Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I, just for a moment, ask the leader to withhold the request and see if I can clear this with the leadership here? Could you withhold the request?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator could yield for another question? Could the Senator have 3 more minutes to just yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I must say I agree with the Senator--we will have a chance, when I have my own time, to talk about Secretary Chertoff--that there are appropriate areas. I agree with the Senator as well. But just extending a fence all along the border does not make sense. I think his response is certainly one with which I agree, and I thank him for his comments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use. Over the course of the discussion and debate on immigration reform, those of us who have been strong supporters of it have pointed out what the President of the United States pointed out; that is, this is about four major aspects of having this program work. They are all interrelated. That is what we call comprehensive. One of them is border security. Those of us who support strong immigration reform strongly support border security. We voted for the enhancement and the increase in the supplemental. We just listened to the Senator from New Hampshire who outlined how he allocated $1.9 billion. It is very interesting that we have some allocation for a San Diego fence in that, but he also talked about using new technology and using recent technological breakthroughs as being the most effective way to provide security at the border. He reiterated that today. The chart behind me illustrates border enforcement which is in S. 2611 at the present time: 12,000 new border agents; high-technology, virtual fence which was favorably and positively commented on by the Senator from New Hampshire when he had responsibility to take the $1.9 billion and look at how he was going to allocate it over the period of time. It talks about the new roads, vehicle barriers at the border, and about fencing in strategic locations. Do you understand fencing in strategic locations? That is a part of S. 2611. I was at the briefing with Mr. Chertoff. I understand he was talking about building a fence at strategic locations, but 400 miles of urban area is on the border. Let us be serious--400 miles. That is almost a quarter of the southern border stretching from California to the Gulf of Mexico. And we are trying to convince the Member from Massachusetts that is an urban area? Come on. We recognize there are going to be certain strategic areas for fencing. That is in this bill. Authorization for permanent highways in the legislation, and we are all familiar with that. Who can get that bumper sticker up the highest? Let us put up another 30,000 border guards. I dare you to vote against that and I will show that you are not interested in border security. Let us put another 1,800 miles of fence down there and triple wiring to show how tough we are on it. Is that the challenge out here when we are trying to deal with a comprehensive program? I don't think so. What we are trying to do is do what is necessary. The Senator from New Hampshire talked about the limitations in recruitment. You have to get 40,000 in order to get 1,000 in terms that will be qualified for border security. He talks about the limitations in training programs. He talks about the technological kinds of limitations. I thought he made a very responsible presentation. If there were additional needs, we were prepared. We have had the opportunity to work on this issue on border security. We have also recognized that part of border security is enforcement in terms of those who would be coming into the United States as guest workers to make sure we are not going to have exploitation. If they are not going to be able to get that job which they are able to get today, there will be less pressures on the border. All of that is entirely relevant. If they have the ability to go back and forth, there will be less pressure on the border as well. These are all entirely relevant. That is the result of the extensive hearings we had. These are all the items which we have included. I am for Secretary Chertoff working through those particular areas. With his charts and maps, he demonstrated areas where he thought it made some sense to put some fencing and other areas where he thought it was completely unnecessary. There is nothing in the current legislation. In fact, there is sufficient authorization. So if the Secretary wants to use resources that are allocated to him to meet the responsibility, he has the power today to do it. There is no suggestion that he does not have the power and does not have the flexibility in terms of the budget to be able to do that today in the selected areas. But the idea to effectively fence a quarter of the border on the south, that is the downpayment for fencing the whole border. There are Members of this body who believe that is the way to go. Let us put the fence all down there. Then we are going to have guards going all along that. We will back that up with the National Guard. I don't know whether we have enough men and women in the National Guard or if we are going to have a sufficient number of men and women in the military to do that. Then we are going to look at our northern border, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out and as we have heard in our committee. If you are looking at security issues, there is as much concern about the northern border as there is about the southern border--so 4,200 miles up there as well. It is unlimited. Let us get more border guards up there. Let us get 4,200 miles of fencing up there as well. We should secure our borders. To do that, you need a multidimensional approach. You need effective enforcement. You need enforcement in terms of here at home