Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from California be recognized, and the remaining time on our side be allocated to her.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Isn't some of that time Senator Webb's time?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Could the Senator yield for 2 quick questions?

Mr. KENNEDY. So we are talking about not only national security and border security, but the Senator is also talking about worksite security. We don't have any worksite security at the present time. That is the problem with the 1986 act. We hear a lot of talk about it, but that is the problem. Is the Senator telling us we will have the most extensive not only border security but worksite security; and beyond that we are going to have 1,000 inspectors to make sure the new security is going to work; and beyond that, for the first time, we are going to have a tamperproof card that will finally give us the opportunity to get control of our immigration system?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I thank her for an excellent review of where we are. This is a continuing process. The Senator mentioned earlier about the fines and the fees that are going to be charged to the population if they are going to be on the track. After all those who have waited in line gain entrance into the United States, they would be at least on the track toward a green card. That amounts to $55 billion, is what it comes to?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is going to be used in terms of border security. That will be used for border security, worksite security, the development of the biometric card; and $6 billion of that $55 billion is going to be used to help to assist States to offset any of the burdens they have in terms of health care and education--$6 billion is going into that. Does the Senator agree with me that if this legislation does not go through, that $55 billion disappears and Americans are still going to want to try and make some progress on that line and it is going to be the taxpayer who is going to pick up the burden? Could the Senator comment on that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Would the Senator also agree with me that the initial bill, without some of the recent amendments--we actually find out through CBO that immigrants add to the economy, and their conclusion--this is the CBO, which is a governmental agency charged to review it--is actually those immigrants contribute $25 billion more than using over this period of time as well. I am wondering because there has been a lot of talk about whether immigrants add to the country and our society through the payment of taxes. We have the independent Congressional Budget Office which made that judgment which is included in the record. Does the Senator not agree with me, in representing a State that has both the wonderful opportunities of people who have worked and contributed to that State, that it is an important contribution that these workers provide for our society?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is it the Senator's understanding with this legislation we will have virtually the strongest border in the history of the United States of America in the Southwest? Is that the Senator's understanding of the effect of this legislation?

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with the Council of Economic Advisers that said passing this legislation will mean there is $55 billion--$55 billion--in fees and in fines that will be paid that will be used to strengthen the border, to enforce worksite enforcement, to make sure we are going to have a tamperproof card, which is essential for any kind of immigration system; and that if this legislation does not pass, that $55 billion is going to be paid for by the American taxpayer? Does the Senator understand that is the implication of these votes?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have, as I understand, 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes of that to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair would let me know when I have 1 minute. Mr. President, maybe we could take a moment and look at those words that are written in stone right above the Vice President's chair there: e pluribus unum, meaning one out of many. One out of many. That is the desire, that is the hope, that is the dream of this country: one out of many. Many come from different traditions, backgrounds, and experience, but we all are one country with one history and one destiny--not with the Bond amendment, not with the Bond amendment. The lines written at the Statue of Liberty are: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door! That is right, as long as those individuals are working and who will never become citizens, who will never have that right to become a part of the American dream, and once you stop working, out of the country you go. Better gather up all of your belongings, because you are going to be out of status, and out of status means you can be subject to deportation. You can imagine what that individual is going to say to their employer when the employer says: Sure, you have worked 40 hours. You work 50 hours, 60 hours, and bring your wife in and make sure she works overtime this week as well; otherwise, you are out of status. You are out of here. That is what the Bond amendment would do to Americans. One America that has rights and privileges, and to a second group in America they say: Once we wring out of you the last bit of sweat that you can give to some employer, you are finished, you are out of status, you are deportable. That isn't what this country is about. Maybe we don't like the fact that people are not satisfied with the regime we have given or recommended in this legislation that says: You go to the back of the line. You came here because you wanted to work, because you wanted to provide for your family; you came here, and you are at church on the weekends; and you came here and your son or daughter is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. But we say: OK, you go to the end of the line, pay a fee, learn English, and you have to demonstrate that you are working and you are going to become a good American. That isn't good enough for some. Well, Mr. President, this creates the two Americas, which I think all of us understand is not what this Nation is about. That is the result of the Bond amendment, and I think it would be a major step backward. We can imagine the resentment and hostility that will seethe and grow with generations that come with their families when they see them exploited. Talk about a danger and social dynamite in our society, this amendment will breed that. We don't need that or want it, Mr. President. We should not have it. I hope the amendment is not accepted. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have broken borders. The 1986 act had no enforcement mechanism, and that was under a Republican administration. We are not bringing that up. We have 12\1/2\ million immigrants. You can say we are going to ship them back, and it will take $250 billion and 25 years to be able to do it. Buses will stretch from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Are we going to do that? No, we are going to take another route and just exploit them and not do what is in this legislation, which makes them pay a fine and demonstrate that they are going to work hard and learn English and provide for their family and give something back to America, like they do when their sons and daughters serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. You will be able to stay here under the Bond amendment, but you are going to work for an employer. When you get tired of working, we are going to report to the INS that you are out of status, and out you are going to go, lock, stock, and barrel. It will be just sweat labor here. We are going to have two Americas. You may not like our solution, but it is preferable to this alternative, which will create a permanent underclass. I think it would be a mistake.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, can we have order? These amendments are important and the Members deserve to hear the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has explained the technical provisions of this legislation very well, but I want to underscore a very important difference. And that is how each system will treat their workers. If there is some glitch in the system, under the legislation before us, under the existing law, the worker should be able to continue to work and can continue to work until ultimately there is a determination by a court that the worker should not be confirmed. The decision being appealed is called a nonconfirmation. If there is a glitch in the system--and we understand there are going to be a number of glitches in the system, but this was a provision that we took a considerable amount of time to make sure that workers who are going to be caught up in the system, if there is a glitch in the system, they will still be able to continue to work until there is a real indication of trouble. They will continue to work, unlike the proposal of the Senator from Iowa. The amendment of the Senator from Iowa says that if there is found to be some glitch in the system, they will have a legal case, but they will have to demonstrate--this is the test: that the government's conduct has either been negligent, reckless, willful, or malicious. The employee will have to demonstrate one of those qualities, which means they have to go out and get a lawyer. They will be let go, and they will have to go out and get a lawyer and go through the whole legal process in order to recover some damages. There is a large difference. I believe the underlying provisions which have been included--this is it, and I agree this is one of the most important provisions in the legislation. We want employer enforcement. That has to be a part of it. Tough borders that are going to be enforced and legality in the workplace, and the only way we are going to have legality in the workplace and also protection for the workers is the underlying bill. The bill requires SSA to begin issuing only fraud-resistant, tamper- resistant, wear-resistant Social Security cards within 2 years. This will help prevent counterfeiting and identity theft by undocumented workers. The Grassley amendment has no comparable provision. It only requires that the worker give an employer a Social Security number rather than presenting an actual card. If we are serious, and I think all of us in this body, are serious, about dealing with the undocumented, we have to have tough worksite enforcement, and we are also going to have to have tamper-proof cards. I think this moves us in that direction in a very positive and important way. As I say, most importantly, at a time that we are going to go into this transition, how are the workers going to be treated, and really there is a dramatic difference between how those workers are going to be treated under the proposal we put forward under the existing bill and under the Grassley amendment. For these reasons, I hope his amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I think all of us understand we have had a very full day today of voting on this legislation, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. After more than 30 days of hearings since 9/11, after the 6 days of markup in our Judiciary Committee on the legislation that we addressed last year, which is very similar to the underlying legislation that is before us; after now some 23 days of debate on the legislation, both last year and now; after the consideration of more than 70 different amendments--70 different amendments--there is an awareness and understanding by the Members of this body about the substance of this legislation and, hopefully, a recognition of its importance. We are sent here to legislate--not just to make speeches and to submit amendments but to legislate in our national interests, and we have a national challenge. We have a national challenge. I think everyone as Members of this body understands it. Certainly we receive the phone calls, the wires, the e-mails, and the rest. After it is all said and done, I think the people in our respective States and the people of this country are expecting us to exercise the best judgment about this legislation. They are not asking us to put our finger to the wind and say, from which way is the wind blowing the strongest and from what direction, but to try and take some initial steps--and they are initial but very important and fundamental steps--that can make a difference in terms of our national and border security. (Mr. CASEY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. KENNEDY. The