Thread: CSpan2: Senate Judiciary Hearing-Immigration Right Now!

ProudAmericanFamily wrote:

I took it as cynical sarcasm.....people with self important grandiose ideas who are manipulating to get their way.

Sounds about right to me.

I'm on vacation now in Orlando where some of the billboards are in Spanish. I was very depressed on Sunday at Epcot. I'd say half the visitors spoke Spanish, but something was going on--maybe "Take an Illegal to Disney Day". Hasn't been like that since. I know something was up because I saw a woman with about 5 kids who had 3 of them in yellow t-shirts with NAU on the front. I didn't have time to stop and see if it was for North American Union or what, but it seemed suspicious, given the make-up of the crowd. I would have gotten into it with her if I'd been by myself!

Called Jeff Sessions office yesterday, trying to get aligned with his immigration aide.

Read in an article one Rep said that Congress wants to sell citizenship to people who broke our laws (illegals). That's a good analyisis and one we need to start using in our calls!!!

know something was up because I saw a woman with about 5 kids who had 3 of them in yellow t-shirts with NAU on the front

Originally Posted by olivermyboy

I'm on vacation now in Orlando where some of the billboards are in Spanish. I was very depressed on Sunday at Epcot. I'd say half the visitors spoke Spanish, but something was going on--maybe "Take an Illegal to Disney Day". Hasn't been like that since. I know something was up because I saw a woman with about 5 kids who had 3 of them in yellow t-shirts with NAU on the front. I didn't have time to stop and see if it was for North American Union or what, but it seemed suspicious, given the make-up of the crowd. I would have gotten into it with her if I'd been by myself!

Called Jeff Sessions office yesterday, trying to get aligned with his immigration aide.

Read in an article one Rep said that Congress wants to sell citizenship to people who broke our laws (illegals). That's a good analyisis and one we need to start using in our calls!!!

Oliver, Sis: I wouldn't jump to a conclusion on that. Here's a tidbit which probably is not well known outside of my fair city... This is all IIRC....

The son of Dick Van Dyke (I forget his first name) is an entrepreneurial businessman. Within that last year or two has started a new environmentally-friendly clothing retail outlet (my words only), anyway, they are based here in the Portland area, and are branching out into sales in other large US cities. The name of the business is, ironically, 'NAU'.
They pride themselves on donating a certain % of their gross profit to environmental charities. The real irony, is that they still do their textile production overseas - as in importation from large Asian cheap labor centers... - yeah, I know, go figure.

Here's a link as evidence:

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/sto ... %5E1325246

Here is the text of Sessions' speech -

http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/new ... ?id=273798

Senate Floor Statement of Senator Sessions

SENATE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon to follow up on my remarks of last evening about concerns I have involving the immigration process that is ongoing in the Senate and what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, has indicated he plans to do.

I absolutely believe a framework exists for us to develop comprehensive immigration reform that can be worthy of the American people, to create a lawful system of immigration that will work. It will be difficult in a number of areas, but we can do that. A framework is being discussed, I know, because I have seen the PowerPoint presentations and some of the other discussions about it. A framework exists that could lead to effective immigration reform. There is no doubt that this Nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. The legal system is an embarrassment to us as a nation and a source of frustration to the American people. They rightly are concerned about it, and politicians don't seem to be. That is why we have had a problem for so long, and frustration and anger gets built up. People sometimes call in to radio stations and say things they shouldn't say that are unkind. A lot of it is a direct response to a failure of the Congress and the executive branch to do what is required to create a lawful system of immigration. For Heaven's sake, don't we all agree with that concept, a lawful system of immigration?

What interests should it serve? It should serve the national interest, the American interest. I asked Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security and Secretary Gutierrez of Commerce at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee not long ago, what should a lawful system of immigration do? Should it not serve the national interest? They said: Yes, sir.

Professor Borjas, a Cuban refugee, at Harvard has written a book on immigration. He said: If you tell me what interest you wish to serve, I can help you draft an immigration policy that will work. For example, if you say it should be the national interest, I can help you achieve that. If you want to serve the interest of poor people around the world, I can help achieve that. He basically said in his book ``Heaven's Door,'' we could serve poor people around the world by just letting them all in. That would be in their interest. We know that. In 2000, we had 11 million people apply for 50,000 lottery slots. The names are drawn out of a hat randomly. Only 50,000 are drawn out a year. We had 11 million apply for those slots.

We have to look at the basics. More people want to come to this country than we can accept, and those whom we accept should be based on what is in our interest. How much more simple can it be than that? I submit that is a moral and legitimate basis.

