Thread: FAIR Daily Update Day 8

From: Federation for American Immigration Reform <info@fairus.org> Add to Address Book
Date: 2006/05/25 Thu PM 04:04:45 EDT
Subject: Daily Senate Amnesty Update 5-25-06


Day 8

The Senate reconvened at 8:30 am on May 24, 2006 to renew debate on S.2611, the guest worker amnesty legislation authored by Senators Specter, Hagel, and Martinez. A variety of votes were taken, including a vote to end debate, which passed 73-25. The following is a summary of the day's events.

Senator McConnell began by offering amendment #4085, which would require all persons to present a photo ID that meets the REAL ID standards before being allowed to vote. It also includes a grant program to states to help fund IDs for indigent people who can't afford them. Senator McConnell explained his amendment was based on the recommendations of the bipartisan commission on election reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. That commission recommended using a photo ID to ensure that individuals presenting themselves to vote are in fact the same as individuals listed on the voter lists.

Senator McConnell argued that his proposal has bipartisan support and the support of the American people. He noted that in a Wall Street Journal poll, over 80% of Americans approved of using photo IDs to establish eligibility for voting and only 7% opposed the idea. The Senator added that presenting photo IDs to vote is not a new concept. At least 24 states have passed such a requirement.

Senator Kennedy strongly opposed the McConnell amendment. He said that this amendment was only tangentially related to the immigration bill and that there had been no hearings or debate on Senator McConnell's proposal. The Senator said that 25 minutes of debate is insufficient for such an important matter.

Senator Kennedy argued that the McConnell amendment was similar to imposing literacy tests and poll taxes, both of which were struck down as unconstitutional. He stated that Senator McConnell hasn't even shown that voter fraud is a problem in the United States. There hasn't been any evidence. The Senator noted one 12-state study by a nonpartisan organization on election fraud which concluded that voter fraud is very rare.

The Senator continued by arguing that the McConnell amendment doesn't truly follow the Carter-Baker Commission recommendations. He said that the Commission recommended that new photo ID requirements be implemented in 2010 so states have time to adjust. However, the McConnell amendment requires photo IDs to be displayed by 2008—the year of a presidential election. The Commission also recommended that the government ensure that poor people are able to get photo IDs free of charge, but the McConnell amendment doesn't actually achieve this because it gives money to states only to "promote the issuance" of IDs free of cost. Finally, the Commission recommended that a "back-up" method of voting be implemented for instances where there are problems with photo IDs, but the McConnell amendment doesn't address that. Based on this, he said, the amendment violates the 14th Amendment by denying equal protection and also violates the 24th Amendment because it is equivalent to a poll tax.

Senator Obama strongly opposed the McConnell amendment. He said there is no more important right than the right to vote. He said history had not been kind to certain groups and referred to poll taxes, literacy tests, and property requirements. The Senator said that considering the delicate balance of the immigration bill, this amendment could not have come at a worse time. He stated that this language would impose the most restrictive voter ID bill ever enacted. Senator Obama said he knew there was a certain simplistic appeal to the amendment, but argued that there was no showing of a significant problem of voter fraud and that the result of the amendment is to hurt those who have historically been disenfranchised—the indigent, elderly, disabled, and minorities. He said what studies had been done on voter fraud showed that statistically one was more likely to be killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote.

Senator Dodd also opposed the McConnell amendment. He said that the amendment not only imposed the requirement that an individual present a photo ID when voting, but that the photo ID meets the REAL ID standards. He argued that most states haven't even enacted legislation to conform to the REAL ID Act and that if the ID requirements were imposed by 2008, there is potential for 142 million voters to be disenfranchised because they are not able to get a REAL ID. He reiterated the argument that there was no evidence of a voter fraud problem and argued that historically we have always erred on the side of access.

Senator Bond rose in support of the McConnell amendment. He said there had definitely been studies in Missouri showing problems with voter fraud. He argued that if your legitimate vote is cancelled out by a fraudulent vote, then your vote is meaningless.

Senator Kennedy argued that if we are going to pass language that has the potential to impact every voter in America, we ought to take more than 50 minutes to consider it. This is a major rewriting of our national voting laws and we should have hearings and a debate.

Senator Dodd quoted the Carter-Baker Commission as stating there is no evidence of extensive voter fraud. It could occur but it hasn't yet. The Senator stated that the amendment essentially provides that if a voter does not have a REAL ID by 2008 he/she cannot vote, no matter what. He also said he felt it was unwise to open up the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) on the immigration bill.

Senator McConnell stated that there was Democratic support for requiring photo IDs for voting. The Senator said voter fraud is a significant problem in America and with many more people entering the country under this bill, we should address it. He asked whether Congress cares about the franchise and said it is nonsensical to suggest that a photo ID should not be used to protect one of our most sacred rights.

