Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (Senate - April 13, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Maryland for working with us.

This amendment is a sense of the Senate that Congress should not delay enactment of the supplemental appropriations bill by attempting to conduct a debate about comprehensive immigration reform at this time.

As I made clear, along with Senator Kyl and others on this point, I am for comprehensive immigration reform. It is long overdue. It is something in the regular order we are going to consider, both in the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, which I chair in the Judiciary Committee, but also I have talked with the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, and he has advised me that once we complete our work--hopefully in the next couple of months--he would give us an expedited markup in the full committee.

On a subject so complex and potentially divisive as comprehensive immigration reform, it is appropriate we take up this issue as we would most complex issues; that is, by the regular order. It is particularly important we do so in light of the subject matter of the present legislation in the Senate which is an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that should be passed without undue delay so our men and women in uniform can get the resources they need, including the equipment to do the job we have asked them to do and which they have so heroically agreed to do on our behalf in the war on terror.

I confess there are many good proposals out there with regard to immigration reform. The Senator from Maryland has a proposal on H-2B on which there will be some agreement; some people will agree with it. The distinguished Senator from Idaho has a bill called the agriculture jobs bill which will attempt to create a workforce that can work in the agricultural industry. I have some problems with the details of that bill, but in the main it is a well-intentioned effort to try to deal with part of this problem.

I say ``part of this problem'' advisedly. Rather than try to deal with this issue on a piecemeal basis, it is important we enact comprehensive reform. For too long we have simply ignored the fact our borders are not secure, that once people get past the border they literally can melt into the landscape. It has resulted in the current untenable proposition that there are about--no one knows for sure--10 million people who have come into our country outside of our laws. We need to deal with that, particularly in a post-September 11 environment, by addressing the security concerns, by restoring our reputation in this country as a nation that believes in and adheres to the rule of law but also in a way that is compassionate and deals with the economic reality involved where approximately 6 million of those 10 million people are currently in the workforce, many performing jobs American citizens simply do not want to perform.

It is not because I disagree with the general intent of immigration reform that I speak in favor of this resolution, which says we ought to take up this matter but in the regular course and on another day.

It is mainly because I do not want to see, nor do I believe any Senator on the floor or in their office or elsewhere would want to see us get bogged down and diverted in an immigration debate that, frankly, I do not think we are yet ready for, and at a time which I think could well damage our long-term prospects at getting comprehensive immigration reform passed, but particularly in a way that is calculated--let me change that word; it is not ``calculated''--the result likely would be that we would slow down and perhaps bog down this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to equip our troops with what they need.

So this resolution suggests, in the last paragraph, that:

Congress should not delay the enactment of critical appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to conduct a debate about immigration reform while the supplemental appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United States Senate.

I commend this to all of our colleagues. I express my appreciation in particular to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, for working with us. We both serve on the Judiciary Committee and believe this is an important issue. But it needs to be handled in the regular course that would not divert us from the immediate task at hand, which is to make sure our troops have the resources they need in order to complete the job we have asked them to do on our behalf.

Mr. President, with that, I yield to the Senator from California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I enjoyed this debate. It has been over 15 years since the Senate has had real debate on immigration. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill was the last time the Senate seriously looked at this issue, and it took us years to finally come up with a bill. We have not seriously addressed changes since.

There have been dramatic changes across America in immigration patterns, the number of people coming in, certainly issues of national security. If there is ever an issue we should address in comprehensive fashion, it is immigration.

I commend President Bush. We do not see eye to eye on many things, but I commend him for his leadership in suggesting we debate immigration. His proposal is not one I embrace in its entirety, but it at least opened the debate. Many were critical of it, some lauded it, but at least he had the courage to step up and say: Let's debate it.

Now comes the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we have an important bill before us relative to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and tsunami relief. Senator Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, and Senator Feinstein, a Democrat of California, have said this bill should not include immigration provisions. I think they make a compelling argument, an argument which I joined with several of my colleagues in making to Senator Frist a few days ago, who cosigned a letter--about 20 of us--to Senator Frist saying we do not believe one specific immigration provision should be part of this conference or this appropriations bill, and that relates to the REAL ID.

For those who have not followed the debate, the REAL ID is a provision adopted in the House of Representatives which will be part of this appropriations bill when the House and Senate come together to decide the final work product.

My concern, I say to Senator Cornyn and Senator Feinstein, is that the garlic is in the soup. There is no way to take it out at this point. Those of us who may be conferees will walk into that conference committee and face an immigration issue, a very serious immigration issue, a very controversial one.

So the suggestion we not add any immigration debate to this bill may be a good one to expedite it but like it or not we are going to face what I consider to be some very onerous provisions of the REAL ID bill which will be part of the conference committee report. If it is appropriate, I will retain the floor but ask the Senator from Texas about that particular circumstance. Would the Senator from Texas be open to modifying his sense of the Senate resolution in paragraph 4? In paragraph 4, the Senators from Texas and California say Congress should not short circuit the discussion of immigration by attaching amendments to this supplemental outside of the regular order.

Would the Senator from Texas modify his resolution to add the following language: Or by including provisions relating to immigration in the conference report to this supplemental appropriation bill?

If the Senator would, then I think what we are saying is we want a clean bill. By this vote, we are instructing our conferees to not come back with REAL ID, to not come back with any immigration provision.

I understand the predicament Senator Mikulski faces in Maryland. Senator Reed of Rhode Island faces a similar predicament when it comes to Liberian refugees. Senator Schumer faces an emergency situation with victims of volcano on an island who are now going to be deported back to tragic circumstances.

