mexico, to many of these 
communities. So many of the people who are here remit funds because 
they care about their families and their communities. We could work 
with Mexico to lessen the pressure.
  Nonetheless, we understand that we are still going to be a magnet. So 
we say: OK, let's set a figure. We had a negotiation, and 400,000 was 
the figure for temporary workers. After 4 years, they have an 
opportunity to petition for a green card and after 5 more years--to 
become 9 years--to be able to become American citizens if they 
demonstrate they have worked hard, paid their taxes, haven't run into 
trouble with the law.
  So we are saying we want to make the borders secure in terms of the 
security issues, and we want to make it safe for people to come here, 
and we want to have a process so that the magnet which is the American 
economy will draw people in an orderly way--not to replace American 
jobs but to advertise and see if there are Americans available. But if 
they are jobs Americans won't do, there will be a

[[Page S2886]]

legal way for people to come in. So the person who is down in the 
center part of Mexico will have an alternative: Do you want to risk 
going across the desert and dying in the desert, or do you want to go 
to your embassy and find out if there is a job for which you are 
qualified and go to the United States and have at least some job 
protection in the job you have? That is the alternative. Legality. 
Legality. Legality in gaining entrance, not illegal across the border, 
earning the legal position by earning your legalization.
  Then we have the enforcement provisions. In the United States, if 
employers are going to hire undocumented aliens, then we have 5,000 
individuals who are going to be trained and equipped to be able to go 
after employers who are going to attempt to violate the law. The 
temporary worker gets the biometric card, comes up and presents it to 
the employer, and then we know he or she is documented. If not, then we 
know he is undocumented, and then that person is going to be subject to 
penalties. It has never been tried before, but it is a local process 
and a legal system.
  What many of us are saying here tonight is we have a total package 
that talks about the border, talks about the temporary worker, talks 
about law enforcement, and talks about earned legalization. That is the 
package. That is the package that came out of the Judiciary Committee 
12 to 6. Not bits and pieces, not just border security like the 
Republican leader had or like the House of Representatives had. It 
garnered 12 members of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, in a bipartisan way, after 7 days of hearings, 6 days 
of markups, and scores of different amendments. What Senator Reid is 
talking about is why not let us have a vote on that particular approach 
to the challenge that we are facing on immigration? There are those who 
just want law enforcement--fine. But why is it that those who worked, 
and worked hard, and looked at this and studied it, and studied hard, 
and after days of hearings and a lot of work--why should we be denied 
the opportunity to have a vote on the total package?

  That is what we are being asked. We are being asked: Let's split that 
package up somewhat. Let's try to divert it.
  I know there are those strongly opposed to it. I respect them. I have 
heard them. I listened to them. They are on our committee and strongly 
oppose it. I strongly respect that. But aren't we entitled to at least 
a chance to have a vote on a comprehensive approach? What is so 
difficult about it? I agree with the Senator from Mississippi, this is 
important. We ought to be continuing on this issue. It is of vital 
importance and consequence. It affects the lives of hundreds of 
thousands, millions of people. We have seen what is out there, across 
the country--500,000 people in southern California, 100,000 people in 
Chicago. You are going to see next Monday in 10 different cities, more 
than a million individuals who are out there demonstrating.
  Why are we not dealing with this? Why don't we deal with it? What 
many of us are asking, including myself, is give us at least the 
opportunity to vote on that. If that is not successful, if we cannot 
get the majority here, then so be it. We have to find a different 
approach.
  We talk about trying to work through these accommodations. I am 
always interested in listening to individuals, people who are concerned 
about this. We have had, as I mentioned, early in this debate, the 
extraordinary stories from our friend and colleague, the Senator from 
New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, telling his life story--the absolutely 
extraordinary story of his parents. We listened to the good Senator 
from Florida, Mel Martinez, talk about this. I listened to my 
colleagues. Ken Salazar's relatives were here 250 years before any of 
our ancestors were here, down in the Southwest and out in Colorado. We 
listened to Bob Menendez as well. We listened to our other colleagues 
who have been engaged in this. They understand its difficulty and its 
complexity.
  We do have a recommendation from our committee. It seems that in the 
life of this institution we ought to be able to have a vote on that 
particular proposal. If it does not carry, then we will have to deal 
with the other reality. But to deny us the opportunity to get that as 
well as consider other amendments, as the Senator from Illinois pointed 
out, that will be relevant and current tomorrow, after cloture--I think 
would be an enormous loss.
  I certainly have worked and I am glad to work to reduce the 
differences among views and opinions. I think all of us are going 
through the learning experience. As much as we know about immigration, 
we always learn more from talking with people who are concerned and 
interested and knowledgeable about these issues. The legislative 
process is an evolving process. I have certainly observed that over an 
extensive period of time. So we are always interested.
  If there are ways we can achieve the outlines that we talked about, 
at least from my point of view then it makes sense. What does not make 
sense is to try to separate different groups against each other. That I 
find difficult to accept. We cannot have one group that has been here 
for a lengthy period of time, another group that has been here almost 
as long, and have them treated in different ways. That doesn't really 
solve the problem. It might help some people in terms of how they are 
going to vote on a particular issue, but it really is not dealing with 
the substance. We are interested in dealing with the substance, not 
just getting safe political positions for our colleagues. We want to 
get this legislation done.
  We certainly want to try to find common ground, right up until the 
very end. I will certainly work in any way I can. I know others are 
thinking and working hard on it. As has been pointed out by every 
speaker, this is too important a piece of legislation to let it slip 
by. It is too important.
  I am proud of the proposal that is before the Senate. I think it is 
the result of a great deal of thought and examination by a variety of 
our different colleagues from all parts of the country and with all 
different kinds of constituents. When you get an issue that is as 
volatile as this, and you have a 12 to 6 vote and you have that kind of 
bipartisanship in this, recognize those of us who support this proposal 
understand it is a total kind of approach to the challenge. The single-
shot approaches have not worked. Let's just try, here in the United 
States Senate, to give an opportunity for this comprehensive approach, 
which is meaningful in terms of our national security, is enormously 
important in terms of economic progress, and most important is a 
reflection of our humanitarian values. Let's give that a chance. That 
is what we are hoping, and I hope the Senate will give us that 
opportunity to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts leaves 
the floor, I wonder if I might ask him a question--if he would be kind 
enough just to respond to this, I hope.
  The Senator from Massachusetts was one of the prime participants in 
our Judiciary Committee markup and meetings. He was on the prevailing 
side of the vote which passed out the bill which we are now debating.
  I inform the Senator, by the way, it was my recommendation at the 
leadership meeting that rather than the leader's bill, the Senate 
judiciary bill be the underlying bill.
  The question I wanted to ask the Senator is this: The Senator is 
aware of the Cornyn-Kyl bill, which to some extent is a competitor of 
the bill that passed. That was rejected in the Judiciary Committee; 
that is to say, we lost that vote.
  The Senator was talking a moment ago about alternatives in the 
Senate, I believe. I don't think he would want to be misunderstood in 
this regard. He said there is no answer but to criminalize them. I know 
the Senator--I presume the Senator did not mean that in the Senate 
there has been nothing proposed except to criminalize the people who 
are here illegally because the Senator, of course, is aware of the 
alternative legislation Senator Cornyn and I introduced.
  Would the Senator at all like to comment on that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The remarks that I had were directed toward the 
undocumented. The Senator from Arizona has an amendment that is 
portrayed as only preventing the adjustment status for criminals, but 
if you look and examine the various provisions which are included in 
the Senator's amendment,

