Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The remarks that I had were directed toward the undocumented. The Senator from Arizona has an amendment that is portrayed as only preventing the adjustment status for criminals, but if you look and examine the various provisions which are included in the Senator's amendment, they also include the status offenders which effectively would be denied any opportunity for the benefits of this legislation. In the provisions included in the legislation--I haven't got the amendment right before me, but there are three or four different items that would do so. That, I think, goes to the heart of this whole process because effectively, if the Cornyn-Kyl amendment is adopted, it effectively takes out 60 percent, as I understand it, of those who are undocumented from any kind of adjustment of status. I have listened to the Senator debate this. That is certainly my understanding and the understanding of others who studied it carefully, and that would leave the individuals in the kind of state they are today, where they would have an illegality in their current status and would continue to be subject to the kinds of exploitation which is happening now and continue to depress wages on other workers. I believe that would really strike at the heart of the legislation. I know the Senator does not agree with me on that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thought at the beginning of the Senator's comments he was referring to the amendment----

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senate had a rough kind of order in terms of speaking. I was told that this was the time to speak even in terms of other Senators. I intended to speak now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be recognized after I finish. Does that help the Senator?

Mr. KENNEDY. Probably 20 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. From my own personal experience, the Senator has been very much involved and engaged in the provisions of the legislation--and has been during the consideration that we had in the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, I remind Members about where we are at the present time with the proposal passed out of the Judiciary Committee 12 to 6, bipartisan. We had some 6 days of markups. We considered hundreds of different amendments. I was looking over a number of the amendments that had been considered and offered. There may be a few that weren't, but just about all of those were considered at one time or another before the Judiciary Committee. We held 7 days of hearings, listened to all different individuals who had a variety of different opinions on a wide variety of different subjects. The basic legislation that we are considering here, in one form or another, has been out there for more than 2\1/2\ years prior to the 2004 election. I introduced legislation that had a number of parts of this legislation. Senator McCain introduced legislation, and Senator Daschle and Senator Hagel worked together. After the elections in 2004-2005, Senator McCain and I worked together in May of 2005 and presented this legislation. This issue has been before both our committee with extensive hearings. We had a markup as a result of the action of the chairman of our committee. We had the opportunity to take some action on this. I know there are those who would like to discuss this and discuss and continue to discuss. Sometimes this institution has to take action. I am very hopeful we will be able to do that in these next couple of days. Some Senators have tried to frame the debate on immigration between the Judiciary Committee bill and Senator Frist's bill as a debate between those who would be tough on enforcement and those who would not. We all recognize that our current immigration enforcement system is broken. Enforcement provisions is an area where a good deal of consensus has already emerged in this Chamber. Both bills under consideration would enhance our capacity to monitor the immigration flows and stop illegal entry. They would double the number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years; add significant new technology at the border to create a ``virtual fence''; develop new land and water surveillance plans; authorize new highway checkpoints near the border; and expand the exit-entry security system to all land borders and airports. Both bills would increase our capacity to crack down on criminal syndicates that smuggle immigrants into the country and place them at great risk. They would create new criminal penalties for evading or refusing to obey commands of immigration officers and new criminal penalties for financial transactions involving money laundering or smuggling. They would create new fraudproof biometric immigration documents; direct increased resources to antifraud detection; and improve coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to combat alien smuggling. Both bills would increase cooperation with Mexico to strengthen that country's southern border to prevent illegal migration from Central America through Mexico into the United States. Both bills would facilitate cooperation with other governments in the region to prevent international gang activity. In addition, both bills would reduce the job magnet in America by creating a universal electronic eligibility verification system so that employers can determine whether potential employees are authorized to work in the United States--very important. That does not exist today, and it is the basis of a great deal of the abuse that currently exists. It is one of the principal reasons the 1986 act was a failure. They had a provision to adjust the status of amnesty in 1986, but there would also be the requirement for ensuring that we were going to have the vigorous enforcement. It never happened, never existed because we were unable to develop the kind of verification that is so important. We do that under this legislation. Both bills will substantially increase the penalties on employers that fail to comply with eligibility verification rules. And both bills will add 5,000 new enforcement agents to back up these provisions. We have had virtually no enforcement whatsoever. That has existed under Republican and Democratic administrations. But under this legislation, we will. The Frist bill places greater emphasis on border fencing, a method of immigration control which we believe has proven ineffective over the last 10 years. The Judiciary Committee bill imposes new penalties on individuals who construct, finance, or use unlawful tunnels under the border. We believe this approach is important for enforcement. Senator Feinstein has said these tunnels are one of the various methods immigrants now use to circumvent border fencing. The real difference between these two bills involves what we do in addition--in addition--to these tough, new enforcement measures. Over the last week, we have heard two very different answers to this question, reflecting fundamentally different views of immigrants and the steps we should take to reform. The Frist bill follows the lead of the House of Representatives. It treats