|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
< Go back to Immigration Daily
[Congressional Record: September 27, 2000 (Senate)]
[Page S9337-S9375]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr27se00-156]
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ACT OF 2000--
RESUMED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2045) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens.
Pending:
Lott (for Abraham) amendment No. 4177 (to the committee
substitute), in the nature of a substitute.
Lott amendment No. 4178 (to amendment No. 4177), of a
perfecting nature.
Lott (for Conrad) amendment No. 4183 (to the text of the
bill proposed to be stricken), to exclude certain ``J'' non-
immigrants from numerical limitations applicable to ``H-1B''
non-immigrants.
Lott amendment No. 4201 (to amendment No. 4183), in the
nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. I understand we are now under
cloture and each Senator is recognized for up to 1 hour to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator has a maximum of 1 hour.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the willingness on
the part of the Senator from Iowa to give me an opportunity to make
some remarks with regard to where we are on the legislation.
Yesterday's vote demonstrates clearly that there is strong bipartisan
support in the Senate for increasing the number of visas for high-
skilled workers. On that point, Democrats and Republicans agree, but
there is a stark disagreement between our parties on the issue of
fairness to immigrants.
Republicans do not want to acknowledge this; they do not want to
admit that they oppose the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. That is
why they have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to avoid having
to take a public position on it. There is an election coming up, and
they do not want to have to explain to Latino and immigrant groups why
they told thousands of hard-working immigrants who are in this country
doing essential jobs: Go home. Republicans would rather risk not
delaying the passage of the H-1B visa bill than vote for the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act or risk the political consequences of voting
against it.
There is really no reason we cannot pass both a strong H-1B bill and
the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.
We are in the longest period of economic expansion in our Nation's
history. We all know that now. The census numbers which were released
yesterday confirm once again the remarkable progress we have made in
recent years.
In the last 7 years, we have seen 20 million new jobs. Unemployment
is lower now than it has been in 30 years. In my State of South Dakota,
the jobless rate is between 2 and 3 percent.
Ten years ago, many companies could not expand because they could not
get the capital. Today they can get the capital, but they cannot get
the workers.
Clearly, one of the industries hardest hit by today's skilled-worker
shortage is the information technology industry. According to a recent
survey of almost 900 IT executives, nearly 10 percent of IT service and
support positions in this country--268,740 jobs--are unfilled today
because there are not enough skilled workers in this country to fill
them.
The H-1B visa program was supposed to prevent such shortages, but it
cannot because it has not kept pace with the growth in our economy.
This year, in fact, the H-1B program reached its ceiling of 115,000
visas in less than 6 months. That is why my colleagues and I support
substantially increasing the number of visas available under the H-1B
program.
The high-tech industry, however, is not the only industry struggling
with worker shortages. The Federal Reserve Board has said repeatedly
that there are widespread shortages of essential workers all through
the United States. All across America, restaurants, hotels, and nursing
homes are in desperate need of help. Widespread labor shortages in
these industries also pose a very significant threat to our economy.
That is one reason my colleagues and I introduced the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act earlier this year and why we wanted to offer
that legislation as an amendment to this measure.
The changes in our proposal are pro-business and certainly pro-
family. They are modest, and they are long overdue. We have talked
about them before, but let me just, again for the Record, make sure
people are clear as to what it is we want to do.
First, we want to establish legal parity for all Central American and
Caribbean refugees. That is not too much to ask. Why is it we treat
refugees from some countries differently from refugees from other
countries? All we are asking for is parity.
Second, we want to update the registry so that immigrants who have
been in this country since before 1986, who have worked hard and played
by the rules, will remain here permanently and will have the ability to
remain here legally.
We want to restore section 245(i) of the Immigration Act so that a
person who is in this country and on the verge of becoming a legal
resident can remain here while he or she completes the process. Why
would we want to send somebody back to the country they fled--someone
who is eligible to be a legal resident--just so they can come back here
again? If we do not change the law, that is exactly what will happen,
forcing these immigrants to pay thousands of dollars, disrupt their
lives, and maybe imperil their opportunity to come back at all.
Finally, we want to adjust the status of the Liberians who fled to
America when Liberia was plunged into a horrific civil war. Thousands
of them live in the State of the current Presiding Officer. Our Nation
gave these families protected immigrant status which allowed them to
stay in the United States but preempted their asylum claims. Instead of
forcing them to return to Liberia, a nation our Government warns
Americans to avoid because it is so dangerous even today, our bill will
give them the opportunity to become legal residents. That is all it
would do.
Earlier this month, a coalition of 31 associations--the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the American Health Care Association, the National
Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, and about 28
more--all came together and said: If there is something you do before
the end of this year, now that we have PNTR finished, we hope you can
pass the restoration of Section 245(i) and these other reasonable
immigration provisions.
It is the only fair thing to do, and it is good business. We need
this done. That is the message from the Chamber of Commerce and the
American Retail Federation sent. The American economy is growing not in
spite of immigrant workers, but with their help. That is one reason we
should pass the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act now.
[[Page S9338]]
There is another reason. President Roosevelt once said: ``We are a
nation of immigrants.'' We are also a nation that values families. This
principle is not relegated to one ethnic group. Whether you are African
American, European American, Latino American, or Asian American, we
value family. That is important to us. If we do not pass the provisions
in our proposal, thousands of immigrant parents of American-born
children will face an excruciating choice. If they are told to leave
this country, should they defy the law so that they can remain with
their American-citizen children or should they leave their children
here in the hope that others will care for them? Forcing choices like
this is simply antithetical to our commitment to family values.
I have heard all the speeches in the Senate Chamber about protecting
family, doing what is best for family, trying to ensure that families
stay together. We are concerned about what children watch on
television. But for Heaven's sake, if we care what they watch on
television, we ought to decide right now where we want them to watch
television. Children ought to be watching television here with their
families.
That is the choice: Should they leave their children here and hope
that others care for them, or should they take their children back to
nations that are mired in poverty and torn by violence or both?
Surely, those are not the kinds of choices we should force on people
who have lived in this country and played by the rules for years. That
is not the way we should treat people who have done the essential jobs
that others did not want, particularly today when we need their labor
so desperately.
My colleagues and I strongly support the H-1B visa bill. On that
there can be no doubt, especially after yesterday's vote. But we are
deeply disturbed and disappointed that the majority has refused to
allow us to offer the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act or any other
amendment on this bill. Once again we have been refused the right to
offer even one amendment to the bill.
I have offered the majority leader many opportunities. I suggested
five and five. I suggested that they have five amendments, that we have
five amendments, that we limit them in terms of time and second degree
amendments because we wanted to get this bill done. I heard the
allegation that: No, Democrats just want to slow down the process, the
deliberation, the consideration of the H-1B bill; they don't want it to
pass.
Our answer to that, you saw yesterday. We want it to pass. That is
why I offered a limit on amendments, why I offered a limit on time, why
I offered almost any formula you could come up with so that we could
accommodate both.
Let's pass H-1B, but for Heaven's sake, with 2 weeks left, let's pass
the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act as well. Once again we have been
refused the right to offer even one amendment to the bill. Once again
we are told: Do it our way, or we are not going to do it at all. This
is not how this body should operate. Offering amendments and voting on
them does not kill bills, it strengthens them, and it strengthens this
Senate.
Why are our Republican colleagues so determined not even to let us
discuss our amendment? They are the majority. If they believe our
proposal is misguided, they can vote it down, they can table it. They
can do anything they want to. They have the votes. Why won't they allow
that vote? What are they so afraid of?
We are pleased we are finally on the verge of passing this
legislation and increasing the number of H-1B visas. But we are
disappointed by the disdain the majority has shown for this Senate and
its tradition of fair and open debate. We are even more disturbed by
the indifference they are showing to thousands--tens of thousands--of
decent, hard-working families who are looking forward to the time when
they can live here in freedom and peace, and with confidence that their
families can stay together.
I am disappointed. I am frustrated, once again, that we have not had
an opportunity to have the voice, to have the input, to have the
opportunity that any Senator should count as his right or her right to
participate fully in debate. But we have been precluded by the rules of
the Senate imposed upon us in this case by the majority.
The rules in the Senate, of course, allow for free and open debate,
allow for amendment, allow for unlimited debate and discussion. The
majority continues to insist on bending the rules so that they can
constrain the way we pass legislation and which issues will be heard,
without regard to the rights of all Senators to have their voices
heard.
Motion To Suspend Rule XXII
So, Mr. President, as my statement in yesterday's Record indicated, I
now move to suspend rule XXII to permit the consideration of amendment
No. 4184.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is debatable.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Democratic leader's
comments and the sincerity of those comments. But I think a few points
should be made in response to them. Then I will make a unanimous
consent request relative to the motion which has been put forward by
the Democratic leader.
The first point is that the rules of the Senate are being followed.
The Democratic leader knows the rules a great deal better than I do.
But the vote on cloture yesterday, to which the Democratic leader on a
number of occasions has alluded to represent the Democratic leader's
commitment to the H-1B proposal, is the vote which puts the Democratic
leader in the position that he is in now, which is that the amendment
he is offering is not relevant and not germane to the underlying bill.
So, as a practical matter, for him to first claim that, with great
enthusiasm, they voted for cloture but now they are being foreclosed
under the rules of the Senate from doing what they want to do is, I
think, crocodile tears.
Secondly, it appears at about this time every election cycle we see a
movement that occurs from this administration which involves bypassing
the usual and legal procedures for obtaining citizenship.
Citizenship is the most sacred item of trust that we can impart as a
nation to someone who wishes to come to our shores and live. The
granting of citizenship is an extraordinary action because it gives a
person the right to live in our Nation--the greatest nation on Earth--
and the capacity to vote and participate as a full citizen and to raise
a family here as a citizen. So it is something where we have set up a
fairly significant and intricate set of laws in order to develop a
process so there is fairness in how we apply citizenship.
