Securing America's Borders Act

SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KYL. Yes, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator help me understand his amendment? As I understand it, he has spent a great deal of time explaining crimes that would be included which would disqualify a person from the possibility of legalization, but he has not spent time discussing what I think is the more troublesome aspect of his amendment, which would say that if a person overstays a visa, he or she would be ineligible for legalization.

If I could concede to the Senator from Arizona that, if he is going to add the crimes he has mentioned--I happen to think they are currently covered by the bill before us, but if there is need for some clarification in that regard, I think we could work on it--but would the Senator be kind enough to address that basic issue? Are you saying if a person, currently on a student visa, is failing a class, drops the class, no longer is a full-time student and is therefore out of compliance with the student visa, that person by virtue of dropping that class has now disqualified himself from legalization under the bill that is before us?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Illinois asked the question. That was the second point I was going to get to. The first had to do with crimes, but I will be happy to leave that conversation and move to the absconders, as I said. ``Absconders'' is the word that is used to describe those people who have been ordered by a judge to leave the country because of something they have done--more than simply overstaying a visa--and have refused to do that. In other words, they have already demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with an order to leave the country.

Obviously, part of the enforcement of all of this legislation depends upon our ability to enforce the law for people who are unwilling to comply with the law's terms. If someone has already demonstrated an unwillingness do that, it seems to me they should not be eligible. And let me go on to say that the suggestion that a simple visa overstayer is caught up in this is not true--not true.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KYL. Why don't I explain it, and then the Senator from Illinois won't have to keep asking questions about what it actually does.

There are four different sections. One of them has to do with the removal of people where there has been a formal proceeding and the alien has been detained. That is section 238. There are probably about 20,000--well, probably more than that, but there is at least a minimum of 20,000 because many of those are other than Mexicans. We do not have the number for people, for example, who would be Mexican citizens.

There are also formal proceedings before an immigration judge. This number of absconders is far greater. That is section 240. There are a lot more in that category, perhaps 200,000 to 300,000 people.

Mr. DURBIN. May I ask a question?

Mr. KYL. Let me finish the discussion so the Senator will not have to interrupt and ask questions, please.

Third, there are the situations where you have visa waiver countries where, because of the terms of the visa waiver, there has been a prewaiver of a right to contest removal, so there is no formal proceeding. There are about 900 removed under that provision per year. So this is not just visa overstayers. There are millions of visa overstayers, obviously. And finally the category of expedited removal, which is section 235, where an alien is detained until deportation. We don't have data on how many were deported but are still in the United States.

These are categories of people where it is not simply violating it--it is not coming into the United States illegally that triggers a visa overstayer. In fact, I am not sure we wrote this broadly enough because a visa overstayer such as Mohamed Atta--somebody from a country that does not have a visa waiver, from a country such as Saudi Arabia--would not be caught. So here is Mohamed Atta who overstays his visa, flies an airplane into the World Trade Center, and he would not, even under the amendment we have provided here, be precluded from participating in the program.

What I am saying is I don't think we drafted this quite broadly enough, but it makes the point that merely overstaying the visa does not catch you up in this particular bill. So it is wrong to say all we have to do is overstay a visa and this amendment would catch you up. That is simply not the case. The number probably caught up in this would be in the neighborhood of 300,000.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KYL. I would be happy to.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, here is what I understand the law to be and what your amendment says. The law, as I understand it, is if you are in the United States on a student visa from a foreign country, you are required to be a full-time student and to stay. If you are failing a course, you drop out of the course, you are no longer a full-time student and, therefore, you are ineligible to stay on a student visa. At that point, you are subject to a final order of removal which means you can be deported from this country, having a presence in this country that is not recognized by your student visa because you dropped the course.

Now let me read what your amendment says. It says:

An alien is ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant work authorization and status under this section if the alien is subject to a final order of removal.

Mr. KYL. Keep reading.

Mr. DURBIN. ``Under sections 217, 235, 238, and 240.''

My question to you is this----

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time. The reason I said ``keep reading'' is because I just read to you under each of those sections, 217, 235, 238, and 240, the specific circumstances under which someone would be precluded from participating in the benefits of the bill. It is not, with due respect, as the Senator from Illinois said, overstaying a visa. You have to have been subject to one of these four specific sections.

As I said, the first one is a visa waiver. There were 900 people last year who were removed under that. It wouldn't even include a person such as Mohamed Atta, as I said.

I need to go back and try to fix the amendment with regard to that. Sections 235 and 238 are the expedited removal of aggravated felons and I am sure the Senator doesn't want to allow those people to remain. Section 240 is where there has been a formal appearance before an immigration judge and a person has specifically been ordered to depart and has not done so.

It is simply wrong to say if you come across the border and stay here, or if you overstay your visa, you are caught up in my amendment. My amendment is much more specific than that and specifically only deals with those people you would not want the benefits to apply to.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might further ask a question without asking the Senator to surrender the floor, of course, let me ask this question: What you said and the last thing you mentioned was if you were in the United States and had an order issued that you will leave, depart, but the language of your amendment doesn't say that. The language says you are subject to a final order, which means you could be--you could be--subject to a final order. You are not saying a final order has been issued for deportation, and, therefore, you are ineligible. You are saying you are sure. If I have overstayed my visa, sadly, I am subject to an order of deportation, even if it has not been entered.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me answer the question again by saying I know my colleague is a good lawyer, but you have to read the whole sentence. You can't read half of a sentence and drop off the last part of the sentence. It specifically says under section 217, 235, 238, or 240. It is not simply subject to a final order of removal. It is subject to a final order of removal under one of those four sections.

The last section the Senator referred to is section 240. That is where there has already been a formal proceeding before an immigration judge, an order of removal has been issued, and it has been violated. Yes, the person is subject to a final order of removal because that person has already violated the judge's order.

As to each of these sections, as I said, there is a specific reason why it is included and why it isn't merely subject to a final order of removal.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might further ask a question, if the Senator from Arizona wants to make it clear that overstays on visas do not disqualify you from the pathway to legalization unless a final order has been entered saying you must be deported, I wish the Senator would clarify that language. As it stands, you have said if you are subject to--meaning you could be charged with--having overstayed your visa, you could be deported then you are disqualified. I think if you would clarify and tighten the language, it would overcome some of the serious concerns we have. The example the Senator used in other cases of terrorists and people we clearly don't want in the United States, I don't think you will have much, if any, argument. But when it comes to this particular circumstance, I think the language is subject to an interpretation you may not want.

Mr. KYL. I appreciate the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois. It is a usual legislative drafting tradition to say what you mean by referring to other sections of law and only those sections of law that you intend to cover. That is what we have done here. We have not referred to sections of law that would refer broadly to anyone who has overstayed a visa.

Let me reiterate. The Senator asked about the court proceeding. That was the section 240 I referred to. That is specifically where there has been a proceeding. The others I mentioned I will reiterate again.

The visa waiver: As the Senator knows, there are 27 countries where we have a relationship with a visa waiver. What that means is the individual, upon entering the United States, waives rights somebody under section 240 would not have waived because they do not even have to present a visa to the United States. They, in effect, agree as they come in, as a condition to the use of that provision, to be removable for violation of their visa.

As I said, last year, according to our information, a grand total of 900 people were removed under that particular provision.

This is not something on which we round people up and send them home. The expedited removal, sections 235 and 238--as I said, 238 is the removal of aggravated felons--and expedited removal under the provision the Department of Homeland Security has now established for other than Mexicans who come to the United States, for whom there is no detention space and who are being removed from the United States, are subject to this as well.

To talk about what this problem is and why we are trying to solve it, you have 39,000 Chinese citizens in the United States illegally whom the Chinese Government won't take back. There are similar numbers of people from other countries, although I do not know of any quite that large.

It is not a simple matter with people from countries such as this to take them to the Mexican border and turn them over to Mexico which obviously won't take them. They are not Mexican citizens. We don't have the detention space right now to accommodate about 165,000 other-than-Mexican illegal immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security has announced their streamlined procedure of expedited removal where it tries to get the country to take the individual back within a period of less than 4 weeks. They are trying to get it down to a couple of weeks.

But as I said, many countries won't take them back. What happens is you end up with people we don't have a place to put. There is no detention space available. They are given an order to appear before the court in 90 days. Basically, they are released on their own recognizance and asked to come back in 90 days to the Department of Homeland Security and show up for their removal. They do not do so. There is no place to put them. They do not show up for removal, and they meld into our society.

I doubt the Senator from Illinois is saying these--I believe it was about 165,000 such people last year--are people we should put on a path to citizenship.

Those are the four categories of people we are talking about: aggravated felons, people who have already violated a court order, expedited removal, and a small number of visa waiver people.

It does not apply to you simply if you overstayed your visa or if you came into the country illegally and, therefore, violated our law that says you are to present yourself at a port of entry. They violated that law. But merely coming into the country illegally is not covered by this amendment.

So the roughly 12 million people, or however many we are talking about here, would not be covered by this; at most, perhaps, in the neighborhood of 300,000.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, I understand the Senator's explanation, and I have to go back to a point that I think if he would clarify his language in his amendment, it would allay some of the fears we have.

Let me give an example of why we are concerned. In the original Cornyn-Kyl bill that was introduced, it was a question about the ineligibility of aliens, or deferred mandatory departure, or a similar circumstance where they would not be recognized and given this opportunity. Your language in that instance said it would be an alien who would be ``ordered, excluded, deported, removed or to depart voluntarily from the United States.''

There was specificity there. The decision had been made. I think that is a lot clearer and more consistent with the explanation you have given us than the words ``subject to a final order'' which I think is much more general in scope and perhaps too broad, maybe leading to my conclusion that may not be consistent with your intent.

I ask you if you would consider tightening your language here as you did in the original bill with Senator Cornyn so we know exactly what we are dealing with.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the suggestion. I would be happy to visit with the Senator from Illinois who, as I said before, is a good lawyer and who understands the details of this to make sure we are denying the privileges of the underlying legislation only to those people whom we intend to deny those privileges to. I think we have a rough meeting of the mind as to who those people are.

I will say, however, it does get difficult because when the Senator from Illinois says, for example, we don't just want visa overstayers to be caught up in this, as a general proposition, I agree with that.

What that means is, of course, Mohamed Atta and many of his cohorts would not have been denied the benefits of this legislation because they simply overstayed a visa.

The point here is it is hard to draw these distinctions and deny the privileges to people you don't want to get them and yet not sweep too broad a broom and preclude people you have no intention of denying the benefits to from participating in those benefits.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again for a question?

Mr. KYL. I would be happy to yield again.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, please let us not wave the bloody shirt of Mohamed Atta. He would be disqualified from this program under existing law. Terrorists are not going to be given a legal pathway to citizenship in America. No one wants that to happen, none of us. So I don't think that was a good example of why we need the Kyl amendment.

Wouldn't you agree that in language already in the bill before the Senate, Mohamed Atta wouldn't have a prayer if he said, I want to stick around; I know I have been convicted as a terrorist, but I want to be an American citizen?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, with all due respect, I think that question was pretty far off the mark. Mohamed Atta committed his crime before he could have been convicted of being a terrorist, and he obviously killed himself in the process. The time to apply this legislation to him is not after the fact but hopefully before the fact.

The problem is that at the time he overstayed his visa, to our knowledge, he had not committed any other crime except perhaps forging some documents or making false statements to an immigration official--something such as that.

What I am saying is we have drafted this in a way that it would not have caught people such as Mohamed Atta because to do that would be to exclude others from the benefits of the legislation both the Senator and I agree should not be excluded.