[[Page S2887]]

they also include the status offenders which effectively would be 
denied any opportunity for the benefits of this legislation.
  In the provisions included in the legislation--I haven't got the 
amendment right before me, but there are three or four different items 
that would do so. That, I think, goes to the heart of this whole 
process because effectively, if the Cornyn-Kyl amendment is adopted, it 
effectively takes out 60 percent, as I understand it, of those who are 
undocumented from any kind of adjustment of status.
  I have listened to the Senator debate this. That is certainly my 
understanding and the understanding of others who studied it carefully, 
and that would leave the individuals in the kind of state they are 
today, where they would have an illegality in their current status and 
would continue to be subject to the kinds of exploitation which is 
happening now and continue to depress wages on other workers. I believe 
that would really strike at the heart of the legislation. I know the 
Senator does not agree with me on that.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could just ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts, I was not referring to the amendment which is pending on 
the floor of the Senate. I was referring to the Cornyn-Kyl bill, which 
is a comprehensive immigration reform bill that deals with enforcement 
at the border, enforcement at the worksite, a temporary worker program, 
a way to deal with the illegal immigrants different in ways from the 
bill that passed the Judiciary Committee but nonetheless is a 
comprehensive reform bill which was voted down. But it does represent 
an alternative on which we would like to have a vote on the Senate 
floor.
  I wanted to give the Senator an opportunity to acknowledge that in 
the Senate there are alternatives to criminalizing the illegal 
immigrants--if he wanted to?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thought at the beginning of the Senator's comments he 
was referring to the amendment----
  Mr. KYL. There was a misunderstanding.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator notes, the House bill had the 
criminalization. The Frist bill had the criminalization issues. The 
Cornyn-Kyl does not have that particular provision. I do think when we 
voted on that issue, on the Durbin amendment, I think the Senator voted 
against the Durbin amendment, if I am correct, which was to 
decriminalize. So I don't quite know what the Senator's position is on 
the issue, but I stand corrected.
  I was mentioning the House bill and the Senate majority leader's 
bill.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. In the debate and 
characterization of things, sometimes we make a characterization and it 
might be subject to misinterpretation. It may well not have been, but 
in any event, I appreciate the Senator's clarification.
  I want to respond to several things that have been said here--first 
of all, to join the majority leader and the others who have spoken to 
the issue of the need for a debate and the ability to offer amendments 
and to vote on those amendments as a part of this very important 
legislative effort. I don't know that we will do anything more 
important this year than try to adopt comprehensive immigration reform. 
It is critical to my State. There are an awful lot of people in the 
State of Arizona illegally who do not enjoy the protection of the law, 
and should. Simply because they came here illegally, they should not be 
denied that protection. We need to find a way to ensure that in some 
way the status of everyone who works in and remains in the United 
States is in a legal status. It is also critical that we secure the 
border and provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure that people who 
work here work here legally.
  Let me divide my remarks in two pieces, if I could, first of all, to 
respond to something the Senator from Illinois, the minority whip, had 
to say when he was here. He noted there are about 200 amendments that 
have been filed. His point was it is hard to figure out which ones to 
consider.
  My point is this. If anything is certain, it is that if you do not 
start, you don't consider any of them. It is always the case that there 
are more amendments filed than are considered. But at least we start 
the process at the beginning of the debate. I laid down an amendment 
last Thursday afternoon. It is the pending amendment. This is Wednesday 
afternoon. Tomorrow it will be pending an entire week. It was the first 
amendment laid down. The other 199 followed it. We have not even gotten 
a vote on amendment No. 1 yet.
  To complain that there are 200 amendments out there and we just don't 
know where to start and it has been a whole week and we can't figure 
out where to start and that is why we are stopping you from voting on 
any of them doesn't wash. Let's be very clear. The reason the 
Democratic side has prevented us from offering amendments and from 
voting on amendments is because they don't want to vote on them--
period. It is not that there are so many they can't figure out which 
ones to allow a vote. They don't want to vote on them.
  Why? There are two reasons. The first is they like the bill as it is. 
That is a perfectly legitimate point. But that is always the case with 
one side or the other. But whichever side doesn't like the bill gets a 
chance to try to amend it. If the majority is right, that they have the 
votes, they can vote these amendments down.
  Senator Kennedy just spoke to the amendment that is pending. He 
obviously does not think it is a good amendment. He is going to vote 
against it. I think it is a real good amendment and it goes right to a 
point of the bill that is pending before us: should criminals be 
allowed to participate in the benefits of this legislation? I say no.
  That is an amendment that people do not want to vote on. I guess that 
is the other thing. Not only do a lot of folks on the other side like 
the bill as it is, and therefore they don't want to see it changed--
although that is not really a good reason for denying us a right to 
offer amendments--but I don't think they want to take a vote on some of 
these amendments perhaps because it is somewhat embarrassing.
  I am willing to concede that there are lots of drafting errors. I 
have made some including on this bill. So it is not always the way you 
want it to be. But including crimes of moral turpitude and drug 
crimes--whoever drafted the bill on the other side--they felt they had 
cut out criminals from participating in the program. The problem is, 
there are a lot of crimes besides drug crimes and crimes of moral 
turpitude. I read that list. I think it would be better to simply say 
we agree that we didn't mean for criminals to participate, and either 
table the amendment or again vote for it or vote against it, whatever. 
But we could have had that done with a long time ago. Instead we have 
spent a day debating on whether to vote on the amendment.
  As I said before, with all these 200 amendments you are never going 
to get any of them done if you do not start. The Democratic side has 
prevented us from starting. As the majority leader said, that is not 
acceptable. And for the minority leader to file cloture to cut off 
debate and cut off the filing of any other amendments, that adds insult 
to injury because then it says not only can't you debate this bill or 
amendments that are offered, but there can't be any other amendments 
offered.
  There is talk about some kind of compromise. Clearly, if a new 
amendment is offered there should be an opportunity to respond to that 
in some way, including potentially offering an amendment to it. It is 
very difficult because of the complexity of this bill to ensure that 
any amendment is germane. That is a term of art which you will hear in 
this body, but that is all you can do after cloture is invoked, and it 
is hard to do that. It is no simple proposition to say let's close off 
debate and finish the bill, whatever is germane. That is very difficult 
to do. Choking off debate with a cloture motion is done to stop 
filibusters. There hasn't been a filibuster. We would like to get a 
bill. We would like to have debate and vote on amendments and vote on a 
bill.
  Most of us in this body want comprehensive immigration reform.
  The reason I engaged in the colloquy with the Senator from 
Massachusetts is because we have two competing versions. His version 
passed in the Judiciary Committee; mine did not. Both are 
comprehensive. They both deal with border security, with security in 
the entire area of the country, including at the workplace with a 
temporary

[[Page S2888]]

work program and with providing a new status for the people who are 
here illegally. They do that in different ways, but they both tackle 
the same comprehensive issue.
  It is a straw man that anybody on this side doesn't want a bill.
  It is also wrong to say that we can't start voting because we just do 
not know where to start. The reality is, we could have started and we 
should have started and this bill is not going to be completed until we 
start.
  There were a couple of things that the Senator from Massachusetts 
said that I want to clarify. One is there is quite a bit of derogation 
with the House position. While there are some things in the House bill 
that I agree with and others that I disagree with, I must say this is a 
very different picture of what the House stands for and what 
Republicans stand for than what has been portrayed.
  For example, I think there are probably many out there who believe 
the House bill stands for the proposition that we need to make it a 
felony for people to be in this country illegally. And since the House 
is controlled by Republicans, that must be the Republican position. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know of a Republican 
Senator, No. 1, who wants to have it a felony for a status violation of 
the immigration law or for crossing the border illegally.
  What happened in the House of Representatives? Representative 
Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said we need to 
take that felony status and change it to a misdemeanor. So a vote was 
taken. On that vote there were 164 ayes and 257 nays. The vote lost. So 
it remained a felony.
  Who voted against the amendment to make it a misdemeanor? Mr. 
President, 191 of the 202 Democrats voted against the amendment to turn 
the felony to a misdemeanor; 191 of the 202 Democrats voted to leave it 
a felony. The majority of Republicans voted to make it a misdemeanor.
  Let us stop denigrating the House of Representatives, and in 
particular the Republicans, by somehow contending that either 
Republicans, or the majority of the House Members who are Republicans, 
wanted this to be a felony. It was the Democratic Members of the House 
of Representatives who voted to keep it a felony. The majority of 
Republicans voted to make it a misdemeanor.
  We need to clear up some of the impressions that have been created 
around here because of very sloppy language. I will put it that way so 
I don't ascribe any bad motive to anyone.
  Part of that impression could have been created. That is what I was 
trying to correct with the Senator from Massachusetts a moment ago when 
he said that the alternative was to round them up and send them back 
and that there was no answer but to criminalize them. I appreciated 
what the Senator said because the Senate does not have a bill to 
criminalize the status of aliens, certainly not to make them felonies. 
And no one I know of has proposed an alternative to round them up and 
send them back. Everyone has agreed. I shouldn't say everyone because 
there are people who believe it is possible to somehow force all of the 
illegal immigrants to be returned to their country of origin. I think 
that is a very unrealistic option and that, therefore, it would not be 
appropriate to round up everybody and send them back. That is a false 
choice. There isn't a bill on the floor of the Senate today that does 
that.

  Why are these false choices presented as the only alternative to the 
bill that is before us on the floor? As I pointed out, there are 
several other choices. One was introduced by Senator Cornyn and myself, 
a comprehensive bill that doesn't round up everybody and send them back 
but criminalizes everyone.
  I think to engage in this debate we should engage with reason and 
without mischaracterizing things. There are good enough reasons to 
oppose each other's bill without mischaracterizing them. If I have ever 
mischaracterized anything--I hope I haven't--I apologize for it.
  The Senator from Massachusetts said something else that is very 
important. He said it was a necessity to have an incentive for illegal 
aliens to come out of the shadows, and the bill that he and others had 
crafted provided this potential for citizenship to provide that 
incentive.
  That is one approach. I disagree with it. But that is certainly an 
approach. But it is not the only approach.
  I want to go back to what most people have said about the people who 
are here illegally to illustrate a point. Most folks say they just came 
here to do work that Americans won't do. Let me stipulate that many--in 
fact, the majority--of the people did come here to work. There is no 
question about that. Let us not forget that between 10 and 15 percent 
of the people who are apprehended when they come here by crossing the 
border illegally are criminals. These are bad people. They don't just 
come here to work. They come here for illicit purposes. They are 
criminals and they need to be dealt with as criminals. That is between 
10 and 15 percent.
  But there is another 85 to 90 percent who undoubtedly come here 
primarily to work, to earn money, mostly to send back to friends or 
relatives in their home country. So let us stipulate to that.
  Most of them did not come here to become citizens of the United 
States. As a matter of fact, Senator Hutchison pointed out something 
which is very true. If you know one thing about Mexican citizens, it is 
that they are very proud. They have a beautiful country. It is actually 
a wealthy country. Their culture is a tremendous culture and they are 
very proud of it. They are very patriotic and nationalistic.
  I think it is a bit odd that we--not me but many here--just assume 
that they all want to be citizens of the United States. Many want the 
ability to be here permanently, to reside here and to work here 
permanently, if that is their choice and they have green cards for that 
reason. Many other people from other parts of the world have green 
cards but don't choose to become citizens. That is fine. But we 
shouldn't presume that everyone wants to be a citizen simply because 
they came here to work.
  The other fallacy is they came here to do work that Americans won't 
do. I think you have to amend that slightly to say that they came here 
to do work that Americans won't do at the price that people from other 
countries are willing to do it for.
  In fact, there is a lot of work that Americans are willing to do, if 
the work is there, that people from foreign countries are doing today 
side by side. I mention the construction industry as a good example 
because in my State of Arizona it is hard to get enough good 
construction workers. There are many thousands, tens of thousands or 
more, working in construction that are illegal. I would quickly grant 
them temporary permits to work in the United States in construction. We 
need their help. But I also know that in the field of construction 
there have been many times when a very well-qualified American citizen 
construction worker can't find a job. It is very cyclical employment.
  What we don't want to do is assume that all of the people who came 
here from another country came here to do jobs that Americans won't do 
and, therefore, there will always be a job for them because Americans 
will never do the work. Americans will do this kind of work. They will 
do it gladly. They don't want to do it for free. They do not want to do 
it too cheaply. But there aren't very many jobs that they will do for a 
pretty cheap price. If the jobs aren't there, obviously the reason we 
have a temporary program is to issue a temporary permit while the job 
is there, and when the work returns you can start issuing more 
temporary permits.
  One of the problems with the underlying bill is you convert all the 
temporary permits into permanent legal residency and then you have no 
ability to ask anyone who is a guest here to leave because they have a 
right to stay here permanently even though there is no job for them 
some years in the future.
  The point is, it is true that you need an incentive for illegal 
immigrants to participate in a legal program. All of the bills have 
different kinds of legal programs. The Cornyn-Kyl bill has one; the 
bill on the floor has one. We provide a lot of incentives and some 
disincentives. You can stay for up to 5 years under our bill. Nobody is 
rounded up and deported. You can stay for 5 years.

[[Page S2889]]

  One reason that number was fixed was because the survey of over 
35,000 Mexican citizens who are illegal immigrants said if they could 
stay for 5 years and participate in the guest worker program, 71 
percent of them said they would then return home. I don't know that 
they all would. I think it is totally wrong to assume they all won't. 
There is an incentive to stay here for 5 years. You can also 
participate in a temporary work program when you go home. The sooner 
you go home the longer you can participate in that program. You can 
build a nest egg and take that back with you when you leave.
  There are incentives in our bill as well. It may not be the incentive 
of citizenship. I don't think you have to have that incentive in order 
to, as the phrase goes, bring people out of the shadows.
  Different people can argue about this. Reasonable people can differ 
about all of these things. I am willing to listen to the debate on the 
other side. But I would ask a favor in return. Just as we allowed the 
bill to be passed out of the Judiciary Committee, as the Presiding 
Officer is well aware--and we didn't filibuster the bill there, though 
it could have been filibustered--we allowed it to pass out knowing that 
it would pass over our votes. We had an alternative. It didn't have the 
votes to pass. We would like an opportunity to vote on that alternative 
on the floor of the Senate. Is that too much to ask?
  We would like an opportunity to vote on about five amendments.
  I am speaking now for Senator Cornyn and myself. That is all. We 
boiled it down to just five along with our underlying amendment. I 
would like the opportunity to do that.
  When we debated the energy bill, I think the comment was there were 
over 70 amendments, and these were significant amendments. This isn't 
like the amendments to the budget bill. I think there have been two 
relatively insignificant--well, one good--I won't characterize them. 
There have been two amendments voted on. The authors, I am sure, 
thought they were all significant.
  But the bottom line is nothing has gone to the heart of the bill one 
way or the other until that debate occurs and until those amendments 
are allowed to be offered and until they are allowed to be voted on. It 
is unfair to think that we could just shut off the debate, have one 
vote on final passage and be done with it.
  I will say this because there is another Member of the minority here. 
I have another amendment that I have repeatedly tried to lay down. All 
it does is say with regard to the temporary worker program that before 
that program actually starts, the mechanisms be in place for it to 
work. The experts say that it takes about 18 months. You can start 
getting ready for it. You can put those mechanisms in place, and the 
minute they are ready, the program can start.
  You might disagree with the amendment, but it is not an unreasonable 
amendment. There are a lot of folks who say: How can we trust you to 
have a workable program? And the answer is, watch us. We will create 
it. The sooner it is ready, you can start your program. That is the 
kind of thing we are talking about. I don't think they are 
unreasonable.
  I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues, but I wanted to clear 
up some things. You can't finish the voting until you start the voting. 
We need to start it. There are legitimate amendments. Nobody is 
filibustering.
  Let us get on with the process so that we can conclude this important 
piece of legislation, get the bill to the House of Representatives, and 
hopefully be able to say at the end of this year that we were able to 
tackle and to successfully resolve the most difficult issue 
domestically facing this country today, the problem of illegal 
immigration.
  I thank the Chair.
  While the Senator from Maryland is present, allow me to congratulate 
her on her Lady Terps who in the first half didn't look like they were 
going to pull it out but came back like the champs they are.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I also have been working on a terrorist 
visa amendment. I call up that amendment, No. 3216, for consideration.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I object on behalf of the minority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. ALLARD. I am very disappointed we cannot get that amendment up. I 
have been working now for some time to get that amendment to move 
forward. It is an amendment I filed last week. It is a simple, 
commonsense amendment that denies visas to advocates of terrorism. 
Yesterday morning, I came to the Senate to speak on that amendment and 
asked for a vote.
  Now, more than 24 hours later, we have still not had a vote on my 
simple, 14-line amendment. It is just one example of the Democrats 
continued obstruction of well intentioned efforts to debate and make 
improvements to the immigration bill.
  Put simply, the Democrats are denying me a vote on my proposal to 
deny visas to terrorists. Any Democrat who says this is anything other 
than partisan obstructionism are themselves in denial.
  To demonstrate the height to which this obstructionism has risen, I 
am again going to explain what my amendment does and how simple it 
really is.
  My amendment is so simple, in fact, that it adds only 6 words to the 
entire Immigration and Nationality Act. And half of those are the word 
``or.'' The other three are ``advocate,'' ``advocates,'' and 
``advocated.''
  These 6 words are narrowly targeted to address a loophole in our 
current visa system that is evidenced by the following statement:
  Colleagues, believe it or not, this a heading from our very own 
Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. The same Foreign Affairs 
Manual issued to the Department's 25,000 employees located in more than 
250 posts or missions worldwide.
  Even more alarmingly, this is from the chapter that instructs our 
consular officers to whom visas should be issued. Visas are, of course, 
the ticket that foreigners, including terrorists, need to enter the 
U.S.
  This instruction says to the consular officer deciding whether or not 
to issue a visa that they need not deny a visa to an individual who 
advocates terrorism. I, for one, cannot imagine a more pertinent ground 
for denial. If advocacy of terrorism is not grounds for exclusion, I 
don't know what is.
  Not only am I concerned about the message this sends to our dedicated 
consular officers, I am just as concerned about the message this sends 
to terrorists. It says to them, feel free to lay the groundwork for an 
attack at home, apply for a visa, and come to America to finish the 
job. This is not the message that the U.S. should be conveying to 
terrorists.
  This Congress has already passed important legislation denying visas 
to terrorists, including in the PATRIOT and REAL ID Acts. The REAL ID 
Act, signed into law on May 11, 2005, specifically states that one who 
endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible.
  The real REAL ID Act became public law on May 11 of last year, 8 days 
after publication of this manual. Yet, today, more 10 months later, the 
State Department is still instructing its consular officers that 
advocacy of terrorism may not be a ground for exclusion.
  Clearly, the State Department needs to be sent a message that we, in 
Congress, are serious about securing our borders. And particularly 
serious about preventing known advocates of terrorism--people who are 
most likely to wish harm to our country--from entering into the United 
States.
  Admittance to the United States is a privilege, not a right. My 
amendment says, if you advocate terrorism, you lose the privilege of 
coming to the United States.
  I would like the opportunity to debate this amendment. I, for one, am 
curious to hear from the Democrats their reason for opposing it.
  It is a common sense amendment worthy of debate and a vote. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in calling for a vote on this legislation that 
slams the door shut in the face of advocates of terrorism who seek to 
enter our country.
  I also submitted a second amendment last week which I believe is 
another commonsense amendment to improve the immigration bill.
  My amendment No. 3213 calls upon the administration to develop a plan 
for securing the borders to curb the inflow of vast quantities of 
methamphetamine into this country.

[[Page S2890]]

  Our Nation has been hard hit by the illegal trafficking of 
methamphetamine. My home State of Colorado is no exception. In just 10 
years, methamphetamine has become America's worst drug problem--worse 
than marijuana, cocaine or heroin.
  According to estimates from the DEA, an alarming 80 percent of the 
methamphetamine used in the United States comes from larger labs, 
increasingly abroad, while only 20 percent of the methamphetamine 
consumed in this country comes from the small laboratories.
  Therefore, my simple amendment calls for a formal plan that outlines 
the diplomatic, law enforcement, and other procedures that the Federal 
Government will implement to reduce the amount of methamphetamine being 
trafficked into the United States.
  My amendment aims to build upon the methamphetamine provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act. We must impress upon the Secretary of State, the Attorney 
General, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the 
immediate need for a firm plan of action. It is imperative that such a 
plan include, at a minimum, a specific timeline to reduce the inflow of 
methamphetamine into the United States.
  There must be a tough standard for keeping excessive amounts of 
pseudophedrine products out of the hands of methamphetamine 
traffickers. We must outline a specific plan to engage the top five 
exporters of methamphetamine precursor chemicals. It is important that 
we protect our borders to ensure national security and the safety of 
our communities.

  Now, here we are today, 1 week to the day after filing my 
methamphetamine amendment, and still there has been no opportunity for 
a debate, much less a vote. I urge my colleagues from across the aisle 
to allow us to proceed on this and other amendments worthy of debate.
  Mr. President, I yield for a question from the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his 
leadership on this issue. I do not know if he saw the program 
``Frontline'' recently, but it talked about the methamphetamine scourge 
that is affecting the United States and the fact that now more of this 
illicit drug is coming in from Mexico. It is a serious, serious 
problem. I congratulate him for addressing this problem.
  I hope he understands that when we offered to call his amendment, 
asked for unanimous consent to call his amendment and adopt his 
amendment, there was objection on his side of the aisle. We stand ready 
at this moment to call your amendment for a vote and to adopt it 
immediately. I think it is a very important amendment, and it is one of 
those that was on the agreed list and, unfortunately, a Member on your 
side objected to it. So I hope we can get to it soon. I thank the 
Senator for his leadership on this amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand negotiations are going on 
between the leadership in both parties, and my understanding is the 
methamphetamine amendment may very well be included in a managers' 
amendment and we will not have to be necessarily voting on that 
particular amendment.
  There is a second amendment, though, that is very important we do 
bring up for a vote. I know this is also being discussed by the 
leadership. That is the one which states that advocates of terrorism be 
denied a visa.
  I have two amendments. My hope is we can get that particular 
amendment up for a vote. It is the one I just recently asked for a vote 
on and was denied by your side. But I also understand the leadership on 
both sides are negotiating. I understand they are negotiating 
seriously. So I appreciate the fact it is being considered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question 
or comment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will just say that we believe the underlying bill, the 
Specter substitute bill, has very strong language to make it clear we 
do not want anyone in the United States associated with terrorism. We 
certainly do not want anyone in the United States associated with 
terrorism to reach legal status. That is reprehensible.
  So I am prepared to offer to work with the Senator from Colorado on 
his amendment to make sure we have included that category with which he 
is most concerned. I thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for 
indicating support for that. I just think we need to go and get more 
specific language in the bill that we will be considering and, 
hopefully, will be reported off the floor of the Senate. I am just 
trying to address that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3420

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the 
underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3420 to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 3192.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                Amendment No. 3421 to Amendment No. 3420

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-
degree amendment to the Sessions amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3421 to amendment No. 3420.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I yield the floor, and 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the last hour or two on the floor of 
the Senate there has been a procedural move by some Senators on the 
other side of the aisle which reduces the likelihood of a compromise on 
the immigration bill. I sincerely hope it doesn't end this effort 
because I think there are people of good faith on both sides of the 
aisle still trying to find a way to pass this important piece of 
legislation.
  I want to give special credit on the Republican side of the aisle to 
Senator Martinez, who I believe is working as hard as any person can to 
find the right language that preserves the basic principles of the 
Specter substitute, the bipartisan bill which passed the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. I hope he is successful. But there is a deadline 
looming and that deadline is a vote tomorrow morning on a motion for 
cloture.
  Cloture is a procedure in the Senate which closes down debate and 
says we will limit the number of amendments that may be considered in 
the 30 hours after cloture is voted favorably. I am hoping that before 
tomorrow morning people of good will, trying to find a way to break 
this deadlock, will be able to do so. But the procedural effort by 
Senator Kyl a few minutes ago is going to make that a little more 
difficult. I still think we can achieve that goal.
  I also want to address a couple of comments made by the junior 
Senator from Arizona on the floor concerning the history of this bill 
and the process that led to this day. This last Sunday I was on a talk 
show, ``Face The Nation,'' with Chairman James Sensenbrenner of 
Wisconsin, the chairman of

[[Page S2891]]

