Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006--Continued -- (Senate - May 23, 2006)

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be given 10 minutes to speak on the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. 2611, the immigration bill we are debating this week. It has been a difficult debate with several difficult votes, but I believe this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will address this year.

The status of immigrants in this country, including legal aliens, guest workers, and illegal aliens, has a profound impact on our economy, our labor force, and the quality of life of all of the Nation's residents. Clearly, our immigration system in terms of both its punitive measures and its benefits offered is in need of overhaul. The bill before us is not perfect, but it is a realistic approach to dealing with an issue that is important to so many Americans.

Rather than measures that sound good but are ineffective, this legislation is truly comprehensive immigration reform. It includes tough enforcement provisions directed at those who seek to come here illegally in the future and those who would hire illegal aliens. It contains provisions for guest workers that balance the needs of employers and the average American worker, and it offers a path to legalization to those who entered this country illegally but who have since been working hard and obeying the rules.

One of the most important sections of this bill relates to enforcement. Clearly, the continuous flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border in particular in search of higher paying jobs in the United States strains our Nation's labor market and resources such as hospitals and schools and law enforcement.

I note that while illegal immigration has been a significant problem since the 1980s, the problems have only worsened in the past 6 years. The 9/11 Commission gave the Bush administration a grade of C-minus on border security. The administration has simply lost control of the border. In the past decade, between 700,000 and 800,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in this country annually. Over 70 percent of these individuals are from Mexico or South America or from Central America. During the same period from 1995 to 2005, the number of Border Patrol agents increased from 4,876 to 11,106.

However, while the number of border agents increased dramatically during the Bush administration, the number of apprehensions at the border declined 31 percent from the last 4 years of the Clinton administration. In addition, approximately one-half of the 11 million illegal aliens in this country live in the 46 nonborder States, yet the average apprehension rate during the Bush administration is 25,901 individuals per year in interior States away from the border.

But apprehending individuals illegally crossing the border only partially solves the problem. The reason so many try to enter this country is the search for jobs. We must work to cut off the supply of jobs by making it too costly for employers to hire illegals. Again, this administration has performed poorly in this area. In fiscal year 2004, the last year in which data is available, the Justice Department only obtained 46 convictions for employer violations of illegal immigrant employment laws. Audits of employers suspected of utilizing labor have dropped from a peak of 8,000 per year under President Clinton to less than 2,200 in fiscal year 2003 under President Bush. The number of cases resulting in fines has declined from a peak of 900 under President Clinton to a total of 124 in fiscal year 2003. I would therefore say that the first step to improve enforcement would be to actually enforce the laws that are already on the books.

In addition, I believe the bill adds many useful enforcement measures. I would like to highlight a few that I feel are most significant.

I am particularly pleased with the focus on technology. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to create a virtual fence along the borders using unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, sensors, tethered aerostat radars, and other surveillance equipment. This bill also requires the Department of Homeland Security to work with other agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration to develop plans for sharing assets and implementing surveillance strategies.

In addition, this bill includes provisions which replace and extend existing fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. While I realize that building additional fences may be an attractive option, ultimately I believe this approach would be expensive and ineffective. History has proven that fences simply drive the illegal immigration flow to cross by land through more inhospitable terrain, increasing the number of deaths, or to enter by boat through our largely unprotected ports and shores.

For example, once a triple fence was built in the San Diego area, apprehensions dropped dramatically, but they increased 342 percent during the same period in Tuscon, away from the fence. In addition, during that period, it is estimated that 1,954 people died attempting to cross the Sonoran Desert to reach Tucson.

I also believe that wall is a symbol of distrust which can only weaken our relations, particularly with Mexico. It is a country we need to cooperate with to reduce the flow of illegal aliens.

For these reasons, last week I voted against the Sessions amendment to add 370 more miles of triple-layer fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along our southern border. I believe the funding could be spent in more effective ways using new technologies.

This bill also improves enforcement of employers who might unlawfully hire illegal aliens. First, it reduces the number of documents that can be used to prove legal status. It also increases verification and recordkeeping requirements. Most importantly, it establishes an electronic employment verification system.

Under this program, employers must electronically verify new hires' employment authorization within 3 days through the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security databases. All employers will have to participate in the system within the next 5 years. The bill also provides for punitive measures for employers who do not participate. Such a system will help standardize enforcement, making it more certain that employers hiring illegals will be found out and therefore providing a deterrent effect.

I believe the measure I have discussed, along with others in the bill, will help control the stream of illegal aliens entering this country.

As we all are aware, one of the most controversial aspects of this bill is that it provides a path to legalization for approximately 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. I believe that while this is a difficult decision, it is a necessary one.

Logic and history dictate that these individuals will certainly not return to their native countries voluntarily. In addition, it is not possible to apprehend and return all of them involuntarily. If apprehensions continue at the present rate and new illegal immigration ceases, it would still take 228 years for this country to be free of illegal immigrants.

In the meantime, a significant segment of our population is living in the shadows and in constant fear of being caught working for low wages, often in terrible conditions, without health care, without a way to redress any crimes against them. So many being forced to live this way lowers the standard of living for all of us--by decreasing job opportunities, lowering wages and the standards of working conditions for the American workforce, and burdening our hospitals and law enforcement agencies. It is not just a problem for the illegal population, it is a problem for all of us. And it is time we address it. This bill does address it, and I believe in a fair way. It is not what opponents have called amnesty. These people are not illegal one day and enjoying the rights and benefits of legal residency the next without any sacrifice or work on their part. I would like to take a moment to put these provisions I am about to discuss in a historical context.

For the vast majority of our Nation's history, there were few, if any, requirements for immigrants entering this country. The first restrictive immigration laws, other than those racially based, were not passed until the late 1880s and did not substantially change for several decades, including during the height of European immigration in the early 1900s. These laws excluded convicts, polygamists, prostitutes, persons suffering from loathsome or contagious diseases, and persons liable to become public charges. The 1917 literacy requirement required individuals to be able to write out 40 words in some language, not necessarily English.

These requirements, I would say, were not particularly strenuous. The INS, once established in 1891, actually ran its own schools and supplied textbooks to help immigrants learn English and civics. There was no requirement to work or have marketable skills. For the most part, if you arrived and were relatively healthy, you were admitted. So by these standards, the requirements for earned adjustment are much more significant.

First, in order to receive the most benefits from this bill, an individual must prove he or she has already lived in this country for 5 years--time to become a part of the community and, it should be noted, the residency requirement since 1802. These individuals will also have to prove they worked 3 of the past 5 years and then must work continuously for the next 6 years. They must pay all unpaid back income taxes. They must demonstrate an understanding of the English language and an understanding of the history and government of this country. They must submit to fingerprinting and background checks and meet the health and security requirements of every other alien entering the country. Also, they are placed at the ``back of the line'' of applications for adjustment, and, as we all know, that wait is several years. They also have to pay a $2,000 fine as well as other processing fees.

Those who have been in this country since January

7, 2004, and have been employed since that time may apply for status called deferred mandatory departure which would allow them to remain in this country for an additional 3 years.

During that time, these individuals can apply for immigrant or nonimmigrant status, but ultimately they must leave the country in order to be admitted under that legal status. These hurdles are high and a far cry from amnesty. They strike the proper balance in punishing those who came here illegally and addressing the problems of some illegal aliens in the country.

One of the original provisions of S. 2611 about which I had significant reservations was the originally proposed H-2C guest worker program. It would create a new visa category--providing visas for hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers each year. I understand the argument that this new program is a way to regulate and hopefully slow the flow of illegal aliens who will continue to cross our borders, but I was concerned about immediately implementing the program as it was originally drafted.

I believe, however, that it has been vastly improved by the amendment process here on the floor. Senators DORGAN and STABENOW were the first to note the flaws in this program during debate on their amendment to eliminate the program, an amendment which was tabled. Further amendments, however, fix many of these flaws.

I wish to commend Senator Bingaman for his amendment, which passed, that reduces the number of H-2C visas allotted annually to 200,000 and eliminates the provision that would allow this number to automatically increase in future years. This amendment provides some needed limitation on the H-2C program until we see how all the provisions of S. 2611 are working.

I also wish to commend Senator Obama for offering his amendment, which was accepted and which provides adequate requirements for the wages offered to H-2C visa workers. One of the greatest challenges of allowing low-skilled workers in this country is balancing their needs with the needs of the American labor force. Over the past 32 months, real average hourly earnings have fallen by 1.2 percent. Without adequate protections, an influx of workers who will accept lower wages risks bringing down the wages and working conditions of everyone. I also worry that companies will use this visa program as a recruiting device for cheap labor rather than truly offering opportunities to individuals who want a better life in the United States. Senator Obama's amendment will work against those dangers, and I am pleased it was included.

I must state that I continue to have one concern about this program--the bilateral agreement. For our immigration system to truly work, it is critical that the United States have cooperation regarding enforcement with countries and citizens flocking to this country. I was, therefore, pleased to find that S. 2611 requires the United States to enter into bilateral agreements on numerous issues, including taking back aliens removed from the United States, document forgery, smuggling, human trafficking, and gang membership. However, this bill does not state that these bilateral agreements must be completed before the H-2C program is established. I believe a delay in concluding bilateral agreements may undercut the purpose of the H-2C program.

I will continue to monitor the situation, and I believe it is an issue Congress may have to address again in the near future.

Let me conclude very briefly by pointing out that there is a category of residents here, the Liberian community, who have been here legally since the late 1980s. For years, I have been endeavoring to provide relief so that these individuals, who are important and decent members of communities all across this country, could reach permanent status in United States and aspire to citizenship. I am pleased to note that in this bill, there is a means to do that. They can avail themselves of the mechanism others will use for their pathway to citizenship. It is long overdue.

I am disappointed that we could not specifically rectify this problem years ago and recognize their contributions as legal residents here under temporary protective status. But I am pleased that this legislation will go a long way to give the Liberian community a pathway to citizenship.

I am pleased to support this legislation. I commend the sponsors and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Kennedy for their work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov