Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008

Floor Speech

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on the Graham-Gregg-McConnell amendment that has been offered this morning and to support it. It is the Border Security First Act. It includes actual funding which would be emergency funding. I think this is justified.

I know my colleague, Senator Gregg, is a former chairman of the Budget Committee. He is very astute and alert that we do not abuse emergency funding, and he believes this is a justified emergency--and I do too. In other words, how much longer can we continue to have lawlessness at our borders? This bill would go a long way in fixing that. Certainly, every aspect of the bill, I believe, is a positive step in returning us to a lawful system of immigration in America.

One reason actually funding this project, these efforts, through this bill and through emergency spending is so important is because we have a history of promising things and not doing them. Not this year but last year the bill came forward in the Judiciary Committee to comprehensively reform immigration. I realized we had a shortage of border enforcement officers, Border Patrol, and I offered an amendment to do that as part of that authorization bill, that immigration reform bill. It was readily accepted.

I offered an amendment that added bed spaces, and it was readily accepted, because I knew we needed more if we were going to be effective.

I offered more funding to train State and local law enforcement. It was accepted.

I offered amendments on fencing which were accepted as well--at least some of them. More on the floor were accepted.

Then I had an insight that hit me. That insight was that when we pass an authorization, what occurs is we authorize certain legal changes. Those legal changes take place at once. For example, the guaranteed path to citizenship in that immigration bill--it passed, it became law, it was guaranteed, it would happen no matter what. But I realized it was real easy for my colleagues to agree to things that involved enforcement that required money, real dollars, to carry out because I realized they may have no intention of seeing that effort be funded. Or, if they did have an intention to see it funded, there are so many steps, hurdles, and loopholes to go through before it is ever funded it may never get funding because it would have to go through the appropriators and they would have to appropriate the money.

To authorize money for a fence is not to build a fence. That is the point. You have to appropriate some money to build a fence. That was the gimmick, I believed all along, and that led to a suggestion I made about having a trigger. Senator Isakson went into that in some depth and offered the amendment to have a trigger. The trigger said: Before any of these other law changes about amnesty or legalization of those here illegally could occur, some other things had to happen first. If you didn't spend the money on the others, this would never happen. There was a trigger. That was a good idea, it was. It dealt with the problem we were dealing with.

There is cynicism that is out there because of what happened in 1986. Let's be honest about it, what happened in 1986 was amnesty occurred. They didn't deny it was amnesty. They were giving people legal residence and path to citizenship in 1986. But they promised to do the things necessary to create a lawful system in the future and that it would not happen again. Three million people in 1986 were provided amnesty. But as we all know, the promises were never fulfilled. We did not create a lawful system of immigration. We did not do the things necessary to enforce our laws at the border. As a result of that, we now have 12 million people illegally in our country. Right? That is what happened. There is no mystery about this. This is actually fact.

We had this bill that came up, the so-called comprehensive reform bill. I absolutely believe it did not get us there. That is why I opposed it. I made up my mind I was not going to participate in a legislative process that would tell our people of America, and my constituents, we were going to create a lawful system in the future, if we were not going to do it. That is why a number of people suggested we should have a border security first bill. That is what the House of Representatives said last year. They said they were not even going to consider our bill because they believed we ought to prove to the American people we could create a lawful system of immigration first.

In this amendment, Senator Gregg and Senator Graham and Senator Kyl and McConnell--many of those who had supported the comprehensive reform--are saying let's get some credibility with the American people. I thank them for that. I believe this is a step in the right direction.

Senator Graham and Senator Gregg--we discussed it recently with members of the press and they made the point: The American people want to see we are serious about what we promise first. That is why they support that.

For example, this legislation would fund 23,000 border agents. The bill that is on the floor today, the basic Homeland Security bill, would fund a little less than 18,000 agents. We need more agents. We have to get to that tipping point. We don't need a whole unlimited number of agents. In my opinion, somebody who has been involved in law enforcement most of my career, I believe we can get to a point where the word is out worldwide that our borders are not wide open, and if you come to the United States, you are likely going to be caught, unless you come legally. If we do, we could see a substantial reduction in the number of people attempting to come here illegally. But we have to get other agents out there to get to that point--so 23,000 would help a lot. It is more than this bill has in it.

Another thing you have to have is detention beds. In other words, if you arrest someone for illegally entering our country, if you are in a position where they are released on a promise to come back for some proceeding because you do not have a prison bed, a detention bed in which to put them, they do not show up. We have examples of the catch-and-release policy, where 95 percent of the people released on bail on a promise to come back for their hearing didn't show up--surprise, surprise. They were willing to come to the country illegally. Who thinks they are going to show up legally to be deported? How silly is that? It was an indication to me and the American people that this Government was not serious about immigration. We were not serious. Any government that allows such a silly, worthless, no-good policy as that is not serious about it.

So this bill would add detention beds. The underlying bill is at 31,000. This would take us to 45,000. Hopefully, that will take us to that tipping point, so then we can say to a person who has been apprehended: We are not going to release you, we are going to hold you until you are deported. Sometimes it is difficult, if they are from foreign countries, distant countries, not our border countries, to get them back to their countries. It takes some time to get a plane or a boat to ship them out.

Another thing that is a part of this--certainly, if we are serious about immigration, one of the things we want to do is welcome legitimate help from our State and local law enforcement agencies. There are only a few thousand Federal immigration agents inside the United States--not at the border, I mean inside the United States. There are 600,000-plus State and local law enforcement agents. They basically have been blocked from being able to participate in any way.

There is, however, a program called a 287(g) provision that gives training to State and local officers so they don't mess up, and they treat everybody exactly properly and help in an effective way to partner with Federal officers to enforce immigration laws.

If you don't want immigration laws enforced, you don't want the 600,000 State and local law officers participating. See? If you don't want the law enforced, you don't want these people to participate in any way because right now we only have several thousand Federal agents--not on the border, inside the whole United States of America. The only people we can rely on would be voluntary State and local support.

What we learned in Alabama, my home State, we trained 60 State troopers in this program. It took far too long, in my view. The State had to pay their salaries. It cost the State of Alabama $120,000 to be a partner with the Federal Government to enforce laws that they have authority to enforce--but to enforce laws of the Federal Government on an issue, immigration, that should be primarily a Federal responsibility.

This bill, the amendment that was offered, this border security first amendment, would provide some grant programs to enable more States to participate in this program.

It also funds--actually puts the money out to fund the fence. We have had a half dozen votes on the fence, and it has still not been built. They are building some now, they say. They are doing some. But it is still not on track to be completed, and it is not funded according to what we voted. We voted to build 700 miles of fencing. The underlying legislation, this appropriations bill, only funds 370 miles. That is not what we voted to do.

You see what I am saying? It is one thing to authorize and vote to do something. We all go back home and we are so proud: I voted to build a fence. But nobody ever comes around to provide the money to actually do it. So this bill would fund that.

On the question of our local facilities to apprehend people for serious crimes, people who are in the country illegally, who are subject to being deported as soon as they are released from jail occurs--under current law, that is not working well at all.

This bill would allow local facilities, detention facilities, to detain them for up to 14 days, to give the Federal Government the right to do that, to get them deported, as they should be, if they committed felonies in the United States.

Last September, 80 Senators voted to build 700 miles of fencing along our border. Ninety-four Senators voted for the amendment I offered for $1.8 billion to be appropriated. It eventually got reduced in conference to $1.2 billion to build the fence we said we were going to build. This bill, the underlying bill, calls for an additional $1 billion toward construction of the fencing. But that is not enough. The Gregg-Graham-Kyl amendment would provide the money sufficient to do that and get us on the right track.

I will mention briefly a couple of other things in the legislation that I strongly favor. Senator Graham has advocated previously that we need to have penalties for people who come back into the country illegally. I mean, how silly is it to have persons enter the country illegally, you apprehend them, you do not prosecute them, you do not put them in jail--you could, because it is a crime--and you deport them, and here they are the next week, or even the next day coming back into the country. You have got to, at some point, if you are serious about law, have a penalty extracted.