American people are expecting action in this body. Tomorrow, in the morning, it will certainly be an extremely important and perhaps decisive vote about whether we are going to complete our responsibility, or whether we are not. I have respect for those who have expressed reservations and observations. But my commitment and view is stronger than when we first started this legislation. The importance of this legislation, I think,--I find it more persuasive than the day it was initially introduced, developed, and shaped over the period of the last years. We all have been faced with this legislation more closely over this debate and the debates we have had in recent days. We know, as we have heard frequently, and as I have said and many others have said, we have a national security issue and a problem. We can, as a nation, no longer afford to have, effectively, almost an open border in the Southwest. We also know, because in our committee we have listened to those who understand this issue, when they say we need to have secure borders, they also understand that with the strong kind of magnet attraction the American economy has, there is going to be leakage on that border. No matter how high we build walls or how many radars or air drones we have there or how many border guards we have, there is going to be leakage, unless we provide at least some opportunities for those who have some skills that in the United States we find we are unable to get filled in terms of the American workforce. There has to be at least some opportunity for those individuals to come to the United States. Those of us who support this legislation believe in legality. We believe in national security, but we believe in legality. What we have today is lawlessness. We have lawlessness on the border, approaching the border, after the border, and in too many shops, plants, and factories around our country, including in my own State, in which we find the undocumented exploited, and they continue to be exploited. That is happening today. We have to ask: Do we have something that is going to be basically serious about the border? Are we going to have a way for us to be able to say, OK, there are certain skills that we need here in terms of the American economy--those may be high skills, but in many circumstances it is going to be low skills, according to the Department of Labor. This legislation approaches that issue. We may say we would like to have it skewed this way or that, to some degree, but the fundamentals are essential in terms of the legality on our borders, in terms of national security, and also with regard to worksite enforcement. As one who has, along with others, been involved in these debates about immigration reform, unless you are going to have a tamperproof card, you might as well forget it. We have learned that lesson in the 1986 act and in the 1992 act and earlier periods of time. The idea that somehow tomorrow we are not going to be willing to continue this process and end this process without the assurances that we are going to end up with a tamperproof card is going to mean that the challenges we are facing on this issue at this time are going to be multiplied many times over, many times over. That is a fact. Some people are troubled by the way that has been fashioned in this legislation. I think there is a strong and persuasive case we can make. We will have an additional opportunity with the Schumer amendment and, hopefully, with passage of cloture tomorrow. So we have those elements that are law enforcement at the border, respectful law, by coming into the United States and respecting our laws and our immigration laws, law enforcement at the worksite, and respect for the laws in that period of time. To say to those individuals who have come that--their motivations for coming here, by and large, are the values which Americans respect and admire, such as hard work. Sure, there may be some individuals who have gamed the system out there. But there can be no denial when any of us look at this situation and examine it and when you look at particularly the faces and meet the individuals, as we all have, and we have had the issue spoken to so well by many of our colleagues, this is a population that is interested in hard work. That is a value Americans admire. They also admire the fact that these are families who work hard and care about the members of their family. Mr. President, $40 billion a year is sent back to Central and South America by the primarily undocumented workers in the United States. This is where individuals are making $10,000 to $12,000 a year. So they care about their families. They are not coming in on their own to try to game the system. The statistics are there. I think those figures speak for themselves in terms of their willingness to work hard, care about their families and, as we all know, this community, this constituency--they are men and women of faith and belief, strong individuals of faith and belief. On another occasion, we would say those are American values that we admire, and so many of them want to be part of the American dream and make America better. They reflect it by urging their sons and daughters to go into the service--thousands of them being in the service of our country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of them have lost their lives in the service of this country. So many of these families--as I listened to the mayor of Los Angeles today talk about a number of mothers he had met who lost their children in Iraq--the particular one he referred to had been undocumented and their son had been lost. In any event, that is the general sense of their desire and willingness, similar to other immigrants who came at other times. So what is their great violation? The violation is that they have violated our immigration laws. That is serious. What is on the other side of those barriers? The magnet of the American economy. The magnet of the American economy has drawn these individuals like moths to a flame. Sure, it is all there because they have violated our laws, but they work hard and they care for their families. They are men and women of faith, with an extraordinary record of looking after their grandparents, and they have a great desire to be part of the American dream. They have violated laws and they should have a penalty. We looked around