I am simply trying to say we have to be careful with the language because if we simply say--and I know the Senator from Illinois would agree with this proposition when he says we don't want to exclude just people who have overstayed their visas, and he gave the example of the student who overstayed a visa--I know he doesn't mean to include within that somebody such as Mohamed Atta because the reality is that is exactly what we have done here. If we could find some other way to add a provision that says if we have evidence to believe somebody is a terrorist, they would also be included, that probably would be a good idea, and we would both agree to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. The bill explicitly says if you want to move toward legalization, you have to submit yourself to a criminal background check; no criminal record. Frankly, I can't imagine there would be a terrorist who would say, I will wait patiently for 11 years, and I will submit to a criminal background check so that in the 12th year I will commit an act of terrorism.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it may well be that Mohammed Atta may not want to take advantage of the provisions of the act. That is speculation. Although these terrorists did take advantage of our immigration laws in many respects, we did not expect them to do that. We thought they would sneak into the country. Instead they filled out the forms and came in, many of them, with legal visas. I am not sure we can assume what he will do or what he will not do.

Here is the point: Under the bill as drafted, only crimes relating to drug offenses, moral turpitude, and the conviction of five offenses totaling 5 years in prison would exclude someone from the benefits. That is why we have added the other elements which, by the way, I inform my colleague from Illinois, the conviction of a felony and three misdemeanors, are precisely the language from the 1986 bill.

Those who think the 1996 act was unworkable and amnesty and not a good idea should be aware that all we are doing with respect to the criminal violations is taking that same language and putting it into this bill.

We have had a good discussion of this amendment. I am happy to see if there is any way to further clarify the language that might get the Senator from Illinois to support the amendment. I want to get a vote on it.

As I said before, I want also to be able to lay down the previous amendment which simply provides a trigger that before the temporary worker program kicks in, certain things we promised to do under the bill would have been done.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let us understand where we are at this moment. In the colloquy with Senator Kyl, I raised an element of his amendment which we, I think, generally agreed needs to be clarified. I hope we can work toward clarification.

The Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asked whether we can now take up amendments which both sides agree would be constructive, moving us toward our goal of final passage, on a bipartisan basis, asking the Senator from Arizona, would you please set your amendment aside, perhaps to work on the subject of your colloquy a few moments ago, and then you will be back in the queue.

We are not only prepared, incidentally, on the Democratic side to entertain the four amendments which have been spelled out by the Senator from Pennsylvania, we are also prepared to debate and vote on at least three other amendments, the Lieberman-Brownback asylum, an Allard amendment 3213, and a Nelson amendment 3220.

So the argument among some that we are stopping the amendment process is not true. At this point, the Senator from Arizona is stopping the amendment process because his amendment, which is not quite in the shape it might be in, or wants to be in, is going to be first or nothing else. I hope that is not where we are going to end this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If there is no objection on the other side, I renew that unanimous consent that we move immediately to consideration of Mikulski-Warner, 3217; Collins, 3211; Dorgan, 3223; Isakson, 3203, with 2 minutes of debate evenly divided before each vote, and that we start taking those up immediately. I ask unanimous consent to move forward.

Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I offer an amendment to that unanimous consent request which is that those amendments occur as identified but to be preceded by a vote on amendments that are in the regular order.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, we are back where we started. Senator Kyl will not let a single amendment be considered unless he is first. We have a bipartisan agreement to move to four and perhaps three other worthy amendments while he works on the language of his, which is not acceptable. We have reached an impasse, and I object to his modification of my unanimous consent request.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, and so the Senator from Idaho says we ought to have considered three, five, eight amendments by now. Well, he suggests we are sleepwalking. Perhaps he was sleepwalking when we considered three amendments, the first by Senator Frist, the Republican majority leader, the second by Senator Bingaman, the third by Senator Alexander. And the fourth was a motion by the Senator from Pennsylvania to table the Kyl amendment. It is not as if we have not been considering amendments. If I am not mistaken, moments ago I suggested, let's move to four right now, and maybe seven. So let's move forward on these amendments.

So to suggest we are not moving through the amendment process is not accurate. To suggest we are sleepwalking--if you were wide awake, you would be aware of the fact that we voted on three amendments already on this bill and others were just denied an opportunity to be called just moments ago on the floor by the Senator from Arizona.

It appears now that those who oppose this bill or those who want to slow it down are intent on making the Kyl amendment the way to do it. I would say that Senator Kyl and I had a colloquy just a few moments ago on the floor, and it was very clear to me that his language in the amendment needs to be changed so that it is clear to everyone what he intends to achieve.

I thought that is where he was going. I thought that is what he acknowledged. But having even acknowledged that, he will not allow another amendment to come forward while his is still pending on the floor. That is unfortunate.

It was said earlier that----

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. CRAIG. You are really going to suggest that the last 2 days of effort are called heavy lifting? Shouldn't we redefine what work in this body is all about?

Mr. DURBIN. I would say in response, I do not believe I used that term.

Mr. CRAIG. You did not use that term; I just did. But you have suggested we have been at great industry here over the last 2 days?

Mr. DURBIN. No. I can tell you--reclaiming my time, I would say to the Senator from Idaho, most of the work that has been going on has been off the floor in the Republican caucus because the Republican majority has to decide whether we are going to have a comprehensive immigration bill. There are 55 votes on their side of the aisle, 45 votes on our side of the aisle.

We are standing firm in the belief that the bipartisan bill which emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of the Republican chairman, Senator Specter, is the good starting point for us to really address comprehensive immigration reform, for the first time in decades.

The heavy lifting has been off the floor while the party of the Senator from Idaho has been trying to decide their place in history. Will they be part of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform or stand in its path? They have to make that decision. We cannot make it on the floor for them. The sooner they make it, the better.

Last night, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, filed a cloture motion to make it clear there will be a moment of reckoning. Here on the Senate floor, in very short order, the Republicans and Democrats will face a basic choice: Do we stop, do we kill this bill, this bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill or do we move forward? I hope we move forward because I think this is a good bill.

When I listened to the Senator from Idaho talk about enforcement, well, let me say, the enforcement provisions of the bill before us are amazing. And I use that term advisedly. But they are amazing.

We increase the number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years by 12,000--12,000. Currently, there are about 2,000. Think about that. What a dramatic increase in making our borders safer.

We increase the number of interior agents going after those who should not be in this country by 5,000 over the next 5 years.

Agents dedicated to combating alien smuggling, up 1,000 over the next 5 years.

We also require the Department of Homeland Security to construct at least 200 miles of vehicle barriers at all-weather roads in areas known as transit points for illegal crossings. This is in the bill before us.

We understand, as most would concede, that America's borders are out of control. They are broken down. Part of any comprehensive immigration package must have strong enforcement. The bipartisan bill before us does exactly that.

It goes on to require primary fencing in areas where we think it is necessary to stop illegal crossings. There are technology enhancements, replacing existing fencing, constructing vehicle barriers in certain Arizona population centers. The list goes on and on. Criminalization--greater penalties for those crossing the border illegally.

All of these things indicate this is not just a bill dealing with legalization, it is a bill dealing with enforcement. We took the provisions which Senator Frist, the Republican leader, offered and we duplicated them. So to argue the bill before us is weak on enforcement does not stand up. It is strong on enforcement.

But let me be clear. Our lesson is this: Simply increasing enforcement will not solve the immigration problems of America. We have 2,000 border agents now. We have increased them over the years. We have done a lot over the last 4 or 5 years, and illegal immigration has continued. You need to do more.

In addition to border enforcement, you have to do two things. You have to deal with the employment. What is the magnet that draws people across that border into the United States? It is the prospect of a job, a job that will pay much more than they can make in their villages in Mexico, in Central America, or in Poland or Ireland, for that matter.

What we do is say that the employers who illegally hire people and exploit them are going to be held accountable. There are tough penalties under the law. So border enforcement is tough. Employer enforcement is tough, as it should be.

But there is a third element. The third element gets to the heart of the issue. What are we going to do about 11 or 12 million people currently in the United States who are not documented? If you listen to some of the cable show hosts, they say: Send them home. Deport 12 million people. That is totally unrealistic. Physically, it could not be achieved. If it could be, it would be an expense far greater than anyone could imagine for this country.

What we have to do is have realistic, tough, fair answers. Here is what we have come up with. If you are here, having overstayed a visa, or without documentation, in the United States, we will give you a chance, a chance to become legal. But it is a long, hard road. It will take you 11 years--11 years--of your life. You better be committed to being part of America's future--11 years.

In the course of that 11 years, it is not going to be easy. If you break the law, you are out. If you are not working, demonstrating employment, caring for your family, you cannot qualify. If you do not pass a criminal background check, you are out. If you do not pay a fine of several thousand dollars, you are out. If you have not learned English, you are out. If you have not paid your back taxes, you are out. If you do not understand this government, its history, and what our country is all about, you cannot qualify.

Do you call that amnesty? Does that sound like something that is automatic, moving to the head of the line, a free ride? It is not. It is a hard, tough process.

I come to the floor--and I have said it before; I want to repeat it, as many have in their own personal circumstances--as the son of an immigrant. My mother was brought to America at the age of 2 in 1911. My grandmother brought her, her brother, and sister over on a boat from Lithuania. They landed not at Ellis Island but in Baltimore. They caught the train to St. Louis and went across Eades Bridge over to the east side of the river in East St. Louis, IL, to meet up with my grandfather, who was working in common immigrant labor--steel mills and stockyards and things we did in that part of the world.

I do not know if my mother, who became a naturalized citizen in her twenties, could have met the qualifications of this bill--all of them. They are tough. They are demanding. I hope she could have, but she may not have. Fortunately for me, she became a naturalized citizen. I am very proud of that. She raised a family with my dad--three boys, and one of them turned out to be the 47th Senator from the State of Illinois.

That is an American story, a story repeated over and over and over again. We want this bill to reflect American values. We want this bill to basically say: We are going to fix a broken immigration system. We are going to repair our borders with real enforcement. We are going to make certain that the employers who are making this situation even worse are going to be penalized. We are going to do that and give those who are here a chance to become legalized.

The Presiding Officer up here from the State of South Carolina has been very articulate about this issue. He has spoken out in many places, and I admire the statements he has made. He has noted the fact that there are many people currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces who are not citizens. That is a fact. You do not have to be a citizen to serve as a soldier. And many of them are risking their lives today, in uniform, for the United States of America. Over 50 have been killed in Iraq. They are not legally citizens but serving their country they love, willing to risk their lives for this country.

It has been raised by the Senator from South Carolina, and others: What are we saying to them? What are we saying to those who have served, those who have risked their lives and may come home having lost a limb or suffering some serious injury? Are we saying to them that their parents, their family, must still live in the shadows of America? Or are we going to give them a chance? That is what this bill is all about.

So we have a strong bipartisan bill, supported by the Senator from Pennsylvania, supported by three other members of the majority party in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is true. We have been rather steadfast in our belief that this process has to move forward. And we only have a few days to try to capture the moment and to bring together the political forces to do something historic.

Last Saturday, I went to a high school in Chicago. Cristo Rey is a Jesuit high school in an area of Chicago that has a largely Mexican population. It is an incredible school with dedicated teachers, administrators who are trying to give kids a fighting chance. They know what the statistics tell us. Fifty percent of Hispanic Americans drop out of school. So they are fighting against the odds to keep these kids in school. I stood there on a stage with about 20 students from that high school and surrounding high schools, some who had graduated a few years ago and some who were currently about to graduate. I listened to their stories.

Oscar Ramirez was there. I had met him before. He said: Senator, the last time you met me, I was pursuing my degree in biology from the University of Illinois in Chicago. I got it. I got my bachelor of science degree in biology. Right now, I have applied for a master's for research in neurobiology. But once I get my master's degree--and I am going to get it--I am still undocumented. In the eyes of the Government, I am supposed to leave.

I ask my colleagues, is America a better place if Oscar leaves? Is this country better that a person of that talent would leave us at this point? He came here as a child. His parents brought him here. They didn't ask for him to vote on where to live; they brought him. This is the only land he has ever known. He defied the odds--not only graduated from high school, but he has a bachelor's degree and is going for an advanced degree. Wouldn't we be a better country with Oscar Ramirez as a citizen doing neurobiological research on Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's? Wouldn't we be a better place?