Yet every election year, during this administration, or at least for
the last two major election years--especially Presidential election
years--we have seen an attempt, basically, to set aside the law as it
is structured for purposes of obtaining citizenship, and to create a
new class of citizens independent of what is present law.
To say that people shall be given the imprimatur of citizenship just
before the election, ironically--and the last time this occurred under
Citizenship USA, which was the title given to it, a title which was
truly inappropriate because it ended up being ``Felony USA,'' thousands
of people were given citizenship outside of the usual course. They did
not have to go through the usual process, in a rush to complete
citizenship prior to the election, which led to literally thousands of
people who ended up being felons and criminals receiving citizenship.
We are still trying to track down many of the felons who received
citizenship under Citizenship USA, which was the last aggressive
attempt to bypass the citizenship laws of this country during an
election year.
I think we should have learned our lesson from that little exercise,
that attempt at political initiative for the purposes of political
gain, which ended up costing us literally millions of dollars to try to
correct and leave us with, fortunately, a number of good citizens but,
unfortunately, a number of people who should never have gotten
citizenship who are literally felons and who have committed serious
crimes.
So this attempt to bypass the citizenship process must be looked at
with a certain jaundiced eye in light of the fact it is an election
year because there is a history which asserts that it
[[Page S9339]]
should be viewed with a jaundiced eye, because the Citizen USA was such
a debacle and so grossly political and ended up costing our Nation so
dearly, by giving the sacred right of citizenship to people who are
criminals and who committed lawless acts against other citizens.
So that is why we are in this position today.
The Democratic leadership claims that they strongly support H-1B and
so they voted for cloture. Then they come forward and claim: But the
rules are limiting us.
They were the ones who voted for the rule that happens to be limiting
them. They can't have it both ways, but they appear to want to. It is,
as I said, crocodile tears on their part, in my opinion. However, the
Democratic leader has the right to make this request. He has positioned
himself procedurally in that order.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the pending
motion to suspend the rules, that the vote occur today at 4 o'clock,
and that the time between the two sides until 4 o'clock be equally
divided in the usual form.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I was
diverted by talking to someone else. Will the Senator restate the
unanimous consent request?
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur today on the
pending motion to suspend the rule at 4 o'clock and that the time
between now and 4 o'clock be equally divided in the usual form.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have remaining
under cloture on the bill to the minority leader, Senator Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I regret how little progress we were able
to make yesterday on legislation to increase the number of H-1B visas.
This legislation was reported from the Judiciary Committee more than a
half a year ago. I have advocated that it receive a fair hearing and
that the Senate vote to increase the number of H-1B visas.
I have also said we should take up other important immigration
matters that have been neglected for too long in this body. But those
requests have fallen on deaf ears, as yesterday once again
demonstrated. Senators Daschle and Reid have offered to spend only 10
minutes debating immigration amendments. Under those terms, we could
complete action on this bill in well under a day. But the majority
apparently would rather see this process continue to drag on than take
a simple up-or-down vote on matters of critical importance to the
Latino community and other immigrant groups. Indeed, this bill has been
more strictly controlled than any bill during this Congress. At a
certain point one cannot help but ask: What is the majority afraid of?
We ought to vote up or down on the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.
I don't say this from any parochial interest. We do not have any
significant minority ethnic group in Vermont. We are sort of unique in
that regard. But all Vermonters, Republican and Democrat alike, believe
in fairness. It is a matter of fairness to have the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act voted on. Let us vote it up or vote it down. I
will vote for it. I am a cosponsor of it. I strongly support it.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee complained yesterday that the
Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act was not introduced until July, and
that the Democrats were pressing for action on the bill even though it
had no hearings. As the chairman must know, the Latino and Immigrant
Fairness Act brings together a number of proposals that have been
talked about since the very beginning of this Congress, and in some
cases for years before that. Indeed, the current proposal is drawn from
S. 1552, S. 1592, and S. 2668. And as the chairman also must recognize,
these proposals have been denied hearings in the Judiciary Committee he
chairs and the Immigration subcommittee that Senator Abraham chairs.
For the chairman to point to the lack of hearings on these proposals as
an excuse to derail them reminds me of the person on trial for killing
his parents who throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
Meanwhile, I am encouraged by the majority leader's conciliatory
words on the substance of the LIFA proposals. According to today's
Congress Daily, the majority leader has said that he thought the
proposals ``could be wrapped in such a way that I could be for it.'' I
hope this signals that he will work with us to find a way to have a
vote on these issues.
Let me be clear: I support increasing the number of H-1B visas and
voted for S. 2045 in the Judiciary Committee. I have hoped that our
consideration of this bill would allow us to achieve other crucially
important immigration goals that have been neglected by the majority
throughout this Congress. I have hoped that the majority could agree to
at least vote on--if not vote for--limited proposals designed to
protect Latino families and other immigrant families. I have hoped that
the majority would consider proposals to restore the due process that
was taken away from immigrants by the immigration legislation Congress
passed in 1996. In short, I thought we could work together to restore
some of America's lost luster on immigration issues. Since the majority
has thus far been unwilling to do that, pro-immigration Senators have
been faced with a choice between achieving one of our many goals or
achieving nothing at all.
Like most of my Democratic colleagues, I agree that we need to
increase the number of H-1B visas. The stunning economic growth we have
experienced in the past eight years has led to worker shortages in
certain key areas of our economy. Allowing workers with specialized
skills to come to the United States and work for a 6-year period--as an
H-1B visa does--helps to alleviate those shortages. In the current
fiscal year, 115,000 H-1B visas were available. These visas ran out
well before the fiscal year ended. If we do not change the law, there
will actually be fewer visas available next year, as the cap drops to
107,500. This will simply be insufficient to allow America's
employers--particularly in the information technology industry--to
maintain their current rates of growth. As such, I think that we need
to increase the number of available visas dramatically. I think that S.
2045 is a valuable starting point, although it can and should be
improved through the amendment process.
I have been involved in helping to ease America's labor shortage for
some time. Last year, I cosponsored the HITEC Act, S. 1645, legislation
that Senator Robb has introduced that would create a new visa that
would be available to companies looking to hire recent foreign
graduates of U.S. master's and doctoral programs in math, science,
engineering, or computer science. I believe that keeping such bright,
young graduates in the United States should be the primary purpose of
any H-1B legislation we pass. By concentrating on such workers, we can
address employers' needs for highly-skilled workers, while also
limiting the number of visas that go to foreign workers with less
specialized skills.
Of course, H-1B visas are not a long-term answer to the current
mismatch between the demands of the high-tech industry and the supply
of workers with technical skills. Although I believe that there is a
labor shortage in certain areas of our economy, I do not
[[Page S9340]]
believe that we should accept that circumstance as an unchangeable fact
of life. We need to make a greater effort to give our children the
education they need to compete in an increasingly technology-oriented
economy, and offer our adults the training they need to refashion their
careers to suit the changes in our economy. This bill goes part of the
way toward improving our education and training programs, but could do
better.
Although I have said that this is not a perfect bill, there are a few
provisions within it that should be retained in any final version. I
strongly support the increased portability this legislation offers for
visa holders, making it easier for them to change jobs within the
United States. And the legislation extends the labor attestation
requirements in the bill--which force employers to certify that they
were unable to find qualified Americans to do a job that they have
hired a visa recipient to fill--as well as the Labor Department's
authority to investigate possible H-1B violations.
It is regrettable that it has taken so long for us to turn our
attention to the H-1B issue. The Judiciary Committee reported S. 2045
more than six months ago. It has taken us a very long time to get from
point A to point B, and it has often appeared that the majority has
been more interested in gaining partisan advantage from a delay than in
actually making this bill law.
The Democratic leader has said month after month that we would be
willing to accept very strict time limits on debating amendments, and
would be willing to conduct the entire debate on S. 2045 in less than a
day. Our leader has also consistently said that it is critical that the
Senate should take up proposals to provide parity for refugees from
right-wing regimes in Central America and to address an issue that has
been ignored for far too long--how we should treat undocumented aliens
who have lived here for decades, paying taxes and contributing to our
economy. These provisions are both contained in the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act. I joined in the call for action on H-1B and
other critical immigration issues, but our efforts were rebuffed by the
majority.
Indeed, months went by in which the majority made no attempt to
negotiate these differences, time which many members of the majority
instead spent trying to blame Democrats for the delay in their bringing
this legislation to the floor. At many times, it seemed that the
majority was more interested in casting blame upon Democrats than in
actually passing legislation. Instead of working in good faith with the
minority to bring this bill to the floor, the majority spent its time
trying to convince leaders in the information technology industry that
the Democratic Party is hostile to this bill and that only Republicans
are interested in solving the legitimate employment shortages faced by
many sectors of American industry. Considering that three-quarters of
the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted for this bill, and that
the bill has numerous Democratic cosponsors, including Senator
Lieberman, this partisan appeal was not only inappropriate but absurd
on its face.
Finally, a few weeks ago, the majority made a counteroffer that did
not provide as many amendments as we would like, but which did allow
amendments related to immigration generally. We responded
enthusiastically to this proposal, but individual members of the
majority objected, and there is still no agreement to allow general
immigration amendments. At least some members of the majority are
apparently unwilling even to vote on issues that are critical to
members of the Latino community. This is deeply unfortunate, and leaves
those of us who are concerned about humanitarian immigration issues
with an uncomfortable choice. We can either address the legitimate
needs of the high-tech industry in the vacuum that the majority has
imposed, or we can refuse to proceed on this bill until the majority
affords us the opportunity to address other important immigration
needs. I still hope that an agreement can be reached with the majority
that will allow votes on other important immigration matters as part of
our consideration of this bill, but I have little confidence that this
will happen.
I regret that we will likely be unable to offer other important
amendments to this bill. For much of the summer, the majority implied
that we were simply using the concerns of Latino voters as a
smokescreen to avoid considering S. 2045. Speaking for myself, although
I have had reservations about certain aspects of S. 2045, I voted to
report it from the Judiciary Committee so that we could move forward in
our discussions of the bill. I did not seek to offer immigration
amendments on the Senate floor because I wanted to derail S. 2045. Nor
did the White House urge Congress to consider other immigration issues
as part of the H-1B debate because the President wanted to play
politics with this issue, as the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee suggested on the floor a few weeks ago. Rather, the
majority's inaction on a range of immigration measures in this Congress
forced those of us who were concerned about immigration issues to
attempt to raise those issues. Under our current leadership, the
opportunity to enact needed change in our immigration laws does not
come around very often, to put it mildly.
It is a disturbing but increasingly undeniable fact that the interest
of the business community has become a prerequisite for immigration
bills to receive attention on the Senate floor. In fact, we are now in
the week before we are scheduled to adjourn, and this is the first
immigration bill to be debated on the floor in this Congress. Even
humanitarian bills with bipartisan backing have been ignored in this
Congress, both in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the
Senate.
It is particularly upsetting that the majority refuses to vote on the
Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. This is a bill that I have
cosponsored and that offers help to hardworking families who pay taxes
and help keep our economy going strong. On two occasions, including
last Friday, the minority has moved to proceed to this bill, and the
majority has twice objected. In our negotiations with the majority
about how S. 2045 would be brought to the floor, we have consistently
pressed for the opportunity to vote on the proposals contained within
it. But the majority has turned its back on the concerns of Latinos and
other immigrants who are treated unfairly by our current immigration
laws.
The majority has shown a similar lack of concern for proposals by
numerous Democratic Senators to restore the due process protections
that were removed by the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act 4 years ago. There are still many aspects of those
laws that merit our careful review and rethinking, including the
inhumane use of expedited removal, which would be sharply limited by
the Refugee Protection Act (S. 1940) that I have introduced with
Senator Brownback.
As important as H-1B visas are for our economy and our Nation's
employers, it is not the only immigration issue that faces our Nation.
And the legislation we are concerned with today does not test our
commitment to the ideals of opportunity and freedom that America has
represented at its best. Those tests will apparently be left for
another day, or another Congress.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to answer some of the comments made
by our colleagues from the other side yesterday and today.
We have been on the floor this week supposedly debating the H-1B
bill. That is S. 2045. This bill is an extremely important measure. It
is aimed at alleviating both short- and long-term problems in the
inadequate supply of a highly skilled worker force in our dynamic and
expanding high-tech economy.
The debate has turned into quite a different matter. My colleagues on
the other side stood on the floor yesterday talking about the so-called
Latino fairness legislation and insisting, time and time again, for a
vote on this unrelated measure.
[[Page S9341]]
Let's review where we are. The high-tech community wants this H-1B
bill without amendment. My colleagues on both sides voted
overwhelmingly for cloture; meaning, ending the debate. Cloture would
knock out nongermane amendments which, of course, would knock out the
so-called Latino fairness amendment as well.
The last time I looked, a vote in support of cloture meant that we
support consideration of legislation without--I emphasize that word
``without''--unrelated, nongermane amendments, such as the so-called
Latino fairness bill. This bill, by the way, was only filed on July 25
of this year. If it was so important, why was it filed so late in the
session, without the opportunity for hearings or committee
consideration?
Talk about trying to have it both ways. I guess this is a brilliant
political move if you don't think about it too closely, the ultimate
effort to try to have it both ways: Give the high-tech community a
cloture vote and at the same time continue to maneuver to get around
what that cloture vote means.
So there we have it. I don't recall seeing a spectacle of this sort
in all of my years in the Senate.
Having said that, let me now join my colleagues in this discussion on
the so-called Latino fairness legislation. There was a great deal of
talk yesterday. Some of it was shameless. The talk was about due
process, about the need for more unskilled workers in this country, and
about the hardship of the parents of American-citizen children. Much of
the rhetoric does not meet reality.
My colleagues on the other side argue that they want to vote on S.
2912, the so-called Latino fairness act. I really wonder if most in the
Senate understand and appreciate what is involved in this costly, far-
reaching bill that has never had a day of hearings.
This is no limited measure, to undo a previous wrong to a limited
class of immigrants who otherwise might have been eligible for amnesty
under the 1986 act. Rather, this is a major new amnesty program,
without 1 day of hearings, with a price tag of almost $1.4 billion,
with major implications for our national policy on immigration.
For years, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have watched the
Immigration Subcommittee, and I have helped to steer through and
monitor and help make immigration policy in this country. That policy
works well, to a large degree, but there are certainly areas that we
can improve. I can tell you that some are trying to turn this
bipartisan policy upside down.
I will begin by saying that I have been a long-time supporter of
legal immigration. That is what has built this country. It has made
this country the greatest country in the world.
I believe in legal immigration. In connection with the 1996
immigration reform legislation, I fought long and hard against those
who wanted to cut legal family immigration and other categories. At
that and other times, it has been my view that our emphasis ought to be
on combating illegal, not legal, immigration.
The bill before us, however, while termed ``Latino fairness,'' does
nothing to increase or preserve the categories of legal immigrants
allowed in this country on an annual basis. It does nothing to shorten
the long waiting period or the hurdles that persons waiting years to
come to this country--people who play by the rules and wait their
turn--have to go through.
In contrast, what we hear now is an urgent call to grant broad
amnesty to what could be up to 2 million illegal aliens. Let's be clear
about what is at issue here. Some refer to the fact that a certain
class of persons who may have been entitled to amnesty in 1986 have
been unfairly treated and should therefore be granted amnesty now. That
is one issue--and I am certainly prepared to discuss that issue in our
committee, with full hearings, and resolve any inequities that exist. I
am certainly prepared to discuss that, but only outside the context of
S. 2045, a bill that virtually everybody in this body wants because it
will allow us to stay in the forefront of our global, high-tech
economy.
Again, I am prepared to discuss, outside of this bill, what we might
be able to do to help that so-called 1982 class of immigrants. But that
is not really what S. 2912 is about. This bill that some now want to
attach to the H-1B bill, would ensure its death in the House of
Representatives; it would never see the light of day. The fact is--this
bill also covers that 1982 class, but also hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of illegal aliens who were never eligible for amnesty
under the 1986 act.
This is a difficult issue and one with major policy implications for
the future. When we supported amnesty in 1986--and I believe there were
several million people granted amnesty at that time--it was not with
the assumption that this was going to be a continuous process.
What kind of signal does this type of ``urgency'' send? On one hand,
the Government spends millions each year to combat illegal immigration
and deports thousands of persons each year who are here illegally. But
if an illegal alien can manage to escape law enforcement for long
enough, we reward that person with citizenship, or at least permanent
resident status, followed by the right to apply for citizenship after 5
years of living here.
That is a slap in the face to all of those who have abided by the
rules and who have been here legally. If there are inequities, I am
willing to work them out, but let's do it through hearings, through a
thorough examination. Let's not do it through a political sham that has
been thrust upon us on the floor for no other reason than because they
are worried on the other side that George Bush appeals to the Hispanic
community. We know he gets about 50 percent of the Hispanic vote in
Texas, and there is good reason for it.
Hispanic children are now reading at better levels. The Hispanic
people have been helped greatly in Texas by the Bush administration.
Our colleagues on the other side are deathly afraid that if he
continues to do that, the Hispanic vote--which they just take for
granted--is going to suddenly go to George Bush and the Republicans.
Well, I don't blame them for that, because I think that is what is
going to happen.
As chairman of the Republican Senatorial Hispanic Task Force, which I
helped to start years ago, I know that the Hispanics are out there
watching both parties and seeing who really has their interests at
heart. We have done more with that task force--not just by throwing
money at problems--than the other side ever dreamed of.
Further, I hope my colleagues are aware of the cost of this bill to
American taxpayers. I don't mind the costs if we are doing something
that is absolutely right. As I said, I am willing to go through the
appropriate hearing process. I do that every day in my work as a
Senator in solving immigration problems--as a lot of Senators do. But
we ought to take into consideration the costs of this to the American
taxpayers--giving amnesty to up to 2 million illegal aliens.
Specifically, a draft and preliminary CBO estimate indicates this
bill comes with a price tag just short of $1.4 billion over 10 years.
But that is a conservative estimate because the amendment actually
filed yesterday goes way beyond S. 2912 on amnesty. Not only was S.
2912, the so-called the Latino Fairness Act, filed on July 25, but the
amendment filed yesterday goes even beyond what their original bill.
The amendment's proponents argue that it just consists of a simple due
process restoration. But, in fact, it not only gives hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, additional illegal immigrants amnesty who
have been here since 1986, it appears to be a rolling amnesty measure!
In this highly charged political area, we ought to try and get
together in a bipartisan manner. But some of my friends on the other
side seem to want to play politics with this issue. They try to act as
if they are for Hispanics. But what they are in fact doing is ignoring
those who play by the rules, who are here legally, in favor of those
who are here illegally and who have broken the rules. It is a slap in
the face to all of those who have played by the rules.
What do I mean by a rolling amnesty measure? It means the amnesty
provision continues and expands for the next 6 years. That is right,
Mr. President. If illegal aliens can manage to avoid authorities until
2006--if they can avoid authorities for that long--they automatically
get amnesty, and that is a stepping stone to citizenship for people who
have violated our laws and are
[[Page S9342]]
here illegally. Again, if there are people who are being injured who
should not be, people who really have due process rights, or who ought
to have consideration, I am willing to work on that with my colleagues
on the other side in a bipartisan way to do something that really
works. We do that regularly anyway. But to just throw this open on a
rolling amnesty basis for 6 solid years is not the way to go; we are
talking about millions of people who are here illegally being
automatically given the right to apply for citizenship in a few years.
Mr. President, what are we doing here? We devote hundreds of millions
of dollars each year to try and control illegal immigration. What does
this so-called fairness bill do? It rewards persons for their illegal
activity. It says let's keep fighting illegal immigration, but if
certain persons succeed in evading the law for long enough, they get
rewarded by being allowed to stay, get permanent resident status, and 5
years later can apply for citizenship, in contrast to all of those
millions who have legally come into this country under legal
immigration rules and regulations, who have abided by the law, and who
basically have paid the appropriate price to get here.
