Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid be added as a cosponsor of the Menendez-Hagel amendment, No. 1194.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to respond to a couple of suggestions proffered before the Senate as it relates to those Senators who have amendments to offer to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation. I am compelled to do so because the way they are characterized ultimately demeans what should be a clear process of what is the greatest marketplace of ideas, the Senate. The first item that I have heard several times is the suggestion that certain amendments are killer amendments. When one of our colleagues, particularly those who were part of constructing the bargain, suggests that a certain amendment is a ``killer amendment,'' a killer amendment where the intention, the purpose, the main goal is to kill the legislation before us because they don't like it and they don't want to see it pass, maybe they are a part of the universe who believes we should just seek to deport everybody in the country, 12 million people, the greatest deportation in the history of mankind. Maybe it is those who believe we should spend $250 billion in order to accomplish that. But, regardless, there is a universe of individuals that clearly does not like this bill or the idea of comprehensive immigration reform, and they seek to have amendments that would in essence destroy the essence of the legislation. I am chagrined to hear my distinguished colleague from Arizona, in a listing of amendments, suggest that my amendments on family reunification are killer amendments. I didn't know that family reunification rose to the level of being a killer amendment because unlike some of our colleagues who last year opposed comprehensive immigration reform, I was here advocating for and casting votes for final passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Yet some who come to the floor now and suggest that certain amendments are killer amendments weren't there last year for comprehensive immigration reform. I do want to see comprehensive immigration reform. I worked for it last year and voted for last year's version. I spent countless hours in negotiation sessions this year to try to achieve a bill that I could support. It is still my fervent hope that we will pass a comprehensive bill, one that is tough but also smart; one that provides security at our borders north and south because it is amazing to me how in this entire debate we never hear about security at our northern border. Yet last year approximately 50,000 people came across the northern border. I guess we are not worried about those people. But we do focus a lot on the southern border. We forget that the millennium bomber came through the northern border. There must be something about that northern border that is OK. The southern border is a little bit of a problem. I don't know what it is, whether there are different people crossing those different types of borders, but they are still crossing in an undocumented fashion. So I am for security at the northern and southern borders. I am also one who understands, in terms of the comprehensive nature of this bill, the economic realities of our country; that it helps fuel our economy and drives it forward, and also to stop human trafficking, the use of people enslaved for certain purposes and exploitation. I want to know who is in America to pursue the American dream versus who is here to destroy it. That is real security. In the pursuit, I heard a lot about the rule of law. I am for the rule of law. But how does the rule of law get promoted when we say to a U.S. citizen who has applied for their family member waiting abroad, waiting their time, following the rules, obeying the rule of law, that, in fact, they have an inferior right to someone who did not follow the rules, who did not obey the law, and who ultimately will receive a benefit superior to that U.S. citizen who is claiming their family member and waiting under the law and pursuing the law. I think it sends the wrong message about what the rule of law is all about. Our amendment very simply says a U.S. citizen claiming their family member waiting under the legal process, waiting abroad, that their right should not be snuffed out like that under this bill in May of 2005, when those who have crossed the borders of our country through a process that is unchecked, undocumented, get a benefit January 2007. Break the law, you get a benefit January 2007; follow the law, the rule of law, obey it, your right is snuffed out in May of 2005. I think if we want to send a message about the rule of law, what we want to do is ensure that we put on an equal footing the right of a U.S. citizen claiming their family member, obeying the law, to give them the same opportunity as those who have not. That is what our amendment is all about. Killer amendment? Family reunification, rule of law, following the rules, a killer amendment? I have heard a lot about family values in my 15 years in the Congress. It is interesting. The voices of family values don't have the same values when it comes to this issue. Clearly, this vote will be a test of those who say they are for strengthening families, for bringing families together, for understanding the very essence of how strong families make for strong communities, of how we want to bring families together. Family reunification is at the core of the amendment I have offered before the Senate and that I believe we will be voting on tomorrow. I believe it is a false choice to suggest that this legislation cannot move forward and that, in fact, we will have a killer amendment simply because we want to give a universe of people who have obeyed the law, followed the rules, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, children of U.S. citizens, a chance over time to be able to come in. It seems to me that is a false choice. It is also a false choice, under the new point system that is being devised for future immigration, that this new point system, in which there is 100 points maximum score, well, yes, we need new workers who will be highly skilled. I believe we can reconcile that need. I am hoping that we will actually do a much better job of educating Americans who will be able to be the engineers, the scientists, the researchers, and developers; those in the new technologies who will fuel America's prosperity. But while we move toward making that a reality, sure I am for saying that, OK, we are going to subscribe a series of points toward those people who have the skills. But must it be largely at the exclusion of family reunification? Is there no significant value to the idea that when you have someone come that their family members are ultimately a significant part of the strength and vitality of the country, of the success of those individuals on behalf of the country? Servicemembers, who are not United States citizens or were not United States citizens, in different branches of the Armed Forces of the United States, who were worthy of wearing the uniform of the United States, worthy of fighting for the United States, worthy of being injured and shedding blood on behalf of the United States, but not worthy--not worthy--of being able to claim their family members? Is that what our values have come to? I believe under both our amendment that offers the opportunity for U.S. citizens to claim their family members and Senator Clinton's amendment, which I have cosponsored with her, to have U.S. permanent residents to be able to claim their family members, if you are worthy to fight, then you are worthy to claim your family members. It seems to me, isn't family worth 10 or 15 points in the 100-point system--and not with a barrier that says: Well, you get some points only if you reach a certain numeric number, and then the family is worth something. No. Families are worth something, it seems to me, from the very beginning, the very get-go. In the 100-point system, 10 or 15 points is not worth going toward family? I think it is. If you are worthy of serving, you are worthy of claiming your family members. Here is someone who served his country exceptionally well, I believe: Colin Powell. He served his country both as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as Secretary of State. Under this system we are debating in the Senate, his parents would not have made it to America and he would not have served the country as well as he did. We are talking about the future Colin Powells, as we debate this legislation today. GEN David Petraeus is right now leading our efforts in Iraq--a different challenge. Under this legislation, his parents would have likely not have made it to this country and his service would not have been realized. We are talking about the future General Petraeuses. Under this bill, the person who discovered the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk, and eradicated polio--his parents would not have made it to this country and we would not have been the beneficiaries of his genius. He would not qualify with that high-tech percentage and certainly would have gotten very little for family reunification as it is presently constructed. If he happened to be among those family members now being claimed by a U.S. citizen after May 1, 2005, he would be out of luck, his right to be here would have been gone, and we would have lost one of the great scientists of our time. Thomas Edison. His is the effort that in fact has made this Chamber light up, our homes light up, our businesses light up. I am particularly proud of Thomas Edison, of Menlo Park, New Jersey. Under this bill--if we do not change it by that which are being described as killer amendments--we would not have had a Thomas Edison because his parents would not have qualified under this bill. Bob Hope. He went across the globe making sure our service men and women--who were giving of their all--were entertained. He brought laughter to us. He brought laughter to them in some of the most difficult theaters in the world. Under this bill, it is likely we would not have had Bob Hope as a national treasure. So it seems to me when I listen to the suggestion that amendments on family reunification, particularly those upholding the right of a United States citizen today, who has filed for his family member--and where that right has been