From: Federation for American Immigration Reform <info@fairus.org> Add to Address Book
Date: 2006/05/24 Wed AM 11:49:41 EDT
Subject: Daily Senate Amnesty Update 5-24-06

Day 7

The Senate reconvened at 9:45 am Tuesday, May 23 to continue debate on S.2611, the guest worker amnesty bill authored by Senators Specter, Hagel and Martinez.

Senator Specter began the day by summarizing the overall debate on S.2611. He said the Senate had made good progress on the bill—there have already been 17 roll call votes and 8 voice votes on a variety of amendments offered by both sides. Senator Specter said he could not emphasize enough that this bill was not amnesty. If the bill passes, illegal aliens will have to pay a fine, undergo a background check, learn English, and work for a significant period of time. In short, he said, they will have to earn their citizenship. Senator Specter acknowledged that there were several contentious amendments but said they had been worked through and voted on.

Senator Feinstein renewed debate on amendment #4087, as modified. Senator Feinstein argued that when you read the Hagel-Martinez bill, you see it is unworkable. The "deportation requirements" are impossible to carry out and it will create another class of illegal aliens. She noted that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and over 160 groups support her amendment.

Senator Feinstein outlined essentially the same arguments in favor of the amendment as she made yesterday on the floor. She said the three-tiered system of Hagel-Martinez would lead to a bureaucratic nightmare and, by directing the aliens receiving deferred mandatory departure into the H-2C program, would create a guest worker program with over 3 million participants. She said the three-tiered system would encourage document fraud to get into the highest tier and that for those who did not want to come forward, would create another class of illegal aliens. The Senator argued that instead of this it would be a much better solution to simply improve the legalization process. "Let's be realistic," she said.

Senator Feinstein explained that her amendment consisted of a 3 step process. First, all aliens who can establish that they have been in the country since January 1, 2006 would have to submit fingerprints and would be issued a biometric, picture identification card with a number that would place the alien in line for permanent resident status. Aliens here the longest would be first in line, after the backlog cleared, to receive permanent resident status. The aliens would then have to annually submit documentation, through electronic means, to establish continuing eligibility for the program. Then after at least six years, the aliens who had met these (and other) requirements would be allowed to obtain permanent residence status. This, Senator Feinstein said, makes better sense.

Senator Harkin rose in favor of the Feinstein amendment. The Senator said he was proud to be a co-sponsor of it. He said that the Hagel-Martinez legislation makes aliens here 2-5 years go home, but how does the bill address families? "What will happen to American citizen children?" he asked. He discussed how local chapters of the Iowa Chamber of Commerce had stressed the importance of immigrants in their communities. They play a critical role in the local economies. If they were taken away whole towns would collapse. He noted that illegal aliens were beginning to settle towns that had been abandoned and were beginning to run family-owned businesses on Main Street.

Senator Harkin continued by saying it was time to find a constructive and positive way to bring these people out of the shadows. The Orange Card Program will increase participation by reducing fear, he argued. It is "pro-family, pro-immigrant, pro-worker, and pro-American." The Senator said that the reason we have an immigration problem in America is because people want to come here and work and take advantage of opportunities. The Hagel-Martinez bill, he said, will "make the mess even messier."

Senator Brownback rose in opposition to the Feinstein amendment. He complimented Senator Feinstein on her efforts but said the amendment would slow down the Senate and impede its ability to get a comprehensive bill through. If you break the compromise, you break the momentum, he said. It would cause the bill to fail.

Senator Martinez also rose in opposition to the Feinstein amendment and said he echoed Senator Brownback's comments. The Senator described how supporters of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform had to take the Judiciary Committee bill and "tweak it" to get more Senators on board. He said that the compromise was based on the notion that it was not fair to treat everyone the same way and that people agreed that the process should be easier for those who had been here longer. They also agreed that those who had been here less than two years (the date in the bill coinciding with the President's first speech on immigration reform) should not be able to benefit under the bill. The fact that the bill has bipartisan support is a testament to this structure.

Senator Martinez said that the Feinstein amendment would take the Senate a step back. The Senator said he did not want to be "Pollyannaish" and deny there would be difficulties. But, he said, the compromise has the backing of many colleagues and the President. He urged members to stick with the concept that brought them together.