the House Judiciary Committee. He is the author of the House 
immigration bill which passed in December. That bill includes very 
serious criminal penalties for those who are living in the United 
States undocumented, who may number as many as 11 or 12 million people. 
It also includes very serious criminal penalties for those who would 
help them reside in the United States if they are undocumented.
  The charge under the Sensenbrenner bill is aggravated felony. It is 
the same charge leveled at someone accused of being a rapist. It is an 
extremely serious criminal charge, and the Sensenbrenner bill which 
passed the House includes this aggravated felony charge.
  Most people across America believe the House bill has gone way too 
far in charging so many people who are in the United States with such a 
serious crime. On the floor it has been said by the Senator from 
Arizona that there was an effort to reduce that penalty to a 
misdemeanor on the floor of the House and that unfortunately the 
Democrats did not support that effort. It is true that 190 Democrats 
did not support that effort because they do not favor a criminal 
penalty for those who are here in an undocumented status. So ultimately 
the majority party in the House, the Republican Party, prevailed and 
the bill came to us with an aggravated felony as a charge against those 
who are here undocumented and those who help them.
  What it means in the real world is that people of faith who are 
volunteers at soup kitchens or shelters for homeless people and those 
who are victims of domestic violence, volunteers who help children of 
the undocumented, tutoring them for classes, helping them in their 
lives, coaching their teams, nurses who provide volunteer assistance at 
clinics that treat the undocumented in the city of Chicago and around 
the United States, would be subject to a felony charge under the 
Sensenbrenner bill.
  Senator Specter came to the Senate Judiciary Committee and offered an 
alternative. His alternative reduced the criminal charge to a 
misdemeanor. We brought that up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and I am glad that on a bipartisan basis we removed the 
criminal penalty that was in the original bill. I think that was a 
positive step forward.
  The Senator from Arizona, who has raised this question, did not 
support our efforts to remove criminalization from the Specter bill, 
but the bill as it comes to the floor, thankfully, does not include 
criminalization. I hope that is the end of that issue as to whether we 
are going to charge Good Samaritans with a misdemeanor or a felony for 
helping needy people across America. I hope it is not revived as one of 
the concepts in this immigration reform.
  The junior Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, also raised questions 
about whether people who were guilty of a crime should be allowed to 
become legal in America or citizens in America. We tried to be very 
express in our statement in the bill, the Specter substitute, which was 
drafted originally by Senators McCain and Kennedy on a bipartisan 
basis, that if you are guilty of a crime we don't want you as an 
American. We understand you have done something in your life which 
disqualifies you from what we are going to offer you, a long and 
serious opportunity to find a pathway to legalization and citizenship.
  Under the Judiciary Committee bill, the Specter bill as reported, the 
following is a partial list of crimes that make an individual 
ineligible for legalization. I read this list because there have been 
suggestions on the floor by the Senator from Arizona that we are not 
serious about this. Let me tell you expressly the crimes that would 
disqualify you from ever becoming a legal resident of America or a 
citizen under this bill: Crimes of moral turpitude such as aggravated 
assault, assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated DUI, fraud, larceny, 
forgery; controlled substances offenses--sale, possession, distribution 
of drugs and drug trafficking; theft offenses, including shoplifting; 
public nuisances; multiple criminal convictions. Any alien convicted of 
two or more offenses, regardless of whether the offense arose from a 
single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses 
involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to 
confinement were 5 years or more, crimes of violence, counterfeiting, 
bribery, perjury, certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity 
who have asserted immunity from prosecution, foreign government 
officials who have committed particularly severe violations of 
religious freedom, significant traffickers of persons, money 
laundering, murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, possession of 
explosives, child pornography, attempts or conspiracies to commit most 
of these offenses--and there are some security-related crimes that make 
a person ineligible as well, espionage or sabotage--engaging in 
terrorist activity.
  The reason I make special note of that is there have been references 
several times on the floor by the Senator from Arizona to Mohamed Atta, 
the fact he was a terrorist, a man who was responsible in large part 
for the tragedy of 9/11. Make no mistake, that bill would not give him 
an opportunity to become a citizen of the United States. Why in the 
world would we ever consider that? I am sure the Senators from both 
sides of the aisle who supported the bill would never, ever consider 
that possibility.
  Those who were associated with terrorist activities, representatives 
of a terrorist organization, spouse or child of an individual who is 
inadmissible as a terrorist, activity that is deemed to have adverse 
foreign policy consequences, and those who are members in a 
totalitarian party.
  We have cast the net far and wide to disqualify people from even 
being considered for legal status in this country if they have been 
guilty of this type of conduct.
  So though the Senator from Arizona and I may disagree on some other 
aspects of the bill, when it comes to criminal activity I think we are 
in agreement. Criminal activity is going to disqualify you from being 
considered for legalization in the United States. That is a tough 
standard, but it is the right standard and I hope we can make it clear 
during the course of this debate that we believe it is important to 
maintain in the bill and that the amendment of Senator Kyl does not add 
anything, really, remarkably, to this criminal disqualification.
  The bill which passed out of committee, of course, sets up several 
things. First, it sets up an enforcement mechanism which is 
substantial, much like the amendment offered by Senator Sessions of 
Alabama in the committee. It adds 12,000 new agents to our Border 
Patrol, adds 1,000 investigators a year for the next 5 years--that was 
Senator Specter's amendment; new security perimeter, under Senator 
Specter, virtual fence, tightened controls, exit/entry security system 
at all land borders and airports, construction of barriers for vehicles 
and mandating new roads where needed, fences, checkpoints, ports of 
entry, increased resources for transporting aliens, new criminal 
penalties for tunnels--that was a recommendation of Senators Feinstein 
and Kyl--new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers, by 
Senator Sessions--all of these amendments accepted, included in the 
bill in the enforcement section--new criminal penalties for money 
laundering offered by Senator Sessions, accepted as part of this 
bipartisan bill.
  There is an amendment on a comprehensive surveillance plan by Senator 
Specter; and also, I should say, expanded smuggling efforts, improved 
interagency cooperation on alien smuggling; increased document fraud 
detection; biometric identifiers; expanded detention authority; and 
increased detention facilities and beds.
  We require the Department of Homeland Security to acquire 20 new 
detention facilities to accommodate at least 10,000 detainees, a 
suggestion by Senator Sessions which is part of this bill; expanded 
terrorist removal grounds; expanded aggravated felony definition; 
increased Federal penalties for gangs; removal of those who have failed 
to depart; increased criminal sentences for repeat illegal entrants; 
new removal grounds; passport fraud and fraud offenses as a ground for 
removal; removal of criminals prior to release; new authority for State 
and local police to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer 
aliens to Federal custody; immigration status in the NCIC database now 
becomes an element that we require; we prohibit time limits on 
background collection; impose criminal penalties for aid for the

[[Page S2892]]

undocumented; assistance to States to help prosecute and imprison 
undocumented criminal aliens; stronger employment verification 
procedures; penalties for employers who hire undocumented aliens are 
increased; additional worksite enforcement and fraud detection agents.
  We add 10,000 new worksite enforcement agents, 2,000 every year for 
the next 5 years, and 5,000 new fraud detection agents, 1,000 each year 
for the next 5 years.
  I read this lengthy list so the Record would be clear that we have 
made serious efforts on a bipartisan basis to accept amendments even 
from those Senators who oppose the underlying bill so there is no 
question that we will have strong enforcement standards to secure our 
Nation's borders, and to also say those employers who ignore the law 
will be penalized and will be investigated so that they understand we 
are serious.
  The reason, of course, I bring this up is the suggestion earlier that 
this bill would not strengthen our borders. I think it does. I think it 
makes a genuine effort on a bipartisan basis to deal with our broken 
borders.
  It also says, however, that once in the United States, for the 
undocumented status we will give you a chance, a chance to work your 
way to citizenship. It is a long journey. It has many serious 
requirements as you move toward that goal, and many people won't make 
it. Some will fail in the effort. But if you want to become legal in 
the United States of America, you need a clean criminal record. And I 
spelled out here the crimes that would clearly disqualify you.
  You must show you have been employed here since January of 2004. You 
must remain continuously employed, pay approximately $2,000 in fines 
and fees, pass a security background check, pass a medical exam, learn 
English, learn U.S. history, pay all your U.S. back taxes, and then if 
you have met all nine requirements, you go to the back of the line. It 
is your turn after all of those who have applied through the legal 
processes which are currently available.
  So those who argue this bill is amnesty and it is automatic, that it 
is a free ticket to citizenship overlook the obvious. These are 
stringent requirements. Many people will never meet them. Some will 
give up. But those who are determined to become American citizens and a 
part of our country, determined to be legal in their residency, who 
work hard and achieve it, if they keep their eye on the goal--and the 
goal is after 11 years--will finally see that day when they can be 
sworn in as a citizen of the United States.
  Tomorrow morning we are facing a very serious vote on cloture. There 
have been a lot of arguments made on the floor as to whether the right 
amendments have been called. We tried to bring additional amendments to 
the floor in the last couple of days, unsuccessfully. There have been 
disagreements about which amendments should be called and in what 
order.
  I don't think history is going to long note or remember what order 
the amendments were that were called before this bill is up for 
cloture. If the cloture vote fails tomorrow, if 60 Senators don't step 
forward to vote for it, sadly that could be the end of immigration 
reform for the entire year.
  It is a very busy calendar we have in the Senate. It deals with 
things that are of great urgency. When we return after the Easter 
recess, we will have a supplemental appropriations bill for our troops 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very high priority. The Defense 
authorization bill will follow; then a string of appropriations bills 
that need to be enacted before we take our 4th of July break.
  There is a lot to be done. I am hoping we can get it all done. But 
the thought that we can carve out another week or two to return to 
immigration at a later date may be fanciful. I am not sure we can 
achieve that. This is the moment.
  Tomorrow many Senators will come to the floor and decide whether they 
will be part of history, whether they will cast a vote for cloture 
which brings to the floor a definite deadline and timetable for 
debating this comprehensive immigration reform.