Senator Dodd moved to table the McConnell amendment. The motion failed, 48-49.

Senator Byrd continued the immigration debate by proposing amendment #4127, along with Senator Gregg, Senator Thomas and Senator Cantwell. This amendment would add a source of funding to help secure the borders. He began by pointing out important facets of S. 2611, as well as various statistics. Senator Byrd discussed that of the 12 million illegal aliens here, 1 in 4 of these aliens was lawfully admitted, but overstayed their visa. He pointed out that this is important to note, as out of the 19 terrorists that committed the 9/11 attacks, 4 were illegal aliens who overstayed their visas.

Senator Byrd said that 400,000 illegal aliens have been ordered to be deported, but they have disappeared. He stated that this has occurred because "law enforcement agencies have consistently received fewer resources that are necessary to do their job." The pending bill would grant amnesty for up to 12 million aliens by rewarding them with working status, and eventually allow them legal permanent status. In terms of enforcement, he stated that the bill authorizes appropriations of $25 billion over the next 5 years, but he doubts such funds will ever be made available.

Senator Byrd discussed how President Bush has "consistently under-funded border enforcement," and has consistently opposed replacing those funds in the appropriations process. It has been neglected so much, that the President has had to employ the National Guard to the border. He pointed out that if this amnesty proposal is carried out, national security will be very bad, and that funds are critical to back enforcement. The proposed amendment would require illegal aliens who would benefit from the amnesty bill to help pay for its costs, by requiring them to pay a fee of $500 in addition to other fines and penalties already proposed in this bill. He said that this fine is not so costly considering how much the aliens would benefit from S. 2611.

Senator Byrd stated that these fines would make available almost $3 billion over the next 2 years. This would provide monies to make sensor technology available, as well as to increase air and marine intervention, fund various construction projects, train law enforcement personnel, increase maritime activities, and improve customs. All of these have been neglected for too long, and continue to be neglected. He said that the fees of this amendment are reasonable because it is the illegal aliens that have created the needs for these funds in the first place, so they should help finance them. He said that this amendment would help carry into effect the law enforcement amendments of this bill.

Senator Byrd stated that "it is not enough to authorize border security, it needs to be funded." He went on to say that the Senate must ensure that aliens who are supposed to leave are made to leave, and that the agencies responsible for that have enough funds to do so.

Senator Gregg rose in support of the Byrd amendment, pointing out that the fees proposed by this amendment will not actually be called upon unless the Appropriations Committee says that it needs the money to improve border security, although this would most likely occur. He continued, saying that "this money is still only a small portion of what will be necessary." He described the different areas that need large amounts of funding, including the $2 billion needed to implement technology sensors, another $2 billion for a fully integrated communication system, and an additional $2.4 billion to update the air fleet, which is ancient and outdated.

Senator Gregg continued to say that there is a "great need for funds to adequately secure the border." He noted the consensus of the American people—the first effort should be to secure our borders, especially the Southern border. He argued that if illegal aliens are to obtain earned citizenship, an element of that earning, since they are already here illegally, is to pay a fine for violating the law. He outlined that the current fine is $2750 (including the Cornyn amendment). He said that the additional $500 proposed in the amendment would increase the total fine to $3250-$500 of which would go to securing the border. He stated that "this is a reasonable fee to pay to be an American citizen," especially if they already have a job and want American benefits. He went on to say that "if all good intentions and words aren't backed up by resources, you simply cannot accomplish the goal of securing the border." The Senator described the necessary factors such as electronics, boots on ground, aircraft, Coast Guard utilized for enforcement, and explained that all these factors take dollars.

Senator Specter thanked Senators Byrd and Gregg for offering amendments, but voiced his concern on whether it will be counter productive to put "such an increased burden on the undocumented immigrants" that they will not want to come forward. He said that the fines in S. 2611 as is have been "very carefully calibrated." The Senator explained that for those illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for over 5 years, $1600 out of the total $2000 fine would be used for border security. For those who have been here between 2-5 years, and will be required to leave, $800 of the total $1000 fine would be allocated for border security.

Senator Specter opposed the Byrd amendment. He stated that while he believes it is always a good idea to find another source of revenue for security, it should be a priority to bring the undocumented immigrants out of shadows, and not create a new fugitive class.

Senator Kennedy applauded Senator Byrd's concern over funding for security, as well as areas of detention, and legal enforcement. He went on to "reluctantly oppose" the amendment, because he believes that significantly raised fees on immigrants would be a huge burden. He stated that those who will be adjusting their status have nothing to do with border security because they are already here, so it is not fair to impose these fees on them. In addition, he explained that S.2611 as is would raise $18 billion, the Cornyn amendment adds $5-6 billion, and Byrd's would be another $3 billion on top of that.
The Senator said that while he opposes this amendment, he will give personal assurances to keep in close contact with Byrd about funding.