We always have a humanitarian component to immigration. I would not reduce that. About 16 percent of those who come, thereabouts, are for humanitarian reasons. I think we will always want to have that available for people who are persecuted or otherwise need humanitarian relief. Fundamentally, the rest of our program ought to serve the national interest.

This is what has happened. There are supposedly bipartisan discussions going on--and I know they are going on--to try to take the framework that has been agreed on by the President, Cabinet members, and some Members and to flesh that out and develop an immigration policy. That hasn't reached fruition. I understand some of the leaders on the Democratic side have walked away. They are not prepared to follow through on the overall agenda item for a given area, this framework. When you start writing down the words that will actually effectuate what you promise to do, then people start backing off.

I have said a number of times on the floor that we have a great deal of interest in immigration reform, except that we need a lawful system which will work. If it is a system that will actually work, we find immediately people start objecting.

Senator Reid has said these negotiators--I sometimes want to call them masters of the universe; I don't know who selected them--are meeting here and they are deciding the fate of American immigration. I want to say, well, let's see what they produce. I have told my constituents I hope they will discuss it, and maybe some agreement can be reached, one I could support. But I

[Page: S5692] GPO's PDF

promised my constituents--and every Senator ought to make this commitment--that I am going to read that bill. Just because people have great sounding words, if you don't read the words carefully and what they will actually mean in the effort to enforce immigration law, then you don't know what you are going to get. You are going to end up as we did in 1986, with a program that was an utter failure. The one we had last year would never have worked. It would have been a disastrous failure. It had no chance of being successful or ever achieving the ideas it purported.

Senator Reid apparently is unhappy. He has the power, as the Democratic leader, to call up any piece of legislation he wants to call up. He has said: I am not happy with the speed of this. He has said he is going to call up, under the power of the majority leader under rule XIV, last year's bill, and that this will be on the floor. Then he will want the negotiators to continue to negotiate, and maybe they will figure out what would be better. Then he might substitute this newly negotiated bill that hasn't been written yet--nobody has seen a word of it--and then we will vote. That will make everybody happy.

Let me say this, with all sincerity: The American people know immigration is a big issue. It is an important issue; it really is. It says a lot about the nature of this country. Are we going to be a country that the world knows has laws that are never enforced, that our immigration policies make a mockery of the law, as they do today? Will we continue to see people all over the world get the idea in their heads--correct today, basically--that if they can just get into America, sooner or later we will make them citizens and give them everything, even if they came illegally? Is that the kind of message we want to send?

Senator Reid has said he is going to bring up last year's bill.

He also indicated that after last year's bill is introduced and maybe a compromise would be reached. Maybe they would substitute this compromise as a new bill which we have never seen before, nor the words in it.

Let me tell my colleagues, an immigration bill is not an itty-bitty thing. An immigration bill consists of a lot of pages. A group of us, about 15 of us, wrote to the majority leader and asked that we have 7 days--I thought that was way too short--to read the bill. Isn't that pathetic? The immigration bill last year was 700-plus pages. Seven hundred pages. This never before seen compromise version may be longer. At least last year's bill came out of the Judiciary Committee, and we had a chance to argue over it in there, although the train ran right through the Judiciary Committee and it ran through--basically through the floor of the Senate. But we began to read it before it was over, and I remember making a speech down here, several speeches, pointing out 17 loopholes in that bill, fatal flaws in the legislation. But anyway, it passed, but the House refused to even consider it.

Based on what was in the New York Times and Rollcall or The Hill or one of the publications, the plan would then presumably be for Senator Reid to bring up last year's bill, which is unthinkable, in my view. It was fatally flawed. We will stay on that bill for some time, and then perhaps they will plop on it a substitute and take out all or parts of last year's bill and substitute an entirely new bill, 600, 700 or 800 pages, and then we will vote on it. That will be good for the masters of the universe, you see, because when you do that, there would not be time for the American people or for Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh to find out what is in it and to tell the American people what is in it so they can get mad about it. That is basically what it is about. They want to slide it through with the least possible time to discuss it. I think that is irresponsible. It is wrong.

We should spend plenty of time on this legislation. We should go to the American people with honesty and integrity and tell them: Some of the things you want to do, Mr. and Mrs. America, we can't do. We are not going to be able to make immigration come out exactly like you would want it or exactly like I would want it. We are going to have to reach a compromise, but we understand we have a commitment to you, and that commitment is to create a system that will work in the future.