snuffed out, yet someone who crossed the border illegally and did not wait their turn, follow the rules, and obey the law has a better position--that is not about the rule of law. The second set of propositions I want to talk about--and I spent a lot of time with these Senators, and I appreciate enormously the work they did. I really do. I think there are many aspects of this bill that are very good. Certainly, the security aspect is out there, big time. There are a lot of elements of the security aspect of this bill. There are aspects that certainly recognize the economic future of our country. There is certainly finding a pathway to earned legalization-- and it is earned legalization. It is not amnesty. Amnesty is something for nothing. This is certainly not something for nothing. As a matter of fact, under this bill, if you happen to have a family of four in an undocumented status, by the time the process is finished, it costs you nearly $29,000, $30,000. I was looking at the Federal Criminal Code. You can commit crimes on narcotics trafficking, you can commit crimes on possession of weapons, you can commit a series of crimes that have, as a maximum fine, $5,000. This is a civil penalty, and yet we are going to have people doing some of the harder jobs in America and their families of four paying about $29,000. That is not amnesty. But even though I respect the incredible work of those 12 Senators who finally agreed to move forward with the bill we are debating today, 12 is not 100. It is not even a majority. No one has a monopoly on how to best provide for comprehensive immigration reform. Proponents say this now: that family reunification amendments are killer amendments or that any set of amendments may be killer amendments. But at the end of the day, when it does not go to the heart of security, does not go to the heart of employment verification, does not go to the heart of Border Patrol, does not go to the heart of employment verification, does not go to the heart of even a new system for determining who comes into the country under a new point system, does not go to the heart of violating the rule of law--but, in my mind, promotes the rule of law--I find it difficult that anyone can say those are killer amendments. They may suggest it now in this context, but I am sure there will be a future piece of legislation in which they will be arguing on the other side, saying that as well intentioned as 12 Senators may be, it is not, in fact, even a majority of the Senate; it certainly is not 100. This is the Senate. It represents, collectively, 300 million Americans. That means all of us come together on behalf of the Nation's collective will, its collective purpose, and its collective common good. Now, in that respect, the bottom line is, when you have amendments that do not go to the heart of security, employment verification, Border Patrol, that do not go to the heart of the ability to follow the rule of law, that do not go to the heart of the very essence of worker protections, that do not go to the heart of employment verification, do not go to the heart of the undoing of the balance in the earned legalization system--my God, we are talking about people who are waiting under the law to come to the country in a legal process. So I have to take strong umbrage to the suggestion that there is somehow a monopoly on how to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and particularly when amendments that are being offered by some of us on family reunification are suggested to be killer amendments. I want to see comprehensive immigration reform pass. A killer amendment is offered by someone who wants to see it not pass. I did not dedicate all this time and effort to try to change one of the Nation's critical challenges in a way that can be tough, can be strong, can be smart, can provide for our security, can fuel our economy, and, at the same time, end human trafficking, exploitation, and bring people out of the shadows into the light--to know who is here to pursue the American dream versus those who are here to destroy it--I did not spend all that time to try to kill legislation. I am seeking to improve it. I hope our colleagues, who travel across the country and talk about family values, are going to join us tomorrow on that amendment. This institution is the greatest marketplace of ideas. That is what the Senate is about. It is in the clash of ideas that we hopefully come together and provide some of the best possible solutions to some of our greatest challenges. I hope the amendments we are offering in that respect are not categorized as killer amendments but they are categorized as ideas within this marketplace to improve this legislation in a way we can all be proud of. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--if the Senator from Massachusetts would yield for a moment for a question.

Mr. MENENDEZ. That would be fine with me. Thank you. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I have been waiting on the floor of the Senate most of the day to offer an amendment related to families. I will not be objecting to Senator Dodd's, which I am a cosponsor of as well. The question is, I assume the Senator may be going to an amendment, after Senator Dodd's, on the other side of the aisle, and then I would hope we could come back and that my amendment would be next in order--after the next Republican amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment undoes what State and local police have long sought to do, separate their activities from those of Federal immigration orders, because they understand some of the toughest law enforcement people in this country want the freedom to be able to communicate with immigrant communities so they come forth and talk about crimes. The standard the Senator offers here is probable cause. Probable cause what? Based on what? My surname, Menendez? Salazar? Martinez? Probable cause how? The way I look? Probable cause, the accent I have? Is that the probable cause that leads an ambulance worker or a municipal hospital worker to ask when somebody is being rolled in? This leads to the opportunity for racial profiling. This leads to the opportunity when we have disease spreading, such as tuberculosis, for people, not coming forth to report themselves, this leads to a woman who has been the subject of domestic violence not reporting herself. This is clearly not in the interest of our country. I believe it is discriminatory. It leads to racial profiling. It is not necessary for the pursuit of law enforcement. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I have no objection.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, is this the same amendment that was just offered a few minutes ago?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to see the amendment, so I would object at this time. I may not ultimately object, but I would object at this time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. The payment of back Federal taxes?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would somebody tell the body what the McCain amendment is?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the question and the Senator's observations. The Senator is absolutely right. Actually, this makes hospital workers enforcement workers. This makes your local volunteer ambulance corps an agent because a municipality may say: We don't want you to ask that question; we want you to deal with the lifesaving moment that is before your hands. As a matter of fact, let's think about an outbreak of disease. We have an outbreak at a hospital. Do you not want that individual to be able to go and be treated and contain the outbreak? No, let's find out what their status is. If you happen to have a surname that is what we conceptualize as undocumented, or if you don't have command of the English language in a powerful way, we conceptualize that you must be undocumented. If you don't have insurance, that must be an indicator of probable cause, even though there are 40 million U.S. citizens who don't have it. Clearly, this turns people who have professed to protect, to defend, and to provide health care into agents against their will. That is why municipalities and States have chosen a different course. They understand better. That is why I certainly urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Coleman amendment. Amendment No. 1184 I wish to turn to another amendment pending before the Senate, the Cornyn amendment. I will talk about some elements of this to give our colleagues in the Senate a taste of what is here. This is far from a technical amendment. It has very substantive consequences, if it were to be adopted. It actually undermines the ``grand bargain'' that I understood was struck. Let me give one of the examples of how it undermines the ``grand bargain.'' A provision of the Cornyn amendment adds new grounds of deportability for convictions relating to Social Security account numbers or Social Security cards and relating to identity fraud. As with virtually all of the other provisions in his amendment, this suspension is retroactive. So upon passage of this bill, if it were to become law, these new offenses would go backward, would become retroactive, so that the acts that occurred before the date of enactment would become grounds for removal. If part of the goal is to bring those in the shadows into the light and to apply for a program, you would have huge numbers of people who would in essence be caught by this provision in a way that would never allow the earned legalization aspect of what is being offered as a real possibility for them. It would undermine the very essence of the ``grand bargain.'' Significantly, this provision would place individuals applying for legalization in a catch-22 situation. We want them to come forward and register because we want to know who is here pursuing the American dream versus who is here to destroy it. Yet if they admit to having used a false Social Security card to work in the United States, only to be prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney or one working in concert with the Department of Homeland Security to selectively target certain applicants, that individual's ultimate prosecution changes to a removal because of conduct that occurred prior to the enactment, conduct that was fundamentally incident to his or her undocumented status. The potential impact of making literally thousands and thousands of undocumented workers subject to these provisions would in essence nullify the very essence of the earned legalization aspect of the ``grand bargain.'' We know that because of the failed employer sanctions, which this bill undoes and makes sure we have the right type of employer verification and the right type of sanctions and the right type of enforcement, undocumented workers have moved consistently in order to earn a livelihood and support their families in a way that would be undermined by this amendment. Given ICE'S new interior enforcement strategy, it seems to me what we will see is the rounding up of thousands of undocumented workers during worksite enforcement actions while we are supposedly waiting for the triggers which we enhanced yesterday. We made those even more difficult, which means it isn't going to be 18 months for those triggers to take place, it is going to be a lot more time, if this is what ends up being the final bill. In that effort, we are going to have individuals who ultimately are not going to be subject to the opportunities we supposedly say are a pathway to earn legalization as part of the overall solution to our problem. Because the amendment is retroactive, and retroactivity as a provision of law is something we generally have disdain for, it would apply even to those applying for admission after the date of enactment. Clearly, it puts in jeopardy the total element of the legalization process. Secondly, to address a different provision of the Cornyn amendment, it permits secret evidence to be used against an individual without any opportunity for it to be reviewed. This amendment gives the Attorney General--and we have seen of late what is capable out of the Justice Department--unreviewable discretion to use secret evidence to determine if an alien is ``described in''--not guilty of anything, but just described in--the national security exclusions within the immigration law. A person applying for naturalization could have her application denied and she would never know the reason for that denial, never have a chance to appeal and prove it was wrong. If a lawful permanent resident already, somebody who followed the rules, obeyed the law, waited, came in, now a lawful permanent resident, maybe even serving their country, was giving money to tsunami relief and accidentally that money went to a charity controlled, for example, by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, that person could be denied citizenship on the basis of secret evidence, and there would be no review in the courts. In sum, it allows deportation based upon unreviewable determinations by the executive branch, determinations that can be based on secret evidence that the person cannot even see, let alone challenge. All of these provisions are retroactive. Retroactivity is antithetical to core American values. What could be more unfair than changing the rules in the middle of the game. That is why it is unconstitutional in criminal law and strongly objectionable in a context like immigration law, where such changes can have profound, life-altering consequences. Why would we want to repeat the mistakes of past immigration reform? Retroactivity in that law led to incredible hardship and had the most strident immigration hardliners questioning whether the law had gone too far. Retroactivity was eliminated from all of those provisions during Judiciary Committee markup in past legislation, but now it emerges again. We can be tough. We can be smart. The underlying substitute does so much to move us forward in this regard. But at the end of the day, let us not undermine the very essence of the constitutional guarantees that have been upheld by the courts--of judicial review, of due process, which makes America worthy of fighting for and dying for, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights that enshrines those essential rights and guarantees them to all of us, for its enforcement that makes us so different than so much of the rest of the world. We are moving in this bill, by a series of amendments--some that would have been adopted and some that are already pending and others I fear may come--into a state in which that is continuously eroded to great alarm. I hope the Senate will reject these because in terms of their pursuit and enforceability, at the end of the day, they will become real challenges. We are going to overturn States and municipalities. We will make them enforce them. Will there be penalties against States and municipalities that have a different view of public safety? Secret evidence, is that the new standard for us, secret evidence that is not subject to review, not subject to be contested? What are we going to permit now? Retroactivity as a rule of law for the United States? You never know what you did before may have been right or wrong. That is the essence of why we don't like retroactivity. We tell people: This is the law, follow this law. We expect them to do it. But we also don't change it on them by passing a new law and saying: By the way, that was wrong, you couldn't do that, even though we told you you could, but retroactively we changed it; now we catch you in a set of circumstances in which you have committed a crime. That is why we don't do that generally in the law. That is why the Cornyn amendment should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I don't think that is the America we want. I am happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would like to start this morning's debate on immigration by speaking to two of the pending amendments that are before the Senate. First, I would like to speak toward the Coleman amendment. Under Senator Coleman's amendment, he would, in essence, undermine the rights of States and local municipalities which have instructed their police, health, and safety workers from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve in order to protect the health and safety and promote the general welfare of the community. As Ronald Reagan said: Here we go again. Over the last several years, particularly in the House of Representatives, there have been different pieces of legislation and amendments offered and debated that would deputize State and local police to enforce what is, in essence, Federal civil immigration law. The Coleman-Bond amendment would effectively prohibit State and local Government policies that seek to encourage crime reporting and witness cooperation by reassuring immigrant victims that police and other government officials will not inquire into their status. So the amendment would send a mandate from Washington that would end State and local policies that prevent their employees, including police and health and safety workers, from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is ``probable cause''--probable cause; exactly what standard we are going to use for that is still, in my mind, not quite defined--to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented. Now, I have talked to some of the toughest law enforcement people across the country. Many cities, counties, and police departments around the country have decided that it is a matter of public health and safety not to ask, not to ask about the immigration status of people when they report crimes or have been the victims of domestic abuse or go to the hospital seeking emergency medical care. Currently, scores of cities and States across the Nation have such confidentiality policies in place, some upwards of 20 years of having such policies in place. The point of these policies is to make sure immigrants report crimes and information to police and do not stay silent for fear that their immigrant status or that of a loved one could come under scrutiny if they contact the authorities. Information is one of the most powerful tools law enforcement has to prosecute individuals in the course of a crime, to know who the perpetrator was, to know who was in the gang activity, to know who is the drug dealer. Think of the potential chilling effect this amendment could have on the willingness and ability of immigrant crime victims and witnesses, those who have been victims of domestic abuse, and those who may need emergency health care to turn for assistance if they feared that deportation rather than receiving assistance would result. That is why cities and States have passed local laws and set policies limiting when police and city and county employees can ask people to prove their immigration status. States and local police have long sought to separate their activities from those of the Federal immigration agents in order to enhance public safety. Now, why do States and local law enforcement entities do that? Why is that? Because when immigrant community residents begin to see State and local police as deportation agents, they stop reporting crimes and assisting in investigations. It undermines the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities that are essential elements of community-oriented policing. There are numerous examples of police opposing such efforts. In fact, in 2005, Princeton, NJ, police chief Anthony Federico said: Local police agencies depend on the cooperation of immigrants, legal and illegal, in solving all sorts of crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward, even when heinous crimes are committed against them or their families. So those who are entrusted to protect us understand that the relationship of trust built with the immigrant community would be ruined overnight if this provision becomes law. This amendment would also cause millions of people in this country, not just immigrants--not just immigrants--to think twice about getting the medical treatment they need. Why would we discourage individuals from receiving medical care? Let's think about the possible consequences for a second. You are rolled into an emergency room, and you do not have insurance. Would there be ``probable cause'' to be asked whether you are here legally in the United States? Assume I get rolled into an emergency room ``Mr. Menendez'' or maybe someone who might even be described as more characteristically Hispanic or maybe Asian or some other group, and I do not happen to have insurance, as, unfortunately, 40 million Americans who are here as U.S. citizens