Senator Kennedy rose to speak on the Feinstein amendment. He said it was difficult to speak against the Feinstein amendment, because she was in essence trying to bring the bill closer to the original McCain-Kennedy legislation. He said that was a desirable result, but that over the last two weeks, the Hagel-Martinez bill had been improved and that he was enthusiastic about it. He concluded by saying "I think the Feinstein amendment makes a great deal of sense, but legislatively, we should stick to where we are."

Senator Cornyn argued against the Feinstein amendment. He said Senator Feinstein's amendment essentially asked us to throw up our hands and admit that we can't enforce the law. He said that the 1986 Act encouraged more illegal immigration and that this bill would too.

Senator Feinstein briefly replied that she had not thrown up her hands and said we can't enforce the law. The Senator said she had voted for the fence and for putting the National Guard at the border. "We should have our border enforced," she said. She added that we should have Mexico's help in enforcing it.

Senator Feinstein said her amendment offered a practical, humane way to proceed and one that, with the other provisions, would create a workable comprehensive approach. Senator Feinstein said she was concerned that if the Senate adopts the Hagel-Martinez bill, they are right back where they started. California, the largest agricultural state in the union, has 600,000 workers who are illegal. They come here because there is no hope or opportunity in their home countries. Mexico needs to understand the needs of its people and help them become more upwardly mobile. Enabling people to live to their fullest is worth a lot, she said.

Senator Specter rose in opposition to the Feinstein amendment, arguing it would break the coalition. If we go back, he said, efforts at cloture would fail. The Senator said that the bill was structured on the principle that those who have been here longest have the most roots and deserve the clearest path to citizenship. If we didn't have to conference with the House, he said, he would be much more sympathetic. But this legislation is "on the edge of the ledge as it is." The Senator said that as a nation of immigrants, it would be nice to put everyone on a path to citizenship, but that doing so would create a lot of resistance.

A roll call vote was taken on the Feinstein amendment. The amendment failed, 37-61.

Senator Reed rose to speak generally on S.2611. He said the immigration system was long in need of an overhaul and recognized that, while the bill before us is imperfect, it is a realistic proposal. "It truly is a comprehensive bill." Senator Reed argued that while illegal immigration has been a problem for over two decades, the problem has grown increasingly worse over the last six years and criticized the administration for failing to enforce the laws. Apprehending people at the border is only a partial solution, he said. We also need worksite enforcement and employer sanctions. Yet the administration has done poorly on both. We need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Senator Reed said he was pleased with several provisions in the bill, especially those that focused on technology. He noted that the employer verification system is also very important. He also stated that obviously the legalization portion of the bill is one of the most controversial provisions. The Senator said that although it is controversial, it is a necessary decision. The U.S. can't deport all of the illegal immigrants and in the meantime aliens are living in fear in the shadows.

The Senator said historically, there have been relatively few restrictions on immigration. In the late 1880s the first restrictions on immigration barred certain criminals. Later a minimal literacy test was imposed. There were never work requirements. In comparison, Senator Reed argued, the hurdles of S.2611 are high and a far cry from amnesty.

Senator Leahy offered amendment #4117, which would alter the definitions of "terrorist group" and "material support" in the immigration laws in order create certain exceptions for granting refugee and asylum status for individuals who are forced to cooperate with violent groups. Senator Leahy stated that current limitations on eligibility for asylum/refugee status are immoral. This amendment, he said, seeks to change those and has strong bipartisan support.

Senator Coleman rose in favor of the Leahy amendment. He said that often victims of ethnic strife are often denied refugee status because of the definition of "material support" for "terrorist groups." Senator Coleman discussed the numerous groups living in Minnesota, such as the Hmong, Liberians, Somalians, and Burmese, who were particularly affected by these provisions. The Senator said there is a waiver provision in current law, but it is very limited. This amendment, he said, is the right thing to do and is not about membership in terrorist organizations.

Senator Kyl rose in strong opposition to the Leahy amendment. He said that the changes in the definitions the amendment proposes would actually allow someone from the Taliban to legally be admitted to the U.S. He argued that the refugee/asylum law already contains a waiver provision. Senator Kyl called the amendment "a solution looking for a problem" and said there is no problem that can't be solved under current law. The amendment opens "a huge loophole," he said.

Senator Specter also opposed the Leahy amendment. The Senator said this was the third version of this amendment that had been discussed and in its present state, is not worthy of passage. He said that before Congress changes the definitions of "terrorist groups" and "material support," there should be hearings, a legislative record, and analysis.

Senator Leahy responded that no one wants to let in terrorists. This amendment, he said, is about genuine refugees. Many of these refugees are fighting groups as our government has asked them to do or with our government's support. Now we fail to give them asylum?

Senator Specter said that Leahy's amendment will allow terrorists in the U.S. He noted that Senator Leahy did not deny that it narrows the definition of terrorist organization. These kinds of decisions regarding forced participation, Senator Specter argued, are best left to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security through the waiver provision.

Senator Obama rose to speak on the Grassley amendment, #4177. The Senator explained that this amendment is a substitute for Title III in the bill, which encompasses the employment eligibility verification system. Senator Obama said that current employment sanctions have become nothing more than a nuisance requirement. We need an electronic eligibility verification system. This system represents compromise language worked out with Senator Grassley and others.

Senator Cornyn rose in opposition to the Grassley amendment. He said that people are talking about it as if it's an agreed upon amendment. Employment verification is the lynchpin of the bill. The Senator stated that DHS Secretary Chertoff has called this amendment a "poison pill." He criticized the provision of imposing an accuracy threshold, which, if not met would essentially allow illegal aliens to work. As written, he said, the system will take months to work.

Senator Cornyn also complained about the provision creating government liability for errors and authorizing litigation to recover damages. The Senator said this provision would work as a disincentive for DHS employees to do their jobs because no one would want to make a mistake and subject the Department to liability. He noted that Secretary Chertoff took greatest exception to this provision.

Senator Cornyn said there were other problems with the amendment and asked why we would want to create a system that's designed to fail. He argued the current placeholder in S.2611 is vastly superior. The Senator stressed again how important employment eligibility verification is. Many employers make no effort whatsoever to comply with the law. In a recent report, it was disclosed that one employer submitted the same Social Security number for over 2,500 employees. However, enforcement efforts over the years have dramatically declined. He noted that in 2003, DHS dedicated only 90 employees nationwide to worksite enforcement—this, for a country of almost 300 million people.

Senator Cornyn stated that approximately 6,000 employers currently use the Basic Pilot Program. This program should be expanded and enforced. An independent review of the program showed that 96% of employers found it effective. It also found that in 2004, the program had a 99% accuracy rate. He pointed out to members that if the Grassley amendment does not pass, there was still an employment eligibility verification in the bill that would be passed.

Senator Grassley rose and said that he wished to explain the amendment from his perspective. He said that he knew the amendment isn't perfect, but that perfection is not possible. He said he wanted to work in a bipartisan way and worked with members across the aisle to achieve compromise language. If this amendment is not what we want employment eligibility verification to be, he said, we will have another chance to change it in conference committee. The Senator added that he did believe that Congress had a responsibility to ensure that no one is economically harmed from a mistake the government makes.

Senator Cornyn said that he would prefer to let individuals correct the program's records without litigation.

Senator Kyl spoke in opposition to the Grassley amendment. Senator Kyl said that while he appreciated Senator Grassley working to create a bipartisan solution, the amendment did not complete the job. There was still a long way to go.

Senator Kennedy offered amendment #4106. This amendment would increase penalties for labor violations of the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) and violations of OSHA and would direct 25% of the fees from the guest worker program to enforce FLSA and OSHA laws. It would also reverse a Supreme Court decision that bars illegal aliens from receiving back pay when employers engage in wrongful conduct.

Senator Kennedy said current penalties for violating labor laws are "shamefully low". The average fine for violating child labor laws is $718 and the average fine for violating OSHA is about $800. The number of workers dying on the job is increasing every year. The Senator argued there must be targeted enforcement to stop the abuse and exploitation of workers. When you have enforcement and compliance, you save lives.

Senator Cornyn opposed the Kennedy amendment. He said the amendment was beyond the scope of the bill and the "delicate compromise" that had been reached. He said the irony of this amendment would be that we would be giving foreign workers more protections than U.S. workers.

Senator Isakson also opposed the Kennedy amendment. He said the amendment does not address immigrants—it addresses everyone. Senator Isakson said that his committee has been working for months to craft the Mine Safety Act, which was related to some of these proposals. He said to come to the floor and tack on changes to a controversial immigration bill violated the integrity of the committee system. He urged his colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Senator Specter also rose in opposition to the Kennedy amendment. He said the amendment proposed sweeping changes in the FLSA and OSHA. He said there have been no hearings on these proposals.

Senator Kennedy responded that he was trying to increase penalties in labor laws that hadn't been increased in many years. He said he was trying to make sure these provisions got to conference committee.

Senator Durbin offered amendment #4142. This amendment would authorize the Attorney General or the Department of Homeland Security to waive deportation on humanitarian grounds when it would cause extreme hardship to a legal permanent resident or a citizen. Senator Durbin argued that the bill's provisions are so broad, they have potential to sweep up legal permanent residents and separate them from their families. One example of how this might work is the definition of aggravated felony, which is expanded under the bill to include aiding and abetting.

Senator Durbin said that his amendment closely followed the Cornyn-Kyl felony amendment passed last week. It created a limited waiver for deportation of an immediate family member where extreme hardship is proven by the alien. The amendment was further limited because the deportation to be waived could only come as a consequence of the expanded provisions in S.2611. He noted that the waiver did not apply to national security cases.

Senator Cornyn opposed the Durbin amendment. He said he appreciated that Senator Durbin was trying to follow the framework of his earlier amendment, but that the waiver here applies to a completely different class of people. This amendment, the Senator said, would result in the waiver of grounds for inadmissibility for about 6 million illegal aliens who have a citizen spouse or child. In addition the amendment has no standards to guide discretion, further putting the results in question.

Senator Durbin asked Senator Cornyn to reconsider his position. He said that it was fair to treat those here legally the same as those here illegally.

Senator Cornyn said the Durbin amendment was a backdoor way of undermining the compromise.

There was a motion to table the Leahy amendment (#4117). The motion prevailed, 79-19.

There was a roll call vote on the Grassley amendment (#4177). The amendment passed, 58-40.

There was a motion to table the Kennedy amendment (#4106). The motion prevailed, 56-41.

There was a motion to table the Durbin amendment (#4142). The motion prevailed, 63-34.

Senator Sessions rose to speak generally about S.2611. He said the bill is even worse than his colleagues think it is. He referenced the comments of Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation, who called the bill a fiscal catastrophe that represented the greatest increase in welfare in 35 years. He said that he intended to offer a budget point of order because of the extreme costs of the bill.

Senator Sessions said that the drafters' agenda was not to meet the expectations of the American people, it was to create a façade and appearance of enforcement. The Senator said that he and his staff attorneys had read carefully through the bill and created a list of "Sneaky Lawyer Tricks" that were scattered throughout the bill. He discussed numerous provisions, including the misleading title of the H-2C program, which the bill misrepresented by calling it a "temporary guest worker program." Another provision was the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes before receiving legal status. Senator Sessions said that if you read the bill closely, you see that they only have to pay taxes for 3 out of the last 5 years they had worked. He also stated that an alien tax liability places a burden on the IRS. "This is really an utter joke," he said. What about U.S. citizens? Do they get to pick and choose which years they are going to pay taxes?

Senator Sessions concluded by saying that S.2611 should not become law and that it will come back as an embarrassment to those who supported it. It's not acceptable, he said, to say let's just pass something and get it to conference and maybe the House will save us.

Senate Majority Leader Frist then announced that the Senate would reconvene in on Wednesday, May 24 at 8:30 am. Senator Frist said there would be a vote on the cloture motion at 10 am and that he expected the motion to pass. He added that there may be more amendments after the cloture motion, but that he expected the bill to pass either Wednesday or Thursday. The Senate adjourned at approximately 8:25 pm.

Stay tuned to FAIR for more Senate updates.