immigrants as criminals. In fact, the Frist bill declares that all undocumented immigrants are criminals. It goes further than that, actually making it a felony to provide undocumented immigrants with nonemergency humanitarian assistance. In bipartisan votes, two-thirds of the members of the Judiciary Committee rejected these measures because they conflict with our basic values, and they would do nothing to actually reduce the number of undocumented immigrants in this country. This is one reason why at least 184 religious groups support comprehensive reform with a path toward permanent status instead. This is what they call the Cardinal Mahony provision, where Cardinal Mahony says his challenge is to deal with and help the poor, not to check their immigration status. When a mother consults and asks the cardinal, ``My child is sick. Should I be going outside the country and returning to Mexico?'' and Cardinal Mahony would say, ``Your responsibility is to your child,'' that is aiding and abetting someone from returning to Mexico, and under the House bill they would be guilty of a felony. We are doing that for those who are members of the clergy, humanitarian organizations, nonprofit organizations. It is absolutely wrong. As Cardinal Mahony said, it is the most vicious piece of legislation he has ever seen. So our bill is not just tough on immigration enforcement; it also takes the necessary steps to make enforcement effective. We have tried enforcement, and what we have seen over the last 10 years is how it has failed. Ten years ago, there were 40,000 illegal immigrants who were coming into the United States. Now there are more than 400,000. We have spent $20 billion. We have increased border guards 300 percent over that period of time. We have created 66 miles of fencing along the border in the South. We have 1,800 miles to go along the Mexican border, 4,200 miles to go along the Canadian border on this. We have to try. This has been a bankrupt policy. And to try to just do enforcement--enforcement only--is not going to work. How many more billions of dollars do we have to spend? Our program is so much more efficient. The reason why is, we give focus and attention to those who are the troublemakers, the criminals, and those who are going to be dangerous to Americans. The Border Patrol will be targeted in using its resources on those who are a danger to the United States, not chasing gardeners around the desert in the Southwest, which is happening now. That is a very major difference. People who talk about national security understand this. That is why Secretary Chertoff testified we needed a comprehensive approach. That is an understanding. We understand this is a national security issue. As well as preserving and protecting our borders, it is a national security issue. We understand that. We have taken the steps in our enforcement provisions to make sure that is the case. It is also dealing with our whole march toward progress in terms of opening up economic opportunity. And most importantly, I think it is a value issue about how we are going to treat individuals who work hard, love their family, play by the rules, pay their taxes, want to study English, want to be good citizens, and in many instances enlist in the military forces--70,000 of them over in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the service. Many are serving in Afghanistan. That is the profile. That is generally the profile of what we like for our fellow Americans. Ninety-eight percent of the undocumented male workers are working today in the United States of America. These are hard-working people, trying to provide for their families. It is interesting, to divert for a minute, the incidents, for example, of families staying together is much higher among those groups than the native population. There is a greater expenditure in education as to their children than among the native population, a much greater expenditure in terms of music and the arts as compared to the native population, a much greater evidence of attendance to church and religion as compared to the native population. These are hard-working individuals who want to play by the rules. Under our particular legislation, they have to conform to the rules or they are out, and they have to do it for 11 years before they become a citizen--11 years--without running into any trouble, paying their taxes and doing what needs to be done. That is what is in our effort. First, we strengthen the enforcement at the border and within the United States. We all agree with that point. Second, we provide a path to legal status which will bring the 11 million undocumented immigrants already within the United States out of the shadows, and disrupt the culture of illegality which now corrodes our system. Third, we must provide legal channels for future immigration flows so that U.S. employers who are unable to attract native workers are not tempted to hire illegal immigrants. And those procedures are outlined. I have heard many speak about the guest worker program, and they have not read the bill. For the most part, they have to advertise in the United States in their area or region in terms of the worker, and then the individual who is selected has to meet all of the other various criminal background checks, other kinds of security checks. They come to the United States, and rather than being exploited--as the workforce is today--as an undocumented, they are guaranteed the worker protections in the legislation in terms of prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon, other provisions, service contract provisions. So rather than depressing wages--as exists today, and without this legislation will continue--this elevates them. That is enormously important. I want to mention a particular provision in our bill that is extremely important; that is, the Judiciary Committee took the long overdue step of enacting what we call the DREAM Act. Under the DREAM Act, undocumented immigrant children would be given an opportunity to become American citizens if they can prove good moral character, if they have graduated from high school, and if they go on to college or join the military. Many of my constituents in Massachusetts are undocumented children who would benefit from this act. I wish to share three of their stories, provided by the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition: Mario has lived in Chelsea, MA, for the past 7 years. He is a stellar student, patient caretaker for his 4-year-old brother, and a leader in the community. Mario is currently facing deportation. In Mario's own words: I did not make the choice to come to this country; however, over time this country has become my home. My time in the U.S. has consisted of nothing but hard work and positive service to the community and all I want is for that to continue. I see this country as my home, and I have always striven to do the right thing. I know that I have a lot to offer this country if I am only given the chance to do so. Jessica was brought to this country when she was 3 years old, originally from the Dominican Republic. She graduated last year with honors from Madison Park High School in Boston but was unable to pursue her dream of studying psychology because of her status. Jessica was a member of the National Honor Society and an officer in the Marine JROTC. Jessica says going to college is the only way for her to secure a better future for herself and her family. The United States is the only country she has ever known. Flavio graduated last year from the Burke High School in Dorchester. He made a complete turnaround from 9th grade to his sophomore year--he turned Ds and Fs into all As and Bs. When asked about his amazing turnaround, he responds that his mother sent him to this country to do something with his life and that is what he decided to do. He is a member of the National Honor Society, honor roll, captain of the track and soccer teams. He was accepted at Roxbury Community College but was not able to attend because of lack of access to financial aid or scholarships. Flavio's parents sent him to the U.S. at the young age of 11, hoping he would have a better life here than in Cape Verde. These kids aspire to U.S. citizenship, and America benefits when they have a chance to earn it. The Judiciary Committee bill includes enhanced enforcement, earned legalization for those who are here, and a realistic guest worker program for the future. This is a real comprehensive plan for repairing our broken immigration system, and it is not a campaign slogan. First, many of those who oppose real comprehensive reform have mischaracterized our arguments in recent days, and they have introduced a number of amendments which would undermine our reform efforts. So let me set the record straight. First, let me set the record straight on amnesty. Our bill does not provide undocumented immigrants with amnesty. Amnesty, by definition, is an automatic pardon or free pass granted to a group of individuals without requiring any actions in return. Mr. President, I understand I only have 5 minutes left, 4\1/2\ minutes. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Thirteen. Well, in any event, let me go through very quickly the earned legalization requirements. First, you must have entered and continuously resided in the U.S. before January 2004; must remain continuously employed; must pay $2,000 in penalties; must pass security background checks; must pass a medical exam; must learn English; must learn U.S. history and government; must pay all back taxes; must get to the back of the line behind all applicants waiting for green cards; and, after obtaining a green card, must wait another 5 years before becoming eligible to apply for naturalization. There it is. Amnesty means pardon and forgiveness. This is what they have to do. They have to continue to earn for 11 years. That is the fastest you can gain it, 11 years. And you have to earn it every day by not only paying your penalties but meeting the security checks, learning English and history, paying all of the taxes. That is what is included. That is why many of us who are supporters of it resent, quite frankly, the distortion and misrepresentation that has been made on the floor. I have listened to it. Here in this Chamber people have mischaracterized our legislation, and then they differ with it. It is interesting because so many of our Republican friends have been able to understand the legislation. George Will understands this. Brit Hume, who is a commentator on FOX, certainly understands it. He spelled it out. Bill Kristol, who is a conservative spokesman, understands it. He actually supports it. The list goes on. They understand what this is about. That is why it is troublesome when we hear some of our colleagues on the other side repeatedly misstate what this is about. I can understand if you state correctly what it is about and you differ with it. I will differ with you, but I can understand and respect it. But what is happening is a complete distortion and misrepresentation as to what we have. On law enforcement, this is the language from the legislation: The requirement to eliminate the visa backlog. If the backlog of applications for family-based and employer-based immigrant visas is not eliminated within the 6 years following the date of enactment, as predicted under the formula set out in title V, the amendments made by the title, the Secretary shall hold in abeyance an application--that means you go to the end of the line--submitted by an alien granted conditional nonimmigrant work authorization. Those are the two aspects of it: the one that sets out the requirements of what an individual is going to have to do in 11 years and this provision in the legislation that says they will go effectively to the back of the line. That is how we deal with the 11 million individuals who are here. I have listened a little bit to the arguments against this provision, but what we have not heard is what the other side is for. You are against our provision. What are you for? Are you for deportation? Where is your $240 billion--that is the best estimate--to move these individuals out? Who are they? They are the parents of American citizens, in many instances, disrupting families, disrupting relationships that have been going on for years. It would take the buses to go from San Diego to Anchorage, AK, bumper to bumper, if we were to deport 11 million people at $240 billion. They are all so eloquent, those who differ with us. But you never hear what they are for. They just happen to be against this provision which is an essential part of this whole effort. That is something which is important. I see my friend and colleague here who wants to address the issue. I have other comments, but I will come back a little later in the afternoon and address them. I hope we can move along. I know there are a number of amendments that have been examined and are acceptable. I hope we move those along. I hope we move to a point where we can have some votes and make a determination on the judgment of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, immigration is the story of American history. From the earliest days of our Nation, generation upon generation of immigrants have come to be part of a land that offers freedom and opportunity to those willing to do their part. Immigrants built our great cities. They cultivated our rich farmlands. They built the railroads and highways that bind America from sea to shining sea. They erected houses of worship to practice their faiths. They fought under America's colors in our wars. In fact, 60,000 immigrants are fighting in the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Immigrants worked hard so that their children could embrace the ever- widening possibilities in our land. And over the centuries, immigrants came to America from every part of the globe and made the American dream. They created a Nation that is the envy of the world. That is our history. But it is also our present and our future. We heard the moving immigration story anew here in the Senate just last week as Senator Domenici eloquently described his family's immigrant roots. He told how his parents came from Italy with nothing. His father earned his citizenship through his