Standing next to him was a young woman about to get her bachelor's degree in the city of Chicago in computer science and math who said: All I want to do is teach. I want to teach in high school. I hope that some kids will be as excited about math as I am.

Can we give up on a person like that? Are we ready to say we don't need them in America--thank you for dropping by, but you can go back to wherever you came from? I don't think so. I think what they bring to America is exactly what we need--values that we cherish, values that distinguish us from many other countries. Why is this such a great nation? Because it is a nation of immigrants and a nation of immigrant spirit, the spirit of those who were willing to get up and take a risk where others were not.

When my mother's family left the tiny village of Jurbarkas in Lithuania, I am sure there were villagers around them shaking their heads, saying: What are they thinking? They are leaving their home, the little plot of land they are tending to grow vegetables. They are leaving the church where they were baptized, their language, their culture, to go to a place where they can't even speak the language. That Kutkin family must be crazy.

It was a crazy family like my grandparents and many like them who have made this great Nation. They brought here risk taking. They brought here family values. They were going to stick together through thick or thin, and they did it. Because of them, because of their courage and the courage of millions like them, we are a different nation. Where other nations are torn apart by divisions, our diversity gives us strength.

That is what this bill tries to capitalize on. That is what this bill tries to build on. It says: Let us take the strength of that immigrant spirit and build a stronger America for tomorrow. Create obstacles in the path, create requirements, give people a chance to earn their way to citizenship. It is a hard, long path, but an important one.

The Senate bill we passed takes this comprehensive approach. It is tough. It is fair. We improve border security, deploy new technology, increase our manpower, crack down on employers that are hiring millions of undocumented workers. We do need tougher enforcement. We believe that. But in the Judiciary Committee bill, we acknowledge something that Senator Frist, the Republican majority leader of the Senate, and Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER of Wisconsin did not acknowledge--a strategy that focuses only on enforcement is doomed to fail. In the last decade, we tripled the Border Patrol agents in America. We have spent eight times as many hours patrolling the border. During that same time, the number of undocumented immigrants has doubled. Enforcement alone is not enough. We need a realistic and comprehensive approach.

As the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges, mass deportation, which we might hear on some of the cable talk shows, isn't going to work and will cost us billions of dollars if we try. Amnesty is not an option, simply waving our hand and saying to everyone who is here: You are now legal citizens, enjoy America. That isn't the right thing to do, either.

What we try to do is find a reasonable middle ground. If we are serious about reform, we need to offer the chance for immigrants who work hard, play by the rules, pay their taxes, learn English, a chance to become legal in America.

Incidentally, what Senator Kyl said earlier about those who should be disqualified, I can't argue with him. When it comes to criminal records, let's be honest, if you want to be a citizen and you want to commit crimes here, we don't want you. Can I be any clearer? If you want to commit a violent crime, if you want to endanger the life of another person with a sawed-off shotgun or commit crime of moral turpitude, you can leave right now. We don't need you, and we don't want you. We make that clear in the bill. It is already there. If you want to make it all the way to citizenship, you can't have a criminal record, period.

You have to have been employed since January 2004. Aliens who enter after that date or who have not worked continuously since then would not qualify. You have to remain continuously employed going forward. You have to pay about $2,000 in fines and fees, pass a security background check, a medical exam, learn English, learn about our history and government, and pay all back taxes. And then, if you meet all of those requirements, you go to the back of the line so that people who are trying to move forward in this convoluted, bureaucratic legal process will still be in the front of the line before you.

It is clear that is not amnesty. That is a process, a long, arduous process. It is an 11-year pathway to citizenship.

We have an important bill before us, a bipartisan bill. We have a singular opportunity to make history this week in the Senate. If we press forward with a bipartisan spirit, the same spirit that guided the Senate Judiciary Committee, we can achieve this. Having achieved it, we will be able to say that we tackled one of the biggest problems facing America today and dealt with it in a responsible fashion.

