Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could just ask the Senator from Massachusetts, I was not referring to the amendment which is pending on the floor of the Senate. I was referring to the Cornyn-Kyl bill, which is a comprehensive immigration reform bill that deals with enforcement at the border, enforcement at the worksite, a temporary worker program, a way to deal with the illegal immigrants different in ways from the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee but nonetheless is a comprehensive reform bill which was voted down. But it does represent an alternative on which we would like to have a vote on the Senate floor. I wanted to give the Senator an opportunity to acknowledge that in the Senate there are alternatives to criminalizing the illegal immigrants--if he wanted to?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question to me without giving up his right to the floor?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee yield for a question, please?

Mr. KYL. Given the fact that the distinguished minority leader has, I am sure unintentionally, but nonetheless mischaracterized my amendment, No. 3246, wouldn't it be a better process to understand the nature of the amendments to discuss them and to debate them under the regular order and then have a vote up or down rather than through the process we are undertaking right now, which is at best a very indirect approach to discussion and in any event doesn't lead to a vote up or down on the amendments?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to verify what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has just said, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the regular order for a vote on amendment No. 3206, which is the amendment I offered last Friday to which Senator Specter just referred. There is a second-degree amendment that was offered by Senator Cornyn, and there is the text of an amendment that I have possession of that was, I believe, produced by Senator Kennedy that would be the Democrat side- by-side amendment, and we could vote on that amendment after the vote on the second-degree amendment and my amendment No. 3206. So we can determine right now whether the Democratic leadership is preventing us from having votes on amendments, such as the amendment that I filed last Friday. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the regular order and that my amendment No. 3206 then be pending and proceed to a vote on that amendment.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question before he does that?

Mr. KYL. Finally, one final question, Mr. President, to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Is it not true that one of the critical elements of the legislation we are considering right now has yet to be added to the bill because the jurisdiction was felt to be in the Finance Committee and that the amendment, which would become a separate title of the bill dealing with employee eligibility verification, has yet to be offered as an amendment and clearly will need to be offered as an amendment, debated, considered, and hopefully approved before any legislation that purports to be comprehensive immigration reform could be voted on and passed by this body?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Judiciary Committee yield for the purpose of my propounding another unanimous consent request?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could ask this question of the chairman of the committee because the Senator from Illinois just made a comment about what the pending amendment would do. The pending amendment specifies that a person who has committed a felony or three or four misdemeanors would be ineligible to participate in the program. The Senator from Illinois knows that under existing law people convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, certain drug offenses, and other multiple crimes are already prohibited from participating in the program. But I ask the chairman of the committee if I may lay this predicate for the question: The INS Attorney Manual provides Department of Homeland Security attorneys with random examples of crimes that have been held not to be crimes of moral turpitude by the Board of Immigration Appeals and, therefore, whether this sample list of crimes would be excluded from the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee and, therefore, people who have committed crimes such as this would still be eligible to participate in the program and be put on the path to citizenship. The sample includes burglary, loan sharking, involuntary manslaughter, assault and battery, possession of an unregistered sawed- off shotgun, riot, kidnaping, certain types not involving ransom, making false statements to a U.S. agency, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, abandonment of a minor child, alien smuggling, reentry after deportation, draft evasion, desertion from the Armed Forces, contempt of Congress, and contempt of court. Many of these decisions, according to the manual, involve fines, distinctions of the technical element of state or foreign companies and sometimes crimes which are defined as crimes of moral turpitude. That list goes to the specific crimes in the statute. You would have to determine whether a crime of moral turpitude was involved in order to know whether the individual would be permitted to take advantage of the underlying bill. If an individual has committed a felony or three or four misdemeanors, under the amendment we have filed they would be ineligible. I ask the chairman of the committee whether it would be wise public policy for someone who has committed a felony and has been convicted of committing a felony or three or four misdemeanors should participate in the program which would ultimately lead to citizenship.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me yield some time to myself. With all due respect, I disagree with my colleague, who has said the amendment would deny most of the people whom the bill is intended to benefit the benefits of the bill; namely, legal permanent residency and citizenship. That is only true if most of the people who are supposed to receive benefits under the bill have committed a felony or three misdemeanors or have violated a court order to leave the country when they have been ordered to do so, or have not complied with a prior order of the DHS to depart if they are not eligible to participate in the program. These are not the people we should be seeking to give the benefits of the program to. These are precisely the people who have demonstrated either they are criminals or that when you have given them the chance to comply with an immigration order, they have refused to do so. I do not think the Senator intended to say these are exactly the people we want to benefit under this program. There are two large classes of people who would be potentially denied the benefits of the program by our amendment. The first is, instead of referring to crimes of moral turpitude or violation of a crime relating to a controlled substance--which are the two specific categories in the bill--we say any felony or three misdemeanors. And examples of crimes, as I said before, that are not covered by the controlled substance or moral turpitude sections are: burglary; loan sharking; involuntary manslaughter; assault and battery; possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun; riot; kidnaping; abandonment of a minor child; alien smuggling; reentry after deportation, as I said; draft evasion; desertion from the Armed Forces; and others. These are crimes that would not be picked up in the pending bill. So while it is true some crimes are covered and, therefore, some criminals would not get the benefits called for in this pending legislation, it is also true many others who have committed these other kinds of crimes would not in any way be restricted from participating in the benefits of the law. The second group is those who have committed immigration violations, not just people who are in some status violation. Let me make that crystal clear. It is not simply because you overstayed your visa. There are only two categories here. You have not complied with a prior Department order and, therefore, are not eligible to participate in the program. In the hearing, by the way, of our subcommittee, we showed that between 80 and 85 percent of those released on bail failed to appear and comply with removal orders. Clearly, this has to demonstrate a disrespect for orders from immigration courts and should not be allowed to continue. These are exactly the kind of people you do not want to be participating in the program because they have already demonstrated a willingness to violate immigration law after being ordered to do so. Secondly, those who have not only failed to depart after being ordered--they have entered illegally, but that is not what we are talking about here. Entering illegally does not count under this amendment to deny them benefits. Rather, you have to have done that and been ordered by the court to depart as a result of some violation and further refused to comply with the judge's order. So this is not just a status violation. Merely coming here illegally would not be covered by this amendment, period. You would have to commit a felony--been convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors, or have intentionally violated an order of the court to depart after having been ordered to do so by the court. I think what this amendment does is to make it crystal clear that the intention of the Senate is that people participating in the program not be convicted criminals or people who have deliberately violated a court order dealing with departure from the United States. It is interesting that most of the language we took came from the 1986 bill, and for some reason that language was omitted from the bill that is pending before the Senate. So it seems to me if we are going to at least get to most of the people we would not want to participate in this program, we would want to deny that right to those who have committed serious crimes, such as the ones I have articulated here. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think I misspoke a while ago and talked about the amendment that I introduced last Friday--actually, it was last Thursday--that Senator Cornyn and I, and I believe Senator George Allen is a cosponsor--introduced, amendment No. 3206. My question to the chairman is this: In the bill, there is a variety of benefits that are provided to illegal immigrants who are in the United States today in that they are allowed to gain a legal status which can lead to legal permanent residency, sometimes called a green card, from which one can apply for citizenship. There are some conditions attached to that. Is it not correct that the amendment Senator Cornyn and I offered simply adds to those requirements, or those benefits, the additional requirement that the individual seeking the benefit not have been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors, or have violated a judge's order of departure from the United States?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on the other side?

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL. There is objection heard to that?

Mr. KYL. To lay aside the current business and send to the desk amendment No. 3246.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this unanimous consent request is simply to send to the desk amendment No. 3246, an amendment that Senator Cornyn and I would like to send to the desk.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could ask a final question of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that through your good offices a bill was shepherded through the committee, a bill which you support and are prepared to vote on and vote for, it would be your view that a denial of our opportunity to offer an amendment as an alternative would be improper and inappropriate and an obstructionist tactic to prevent the Senate from working its will in having an opportunity to consider differing points of view on this important and complex subject?

Mr. KYL. I appreciate that. Because the Senator from Vermont referred to me and referred to my objection earlier today, let me ask the Senator, the chairman of the committee, is it not correct that my unanimous consent request this morning, in response to his, was that the two Senators from Florida be allowed to address the achievement of their Gators basketball team while the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and any other members of leadership who needed to be a part of it, begin discussing exactly what the Senator from Vermont just now was saying needed to be discussed--namely, the order of speakers and the order of amendments that would be considered? And is it not further true that the Democratic side said that could be done only after the two lunches that would conclude sometime around 2:15 this afternoon? So it was not my objection to the speaking order request of the Senator from Vermont that precluded him or anyone else from discussing with you or anyone else the proper order of speaking or offering of amendments or voting on amendments; is that not correct?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes to close. I gather this will be a 100-to-nothing vote not to table. I agree with the Senator from Texas. We should not table the amendment, but we should have a vote up or down on it. If you don't like it, then vote against it. I will make something very clear. If you came across the border from Mexico into the United States, into Texas, Arizona, California or New Mexico, and you came across illegally, this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with you--unless you also are a criminal or you have been convicted of a felony or of three misdemeanors or you are an absconder--that is to say, after you came into the country illegally, and you were ordered to leave by a judge, and you refused to leave. Those are the circumstances this amendment applies to. It doesn't apply to you if all you did was come in illegally. In other words, that status is not implicated by this amendment. We simply seek to deny the benefits of this legislation--legal permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship--to people convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors or, in this category of an absconder, which the Senator from Texas talked about. Why is this important? It is because there are a certain number of people who have violated such an order. They have failed to leave the country when they were ordered to do so. According to the testimony before the subcommittee I chair in the Judiciary Committee, about a month ago, the statistics are now that about 10 percent of the people entering the country illegally are criminals; it is between 10 and 15 percent. They are serious criminals. I hope that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the motion to table.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I object to the request.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. I just wanted to get an amendment pending but not to speak on it.

Mr. KYL. That would not preclude the offering of an amendment by unanimous consent?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, would the Senator from Vermont yield for a question from me regarding this unanimous consent request?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.