service in the U.S. Army in the First World War. His mother remained an undocumented immigrant until much later in life. In fact, she was arrested by the immigration authorities many years after coming to America, but she was able to gain legal status, remain in the country and later become a citizen. The Domenicis worked hard, learned English, built a successful grocery business, and their children went on to have successful professional careers. And, as we know, one became a distinguished and respected United States Senator. Last week, we also heard from Senator Martinez of Florida of his family's flight from Cuba to begin new lives in America. Young Mel Martinez was 15 years old when his family escaped from Cuba to seek a new life of freedom. Like millions before him, his family worked hard, learned English, and earned their success in Florida. And today, Mel Martinez not only was a Cabinet Secretary in the administration but was elected by the people of Florida to serve as their United States Senator. There are some in the Senate who seem to believe that immigrants are just criminals. In fact, the Frist bill that's before the Senate declares that all undocumented immigrants are criminals. The Frist bill would have declared Senator Domenici's mother to be a criminal and the Kyl amendment would disqualify her from earning American citizenship. The facts tell a different story. Immigrants--including undocumented immigrants--continue to strengthen the fabric of America in thousands of different ways. As David Brooks observed in his column last week in the New York Times, Hispanic Americans and Hispanic immigrants in particular are less likely to divorce. Husbands and wives stay together and raise their children. Even though they may have less money than other Americans, they spend almost twice as much on music for their children, they spend more on gifts and family get-togethers, and they are more likely to support their elderly parents. The path of progress that we witnessed with the Martinez and Domenici families is familiar even today. By the second generation, most immigrant families have reached the middle class and they pay more than enough taxes to make up for the costs of their parents' generation. By the third generation, 90 percent of the grandchildren of Hispanic immigrants speak English fluently, and 50 percent of them marry non- Hispanics. These patterns of assimilation are identical to those that characterized the children and grandchildren of Southern and Eastern European immigrants who came to the United States 100 years ago, and to the assimilation of German and Irish immigrants who came here 50 years before that. In many ways, our economy is more dependent on immigration than ever before. The arrival of new and young immigrant workers helps explain why America's economy grows faster than most of the aging European nations. According to the Aspen Institute, immigration will be the only source of growth in the prime age labor force in America in the next two decades. So America's choice really is between immigration and economic stagnation. However, even though immigration brings many benefits, there is no doubt that our current system is broken and fails to protect us and meet our Nation's needs. Our borders are out of control at a time of heightened concern about terrorism. Millions cross our borders and remain illegally, creating an underground society that is subject to abuse and that harms American wages and working conditions. Millions more enter through our airports and seaports as visitors but remain long after their visas expire. They come and remain because they wish to work and contribute, and our employers continue to offer them jobs. As a result, more than 11 million undocumented immigrants are living and working in America today. Many in Congress suggest that the answer is simply more enforcement. Just build more fences and hire more patrols and it will solve the problem. But we have tried that before and failed. We have spent more than $20 billion over the past decade to build fences and triple our border patrols, but illegal immigration went up, not down. In the 1980s, the rate of illegal immigration was 40,000 people a year. Today, it is more than half a million. And the probability that a border crosser will be apprehend has plummeted from 20 percent a decade ago to just 5 percent today. An enforcement-only approach to solving our immigration problems may make a good campaign slogan. But in reality it is a failed strategy that threatens our security and threatens American wages. That's why Senator McCain and I have proposed a comprehensive, common sense plan to make a real difference. An effective immigration strategy must have three parts. First, we must enhance and modernize our immigration enforcement capabilities, both at our borders and at worksites. To accomplish this, our bill enhances our capacity to monitor immigration flows and stop illegal entry. To do this, it doubles the number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years. And it builds roads, fences, and vehicle barriers in specific high-flow areas; adds significant new technology at the border to create a robust ``virtual fence''; develops new land and water surveillance plans; authorizes new permanent highway checkpoints near the border; and expands the exit-entry security system to all land borders and airports. Our bill increases our capacity to crack down on criminal syndicates that smuggle immigrants into the country and place them at great risk. To aid in this mission, it creates new Federal penalties for constructing border tunnels; new criminal penalties for evading or refusing to obey commands of immigration officers; and new criminal penalties for financial transactions related to money laundering or smuggling. And it creates new fraud-proof biometric immigration documents; increases access to anti-fraud detection resources; and improves coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal efforts to combat alien smuggling. Our bill increases cooperation with Mexico to strengthen migration control at Mexico's southern border to deter migration from Central America through Mexico and into the United States. And it requires cooperation with other governments in the region to deter international gang activity. And our bill would reduce the job magnet in America by creating a universal electronic eligibility verification system which will allow employers to tell which individuals are authorized to work in the United States. It will substantially increase penalties against employers who fail to comply with eligibility verification rules and add 5,000 new enforcement agents to back up these provisions. Second, we must address the presence of the 11 million undocumented workers who are here now. It is clear that we are not going to send them back. Many have American citizen children and even grandchildren, and deporting them would rip families apart. The massive roundup of 11 million people would create havoc in our communities and cost $240 billion. It would require 200,000 buses in a convoy that would stretch from Alaska to San Diego. These families want to continue working and contributing to our communities, and we should give them that opportunity not by offering an amnesty, but by allowing them to earn the right to remain. So under our plan, to earn their legal status and eventually apply for citizenship, they must pay a $2000 fine, work for six years, pay their taxes, learn English and civics, pass rigorous criminal and security background checks, and get in the back of the line behind those who have been waiting patiently to qualify for green cards. Unfortunately, yesterday on television Senator Frist mischaracterized our commonsense proposal. He called it an amnesty, when in fact nothing is forgiven, nothing is pardoned. Undocumented workers must earn the privilege of legal status and a path to American citizenship. And he said that our plan allows undocumented immigrants to jump to the front of the line, when our bill says plainly in black and white that they must wait in the back. We should conduct this debate based on fact, not fiction--thoughtful policy and not bumper sticker slogans. Earned legalization should not be available to criminal aliens and others who would undermine U.S. security, but we must not be fooled by the amendment offered last week by Senators Kyl and Cornyn. Our bill already excludes from earned legalization criminal aliens and any immigrant representing a security risk to the United States. The Kyl- Cornyn amendment would also exclude literally millions of undocumented immigrants already living and working in this country because they previously failed to depart following an order to do so. Our analysis of DHS and INS statistics suggests that fully 95 percent of immigrants affected by the Kyl-Cornyn amendment would not be criminal aliens, but rather exactly the hardworking immigrants and families this program is designed to bring out of the shadows. The third and final element of a successful immigration strategy is to address future immigration. We must provide a path to earned legalization for those already here. But we must also address the continuing needs of our employers for workers and the reality that people will continue to come here to improve their lives and contribute to America. In the past, we have largely ignored these realities. We have turned our heads as people have come here to work and required them to remain in an underground economy. The head-in-the-sand policy cannot be allowed to continue. It is harmful to these workers who are subject to abuse by employers. It is harmful to employers who never know if their workers may be sent home tomorrow, and most of all it is harmful to American workers whose wages are cut because employers can get away with hiring undocumented workers at lower pay. Therefore, the plan that Senator McCain and I propose and that was adopted by the Judiciary Committee provides a strong and effective guest worker program for the future. It is far better for American workers if future immigrants come here legally with rights to fair wages and working conditions, rather than having to compete with illegal workers who are paid substandard wages. Isn't it better if an employer must pay an immigrant carpenter a standard wage like American workers than a substandard wage that drives down wages for everyone else? That is what our guest worker program would do. It is estimated that the American economy demands about 400,000 new low-skilled immigrants each year, but our current immigration system grants only 5,000 visas to these workers. That is why we have more than 11 million undocumented workers today. There simply are not enough visas to go around. To meet future needs, our guest worker program takes the commonsense step of starting with a 400,000 annual quota and allows the quota to be adjusted up or down in future years based on the needs of the economy. Taking this realistic step would free up our enforcement efforts to focus not on those who yearn to breathe free--they should be welcomed as guest workers who contribute to America. We should concentrate our enforcement resources on those who would truly harm us--the criminals, the drug smugglers, and especially the terrorists. That should be the priority for our time, and that is the priority of the McCain-Kennedy legislation. Enhanced enforcement, earned legalization for those who are here, and a realistic guest worker program for the future--that is a plan for success, and the American people know it. It is a plan that Time magazine reports is supported by more than three-quarters of the American people, and they support it because they know our three-part plan increases our security, respects our values, and strengthens our progress. In fact, poll after poll finds that between two-thirds and three-quarters of all Americans favor a new program to allow temporary visas for future essential workers, and an even higher proportion favor allowing undocumented immigrants into the United States to earn citizenship if they learn English, have a job, and pay taxes. In contrast, in a Time magazine poll conducted last week, just one in four Americans favor making illegal immigration a crime and preventing anyone entering the country illegally from remaining in the country and working here. The American people want real comprehensive reform, not just more immigration enforcement. All three of these changes are necessary if we are to address the root causes of undocumented immigration and break the cycle of illegality which now corrodes our immigration system. All three of these changes are necessary if we are to ensure that immigrant families today, as in the past, continue to live the American dream and contribute to our prosperity, our security, and our values. All three of these changes are necessary if we are to be true to our heritage as a nation of immigrants. Mr. President, 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, there is a time allocation. How much time remains under the time of Senator Leahy?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have probably 15 pages of names of different groups that support and now embrace the McCain-Kennedy legislation, now called our border security legislation. There are 430 different groups that have supported this legislation representing the faith community. This chart is entitled ``Evangelical Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' We support comprehensive immigration reform, based on the biblical mandates, our Christian faith and values, and our commitment to civil and human rights. These are 41 national, local, and individual evangelical leaders and groups. This is reflected also in other religious groups that have supported it, including a number of groups representing labor, business communities, men and women of faith who are supporting the comprehensive approach. I will review very quickly, once again, the kind of worker protections we have put in this legislation. One of the principal reasons the church leaders have been so supportive is because they have followed and witnessed this program for so many years. In the 1950s we had the Bracero Program which was a program that saw enormous human abuses of workers who were basically brought in here, doing sweat labor, without any rights at all, and then shipped back, for the most part, to Mexico. There was an extraordinary exploitation of individuals. That ended in the early 1960s. I was in the Senate when that program ended. We still have enormous tensions between the workers and the farmers, particularly in California and a number of other Western States. We also have seen it on the east coast as a number of migrant workers have come up from Florida, through Georgia, through the Carolinas, even ended up coming into New York State and my own State in the form of apple pickers and other fruit pickers. They have followed the seasons. But primarily this issue about agricultural workers has been focused, as has been spoken to eloquently by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. She has played an indispensable role, along with Senator Craig, who has been a longtime sponsor of what we call the AgJOBS bill. We have votes on that legislation. A bipartisan majority of the members supported that legislation. That particular legislation has been altered to a very small extent and incorporated in the broader legislation. It is one of the important reasons to commend this legislation. As I have mentioned in an earlier statement, we have a comprehensive approach toward our immigration challenge that we are facing in this country, but there is a very important AgJOBS issue. We had not addressed it in the McCain-Kennedy legislation because it appears to have a separate constituency, but we were able to get that incorporated through the leadership of Senator Feinstein. It strengthened our package. I mention, first of all, the protections that have been put in the agriculture comprehensive. Anyone who has followed the relationship between the farmers and the workers would understand it has been an extraordinarily strained relationship, to say the least. Caesar Chavez was the great leader of the farm workers. I had the opportunity to know, respect, and hold him in high regard. He was the leader for the farm workers for a great number of years. He is regarded almost as a saint among the farm workers. There was enormous tension during a prolonged period of time, and in recent years there has been an accommodation between the two groups. Both of the groups--the farmers and agricultural workers--got together and made a proposal. This obviously has enormous implications. From my point of view, it has enormous implications because of what it will do. It will mean that men and women who work in that extraordinarily challenging and difficult agricultural area, which is back-breaking work, will be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. And, second, it provides assurance to the farmers of a definite labor supply. Third, it gives the assurance that States such as California, the leading agricultural State, is going to have dependability and reliability in terms of the work force. That is going to mean better service to the consumers of agricultural products all across this country. It is enormously valuable and very worthwhile and one of the compelling reasons for this legislation. Included in this legislation are very important protections that are not in there under the current H-2A program. Some people have talked about what is happening in agribusiness today in the H-2A program, and too much of that is true, but that will be altered and changed under the agricultural worker compromise. There are specific provisions; again, in order to be eligible for this program individuals are going to have to demonstrate, they must already have a work record of more than 2 years. They will be able to work over a period of 3 years in the business after that period of time, 3 to 5 years, and after that, they can get on a glidepath toward citizenship. So total time for them would be a total of 10 to 12 years in order to earn the opportunity to be a citizen. That means they will have to pay the penalties, they will have to demonstrate they paid their taxes, that they have had no trouble with the law, and they have complied with the other provisions of the legislation. So there are very important protections. If there were no other reasons for the support for this legislation, that particular provision, the AgJOBS legislation, is overwhelming in its importance and consequence in advancing the cause of justice for agricultural workers and also the assurance to farmers of a dependable and reliable workforce. It has been stated a number of times by some Members perhaps who are not as familiar with the legislation as they might be, about the kind of protections that exist in the underlying legislation with regard to the guest worker program and how it would work. First of all, there has to be an advertisement in the United States to try and recruit American workers first. There has to be a certification of the effort under penalty of violating the law. They have to advertise to recruit American workers first. It is only after they have been unable to recruit American workers that they will be able to recruit workers, primarily in Mexico, but there is an allocation of workers, depending on the workforce in terms of other countries, and in limited numbers for other countries in Central America. There are even provisions in terms of the Asian nations. Those will be worked out through the embassies and through the department. When this individual comes to the United States as a guest worker, they will have a tamper-proof identification card. The employer will know that individual has had his criminal record reviewed, that the person is found to be the individual as portrayed, and where there is employment that will be available to that individual in the United States. There are provisions included in the legislation that they are going to be covered by the prevailing wage, they will be covered by the Davis-Bacon provisions, they will be protected if they are going to work as what they call ``service contract'' employees, and their wages will be protected in those areas, as well. Instead of having what we have at the present time--an undocumented alien worker recruited by an employer who can say: Look, you will work for me for $1, and if you do not like it I will turn you over to the immigration authority--this individual will be able to have the card and existing protections for wages which will have the corresponding effect. It will mean that all the wages are going to at least be enhanced because we will no longer have the downward drive in wages with the undocumented. And if that individual is feeling exploited in some way or being denied that or lied to, that individual will be able to take that same card and go to another job. That individual has to find that job within a period of time, some 45 days. In other words, we have drafted this legislation to take into account the exploitation which has existed in the past. Under this particular provision, we will be avoiding that kind of exploitation. Under this provision we will be guaranteeing the protection of wages for that worker and permitting those who are undocumented to be able to acquire a card, as well. Regarding the enforcement against employers who are interested in exploiting those workers, we have the mechanism to make sure those individuals are held accountable and prosecuted, which has never been done previously. It is important. Our leader is here, and I will withhold my comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes from my colleague and friend, Senator Leahy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be good enough to yield? I will be glad to wait for 45 minutes or an hour. I will seek recognition at that time. After the Senator from Vermont speaks, we have some other speakers, but I think we can wait.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then would the Senator from Illinois be recognized for 15 minutes and I will follow the Senator from Illinois?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a short while ago, Senators Kyl and Cornyn offered an amendment. They claim that the committee bill would allow criminals to become permanent residents under the committee bill, and this is not correct. The committee bill requires all applicants to undergo criminal and security background checks, and all applicants must also show that they have not committed any crimes that make them ineligible under our immigration laws. As many Senators know, Congress passed sweeping changes to our immigration laws, and just about any crime makes one ineligible for a green card. This includes aggravated felonies, crimes of violence, drug crimes, crimes of moral turpitude, money laundering, murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, drug trafficking, possession of explosives, theft offenses, child pornography, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, perjury, and many others. Anyone who has committed any of these crimes cannot--cannot--and will not get a green card under the committee bill. What the amendment does, though, is undermine the earned citizenship program in the bill. Millions of Mexicans, Central Americans, Irish, and nationals from other countries would be prevented from applying for legal status not because of criminal crimes but status violations. The goal of comprehensive immigration reform is to encourage illegal workers to come out of the shadows, be screened, and be given work permits, and if they are on the track to eventually being eligible for citizenship, they have to earn it. This is not an amnesty program. No one is forgiven. Anyone who wants to get on this path has to pay a fine, demonstrate that they have a work record, also demonstrate that they paid their taxes, and then get to the end of the line of those who want to come to the United States, and for 11 years meet those responsibilities. That is one part of this legislation. This amendment that is offered would end the possibility for earned legalization. That would be the effect if this amendment is accepted. If the proponents of the amendment are interested or concerned just about crimes, other crimes being added to the list, we are ready to talk with them, and we will try and engage them in a conversation and see if that is their purpose. If their purpose is to undermine a key element of the proposal, that would be unacceptable, and we will have the opportunity to express our views with a vote in the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, I know he has a limited period of time. Obviously, in describing his own background and that of his family--some 160 years in Colorado, 250 years in Santa Fe--he knows the issues. He brings a special dimension to the debate. What I am hearing from the Senator is that what is really necessary is a comprehensive approach, that the Senator is a strong believer that we have to do something about our borders to make sure they are going to be the best in terms of technology so we can have realistic laws, but that we also have to understand how we are going to include those undocumenteds here in the United States in a way which is going to be consistent with our traditions and will also be responsible. Many have called that adjustment status amnesty. I reject that. I ask the Senator if he doesn't agree with me that amnesty means forgiveness. It means pardon. That is not what the underlying legislation is. The underlying legislation says you have to go to the back of the line. You have to wait until everyone who is in line gets the opportunity to come here. You have to work hard, play by the rules, pay your taxes, and pay a fine. Then you can earn your way to the possibility of citizenship, if that is what you desire. If you don't desire that, you don't have to. Does the Senator agree with me that is a reasonable way we ought to think about that, at least when we are trying to recognize that some 11 million undocumented people are here, who work hard and play by the rules? Eighty thousand of them are permanent residents who are serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should they not be able to earn the possibility of citizenship?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. He has explained the underlying bill accurately and correctly. The Senator understands that any of those individuals attempting to adjust their status over an 11-year period, if they get in trouble with the law, they are subject to deportation. They have to play by the rules, pay their taxes, work in the community, and be good citizens, learning English. I am always impressed by the fact that under the Pew poll, it says that 98 percent of undocumented males are working today in the United States. These are workers making our economy stronger and providing for their families. If they in any way violate the law, they are subject to all of the legal interpretations and their opportunity for citizenship is eliminated. This is a tough provision, I believe.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have a half hour in morning business for the Democrats; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to notify me after I have used 12 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to my friend from Alabama. He has been very much involved and engaged in the discussion and debate on this issue in our Judiciary Committee. But I caution those watching this debate to examine his comments, where he said: ``Any individuals that came here illegally, this bill puts them automatically on a path for citizenship.'' That statement is categorically wrong. It does not. I will explain about the provisions of the legislation. I would not support that proposal. The members of the Judiciary Committee that supported the underlying legislation, the McCain-Kennedy legislation, don't support that proposal. We gather here today to begin debate on our effort to correct a great historic wrong. For decades, this country has turned a blind eye to the plight of the stranger in our midst, and looked away in indifference as undocumented immigrants have been exploited at the workplace and have been forced with their families to live in constant fear of detection and deportation. We have ignored the tough conditions endured by the undocumented, and the harmful ripple effects