COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, I would like to extend a thank you to the Senator from Arizona and to the Senator from Massachusetts. During the debate on this issue a couple of weeks ago, it became pretty obvious that there were some Members in this body who did not want to see the Senate function the way it always has, with respect to legislation, and that is to give all Members of this body the opportunity to debate an issue, to submit amendments, and to ultimately have a vote on those amendments and a vote on the legislation. Were it not for the efforts of Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, we would have been at a deadlock, once again, and those of us who object to this underlying bill would not have had the opportunity to see the Senate work its will. So I do extend a thank you to these Senators for the very professional way in which they handled themselves during the course of the debate a couple of weeks ago, as well as right now.
I rise in strong support of Senator Vitter's amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I think this amendment crystalizes the whole debate we are having in the Senate on this bill. It all comes down to the simple question of whether you oppose or you favor amnesty.
I think the way Senators vote on this amendment will tell you where they stand on this issue, so I hope the American people will take careful note of how every Senator in this body votes on this amendment. I am in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The way I see it, there are three areas that must be addressed in accomplishing comprehensive reform. The first and foremost is border security. If we do not have operational control of our borders and serious interior worksite enforcement, then there is no point in trying to address the other issues relative to comprehensive reform.
The second key component we must address is to have a viable temporary guestworker program for those outside of the country who want to come to this country and work in a job that needs to be filled that cannot, or will not, be filled by an American worker.
The third component we must address is the reality of the 11 million, 12 million--whatever the number is--of illegal immigrants who are currently in the United States.
I think we can address all three of these issues without providing a new path to citizenship for those who are currently here illegally. There have been a number of alternative approaches mentioned throughout this debate. I had one for agricultural workers, for example, which would have allowed those workers to remain working for a period of 2 years before returning to their home country and have them reenter the United States on a valid and viable guest worker program. This would allow employers to structure their workforce in a way that they can send their illegal workers home and have them return in a manner that does not result in a complete work stoppage on our Nation's farms.
My main opposition to amnesty is that it has been tried before and it has been proven that it does not work.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, my main focus in this debate has been on agricultural workers. I firmly believe that an amnesty is not in the best interests of agriculture in the United States. The agricultural amnesty in this bill is so similar to the Special Agricultural Worker Program that was enacted as the mechanism for the 1986 amnesty bill that it is really startling. We have heard many Senators talk about all that illegal aliens have to do in order to adjust their status. However, I don't think many people realize that the requirements are not the same for illegal agricultural workers, under the base bill. For illegal agricultural workers to take advantage of the amnesty in this bill, they must have worked at least 150 hours in agriculture over a 2-year period, ending in December of 2005. Meeting that threshold requirement will allow the illegal worker to obtain a blue card.
Once in possession of a blue card--which is a new process, a new card--that currently illegal worker has a choice of two different paths to a green card. In addition to paying back taxes, he can work 100 hours per year for 5 years or work 150 hours per year for 3 years and get a green card. There is not even a requirement to learn English for agricultural workers to take advantage of the amnesty provision in the base bill.
I think the requirements for illegal workers to take advantage of the agricultural amnesty are so low that I fear a repeat of what happened, and failed, in 1986. We should not repeat the mistakes we made before.
I am not the only one who feels this way. Several months ago, as we were ramping up toward bringing this bill to the floor, I had the opportunity to speak to 135 brand new American citizens who came from 125 different countries. They were sworn in at the Federal building in Atlanta, GA. After my comments to them and their swearing-in ceremony, I had about two dozen of these 133 individuals come up to me, one at a time, and say: Senator, whatever you do, please don't allow those folks who came into this country illegally to get a pathway to citizenship that is different from the path I had to follow.
In some instances, these individuals took 5 years; in some instances 8; in some instances 12. In one instance, 22 years that individual had to work to become a citizen of the United States. For all 133 of those individuals who stood up that morning and raised their right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it was the proudest day of their lives. You can understand why they do not want somebody who came into this country illegally to get a leg up on people who were in the position that they were in for so many years, trying to earn citizenship.
The people I saw at that naturalization ceremony truly did earn their citizenship, and it means something to them, as it should to everybody who becomes an American citizen. It does not seem fair to me to call the process those newly naturalized individuals followed earned citizenship and also call the provision for illegal agricultural workers in this bill earned citizenship. There is a fundamental difference between the two that should be recognized in the rhetoric of this debate.
Another problem I have with the agricultural amnesty provision is that it does not remedy the problem with fraud that was prevalent in the 1986 Special Agricultural Worker Program. Under the 1986 program, illegal farm workers who did at least 90 days of farm work during a 12-month period could earn a legal status. The illegal immigrants had to present evidence that they did at least 90 days of farm work, such as pay stubs or a letter from an employer or even fellow workers. Because it was assumed that many unauthorized farm workers were employed by labor contractors, who did not keep accurate records, after a farm worker had presented evidence that he had done qualifying farm work, the burden of proof shifted to the Government to disprove the claimed work.
The Government was not prepared for the flood of SAW applicants and had little expertise on typical harvesting seasons. Therefore, an applicant who told a story such as: I climbed a ladder to pick strawberries, had that application denied, while those who said: I picked tomatoes for 92 days in an area with a picking season of only 72 days was able to adjust.
Careful analysis of the sample of applications from the 1986 worker program in California, where most applications were filed, suggests that most applicants had not done the qualifying farm work, but over 90 percent were nonetheless approved.
The propensity for fraud is not remedied in this bill and compounds bad policy with the ability for unscrupulous actors to take advantage of it.
I think the most important lesson to learn from the 1986 program is that providing illegal immigrants who work on the farms of this country does not benefit the agricultural workforce for long. History shows that the vast majority of illegal workers who gain a legal status leave agriculture within 5 years. This means that under proposed agricultural amnesty, those who questionably performed agricultural work in the past will work at least 100 or 150 hours in agriculture per year for the next 3 to 5 years. But after that, particularly in light of the changes made to the H-2A program, I expect us to be in the same situation in agriculture that we are today.
It is worth noting that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 created a Commission on Agricultural Workers, an 11-member bipartisan panel comprised of growers, union representatives, academics, civil servants, and clergy, and tasked it with examining the impact the amnesty for special agricultural workers had on the domestic farm labor supply, working conditions, and wages.
Mr. President, I ask for an additional 3 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Back 6 years after the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, the Commission found that the same problems in the agricultural industry persist;
the living and working conditions of farm workers had not improved; wages remained stagnant; increasing numbers of new illegal aliens are arriving to compete for the same small number of jobs, thus reducing the work hours available to each worker and contributing to lower annual earnings; and virtually all workers who hold seasonal agricultural jobs are unemployed at some point during the year.
I think the experience of the SAW program should serve as a lesson to the Senate as we grapple with how to handle our current illegal population. I believe the amnesty in this bill is far too similar to the SAW Program in 1986 and will likely have the same result.
We know from past experience that agricultural workers do not stay in their agricultural jobs for long, especially when they gain a legal status and have the option to work in less back-breaking occupations. Therefore, the focus on agricultural immigration should be on the H-2A program. This is the program that regardless of what the Senate does with amnesty, will be relied upon by our agricultural employers across the country in the near future.
Let me conclude by saying that while I do support a lot of the provisions in the underlying bill, there is one basic concept in the underlying bill that is baffling to me; that is, why do we have to connect a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally to meaningful immigration reform? There are a lot of these people--whether it is 11 million or 20 million, whatever the number may be--who came here for the right reason, that reason being to improve the quality of life for themselves and their families. We need to show compassion for those individuals.
Does that mean we ought to give them an automatic pass to citizenship that they may, or may not, want? We have no idea how many of these people will actually want to be citizens. Why do we grant that privilege which we cherish so much and those 133 individuals in Atlanta, GA, cherished so much on the day they were sworn in as American citizens? Why don't we simply leave the law on citizenship exactly the way it is today and let people who want to earn it earn it in the way that current law provides?
Let us look out for these 11 million or 12 million or whatever the number is. We have methods by which we can deal with those individuals and at the same time accomplish real, meaningful border security, as well as provide our employers in this country with a meaningful, quality supply of workers that they know are here for the right reasons and that they know are here legally.
I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/