do not have, and in that moment, I am asked whether I am an American citizen. That would be shameful. You would not ask any other citizen that. But what you create under these sets of circumstances is the opportunity for law enforcement, for health officials, for emergency management officials to begin to ask the questions. And under what probable cause? The way someone looks? The accent with which they speak? The surname? Under what probable cause? Under what probable cause? The misfortune of not having health insurance? Is that an indicator that you are likely not here in a documented fashion, those who look a certain way? This amendment can clearly also encourage racial profiling. People who look or sound foreign would be the ones whose citizenship or immigration status will be questioned. Under this amendment, we are asking public hospital workers, teachers, police, social workers, and all public employees to decide where there is probable cause to believe someone does not have lawful immigration status. That means treating anyone who looks or sounds foreign with suspicion. In my mind, that is just plain wrong. One could argue that the Coleman amendment is a coercive action against any State, municipality, or other entity to say to that State, municipality, or other entity that they must do a series of things, such as obtaining information on a person's status, like my own, which I was born in this country. So much for States rights. So much for the local municipalities know best. For 15 years in the Congress, I have listened to my Republican colleagues speaking of States rights, of local rules, of States knowing best. But I guess they do not know best when it comes to the law enforcement of their own communities. We don't need a provision such as this. Current law already provides ample opportunity--ample opportunity--for State and local police to assist Federal immigration agents in enforcing the laws against criminals and terrorists. What they cannot do is start asking everyone they come across for their ``papers.'' ``Let me see your papers.'' States and localities that do want to take on a broader role in immigration enforcement can enter into a memorandum of understanding with ICE, receive training in immigration law, and assist in enforcement operations under Immigration's supervision. That already exists in the law, and there are communities which have chosen to do that. Mr. President, this amendment would create fear in entire communities, would inevitably deter not only undocumented immigrants but legal immigrants and citizens from not being subject to being prosecuted simply because of who they are, what they look like, how they sound, what their surname is, because God knows what the probable cause is.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the legislation currently before us curtails the ability of American citizens, or U.S. permanent residents, to petition for their families to be reunified here in America. Right now, if the bill goes untouched, this bill sets two different standards for groups of people, and it sets it in a way that is fundamentally unfair. One group is those who have followed the law and obeyed the rules by having their U.S. citizen relative or U.S. lawful permanent resident petition to bring them into this country legally, and one more favorably--it treats the next group much more favorably, one who has entered or remained in the country without proper documentation. So those who have obeyed the rules, followed the law, relatives of U.S. citizens, get treated in an inferior way to those who have not followed the law, who get treated in a better way. Let me explain how. The Menendez-Hagel amendment simply states that at a minimum, the two groups should be treated equally under the bill. Our amendment is about fundamental fairness. All this amendment does is to make sure both groups face the same cutoff date. Right now, those who are in our Nation in an undocumented status are allowed under the bill to potentially earn permanent residency so long as they entered this country before January 1, 2007. All our amendment says is that those who followed the rules who are waiting outside of the country who are the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens shouldn't be treated worse because they obeyed the law and followed the rules. They should at least be treated the same, not worse. Therefore, they should have the same date: January 1, 2007. All this amendment does is simply apply the same standard, the same cutoff date to those who followed the rules so that those who did obey the law and who legally applied for their green card can potentially earn permanent residency so long as they apply for their visa before January 1, 2007. Now, this is a somewhat complicated issue, so let me explain exactly what the legislation as it is currently drafted does if we don't adopt this amendment. Right now, there is a family backlog of people who have applied for legal permanent residency. These are the people waiting outside of the country, waiting as they are claimed and have their petitions by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident saying: I want to bring my father or my mother here. I want to bring my child here. I want to bring my brother or sister here. This legislation, as currently drafted, does away with the rights of U.S. citizens to make that claim if, in fact, those individuals have not filed their application before May 1, 2005. It is important to pay attention to that May 1, 2005 date because it is nearly 2 years before the cutoff for people who are here in an undocumented status--those who didn't follow the law, obey the rules, and those who may obviously have no U.S. citizen to claim them. So it actually says to a U.S. citizen and a U.S. permanent resident: You have an inferior right and a right that is now lost because it exists under the law as it is today. That right is lost, and your right is inferior to the rights of those individuals who have not followed the rules and obeyed the law. So as this bill seeks to clear the legal family backlog, we say: Don't treat a U.S. citizen worse. Don't treat a U.S. citizen worse. The legislation as currently drafted sets this arbitrary date of May 1, 2005, yet gives everybody else who didn't follow the law the date of January 1, 2007. That means a lot of family gets cut off. The rights of U.S. citizens get cut off as well. Right now, the legislation also says that if you overstayed a visa or came to this country without proper documentation before January 1, 2007, you can ultimately become a lawful, permanent resident between the 9th and 13th year of the process that the bill describes. But if you applied for a visa outside of the country and you applied by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident and you followed the rules, there is no-- no--guarantee you will ever be able to be reunified with your family. Our amendment would remedy this injustice by moving the cutoff date for those who legally applied for visas to January 1, 2007--the same cutoff date that is currently set for the legalization of undocumented immigrants. And we would add the appropriate number of green cards to ensure we don't create a new backlog or cause the 8-year deadline for clearing the family backlog to slip by a few years. So we stay within the framework of the underlying bill; we just bring justice and fairness to the bill for those who have obeyed the law, followed the rules, and are the family members of U.S. citizens. Now, why shouldn't legal applicants be able to keep their place in line if they applied before January of 2007? Clearly, this legislation, as it is currently written, is unfair to those who legally applied for a visa. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules lose their place in line. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules will have to wait at least an additional 8 years before they even become eligible to compete--eligible to compete--for a new proposed merit-based green card. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules would have to wait a total of 10 years in addition to the time they have been waiting--in addition to the time they have been waiting--before they are eligible to compete under a new and different system, with a different set of rules, and no guarantee they will ever be able to be reunited with their family member, that U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Clearly, at a minimum, we should allow those who played by the rules to have the same cutoff date of January 1, 2007. Now, not only is it unfair to make people who follow the rules wait longer than those who chose not to, it is also wrong to make people who applied under our current system have to reapply under a totally different one. Those who applied on May 1, 2005, or after, applied under our current immigration system that values family ties and employment at a premium, unlike under this bill, would now be subject to a completely different standard that is primarily concerned with education and skill levels. This is like changing the rules of the game halfway through it. People who applied after May 2005 would not only lose credit for the up to 2 years they have been waiting under the legal process, they would also have to apply under a completely different system than the one under which they originally applied. Now, let's think of how fundamentally unfair that is. In this photo is the late Marine LCpl Jose Antonio Gutierrez, a permanent resident of the United States--the first American casualty in the war in Iraq. For people similar to the late Jose Antonio Gutierrez who served their country, for them, under this bill--he was not only here legally but was serving his country--oh, no, you apply for your family by May 1, 2005, or, sorry, we will give those people who don't follow the rules and obey the law a preference. But you, who served your country, you who wore the uniform, you who have done everything right--no, you have an inferior right. Is that the legacy we leave to people who have served their country, a legal permanent resident? Sometimes people don't even know we have legal permanent residents fighting in the service of the United States--tens of thousands. That is fundamentally unfair. In this photo is another group of lawful permanent residents, ``first called to duty.'' They were in different services of the Armed Forces of the United States, serving their country, in harm's way. Guess what. Under the bill, you have family abroad, you applied for them, you did the right thing, and you told them to wait. After May 1, 2005, sorry, Charlie, your right is gone, just like that. Your value and service doesn't matter. All these soldiers, sailors, and marines--all different services--all of them are ultimately serving their country. Under this bill, we take people such as them, and so many others, and vitiate their rights. That is fundamentally unfair. These people not only are serving our country abroad, they are protecting our airports, our seaports, and our borders. They risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world to protect us at home. To petition for your sister to come to live with you in America, you lose that right if you filed after May 1, 2005. You didn't do the right thing, but you get the benefit of 2 years more than those who obeyed the laws and followed the rules--brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. It is hard to imagine that one would have that right taken away from them. Here is another case for you to consider. You are a U.S. citizen, you have paid your taxes, you have served your Nation, you attend church, and you make a good living. You are a good citizen. You petition to have your adult child come to America, but you did so after the arbitrary date of May 1, 2005. Under this bill, that U.S. citizen would lose their right. However, those undocumented in the country after May 1, 2005, get a benefit. It is hard to imagine, but it is true. Right now, this bill is unfair and nonsensical, capriciously punishing those who have followed the rules and legally applied for a green card. What message, then, do we send? I have heard a lot about the rule of law, a lot about waiting in line, a lot about all those who should have followed our immigration laws. Yet what message does the bill send? You followed it, but your rights are vitiated, taken away-- not the rights of the family member waiting abroad to come here, it is the rights of the U.S. citizen to make the claim for that individual. That is what bothers me about the underlying legislation. They are taking my right away and your right away as a U.S. citizen. We must make sure that people who have played by the rules and legally applied to immigrate here are not arbitrarily placed at a disadvantage in respect to those who are in this country in an undocumented status. As I have said many times before, comprehensive immigration reform must be tough but must also be practical and fair and tough on border security. Certainly, we have done that here--this bill even moved more to the right--by providing a pathway to earned citizenship. At the same time, we have to be fair by rewarding those who have followed the law. I think we have to remain true to those principles. Let me give you a little sense of this. I have heard a lot about chain migration. You know, it is interesting, we have seen during history that when we want to dehumanize something, take out the humanity of something, when we want to make it an abstract object, we find a word or a phrase for it, such as chain migration. I have heard a lot about what a ``nuclear family'' is and is not. I will use these paperclips to demonstrate this. I always thought a mother or father, son or daughter, brother and sister was not a chain; I thought that was a circle of strength. It is a circle of strength within our community. It is a sense of what our society is all about, regardless of what altar you worship at, what creed you believe in. I thought, when I heard the speeches of family values on the floor, that this was a circle of strength and dignity and the very essence of what is essential for our communities to grow and prosper. What does this bill do? It says that is not a value--a mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister. It is not a value. That is what this bill does. Let me tell you what family values have meant to this country. Here on the chart are names of Americans who had immigrant parents. A lot of them probably could not have come to this country under the bill as proposed. Look at what their offspring have provided for this country. A gentleman known as General Petraeus happens to be leading our efforts in Iraq. He is our big hope to turn it around. He had immigrant parents. Thomas Edison, from my home State of New Jersey, Menlo Park, invented electricity. He may not have been the originator of that in this country if his parents had not come here. Martin Sheen, from the show ``West Wing,'' would not have been here under this bill. Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine, which was a great achievement. His parents would have likely not made it here under this bill. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--he is somebody who is admired on both sides of the aisle--he would not have made it here under this bill. Antonin Scalia--I may not agree with him all the time, but he is a distinguished member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Several of these names you might recognize as Republicans. He would not have likely made it here under the bill as proposed; Carl Sandburg, a great poet, who wrote of our humanity as a people; the late Peter Jennings, who talked to us every night on television. These are all people who have contributed in so many different ways to our country because their parents came to America. Family values have enriched America. Let me give you another group of citizens. These, unlike those others who were born in the United States, are naturalized U.S. citizens, meaning they weren't born in this country. They came here through the immigration process of our country. I would like to think some of them have contributed some good things: The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am not sure he would have made it into this country; Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State; Ted Koppel, who brought us the news on ``Nightline:'' Levi Strauss, you have probably worn his products; Desi Arnez, one of my favorites, a Cuban immigrant, who loved Lucy every day on national TV; Bob Hope was a naturalized U.S. citizen. He brought an enormous amount of joy to our service men and women across the globe; Patrick Ewing, a great basketball player; Oscar de la Renta, a great designer; Liz Claiborne; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Albert Einstein. His parents never would have made it under this bill; Andrew Carnegie of the Carnegie Foundation; Joseph Pulitzer, of Pulitzer Prize fame; Michael J. Fox, who talks to us every day about the necessity for stem cell research and the incredible challenges of Americans with Parkinson's. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that under this bill, so many of those, such as General Petraeus, Colin Powell, Thomas Edison, and Antonin Scalia, whose parents came to this country and therefore gave them the opportunity to be born in America, they would not have made it under this bill. Family values. Those who did not have the good fortune to be born here, but because their parents immigrated here, were naturalized U.S. citizens. They have contributed greatly. So let's not dehumanize this reality. This isn't about ``chain migration.'' This isn't about some abstract sense of how we try to change a very important concept--family, family values, reunification, strengthening communities, and having great Americans who have altered the course of history and made this country the greatest experiment and country in the history of the world. Our amendment simply says to all those who have espoused family values, it is time to put your vote with your values. It says don't snuff out the right of a U.S. citizen or a U.S. permanent resident, these guys in this picture--don't snuff out their right, all permanent residents of the U.S. originally, don't snuff out their rights to be able to claim family members. Don't treat those of us who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents worse than those people who didn't obey the law, follow the rules, and came into the country. Don't do this. At least treat us equally. At least treat us equally. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye be added as cosponsors of this amendment, along with Senator Hagel and myself.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside in order to call up amendment No. 1194.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority, I yield back the time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I have two purposes for rising at this point. One is to speak to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Iowa and then to speak substantively, as we get into a full debate of comprehensive immigration reform, to lay out some parameters I hope all of our colleagues will consider. Let me start off with the Grassley amendment. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. It abolishes the last--underlined--remnant of judicial review on visa revocations. During the course of this week and the week when we come back, we are often going to hear terrorism invoked as the reason we must act in certain ways. Some of those ways ultimately undermine the essence of the Constitution of the United States and the equal protection clause. I think it is a false choice to be put in a position between the suggestion of terrorism and the suggestion that we should undermine the Constitution. I raise that as a warning flag now, as we look at all other amendments that are going to be coming. We are going to hear a wide range of reasons why we should dramatically change judicial reviews, the essence of protection under the Constitution. I hope our colleagues will understand that is a slippery slope to go down. I hope we are not going to undermine due process, rule of law, and judicial review, because they are not just limited to suggestions on terrorism. Maybe if they were limited only on that, we could consider supporting such amendments. But it is eliminating judicial review totally, as it relates to visa revocation. Right now what is the law? Right now judicial review of a visa revocation is already severely restricted. In fact, visa revocations are insulated from any judicial review when the visa holder is outside of the United States and the consular officers--these are our representatives abroad--have exceptionally broad authority to make revocation decisions. If you are outside the United States, you are not even coming. You don't even get a chance at judicial review. Let's make that clear. The only area where limited judicial review of visa revocation remains available is with respect to individuals who are in the United States and then are placed in removal proceedings as a result of the revocation. Then judicial review is permitted in the context of those removal proceedings, if revocation is the only ground for that removal. This is a critical check on Government authority to make arbitrary decisions. It is vitally important to allow the court review of removal proceedings because a person's ability to remain in the United States is at stake. We know immigration authorities have on more than one occasion made a mistake in the person's case or the person may have compelling circumstances that warranted consideration by a judge. We have seen cases time and time again that have so dictated and have said the Government is wrong, the individual is right. This would nullify that opportunity totally. This amendment would eliminate the last remaining remnant of judicial review.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I appreciate the question and description from the Senator from Massachusetts. In fact, it is clearly one element--one very dramatic element--of the Government acting wrongly: deporting someone who had every legal right to be here in this country--making that mistake, and then, realizing they made a mistake, are now trying to find that individual whose life has been turned upside down. In the process of doing that, under the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, they do not even have a chance to go to court. So the human faces we are talking about here are real. That is not about terrorism. Now, let me give you another example. The Senator from Massachusetts gave a very vivid one. Let me give you another example of what happens when we do not permit basic due process as a part of our law. This amendment would eliminate judicial review for all visa revocations unnecessarily, and it unduly expands the already broad discretionary authority of the executive branch. Let me give you an example--a different case. A foreign government that wants to rein in one of their dissidents provides false information to the U.S. consulate that leads the consul to revoke the visa. This is someone who is speaking against maybe a totalitarian regime, a dictatorship, people who are oppressing people's human rights, but they are here in the United States. They got a visa, and they are here speaking out. That government wants to make sure that person can no longer speak out, so they give false information to the consul, and the consul reviews it and makes a factual determination: Do you know what. This looks right. Let's revoke the visa. That person, that dissident, struggling to make a difference in the lives of people in that country--we want to see people like that challenging their own systems; we want to see people like that fighting in their own countries so we never have to send our people abroad--that person does not even have one chance to make the case in a court of law that what is being said is false. Exposing individuals in this country to such arbitrary and capricious action is un-American. We should be striving for more balance and more transparency, not less. Let me say there is another case, a case decided here in the United States in June of last year, where a U.S. Federal judge issued an order soundly rejecting the Government's contentions against an individual-- the same type of case that would not, under this amendment, have access to this type of judicial review where this Federal judge determined that the Government was wrong, the individual was right. What was the individual saying? He was saying his point of view, which separated him from the administration's point of view. Because it separated him from the administration's point of view, they revoked his visa. The judge held the decision was not a due authority, a use for the revocation of the visa, and that person was allowed to stay simply because they were expressing their points of view different from this administration. Is that what we want to do? Eliminate the possibility for someone to be able to go to court and say: ``I am being hushed because I have a different point of view. My visa is being revoked with not one chance to go to court''? By the way, finally, if we are going to talk about terrorism, if I have a terrorist in my possession, under other provisions of law I do not want to deport them. I want to arrest them. I want to throw them in jail. I want to make sure they do not get out of the country to do harm back to this country. Why would I want to deport them? I want to arrest them. I want to jail them under other provisions of law. I want to prosecute them. I do not want to let them go free so they can try to do harm again to the United States. This amendment actually works to the opposite of our national security interests. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Now, let me speak more broadly about the overall immigration effort. Since I have already heard some of the commentaries on the floor, I think it is important for us to have a framework of where this discussion, I hope, will go in a civilized fashion that understands the better angels within us. From the congressional district I had the honor of representing for over 13 years in the House of Representatives, one can see the Statue of Liberty. You can almost touch it. Ellis Island has been a gateway to opportunity for millions of new Americans. For me, it is a shining example of the power of the American dream, a place that launched millions down their own road to success. As Americans listen to this debate, I hope they understand and are honest with themselves--whether their family was part of the men and women who made the voyage on the Mayflower or part of the millions who stepped off of Ellis Island or part of those who were brought to this Nation against their will or, if like my own parents, they came to this country fleeing tyranny and searching for freedom--we all have a connection to immigration. America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. History is replete with examples of the United States of America being a welcoming Nation. But, unfortunately, very often the public dialog through the years has been less than welcoming. Over the decades, the influx of immigrants of various ethnicities has caused concerns and, in many cases, heated comments against such immigrants to our Nation. In some cases, there were even laws enacted to limit or ban certain ethnic groups from being able to come to the land of opportunity. Let's remember some of this history so we do not repeat it again in these debates. Before the American Revolution, Founding Father Benjamin Franklin wrote of the influx of German immigrants to Philadelphia: Those who come hither are generally the most stupid of their own nation. Henry J. Gardner, the Governor of Massachusetts in the middle of the 19th century, saw the Irish as a ``horde of foreign barbarians.'' In 1882, Congress enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, which made it nearly impossible for additional Chinese to enter America. The law was not repealed until 1943, in the middle of World War II, when the United States and China were allies against Japan. In the early 1900s, H.G. Wells, a British novelist, stated that the arrival of Eastern Europeans, Jews, and Italians would cause a ``huge dilution of the American people with profoundly ignorant foreign peasants.'' Congressman Albert Johnson, coauthor of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924, which severely restricted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and entirely prohibited East Asians and Asian Indians, stated that: Our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to governed. . . . The day of unalloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended. Finally--to give you a sense of some of these things that have been part of our past--a 1925 report of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce stated that Mexicans are suitable for agricultural work ``due to their crouching and bending habits . . . , while the white is physically unable to adapt himself to them.'' That was in 1925. These are just a few statements from the past that have taken issue with and criticized the relatives and forefathers of various segments of our Nation's population today. We must all remember that just in the last Congress the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, better known as the Sensenbrenner bill. Beyond the heated rhetoric that existed during the debate on that legislation, the bill itself was shortsighted and even more mean spirited and would have made felons out of anyone who was here in an undocumented status. That bill would have also criminalized citizens of the United States through a much broader definition of smuggling that would have allowed the Government to prosecute almost any American who had regular contact with undocumented immigrants. Luckily, that did not pass. But today we continue to hear across the landscape of the country hateful rhetoric used to polarize and divide our country on this issue. But we must never allow ourselves to buy into the rhetoric. We must never subscribe to the policies of fear and division, driven by xenophobia, nativism, and racism. The responsibility is on all of us--not just on Members of Congress, but everyone in this Nation. We must reject the rhetoric of hatred, division, and polarization. We must demand a comprehensive immigration policy that does not denigrate or demonize, but is tough, smart, fair, and humane. However, on this issue, we must be completely honest with ourselves. Our country's immigration system is unarguably broken. In light of these failures, we must enact tough, smart, and comprehensive immigration reform that reflects current economic and social realities, respects the core values, I hope, of family unity and fundamental fairness, and upholds our tradition as a nation of immigrants. In the absence of Federal legislation, what is happening is many local governments in my State of New Jersey and, for that matter, across the Nation are passing ordinances to address issues surrounding undocumented immigration in their communities. Unfortunately, many of these ordinances violate constitutional equal protection guarantees and create divisions in communities that did not exist. In addition to the moral imperative, our society would greatly benefit economically if we enacted comprehensive immigration reform. Such reform would allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and fully pay their taxes, ensuring accurate census counts, which translates into equitable funding levels for programs and schools. Additionally, we can reduce law enforcement demands since the need for day laborers, forged documents, and driver's licenses, along with the use of exploitation and human trafficking would largely be shut down. As to those who don't come forward when such an opportunity is presented, we would be focused on asking: Why are they not coming forward? We would be able to determine who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to destroy it. We need to aggressively curtail unauthorized crossings at the border, protect both undocumented immigrants and American workers from corporations exploiting undocumented labor, and provide a pathway for immigrants to earn--and I repeat: earn--permanent residency in order to ensure our immigration system is safe, legal, orderly, and fair to all. Our goal should be neither open borders nor closed borders but smart borders. The specter of terrorism in a post-September 11 world creates an even greater imperative for us to succeed in this endeavor. The underlying bill has a whole host of triggers that go to the very heart of those elements. We have all seen some of the consequences. We have seen lawlessness along the borders. Crime in our border communities is increasing and overwhelming local law enforcement's ability to address these challenges. So-called coyotes, or human smugglers, charge thousands of dollars to bring people into this country, creating a multimillion dollar industry for organized criminal organizations to exploit and fuel their other illegal activities. In fact, several reports have indicated there is more money in smuggling these undocumented immigrants into our Nation than smuggling drugs. However, history proves it is not enough to rely on enforcement alone, even though I am totally for the enforcement. Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has tripled--tripled--the number of Border Patrol agents and increased the enforcement budget tenfold-- tenfold. Yet, despite tripling the Border Patrol and increasing the budget tenfold, these efforts have yet to stop those who have either crossed the border or overstayed their visas. So it is about border protection, but it is also about a more comprehensive effort to make sure you deal with the push-and-pull factors of immigration. Securing our borders is the first step to ensure an orderly, fair, and smart immigration system, but by no means is it adequate in isolation. We must also crack down on companies that illegally hire undocumented workers--something that is long overdue. I know under the Clinton administration, employers were held accountable for hiring undocumented workers, as 417 businesses were cited for immigration violations in 1999 alone. In contrast, a mere three--three--employers were issued notices of intent to fine by the Bush administration in 2004 for similar violations, making it 22 times more likely for an American to be killed by a strike of lightning in an average year than prosecuted for such labor violations. So much for enforcing the existing law. What happened in the span of those 5 years? What happened? Did companies suddenly decide to start abiding by the law by not hiring undocumented immigrants? No. The truth of the matter is, similar to border enforcement, this administration made a conscious decision to look the other way in order to once again serve the interests of corporate America to the detriment of average American citizens. That is why I support stronger immigration enforcement not only at the borders but at the workplace. Unscrupulous companies that intentionally hire undocumented immigrants do so because they know they can exploit these people without fear of retribution. They know this because undocumented immigrants are forced to hide in the shadows of society and subsequently have no avenues to report labor abuses. Not only does this hurt the immigrant being exploited, it also directly impacts American citizens who must compete in the market with exploited labor. We must immediately end these abuses and in doing so create an equal playing field to ensure that the wages, benefits and health and labor standards of the American worker are not undercut. While securing our borders and enforcing strengthened workplace employment laws will enable us to regulate the influx of new immigrants, it does nothing to solve our current dilemma of an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants who currently reside in the United States. That is why our immigration policy must be about more than simply enforcement. It must be about providing a safe, orderly, timely, and legal process that deals with the economic realities of our time. So in order to make our immigration system overall workable, we must be practical, fair, and humane in dealing with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. To do otherwise would require the most massive roundup and deportation of people in the history of the world--in the history of the world. I believe this is both highly unlikely and impractical on many levels, including due to both budgetary and economic impacts on the Nation and its economy. Such a mass deportation of the undocumented population, even assuming 20 percent could leave voluntarily if such a policy was enacted, would cost us over $200 billion over a 5-year period, according to the Center for American Progress. That is not going to happen. So fully securing our borders is impossible unless efforts to include a temporary guest worker program and a path to earn residence for undocumented immigrants is part of the overall reform. This solution will encourage immigrants to come out of the shadows and legalize their status. By doing so, we will learn who is here to seek the American dream versus who is here to destroy it through criminal or terrorist acts. Most of the people who cross our borders come looking for work, as many of our ancestors did. These immigrants contribute to our economy, provide for their families, and want a better life for their children. Let me say I am, first and foremost, in favor of hiring any American--any American--who is willing to do any job that is available in this country today or tomorrow, but let's remember the jobs we are talking about. The fruit you had for breakfast was picked by the hands and bent back of an immigrant laborer. The hotel room and bathroom you use in travels through the country is likely cleaned with bended knee by an immigrant worker. The chicken you had for dinner yesterday was likely plucked by the cut-up hands of an immigrant laborer. If you have an infirmed loved one, their daily necessities are probably being tended to by the steady hands and warm hearts of an immigrant aide. Let us remember that. So we have to create an equal playing field to ensure that the wages, benefits, health, and labor standards of the American worker are not undercut. But it is also in our best interests to have these workers participate and contribute to our society, especially when we had a 4.5-percent unemployment rate in April of this year and a declining ratio of American workers to retirees. By coupling enhanced enforcement efforts with new immigration and labor laws, we will not only regulate how workers come into the country but finally give our border and law enforcement agencies a fighting chance to fulfill their duty. Now, much of what the underlying bill does meets some of these challenges, and I respect those elements. But I wish to talk about one very compelling issue that I believe it does not meet: the importance of family. I said throughout the negotiations that were had, with a massive, complex bill such as this one, the devil is in the details. There are a number of details in this deal that would create an unfair and, in my mind, impractical immigration system, undercutting the more sensible provisions. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of family. The deal struck virtually does away with a provision for family reunification which has been the bedrock of our immigration policy throughout our history. This idea not only changes the spirit of our immigration policy; it also emphasizes family structure, and all without a single hearing on the issue of family and our immigration system by the Senate Judiciary Committee, either in the 109th or the 110th Congress. Under this bill, they change the fundamental values of our immigration policy by making an advanced degree or skill in a highly technical profession the most important criteria--the most important criteria--for a visa. This Nation has been built by immigrants who came here to achieve success, but the deal tilts toward immigrants whose success stories are already written. They are already written. Family reunification will be deemphasized under this deal, serving to tear families apart. From a moral perspective, this undermines the family values I hear so many--in different contexts--so many of my colleagues talk about all the time. As the late Pope John Paul II said: The church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction of the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own Nation and from one Nation to another. Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity. Practically speaking, a breakdown of family structure often leads to a breakdown of social stability. I took it to heart when President Bush said: ``Family values don't end at the Rio Grande,'' but this agreement, similar to his proposal before it, belies those words. Yet here we are with a piece of legislation which the White House promoted that undermines the very essence of that. Even under a new point structure that is envisioned under the bill, it seems to me that the essence of family should be given more weight and points within the context of a whole new process of how we are going to move our immigration system forward. Family, I would hope, even under a new system, is a critical value, in our country. I would like to take a little time to get into some of the details of this agreement and how they would impact families. Under current law, foreign-born parents of U.S. citizens are exempt from green card caps when applying for legal permanent residency as they fall in the immediate relatives category. Now, remember, this is someone--a U.S. citizen already--a U.S. citizen or a U.S. permanent resident who has a right--who has a right--to claim their relative. In this case, I wish to talk about parents. Unfortunately, the agreement removes these individuals from the immediate relative category and sets an annual cap for green cards for parents of U.S. citizens at 40,000. Last year, 120,000 visas were given to such parents, and the annual average number of green cards issued over the past 5 years to parents is 90,000, so this bill would slash required green cards by more than half for a U.S. citizen to be reunified with their mother or father. So we are automatically creating a new backlog, even though the bill is intended to end such family backlogs. Another area that would be negatively impacted under the deal is the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents of the United States. The bill before us does not lift the visa cap on the spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents; it actually lowers it, ensuring that backlogs continue indefinitely. The separation is not only immoral in my mind, but it exacts an economic toll, as lawful immigrants who are productive members of society move to rejoin their families. Moreover, unification with immediate family members gives rise to an undesirable incentive to break the law and live in the United States illegally. Families want to migrate to each other, and that is a natural, human instinct. We undermine that in this respect. Now, the so-called ``grand bargain'' also moves us to a point-based immigration system which would turn current immigration on its head--a system that hasn't received any hearings by the Judiciary Committee. Yet, in the agreement, we are moving to a point system that is geared toward people with degrees who are highly skilled or educated. Fine. We can have people who are highly skilled and educated as part of the equation, but in my mind it shouldn't ultimately undermine dramatically the ability of families to have a fighting chance. In fact, in the point system that is contained in the bill, families would receive no points at all--no points at all, none--unless the applicant has obtained at least 55 points through other elements: employment, education, language. So much for family values under that system, in my mind. In addition, if the applicant meets the 55-point threshold, they would be eligible for a maximum of 10--a maximum of 10--additional points; that is out of 100 maximum points. I guess that some who preach family values don't believe that family should count for more than 10 percent--10 percent. Now, this legislation also curtails the ability of American citizens today, permanent residents, to petition for their families to be reunified here in America. As I mentioned earlier, there is a family backlog of people who have applied for legal permanent residency who are claimed by U.S. citizens. This legislation, as currently drafted, does away with several of the family categories such as adult children of a U.S. citizen and lawful permanent residents and siblings of citizens. These categories will be grandfathered in and dealt with as part of clearing the backlog during the first 8 years but only if you filed your application before May 1 of 2005. What is the consequence of that? The consequence of that is over 800,000 people who have played by the rules, applied under the normal process, didn't come across the border, didn't violate any law, did the right thing, that all of those who did all the right things but applied after that date, will not be cleared as part of the family backlog. They lose their chance under this law. More importantly, it vitiates--it takes away--the right of the U.S. citizen to have them claimed because they lose it. They have a petition pending under existing law, and yet that petition is gone with the flash of this bill. So the legislation, as currently drafted, says that if you legally apply for a visa after May 1, 2005, you have to compete under an entirely new system. It is an arbitrary date that was picked out of the thin air. Let's think of how fundamentally unfair that is. Imagine you are a lawful, permanent U.S. resident. You have fought for your country, you have shed blood for your country, and in some cases, you may have even died for your country. In fact, a noncitizen, a legal permanent resident of the United States, Marine LCpl Jose Antonio Gutierrez, originally of Guatemala, was the very first, the very first U.S. combat casualty in the war with Iraq. Had he not been a combat casualty under this bill, he would not have been allowed to claim his family. If this bill moves forward the way it is, these legal permanent residents are also not only--there are thousands of them in the Armed Forces of the United States, and they are protecting our airports, our seaports, and our ports. They risk their daily lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world to protect us here at home, yet we would do away with their right to petition to have their sister or their brother come join and live with them in America. Under this bill, you lose that right if you file after May 1, 2005. It is hard to imagine that one would have that right taken away from them. Here is another case for you to consider. You are a U.S. citizen. You have paid your taxes. You may have served your Nation. You attend church. You make a good living. You are a good citizen. You have petitioned to have your adult child come to America, but you did so after the date of May 1, 2005. Under this bill, that U.S. citizen loses their right. However, those who are undocumented in the country after May 1 of 2005, they actually get a benefit under the bill. So if you obey the law, follow the rules, do all the right things, you are a U.S. citizen, paid your taxes, maybe even served your country in the Armed Forces, doing everything you should do, you lose your right to claim your relative under the existing law and be part of the backlog, but the person who came in an undocumented fashion over the border, they actually will get a benefit as of January 1, 2007. It seems to me that the legal permanent resident, the U.S. citizen, should have at least the same date as those who have not followed the law and the rules. It is hard to imagine, but it is true. So these are a few of the shortcomings contained in the bill we are moving forward. This deal would have prevented my own parents, a carpenter and a seamstress, from coming to this country. They wouldn't have qualified under this point system. I would like to think that they and others whom I have heard about around this Chamber--I have heard so many stories from my colleagues in the Senate and formerly in the House, talking about their proud history. Their parents would not have been eligible to come to this country under this bill. I would like to think that, on both sides of the aisle, they have contributed to the vitality of this Nation. I have listened to so many of the stories of our colleagues, and I know many of their parents never would have qualified to come to this country under this bill. It seems to me a new paradigm could have been structured where family values and reunification have more of a fighting chance than under the framework agreement that we consider. The story of the legislation is not finished. We still have the historic opportunity this week to craft tough, smart, and fair immigration reform. It is my intention, starting, I hope, later today, through a series of amendments, to get to the heart of the issues I have mentioned, to change and to improve this deal. I know many of my colleagues are committed to the same issues of practicality, fairness, and family values, and I will work with them to turn this unworkable deal, in those respects, into sound policy we can all support. As we have throughout our Nation's long and proud history, I believe we can create a pathway to the American dream for those who contribute to our Nation and allow them to fully participate in our economy and our society. As the President told Congress in this year's State of the Union speech: Let's have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. It is a rare moment, but I agree with the President. Reform is long overdue. I want to just say that I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Massachusetts in his advocacy in this regard. I look forward to trying to--even though he may not be able to support some of these things as part of his commitment to a grand bargain--change it in a direction that we can all be proud of. But for him, we probably would not be on the Senate floor debating this issue today, or in the past, and I admire him greatly in that respect. However we got here, from wherever we came, we know we are in the same boat together today as Americans, and together I hope we can make this journey a safe, orderly, and legal process that preserves and fulfills the American dream for all, that upholds the right of U.S. citizens to seek the reunification of their families. It takes those who serve our country and who are not U.S. citizens yet and gives us the right to say: You fought for America, you may have been wounded in the process. You have done everything we would want of any citizen. Your right to make a simple claim to have your family reunited for you will not be snuffed out by this legislation. If we do that, this process deserves our respect. I hope this preserves the Constitution, as well as the due process of law that makes America worthy of fighting for and dying for--the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When we seek to erode and undo it, we undermine the very essence of America's greatness. Those are our challenges in this debate and also our opportunities. I yield the floor.