Senator Byrd replied by saying S.2611 as is, authorizes $25 billion over 5 years in appropriations, and that his amendment funds only $3 billion dollars of that amount. He said that "this is a modest sum and a modest amendment." The Senator argued that the pending bill would provide amnesty for illegal aliens, and would provide them with a path leading to U.S. citizenship, and access to taxpayer funded benefits, such as unemployment compensation, Medicare, and other benefits. He continued, saying that illegal aliens would benefit and gain much more than what is asked of them from the system. He stated that it is not much to ask of them to help fund a system that they undermined. He explained that the purpose of the amendment is to provide a source of funding for border security, and to do it as quickly as possible, because we can't afford to delay this critical funding any longer.

Senator Gregg rose to bring up amendment #4114, which he co-sponsored with Senator Cantwell. He explained that the purpose of the amendment is very simple, stating that we are about to give a large group of people who arrived here illegally the opportunity to get in line and earn citizenship. Those that arrived here illegally were not sought out to perform certain jobs. He continued to say that we have a lottery program where we say to people they can enter the lottery to apply for a green card. People in this lottery should be people that make us stronger socially and economically, he argued. The Senator outlined that his amendment would reserve 2/3 of lottery for people with advanced degrees, leaving the remaining 1/3 for the rest of the world population at large. He proposed to "bring people in who will create jobs because they have abilities and skills that we need," since they are highly educated.

Senator Gregg noted that as of now, the existing H-1B program, which also helps to bring highly skilled and educated immigrants to the U.S., requires people to be sponsored by a family member or employer. However, he argued, there are a lot of people who do not have family members to sponsor them, even if they have a high degree. He went on to say that the countries that currently qualify under the diversity visa program have a lot of unskilled workers, many of who are already here illegally, and will be getting in line to live here permanently. He suggested that immigrants should "bring a skill" if they are coming through the lottery system, and that people of other skill levels may already be here illegally, or can compete for the other 1/3 of the lottery system. The Senator explained that "we can become more powerful and compete with other countries by having stronger minds and better ideas," by having the best and the brightest here, and that the lottery system should be built around that concept. He also pointed out that most other nations require some sort of qualifying talent to immigrate, and that attracting people who have talent and ability should be our purpose.

Senator Schumer opposed the Gregg-Cantwell amendment, which he said "would do away with the purpose of the diversity visa program." He went on to explain that the diversity visa program exists because there is a large number of people in foreign countries whose opportunities to enter the U.S. are overshadowed by family reunification restrictions. He stated a majority of those people are coming from Caribbean or Asian countries, limiting those in Europe and Africa who do not have relatives or employers petitioning their entrance. The Senator said that the diversity visa program provides an opportunity for those people to be able to immigrate to the U.S., and argued that the city of New York has greatly benefited from this program.

Senator Schumer noted that he is "all for highly-educated and skilled visas," but not at the expense of the diversity visa program. S.2611 already provides for highly educated and skilled immigrants to come to the U.S. and the Gregg-Cantwell amendment is not necessary. The Senator said he believes immigrants are good for America. He asked, why do we "rob Peter to pay Paul?" He continued by saying that even Microsoft, who has led the charge for highly skilled people and engineers is very unhappy with the amendment. He concluded by saying we certainly need more scientists and engineers, but we also need new people to start new businesses at different skill levels, which overall benefits America.

Sen. Alexander rose in response, giving the Gregg-Cantwell amendment an A+. He voiced his support saying that "we are in a competitive environment,", and that "Gregg and Cantwell are exactly right." The Senator argued that we are talking about admitting millions of people, and that if the diversity lottery which is just 50,000 visas, 2/3 of those positions should be dedicated to highly skilled and educated people. We need to make it easier for the most talented people in the world to stay in the U.S. and study here, he continued. "If we're going to have 50,000 more people, let them be the best and the brightest."

Senator Kennedy rose to describe the diversity visa program in the United States and all of the benefits of the program. The purpose of the program "is to preserve this nation's heritage as a true melting pot." He stated how unique the program is and that without it immigrants would only apply from a handful of countries. This legislation, he said, already addresses those with "special skills." Senator Kennedy emphasized that 40% of those accepted into a diversity program come from African countries. He believes the Gregg Amendment would eliminate these high numbers of African immigrants and give visas to wealthier countries. He stated that 800,000 skilled immigrants already come to this country every year; however, 8 million people apply for the diversity program every year. To eradicate the diversity program would destroy hope of accomplishing the American dream for many people.

Senator Kennedy also focused on the issue of the jobs that these skilled immigrants are taking from Americans. He said that the amendment puts a high priority on families and future employment for immigrants, but wondered why Americans aren't being educated for these jobs.