But I am worried about it because from what I am hearing, the system seems to be moving in a way that is going to create an opportunity to vote on a completely unseen immigration bill--nobody has read it except a little group--and move it through this Senate. Now, remember, the bill that passed last year was a bad piece of legislation, but it did pass this Senate. People thought it would die in the House, and sure enough, it did die in the House and it was never considered. They wouldn't even look at it. But I am not sure that is going to happen this time.

So we may have this plan in the works, and it will work something akin to this: Well, we spend 2 or 3 days talking about immigration, burning time and filibustering, filing cloture on a motion to proceed, and we get on the bill for a day or two and then all of a sudden a new bill comes on and in a day or two, it is passed. Hardly anybody knows what is in it or has had a chance to read it. Then it goes to the House of Representatives, where the Democratic majority now has a 15 seat, 16 seat or so majority over there; some of the Republicans would clearly be in favor of whatever passed out of the Senate. They don't have any way to delay votes over there, so the bill could be brought up and passed, the same bill, without any amendment. That could happen. Then it goes to the President and he signs it and then we will find out 2, 3 or 4 years from now whether it works.

I don't think it is going to work. I am worried about it. I am worried about it. I am worried there is not a commitment among the executive branch to enforce the immigration laws.

Anybody who would like to be elected President--the new executive branch leader has a commitment to ensuring a lawful system of immigration. That is all the American people want. They are not saying they don't want any immigrants in America.

So I am saying this because I am concerned this is where we are headed. I think it is unhealthy for the Senate. If we do that, we would have failed in an august responsibility. This is the body that is supposed to let the passions cool, where Senators look over important issues, think them through, and then make a decision on them. Also, the delay and the slowdown that goes on in the Senate is helpful so the American people can be advised on what their representatives are actually doing. So I am worried about it, and Senator Reid's strategy is frightening to me.

So let me repeat: I believe the framework that has been mentioned for the drafting of a comprehensive immigration reform bill actually has the potential to be successful. But based on my experience in the 10 years I have been in the Senate and the debate we have seen on immigration, I am inclined to believe they will have positive-sounding words on the headlines in big print, but the real language will not effectuate the promises they make or the goals they set. We could end up with no progress whatsoever. We could end up with amnesty and no enforcement in the future.

That is what happened in 1986. If you remember, in 1986, they said there are probably a million people in the country illegally. The system was not working. We had to do something, so we should grant amnesty to the people who came illegally, contrary to law, and then we would develop a new system in the

future so that this would be the amnesty to end all amnesties. There would be no more amnesties. Well, 3 million people showed up to take advantage of it rather than 1 million people, and in the 20-plus years--21 years--since, we now have found in our country an estimated 12 million to 20 million people here illegally. So now we want to, I guess, give amnesty again on a promise that we will have a system that will work in the future. But the American people, you see, are cynical about it. They are not comfortable with us anymore on this subject, and frankly they are right to be cynical. Because there are a lot of special interests out there who are asking for what is in their interests but not what is in the national interests. It is time for us to consider what is in the national interests and do the right

[Page: S5693] GPO's PDF

thing on immigration. I firmly believe we will do a better job of writing a bill that will work, a bill that will serve our national interests, that will create a lawful immigration system, if the American people know what is going on, because that is what they want.

The American people have been consistently right on this issue. Their instincts have been right consistently. Oh, there are some nutty folks out here who are mean spirited, there is no doubt about that, but they represent a very small number. The basic feeling of the American people is sound on immigration and has been. It is the Congress and the executive branches that have failed them for 50 years. We don't have to continue to fail the American people. We have a responsibility to make it work, and I am hopeful that in the discussions for the first time with Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez helping behind the scenes to develop some plans that would actually work, we might even get this thing done. There is some possibility. I wouldn't have believed it, but now I am beginning to think it is possible.

But if at the last minute the special interest groups who seem to have dominated last year get their way, we would not be able to pass the bill we can be proud of. We would not pass a bill that will work, and we will be back in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now, dealing with another crisis.

So I will not go on anymore about it. I will mention what the framework, as I understood it, contained, that these PowerPoint presentations that were shown around and got leaked to the press, it has real improvement in border enforcement. We need that. That is essential. If you are serious about immigration, you want border enforcement. It set up as a goal a very effective job workplace enforcement, something that could actually work, using biometric identifying cards, helping the businesses and telling them exactly what they need to do so they can't be prosecuted or sued for doing something wrong. They are told exactly what to do and what will work. We can make the workplace cease to be the magnet for illegal jobs. That is very important, and it can be done. We need to deal compassionately and realistically with the people who are here illegally, but I don't believe that someone who broke the law in our country should be given every single benefit that we give to those who come lawfully. We will have to wrestle with that, and nobody is going to be happy, I am sure, with the way that comes out. That is the way it is with any big piece of legislation.

We need a genuine temporary seasonal worker program that is separate and apart from the program that would allow people to come into the country on a citizenship track. On the basic entry, citizenship entry into the United States, we need to be far more similar to Canada, which has a merit-based, skill-based system that evaluates applicants on what they bring to Canada: Do you speak English? Do you have an education? Do you have skills that Canada needs? It is a skill-based point system. It is objective and fair, and it serves the Canadian interests, and they are very happy with it. So is Australia, so is New Zealand, and I think the United Kingdom is also moving forward in this direction. A merit-based point system can actually be a framework for success. I understand that is being discussed. We do not need to promote such a framework, and then vote on a bill that doesn't create the merit-based point system when you read the fine print. That would be a failure.

So those are my concerns, and I will object with every ability I have, I will utilize every tool I have to ensure that whatever bill hits this floor, that Senators and the American people have time to evaluate it and an opportunity to know what is in it. But there are ways that this time and opportunity can be denied if the leadership is determined and can get the support. We could deny the American people that right, and it would be wrong to do so.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

And here is Sessions' speech from the previous evening-

http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/new ... ?id=273711

Senate Floor Statement of Senator Sessions

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Monday, May 7, 2007

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I hope we are not moving forward with a plan that would introduce the immigration bill we considered in the Senate last year. That is what I am hearing. I believe there are talks ongoing today--bipartisan talks--talks in which the White House and other members of the President's Cabinet are participating where they are at least talking about a framework of a comprehensive immigration reform of which we could be proud.

The bill that was introduced last year was fatally flawed. It was not the kind of legislation we should have passed. If it had been passed, it would never have worked and would have been an embarrassment to the Senate. I cannot say how strongly I believe that to be true. There was no way we could repair that bill by amendment. I talked about that last year. It was important that we start over with a new piece of legislation. We worked on it, and a majority of the Republicans in the Senate, last year, voted against the bill. The House refused to even consider it. They would not take it up. Four Democrats voted against the bill last year.

So the only way to enact comprehensive immigration legislation is to start over and write a new bill on which both the Democrats and a majority of Republicans can agree. Until this week, I had hopes that was ongoing. I have not been in the detailed negotiations, but I have been briefed on some of the framework for reform that, to me, is very consistent with what I pleaded with my colleagues last year to do.

Now, over the past several weeks, up to 10 Members of the Senate have been actively meeting to write a new bill. They started with the principles laid out by the White House in a 23-page Powerpoint that promptly got leaked. Maybe they wanted it leaked. I don't know. Those Powerpoints just have one or two lines. They do not have fine print. But they do set fourth agenda items and principles.

The principles laid out in that Powerpoint are much closer to a bill I could support and I think the American people would be willing to support.

This is what they included in that presentation. Although I am not involved in the details, I think it is what Members are discussing at this moment--have been discussing, at least. Apparently, people periodically walk away from the discussions, and they say this isn't good enough or I don't like this, but that is negotiation, hopefully, and we can work forward with it. Let me just tell you some of the things that are in this bill that were not in last year's legislation.

There is an enforcement trigger. Before any new immigration programs or green card adjustments could begin, the principles in the Powerpoint would require an ``enforcement trigger'' to be met. Senator Isakson from Georgia offered that. He basically said: We are not going to trust you this time--the American people are not. We want to see that you follow through on the things that are critical to a lawful immigration system before we pass the green card adjustments and deal with those other issues.

It also requires that the Border Patrol be increased to the numbers agreed upon--with a total of 18,300. It is one thing to say we are going to authorize 18,000 Border Patrol agents, which I think is a minimum, really not sufficient to cover the border--but it is an increase of significance. We are not going to go forward with the bill until you actually hire them and put them on the payroll and train them and they are out there.

Also, 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing must be constructed. We talked about that, and I offered the amendment. It passed several times and eventually was passed last year.

The catch and release at the border must be ended. This idea of catching people at the border who have violated our immigration laws and have come into the country illegally--they are being taken inland, taken before some administrative officer or judge and released on bail and asked to come back. Well, 95 percent are not showing up. That is what they wanted to do: to be brought into America. They were released on bail. Nobody ever went out and found them or looked for them. It is just a broken system. It is not working. Those are things that are part of the trigger as to what has to be fixed before we go forward with the legislation. That would be in the principles.