  It has been decades since we took this up seriously. We have spent a 
lot of time. We have a strong bipartisan bill. We have a bill that is 
supported by business and labor groups across America, including many 
religious groups that have come forward and encouraged us to do this in 
the name of humanity and of American values.
  Tomorrow, with this cloture vote we will have a chance to be on the 
Record for time immemorial as to where we stand on this issue.
  Some have already decided to oppose this bill. They are going to, 
postcloture. I understand that. But for those who think they can vote 
against cloture and argue they were for this bill, they may have a 
tough time describing that to the people back home.
  I think about those I met this last week. I mentioned it earlier on 
the floor. The students in the Catholic high school in Chicago are 
following this debate every single day. They know their future is at 
stake. These are children who came to the United States at an early age 
because their parents decided to come here. They have lived here their 
entire lives. They have gone to school here, lived in the neighborhoods 
of America, and some have been extraordinary successes against great 
odds. Their life's dream is the same dream those children have, to be a 
part of America's future and do something good in their lives. They 
will be denied that opportunity if the DREAM Act, which is part of this 
bill, does not pass. They will be illegal and undocumented. If the 
legal system catches up with them, it will tell them to return to a 
country they cannot even remember. If it doesn't catch up to them, they 
will continue to reside in the United States in undocumented and 
illegal status, unable to get a driver's license in many States, unable 
to be approved to be teachers and licensed to contribute to America, 
unable to secure the important jobs that can make a difference in our 
future. Their fate is tied to this bill.
  Those who vote against cloture tomorrow have basically said we don't 
need them; that we don't need to pass the DREAM Act; that these 
children and their fate and their future is none of our business. I 
think it is.
  I think these young people, some of whom I was with this last 
Saturday, are amazing. They have overcome the odds. They want to 
contribute, have the chance every kid in America wants, to prove 
themselves and have an opportunity to show they are worthy of American 
citizenship. Why do we turn them down? Wouldn't we want to make certain 
they have that chance? A vote for cloture tomorrow is going to give 
them that chance. A vote against cloture will not.
  There are many who will argue that they are against this bill. I hope 
other amendments will be offered.
  Senator Kennedy came to the floor earlier and said if you don't like 
this bill, vote for cloture. Close down the amendments that can be 
offered, limit the amount of debate and then vote against the bill, if 
that is your wish. But give us a chance.
  Tomorrow morning we will be asking for that chance from 60 Members of 
the Senate which is necessary for that cloture motion to prevail.
  Senator Kyl suggested that the only way to move forward to a vote on 
this comprehensive package and the amendments is if his amendment is 
voted on first. Senator Kyl was in discussion with me this morning and 
acknowledged that we need to sit down and make some important changes 
to the amendment which is presently before us. There are some parts 
that are vague and uncertain. Lives hang in the balance.
  I tried to make it clear to Senator Kyl there are ways he can use his 
own language that he used in previous bills and tighten up the language 
in his bill so there is no uncertainty and less vagueness. I am 
prepared to sit down with him and the staff. I tried to reach him 
during the course of the day. I know he is very busy. If he wants to 
work to bring the language together on this amendment, I want to work 
with him and hope we can find a way to strike some good language that 
might be supported on both sides of the aisle.
  I see the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor. I 
will not miss this opportunity to say while I have the floor that I 
respect him very much for what he has done in the committee, the hard 
work in committee which I am proud to be part of. I thank him for his 
hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. We have had a rocky

[[Page S2893]]

period of time during the amendment phase--not nearly as many 
amendments as I would have liked to have seen called. But I hope after 
the cloture vote tomorrow we can roll up our sleeves in the remaining 
period of time and do the right thing, pass the Specter substitute with 
some key amendments and show that this Senate is dedicated to true, 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the contribution the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois has made to the Judiciary 
Committee. When he says we have had a rocky time, he is a master of 
understatement.
  Again, he didn't hear my comment, like earlier today in responding to 
one of his questions. He was conversing. So I will repeat this one.
  When the distinguished Senator from Illinois says we have had a rocky 
time on the amendments, he is a master of understatement.
  I share his hope, although not much expectation, that we will be able 
to complete action on this bill before we adjourn for the recess. The 
Senate is a phenomenal institution, smarter than any of its Members or 
the composite of all of its Members--not that that would necessarily 
take a whole lot. But the Senate has functioned for a long time as an 
institution where there seems to be a way to work through these issues 
ultimately. If we cannot find that answer before we adjourn for the 
recess, it is my hope we will find it shortly thereafter. This is an 
issue and a problem which has to be addressed and has to be solved.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
426 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it appears conclusively at this point 
that we are not going to make any--I was about to say any more 
progress. I can't say that because that suggests there has been some 
progress. We can't make any progress on the immigration reform bill, so 
that my colleagues will be aware that nothing further will happen on 
that bill for the remainder of the evening. Hopefully, we can make some 
progress overnight and in the morning on the proposed compromises so we 
can have a fruitful day tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his good 
work in producing a bill that has become the subject of debate in the 
Senate dealing with a very important issue to our Nation, something 
that people are extremely engaged in, one that has generated a lot of 
debate and a lot of controversy around the country but clearly one that 
needs to be addressed.
  I have listened and observed as the debate has gone forward and 
listened to the content of that debate over the past several days and 
come to somewhat of an objective point of view because I come from a 
State that is not a border State. We do not have to deal with the 
issues on a daily basis affecting many of our States on the northern or 
southern border.
  Having said that, it is an issue which has captured the discussion 
being held across this country even in States such as mine, the State 
of South Dakota. The reason for that is very simple: People see day in 
and day out some of the images broadcast across the television screen 
and the people who come to the United States illegally. They deal with 
the burden and cost associated with some of the public services 
associated with illegal immigration in this country. So they view it 
very much as taxpayers. They view it as an issue that, frankly, needs 
to be addressed. They want to see the Senate act in an appropriate and 
a timely way.
  I have to say, too, I have heard a lot of people in the Senate 
reference their ancestry. Various Members of the Senate have described 
in detail how their ancestors came to this country, the personal 
perspective they have on the issue, and the experiences that have 
helped shed light and inform their opinions about it. I, too, am not 
the exception to that. I have roots that go back, with a grandfather 
that came here from Norway, back in 1906, along with my great-uncle 
Matt, when they came through Ellis Island. The name that I now have, 
the Thune name, was not their name. Their name was Gjelsvik. They came 
through Ellis Island and the immigration officials asked them to change 
their name because they thought it would be difficult for people in 
these United States both to spell and pronounce. They did not speak a 
word of English. I should say, almost no English. My understanding is 
that when they boarded the train that took them to South Dakota, the 
only English they knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee.'' So 
they had a lot of apple pie and coffee between Ellis Island and South 
Dakota.
  They came to this country for the same reason that people all over 
the world come to this country. I am very sympathetic to those who want 
to come to the United States for everything that we stand for: for 
opportunity, for freedom, to live the American dream.
  My grandfather and my great-uncle came here and worked on the 
railroads when they were building the Transcontinental Railroad into 
South Dakota. They put their money together to start a merchandising 
company that later became Thune Hardware. So they were small business 
people in this country, something that so many people aspire to all 
over the world. They want to come to the United States for the miracle 
and for the dream that is America.
  I am sympathetic to the history and the culture and the tradition we 
have as a nation of being a welcoming country, a country that says to 
bring your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I 
approach the debate on immigration from that perspective, that context 
of having a grandfather, one generation removed from me, who came to 
this country for all the various reasons that people today continue to 
want to flock to America.
  As I have listened to the debate, I have tried to give consideration 
to all the different perspectives that are presented. It seems to me, 
at least as I try to make decisions about this, formed by my 
constituents in South Dakota and formed by my experience, background, 
and my history, to come to conclusions in the best interests of our 
Nation, in the best interests of continuing that tradition of treating 
those who come here fairly, but also the importance of American 
principles.
  One of those American principles is the rule of law. We are a nation 
of laws, and that entails that we have to be able to enforce those 
laws. If we cannot enforce those laws, if we are not going to apply and 
adhere to those laws, those laws end up being pretty meaningless and 
irrelevant in the long run. I come to this debate with some principles 
in mind, not having drawn any hard conclusions on any specific piece of 
legislation but wanting to see the Senate do its work, wanting to see 
the Senate do what the people in this country expect us to do, and that 
is to confront the big issues, to deal with the challenging issues, to 
vote on the big issues, to bring resolution and clarity to the problems 
and the challenges that face this country.
  What is perplexing about what is happening in the Senate right now is 
we have a base bill that has been reported out by the Judiciary 
Committee. Granted, it may not be the perfect bill. Frankly, there are 
many who would like to see that particular piece of legislation 
amended. Many of us would like to vote on some of those types of 
amendments that could be offered. Regrettably, the minority has decided 
they are not going to allow votes on amendments, allegedly because they 
are votes they do not want to put their Members in precarious political 
situations, having to make votes on amendments they would rather not 
vote on.
  As a consequence, we are not having votes on amendments. We are just 
basically blocking the whole substance of this debate from going 
forward and the Senate from doing the work that the American people 
expect us to do and, frankly, what the tradition and history of the 
Senate would suggest that we ought to be doing; that is, amending this 
base bill, having this debate, this discussion, allowing people with 
different ideas and different perspectives and different points of view 
to come in and offer their amendments, to have those amendments 
debated, to have

[[Page S2894]]

people listen to that debate, and then come and vote on those 
amendments so that eventually we can produce a product that is the 
composite view of the Senate, reflective of a majority of the Senators.
  What has happened in the Senate is the minority has decided, one, we 
are not going to vote on amendments. If we do have any votes on 
amendments, they will dictate what those amendments are that we will 
vote on. So far as tomorrow, insisting on a cloture vote on the 
underlying bill without having allowed any of the debate on any of the 
amendments so that we have an opportunity for people to be heard, 
people to offer their amendments, and people to improve, in their view, 
in their particular point of view, the legislation before it is 
ultimately passed out of the Senate and goes to conference with the 
House and enacted into law.

  The fundamental problem with the way the Senate is functioning in 
this debate is that if we fail to allow individual Members to follow 
what is the protocol of the Senate, what is the tradition of the 
Senate, and that is the institution that allows for open debate, the 
institution that allows for amendments to be offered to legislation, 
for individual Senators to come over and to have their point of view 
heard in that debate and offer amendments that are more reflective of 
their particular idea about how this problem ought to be addressed or 
this challenge ought to be met, we are undermining the basic foundation 
of what this Senate and this institution is all about. But, more 
importantly, we are keeping the people's business from being done.
  We are, if we have this cloture vote tomorrow--and I suspect the 
minority will insist on this cloture vote because they want to have a 
vote on this bill without having any debate on any of the amendments 
that our side wants to have votes on and report a bill out. You have 
the minority of the Senate dictating the terms and conditions under 
which we will have this debate, the amendments that will be voted on, 
and, ultimately, the shape of the bill that will come out of here.
  This side of the aisle, the majority, 55 Members of the Senate, want 
to be heard on this issue, as well. What we need to understand is, yes, 
there are rules that allow the Senate to slow things down, to allow for 
extended debate on subjects, but ultimately we need to move the process 
forward. That means voting on legislation.
  We had a big debate in the last couple of years about inaction in the 
Senate due to obstruction, due to blockage, due to dilatory tactics 
employed by the minority. People have rejected that. People in this 
country want action. They want action on this specific issue. This is 
an issue that generates strong emotions all across the country.
  Frankly, I believe the American people expect and they deserve better 
than what they are getting from the minority in the Senate who have 
insisted, again, that we not vote on amendments that the majority wants 
to offer. Basically, we report the bill out, they dictate the bill that 
passes the Senate.
  That is not right. We have heard people get up on both sides today, 
both Democrats and Republicans, and speak to this issue. We heard 
earlier today the Democrats get up and say: We are not really trying to 
block this. We are willing to vote on amendments--our amendments, just 
not your amendments, not amendments that are offered by the majority 
side in the Senate.
  That is not to say they do not have some good ideas, but the truth 
is, there is not a monopoly on good ideas on either the Republican or 
Democrat side, and this Senate ought to be allowed to work in the way 
it was intended to work. Republicans and Democrats can both offer their 
amendments and they can both be voted on and we can shape the 
legislation in a way that is reflective of the majority view in the 
Senate.
  Tomorrow we will have a cloture vote. It will fail because the 
minority is going to insist we have a cloture vote. But no one on this 
side is going to allow the minority to dictate the terms of this debate 
or the amendments that ought to be considered or to block having votes 
on amendments that the Republicans in the Senate would like to have 
votes on.
  As I said before, I tried to approach this debate in a very objective 
way and, frankly, as I look at it, there are some very critical 
components that need to be in a bill. First and foremost, border 
security. As I said earlier, one of the reasons that America stands 
unique in all the world is we are a nation of laws. We respect the rule 
of law. It means something in America.
  There are other places in the world where the rule of law does not 
mean much, and tyrants and dictators come up with their own version of 
what the laws are. Here in the United States, we have a Constitution. 
We are a constitutional Republic. We have laws. We abide by those laws. 
We need to enforce those laws.
  We have not been doing the job we need to be doing of enforcing our 
laws with respect to the borders, controlling the borders in this 
country. That has all kinds of implications. This should not be lost on 
the American people. One of the reasons people in South Dakota care 
about this issue, even though we are not a border State is, they 
understand, as I do, that controlling and protecting and securing our 
borders is a matter of national security. Irrespective of where you 
come from in the world, if you come to the United States--as I said 
earlier, I have Norwegian ancestry, but if you have Hispanic ancestry, 
European ancestry, Asian ancestry, whatever--when the terrorists come 
across the border like they did on September 11 to destroy and kill 
Americans, they do not discriminate about where that individual comes 
from in the world. They want to kill Americans, pure and simple. I 
don't care what your race or national origin, ethnicity is, flatly, 
very simply, this is a matter of national security. And securing our 
borders has to be the fundamental component around which we build this 
debate.
  That is one of the principles I come to the debate with. Again, I 
have no previous position as we enter this debate about individual 
pieces of legislation. I am listening to it. I will have the 
opportunity, I hope, at some point, if the Democrats will allow us to, 
to vote on amendments. But the reality is right now we are not having 
that opportunity. Again, I simply say that as a matter of principle, 
ultimately we need to report a bill out of here that does secure the 
borders of the United States so that people in this country can know 
with confidence and can trust that we are serious about keeping our 
borders secure if for no other reason than as a matter of national 
security.
  Secondly, I would say, as a fundamental principle, we have to enforce 
our laws. There has been a big debate about: What do you do about 
people who are already here illegally? I think that is a very important 
question in this debate. There are somewhere between 11 and 12 million 
people, we are told, who have come to this country who are now here 
illegally, and we have to figure out, from the standpoint of status, 
how we deal with those people in this country.
  But, again, a fundamental underlying principle ought to be that we 
cannot reward illegal behavior. We want to reward legal behavior. We 
want to reward people who came here and who followed the rules. I heard 
lots of people get up and talk on the floor about their ancestry and 
how they came to this country, but I suspect most of them, like my 
grandfather and great-uncle, came here by the rules that were put in 
place. They followed the law.
  We want to encourage and provide incentives for that kind of 
behavior. For people who want to come to America, we have a process by 
which they can come here, but it is consistent with a set of rules and 
laws we have in place. We have to make sure we are encouraging legal 
behavior, that we are discouraging illegal behavior, that we are not 
putting incentives in place for illegal behavior and, furthermore, 
condoning or conferring benefits on people who systematically decide to 
break the law.
  So I happen to be of a view that I believe in a guest, temporary 
worker program, perhaps some form of permanent resident status. But I 
think, again, when you start talking about conferring the benefits of 
citizenship on people in this country who are here illegally without 
some sort of penalty for that--in other words, if we just wave our 
magic wand and say anybody who is here can stay, and so be it, we have 
done a disservice to our history and our traditions as a nation of 
laws.

[[Page S2895]]

  I think it is important we understand there needs to be consequences 
to illegal behavior. We have talked about amnesty. It has been thrown 
around a lot here. Essentially, what that means is there is no 
consequence to behavior that is illegal. I think it is important we 
make it fundamentally clear to people who do want to come to this 
country that we are a nation, yes, of immigrants, we welcome people, 
but we want people to come here according to the laws.
  I would say that at the end of day, when this is all said and done, 
again, we need to have votes because this is an issue that around the 
country is generating tremendous heat, tremendous emotion, and has been 
percolating for some time. As people look at the images on their 
television of people who come here illegally, they are worried about 
national security, they are worried about the economic consequences, 
the consequences to the taxpayer of providing services to people who 
are here illegally.
  People want action. They want action by the U.S. Senate. I think we 
have a responsibility, in this body, after everything is said and 
done--and usually what happens in the Senate is more gets said than 
done--but when everything is said and done, to come together on 
legislation that would accomplish the goal; that is, to address the 
issue of immigration in a way that is fair and in a way that is 
consistent with our culture and our history and our tradition as a 
welcoming country but is also consistent with our tradition as a nation 
of laws. I believe we can come to that kind of a resolution here in the 
Senate if--if--our colleagues on the other side will allow us to vote 
on amendments.
  Now, the Senator from Georgia, who is currently the Presiding Officer 
in the Senate, has an amendment I would like to vote on. It is called 
the trigger amendment. Basically, it says that until it is certified 
that the borders are secure, then all these other issues we are talking 
about with respect to this debate are just conversation; that, first 
and foremost, we have to secure the borders, and it has to be certified 
we have made the efforts, that we are serious about doing that. I think 
it is a good approach. At least it ought to be an approach that is 
voted on.
  Now, our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, do not want a 
vote on the amendment of the Senator from Georgia because they do not 
think that would be a good political vote for them. What it suggests to 
me is we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are a lot 
more concerned about having an issue, a political issue, than they are 
about having a solution to this problem. What we need in the Senate are 
more people on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, who will confront 
this issue for what it is.
  That is probably the most difficult, challenging issue that is facing 
the country, on a domestic level at least, currently or for some time. 
We are fighting a war on terror in Iraq. It has demanded a lot of 
attention and a tremendous amount of resources. But when it comes to 
domestic issues--and there are many. I am very interested in this body 
working on issues. As we move forward throughout the year, we have 
votes scheduled on health care reform because health care costs are 
critical. We have to get that under control in this country.

  We are going to have votes on extending some of the tax relief that 
will allow the economy to continue to grow and to create jobs and to 
make sure the economic engines are keeping this country moving forward. 
We are going to have votes on those types of issues as we go forward. 
And, of course, we are going to deal with the annual appropriations and 
budget process, and a whole range of other issues before the year is 
out.
  They are important issues. They are all important to the American 
public. But I would submit to you that right now there is no more 
urgent issue, no issue that demands an answer, that demands a solution, 
that demands action by the Senate than the issue of immigration.
  And what is the Senate going to do? Are we going to move forward? Are 
we going to, consistent with the tradition and the history of the 
Senate, allow for debate and allow for votes on amendments or are the 
Democrats, the minority in the Senate, going to continue to insist on 
blocking amendments, votes on amendments, simply because they do not 
want to vote on certain amendments because those amendments might be 
tough political votes for them?
  Well, we all make tough political votes. There are amendments they 
are going to offer that I will not want to vote on. In fact, there may 
be some amendments offered by colleagues on my side of the aisle that I 
really do not want to vote on. But we are here to vote. That is what 
people send us here to do. It is to do the people's business.
  It is important we have the opportunity to deal with what is the most 
important singular issue I think the American public is focused on 
today and that they want us to deal with. It is the responsibility of 
the Senate to debate--allow for extended debate--to consider 
amendments, but ultimately to vote. That means voting on amendments 
that are offered both by my colleagues on the Democratic side as well 
as my colleagues on the Republican side, even if they are amendments 
that I may not want to vote on.
  I have to say again, there are amendments I probably would rather not 
vote on, if I was thinking purely about the political consequences of 
some of these votes. But the fact is, we are here to vote. We are here 
to do the people's business. It is high time we did it.
  I encourage and I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to join 
with my colleagues on the Republican side in putting aside the 
politics, putting aside the delaying tactics, putting aside the 
obstruction and the blocking of the agenda, and allow us to move 
forward to vote on amendments and to report out of the Senate a bill--
and it may not be everything we want but allow this institution to act 
in the manner in which the people of this country expect us to act, 
and, frankly, in a way the American people deserve.
  So I hope tomorrow will be the day we will break the logjam, that we 
will be able to get a bill we can report that the Senate can take a 
final vote on but that is reflective of the majority views in the 
Senate, including an opportunity to vote on individual amendments and 
to move this debate and this process forward so we can get into 
conference with the House and shape a bill we can put on the 
President's desk that will send a loud, clear message to the American 
people we are serious about border security, we are serious about our 
Nation's history as a nation, a welcoming culture, a nation of 
immigrants, but we are serious about enforcing the rule of law in 
America.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator yields back.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as a prelude, we have a number of requests 
and items of business to take care of. I will explain here shortly.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. President, I move to commit the bill to the Judiciary Committee 
to report back forthwith with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] moves to commit the 
     bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report back forthwith the following amendment No. 3424.

  Mr. FRIST. I now ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3425

  Mr. FRIST. I send a first-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3425 to the instructions to the motion to 
     commit.


[[Page S2896]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the instructions, add the following 
     amendment:
       This section shall become effective one (1) day after the 
     date of enactment.

  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3426 to Amendment No. 3425

  Mr. FRIST. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3426 to amendment No. 3425.

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

       Strike ``one (1) day'' and insert ``two days''.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. FRIST. I send a cloture motion to the desk on the pending motion 
to commit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     motion to commit S. 2454, the Securing America's Borders Act.
         Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Michael B. Enzi, Lindsey 
           Graham, Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Mitch 
           McConnell, George V. Voinovich, Mel Martinez, Lamar 
           Alexander, Norm Coleman, Pete Domenici, Orrin Hatch, 
           David Vitter, Johnny Isakson, Jim DeMint.

  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry: Does this mean there are no other 
amendments in order? I couldn't file another amendment now, could I?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is correct. At this moment in time, 
you would not. If we were allowed to go ahead on the amendments, and 
once we start disposing of the amendments, this is something that would 
be in order.
  Mr. REID. I was curious why we aren't able to offer any amendments at 
this time, but we can talk about that tomorrow.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the point is well made.


                             Cloture Motion

  I send a cloture motion to the underlying bill to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     376, S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to provide for comprehensive reform, and for other 
     purposes.
         Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Pete Domenici, 
           R.F. Bennett, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas, Elizabeth Dole, 
           Conrad Burns, Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny 
           Isakson, Ted Stevens, Wayne Allard, Norm Coleman, Trent 
           Lott, John Thune.

  Mr. FRIST. All right. Mr. President, what we have just done, so our 
colleagues will understand, is as follows: Tomorrow morning, 
notwithstanding the fact we have yet to vote on even the very first 
amendment offered, we will have a cloture vote that--
  Mr. DURBIN. We have adopted three.
  Mr. FRIST. I will stand corrected. No, I will not stand corrected. On 
the very first amendment that was offered we still have not had a vote. 
And, yes, there have been several other amendments that have been 
addressed. We will have a cloture vote, which was filed by the minority 
leader, on the underlying Specter substitute amendment, and that will 
be the first vote tomorrow morning.
  I suspect that cloture vote will fail. And we have been very clear 
about our desire on this side to consider amendments from Senators on 
both sides of the aisle and our willingness for votes. We discussed 
that over the course of the day. It appears that this will not be 
likely and, therefore, we will be prevented from making any real 
progress on the bill.
  So moments ago I offered a motion to commit, which incorporates an 
amendment by Senators Hagel and Martinez and others who have been 
working on this amendment over the course of the day. The fact that 
those cloture motions were filed tonight means that we would have the 
cloture vote on that motion on Friday. And depending on the outcome of 
that cloture motion, we could have a second cloture vote on the 
underlying bill, the so-called Frist bill, as well.
  So we will have the Specter cloture vote tomorrow morning, and then 
one or possibly two other cloture votes on Friday morning.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished 
majority leader, I would hope, the amendment--we have a general idea 
what it is about--I would hope this amendment is one, as it has been 
related to me, that is such that it improves the underlying Specter 
substitute, that it deals with only the legalization process.
  I would hope, after Senators and staff pursue that amendment in 
detail tonight, that it is something we could all support and move on 
to completing the bill as soon as germane amendments were offered and 
debated and voted upon.
  It would be great if we could end this very acrimonious week on a 
high note. And we will not know that until we study this amendment. We 
are hearing of a lot of things that are in it and not in it. So time 
will only tell.
  I would say, through the Chair to the majority leader, because we 
have already had phone calls in the last half hour or so from 
Senators--they have asked me, as the distinguished majority leader did 
earlier today, if I would agree to earlier cloture votes. I do not know 
what the pleasure is of the Senator from Tennessee, if you want to wait 
until Friday, or you want to try to complete this tomorrow.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair--and we had discussed the 
possibility of that a little earlier--I think it is best for us to make 
that decision tomorrow, only because the Hagel-Martinez amendment is a 
negotiated compromise amendment that none of our colleagues have had 
the opportunity to really see yet.
  I have had numerous phone calls over the course of tonight as well. I 
think it is important people have the opportunity to look at that 
carefully tomorrow and see how much time it takes for people to have 
both the opportunity to look at it themselves, as well as their staff. 
We ought to keep that potential on the table.
  Mr. REID. So unless there is some agreement, the two cloture votes 
would begin occurring an hour after we come in on Friday.
  Mr. FRIST. Through the Chair, that is correct.
  Mr. REID. Is that right, I say to the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. There may be some other cloture motions to consider on 
Friday, which I will come to here shortly.

                          ____________________