undocumented employment has on some U.S. workers. For decades Congress has failed to take sensible steps to end undocumented immigration, and some of our policy choices have even contributed to the current crisis. We first confronted this problem directly in 1952, passing a law known in the parlance of the time as the ``Wetback'' bill, which made it a crime to harbor or abet undocumented immigrants. But at the same time, over the vigorous objections of President Truman, Congress carved out the Texas Proviso--so called because it was drafted by agricultural producers from that State--which made it legal to employ undocumented immigrants. This decision protected the ``economic pull factors'' which have sustained illegal migration since that time. In 1961 the Edward R. Murrow documentary Harvest of Shame directed the Nation's attention to the miserable conditions under which migrant farm workers toiled to bring cheap fruit and vegetables to our table. Congress responded by terminating the deeply flawed Bracero guest- worker program, and strict limits were imposed for the first time on labor migration from Mexico. I was part of that effort in the Senate to end that unacceptable and outrageously exploitive program. These changes to our immigration policy were well-intentioned, but with hindsight their result was predictable: by ending legal migration, but allowing employers to bid for immigrant labor, Congress all but guaranteed a generation of undocumented immigrants would emerge. Since that time, economic disparity between the U.S. and its neighbors increased, globalization made travel in and out of the U.S. easier, and two whole generations of foreign workers and U.S. employers came of age in an economic system organized around illegal migration. In truth, Congress has done little since then to confront this problem. In 1986 we passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, but IRCA's employer sanctions provisions have never been enforced. Rather than confront the structural causes of undocumented immigration, Congress has repeatedly attacked the symptoms of this disease: building more fences and placing more agents at the U.S.-Mexican border, and imposing more restrictions on immigrants' legal rights. These blunt enforcement tools have not quenched employers' thirst for immigrant workers, and they have not given families the tools to be reunited with their loved ones. Instead, enforcement-only approaches have driven immigrants farther into the desert and deeper underground. For decades, we tolerated undocumented immigration because it seemed like a win-win exchange: employers and consumers were given access to cheap labor and low-cost goods and services; but Congress was not required to make politically difficult decisions about expanding legal low-skilled immigration. But, of course, undocumented immigration has not been cost-free--far from it. And recent changes make continued indifference to this crisis impossible. Undocumented immigrants now live in every State in the Nation, and whole sectors of the economy--from construction, to food services, to health care, to agriculture--depend on undocumented workers to stay in business. Labor and business alike now demand a system in which workers' rights are respected and in which workers are no longer vulnerable to deportation. Millions of U.S. citizens now demand a system in which their husbands, wives, parents, children, and neighbors can plan for the future. And the continued health of the American economy demands a system in which all of these workers join the formal labor force, pay their taxes, and play by the rules. United States relations with Mexico and other countries of origin have also changed, and changed dramatically. In 1965, when the foundation for our current system was put in place, Mexico was an authoritarian state and barely a top 10 United States trade partner. Now Mexico is a flourishing democracy, a partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement, and our No. 2 trade partner in the world. Over 300 million legal border crossings occur between the United States and Mexico each year, and trade across the border totals $650 million a day. Yet this relationship and our broader regional interests are jeopardized by this humanitarian crisis at the border and by the exploitation of immigrants within the United States. President Bush is traveling to Mexico this week, and the crisis of undocumented immigration, including the enormous strain it places on our partnership with Mexico, will be at the top of the agenda. And, of course, the 9/11 attacks remind us that undocumented immigration creates a crisis of insecurity. America spends billions of dollars tracking entries and exits at our ports of entry, but we have no idea about the identity of millions of immigrants already living among us. The vast majority of these undocumented immigrants are honest and hard-working, but our national security requires that we identify and monitor those who are not. We all agree that the time has come for Congress to act, but how shall we do so? Fundamentally, we must choose between two alternatives. Some would have us build higher and longer walls at the border. They would have us further restrict migrants' legal rights and make these hard-working men and women not just subject to deportation but also do time in U.S. prisons for the crime of living and working in this country. They would go much further, actually making felons of people such as Cardinal Mahoney and tens of thousands of other clergy and social workers who are offering counseling or humanitarian support to undocumented immigrants. Yet the United States lacks the resources or the political will to actually remove all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants among us. Doing so would cost $240 billion, it would wreak havoc with our economy, and it would destroy millions of American families. Nor in a global economy do we truly have the desire or the capacity to build an impenetrable wall around ourselves. The idea that blunt enforcement will disrupt this deeply entrenched system of undocumented immigration flies in the face of history and economics. Rather, this enforcement-only approach would simply replicate the policy failures of the past. Down this road lie further undocumented immigration, further insecurity, further economic polarization, and further exploitation of the poorest and most vulnerable among us. I must say, on the issue of the wall, all we have to do is look at our recent history. We have spent $20 billion over the last 10 years. We have a wall now that is 66 miles long. There are 1,800 more miles along the Mexican border, if we are talking about building walls. We have tripled the number of border guards, built the wall along the border, and we find the present system is not functioning or working. How many times do we have to learn that lesson, and how much more would it cost us if we go that particular route? It is a route that is unacceptable, expensive, and unworkable. We propose an alternative approach. We propose to end this system of exploitation and to right this historical injustice.