Senator Durbin opposed the Gregg Amendment. He lauded the diversity program because it takes a hard worker from another country and gives him or her the chance to provide for their family. "It is one of our strengths, not our weaknesses." This is the only program that offers visas to people that would otherwise not have the opportunity. Senator Durbin also worried about the troubled countries like the Philippines that America often uses to employ nurses or other similar occupations of which this country has a shortage. "You could argue that it's good for us, but as I already told you, it's at the expense of someone else." He urged his colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Senator Landrieu offered amendment #4025, relating to international adoptions. She stated that this amendment has broad bipartisan support and there is much agreement that all children should be raised in a family "not alone, not in a cardboard box, not in a ditch." Senator Landrieu emphasized the benefits in the structure of this new international adoption program, especially the establishment of a central agency to assist all of the smaller ones throughout the country. This centralized organization would provide much needed assistance to the process. She hoped that her amendment would be adopted unanimously and would not have to be given a roll call vote.

Senator Kennedy stated his support for the Landrieu amendment.

Senator Specter voiced his support for the Landrieu amendment.

Senator Hutchison offered amendment #4101. This amendment proposed a new guest worker program, the Safe Visa Program, to replace the one in the underlying bill. The Senator said, "No one is talking about the underlying cause of illegal immigration in our country. What can we do about the root cause of the problem?" She stated that the vast majority of people coming to this country are doing so to support their families. This process of illegal immigration and migration from Mexico is harmful to both our country and theirs. She said the Safe Visa Program is modeled after the guest worker program between Mexico and Canada. Senator Hutchison said this is another option, one that would be expedite and meet the demands of those who want to work in this country. The Safe Visa Program would be offered to those who wanted to work here temporarily, not relocate their families, and then send the money home to support their family.

Senator Hutchison explained that under her amendment, participants would be required to apply within their own country and provide proof of employment, they would be required to pay some form of taxes, all employees would be equal, they would not be eligible for healthcare but, money would be allocated to provide healthcare to workers who need them if incidents occur. The program would also allow a maximum of 10 months of work and allow the alien to renew his/her visa annually. The program would terminate the visa if the alien is unemployed for 60 or more days and allow aliens to set aside social security deductions from their paychecks to take home with them when they leave.

Senator Bond said he is a co-sponsor of Hutchison Amendment and that it is an excellent model for a seasonal worker program. He especially applauded the part of the program that reserves visas for cool-weather states, such as Missouri, that need laborers later in the season.

Senator Kennedy opposed the Hutchison Amendment. He said this guest worker program is very different from the one already in the legislation and would be less successful. He said the most important differences are the limited numbers, the heavy recruiting process for guest workers, and also the protection the guest workers would have against exploitation. Senator Kennedy said the program in the underlying bill would demonstrate to guest workers that "when they work hard and play by the rules they can get on the path to American citizenship." He added that the Hutchinson amendment would restrict the countries which workers would come from, whereas the existing program allows for more diversity.

Senator Bond stated that this amendment would make our country more competitive in a similar manner where other countries are attracting American students. He said that an area highly impacted by immigrants is in stem cell research. At least 10% of stem cell researchers are foreign. Senator Bond asserted that American enrollment in the math and science areas is way down and we need to be on the cutting edge of technologies, utilizing all of the resources available. He said he supports the Hutchinson amendment because he believes it is an effective solution for all involved.

Senator Sessions rose in support of the Hutchinson amendment. He recalled that last week he and Senator Specter met with officials from Colombia and the Dominican Republic, who said that they have a guest worker program with Spain and Canada, where citizens of their countries get a work permit with the understanding that they have to go back when they are done. He said that Colombia and the Dominican Republic are very happy with this system, and stated that if this is what Hutchinson is proposing then she would have the support of those countries.

Senator Hutchinson responded to Senator Sessions, saying that a guest worker program is exactly what is missing from this bill. She said it would provide people with the ability to go back and forth between their home country and the U.S.; we want commerce to circulate. Guest workers would spend 10 months here and 2 months at home. She supported what Senator Bond just mentioned, allowing the guest worker to work here and then send money back to their country of origin, which is what Mexico wants anyway. The Senator stated her disbelief that Mexico would want their hardworking people to move here permanently. She continued to explain her amendment and that if the guest worker wanted citizenship, it is available, but we should not force them to take that route. As long as you have a path to citizenship, she said "there is no underclass." She argued that people should have more options, and that's what her amendment does.

Senator Sessions asked Senator Hutchinson whether guest workers in the Safe Visa Program would be prohibited from applying to the citizenship path.

Senator Hutchinson replied "no, they can withdraw from the Safe Visa Program," take the social security that has been deducted from them, go home, and get in line for citizenship.

Senator Sessions questioned whether or not it would be possible to allow people who currently do not feel comfortable going back and forth from country to country, to allow them to do so within Senator Hutchinson's amendment.

Senator Hutchinson answered, saying that "it is so important to have different options." She said this is a country with entrepreneurs who want to see things work. It is so important that we recognize we are in a system that does not work right now, she stated. The Senator added that because of 9/11, we now know we must secure our borders, but must also not ignore the invaluable contributions made by immigrants in our country. She argued that we are a country made up of immigrants, and that is a good thing. "Why not have another option for people who would not want to go the citizenship route?" she asked. She explained that, as opposed to other work permits, this amendment does not have a time limit. It is a 10 month program, so employers can hire different groups if the job is not seasonable. She said that this program would be a "win for everyone," because trained workers would be provided to employers.

Senator Hutchinson argued that if we are going to have a system that works with a secure border and a guest worker program, people will be able to build their "nest egg" with their social security deductions, and we should offer the opportunity for citizenship. She noted that we cannot make the same mistakes of 1986 when we passed an amnesty bill but did not provide a guest worker provision. She said the current bill sends a signal that if you come here illegally you will eventually be able to become a legal resident. She was frank in saying that she doesn't expect this amendment to pass, but does expect that the airing of this view should have an impact on the conference committee. She described that S. 2611 is not the bill that will provide for the long term; it will not assure that we have economic viability and security for Americans. She expressed her hope that the Senate speaks with a strong voice and that her amendment should be part of the solution. People should be able to make a living wage, go home, and keep the citizenship of their country if they so choose, she proposed. The Senator also added that she has the support of the American Farm Bureau.

Senator Allard rose to make a Budget Point of Order to S.2611.

Senator Sessions also rose in support of the Budget Point of Order, saying that this bill is a tremendous budget buster. He stated that this bill would increase poverty, increase welfare costs, and Medicare would become extremely expensive. The Senator feels that progress on the bill has been made, but he doesn't believe any study will show these budget numbers are fundamentally incorrect.

Senator Allard stated this bill "can be described in two words: budget buster." He brought up a statement that the Congressional Budget Office issued on May 16, 2006. The cost estimate, explicitly stated that S. 2611 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each 10 year period. He continued to say that the bill would increase direct spending by $54 billion, mostly because of the amnesty provisions. The Senator brought up statistics from the Heritage Foundation, which state that providing benefits to individuals granted amnesty could cost over $16 billion. He went on to explain that once in the country, legal permanent residents can petition for their family members to join them in the U.S., and those family members would also receive benefits such as healthcare, with the average cost of $18,000 per person, per year.

Senator Allard continued, stating that on top of these predicted costs, we cannot predict how many spouses, children, or other family members will come once those here are granted amnesty. He pointed out that all this takes place on a backdrop of runaway government spending, and that the last thing we need to do is increase government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars for people who came here illegally. The Senator argued that this is unfair to American taxpayers and that this bill would "put a dagger in the heart of the country's fiscal health."

Senator Sessions rose to continue supporting the Budget Point of Order. He stated that border enforcement is important and that we need to figure out how to treat people here illegally in a fair way. While this is a worthwhile goal, he argued that they do not need to be given every single benefit that people who came here legally receive. He noted that one of the things that happens when illegal aliens are given a guaranteed citizenship path is that they become eligible for all benefits. The Senator argued that these are not benefits the illegal aliens came here for; they came here to make some extra money. He continued, saying a lot of them don't want to stay and become permanent residents, and that allowing them to do so has real financial consequences.

Senator Sessions outlined statistics provided by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to the 11 million illegal aliens who would receive legal permanent resident status in the next 10 years, 7.8 million new legal immigrants will come into the country under this bill. Over 28 million individuals will obtain legal permanent resident status over the next 10 years if S.2611 passes. The Senator noted that this is 3 times more than under current law. He continued, saying that many of these immigrants would bring over their elderly parents and siblings who will seek healthcare, which would continue to hike up the government costs.

Senator Allard stated that he believes the Congressional Budget Office figures are off and that Heritage Foundation figures are closer. Senator Allard said the Heritage Foundation estimates are over $30 billion each year for costs related to this bill. He said we need to be conscious of the cost, back up and think about what we are doing to the cost of government programs. He stated that it is essential we balance our budget, rather than continuing to spend.

Senator Nelson rose in support of Senator Allard's point of order. He said that we need to secure our borders, and that we will not solve illegal immigration problems until we do so. He referred to finances, saying that the deficit is very real, and that we need to make a serious investment to secure our borders. The Senator noted that S.2611 would cost a considerable amount of money, with the first 10 year window costing as much as another $52 billion. "When you're in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging - we have to stop digging," he argued. He explained that only when we secure borders, can we move on in a financially secure way. He continued, saying "it is not mean spirited to want to protect our borders," to close the back door to illegal immigrants, drug dealers and gang members from Latin America, and open our front door to legal immigrants.

Senator Coburn rose to speak on the point of order and on S.2611 overall. He said that one of the greatest problems is not thinking in the long run. We are on an unsustainable course as a country, he stated, all of these liabilities will be transferred to our children and grandchildren. The Senator explained that they didn't look at the discretionary evidence of the bill, the minimums of this bill will cost a half trillion dollars over the next 10 years. He continued stating the debt being transferred now is about $27,000 per person.

Senator Coburn outlined that in 10 years, in 2016, the direct spending of this will be at a minimum of $11 billion. He said that in the past, the projected cost of Medicare was 70% of what it is now and we need to consider the financial impact of where the United States will be in 10 years, with or without S.2611. The Senator argued that the Budget Act is being violated because in 10 years 80% of the budget will go towards Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security. He brought up the right of the American people, who should know that even if they agree with all the points of the bill, they are sacrificing a higher standard of living for all of the Americans living here today

Senator Vitter rose in strong support of the Budget Point of Order. He stated that it has gotten very little attention in this debate, but will have a tremendous impact. He pointed out that the Budget Act clearly says that it will not take into consideration any movement that will produce an excess of $5 billion over a decade, and that everyone seems to agree that this is above that mark and will create huge increases in spending. He expressed his disappointment in the Congressional Budget Office, stating that the long term impact is clearly beyond this mark of $5 billion. There would be a permanent lasting impact with no end in sight, he argued. He also mentioned a study that said this would be the biggest government spending increase in the last 35 years, and that spending under this bill would make old spending increases dwindle in comparison. "What concerns me," he said, "is that this threatens to build into our budget, a Katrina-like event every other year, which is a very real and frightening fiscal impact of this bill."

Senator Kennedy opposed the Budget Point of Order. He stated that the CBO report is accurate. He said the CBO estimates that S.2611 would increase total federal revenue by $66 billion over 10 years through new tax revenue paid by legalized aliens. Overall, it would reduce the deficit by $12 billion over 10 years. The Senator argued that we should waive the point of order because it is indisputable that we will gain money.

Senator Vitter asked whether the CBO considered the 11 million people here already in terms of their discretionary advice.

Senator Kennedy responded saying they did not consider that and it is one of the flaws of the study.

Senator Graham stated that the CBO is something you use when you agree with them. He argued that there are more people involved than just the federal government. "How do you get people to sign up so they will contribute?" he asked. Economically there has to be a place in America for someone who is working sun up to sundown. If there isn't, than America has changed. The Senator stated that there is 4.4% unemployment. If there are 11 million illegal aliens in our country they can't be a drain on the economy because the economy is humming. Employers everywhere tell me they need workers, he said. We are moving towards an economy with older workers, like Japan. The impact on the economy, therefore, needs to be assessed by dynamic scoring, not just by impact on the federal government.

Senator DeMint rose in support of the Budget Point of Order. He stated that the Senate is not looking out 10, 15, or 20 years from now and we are heading towards a fiscal tsunami. This bill would change our culture and add a fiscal burden to the government. The bill would add an unprecedented number of immigrants to the U.S.—66 million over 20 years, and there will still be some illegal aliens coming too. "We cannot possibly assimilate all of these people." We cannot force the taxpayers to pay this bill. The Senate failed to bar social security benefits for illegal aliens, the Senate failed to bar the granting of tax credits, the bill doesn't protect U.S. workers. The hidden cost is what it will cost state and local governments as well.

Senator Martinez opposed the Budget Point of Order. Senator Martinez argued that if we did border security alone, that would cost money too. None of this is free. There would be an estimated cost of $25 billion for border security alone and those dollars would not be offset by revenues. In Florida we need workers for theme parks, construction and agriculture. Many of these workers start out at minimum wage and move up the ladder. We often talk about the few who are bad, but how about those who are good? Illegal immigrants don't just take, they give. Illegal aliens create jobs, they come to be part of this great experiment we call America. The Senator concluded by saying the Senate has an opportunity to fix our broken immigration system. We need to go to conference and secure our border and create a pathway for new citizens.

Senator McCain said that the Senators proposing the point of order have overtly misinterpreted the CBO report. The CBO actually shows a small net gain. But putting numbers aside, we have to ask do we want an immigration bill? The Senators from Colorado and Alabama are less interested in saving money than derailing the bill. We will not be deterred from our effort to pass a bill. The American people want us to act, they want us to act humanely.

Senator Specter similarly stated that those who raised the Budget Point of Order want to kill this bill. They are interested only in border security, he said. The comprehensive nature of the bill is a money-maker. Economists who testified before the Judiciary Committee agreed this legislation would stimulate the economy. The point of order is based on expenditures only, not on revenues.

Senator Specter stated that in the aggregate illegal aliens play a vital part in expanding our economy. If they were taken away the economy would collapse. He said that this bill is an orderly way to handle the 11 million illegal aliens. The Senator asked where we would be without immigrants. He said the Budget Point of Order has only a scintilla to hang on. It would be tragic if the bill failed on a mere technicality.

Senator Allard stated that there are two types of budget points of order—one for short term effects and one for long term effects. We have long term provisions for those of us who are concerned about long term spending. All of the arguments on the floor have been about the 40 years after enactment, the financial effects in those years will be devastating. We need to think seriously about those fiscal consequences, he said.

Senator Hagel rose in opposition to the Budget Point of Order. He stated that we have already run up debt in this country year after year. No matter what we do it is going to cost money. It will cost money to enforce our laws. What happens though when people work and invest in our communities? The result is more tax revenues, more employment, and more opportunity. The Senator said this is a jobs bill, an economic development bill. We have been able to defeat amendments that do not take a wide-lens view like this. The cost to society and the economy will be far beyond what they are talking about.

Senator Kennedy argued that the bill results in a net gain of $12 billion because revenues coming in will exceed expenditures in subsequent years. He said the CBO report does not look at the full picture.

Senator Sessions said that nobody is talking about ending immigration. We let about one million people in legally per year and we may have a bill to increase that. The Senator argued that there isn't a budget score for the second 10 years and therefore we don't really know what we are going to spend. The CBO has stated that the second 10 years will definitely be worse than the first 10 years. Senator Sessions said he felt the Senate should stop and not go forward with a bill. No one even discussed the fiscal impacts until the CBO released its report last week. Isn't this how we get into trouble, he asked. Isn't this how spending gets out of control? We have made progress this week, but the major flaws need to be addressed.

There was a motion to waive the Budget Point of Order. The motion prevailed 67-31.

There was a roll call vote on the Byrd amendment. The amendment passed 73-25.

There was a roll call vote on the Gregg amendment. The amendment passed 56-42.

There was a roll call vote on the Hutchinson amendment. The amendment failed 31-67.

Senator Boxer offered amendment #4144. That amendment would add language to the bill to clarify the efforts employers must make to hire U.S. workers before they hire H-2C guest workers. Senator Boxer explained that the current bill only requires that the employer attest that during a 90-day period before filing a petition to hire a guest worker, the employer made a good faith effort to recruit U.S. workers. The Senator stated that the amendment would clarify what good faith effort means by specifically requiring the employer: (1) post a notice of the job opening in a conspicuous place at the work site and (2) send the job posting to the state employment office.

Senator Boxer argued that the H-2C guest worker program does not cover agricultural workers—those workers are covered by the AgJOBS provision of the bill. Thus, the jobs we are talking about here are construction, food preparation, manufacturing, and transportation jobs. These are good jobs with good wages, she said. We should be making sure that U.S. workers get first chance at them. She stressed that no time frames in the bill would change and stated that the amendment was a "win-win" for everyone.

Senator Specter had some questions about the amendment. The amendment was set aside while Senators Specter and Boxer consulted and reached agreement. The vote on the Boxer amendment was postponed until later in the evening.

Senator Burns offered amendment #4124. This amendment, he explained, would require the Census Bureau to conduct a study on the impact illegal aliens have on apportionment for Congressional seats. In response to a question by Senator Salazar whether the amendment gave the Census Bureau any additional authority, Senator Burns responded no.

The Burns amendment passed by voice vote.

Senator Chambliss offered amendment #4084. This amendment proposed changes to the requirements for legalization under the AgJOBS portion of the bill. Senator Chambliss complained that the requirements for legalization under the AgJOBS part of the bill were substantially lower than those under the general legalization provision. He said his amendment would (1) require applicants for legalization under AgJOBS to learn English, (2) increase fines for applicants to $2,000, and (3) increase the work requirement for participation in the AgJOBS program.

Senator Chambliss stated that agriculture is the traditional gateway for illegal aliens, who take those jobs at first, but then move up the ladder to jobs with better pay and conditions. He argued that if the AgJOBS requirements were significantly lower than the general legalization program, there would be incentive for people to legalize through AgJOBS. The Senator said that he felt the increase in work requirements were particularly important. The current definition of a work day, he said, could be met with just one hour of work a day. This is not fair for hard workers, he said. Most people spend an hour just getting ready for work. A Department of Labor survey showed that the average agriculture worker works 42 hours a week. Given this information, doesn't the one hour per day definition seem like a low threshold? Yet the bill provides legal status to someone who works only 150 hours over two years.

