Narrative on Senate Debate Yesterday

Day 3

The Senate reconvened at 9:15 am on Wednesday May 17 to continue debate on S.2611, the guest worker amnesty bill authored by Senators Specter, Hagel, and Martinez. The Senate floor was active with a number of amendments offered and votes taken. Late in the afternoon debate stalled as members negotiated the order of the amendments to be heard on the floor.

The debate began with Senator Cornyn renewing debate on amendment # 4027, which he and Senator Kyl authored. He noted that the previous round of debates in early April had been derailed, but that things appeared to be back on track. He said that his amendment was designed to make sure that felons cannot take advantage of the amnesty program. He added that the amendment also bars absconders from receiving amnesty.

Senator McCain stated that the Senators had reached a careful balance on this amendment. He assured other Senators that this amendment was the product of long, arduous negotiations and that certain exceptions were built-in based on members' concerns.

Senator Graham, like yesterday, complimented the staff for their work. He said that this amendment serves as a model for how we should go forward as a nation on the immigration debate. The Senator said he had no sympathy for serious criminals. They do not add to American society and ought to be kept out. He said they had no one to blame but themselves. However, he said, there is a group of aliens who have done nothing wrong other than violate the immigration laws. For them, DHS may grant waivers for humanitarian reasons or for aliens who claim no notice that they are subject to deportation proceedings. The Senator stated that the amendment recognized that "one size does not fit all."

Senator Durbin remarked that this amendment was a dramatic improvement from the earlier version (offered in April). He endorsed Senator Graham's comments.

Senator Kennedy stated that the compromise reached on the amendment yesterday strengthens the waiver provision and that a waiver is available to aliens whose only offense is a violation of the immigration laws, but not to other criminals.

A roll call vote was taken on the Cornyn amendment (#4027). The amendment passed, 99-0.

Senator Sessions then offered amendment #3979. This amendment authorized the construction of approximately 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. The fencing would be concentrated in urban areas. He argued that "good fences make good neighbors," and asked for anyone who doubted whether they work to go down and talk to residents living along the border near San Diego. "We've got to do this," he said. "It's time to move forward." The fence does not have to be 100% impenetrable, he argued. It just has to be good enough to slow illegal aliens so the border patrol can catch them.

Senator Nelson stood up in favor of the amendment. He said, "not only do we need to address typical foot and vehicle traffic across the border," we need to address drug and gang traffic across the border. Senator Nelson said he never thought that he would be introducing an amendment to build a fence, but then again he never thought he would see the border problem we have today. This problem, he said, has continued to worsen and as the Senate debate continues, the percentage of aliens coming into the country continues to rise in anticipation of a legalization program.

Senator Nelson argued that if we continue to try to solve all of our immigration problems and do everything in one bill it will be hard to reconcile it with the House version. We need to be practical, pass a border security bill, then deal with those who are here illegally. We don't have to be mean-spirited, he said. We just have to apply some common sense. We can't do everything in one package and do it effectively.

Senator Gregg rose and asked to take a slight detour in the debate to comment more generally on funding for border security. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that deals with border security, he said he wanted to put what was happening into perspective and went on to describe the recent debate over border security funding.

Senator Gregg described, how two years ago, his subcommittee had reoriented border security funding to address the most serious threats. The Senator said the threat on the top of the list was weapons of mass destruction. The second most serious threat was the porous border. At that time, the President proposed 201 additional border patrol agents and no additional technical ability. His committee changed that to 8,000 border patrol agents over 5 years. Unfortunately they had to go slow add new agents because the training facilities weren't available. Senator Gregg said that since the subcommittee felt they also had to address detention space, they increased the number of detention beds by 2,000.

The Senator went on to say that, in this budget, the White House did look at border security. The administration proposed adding 1,500 border patrol agents, 2,000 detention beds and a relatively small amount of money for the coast guard. "However," said the Senator, "the White House didn't really fund it." That is, they used a source of funding (increased airline fees) that Senators had rejected before and which the White House knew they would reject again. This left him and Senator Cochran (chairman of the entire appropriations committee) with the responsibility of finding a funding source.

Senator Gregg then added how he and the subcommittee had been working on a capital infusion to the border security budget for over a year. He described how the planes were 30 to 40 years past their useful life and that the helicopters were at least 20 years past their useful life. As for unmanned aerial vehicles, there was one, which crashed two weeks ago. The earliest replacement date for that plane would be in August. In short, Senator Gregg said that the fleet that supports border security activities was grounded this year because it was so poor.

As a result, explained Senator Gregg, this year his committee had managed to get $1.9 billion appropriated for these border security capital projects. However, now the President was proposing to use his capital project money to fund the National Guard at the border and other operational activities. Senator Gregg said that he has now been told that his $1.9 billion capital projects fund is nonexistent.

Senator Gregg concluded by saying that the pressure on the budget will be significant this year and that he now has a multi-billion dollar hole in his budget. Upon questioning from other Senators, Senator Gregg said he felt fencing was important and, in fact, some of the $1.9 billion capital projects funding was to go to fencing. He said he opposed a fence across the whole border because he thought it would be a waste of money.

Senator Vitter voiced his "strong support" for the Sessions amendment and said that everyone in the chamber should vote for it. The fence, he said, is not the only element of border security, but it is an important one. He argued that the amendment did not require the construction of a fence across the entire border, but rather was a modest, more focused measure that will serve as a force multiplier. In addition, he said, the length of the fencing did not come out of the blue; it came out of concrete discussions with Secretary Chertoff. The Senator described the amendment as a "gut check that the American people can understand easily." He said that a vote against the amendment will show that the member is not truly serious about border security.

Senator Kennedy stood in opposition to the amendment. He said there was already fencing in the bill plus many other enforcement provisions. He argued that nearly 400 miles of fence makes up a quarter of the border and approving that much would serve as a "down payment" on an entire border fence. "Let's be realistic," said the Senator. "Are you trying to tell me that this is all urban areas?"

Senator Kennedy said that part of border security is a guest worker program, which will lessen the pressure on the border. Plus, he said, there is nothing in the legislation that prevents the Secretary of Homeland Security from using his current resources to target urban areas if he wants. Security at the border required a multi-dimensional approach. To think fencing will solve the problem defies history. The Senator argued that the fence in San Diego did nothing to ease the pressure on the border but just drove aliens out into the desert where they died in much larger numbers.

Senator Kyl declared his strong support for the Sessions amendment. He said the Sessions amendment included the language for Arizona fencing he added in committee. In addition to that, he explained, the amendment includes fencing in urban areas in New Mexico and Texas. The Senator said that in drafting that language, he had closely consulted with the Border Patrol. He said that the Border Patrol said that in some areas the fencing needed repair and replacing. The Border Patrol was particularly interested in replacing the opaque sheet metal used with chain link fencing, so they could see through it and better monitor who is on the other side. That would both protect border patrol agents and help them do their jobs better.

Senator Kyl explained that the miles of fencing in the amendment was the result of a simple formula. There were over 300 towns along the border and the Border Patrol requested that the fence go out 10 miles from each town. He said that if anyone has questions on whether the fence works, they should look at San Diego where the crime rate has dropped 56% in the decade the fence was built.

Senator Cornyn also voiced his support for the Sessions amendment. The Senator said that his opinion of the fence has grown over time as he has heard more and more experts testify on it. He said he felt the reason why it is so controversial is that people see it as a powerful symbol. However, Senator Cornyn stated that he now feels that fencing helps the Border Patrol secure the border. As an aside, he said it was an interesting fact that the U.S. government could train 250,000 Iraqi soldiers, but was yet unable to train an additional 1,500 Border Patrol agents. He concluded by saying a fence was what the Border Patrol needs and that we have an obligation to give it to them.

Senator Durbin opposed the Sessions Amendment. He said the fence was a symbol for the right wing in American politics. The Senator argued that since the House wants to build a 2000 mile fence, we will end up splitting the difference at 1,000 miles. He asked what fence is there that people can't go over, under, or around? Technology that we have might be much better. Moreover, he stated, we should have a more positive outlook on working with the Mexican government to curb illegal immigration. The fence will not protect America, it will not stop the flow of illegal immigration, but it will serve as a symbol.

Senator Kennedy argued that when the fence was built in San Diego, at first, the estimate was $14 million. However, the cost ended up being $42 million—200% over budget. Some of the costs per mile were increased because of difficult terrain. The apprehensions in San Diego might have dropped, but they dramatically increased in Arizona. This is just a shifting of migration patterns. Senator Kennedy stated that fences are grossly inadequate for security and that we need "real security." We are talking billions of dollars with no effective outcome, he said. There are better, more effective ways to secure the border.

Senator Sessions stood up and said, "We are at a point where people want to see a lawful system of immigration." This amendment, he said, is supported by the Administration and will serve as a force multiplier. The Senator said he was "amused" at Senator Durbin's argument that negotiations with the House would result in 1,000 miles of fencing since the House had only approved 700 miles. He noted that statistics in San Diego showed that the fence worked. Apprehensions had dropped by 80% and the amount of drugs confiscated has also dropped dramatically. The Senator concluded by saying we need to change the perception and reality of how we are doing business—that there is no longer an open border. We must reach a tipping point where people realize it makes more sense to apply to come legally than to come illegally.

Senator Specter supported the amendment, calling it "reasonable." He said the administration had made a detailed analysis of what they felt were their fencing needs and that these were provided to the Judiciary committee a couple of weeks ago.

[The vote on the Sessions amendment was delayed until later in the day.]

Senator Vitter introduced amendment #3963, which proposed stripping S.2611 of the amnesty provisions. Senator Vitter said he was very fearful that we are repeating history, but on a much larger, more dangerous scale. He said that while passions on this issue run deep, no one gets up to say they are in favor of amnesty. "What is amnesty?" he asked. The President said that amnesty means an automatic path to citizenship. Outlining the various requirements of the amnesty program, Senator Vitter argued that the requirements are so minimal they essentially constitute an automatic path to citizenship.

Senator Vitter continued by comparing S.2611 to the amnesty bill in 1986 and concluding that the similarities were striking. He said the arguments for the bill in 1986 are also strikingly similar to the arguments made in favor of S.2611 today. Yet, he said, INS statistics show that the amnesty increased illegal immigration. In 1986 they promised we would get tough on enforcement. They promised. But the bill calls for amnesty right away and everyone knows border security cannot be achieved for at least a few years.

Senator McCain rose and emphatically declared, "Of course it's not amnesty." The definition of amnesty is forgiveness, he said, and we are not forgiving anyone. The Senator said he was growing a little weary of the amnesty argument, and said we ought to be debating the merits not labels. He argued that the status quo was not acceptable and yet neither was mass deportation. Or, he said, the alternative was to make it clear illegal aliens would have to pay a severe penalty to stay.

Senator Chambliss said he strongly supported the Vitter amendment. He said amnesty has been tried before and does not work. Talking specifically about the agricultural worker provisions, he argued that the thresholds for gaining amnesty were so weak that we are in danger of repeating the 1986 amnesty. Moreover, he stated, these low requirements were unfair to other immigrants who came here legally. He added that the amnesty will not really help the agriculture industry anyway, since research shows that once workers gain legal status, they abandon agricultural work for better paying work with better conditions. Senator Chambliss asked why they had to make a connection between citizenship and immigration reform. He said the best way to help the agriculture industry was to reform the H-2A program.

Senator Hagel opposed the Vitter amendment. He said he was astounded that his colleagues get up and talk about amnesty. "Let's get the terms right and stop the nonsense," he said. These are criteria aliens must pass to even get on a path to citizenship. He said the President and Congress were showing leadership on this issue and that the Vitter amendment was irresponsible and did not present an alternative.

Senator Kennedy argued that the Vitter amendment undermined the comprehensive nature of the bill. "Those who say this is like 1986," he said, "are either distorting the record or haven't read the bill." If we accept the Vitter amendment exploitation of alien workers will continue and we will have a two-tiered society. We will have a permanent underclass.

Senator Graham opposed the Vitter amendment, but said he understood that Senator Vitter was speaking for a lot of people who want to take a different approach to immigration reform. He said these aliens will have a hard road ahead of them, but if they can make it to the end, they have earned their citizenship.

Senator Martinez also opposed the Vitter amendment. The Senator said he was "delighted" with the President's speech. He said they had tried to craft a compromise and, in doing so, created a three-tiered system. Senator Martinez described how he felt America was a welcoming society, and how it had welcomed him.

Senator Specter said he opposed the Vitter amendment. He said he did not believe America should have a fugitive class. We need to bring these people out of the shadows, he said. We would need to provide them incentives to come out. The Senator said we do not condone the breaking of the law or the breaking of the rule of law, but we are dealing with the problem as best we can. He said the bill did not provide an automatic guaranteed path to citizenship, but that it is earned.

Senator Craig opposed the Vitter amendment, and said the bill attempted to put some rationality into the system. The Vitter amendment, he said, wipes all of that out.

Senator Obama offered amendment #3971, which amends the prevailing wage provision in the guest worker program. The Senator explained that the bill as written only covers the wages of guest workers that fall under bargaining agreements or the Service Contract Act. The amendment provides that workers who do not fall under bargaining agreements or the Service Contract Act are subject to a prevailing wage calculated by Department of Labor statistical information.

The Obama amendment passed on a voice vote.

A roll call vote was then taken on the Sessions amendment (#3971). The amendment passed, 83-16.

Senator Leahy, on behalf of Senator Stevens, brought up amendment #4018, which extends the implementation date for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative from 2008 to 2009.

Amendment #4018 passed on a voice vote.

Senator Santorum offered amendment #4000, which expands the visa waiver program to European Union countries and countries sending a certain number of troops to Iraq. There was little discussion on this amendment

The Santorum amendment (#4000) passed on a voice vote.

A roll call vote was then taken on the Vitter amendment (#3963). The amendment failed, 33-66.

Senator Cornyn then offered amendment # 3965. The Senator explained that his amendment made it harder for a guest worker to self-petition for permanent resident status. Under the amendment, before a guest worker is allowed to self-petition, the employer must confirm the offer of employment and the Department of Labor must certify that there are not sufficient U.S. workers to fill the position.

Senator Kennedy strongly opposed the Cornyn amendment, saying the change put too much power in the hands of the employer. This, he said would add to the abuse of alien workers because employers would threaten not to cooperate unless employees were willing to suffer substandard conditions.

The debate on the Cornyn amendment went back and forth along the same lines. A roll call vote was taken on the amendment (#3965). The amendment passed 50-48.

Near the end of the day, there was a little discussion of other amendments, but no votes were taken and debate was scheduled to resume at 9 am on Thursday. Stay tuned for more Senate updates from FAIR.