Kennedy had the floor prior to Sessions. This leads with his comments, then Sessions delivered his comments on the amendment. It was then voted on.

######

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the matter directly before the Senate, the Sessions amendment, the amendment bars employers from receiving Government contracts if they have violated the immigration laws that prohibit the hiring of illegal workers. There is no judicial review, but the Attorney General can waive the prohibition or limit the scope if it is necessary to the national defense or in the interests of national security. An exemption from the penalty is provided to employers participating in the basic pilot program, the current employer verification system.

This amendment bars employers from receiving Government contracts if they violate the immigration laws that prohibit the hiring of illegal workers. I am surprised that is not already the law. We certainly should bar them from receiving lucrative Government contracts and, therefore, I will support this amendment.

I do have concerns, however, about continuing to pass piecemeal enforcement-only measures without enacting a comprehensive reform program, and I would express reservations about others.

We will have the opportunity in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I happen to be the chairman of the immigration subcommittee at this time, to consider the immigration bill. We welcome the full opportunity to debate and discuss those issues in the subcommittee, the full committee, and in the Senate. I will support this amendment and withhold the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS. How much time remains on this side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 15 seconds.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we want higher wages for American workers. This is important. I would like to see them receive $15, $20, $30 an hour, not $7 an hour. I would like to create economic forces to work so the average worker can benefit from that without some sort of Government wage control. I have voted for minimum wage increases.

We are going to move this bill forward, as I understand it, with a package of relief provisions for small businesses, and it will be passed. But we are not through yet with some relevant, important amendments. Is that what my colleagues object to? They certainly did not object to it when the Republicans were moving bills through the Senate last year or the year before. Senator Kennedy can file a stack of amendments 2 feet thick if he desires. There is nothing wrong with offering some amendments, and we will move forward.

I will say a couple of things about it. We had amendments in the Senate almost every year in recent years--3, 4, 5 years--that would have raised the minimum wage and would have provided relief for small business. But the Democratic leadership, to make a political point, preferred not to have that and blocked that provision, voting only for their pure increase of the minimum wage.

So we are at this standoff that I think is particularly silly in light of the fact now that the bill we are about to pass, and I suggest will pass, is going to have the same small business relief provisions in it that could have been passed last time, last year, or before.

I don't appreciate the suggestion that we are here to protect corrupt, greedy, business people. My amendment targets greedy contractors, contractors who go out with Federal taxpayer money, hire people here illegally instead of hiring Americans to do work for the U.S. taxpayers. Let's crack down on them. I am glad the Senator supports that. However, I am disappointed that his leadership opposed a far more significant amendment that would have raised the minuscule $250 fine on big, greedy businesses that hire illegal workers. Why would they object to that when, in hiring those numbers by the tens or hundreds of thousands, we pull down the wages of American citizens? Why would we do that? Who is greedy now? What is wrong with creating a lawful system? Why don't we take care of our American workers?

Just in the last week there was an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal about a chicken plant in Georgia. They raided that plant and nearly three-fourths of the workers disappeared. Some were arrested for being there illegally. The company went out and ran ads in the paper to say they were having new wage increases at the chicken plant. They were paying more than $1 an hour more. They sent buses to nearby towns to see if people wanted free rides to work. They provided dormitories for those who wanted to stay in the dormitory. They went through unemployment agencies in Georgia. They have already hired 200 workers, mostly African-American citizens, for those jobs. Another 200 applications were pending. Don't tell me that if we have a lawful system of immigration it won't improve significantly the wages of American workers.

I suggest my colleague from Massachusetts introduce himself to Professor Borjas at Harvard who has written a book on it. He says it has brought down the wages of low-income workers by as much as 8 percent, which is $100 per month, or $1,200 per year.

I submit these amendments are not irrelevant to our discussion. I note that small businesses do not all get rich. I met the nicest young man who opened a restaurant in Mobile, AL. He was working 90-hour weeks for months. He didn't know whether he was going to make it. He was not making a minimum wage, not in the weeks he started his business. He turned it around. Now he works 70-hour weeks and his business seems to be doing well. I hope he makes a lot of money. But he has some legitimate concerns for those small businesses to help him be successful. If he failed, a lot of people would not have had jobs.

We are coming to the conclusion of the time in which we will vote. This is a good amendment. We ought not have corporations or businesses getting Government contracts and going out and hiring people who are illegal to make an extra buck. It is not right. We have a system in place that should be in place for every business in America. It is a system that we in the Senate follow, the House of Representatives follows, and every Government agency in America follows. But you can hire somebody; you go online and you verify their employment legality. It works very well. If the employer does that, they will not be subject to penalty under this act.

We need to take some real steps in that regard. I believe we can do so. We will need to do more of it if we want to protect our workers. One way not to protect the

salaries of workers would be to pass the bill that was before the Senate that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the Kennedy-McCain bill, that would have added as many as five times the number of people into this country legally as currently are allowed. As it finally left the Senate, it would have increased by three times the number of people legally in this country. That would have a devastating impact on low-income workers in America. We cannot assimilate that many people that rapidly.

When we talk about comprehensive reform, let's talk about that. Let's see if we can't do it. Let's do it in a way that protects the livelihoods of the least in our Government.

I yield the floor.