Senator Chambliss stated that, unlike those in the general legalization program, applicants for legalization under the AgJOBS program do not have to learn English, do not have to register for the selective service, do not have to go to the back of the line, and do not have to submit fingerprints or undergo a name check. The Senator argued we ought to treat them all the same if we are going to put them on a path to citizenship.

Senator Craig opposed the Chambliss amendment. He said Senator Chambliss is intent on destroying the tool that creates stability in American agriculture-the Blue Card program contained in the bill. This program he said will transition agriculture from an industry based on illegal work to one based on legal work.

Senator Craig argued that AgJOBS required applicants to undergo a background check and that fees have already been increased under the Byrd amendment. He said he didn't think they were being easy on anyone. As for the work requirements, Senator Craig said the definition of a work day in the bill is the same as that in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and that the definition wasn't really relevant because no one hired a person to work just one hour a day. They always worked more. He said that agriculture wants to fix the problem and that it is fundamentally important that we get this right. The Chambliss amendment, he said, would gut the agriculture portion of the bill.

Senator Salazar opposed the Chambliss amendment. He said the agriculture industries in his state all support AgJOBS. He said he opposed increasing fees because these farm workers make very little as is, maybe $10,000 to $12,000 per year.

Senator Dorgan offered amendment #4095, which would sunset the H-2C guest worker program in the bill after 5 years. The Senator said this would give us a chance to study what would happen to American workers as a result of the guest worker program. He said that we had incorporated sunset provisions into the farm bill, the energy bill, and the Patriot Act. He argued it was therefore very reasonable to put a sunset into a bill of this magnitude. The Senator then reiterated the arguments against the guest worker program he made on previous days. He stated that in America today, good jobs are being exported and cheap labor is being imported. He said he had heard much talk about immigration over the last couple of weeks, but where is the talk about the American worker? "For once," he said, "I would like there to be some talk about the plight of the American worker."

Senator Specter opposed the Dorgan amendment, saying that the underlying bill has been "very carefully calibrated."

Senator McCain also opposed the Dorgan amendment. He said the guest worker program in the bill is enforceable, that there is a hard path to citizenship. The Senator said he is worried that we have raised the fees so high that we will be excluding many. He argued that the guest worker is a vital part of a comprehensive approach, it must last and that the sunset is unreasonable.

Senator Salazar said he "reluctantly opposed" the Dorgan amendment. He said there is a problem of future flow that needs to be solved.

Senator Kennedy rose in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. The Senator said there is pressure on the border and despite closing the border there will still be pressure as long as there is an economic magnet. He said if you think we will turn these people back and solve the problem, you do not understand reality. We are trying to establish a structure for immigration into the future, he said.

Senator Dorgan said the opposition thinks they are solving the problem by calling the illegal legal. What excuse do we have for bringing in more workers?, he asked. He called his amendment a baby step in the right direction. He noted that the result might be different if a Senator actually felt his job was threatened by a guest worker.

Senator Graham opposed the Dorgan amendment, saying America needs all the decent hard-working people she can get her hands on. A sunset would be devastating to the economy.

The Boxer amendment passed by voice vote.

A motion was made to table the Chambliss amendment. The motion prevailed 62-35.

A roll call vote was taken on the Dorgan amendment. The amendment failed, 48-49.

Senator Talent then rose to speak generally against S.2611. Senator Talent said America has always been a haven for immigrants, it has always had a more open immigration policy than other countries. He said that we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Too much immigration too soon depresses wages and the hopes of workers. He added that the Senate has inexplicably rejected common sense amendments.

The Senator said that he supported the border security provisions in the bill, but that those provisions were outweighed by the other parts of the bill. First, he said, he opposes the broad-based amnesty program. Amnesty, he said makes a mockery of laws. "What will the argument be against granting another amnesty 5, 10, 15 years from now?" he asked. Senator Talent also said he opposes the bill because it does little to fix the current immigration system. In fact, he said, it makes it worse because the new burden on the Department of Homeland Security will divert resources away from legitimate cases of immigrants who have come legally and are here legally. The Senator added that his constituents also oppose the bill and that he has received over 4,000 calls in the last month against the bill.

Senator Carper similarly stood up to speak against the bill. The Senator said there were few issues more difficult than immigration. Last week 10,000 aliens came over the border illegally, this week another 10,000 came over illegally, and next week another 10,000 will come across illegally. Simply providing amnesty to illegal aliens sends the wrong message to both illegal aliens and legal immigrants. We need to start with border security, he said. The legislation should be tough, smart, and penalize employers. The House bill, despite its critics, has some virtue. The Senator said he hoped a compromise could be reached.

Well isn't that great. First threaten all state funding be stopped if a state does not agree. Now take away American citizens rights to vote if they do not want to participate to a "ID" program by big brother!

grrrrrrrrr