I will not renew my unanimous consent request because I know the Senator from Pennsylvania would object. There is no point wasting our time in that regard. I thank him for his leadership. I know he is trying to find some balance to build a bridge over the troubled waters of the Senate. But at this moment in time, we are prepared to move on the four amendments we have agreed to and three others. We would like to do that, I say to the Senator from Georgia. The amendment which we are prepared to accept may not be the one you want today, but perhaps we could get to your amendment at a later time. I hope we can.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. OK.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee if he recalls a few weeks ago on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act when Senator Feingold of Wisconsin offered amendments which were germane postcloture but was not given an opportunity to call those amendments because the Republican majority leader, Senator Frist, filled the tree? There was no question that they were germane amendments. Senator Feingold rightfully took to the floor and held us in session for days because the Republican majority would not allow votes on germane amendments on the bill that came out of our committee.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the thought that comes to my mind is, were they subject to being offered postcloture, had they been offered precloture? Don't they have to be offered precloture? The Parliamentarian is shaking her head in the negative. Repeat the question, and I will try to answer that.

Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that you can offer germane amendments postcloture, but the question is whether you can get into a queue where the amendment will be called. If there is a pending germane amendment filed precloture, it may take precedence in terms of being called, and you may not have an opportunity. I think you have a right under our rules to offer germane amendments postcloture. Whether you will have a chance to call those for a vote depends on the process on the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, as we have seen in so many situations, and where I have been willing to concede error on both sides of the aisle, I am not going to seek to defend preventing votes on relevant, germane amendments, whether they are offered by Senator Feingold or Senator Kyl, or anybody else. That is just not the way the Senate ought to be run. I am glad to note that the Senator from Illinois didn't hear my answer. He was talking, which he has a right to do.

Mr. DURBIN. I apologize to the Senator, who is very patient. I will listen to his remarks.

Mr. SPECTER. It is not worth repeating. It is my hope that sanity may yet return to this Chamber. If it existed, it has certainly departed. We have, in all seriousness, a bill before us that is enormously important.

Senator Durbin spoke at some length a few moments ago, and I agree with most of what he said. We have a tremendous problem in this country with undocumented aliens. We need to get a handle on what is going on. We need to not have a fugitive class in America that is being exploited by employers. We need to control our borders. We have a serious problem with terrorism. We have a serious question whether the people coming into this country are taking American jobs or depressing American wages. We are simply not dealing with it.

To have the Senate floor empty, and we are going to have a quorum call most of the time unless people come over and talk about ideas, which are fine but are not advancing the progress of this bill. I think it is important that our constituents know we are at an impasse because of technical reasons advanced by the Democrats. I do not say that in a partisan sense. I have voted for many Democratic proposals and for many of President Clinton's judges and across the line on many occasions when I thought the ideas merited it, not as a matter of party loyalty.

The Democrats are stonewalling this bill and no one is even on the floor to defend them, so I will not attack them anymore.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Georgia, I think it would be an interesting debate. We may reach that debate as to what is reasonably secure. There are some, as I understand it, 300 million people who cross our border with Mexico every year in legal status, for commercial purposes and otherwise, and whether we are secure under the Senator's amendment, I would have to listen to his arguments on who makes the certification and what are the standards for that.

If we had a situation where the fate of millions of people hinged on a subjective decision about reasonable security, I think that would raise some questions about whether we are moving forward and whether people would say: I can step out of the shadows now and I think at this point I am prepared to tell you who I am, where I live, where I work, and here are my records. If there is this uncertainty, at any given time you could stop the process.

I say to the Senator from Georgia, it would be an interesting debate and I am anxious to hear his side of the argument.

His is 1 of 100 amendments that have been filed. One of his other amendments we are prepared to take up immediately. I don't think that is the same one. We are prepared to take that up because we think it would move the bill forward in a constructive, bipartisan way.

I would like to hear the Senator's argument before making a final decision.

Mr. ISAKSON. Reclaiming my time, my response to the Senator would be that I am not an attorney, but I spent 33 years in the real estate business. I saw the term ``reasonable attorney's fees'' on more documents than the law would allow. I never met an attorney who could not describe what reasonable attorney's fees meant. I think we can find a lot of people in the Senate who understand that.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/