We have also heard about the need for more workers. I agree with
that. Why don't we address and examine this need, however, in the right
way? Why don't we examine increasing the number of legal immigrants
allowed to come here? Why don't we consider lifting certain of those
caps? I don't see anyone on the other side of the aisle arguing for
that. It would seem to me if they want to argue for having more
immigrants in this country--and I might go along with this--that we
ought to lift the caps. I have to admit that there are those in this
body who do not want to lift those caps--but at least in the other body
for sure. That is the appropriate way to do that.
During our debate in the 1996 act, the Democrats offered, and the
committee unanimously agreed, to curb the number of legal, unskilled
workers coming to this country. Why did they do that? Because their No.
1 supporters in the country--the trade union movement in this country--
believe that they would take jobs; that if we lifted the caps there
would be more legal immigrants coming into this country that would take
jobs away from American workers.
It is amazing to me that they wouldn't allow the caps lifted then for
that reason, and now they want the broad amnesty. They want to allow up
to 2 million illegal immigrants in here because everybody realizes
there is a shortage of workers right now.
I am willing to consider lifting those caps, and do it legally and do
it the right way. I would be willing to do that. But without hearings,
and without a really thorough examination of this, I am not willing to
just wholesale have a rolling amnesty provision that would allow
millions of illegal aliens who haven't played by the rules to have a
wide open street to citizenship while many people who are applying
legally can't get in and who really need to get in.
I agree with the need to reexamine our position on lifting the caps
on legal immigration. Let's do that. I am willing to hold hearings, or
make sure the subcommittee holds the hearings on that. By the way, they
have held some hearings.
I have to say that generally the two leaders on the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Senator Abraham from Michigan and Senator Kennedy from
Massachusetts, have worked well together. But all of a sudden, there's
a chance to score political points, they think. I don't think they are
getting political points. If I was a legal Hispanic, or a legal
Chinese, or a legal person from any other country, I would resent
knowing how difficult it was for me to become a legal immigrant while
people who are trying to make it possible for those who are illegally
here to be able to become citizens without obeying the same rules. I
suspect there is going to be a lot of resentment, if people really
understand this.
While we are at it, why don't we do something to get the INS to move
more swiftly--the Immigration and Naturalization Service--to move more
swiftly on applications for legal immigrants? That would be real Latino
fairness. That is what we ought to be doing on the floor.
There isn't a person in this body who cares more for family
unification than I do. There are some who are certainly my equal here.
But nobody exceeds my desire to bring families together, a point
brought out yesterday. I fought for years on this issue. Every day we
are working on immigration problems to try to solve the problem of
bringing families together in my offices in Utah and here.
If we really care about family reunification, why don't we do
something about the Immigration and Naturalization Service? Why should
parents, children, and spouses have to stay on a waiting list for
years? I would like to hear more comments from the other side on that.
But every time you try to lift the caps, their friends in the union
movement come in and say: You can't do that. You might take jobs away
from union workers.
Under the H-1B bill, we are not taking jobs away from union workers
or from anyone else. We are trying to maintain our dominant status
throughout the world in the high-tech world. We are trying to make sure
we keep the people here who can really help us do that. That bill
provides that those who are highly educated in our universities have a
right to stay here and work. This is the bill we are talking about. It
is a step in the right direction to get us there.
What does this so-called Latino fairness amendment, or bill, that
they filed so late in this Presidential year say to families who played
by the rules? It doesn't say obey the laws and wait your turn. It says
we are going to make special favors for those of you who are here
illegally, and we are going to do it on a rolling amnesty basis over
the next 6 years. They are just going to have the right to become
citizens, while others have had to abide by the rules--rules that have
been set over decades and decades.
I challenge anybody on the other side to work with me in helping to
resolve these problems. I am willing to do that. I don't need a lecture
from people on the other side about families who have been split up. I
think it is abysmal to have families split up. I am willing to work to
try and solve that problem, but it takes both sides to do it.
Last but not least, it is no secret that our committee handles
intellectual property in many of the high-tech issues in this country.
Last year we passed one of the most important bills in patent changes
in the history of the country--certainly in the last 50 years. We
passed a number of other high-tech bills to make a real difference.
We have done an awful lot to make sure our high-tech world in this
country stays at the top of the ladder.
I just came from the Finance Committee upon which I sit where I made
a principal argument that we need to get this new bill through that
Chairman Roth is working on with the ranking member, Senator Moynihan,
to have a broadband tax credit which we need now.
S. 2045 is one of the most important high-tech bills in this
Congress. Everybody here, except for about three people, believes it
should pass. Almost everybody on both sides of the floor has said it
should pass. Everybody says it is a very important bill.
The fact is, there are people in this body who are scared to death
that Republicans might make inroads with the Hispanic community. I know
that because I am chairman of the Republican Senatorial Standing Task
Force. We have been working for better than 10 years on Hispanic
affairs.
We don't care whether Democrats, Independents, or Republicans are on
our task force. In fact, we have all three there. We don't care if they
are Conservatives, Liberals, or Independents. They are all there. I
have to tell you that we have been working hard on every Hispanic issue
that this country has. There is basically no end to what we will all
try to do, to help assimilate the Hispanic people who are immigrants in
this country into every aspect of opportunity that this country has to
offer.
To be honest with you, our country is the No. 1 high-tech country in
the world. The reason we are is because we have worked together in many
respects to get some of these high-tech bills through that make a
difference.
I prefer to see my colleagues on the other side work with us rather
than
[[Page S9343]]
against us, as they are doing right now. I don't want to pull this bill
down, but it is coming down if we can't get this bill passed in a
relatively short period of time. By tomorrow, there will be three
cloture votes overwhelmingly for this bill. If Democrats don't want
this bill, why are they voting for cloture? If they want to vote
against cloture tomorrow, I can live with that. We will pull the
doggone bill down and say to the high-tech community, we are not going
to support you this year because we can't get enough support from our
friends on the other side. That is exactly what I will tell them, and
it won't be one inch far from the truth.
The fact is, everyone on the other side knows that this is a critical
bill. It has taken bipartisan support to get it this far. It has great
hope for the high-tech industry in this country. It will provide more
high-tech workers and more high-tech jobs. Now, we may have some
difficulty getting the House to go along with everything we are doing
here.
If we keep playing around with this and delaying it beyond this week,
it will make impossible to pass it in the end.
I know how important this legislation is. I have worked on high-tech
issues for all of my Senate career, and have worked patent, copyright,
and trademark laws throughout the country. I don't think anyone can say
I haven't made a strong bipartisan effort to make sure we stay at the
top of the high-tech world. The best way we can do it right now is to
pass broadband tax credit and to pass this H-1B legislation and get the
House to go along with it. It is the best thing we can do.
We are in an inane battle on the floor because some people want to
score some political points. I was almost embarrassed by some of the
comments yesterday--not almost, I was embarrassed for some of these
people. Is there no length to which they will go at the end of this
session to score political points? I don't like it on my side, and I
certainly don't like it on the other side. This is a time for
cooperation, to help our country get through this year, and to
hopefully spur us into the next year, whoever is President. I intend to
do that. I want to have some bipartisan support in getting it done.
I suppose we will have to go through another cloture vote tomorrow--
three cloture votes on one bill that almost everybody is for.
I think it is time to quit scoring political points and get the job
done. This H-1B bill is a critical bill for America. It is a critical
bill for American children and American workers. It contains critical
bipartisan training and education provisions to equip our workforce for
the 21st century. Those are provisions we worked out with the other
side in order to get this bill, something I agree with 100 percent,
that I will fight for in Congress.
One would think they would want to do this and quit playing around
with the bill. The longer we go on this bill, if we go beyond this
week, it seems to me it makes it more problematic whether we can ever
pass an H-1B piece of legislation with these wonderful, critical
provisions to help train our children for the future workforce, for the
high-tech world they are going to enter.
I have met with people today who are prescient with regard to the
future. We have been talking broadband all morning. We have been
talking about wireless. We have been talking about cable. We have been
talking about the critical infrastructure industries. We have been
talking about software. Almost all of it is dependent upon whether we
pass an H-1B bill.
The rest of the world isn't standing still while we are sitting here
treading water week after week, debating whether we will allow an H-1B
final vote. If this were the final vote to pass this bill, I could wait
another few days. But we still have to deal with the House. We are
going to have to work that out. That will take some time. We don't have
a lot of time.
It seems to me we ought to get rid of politics. I hope people
watching this will listen to the other side and realize how political
they have been. Yesterday it was almost shameful--no, it wasn't; it was
shameful--the arguments made on the floor. It is all done just for
political advantage. Frankly, I don't think they get any advantage.
I believe the millions of legal immigrants with green cards might
resent rolling amnesty for 6 years to millions of illegal immigrants
who don't abide by the rules.
This is an important bill. We can no longer afford to play the
political games that were played yesterday and apparently will be
played through a cloture vote tomorrow. I think the other side ought to
allow the vote or just admit they really aren't for this bill in spite
of the overwhelming cloture votes we have had so far. I would like to
see that in this body, especially at the end of this year.
There are those on our side who really would like to work with our
colleagues on the other side in a bipartisan manner. I know the
Presiding Officer is one, and I believe there are a lot of others who
want to see that done.
There is a strong suspicion among many in the media and many on our
side that there is a deliberate slowdown, with filibusters, even
motions to proceed, for no other reason than a political advantage. It
really gets old.
I think once in a while we really ought to put the best interests of
our country ahead of everything else. This is a bill where we ought to
do that. We have so much support for this bill, if it is allowed to be
voted upon. Supporters ought to be allowed to express themselves in a
vote for or against this bill. This is one bill where we can be
together. We had 94 votes on this bill, in essence, yesterday; only 3
against. I suspect if we got the other 3, they would be for it, too, so
it would be 97 with, 3 against; if they were against, it would be 94-6.
But, no. Steady delay. Day in, day out, steady filibusters. Now they
will say they are not filibustering. Then why are they forcing a
cloture vote every day?--to have cloture votes on a bill that virtually
everybody admits is a good bi-partisan bill.
By the way, I want to thank Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Lieberman,
and of course Senator Abraham. We have all worked together on this
bill. We have accommodated Democrats. We have shown good faith. I thank
them for helping. I think it is time to end this charade, end the
political posturing we have had. Let's pass this bill.
Start doing what is right. Live up to what everybody in this body,
except for the three, I suppose, has told the high-tech world--we are
going to get H-1B passed. But I tell you we are not going to get it
passed if this kind of charade continues because I myself will bring
this bill down and then we will start over again next year and
hopefully we will have a more bipartisan approach towards it. I would
hate to do that; I sure would, after all the work we put in trying to
get this bill passed when I know that could delay it 6 to 9 months
before we really are helping our people in the high-tech world who
drastically need help.
I have been there. I have been out there. I know the people, the top
people, the top CEOs in almost all of these companies. I have been
meeting with a bunch of them this morning, everybody from ATT,
Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Novell--you name it. I know them
all. I don't think they are partisan. I think they like both parties,
and I think they help both parties, and I think they deserve our help.
Frankly, to put us through another cloture vote--it seems to me to be
inane. I do not want to accuse anybody of lacking good faith, but I
will tell you after what I heard yesterday, I say, my gosh, how can
they stand there and make those kinds of comments, when you know if you
want to really help get jobs and get people in here to take jobs, let's
lift the caps on legal immigration but not change the laws with one
stroke of the pen, without 1 day of hearings, and allow up to 2 million
people on a rolling amnesty over a 6-year period to really become
citizens, flashing in the face of everybody who paid the price to abide
by the rules, it is just not right.
Frankly, I am getting tired of it. That is why I have gone on and on
today, because I am tired of it. I think it is time for us to do
something good for a change, to work together and get it done. I am
going to be here to try to get it done in the next day or so. If we do
not, then we will pull the bill down. Then we will just throw our hands
in the air and say it is too political a Congress to do something
worthwhile for our country.
[[Page S9344]]
Everybody on my side is going to vote for this bill--they have been
there from day 1--at least I believe everybody, certainly the vast
majority, are going to vote for this bill in the end because they
believe our future depends on being able to solve some of these
problems that this bill will solve.
I believe we will have a tremendous number of votes on the Democratic
side because we have some of the top leaders in this area on this bill.
I mentioned some of them a few minutes ago. We have accommodated them
in language in this bill that makes sense. I am saying on the floor of
the Senate that I would fight for that language because of our Democrat
friends who have worked with us to put that good language together. I
will do it in a bipartisan way.
But the high-tech companies are not the primary beneficiaries. They
are beneficiaries, no question about it. The primary beneficiaries are
the children who will benefit from the education proposals here and the
American workers who will benefit from the critical training provisions
that we have in this bill. Let's pass this bill for them. I have to
admit the high-tech industry will benefit tremendously, too.
What the Daschle motion says is let's ignore the rules of the Senate.
Let's take the easy route. Their Latino fairness bill says let's ignore
all these immigration laws we have all fought over in a bipartisan way
for years--and many us on this side have helped those on the other
side. Let's ignore those immigration laws. Let's take the easy route.
There is a similar theme here. Some want to have it both ways. This
sort of double-speak is why so many Americans have grown tired of
Washington politics as usual. I hope I have at least made the case we
on this side stand ready to pass this bill a minute from now if the
other side will allow a vote up and down on this bill. If they do not,
we will go to cloture again, and then we will see what we can do
postcloture to get this thing brought to a close where people can vote
for it.
Then, assuming we will pass this bill, we will go to work with the
House and see if they will take this bill. If they will not take this
bill, we will go to conference and fight very hard with everything I
have to make sure there are these provisions in this bill; that we have
195,000 high-tech workers allowed into this country and that we have
the right for those who are highly educated, in American institutions,
to stay here to work in our high-tech world, and that we have these
provisions to help train our children.
Those are pretty important provisions. This is a very important bill.
To stand here and say everybody in business and all these companies
want all these illegal immigrants to be naturalized--so what? We ought
to abide by the law. That is why we have immigration laws. Where there
are inequities, we ought to work to resolve them. I promise you, I will
work to resolve them. I have been doing it for my whole 24 years in the
Senate, and I am not going to stop now. We can resolve them if we work
together. If we do not work together, we cannot.
I hope both sides will get serious about this bill. I hope we can
pass this bill. I hope we can get this matter resolved. I would like to
do it today, if we can, but certainly by tomorrow. We will look at it
and see if we have to pull it down if we can't get this resolved.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of
the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, under the postcloture
proceedings, be in the control of the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, my good friend from Utah, for whom I have
the greatest respect got a little carried away this morning. I don't
think he would purposely call me or my colleagues incompetent--but he
did. I don't think he would call us silly or stupid, but he did. The
word ``inane,'' in a dictionary, means silly or stupid.
We have a philosophical difference in what we are doing here. The
fact that we disagree with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee does
not mean we are incompetent. It doesn't mean we are stupid. It just
demonstrates that we have a basic disagreement.
Mr. President, I want to go back and start where the majority started
this morning, with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on
Commerce-State-Justice. Among other things, he said we were crying
crocodile tears over here, and that this piece of legislation only
dealt with criminals. I am paraphrasing what the other side said, but
not too much. In actuality they said was that ``criminals were coming
in, and attempting to do an end run to get citizenship.''
The fact is, I take great exception to that. The Democratic proposal
would not allow criminals to become citizens. First, this legislation
is not offering citizenship. We are offering longtime residents, people
who are already in this country, the ability to apply for permanent
residency and then perhaps apply for citizenship. Second, anyone
applying for residency must have good moral character. They also must
show they have good moral character, which means that anyone with a
criminal record--not criminals, of course wouldn't qualify, anyone with
a criminal record would not qualify for permanent residency.
These people are people who are already in the country. They are
working, they are paying taxes, they work hard. In many instances, in
fact most instances, others won't take their jobs.
I think my friend from New Hampshire, for whom I have the greatest
respect--he has a record which is outstanding; he served in the House
of Representatives, was the Governor of the State of New Hampshire, is
now a Member of the Senate--I do not think he is suggesting that the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who supports the Latino Fairness Act
wholeheartedly, is suggesting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants
citizenship for criminals. I don't think the American Health Care
Association is suggesting we want citizenship for criminals. I know
that the American Hotel and Motel Association is not saying we should
come here and give a blanket citizenship to criminals. I don't think
the Resort, Recreation and Tourism organization is suggesting that
criminals be given citizenship.
We have a list. We talked about it yesterday: The National Retail
Association--dozens and dozens of organizations and companies believe
we must do something, not only to protect the people who we are going
to give the right to come to this country, under H-1B. In fact, we have
given almost a half a million people the right to come to this country
under H-1B.
We are going to increase it this year up to almost 200,000. I have a
couple of different lists, and I could go to another chart. These
companies and organizations believe that people who are already in the
country also deserve the right to apply for permanent residency and
someday apply for citizenship.
This is nothing but a typical red herring. In fact, the Republicans,
the majority, are saying: How could you have this bill without even
having a hearing? That will bring a smile to your face. The legislation
pending before the Senate, the energy bill, S. 2557, was brought to the
floor by the majority leader and it has had no hearings.
To say we did not introduce this legislation until July 25, we may
not have introduced specifically the legislation, but I wrote a letter
to the majority leader in May outlining the legislation. There have
been long-time discussions.
In fact, we were denied a hearing in the House. We tried to have a
hearing in the House last year on this legislation, but we could not.
The chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee refused to give us a
hearing, so Sheila Jackson-Lee and I had an informal hearing in the
House. We could not do it because the chairman of the subcommittee
would not let us have a hearing.
The parity legislation was introduced 3 years ago. That is no
surprise to anyone. The registry has been in our law since 1929. I
introduced the same legislation last year. We reintroduced it, of
course, but it was introduced last year. We had, as I indicated, an
informal hearing because we were denied a formal hearing.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee said: What about the July 25
introduction? In his words, ``Is this incompetence?'' The Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act contains multiple provisions, all of which were
introduced well before July 2000. We combined a number of pieces of
legislation
[[Page S9345]]
that have been around for a long time. Central American parity was
introduced on September 15 of last year; date of registry was
introduced on August 5, 1999. These have bill numbers. Section 245(i)
was introduced May 25, 2000. Also, the one my friend from Rhode Island,
Mr. Reed, cares so much about, was introduced in March of 1999. These
proposals have been denied hearings in the Judiciary Committee that my
friend from Utah chairs and the Immigration Subcommittee which Senator
Abraham chairs. There have been no hearings because the majority has
refused to allow us to have hearings.
Let's boil this down to where we really understand what is going on
around here. There are threats to pull down the H-1B legislation. I
dare them to pull the bill down. I dare them because it would be on
their conscience. We have said we will vote on H-1B--what time is it
now? Five to 12. We will vote at 12 o'clock. We can have a unanimous
consent agreement that the vote can start in 5 minutes on H-1B. As soon
as that 15-minute vote, which around here takes 40 minutes, is
finished, we will have another 15-minute vote on our Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act. We can complete it all in just a few minutes.
If people do not like our legislation, vote against it. There is a
unanimous consent request kicking around here someplace which we hope
to have approved soon that we vote at 4:30 on Senator Daschle's motion
to suspend the rules so we can vote on this. Keep in mind, so everyone
understands, you can disguise it any way you want, but this is a vote
on our amendment, the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.
There has been a lot of talk about the registry provision that this
is something new and unique, changing 1982 and 1986. This same thing
has been going on since 1929.
The registry provision originated in 1929. The registry provision has
been amended many times since 1929. In 1940, the registry date was
changed to July 1, 1924, and in 1958, the date was changed to June 28,
1940. Subsequently, the date was changed to June 30, 1948, then January
1, 1972, then, of course, we changed it to 1982, giving people 1 year
to apply. That is what we are talking about, 1 year to apply. Some
people did not file within that 1 year, even though they qualified.
People who are here who deserve to qualify under the same law that has
been changed since 1929 deserve a fair hearing.
What happened? What happened is there was sneaked into a bill a
provision that said these people would not be entitled to a due process
hearing, a fair hearing. So hundreds of thousands of people who could
have qualified under the 1982 cutoff date were denied that privilege,
and we are saying that is wrong. That is one of the most important
parts of our legislation.
We are not ignoring the law with this legislation. We are correcting
flaws in current immigration policy that have denied people the
opportunity to have legal immigrant status.
My friend from Utah has disparaged a number of people, in addition to
calling us incompetent, silly, and stupid. He also said that because
trade unions oppose some legislation, that it is necessarily bad. Let's
talk about trade unions.
Let's see here. We have carpenters. Carpenters: What is wrong with
carpenters? We have nurses. I wonder what is wrong with nurses opposing
legislation, or I wonder what is wrong with having people who work as
electricians opposing legislation? What is wrong with trade unions
opposing legislation? Is that any worse than the Chamber of Commerce
supporting or opposing legislation? There has been a lot of name-
calling that has been unnecessary.
We are playing around with this bill: If allowing people who have
been here for many years to apply for permanent residency is playing
around with legislation, then we are playing around with legislation.
The playing around is going to stop because we are going to have this
legislation passed. The President of the United States has said this
will be in a bill, and if it is not, he will veto the bill. He has also
gone so far as to say: I would like some support from the Congress
before I do that. He has it. He has more than enough to sustain a veto
in a letter to him from the House and from the Senate.
Our legislation is going to come to be, and people might just as well
realize that. What Senators from the majority should also understand is
that we are going to vote on our measure. We are going to vote for H-
1B. We support it, but in addition to H-1B, we also believe, without
any question, that we need to vote on our legislation. We need
individuals who fill a critical shortage of high-tech workers in this
country. We support that. We also need essential workers, skilled, and
semi-skilled workers to fill jobs, as indicated by the scores of
organizations and companies that support our amendment, our
legislation.
I hope the majority understands they are the ones holding up this
legislation, not us. They can file 15 more motions to invoke cloture,
and we are still going to have a vote on our amendment. One of the
votes is going to occur this afternoon if the unanimous consent request
is brought forward. If not, it will occur some other time.
We believe that the vote which is going to occur at 4:30 this
afternoon is the first test to finding out how people really feel about
supporting this legislation--not holding hearings in the future, not
saying we want to increase the caps on legal immigration. I do not want
to do that. We need to deal with it now.
I think what we need to do is not talk about the future; let's talk
about today, what we are going to do to make sure these people in Las
Vegas--20,000 people in Nevada; most of them in Las Vegas--who have had
their work cards pulled, who have lost their jobs, who have had their
mortgages foreclosed on their homes, who have had their cars
repossessed, who have had their credit cards pulled from them, who
deserve the basic protections that we have in this country in something
called due process that has been denied--we want to have a due process
hearing for these people who have children who are American citizens,
wives and husbands who are American citizens.
Today is the day we are going to determine if my constituents in
Nevada are going to be given what every American, every person within
the boundaries of our country, has a right to, and that is due process.
What we have is a piece of legislation that seeks to provide
permanent and legally defined groups of immigrants who are already
here, already working, already contributing to the tax base and social
fabric of our country, with a way to gain U.S. permanent residency and
hopefully someday citizenship.
I repeat, 5 minutes from now we would agree to vote on H-1B. Five
minutes after that vote is completed, we will agree to vote on the
Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.
I also say, if that process is not allowed, then we are going to
continue here in the Senate to keep working until people are called
upon to account for how they feel about this legislation. There comes a
time when you have to fess up, you have to vote for or against a piece
of legislation. That is what we are asking for here--a vote for or
against this legislation.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
Mr. REID. If my friend would withhold, there is a unanimous consent
request that I understand----
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, to hasten the moment of this all-important
vote, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the pending Daschle
motion to suspend the rules at 4:30 p.m. today, and the time between
now and 4:30 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent,
notwithstanding rule XXII, that following that vote, the pending
amendments Nos. 4201 and 4183 be considered adopted, and the vote then
occur immediately on the second-degree amendment No. 4178, without any
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, Members can
expect two back-to-back votes at 4:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me begin by talking about immigration.
I
[[Page S9346]]
am a strong supporter of immigration. I am proud that my grandfather
came to this country right before the turn of the 20th century. I am
proud that my wife's grandfather came to America as an indentured
laborer to work in the sugar cane fields in Hawaii. In fact, this
summer, I had the very happy experience of our family donating to the
Institute of Texan Cultures in San Antonio a photograph of my wife's
grandmother that was a picture in a picture book that men went through
to pick out what was called a ``picture- book bride'' to send for her
to come to America.
This pioneer came to America to marry a man she had never met in a
strange country whose language she did not speak; she came seeking
opportunity and freedom, and found both.
That is a story of America in action. Her granddaughter, under
Presidents Reagan and Bush, became Chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, where she oversaw the trading of all futures,
including futures on the same cane sugar that her grandfather came to
America to cut by hand.
I am as strongly committed to immigration as you can be committed to
immigration.
I also remind my colleagues that the bill before the Senate was co-
authored by Senator Abraham, by the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and by myself.
This bill seeks to allow highly skilled people--many of them in
graduate school in America--to stay in our country, to help us be
competitive in the world market, to help us dominate the information
age, and to help us create more jobs for our own people.
I challenge anyone to point to a more committed position in favor of
immigration than I have taken as a Member of the Senate.
In fact, our Presiding Officer may remember a speech I gave once
about a young man who worked for me on my staff named Rohit Kumar. I
was debating, I believe, Senator Kennedy at the time. I took this young
man's family--his father is a research physician; his mother is a
doctor; his uncle is an engineer--and I simply went through a list of
Kumars in America--his parents had come here as immigrants. And I
talked about the contributions they made and the taxes they paid. The
conclusion of my speech was this: America needs more Kumars. By the
way, lest anyone be confused by what has now become an American name,
the Kumars came from India.
Why do I say all this? To make it clear that America is not full. I
believe there is still room in America for people who come and bring
new genius and new energy and new creativity. But I draw a bright
line--it is as bright as the morning Sun--and it is on one issue:
People should come to America legally. People should come to America to
be part of the American dream. In coming to America, people should not
violate the laws of our country.
Apparently, our Democrat colleagues feel so comfortable that it is a
salable political position to take that they want to change the law to
say that people who violated the laws of our country are welcome to
America. I reject that. I reject it because it is patently unfair.
Our Democrat colleagues even have the arrogance to call this the
``Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act,'' as if the label would make it
so. I wonder how many people who are waiting in line to come to
America--the several million people who have applied to come legally;
people whose spouses have applied to come--I wonder how fair they think
it is that they are going to bed every night dreaming of coming to
America, and we are going to put somebody who violated the laws of the
country in front of them.
I do not call that fair. Quite frankly, I am happy to label the idea
outrageous and condescending, that if someone is a Latino that they
must therefore favor changing the laws to allow people who violated the
immigration laws to come and to stay and to invite others to do the
same.
I remind my colleagues that in 1986 we passed a landmark immigration
bill. The fundamental tenets of that bill were, one, we were going to
enforce employer sanctions--we have not done that, as everybody who
lives in America knows--and two, that if you came before 1982 and you
were in good standing, you could apply and become a permanent resident
alien and eventually you could become a citizen. But if you came
afterward, the commitment of that bill was that was the last general
amnesty we were ever going to provide.
Now our Democrat colleagues obviously think it is good politics that
we should go back on the commitments we made in that bill. Hence, we
have the bill that is before us.
Let me explain the issue of how we came to be here, then the
procedure that is being used. Finally, I will talk about this threat by
President Clinton that if we don't adopt a bill legalizing illegal
acts, he is going to shut down the FBI and the Justice Department by
not funding their appropriations.
Let me begin by explaining that we have before us a bill called the
H-1B program. Most Americans, I am sure, don't know what H-1B is, but
basically this is a procedure in immigration law that allows us to
employ uniquely skilled, high-income workers, principally, as it has
turned out, in this new area of high technology and computer science--
many of these people are actually graduate students in our country;
half of the students in the high-tech areas at American universities
are foreign born, as I am sure many people know. Because we have such
critical shortages in this area, this provision allows these people to
stay in America and work and help us create jobs for people who are
already here.
Our Democrat colleagues claim they are for this bill. The problem is,
they won't let us vote on it. But when it gets right down to it, they
want to be paid tribute. The tribute they are seeking is passage of
another bill that would let people who violated the law to stay in our
country.
Now we have made it very clear that we are not going to pay tribute.
Their problem is, they have gone to Silicon Valley, they have gone to
Austin, TX, they have gone to the high-tech centers of America, and
they have told people in the high-tech industry: We are with you; the
Democrat Party is with you; we are for the H-1B program. The problem
they have is, their actions do not comport with their words. And that
is why we are here simply saying, if you are for the H-1B program, pass
it.
I have believed for a couple of days that we are coming to the end of
this charade. I don't believe our Democrat colleagues can sustain the
American public--that is, the relatively small number of people who are
interested in this bill--watching Democrats every day delay a bill
which they are out trumpeting their support. You can confuse some of
the people some of the time, but people cannot be confused under these
circumstances.
Meanwhile, our Democrat colleagues are on the verge of throwing in
the towel on H-1B by saying, well, we want another bill on another
issue. To that end, they have adopted a very unusual procedure of
trying to change the rules of the Senate in order to accomplish what
they want, and we are going to vote on that at 4:30. That is going to
be defeated, soundly defeated.
Let me turn to President Clinton. I wonder if, in these waning hours
of the Clinton administration, our President has not become so deluded
by his power and the semblance of power he has exercised in the last 8
years in beating Congress into submission. I wonder if the President
has not started to believe he is King, that somehow he can say to us,
if you don't pass a law legalizing illegal activities in America, I
will shut down the FBI and the Justice Department.
That is what the threat is. The threat is, if we don't pass a bill
that says people who violated the law in coming to America can stay
here, he will veto an appropriations bill that funds the FBI, the DEA,
the Justice Department, and the Federal prison system. It seems to me
those aren't the words of a President, those are the words of a King.
Does he believe we are so weak in our commitment to the
constitutional principle? The Congress is given the power under article
I of the Constitution to appropriate money, not the President.
I will say to the President, if he wants to veto the Commerce-State-
Justice appropriations bill--I know the bill well because I once had
the privilege of chairing that subcommittee --if he wants to veto that
bill and risk shutting down the FBI and the Justice
[[Page S9347]]
Department and the DEA because we are not going to pass a bill that has
nothing to do with those appropriations but simply a bill that
legalizes illegal activity, then I would have to say to the President
he had better get his pen out and he had better be sure it has ink in
it.
You never know what is going to happen around here, but let me tell
you, from one Senator's point of view, a private in the Army, as long
as there is any possibility of resisting this I am never, ever going to
sit by without using every right I have as a Senator to stop that from
happening.
What an outrageous, deeply offensive threat. Are none of our Democrat
colleagues offended? I will be interested to see how the sage of the
Senate, our colleague from West Virginia, ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, former majority leader, former chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, how he feels about a President who has
become so deluded about his powers that he believes he is King and that
he can say to us, you either legalize illegal acts in America or I will
shut down the FBI and the DEA and the Justice Department.
I understand we are simple people here in the Senate. We have
demonstrated over and over that we don't have President Clinton's
ability to communicate with the public. We don't have the ability to
stand for one thing one day and the next day do a 180-degree reversal
and everybody thinks it is great.
But if we don't have the ability to stand up to a President in
telling us that unless we pass legislation legalizing illegal activity,
he is going to shut down the FBI and the DEA and the Justice Department
and the prison system by vetoing an appropriations bill forum--if we
can't stand up and debate that, we might as well eliminate Congress and
just let Bill Clinton rule.
I don't intend to see that happen. It may be we will get run over
here, but we are not going to get run over without one great fight. I
am going to be surprised in the end if there is not at least one
Democrat who is going to join us in this fight.
Now, let me turn to the heart and soul of this issue, the belief by
our Democrat colleagues that it is good politics to make it legal for
people to engage in illegal activity in coming to America. Our Democrat
colleagues believe they are going to gain votes in this election by
saying that if you violated the law in coming to America, if you jumped
in line in front of the several million people who have applied to come
legally, don't worry because we intend to legalize what you did. And
don't worry about the spouses of people who are already here, who are
waiting and praying for the day they can come to America legally, just
jump ahead of them, violate the law, come to America, because once you
get here, we will embrace you and legalize your actions.
I know our Democrat colleagues believe this is good politics. I know
our Democrat colleagues believe, because of the way they named this
bill, that every immigrant and especially Latinos support illegal
immigration. What an outrageous, offensive name for this bill, the
``Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.'' What is fair about a bill that
sanctions illegal activities? What is fair about saying to several
million people--more of them Latinos than any other ethnic extraction
or origin--that it is fair for somebody to violate the law and come to
America ahead of you, but it is fair to make you wait month after
month, year after year, to join the people you love? That is the
Democrats idea of fairness? What is fair about that?
I think immigrants--and, quite frankly, I still consider myself one--
I don't think most people who are immigrants to America believe this is
about fairness. They believe this is a raw political act, and they are
right. This is putting politics ahead of people. This is about trying
to single out a group of people, as if every Hispanic in my State
believes that it is OK to let someone violate the law.
I reject that. That is not the way Texans feel, no matter what their
ethic origin. I think when people really look at this, they are going
to see that this for what it is, an outrageous political act.
Since I am going to stand for reelection in a State where many
Hispanics are going to vote--and I am proud of the fact that when I ran
in 1990, I got about half of the Hispanic vote in my State--I,
obviously, do not believe that this is the great political ploy that
our Democrat colleagues believe it to be.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
Mr. CRAIG. The Senator makes a point that I hope echoes across this
country, which is that you cannot honor, recognize, or enhance the
concept of breaking the law or acting illegally and therefore be
rewarded for it. We are struggling mightily on the floor to address a
need in this country; it is called an employment need--H-1B workers
primarily for the high-tech industry.
The Senator knows I have worked on H-2A, the issue of primarily
Hispanic workforces but migrant labor coming to this country to work in
agriculture. We have a very real need there, but we are trying to
adjust a law so that it accommodates a citizenry, treats them in a
humane way, but stays within the law because we have to control our
borders.
It is critically necessary that as a nation we control our borders.
What you are suggesting--and this is my question--if you can make it
across the border illegally, and if you can stay here long enough and
raise your issue through an interest group long enough, or with a
political party, you may be rewarded for having broken the law by
getting someone to do something for you.
Mr. GRAMM. Basically, what their bill is, is that you will be
rewarded by being put in front of the 7 million people who have applied
to come to America legally because they weren't willing to violate
America's laws to become Americans and you were. If I may say this, and
I then will yield the floor------
Mr. CRAIG. May I ask one more question?
Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
Mr. CRAIG. Under current law as to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, people who seek either status in this country as a legal
resident but not a citizen, apply and basically line up on a list and
wait for the process to move them through; is that how it works? You
are saying we would jump millions ahead of that?
Mr. GRAMM. We would jump millions ahead of those who are currently in
other countries, some of them spouses of people who live in America who
applied to come here legally. Basically, what the Democrats' bill says
is, look, the people who violate the law will be rewarded. I don't
believe you promote a respect for law by rewarding people who violate
the law, and I don't know a single Texan who believes that, either.
Let me make this clear. I am not saying that there are not some
special cases where people, because of bureaucracies--and we all know
bureaucracies and how they work or don't work--I am not saying there
are not thousands, maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands
of people who have a good case against the bureaucracy and they should
have an opportunity to make their case. Whatever we can do to speed the
bureaucratic process and give people justice, I am for. I am sure our
colleagues, at some point in the debate, will hold up some case of a
person who has not gotten due process from the Clinton administration's
Immigration and Naturalization Service. But the solution to that is not
to throw out the law book; the solution is to install new leadership,
to fix the INS bureaucracy and to deal with people's problems
effectively and on an individual basis.
So let me conclude with the following highlights: No. 1, I am for
legal immigration because I think it enriches America. As some of my
colleagues know, I was once chairman of the National Republican
Senatorial Committee. We were having an event and a very sweet little
old lady from Florida stood up and said, ``Senator Gramm, why does
everybody at this meeting talk funny?'' Well, we had a lot of people
who I guess you would call ``ethnics'' there, and everybody sort of
gasped and wondered what I might say and not hurt anybody's feelings,
including this lady's feelings. So I said the first thing that occurred
to me: ``Ma'am, I guess people talk funny because this is America.''
I want immigrants to come to America. I want them to join in the
American dream, as my family and my
[[Page S9348]]
wife's family have been blessed to join in. I want them to come
legally, and I draw the line on that. I am willing to face every voter
in Texas on that.
Our Democrat colleagues are really hoping today that the voters are
not paying attention. They are hoping some of these radical groups
wanting to change America's law to forgive the fact that their members
have violated the law are watching this debate on television. But they
hope that the working men and women of America are not paying attention
to this issue. They want credit for saying they will reward you for
violating the law, but I don't think they are going to want the
American people to know the political game they are engaged in with
putting politics before people.
Let me say that I am happy to debate this issue. I don't have any
fear about this issue whatsoever--none. Anybody who wants to come to
Texas and debate this issue will have a grand opportunity to do that
when I am running, and I look forward to them coming. Texans, including
Hispanics, do not believe that those who violate the law should be
treated better than people who abide by the law.
I think our Democrat colleagues have misjudged this issue if they
think hard-working Hispanics in this country believe we ought to allow
people to break the law and be rewarded for it. I reject that, I will
be happy to debate it, and I am going to be eager to vote on it at
4:30.
Finally, to repeat, in case anybody missed it, President Clinton
threatened to veto the funding measure for the FBI, the DEA, the
Justice Department, and the prison system unless we legalize illegal
activity--something that is not only bad policy and that the American
people are against, but that has nothing to do with funding Commerce-
State-Justice. If the President really believes that is going to work,
he believes he has become a King. I think the time has come to show him
that he can veto a good bill, but he cannot make us pass this bad law
that would legalize and reward lawlessness in America.
You can put a pretty face on this. You can sugarcoat it all you want.
But what we are seeing is a blatant political act that is before the
Senate in an effort to appeal to voters who believe that somehow it is
good policy in America to legalize illegal actions and to reward people
who have violated the law. Maybe I misjudge America. Maybe I don't
understand this issue. But I don't think so.
I want everybody to know about this issue. I want to be sure
everybody hears about this issue. I would be willing to let this
election and every election from now until the end of time be
determined by the issue of refusing to legalize illegal activity for
political gain.
Our Democrat colleagues have chosen poorly, in my opinion. We are not
going to be stampeded by President Clinton into passing this bill.
I can't prevent it from being put into some bill. I can resist and
will resist, and maybe I can be run over as part of some backroom deal.
But as a freestanding measure, this bill will never pass as a
freestanding measure as long as I am in the Senate.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak this long. This is an
important issue and I feel strongly about it. I want people to know
about it.
If our colleagues are ready to debate this issue, to quote a famous
Shakespeare play:
Lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be he that first cries, ``Hold, enough!''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have colleagues on the floor who are
waiting to speak. I apologize to them for breaking in ahead of them. I
appreciate their kindness in allowing me to respond briefly to the
comments of the Senator from Texas.
I can't believe what I have just heard, frankly. I am really amazed,
and I may take a longer time at a later date to respond. I do not even
know where to begin. But let me make four points very quickly.
First, to the point made by the Senator from Texas that somehow we
are holding up the H-1B bill, that could not be further off the mark.
That is not true.
I have suggested to Senator Lott and to others that we would be
willing to take a very short time agreement, period; it is over; let's
have the vote.
I think what he said was we are trying to hijack the bill. What is it
about offering an amendment that hijacks a piece of legislation? We are
not hijacking anything. We are simply asking that we use the regular
order here. Let's have the vote. Let's have the vote. We can do it this
afternoon.
Second, with regard to this notion that somehow we are making illegal
activity legal, I wonder if the Senator from Texas has looked at the
Statute of Liberty recently--the Statue of Liberty welcoming those
oppressed from around the world.
What is wrong with granting fairness to all immigrants regardless of
circumstance? Why do we draw a distinction?
That is all we are suggesting--that we not draw any distinctions
here; that if you come from El Salvador or Haiti that you ought to have
the same rights as if you came from Cuba. We are simply saying we want
some basic fairness. We are not condoning any illegal activity. He
knows that.
Third, I must say that it seems that it is the Senator from Texas who
is shedding crocodile tears--in his case, for people who have been
waiting in a long line to become American citizens. I am sympathetic to
these people too. But, with the passage of the H-1B bill that I know
the Senator from Texas will vote for, we are going to allow 600,000
people--over three years--to go to the front of the line. We are going
to put them at the front of the line. Never mind those 7 million people
he just said were waiting. We are going to put them at the front of the
line because they are filling high-paying, high-skilled jobs. Never
mind the individuals who fill the thousands of available low-paying,
low-skilled jobs. It is only the high-skilled workers we are interested
in? To them, we say go to the front of the line. But if you work in a
nursing home, if you work in a restaurant, if you work for the minimum
wage, we say get back to the end of the line.
Fourth, let me correct this notion that somehow Democratic Senators
are out of sync. This isn't our legislation. This is the legislation
that virtually the entire Hispanic community has said they need. I
didn't draft it. We worked with the Hispanic community to draft it. A
large number of those people who the distinguished Senator from Texas
said voted for him in the last election were the ones who came to this
Senate, and said: Fix this problem. Fix it.
We are not out of sync. We are trying to respond, as we all must do,
to legitimate problems in the Latino community, and the Liberian
community. Fairness is what we are asking for.
We are not alone. It is the other side that is out there all by
themselves. I know the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the Assistant
Democratic Leader, has a list that Senator Kennedy initially
constructed, of 31 national organizations, including the National
Restaurant Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National
Retail Federation, that all believe we should pass these immigration
reforms.
These organizations are not supporting sanctifying or somehow
justifying illegal activity. How does the Senator from Texas possibly
explain to the Chamber of Commerce that they are condoning illegal
activity? For Heaven's sake.
That is why I say I don't believe what I just heard. I can't believe
anybody would come to the floor and say those things. But they were
said. They deserve a response, and I hope our colleagues will keep them
in perspective.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume from the
Democratic time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, there has been much discussion about the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act. I think it is useful and appropriate to focus
on precisely what this act does.
First, in 1997 Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act. Essentially, this bill granted permanent residency
to
[[Page S9349]]
Nicaraguans and Cubans who had fled oppressive governments. But we also
recognize that there were thousands of other individuals from Central
America who were fleeing the same type of repression, the same type of
uncertainty in their lives, and violence in their lives. Yet these
individuals were not covered by this legislation.
One of the major provisions of the bill we are discussing is to
recognize these individuals who also have been residing in the United
States, who have been working in the United States, and who have been
contributing to our communities. This is not at all some act of
condoning illegality.
Frankly, in 1997, we recognized that simple justice demanded that we
allow individuals who are living in this country to adjust to permanent
residency. We now want to expand that principle of fairness and decency
to the others from that region.
In addition, there are other areas of the world which have the same
types of violence, chaos, and turmoil. Principally I have been active
on behalf of the Liberians who are here--many since the early 1990s
civil war in their country.
This is not about condoning or recognizing lawlessness. It is about
fairness.
In fact, our immigration policy is such that we certainly recognize
and extend extraordinary opportunities to Cubans who flee their country
without documentation, simply by arriving on the shore, have argument
or the opportunity to make the case to stay here. If we can do that for
one particular group, I think in the context of the turmoil and chaos
we have seen in Central America, we can do it for other groups. That is
at the core of this legislation.
Second, we have, since 1929, established a principle that if one
enters this country and stays long enough and contributes to the
communities in which he or she lives, they will be allowed to adjust to
permanent status--this notion, called the registry date, is the idea
that if you can document your presence in the United States for a long
enough period of time, we will allow you to become a permanent resident
and part of the citizenry.
Another part of the legislation moves the day of registry from 1972
to 1986. I think that recognizes that periodically throughout our
history we face the reality that people have come here and established
themselves, and it would be unfair to send them to their native lands.
We are simply updating that particular date to allow people who have
been residing in this country since 1986 to become permanent residents.
Finally, we would extend provision 245(i) which allows a person who
qualified for a green card or work authorization to obtain a visa
without first leaving the country. One of the changes we made recently
in the immigration law was to require people physically to leave the
United States to apply for a visa to come back in. That is not only an
undue burden, but it complicates infinitely the lives of people who are
working here, living here, and want to become permanent residents.
This is not legislation that condones lawlessness, it is legislation
that is consistent with many legislative acts we have adopted beginning
in the 1920s. It is legislation that recognizes if we are extending
special opportunities to some people in a region, we should also, in
fairness, extend it to others in that same region. This is legislation
that is not particularly novel, but it is eminently and inherently just
and fair and should be before the Senate.
But because of the parliamentary maneuvering and devices used, this
legislation has not been offered in a way we can vote directly on it.
Our plea has been, for months and months and months, to allow an up-or-
down vote. There are serious policy issues regarding this legislation.
People of good conscience can disagree. What is most disagreeable is
that we have not had the opportunity to offer amendments on this
legislation so that we can vote up or down.
There is one part of the bill in which I am particularly interested
because it applies to a group of people who have been residing in our
country for almost a decade, the Liberian population; 10,000 Liberians.
The cause of their stay in the United States was a vicious civil war in
their homeland. Many have been here for years. They have established
themselves. They have been working and paying taxes and not, because
they are subject to temporary protected status, enjoying any particular
public benefits. Many have children who are American citizens.
One such individual, reported today in the Baltimore Sun is Gonlakpor
Gonkpala, 48 years old. He has been living in the United States since
he arrived as a student from Liberia in 1982. He got a degree in
finance at Central State University in Wilberforce, OH, and did
graduate work at Morgan State University. The civil war has prevented
him from returning home. Today he lives in Brockton, MA, where he owns
a three-bedroom house, belongs to a Masonic lodge, and is a member of
the Methodist Church. He manages a CVS pharmacy. But Friday, without
extension of DED, deferred enforced departure, his work authority will
cease and he will be deported back to Liberia.
This is typical of so many people. It seems to me supremely ironic
that as we are taking people from around the world under H-1B visas to
man our industrial and commercial enterprises throughout this country,
we are literally sending people who are already here, working hard,
contributing and making our economy grow, we are sending them back to
Liberia.
At the same time we are proposing to send people back to Liberia, our
State Department is issuing warnings telling American citizens: Don't
go there; it is too dangerous; you are likely to be threatened, if not
worse.
We have been working with colleagues in this body for months to bring
a bill to the floor on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats.
Yet we have been denied systematically that opportunity. The denial to
us means the status and the lives of 10,000 Liberians in the United
States continue to hang by a very slender thread.
I hope all who embrace the notion of fairness and justice in
immigration will give us the opportunity to vote on this issue. To
date, that has not happened. It is critical because the prospect of
sending these people home is very daunting and dangerous for these
individuals. Liberia today is a democracy in form but not a democracy
in substance. It is plagued with violence, economic turmoil,
uncertainty, and fear. As so many Liberians report to me, it is a place
where they will not be accepted readily. Also, they very well could be
threatened physically. Certainly, they would have difficult problems
adapting. Many face a very difficult choice: Do I leave my American-
born children, American citizens here, and go back, or do I bring them
back to a country that is unprepared to care for them in terms of
health care, education, and other social endeavors?
That is what is at stake. It is the same for so many families who are
Latinos in this country. That is what we are about: The same kind of
simple justice since the same kind of difficult situations faced by the
Liberians are faced by Hispanics. We want to give them a chance to
adjust their status. It is not a recognition of lawlessness, it is in a
sense a recognition of these people's contributions to America and
their commitment to our country.
The situation is one which is especially compelling for me. Our ties
to Liberia are older than any in Africa. The country was established by
freed American slaves. Its capital is Monrovia, named after President
Monroe. It has for years been a place for which Americans and Liberians
have felt a special kinship. Today it is ruled by a President, Charles
Taylor, who has been implicated in crimes of violence in neighboring
country Sierra Leone, who has been nonsupportive of human rights and
political freedoms, who has conducted a regime that is repressive and
rightly criticized by so many.
I don't believe we can or should send thousands of Liberians residing
here back to Liberia. What we have is an opportunity to do something
that is both fair and, I believe, entirely appropriate. But that
opportunity has been frustrated left and right by the unwillingness to
give us the opportunity to bring this measure forward. Later today, we
have an opportunity to vote on a resolution that will allow us at least
to get a vote. We will continue to press on. We will continue to try to
inject justice into our system of immigration, to recognize that there
are thousands and thousands of people who are living here who
desperately want to stay here, who want to continue to
[[Page S9350]]
contribute to America. I hope we recognize their contribution and give
them a chance to stay.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. On behalf of the minority, we have approximately 90 minutes
left; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Rhode
Island, and yield Senator Kennedy 40 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. Preside |
Add to del.icio.us