The future flow of temporary workers is critical. As to the future flow temporary worker program, the so-called Y visas--the principles outline a new program for truly temporary workers. The White House plan would admit new workers for 2 years and could be renewed three times, for a total of 6 years.

Between each 2-year period, workers would be required to return to their home countries for 6 months. Workers could not bring their spouses or their children but could return home to visit them if they choose. They would be able to go back and forth as often as they liked. There is no cap specified in the White House plan, but the plan envisions an annual cap set by the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, depending on American needs.

Workers would be eligible to apply for green cards through regular channels. Regular channels are adjusted to a more merit-based system. It would include a merit-based system. I think this is a great improvement over last year's legislation. But I have to tell you, I am concerned about people coming to stay more than 1 year because I think it becomes more and more difficult for them to leave. They are less likely to leave. Many of them are more likely to violate the law and just embed and stay. I think a 1-year plan would be far better. But those are things that are being talked about which would be substantially better than last year's legislation.

There is a seasonal worker program that makes much more sense than what was in last year's bill. The principles also contain a ``new and improved'' seasonal worker program that would combine the current agricultural--the H-2A plan--and unskilled--H-2B--seasonal worker programs. We combine those two programs, as they should be combined, because they are each for temporary workers.

Workers could remain in this country for 9 months at a time, under this proposal, and would be required to return to their home countries for 3 months in between. This is a temporary worker program that appears to be actually temporary, unlike last year's legislation, in which the temporary guest worker program in last year's immigration bill said an individual could come to this country temporarily, but they could bring their wife and children. They could come for 3 years. That 3 years could be extended

again and again and again. And they could apply for citizenship within the first year they got here. That was the temporary worker program last year. How broken was that? It would never have worked. People bring their children, they get settled in the country, a decade goes by. Who is going to be able to ask them to leave? What kind of painful scene would that be? Teachers, preachers, family members, neighbors--they have gotten to know people. They have a whole new mindset, an incorrect mindset.

The bill, last year, said ``temporary guest worker program,'' and this is what it was. It was really a permanent entry into the country for very extended periods of time where it could be difficult for people to leave.

Under this plan, the outline that is being discussed, they could actually work--and it is what I suggested last year--and spouses and children would remain in the worker's home country.

Renewals under the seasonal program would be unlimited, which may be problematic. We would need to discuss that some.

But these workers would also be eligible to apply for green cards under regular channels, if they are willing to compete against others on a merit-

[Page: S5671] GPO's PDF

based basis to see whether or not they could come.

Then the principles focus on a more merit-based entry policy into the United States. The principles I hear being discussed would eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery and some chain migration categories, such as brothers and sisters and adult siblings of U.S. citizens.

Green cards that have been given out for those individuals would be transferred over to a point system which selects legal permanent resident applicants based on merit. So I am concerned that the White House plan also appears to increase the total number of green cards available each year. Page 21 of the Powerpoint indicates that 1.4 million green cards would be available each year. We are at about 1 million now. That would be a 40-percent increase. I want to look at that carefully. But I like the idea of the entry being based on a more meritorious program.

They have a plan to clear the current backlog of green card applications, which also has dangers in that it could substantially increase the number of people who would come. I am not sure comprehensive immigration reform is designed to increase--at least the American people have an idea that it is designed to increase dramatically the number of people who come legally today. I don't think that is what most people have in mind when they think about immigration reform.

What about the population that is here today illegally? This plan that is being discussed would have given legal status to illegal aliens currently in the country through a new ``Z'' visa, which would be renewable indefinitely. Those holding Z visas will be eligible to apply for green cards through regular channels after they go back, ``touchback,'' across the border. But regular channels are adjusted to a more merit-based system. So they would have to compete with people who have other qualities and merits that may make them less likely to be admitted.

If these principles are the ones that form the framework for a newly drafted, bipartisan bill, then I think it is possible that we could successfully enact immigration reform this year.

Now, I cannot tell you that I am going to be able to vote for this plan in the end because I intend to read the fine print. That is what I learned last year. The rubric, the caption in the bill last year was ``temporary guest worker program'' in big print right in the middle of the bill. Then, when you read it, what did you find? We found that the individuals came here for 3 years, with their family, and they could reup, reup for 3 years, time and time again, and, frankly were never going to leave this country.

It was not a temporary guest worker program at all. It was a scheme to confuse the American people about the real meaning of it. In fact, I think it confused Senators. I think they thought it was a temporary worker program, and it absolutely was not. It would never have worked. But the people who wrote it--I think that was their plan. They never wanted it to work to begin with. That is the true fact about it. So the fine print could contain things that will not work.

So I think the framework, the outline, if we are honest and serious, could be the basis for a historic reform of immigration that could actually work, that we could actually be proud of. It is possible. But there are forces, special interests that are driving this process, and they do not respect the views of the American people. They want to ram it through on their terms, and they want to have it say what they want it to say.

This is what the news reports are saying, and I am getting very concerned about it. It is now being reported that instead of being patient and waiting for this new bipartisan bill to be completed and actually written up so people can read it, the majority leader, Senator Reid, is forcing the immigration bill to this floor Wednesday, May 9, the day after tomorrow. According to Roll Call, this morning:

According to an aide to Reid, the Majority leader is expected to bring up the ..... package passed by the Judiciary Committee last year ..... if negotiations produce a deal he will allow lawmakers to propose it as a substitute amendment. .....

Now, this plan is not a wise approach. Why do we want to bring up a piece of legislation that is fatally flawed, that should never, ever become law? I see no reason. I have one idea, though, or one suspicion I am going to discuss.

It puts undue pressure, an artificial timeline, on those who are trying to work through this extremely complex and important piece of legislation we do not need. We don't have to set that kind of deadline. What we need them to do is to spend the necessary time to produce a strong, thoughtful, bipartisan product that will actually work. That is what we need to do. Then we can vote for it with pride instead of trying to sneak it through this Senate without anybody knowing what is actually in it. As I said last week when I heard about this plan, the Democratic leadership acts as if this is another piece of everyday legislation, but it is not. The immigration bill is one of the most important to come through the Senate in the decade I have been here. I believe that. I think the American people understand that. So this option is not new.

In April, we heard news reports that the Democratic majority would be abandoning efforts to write a new bill and would be starting with the fatally flawed bill produced by the Judiciary Committee last Congress.

``Immigration Daily,'' an online immigration law publication, reported:

There is good reason to believe that the CIR--that is the Comprehensive Immigration Reform--

Language will finally be introduced on the Senate floor within 2 weeks or less. What will the CIR language look like? CIR begins with S. 2611, the McCain-Kennedy bill which cleared the Senate last year.

The New York Times reported a similar story:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has abandoned efforts to produce a new immigration bill and is proposing using legislation produced last March by the Senate Judiciary Committee as the starting point for negotiations this year. Mr. Kennedy dismissed the notion that his efforts to produce a new immigration bill had failed. He said he had decided that the committee report was the best starting point.

We have had extensive hearings on the essential aspects of this bill,

Mr. Kennedy said.

We are effectively ready to mark up and for going to the floor.

I am very disappointed--beyond disappointed--to hear those news reports. I have been pleased, I guess, today that so far these plans haven't come to fruition, that the majority has begun to engage or has continued to engage Republican Senators and the White House in a real effort to write a good bill. I hope that is what the majority will continue to do.

I hope the majority will abandon last year's fatally flawed bill, not start with it. It cannot be amended and an effective bill created. It means this cannot be the starting point to come to the floor with a new bill this Congress. I implore our leadership to continue trying to write a bill that a majority of Republicans could support, that is possible if we follow through on the real principles people are talking about and saying they can agree to.

It is not a question of the principles we are dealing with. The question is: Will we write the bill in such a way that the principles are carried out? That is the key thing. It was not done last year. In 1986, it was to be the amnesty to end all amnesties. They had 3 million people--I think they thought there were 2 million people--here illegally. They created amnesty for them and they promised we would pass a new law and that this new law would be such that we wouldn't have to do amnesty again. That was in 1986, 20 years ago. We had, it turned out, 3 million people who claimed the amnesty.

What has happened since? Now we have 12 million people here illegally--maybe 20 million--who knows for sure. So why wouldn't we learn from that? Why wouldn't we understand this is not a political football to be kicked down the field? This is important legislation that ought to be passed and written correctly, so 5 years from now, we can go to our constituents and say: We did something good. It is working as we promised you it would work. Why not?

Well, I will tell my colleagues what appears to me to be happening. By bringing up the old bill, last year's bill, which many people in this Senate voted for and probably still believe is good legislation, though it certainly is not, they can start it--they can start it and go forward with this bill that perhaps they never intend to be offered as the final legislation. You burn the time

[Page: S5672] GPO's PDF

on the motion to proceed to the bill for the bill to be discussed, and they can go past that and move to proceed to the bill, and then file for cloture on the bill, and then offer a substitute, 700, 800 pages. That is how many pages it was last year--over 600. If they write this one well this year, it should be more than that. They drop a 700, 800-page bill and substitute the old bill, and there is no time to debate

it, and they slide it right through, railroad time. I am telling my colleagues, that appears to me to be what it is about. That would be an abrogation of our responsibility.

The American people care about this legislation. The American people are not unengaged. They know something compassionate is going to have to be done about the 12 million people, but I think most people agree with me that someone who came here illegally should not be given every single benefit we give to somebody who comes here legally. We need to set a principle that we are not going to reward illegal behavior in the future. So you work something out on that, and you work something out on these other complex issues, and we set up a policy of immigration for the future that reflects some of the principles Canada has: its point system, its merit-based system. That was never discussed last year. Not one hint of it is in the bill Senator Reid is apparently intending to bring up on Wednesday.

How can we possibly talk about comprehensive immigration reform and never consider a merit-based immigration system? Isn't America based on merit? Don't we know far more people want to come here than can be accepted? Don't we know Australia does that, New Zealand does that, the United Kingdom is looking at that--all developed and highly sophisticated nations committed to humanity and civil rights, world leaders in that regard. Are their proposals somehow immoral and unfit? Of course not. Those ideas were not even discussed in last year's bill. So they say we might have something such as that in this legislation. Well, let's see it. Let's see what the words say. What is it going to say? Is it going to be like last year when it said ``temporary guest worker,'' and that was nothing but a sham when you read the fine print under it? Is that what we are going to get this year, a bill they ram through at the last minute, burning the time for debate so we have only the most minimal time to debate? Is that the plan? I hope the American people are keeping their eye on this one. They deserve more. The American people are concerned about immigration. It is an important issue. It is a very important issue to us.

We had a group from Ireland testify at the Judiciary Committee last year and they told us only 2,000 people got into our country from Ireland last year. We had over 1 million come in legally. What is this? How do we create a system that does not give people throughout the world an equal chance, an opportunity to apply to come to America? We need to work on that. We can do it. There is a framework here that, if fleshed out with good legislation, good language, enforceability, we can be proud of.

I am afraid that is not what we are doing. I am afraid there is an attempt here to move a fast one. I am afraid the masters of the universe who run this place, some on both sides of the aisle, don't want the American people to know what is in the bill. They don't trust them to be in on the negotiations. They want to do it and slide it through.

I remember last year we offered--someone offered a good amendment, I think it was the Isakson amendment, on a trigger, and one of the Senators said: Oh, we can't accept that amendment. Why not? We can't accept it because it would upset that delicate balance of negotiations with the parties who put this bill together. So I asked: Who were they? Who are these parties who put the bill together? Where did they meet? Did they have votes? Did people elect them to go in this caucus to write this piece of junk that was the bill last year? Who was that? Oh, they wouldn't talk about who actually wrote the bill. They wanted to ram it through, and nobody could amend it because it would upset their delicate compromise. Well, phooey on that. We need to do this in the light of day. We need to stand up and explain to our constituents and ask them to support a good bill, and we need to stand up and oppose a bill that is a bad bill. We are going to live with it, as we have lived for over 20 years now with 1986, that failed piece of legislation that had so much promise and people were so happy about when it passed, and it never worked.

There are several reasons we need to be cautious. You can put in a piece of legislation an authorization to add a bunch of Border Patrol officers or workplace enforcement rules, or you can put in an authorization to spend money to create a computer system that will actually work, and it can. We can create a system that will work, but authorizing doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean anything. You have to come up with money, and the money comes up in the years to come. If this Congress isn't serious about what it is doing and we pass a bill that authorizes a bunch of provisions that could actually help and be worthwhile and we never come up with the money to do it, the system is going to collapse as badly as it is right now.

We need a national debate, a national consensus on a good piece of legislation. The President needs to be committed to leading instead of undermining the enforcement of laws. They are getting a little better in the White House now, but Presidents in the past have had no interest whatsoever in seeing immigration laws passed. If they did, they would have come to Congress and said: We need more border enforcement, we need fencing, we need more Border Patrol, we need an end catch and release. They never came to Congress and said the law was not being enforced. American constituents talk to Members of Congress and the Members of the Senate and explain about the plain as day illegality that is going on, and the Congress is trying to make the system be enforced. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, is a former U.S. attorney. The President, the executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law, not the Congress. What do we know about how to catch all these people. They ought to be asking us for the laws. They should be telling us what is needed. But no, no, because nobody, not any President since 1986, has ever taken his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States seriously as they apply to immigration. So that is what we have.

I have points I will not go into tonight that detail the incredible flaws that existed in last year's bill.

Senator Specter offered a bill that I didn't favor, but it was better--he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee last year--it was better than the other two that arose. After he offered it in Judiciary Committee, we went on in a day or so, or two or three, and we had this deadline. Like Senator Reid, Senator Frist said: I have to have the bill out Monday. If you don't bring it out Monday, I am going to introduce another bill--a pretty good bill, actually, which was an enforcement-oriented bill. Also, the Judiciary Committee got in a flutter, and we ran around, and Senator Kennedy offered the substitute--Kennedy-McCain. The Specter bill was gone, and an entirely new Kennedy-McCain bill was on the floor. Then the controversial AgJOBS portion of immigration that had been floating around here and had been blocked over the years was offered up as an amendment to Kennedy-McCain, and it was added with no debate. We voted this out and it was on the floor, and the next day we were debating this 600-page bill.

That is not the way to do business in the Senate. My chief counsel here studied this legislation, and we read the fine print, that 600 pages, and when we looked at it, we were shocked at the loopholes it contained. We identified--and I spoke here several hours on it--17 loopholes in that legislation. It began to lose steam. We found out just, for example--mind you, Senator Reid, I understand from the New York Times and others, is talking about introducing the Judiciary Committee bill. This is what the Judiciary Committee bill would have done last year, the one that passed out of the Committee, the so-called McCain-Kennedy bill. Under current law, over the next 20 years, this Nation would issue 18.9 million green cards--quite a substantial number. Under the Kennedy-McCain bill passed out of committee last year--hold your hat--it would have been, at a minimum, 78 million over 20 years to

[Page: S5673] GPO's PDF

as many as 200 million. That is two-thirds of the current population of the United States of America. They tried to move that bill without amendments. I cannot recall the gymnastics they went through, but they were even denying Senators Kyl and Cornyn amendments they wanted to have, and Senator Reid wanted no amendments.

Finally, we began to have amendments. Senator Bingaman offered two amendments, eventually, as time went by. It was brought back the third time. They brought those numbers down from 78 million and 200 million to 53 million, almost 3 times the current rate of immigration.

So Senator Reid, as I understand it, according to a news report, is talking about bringing up the Judiciary Committee bill. This is not the 53 million people being brought in here permanently with a green card--permanent residents--but we would go back to the 78 million to 200 million. How amazing is that?

So I am just flabbergasted by the way this matter is being treated. There is only one way to do it; that is, we stand up like real Senators and we write a bill and work out a bill, and we give the Members of the Senate the time to read it, time for the American people to understand what is in it, and see if it can be amended and made better, and make sure it will actually work, not just be a political show--not some political sham but a piece of legislation that would actually work, and then we would pass it. We would be responsible to our constituents for a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote because we do need to pass comprehensive reform. I said that many times last year. Of course, we need that.

The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. Of course, we need to reform it from the ground up. But the legislation last year is no place to start. We don't need to be using some gimmick to get the bill up, with last year's language, and then substitute new language that nobody has read and ram it through the Senate. The American people should not be happy with that.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his patience and those who listened to my remarks. I believe we can do something better. I support real and genuine reform of immigration in America. I will support legislation that provides a compassionate solution to the people who have been here for years and have been dutiful, law-abiding people except for their illegal presence. We can work through those things.

We need a future flow system, much more like Canada's, much more like New Zealand's. We need a temporary worker program that is really temporary. We need a workplace enforcement system that the average employer will have no problem in following. We need a biometric, identifying cards for immigrant workers so they cannot be illegally forged. That is all possible to do if we want to do it--unless the people who are driving this bill, the architects of this, just want to go through the motions of creating an immigration system that would work, unless that is their plan, to just go through the motions and pass a bill that has no chance of being successful, just like we did in 1986, and 8 or 10 years later, they can say: We are heartbroken; we thought it was going to work.

I think we can do it, and I think we ought to do it. I hope the majority leader will not bring up the last year's bills--any one of them--and that he will bring up the bill that was drafted through this compromise process because I think it at least has some possibility to be a bill we could support, unlike the one last year, and then we can study it and debate it. The American people could be engaged in it, and we ought to stand up and vote and do the right thing for America.

I yield the floor.

For the last hour Sessions was in a photo op session.....just returned my call.

HE WILL NOT VOTE FOR AMNESTY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. Nor does he want a guest worker program.

I wish everyone would email a republican senator or representative and tell them that if amnesty passes, the dems will take credit and hell will freeze over before they (the republicans) gain control of the government again.

As with every senator or rep I can find who is against amnesty, I email them to stand strong.