for employers that are going to bring undocumented aliens to their companies and corporations. And you need a process which is going to be vigorous in enforcement. We provide that as well. I wish to mention a couple of items in terms of the fencing we have seen that I think are also related. If we look at what has happened at the border crossings over the last several years, let us recognize that we are all committed to doing more on the border. But the idea that border security in and of itself with fencing or not is going to solve the problem just defies all recent history. Forty-thousand came across the border 20 years ago, and 400,000 10 years ago. Mr. President, $20 billion--23 times the number of border agents we have put on in the last 10 years, and it is probably double that today. You just can't spend enough money on those. You can't get enough agents. You have to look beyond that. You have to look at what is happening here in U.S. in terms of employment and tough enforcement. That is what we are about in this legislation. Let me point out what this chart says. These are deaths due to unauthorized border crossings. You go from 1996 with 315 to 1998 with 491. The list goes on, 391, 371, 412, 369, 443. These are the deaths primarily in the desert. We can ask ourselves, Why do we have a significant increase in 1997 to 1998? Why did it go from 129 to 325? Do you know what happened during that period of time? The fence went up in southern California. There is 67 miles of fencing at the present time. In the legislation, there are key areas which have been identified as urban areas, and we also provide the resources for targeted areas in Arizona. That is what has happened. During the building and construction of that fence, we were driving these individuals who wanted to come to the United States to take the jobs which employers offered to them--and they shouldn't have offered it if we had an effective system--they had to travel across the great desert, they had to travel across the mountains at dramatically higher risk in terms of their own safety and in terms of their own security. The totality of the pressure for coming here was not reduced and the totality of the people who got in here was not reduced. There was a dramatic increase in the cost of lives. That may mean something to some people and it may not mean much to others. Again, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, he talked about the new technology, and he talked about the unmanned aerial vehicles that we need to get and bring on board. He talked about new kinds of technology, which he pointed out, and which I believe, and as the testimony presents itself, is really effective in developing the virtual wall, the virtual wall of technology, the virtual wall that can provide the security which this Nation needs. I support that. I will support certainly the resources to be able to do it. But this is a feel-good amendment. We need to do things which are serious and which are important in terms of the border. This doesn't happen to meet that particular requirement. I hope the Senate will accept it. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. What is the time situation, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. The other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Illinois for bringing this to the attention of the Senate. I rise in strong support of the amendment. One of the dynamics of a comprehensive approach is legality and fairness. What we want to make sure is that when jobs are advertised for Americans first, Americans should be able to take advantage of the opportunity. But if they are going to go, by and large, to Hispanic individuals who come here, they ought to be treated at fair wages. There are protections that are included in the bill at the present time. The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois addresses that issue and strengthens it. I hope we will find a way to accept it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, as I understand, at the time they are going to have the consideration of the Inhofe amendment, there may be a side-by-side amendment, and I hope that perhaps we would move to Inhofe. I would also hope that the Senator might withhold his unanimous consent request, at least until we have the full package, so that the Senate understands exactly the way we are going to proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have been ready to go, urging relatively short time agreements. We have a whole series of proposals from that side and virtually none from here. This has been sort of a jump ball. We are trying to adopt to that. We have a Democratic amendment that we are prepared to go to. I am more than glad to work out with the floor manager as to time limits. The Cornyn amendment we had not expected would come up. It reaches the heart of the issue, and our side needs at least an hour for it. I know the Inhofe amendment has been a matter that has been discussed. We were trying to work out a time agreement for consideration of a side-by- side. There has been a good deal of discussion and desire to try to work out a relatively limited amount of time. We are not interested in prolonging that discussion and debate. I think people would like some time to try to figure that out. I think when they have that, we could have a relatively short period of time for the consideration of it. I am familiar with the Ensign amendment. Senator Vitter and Senator Cornyn have amendments. We are prepared to have a short time agreement. Our concern is that we have a whole series of Republican amendments, and we are not having Democratic amendments. We want to try to work this thing through. We have had a short time. I have every intention of suggesting to our side that we have short times. But we need to at least try to work out with the floor manager some opportunity for the consideration of our side.