and looked around, those of us, Republicans and Democrats, at what should be the penalty. Should they get a penalty? The $5,000 processing fee can vary. We can put a requirement in about learning English. In Boston, MA, it is not that the undocumented don't want to learn English; it is a 3-year wait. Courses in English cost from $2,000 to $3,000 in my part of the world. I look forward to the Alexander amendment--the Senator from Tennessee. He wants to at least provide greater access to individuals to learn English. We are for that. There are requirements that they have to learn English. They have to demonstrate they have worked here and that they paid their taxes and they have to demonstrate that they are good Americans and that they are learning English. We have those requirements. Before they can even think about moving on the pathway to a green card, they have to wait in line for the 8 years to clear up. Then, according to a merit system, over the next 5 years, they will be able to hopefully get on the path for a green card and then wait another 5 years to become a citizen--8 years, 5 years, and 5 more years. That is 18 years for some of those individuals, plus the penalties and fines--for people who want to be a part of the American dream. This has, as others have spoken to, very important provisions in here about the ag jobs. I remember going through the Southwest in the early 1960s when I arrived in the Senate. Americans were involved in the Bracero Program, which, outside of slavery, was the greatest exploitation of humanity. Perhaps we could talk about some of the incidents in terms of the Native Americans certainly. But this was a sanctioned program that continued for years and years with the exploitation and abuse of people. That was the beginning of the rise of the farmworker movement and the extraordinary tensions that existed between the farmworkers and the agricultural interests. It took a long period of time. Finally, they got together to try to have a program which both of them agreed with, which is the AgJOBS bill, to make a difference to 800,000 or 900,000 people who are some of the hardest working people in America. Then there's the DREAM Act. There is some responsibility in the areas of education. We know of the difficulty so many have in completing high school. It is true in the Latino community. This kind of opportunity-- if they are the sons of people who came here undocumented, these children didn't know about it, but if they work hard and complete school, they have the opportunity to serve this country and they can get on a pathway for citizenship, or if they are otherwise eligible and the State approves, they can also continue in education. So there are, I know, strong views about these different provisions; but, quite frankly, I think it is a compelling story that demands and requires action. If we fail this opportunity, we know we are going to miss this opportunity for some time. It is getting late into the season now, July and August we will be out and in September is the appropriations time. We will move into a highly politicized period of time, and we will move into a Presidential campaign. So we will miss an incredible opportunity. I hope the Senate is going to be responsible tomorrow. We know if we fail, those individuals are all going to be out there; the numbers are going to increase, exploitation will increase, and we are going to have the silent amnesty that others have referred to. That is the real alternative. I don't say that because I believe the failure to act is bad, and it is going to get worse, although I believe it will. It is that if we can take this action and make this downpayment, we can continue to work on this issue as the House does. That will take time. We can obviously work with those who are interested in it and try to make adjustments and changes and try to strengthen and improve it. That is the way the legislative process works. Hopefully, we will be able to come to the period where we can all feel the final product is the best judgment we have had on this bill. That is the optimum, and it seems to me this is an exceedingly important opportunity we should not miss. Finally, I again thank our leaders for giving us a chance to come back to this issue. We know it has been a complicated and difficult one. As I have said repeatedly, immigration and civil rights are the hot-button issues. We have had complex issues in our HELP Committee dealing with biologics, an enormously complex and difficult issue. We came together and passed that legislation. We had issues dealing with information technology, privacy, grants, and we came together and took action. Our committee has been dealing with the general cost of education and loan programs, and we were able to, Republicans and Democrats, cut some $18 billion from the lenders and return $17 billion to the students. We came together, Republicans and Democrats, and have been able to get reauthorization of the Food and Drug Administration. We look forward to continuing with mental health parity and other issues. But it is the issues of immigration and civil rights that are the hot-button issues, and they get the juices flowing. I hope tonight people will stand back and think through the significance of this vote tomorrow. It is going to be a matter of enormous importance to our country. It is going to have enormous importance in terms of quality of life for millions of people. We are going to make the decision whether they are going to continue to live in fear or whether they are going to be able to come out of that darkness into the sunshine and be part of this country. If we don't act, we all know what is going to be happening in local communities all across the country and the increasing backwash that is going to arise that is going to make other matters much more difficult for us to continue to make progress on. I look forward to tomorrow, and I hope all our Members will exercise their best judgment. We will have an opportunity to move ahead and complete this legislation and then hopefully we will continue the progress we made in the Senate so we can work with those who have differing views in the House and in the Senate and ultimately get legislation that is worthy of the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, are we in morning business?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.