The point I am making is we cannot escape the reality immigration is on top of us and coming at us, but if we want this bill--because of its special nature--to be clean, I ask, without yielding the floor, if I could, through the Chair, if the Senator from Texas would be open to including this language in his sense of the Senate resolution?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the question of the Senator from Illinois. For purposes of the Senate bill, it is absolutely critical, as I think the debate has shown so far, we not get into other unrelated issues to the war supplemental, but we ought to leave it up to the conferees. Obviously, we are going to have to deal with the House provisions, and that is going to be worked on in the conference committee I do not expect to be on.

This is the agreed language Senator Feinstein and I have been able to come up with, and it covers the area we have some control over; that is, what happens in the Senate on the Senate's version of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I point out the debate we have been seeing here in the last couple of hours to me proves the point, and that is this is a complex, difficult, contentious issue, but one that, from what I heard over the last couple of hours, we all agree needs to be addressed.

Indeed, that is what the resolution says. It says Congress must engage in a careful and deliberate discussion about the need to bolster enforcement of and comprehensively reform our immigration laws. That is what the resolution says.

I know different Senators have different proposals. As I have said, I think the idea is we ought to take up those in the Judiciary Committee in the Subcommittee on Immigration, and we ought to be able to come up with a bill we can present to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other members. We can have it marked up. With the help of the majority leader, we can get it to the floor of the Senate.

It would be my hope we can do that within the next few months. I agree. We have a serious problem that has long been neglected in this country, and it cries out for an answer.

Lest any of our colleagues think this is not a complicated matter, let me point out some of the matters contained in the AgJOBS bill alone which I think are very controversial. For the benefit of our colleagues who are listening, this will give them a flavor of why I say this is such a complex and contentious issue.

For example, although the AgJOBS bill purports to be a temporary worker program, it does not have a requirement once people are qualified to work in the program that they actually return to their country of origin. I believe this component of a work-and-return concept is absolutely critical to any program we might justly call the temporary worker or guest-worker program.

Second, one of the provisions of the AgJOBS bill is entitled ``Eligibility for Legal Services.'' This provision requires free, federally funded legal counsel be afforded through the Legal Services Corporation to assist temporary workers in the application process for legal permanent residency. That is right. The bill requires that the taxpayers pay the bill for these allegedly temporary workers to apply for legal permanent residency under the bill, creating a new legal right and a new right to legal representation for which the American taxpayers are going to be called on to pay.

Third, the AgJOBS bill allows farm workers who are currently working illegally in the United States to cut in line in front of workers who have followed legal avenues from the start, violating the principle the Senator from Tennessee articulated so well just a few moments ago.

Next, AgJOBS grants amnesty to as many as 3 million illegal aliens who say they have worked recently in U.S. agriculture, along with their family members.

So not only are we talking about a worker program, we are talking about bringing families and children, which common sense tells us will decrease the likelihood that at any such time in the United States part of this program will indeed be temporary. Indeed, it is more likely that they will stay beyond the span of their visa and live here permanently.

One other point: Since virtually all of the special agricultural workers granted the one-time-only amnesty enacted in 1986 left agricultural work as soon as they had their green cards on hand, AgJOBS puts illegal aliens on the path to U.S. citizenship in a two-step process.

First, illegal aliens would be granted temporary residence and indentured for up to 6 years to ensure they continue to work in agriculture in the short term. Next, once these newly legalized aliens are provided records of labor, they will be granted lawful permanent residence and then U.S. citizenship--amnesty, in a word.

Next, AgJOBS also freezes wage levels for new legal H-2A, nonimmigrant, agricultural workers at the January 2, 2003, level for 3 years following enactment. The undocumented worker can then stay in the United States indefinitely while applying for permanent resident status. They can become citizens so long as they work in the agricultural sector for 675 hours over the next 6 years. Their spouse and minor children are permitted to accompany them and will also earn legal permanent residency status.

I point that out because, as the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, said earlier, I doubt there are many of our colleagues who understand the content of this AgJOBS bill. If the Senator from Idaho chooses to offer it as an amendment, we will take up that debate. Senator Feinstein and others may offer some amendments, and I hear that Senator Kyl and Senator Chambliss may have amendments of their own. Who knows how many other amendments may be working out there related to AgJOBS or maybe a more comprehensive bill to deal with this issue generally.

But that makes the point. While we are spending time talking about immigration reform, we are not getting to the job that ought to be highest on our list of priorities; that is, making sure this emergency supplemental appropriations bill passes without undue delay and without getting bogged down in other matters, such as immigration reform.

In the end, I join with all of my colleagues and say it is past time we deal with immigration problems in this country comprehensively. We have no border security now. We do at the bridges, but between the bridges it is come and go almost as you please. While many people come across the border to work, we understand as human beings people who have no hope or no opportunity where they live will do almost anything to be able to provide for their family. Be it human smugglers or be it self-guided trips across the Rio Grande or across our northern border, it is relatively easy to get into the United States, and the terrorists who know that can exploit that and hurt the American people.

We also know once people get to the interior of the United States, there is virtually nonexistent law enforcement. We have inadequate detention facilities along the border, particularly in my State. They have to let virtually all of the detainees, the immigrants who come across illegally, go on their own recognizance and ask them to come back for a deportation hearing 30 days later. It should be no surprise that in some instances 88 percent of them don't show up and simply melt into the landscape--many of them working in places all across the country doing jobs Americans, perhaps, do not want.

But this demonstrates how badly broken our immigration system is, our border security, our interior enforcement, and the reason we need to deal with this comprehensively, not just with a Band-Aid.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Feinstein and me and the others who have spoken already in support of the Cornyn-Feinstein resolution and let us have a debate about immigration--comprehensive immigration reform. But let us not do it at the time when our troops are fighting the war on terror and delay them getting the equipment and the resources they need in order to do the job they volunteered so nobly to do on our behalf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov