Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. That is not bad. Mr. President, I did not do that intentionally, but I think it may be protecting the distinguished Presiding Officer. I now call up amendment No. 4117.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment I offer is on behalf of the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Coleman, Senator Kennedy, Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee, Senator Harkin, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Sununu. We have had unintended consequences because of changes made in immigration laws after September 11. Rightly so, they were modified to protect national security, but we made them so broad that many people have been prevented from entering our Nation, people who do us no harm. The PATRIOT Act and the subsequent REAL ID Act modified definitions of ``terrorist activity'' and ``material support'' in order to block entry into the United States of individuals who assist terrorist organizations. On its face, that made sense. No one wants terrorists or their supporters to come here as refugees. But the new law failed to recognize that many foreigners, including children, are forced against their will to give food, shelter or other assistance to terrorist groups. It also defined ``terrorist organization'' so broadly that groups that are not engaged in activities against civilians--freedom fighters that the U.S. Government once provided training and other material support to-- like the Montagnards in Vietnam--are covered by this broad definition. Our amendment would bring American laws once again into line with American values. It would give U.S. officials the ability to separate the victims from the aggressors, and it will bring our immigration laws into harmony with our government's foreign policy. We can prevent the entry of those who would do America harm without closing our borders to genuine refugees who urgently need our help. Let me give a few examples. A 13-year-old girl is kidnapped, she is forced to become a member of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, become a soldier, basically a sex slave of one of the commanders. She is ineligible for admission as a refugee under current law. That is wrong. In fact, it is immoral. The same goes for people who provide material support to FARC, the terrorist group in Colombia. The support they gave was digging graves for other victims of the terrorists or giving them food, or otherwise being shot themselves. Or a Liberian woman who was kidnapped by a rebel group and forced to serve as a sex slave. She was also forced to cook and do laundry for the rebels, so she is considered to have given material support and she is barred. That makes no sense. People who are barred for supporting a terrorist organization--which is broadly defined as any group of two or more people fighting a government--includes refugees who our own government has long supported. The Vietnamese Montagnards, who supported the United States 35 years ago, are barred. Members of the Karen Tribe fighting against the Burmese junta are barred. Some anti-Castro Cubans are barred. Afghans who fought with the Northern Alliance, and even the NATO soldiers who trained them, are barred. We never intended to do that. After 8 months of interagency inertia, the Secretary of State recently issued a waiver for one group of Burmese refugees who live in a refugee camp in Thailand. The use of the waiver authority was long overdue and I welcomed the Secretary's action. But the waiver was too limited, and will help only a minority of those deserving help, who are waiting to be resettled here. When the waiver was issued, the State Department asserted that it did not plan to extend it to other groups in the near future. Infighting between executive branch agencies is preventing people who have been victimized in the most brutal ways from obtaining asylum. The bipartisan amendment that we offer today modifies the law so that before the overly broad definition of a terrorist organization is applied to a group of two or more individuals, the Secretary of State must determine that the group engages in terrorist activity which poses a threat to U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States. That is the right balance. It protects U.S. security, and it provides sanctuary for victims of repression. Mr. President, how much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support what the Senator from Missouri has said.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond also have an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act includes a subtitle known as AgJOBS, a bill that has long been championed by Senator Craig, Senator Kennedy, and a broad bipartisan group of Senators. I strongly support this bill because it will help both farmers and farm workers in Vermont and around the Nation. AgJOBS contains a package of reforms that are badly needed in the seasonal agricultural worker program, called H-2A visas. AgJOBS was negotiated with the full participation of agribusiness and farmworkers' unions, and it reflects a fair and thoughtful balance of the needs of both farmers and workers. The version of AgJOBS contained in S. 2611 protects business by ensuring a steady flow of legal workers. It assists agricultural workers by preventing wage stagnation in a growing economy and by providing labor protections. It helps both business and labor by giving trained and trusted foreign agricultural workers a path to permanent immigration status if they meet the requirements in the bill, such as paying fines and taxes, keeping a clean criminal record, and working the requisite number of hours. The Chambliss amendment is an attack on wages for agricultural workers who are among the lowest paid laborers in America. By unfairly favoring the growers over foreign workers, the Chambliss amendment would upset the careful balance on wages and labor protections that were negotiated with the participation of agribusiness and unions in the AgJOBS bill. The Chambliss amendment requires employers to pay workers the highest of two wage rates: the prevailing wage in the area of employment, which may be determined by an employer who conducts his own local survey, or the applicable State minimum wage. Basing wages on the higher of these two rates could result in deep cuts to wages. Some State minimum wages are very low, such as Kansas, which requires only $2.65 per hour. Senator Chambliss previously acknowledged that farm wages could fall by roughly $3 per hour under his proposal. His proposal almost guarantees that no U.S. workers could afford to accept agricultural jobs and that foreign agricultural workers, who are already among the most poorly paid workers in America, would be paid miserly wages for their labor. The Chambliss formulation does not include the well-balanced provisions of AgJOBS. Under AgJOBS, an employer must pay the highest of three wage rates: (1) the prevailing wage, (2) the Federal or State minimum wage, (3) or the ``adverse effect wage rate,'' or AEWR, a regional weighted average hourly wage rate for agricultural workers. The AEWR was established under the Bracero guest worker program for Mexican workers that ended in the 1960s. It was created to ensure that guest workers would not adversely affect American workers by depressing wages. Removing AEWR from the wage equation drives wages downward, which hurts all workers--American and foreign. It is no secret that our agricultural industries depend on cheap labor, and some estimate that 70 percent of agricultural workers presently working in the U.S. are undocumented. For all the of national security reasons I have cited throughout this debate, we need to bring agricultural workers out of the shadows. But we must also recognize that vulnerable populations deserve our support and protection. Farm workers are among the most vulnerable laborers in the Nation and I cannot support an amendment that would slash their wages further. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Senate resumed its consideration of comprehensive immigration reform last week I began by expressing my hope that we would finish the job the Judiciary Committee started in March and the Senate began in April. We need to fix the broken immigration system with tough reforms that secure our borders and with reforms that will bring millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. I have said all along that Democratic Senators cannot pass a fair and comprehensive bill alone. Last week we got some help. We got some words of encouragement from President Bush last Monday night when he began speaking out more forcefully and in more specific terms about all of the components needed for comprehensive legislation. For the first time, he expressly endorsed a pathway to earned citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers now here. I thank him for joining in this effort. We will need his influence with the recalcitrant members of his party here in the Senate, and especially in the House, if we are ultimately to be successful in our legislative effort. Without effective intervention of the President, this effort is unlikely to be successful and the prospects for securing our borders and dealing with the hopes of millions who now live in the shadows of our society will be destroyed. Those who have peacefully demonstrated their dedication to justice and comprehensive immigration reform should not be relegated back into the shadows. Last week the Senate made progress. We made progress because Democratic and Republican Senators working together rejected the most strident attacks on the comprehensive bill that we are considering. We joined together in a bipartisan coalition in the Judiciary Committee when we reported the Judiciary Committee bill. Democratic Senators were ready to join together in April and supported the Republican leader's motion that would have resulted in incorporating features from the Hagel-Martinez bill, but Republicans balked at that time and continued to filibuster action. Last week, Republicans joined with us to defend the core provisions of that bill, and we defeated efforts by Senators Kyl and Cornyn to gut the guest worker provisions and to undermine the pathway to earned citizenship. Instead, we adopted the Bingaman amendment to cap the annual guest worker program at 200,000 and the Obama amendment regarding prevailing wages in order to better protect the opportunities and wages of American workers. I spoke last week about the need to strengthen our border security after more than 5 years of neglect and failure by the Bush-Cheney administration. A recent report concluded that the number of people apprehended at our borders for illegal entry fell 31 percent on President Bush's watch, from a yearly average of 1.52 million between 1996 and 2000, to 1.05 million between 2001 and 2004. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended while in the interior of the country declined 36 percent, from a yearly average of roughly 40,000 between 1996 and 2000, to 25,901 between 2001 and 2004. Audits and fines against employers of illegal immigrants have also fallen significantly since President Bush took office. Given the vast increases in the number of Border Patrol agents, the decline in enforcement can only be explained by a failure of leadership. The recent aggressive and well-publicized enforcement efforts to detain illegal immigrants seem to be election-year posturing that does little to improve the situation. We need comprehensive reform, backed up by leadership committed to using the tools Congress provides, not to piecemeal political stunts. Once again the administration is turning to the fine men and women of National Guard. After our intervention turned sour in Iraq, the Pentagon turned to the Guard. After the government-wide failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina, we turned to the Guard. Now, the administration's longstanding lack of focus on our porous Southern border and failure to develop a comprehensive immigration policy has prompted the administration to turn once again to the Guard. I remain puzzled that this administration, which seems so ready to take advantage of the Guard, fights so vigorously against providing this essential force with adequate equipment, a seat at the table in policy debates, or even adequate health insurance for the men and women of the Guard. I have cautioned that any Guard units should operate under the authority of State Governors. In addition, the Federal Government should pick up the full costs of such a deployment. Those costs should not be foisted onto the States and their already overtaxed Guard units. Controlling our borders is a national responsibility, and it is regrettable that so much of this duty has been punted to the States and now to the Guard. The Guard is pitching in above and beyond, balancing its already demanding responsibilities to the States, while sending troops who have been deployed to Iraq. The Guard served admirably in response to Hurricane Katrina when the Federal Government failed to prepare or respond in a timely or sufficient manner. The Vermont Guard and others have been contributing to our national security since the immediate aftermath of 9/11. After 5 years of failing to utilize the authority and funding Congress has provided to strengthen the Border Patrol and our border security, the administration is, once again, turning to the National Guard. It was instructive that last week President Bush and congressional Republicans staged a bill-signing for legislation that continues billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead of a budget with robust and complete funding for our Border Patrol and border security, the President has focused on providing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Congress has had to step in time and again to create new border agent positions and direct that they be filled. Instead of urging his party to take early and decisive action to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as he signaled he would in February 2001, the President began his second term campaigning to undercut the protections of our Social Security system, and the American people signaled their opposition to those undermining steps. While the President talks about the importance of our first responders, he has proposed 67 percent cuts in the grant program that supplies bulletproof vests to police officers. Five years of the Bush-Cheney administration's inaction and misplaced priorities have done nothing to improve our immigration situation. The Senate just passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that allocated nearly $2 billion from military accounts to border security. The Democratic leader had proposed that the funds not be taken from the troops. But last week the President sent a request for diverting a like amount of funding, intended for capital improvements for border security, into operations and deployment of the National Guard. The Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security came to the Senate floor last week to give an extraordinary speech in this regard. In addition, last week the Senate adopted a billion-dollar amendment to build fencing along the Southern border without saying how it would be funded. We also adopted amendments by Senators Bingaman, Kerry, and Nelson of Florida to strengthen our enforcement efforts. Border security alone is not enough to solve our immigration problems. We must pass a bill--and enact a law--that will not only strengthen the security along our borders, but that will also encourage millions of people to come out of the shadows. When this is accomplished we will be more secure because we will know who is living and working in the United States. We must encourage the undocumented to come forward, undergo background checks, and pay taxes to earn a place on the path to citizenship. Last week we defeated an Ensign amendment to deny persons in legal status the Social Security benefits to which they are fairly entitled. I believe that most Americans will agree with that decision as fair and just. It maintains the trust of the Social Security trust fund for those workers who contribute to the fund. The opponents of our bipartisan bill have made a number of assaults on our comprehensive approach. Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn opposed the Judiciary Committee bill. Senators Vitter, Ensign, and Inhofe have been very active in the amendment process, as well. I hope that they recognize how fairly they have been treated and the time they have been given to argue their case against the bill and offer amendments. We have adopted their amendments where possible. A narrowed version of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment disqualifying some from seeking legalization was adopted. The Sessions amendment on fencing was adopted. The Vitter amendment on documents was adopted. The Ensign amendment on the National Guard is being considered. Over my strong objection and that of the Democratic leader, Senator Salazar and others, a modified version of the Inhofe amendment designating English as our national language was even adopted. This amendment is wrong and has understandably provoked a reaction from the Latino community as exemplified by the May 19 letter from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and from a larger coalition of interested parties as reflected in a May 19 letter from 96 national and local organizations. I will ask copies of these two letters be printed in the Record following my statement. I trust that with so many of their amendments having been fairly considered and some having been adopted, those in the opposition to this measure will reevaluate their previous filibuster, that they will vote for cloture, and, I will hope, support the compromise bill. Immigration reform must be comprehensive if it is to lead to real security and real reform. Enforcement-only measures may sound tough but they are insufficient. The President has acknowledged this truth. Our bipartisan support of the Senate bill is based on our shared recognition of this fact. In these next few days, the Senate has an opportunity, and a responsibility, to pass a bill that addresses our broken system, with comprehensive immigration reform. I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken several times in the course of this debate about my belief that immigrants should learn the English language. In my experience, most new Americans want to learn our language and make efforts to do so as quickly as possible. The bill that we are debating calls for immigrants to learn English as one of the several steps they must take before they can earn citizenship. We can all agree that English should be the common language of the United States, but by making English the ``national'' language, the Inhofe amendment goes too far. The amendment was modified to remove a ban on publishing official documents in any language but English. That was a good correction. In many local communities and States it may well be useful and helpful for the government to reach out to language minorities. Greater participation and information are good and appropriate steps communities should be striving for. We should not be mandating artificial and shortsighted restrictions on State and local government. I regret, however, that the amendment continues to include language that strongly discourages the use of other languages to inform residents and continues to treat those who speak another language as second-class citizens. We would do better to recognize our diversity and provide greater opportunities to those for whom English is a second language to become more fluent. My mother spoke Italian as a child and learned English when she went to school. My wife grew up in a family that spoke French. She began speaking English when she started going to school. Both were helped throughout their lives by being completely and totally bilingual as a result.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator withhold?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the President said: Every human being has dignity and value, no matter what their citizenship papers say. I believe this amendment is antithetical to that sentiment. Senator Ensign has proposed an amendment antithetical to the sentiments that the President expressed, and which most Americans share. Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Many do not yet have Social Security numbers but they and their American employers have paid in their contributions. Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. Americans understand fairness. That is fairness. We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. It violates the trust that underlies the Social Security Trust Fund. Senator Ensign proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong. Under current law, immigrants who have paid Social Security while in an undocumented status may gain the benefit of all of their contributions once they gain legal status and become eligible to collect Social Security benefits. They paid in and they should be entitled to the benefits they have earned. The whole purpose of the path to citizenship program in the bill is to encourage people to become lawful, productive citizens. Penalizing these people is unfair, especially since under the law they are not only working hard and contributing to the Social Security Trust Fund, but also working hard to achieve legal status and earned citizenship. Hard work is rewarded in the country, not penalized. Following the law and advancing on the path toward earned citizenship should be encouraged, not punished. For example, the children of an undocumented worker who has worked for 20 years and who has paid into the system would be denied all Social Security benefits if their parent dies before becoming a legal resident or citizen. Even though the children are citizens, they would be denied the benefit their parent worked many years and contributed to earn. Not only is this unfair, but it risks encouraging others in similar situations to stay in the shadows and not to pay into the Social Security Trust Fund. This will also have the effect of shifting burdens to the States and local communities and away from the Social Security safety net. I am confident that Vermonters and all Americans understand fairness. They understand respecting other people and respecting their contributions in terms of work and Social Security payments. They will not want to steal those contributions and benefits and deny fairness to lawful immigrants and their families. They also understand that if the Republican-controlled Senate is prepared to take these Social Security funds today, the risk increases that their Social Security funds could be targeted tomorrow. After all, the Social Security Trust Fund is already being used to mask the deficit. As it becomes harder and harder to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and rising gas prices and lucrative Government contracts, some will be tempted to use money diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund. The President has already proposed draining the Crime Victims Trust Fund. We should maintain these trust funds for the purposes for which Congress created them and keep them safe. We should respect the contributions that people make to these trust funds and not look for excuses to start denying legal residents and citizens the benefits they have been promised. Let us not take a giant misstep that we will surely regret. If we are going to encourage and support a path to citizenship for many people under this bill, we must do so in a way that ensures independence and security once that journey is completed.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I will have a total amount of 10 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, information is vital and sometimes lives depend on it. Is it not in the interests of all Americans to have every member of our society as well-informed on matters of health, safety and our democracy as possible? Do we really want to restrict government publications and communications, such as those on disaster preparedness, public health concerns, if there is an avian flu pandemic, to English only? We have recently seen the extensive and effective reach of Spanish radio in this country. Would we not want to employ that resource in a crisis? Do we really want to tie our hands and require Congress to pass a special statute every time health and safety materials, for example, would be useful? We already have statutes that call for bilingual election materials to assist language minorities in accordance with our commitment to making participation in voting fair and meaningful. We know that there are many circumstances in which effective access to information requires communications in many ways and many languages. Would it not have been useful for the President to try to sell and explain the Medicare drug benefit plan with all its complications and permutations in many languages in order to reach the most possible beneficiaries? Do we really intend to require such obviously beneficial actions to need a special statutory authorization? Should we review agency requirements to take warnings in languages other than English off our airlines and automobiles and dangerous equipment? Are we going to stop providing court translators and require all court proceedings, which are themselves official government proceedings, to occur in English, only to the detriment of fairness and justice? Are we going to go back into the Congressional Record and scrub the statements of Senators Martinez and others who have used Spanish here on the floor? If I recall correctly, the Senator from Oklahoma has spoken on this floor in Spanish. Would this amendment make his use of Spanish illegal--or does the Constitution's ``speech and debate'' clause mean that the rule that he is asking us to adopt applies to everyone else but not to Senators? Now, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is on the Senate floor. It was only a few weeks ago that we worked together to adopt the Alexander amendment to S. 2454, the immigration bill we debated in April. The text of Senator Alexander's amendment is included in S. 2611, the bill before us now. The Alexander amendment created a grant program to promote the integration of immigrants into our democracy by teaching civics, history and the English language. That is the right approach for America to take. The Inhofe amendment takes the opposite approach, the wrong approach and has the effect of stigmatizing those who grew up where Spanish or Chinese or other great languages were spoken. It risks driving a wedge between communities. This is contrary to our values and what we should be seeking to accomplish with this important legislation. I recognize that not every State is like my home State of Vermont, where the majority of residents speak English. Even in my State, however, there are many families who first came to America speaking only French. My parents-in-law became proud American citizens. They spoke French at home, and that was the first language of my wife. My grandparents emigrated from Italy speaking Italian. That was the first language of my mother until she went to school. We are proud of that. In prior generations, we welcomed large groups of Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and in recent years, immigrants and refugees from Africa, Asia and many other parts of the world. I wish my French was better. I wish my Latin was more polished. I wish I knew more than a few words and phrases in Chinese and Spanish. On Monday night, the President spoke eloquently about the need to help newcomers assimilate and embrace our common identity. He spoke of civility and respect for others and said that Americans are bound together by our shared ideals. These are the messages we must send to the American people, not the divisive message of the Inhofe amendment. I look around this Senate Chamber and engraved in the wall behind the elevated desk and chair of the President of the Senate are the words ``E Pluribus Unum.'' Every school child is taught that expression, ``out of many, one'' and what it means to our shared value of being the United States of America. It points to an important value from our history and today. It points to our struggle to become a nation of many people, of many States, and of many faiths. What is wrong with our using Latin, as we traditionally have and expressing our unity? Latin expressions mark our official currency and the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. The phrases ``annuit coeptis'' and ``novus ordo seclorum'' are part of the official symbols of the United States. These expressions are traced back to Virgil and a line from his instruction for farmers, which seeks the favor of God or Providence for our great endeavor to create a nation unlike any that had come before. The second Latin phrase is another allusion to Virgil and notes our seeking a new order. Our incorporation of languages other than English does not stop there. Take a look at the flag of Connecticut with the phrase ``Qui transtulit sustinet''; the flag for Idaho that includes the phrase ``Esto perpetua''; the Kansas flag that includes the phrase ``ad astra per aspera''; the Maine flag that includes ``Dirigo''; the Massachusetts flag that includes the phrase ``Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem''; the Michigan flag includes not only ``e pluribus unum'' but also ``Circumspice,'' ``Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam'' and ``Tuebor''; the Missouri flag includes the phrase ``Salus populi suprema lex esto''; the flag of New York includes the expression ``Excelsior''; the Virginia flag includes the phrase ``Sic semper tyrannis''; the flag of West Virginia includes the phrase ``Montani semper liberi''; and the Wisconsin flag also includes the phrase ``e pluribus unum.'' I see the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota, and I thought I would include the flag from his own State. The flag of Minnesota includes a French language phrase befitting its history, ``L'etoile du Nord.'' Do we in this Senate mean to demand that the States change their State flags and State mottos to eliminate Latin and French? Do we really mean to frown on their use? Or is it only Spanish, a language derived from Latin that we wish to denigrate? In that case, I remind the Senate that the State of Montana includes on its flag the phrase ``oro y plata,'' a Spanish phrase that serves as the State motto ``gold and silver.'' I remember how silly we looked a couple of years ago when some in the House demanded that French fries be renamed ``freedom fries.'' Does this prohibition apply to Roman numerals, such as those included on the flag of Missouri? Does this body intend to embark down that road? I hope not, I pray not.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his amendment. He is a Senator who continues to demonstrate his interest and ability in bringing us together rather than seeking to drive wedges between us. We can all agree that English should be the common language of the United States. His is a good suggestion for an alternative that I will support. In many local communities and States, it may well be useful and helpful for the Government to reach out to language minorities. Greater participation and information are good things. We should not be mandating artificial and shortsighted restrictions on State and local government. I have spoken in the course of this debate about my belief that immigrants should learn the English language. In my experience, most new Americans want to learn our language and make efforts to do so as quickly as possible. The bill that we are debating calls for immigrants to learn English as one the several steps they must take before they can earn citizenship. I certainly understand why the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Asian American Justice Center, the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, the National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund and others have been concerned about the Inhofe amendment. I share their concerns. I strongly support the efforts of the Senator from Colorado to find a common ground to unite us rather than divide us and strongly support his alternative amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is yet another amendment designed to undermine the well-balanced programs in this bill. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is the product of hard-fought compromise and it reflects a balance between the needs of American business and American workers. Strong coalitions representing both of those sectors of our society support this bill and endorse the temporary worker program contained in it. One critical provision in the bill creates an opportunity for temporary workers who have followed the rules and worked hard while in the U.S. to seek legal permanent status after a period of time. An employer who has come to rely upon an immigrant guest worker and wants to keep that immigrant on staff can file a petition after 1 year for the immigrant to get in line for a green card. The guest worker does not receive any preferential treatment in this program. He must get in the back of the line and meet all the other requirements to earn citizenship, a process that will likely take more than a decade to complete. The Kyl amendment strips out this provision, taking away a valuable option for both the immigrants and their employers. When a similar amendment was debated in the Judiciary Committee--and defeated, as I hope this one will be--the sponsor stated his belief that lower skilled immigrant temporary workers should have to leave the U.S. after a few years. High-skilled workers are not treated in this manner. H-1B visas holders have the opportunity to apply for green cards under current law. But some sponsors of this bill are willing to treat guest workers as second class. This attitude is deeply disturbing. Lower skilled workers are essential to our economy and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Many of our great American leaders, scientists, artists, and teachers have immigrant roots of very modest means. Throughout this debate we have heard many Senators tell their personal stories. Almost all of these reflected early years of hardship and struggle while immigrant parents worked hard under very tough circumstances so that their children could have greater opportunities. Not only is that attitude offensive to me, but it makes little business sense. Employers of immigrants in the sectors most likely to use these temporary workers, such as hotels and tourism, food service, health care, and meat packing, support the program in the bill. The National Restaurant Association has stated that the restaurant industry is expected to create almost 2 million new jobs by 2016. It expects this growth to outpace available labor. For reasons such as these, the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and members of the Essential Worker Coalition support the bill, and strongly oppose this amendment. Striking the path to citizenship measures in the guest worker program is also the wrong decision for national security reasons. One of the driving forces behind enacting a comprehensive reform program is to ensure that we know who is living and working within our borders. If there is no path available to those who seek it and can meet the tough requirements in the bill, then some guest workers will overstay their visas and continue to live and work in the U.S. out of status. That would put us back in the position we are in right now--the position that we all agree must be reformed. In fact, the reason that guest worker programs have failed in the past is precisely because they did not contain an option for guest workers to apply to remain in the U.S. legally, if that is what they hope to do. Many guest workers will return home, but not all. We should ensure that the programs we define in law do not send immigrants back into the shadows. Finally, I express my disappointment in hearing about the White House support of the Kyl amendment. I find it troubling that the White House would choose this amendment to fight so hard to pass. A tremendous amount of effort has been expended by many of us in the Senate, including a handful of determined Republicans, to preserve the core provisions of the bill. These committed supporters of the bill view the Kyl amendment as one that strikes to the core of the compromises contained in it. We would have benefited from the White House's involvement earlier in the process in a helpful way, but its choice to fight against comprehensive reform today is a grave disappointment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Congress passed the intelligence reform bill in 2004, it included measures that were intended to help secure our borders. These provisions, called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, require that any person, including a U.S. citizen, present a passport or its equivalent, when they enter the United States from neighboring countries, including Canada or Mexico. We have long enjoyed less-formal immigration policies with our neighbors, and especially with Canada. These policies encourage tourism and trade and promote goodwill between our nations. The impact of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative on Northern Border states could be extremely harmful. Last year, Vermont exported $1.516 billion worth of products to Canada. And in 2003, more than 2 million Canadians visited Vermont, spending $188 million while here. Other northern border States enjoy similar trade and tourism benefits with Canada and face what could be significant downturns in their economies if this law is not implemented smoothly. States like Alaska and Minnesota have unique challenges under the law because in Alaska all or in Minnesota some residents have to cross into Canada before entering the continental U.S. by land. In addition, several southern States could experience negative impacts. Florida and Nevada welcome significant numbers of Canadian tourists. Other States have strong economic ties to Canada and depend on the efficient movement of products across international borders. We all know that the economic health of many small towns along the border depends upon their access to neighboring Canadian towns. In some cases, these towns share emergency services, grocery stores and other basic services. Residents sometimes cross the border on foot several times a day. This is true in Vermont, and I am sure that it is true for communities in many border States. The State Department is developing a lower cost passport alternative--called the PASS Card--but that program has serious problems and potential for delay. The two Government agencies responsible for these PASS Cards are still arguing over what technology to embed in the card. This issue alone indicates that DHS cannot meet the January 1, 2008 deadline when all U.S. citizens will need this card, or the more expensive traditional passport, to cross the northern border at land ports of entry. I have worked in recent months with Senators Stevens, Jeffords, Coleman, Stabenow, Murkowski, Cornyn and Levin to extend the implementation date for this program to June 2009. That would give the U.S. and Canada an extra 18 months to prepare for a smooth transition. The bipartisan amendment we offer today should be non controversial and I hope all Senators will support it. No one is suggesting that we should repeal the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative altogether, but in order to protect our economy and to preserve community ties, we should intervene now to ensure that the Government can implement this law in a rational manner. An extension is the sensible way to proceed. We need to be smart about border security, not just to sound ``tough'' about it.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment has been called up. There is to be a voice vote by consent. A voice vote is still allowed to go forward. The Senator can vote against it, of course.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Kyl opened debate on this amendment last night by noting that when an earlier version of this amendment was offered a few weeks ago to S. 2454, it was a ``somewhat different'' amendment. I understand and appreciate this understatement, but I also appreciate that Senator Kyl and his lead cosponsor Senator, Cornyn, were willing to compromise and make improvements to their original text. I wish to express my appreciation to the Democratic leader, Senator Reid. He was right to insist that the original version of the Kyl- Cornyn amendment--a much broader version that some Senators wanted to adopt almost immediately when it was introduced a few weeks ago-- deserved review and should not be rushed through the Senate to score political points. He was right, as the latest version of the amendment attests. In addition, in the immigration debate prior to the April recess, Senator Durbin recognized and described several drafting flaws in the original amendment that would have swept in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, perhaps unintentionally. With a little time, and thanks to a lot of hard work, the amendment has been significantly changed, narrowed, and improved. Among the modifications, the amendment now includes a waiver of its provisions. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive certain conditions of ineligibility to participate in the earned legalization program in title VI of the bill. A negative impact on family members, or humanitarian concerns such as harsh conditions in the immigrant's home country, should allow participation in the earned legalization program. An alien's failure to obey an order of deportation may be based upon the alien's trepidation over leaving behind his U.S. citizen children. An immigrant may have had to use false documents to gain entry into the U.S., such as the case of an asylum seeker who is fleeing persecution. There is a humane way to treat otherwise law-abiding immigrants. This is consistent with American values. I wish that the Kyl-Cornyn amendment could be modified further so that its exclusions were more specifically focused on criminals. That is what we have done in our bill and in underlying law.

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What happens to the amendment that was brought up by unanimous consent, amendment--

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we call up the Stevens, Leahy, Murkowski, Jeffords, Coleman, Stabenow, Collins, and Levin amendment No. 4018 to extend the implementation deadline for the Western Hemisphere initiative by 18 months. I ask unanimous consent that it be allowed to be called up. It will simply be a voice vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. It fairly states it. This would apply to both borders and, of course, simply extends the time after which we have to have the kind of ID that would be called for in previous legislation. It would extend to both the northern and southern border. I will be glad to have both Senators from Texas as cosponsors.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. So does that mean that amendment becomes the pending amendment following the disposition of the Vitter amendment?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. The amendment simply extends for 18 months the Western Hemisphere travel initiative on the northern border.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, when the Judiciary Committee met to consider a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we adopted an amendment by Senator Kyl on limited fences and barriers along the border. I supported that amendment. It called for replacing and repairing barriers in certain border towns. Now Senator Sessions is offering an amendment to correct what Senator Kyl had included in the Judiciary Committee bill and that was incorporated in the underlying bill now before the Senate. I had thought that the Senator from Arizona had consulted with the administration and, in particular, with the Department of Homeland Security before offering his amendment and that the committee action would have been sufficient. Apparently Senator Sessions and his cosponsors, which include a number of Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, think that the Kyl amendment was inadequate. They say that their discussions with Secretary Chertoff, the Border Patrol, and Homeland Security lead them to seek a needed change and correction. As Senator Kennedy noted, the fact may well be that the Secretary and the administration have all the legal authority they need without this amendment to do what they think needs to be done. That they have not done more before now was not for the lack of authority as far as I know. Nor has Congress refused to provide such authority as may have been necessary or that has been requested by the administration. On this point, I quote a column from today's Roll Call authored by Norman Ornstein. He concludes: For nearly five years, we drastically have underfunded our first responders while failing to coordinate plans across state and regional lines. We still do not have interoperable communications among first responders. We have underfunded border security despite warnings that immigration issues were intertwined with basic security issues. No wonder this issue has exploded on the national scene, and no wonder we are seeing this belated move to ``solve'' the problem with a National Guard presence. Where has Congress been in all of this? For nearly five years, absent without leave. It's been AWOL on oversight, AWOL on serious legislation to deal with either the lapses in the department or the broader problem of border security, AWOL on serious deliberations about broader immigration issues, AWOL on seeking bipartisan solutions for difficult problems that need some consensus in the middle. And it's been worse than AWOL in making sure that we have institutions of governance after the next massive attack. Congress' approval rating is 22 percent? That seems too high. Sadly, there is much truth in what Mr. Ornstein writes. During Republican congressional control they have slavishly taken their cues from the Republican administration and defended its every misstep. With respect to the Sessions amendment I have questions, questions about its value and whether it is meant to signal some kind of ``fortress America'' approach to real world problems. I also have questions about its cost and how the Senator from Alabama intends to pay for its additional costs. He said during the course of the debate that he estimated that it would cost an additional billion dollars. On the day that the President is signing into law billions of dollars of additional tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, I wonder whether we might not have been wiser to set aside a billion dollars from those tax breaks being provided millionaires to help fund enforcement measures for America's border security. The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill will require more than $54 billion in expenditures. The Sessions amendment will add additional costs. Is it several hundred million dollars, a billion dollars, as the Senator from Alabama has estimated, or more? The Senator from Texas has said that this bill is merely a downpayment on what it will cost to secure our borders. I wonder what the Senator from Texas believes this will eventually cost. I wonder how he intends to pay for these measures. Under Republican leadership we are already running the largest annual deficits in history and have turned a $5 trillion surplus into a projected debt of somewhere between $8 trillion to $10 trillion. Earlier today the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee came to the Senate to make an extraordinary statement. I am sorry he spoke to an almost empty floor. I urge all Senators to consider his remarks. The Senator from New Hampshire is someone I have worked with to provide interoperable communications to law enforcement along the shared border of our States. He is one of the most straight-talking Members of the Senate and he demonstrated that again today. He said today that the $1.9 billion capital account he had sought to establish for border security improvements is gone, that it has been transferred to operational needs. In addition, he expressed regret for having had to structure his amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to take funds from military accounts in order to allocate it to border security. In that regard, the Democratic leader has been proven right in his amendment that would have provided the $1.9 billion without taking funds from our troops. Now the Senator from New Hampshire says that he understands that his amendment will not survive the House-Senate emergency supplemental appropriations conference. The Democratic leader was right to offer his amendment and the Senate would have been wiser had it adopted it to fund border security with real dollars. As matters now stand, if Senator Gregg is correct, it appears there is no money in the budget or available to fund these measures. Let us not make false promises to the American people about border security. Let us not call for measures that we will not be able to pay for but wish to trumpet. I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I oppose the Cornyn amendment because I believe it undermines the careful balance between American workers and business that is contained in the bill. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S. 2611, allows guest workers under the new H-2C visa to work initially on a temporary visa and to apply later for a green card if their work is needed over a long period of time. Under the program, after 1-year the employer of the immigrant guest worker could petition for a green card. Alternatively, after 4-years the immigrant guest worker could petition on his or her own for permanent resident status. The Cornyn amendment would strike the right of immigrant guest workers to self-petition. This is a dangerous proposal. One of the reasons that guest worker programs have failed in the past is that prior programs did not provide labor rights to the temporary workers. By placing the rights of petition exclusively in the hands of employers, unscrupulous actors have the ability to manipulate or abuse workers by controlling the workers' access to legal immigration status. The bill before us is a compromise package that seeks to balance the rights of American business and labor, and that enhances our economy and national security by bringing illegal workers out the shadows. The balance depends in part on treating all workers equally, including giving immigrant workers the same labor rights that are available to U.S. citizens. If all workers possess the same rights, then employers cannot depress wages by preying on illegal workers, or workers whose status is held hostage by their employers. The business community understands this issue and therefore the Essential Worker Coalition, a broad coalition of employers and associations calling for comprehensive immigration reform, is opposed to the Cornyn amendment. Under the bill, immigrants who decide to self-petition will have to meet all of the other requirements for a green card. In the new guest worker program, these requirements include a work requirement, passing security and background checks, demonstrating that the immigrant is learning English and civics, and undergoing medical exams. The self-petition provision in the bill is not a backdoor or a short cut to citizenship. It should not be stricken by the Cornyn amendment.