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad to do the Inhofe amendment. I understand there is going to be a side-by-side, but I can't enter into a time agreement on that until that thing is finished. I know what the Senator's amendment is. I know people want to debate it. But in terms of limiting the time, until we have the side-by-side, I cannot enter into a time agreement. When we have a side-by-side, we would enter into a short time agreement--I think an hour or an hour and half evenly divided. There isn't any desire to prolong this. We are going to be on this bill--I understand there are 16 more amendments on that side which are serious amendments. We are going to be on this legislation. We made good progress today. I am glad to make some progress. That happens to be the reality on this. Maybe later in the afternoon we could get a short time agreement. But until we work out the side-by-side language on it, I would not be able to enter into a time agreement at this time on the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as I might use. We will look at exactly who these individuals are who are going to come into the United States and what the process is. First, we will find out that an employer needs a particular kind of function to be able to continue their business--maybe it is related to the employment of other individuals. They search around to try, for some 60 days, to see if there is an American prepared to take that job at that salary. They cannot find an American prepared to take that job, and they still need to have that particular function filled. So they find out there is a willing person from overseas prepared to take that particular job, get paid the particular wages mentioned for that particular profile, and that individual then comes to the United States and works for that particular employer. Under the current legislation, we are saying that after a period of 4 years--or even before the 4-year-period--if the employer wants to petition for a green card for that particular employee, they can go ahead and do that. That is in the law at the present time. Senator Cornyn's amendment does not do that. We provide after 4 years that if the individual wants to make a petition for that particular job, they ought to be entitled to do so. They will still have to wait the 5 years in order to become a citizen. That is a total of 9 years to be able to become a citizen. Senator Cornyn does not want that particular right for that particular worker. One of the things we have seen over the period of years, going back to the Bracero issue in question where we had individuals who came into the United States and were extraordinarily exploited--they were exploited all the way through by unscrupulous employers because those particular workers did not have any rights in order to be able to protect themselves. In the 1960s, we got rid of the Bracero because it was such a shameful aspect in this country's employment history. We want to avoid the same circumstance with this new legislation. We have tried to learn from 1986, when we had amnesty. We also should have had the prosecution of employers employing individuals who should not have been employed, but that was never enforced. Now we have the earned citizenship. Now we have protections for workers to come in here. Now, we have strengthened border security. We have learned from the past. One of the important experiences of learning from the past is not to permit these workers to be exploited. One of the best ways to ensure that is to give them--at least after 4 years of working in the United States--the opportunity of getting on the path for a green card and eventually citizenship. Now, the Senator from Texas does not want that. He wants to leave all of the power with the employer. Well, I do not buy that. The employer starts out saying: Look, I need a worker. I can't get a worker. I really need you. You come on in here. I will really look out after you. But I want to tell you something: unless you are going to work those extra hours--and I might not pay you overtime--unless you are going to do this or unless you are going to do that, I will never petition for you. And you are not going to be able to petition for yourself. So I think it is an issue about whether we are going to respect individuals and have as much respect for employees as we have for the employers. It is interesting that under this legislation, if an employee comes in, and the employer likes that person, they can go ahead and make the petition now for the green card. They have the power to do that in the first year, the second year, the third year, and the fourth year. So we are just swinging all of this power into the hands of the employers. If you accept the Cornyn amendment, you are effectively leaving people high and dry on that. I do not think that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to have fairness in the legislation. We are trying to have legality, strong border security. We are trying to have an employer-employee relationship where the employer is going to know that employee, has the documents and, therefore, will not go out and hire other employees who are here illegally and give them depressed wages, which will depress the wages on Americans and American workers, which is the current case. We are saying we want to stop the exploitation of both those individuals and what is happening to American workers. But we want to at least say that after 4 years, where this individual has filled an important slot that no American worker was prepared to fill, and they want to be a part of the whole American dream, play by the rules, pay their taxes, do what any citizen would do in the United States but the employer said: No, I am not going to do it, and then they have to go back to their country, it leaves all the power with the employer and denies the employee respect, which I think will invite further kinds of exploitation. We do not want to go back to the Bracero period. And this is starting us back down that road. I think it is the wrong way to resolve this particular issue. I hope the amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have difficulty following the logic of my good friend from Texas because American workers are protected when the temporary worker is protected. Now, let me give you a possible factual situation: An employer has one of these temporary workers. They have gone out and petitioned and can't find an American to do this job. They can't find an American to do the job. Then they have the foreigner who comes in and works for them, and works for them for 4 years. Now, under our proposal, after the 4-year period, if they have paid their taxes, if they have not gotten into trouble with the law the rest of the way, they can petition for a green card. Then, if they follow all the procedures, pass the naturalization exam, they can become a citizen 5 years after that--9 years. Now, this is what Mr. Cornyn, the Senator from Texas says: Look, after the 4 years, we are going to take away the right of that person-- unless the employer is going to petition for them, unless the employer is going to do it. Now, you tell me what is going to happen in a lot of the workplaces. The employee says: Look, Mr. Employer, when are you going to petition for me? I have worked for you for 4 years. Under the old bill, they used to be able to say I could petition. But they passed the Cornyn amendment, and it says, no. I am completely dependent upon you. Well, the employer says: Don't ask for a raise. Take a wage cut. Take a wage cut for a couple of years. Don't complain about unfair working conditions. Don't complain about it. Don't complain about working a little longer, working Saturdays, maybe a few hours on Sunday. If you complain about it, I am not going to petition for you. You are going to be left high and dry. You tell me how that protects American workers. Once you get the exploitation of the temporary worker, we see what happens, as we have seen today: Employers are employing the undocumented and they are paying them a good deal less. That is an adverse impact and effect on American wages. If you raise those wages and give them the protections we have under our legislation, that is going to protect American workers. I fail to understand--when you give the whole deck of cards to the employer, and tell the employer he can do anything he wants with that employee--how that employee is protected and how an American worker is protected. I just do not get it. I just do not see it. It defies history. It defies the history of the old employment. It can work very well for that particular employer because he has that employee right by the throat because if that employee complains, does not do what the employer says, that person is on their way back to whatever country they came from, or they will disappear into the community. That is not good. That is what we are trying to avoid--exploitation. I think this is what we have tried to do throughout the bill both in terms of the exploitation of workers, in terms of the legal system, the legal structure, and in terms of the border security, and the others. I have difficulty in following the rationale and the reasoning that if you give one person in the employer-employee relationship all of the cards, that somehow inures to the benefit of the employee. It never has in the history of the relationship between workers and employers, and it will not. And it will not if that is the outcome of the Cornyn amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The answer to that is affirmative, yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The answer is affirmative, yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a very fundamental reason why. You are talking about the H-1B. You are talking about the most highly skilled, highly educated, and highly competent individuals in the world--H-1B--going on to universities, going into the high-tech areas, individuals for which the world is their oyster. They do not suffer the kind of exploitation, the kind of humiliation that other workers suffer. These workers are taking jobs that American workers will not take. There is a big difference between that and going to the top companies of America and working for the CEO, when you have all the education, the professional degrees. Those individuals are not the ones being exploited. They never have been, and they are not today. It is an entirely different situation. We are talking about the tough, difficult work that no American will take. We are talking about the history of these kinds of jobs. We have seen it. We have read about it. We have experienced it. I did, certainly, in the early 1960s, going across the Southwest in the Bracero Program. Exploitation is one of the sad aspects of American employment history. We do not want to go there. The H-2Bs in my State are doing very well at universities and colleges and enormously successful businesses. The idea behind the H- 2Bs was getting the very able and gifted people. As history has shown, that results in the hiring of additional people because of their abilities. They end up, as a result of these programs, adding key elements of success to various businesses and employment expands. Generally, those are good jobs with good benefits and good retirement. That is an entirely different situation. I am glad we were able to clear that up. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Texas, before he went to a necessary meeting at the White House, indicated he was prepared to yield back his time if I yielded back my time. I am prepared to yield back my time. Mr. President, I withhold my request. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, if I have it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.