So this bill would require penalties for people who reenter a second time, at least, in our country illegally. Certainly that is a good step, but it is not happening today. There is a deal going on among certain judges, and it has gotten to be a real problem for our immigration enforcement system. That is, local State judges, if they have an individual who is about to be deported, often will cut the sentence and not make it the required sentence, and that would obviate their deportation from the country for being convicted of a felony. This would keep judges from going back and manipulating the criminal justice system to try to prevent a result that should naturally occur in the future.

It has institutional removal program funding. This is important as a practical matter. It does not work to wait until a person has completed their jail time for a serious criminal offense, and then have the Federal Government start up a proposal to deport them. They run away; they do not show up to be deported. It is so obvious that that is happening. So we have a program, the institutional removal program, that does allow the Federal Government to take those people before they are released from jail and do the paperwork and commence the hearing so at the time of their departure, they are released into State prison for the serious offense they have committed, they would directly be deported. That only makes sense. We are doing some of that now, and this bill would provide extra money for that.

In every aspect of the legislation, it is a step in the right direction. It does not get us there if the executive branch or if the Government does not want to enforce these laws. It does not get us there if the House or conferees fail to put this money in the bill. There are still a lot of loopholes. We should not pat ourselves on the back. But these are all critical steps toward creating a lawful immigration system. If we can do that and regain some confidence among the American people, we will be able to talk about many more of the issues in favor of that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I filed earlier a number of amendments. I want to talk about some of those and why I think that they are important. I am pleased to say many of them have been included, all or in part, in the Graham-Gregg-Kyl-McConnell amendment that I have cosponsored. I think, in effect, it represents a positive step to creating a lawful system of immigration, which I believe we owe to the American people. They expect that.

What good is it for us to pass new ideas, new laws, and new provisions concerning immigration if they will not be enforced any better than those we have had before? That is the real rub, the real problem we have. That was my fundamental concern and objection to the comprehensive bill that failed to pass a few weeks ago. It would not have done the job, it would not have been effective, and it did not accomplish what we need to accomplish.

I want to share some ideas about the amendments that I have offered and why they are important. I believe Senator Kyl said that we have broad bipartisan support for this. There was some belief that if enforcement amendments are passed, then some people would never confront the other aspects of immigration that others believe need to be confronted. I think the truth is that people tried to hold hostage enforcement in order to gain support for a new idea of immigration, and an amnesty, or a legalization process that the American people didn't agree to. It didn't work. So let me share a few thoughts that I think are important with regard to having a good legal system for our borders.

First, we have to have more barriers, more fencing. The funding for the fencing that we asked for--the 700 miles of fencing--would be included in the amendment that has been proposed, offered, and called up. That is a good step in the right direction. I will offer separately an amendment asking the GAO--our Government Accountability Office--to analyze the cost. The cost factor that I have heard is about $3.2 million per mile for the fence. That exceeds my best judgment of how much that I think it ought to cost to build a fence based on my experience of building a fence in the country in the past. Fences usually do not cost millions of dollars but, this fence on the border is going to cost a lot of money. Yes, we need a lot of fencing on the border, and maybe double and triple fencing in some areas. We need high-tech cameras, and that will run the cost up. But sometimes you get the impression that the people who don't believe in fencing are running the cost up so high that maybe the American people will change their mind about the fence. We know the fence at San Diego was a great success. People on both sides of the border appreciate it. What was a rundown, crime-prone area on both sides of the border in San Diego is now making economic progress, and illegal immigration and crime in that sector is way down. Putting up a strong fence is the right thing for us to do and we must do it if we are serious about enforcement.

I ask for commonsense purposes, tell me how we can have enough border agents to cover 1,700 miles for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Are they just going to stand out there all day and all night? We need barriers that will multiply the Border Patrol officer's capability to respond in an effective way to
apprehend those who break into the country.

Through a combination of these efforts, we can get to the point where we go from an open border to a border that people understand to be closed, and, as a result, we could see a reduction in the number of people who attempt to come into our country illegally.

I am pleased that a good part of the State and local law enforcement provisions I have provided for will be included in the amendment. I am pleased that a good part of the National Guard provisions I have offered, including continuing Operation Jump Start, will be included, and the criminal alien provisions dealing with removing those aliens who have been convicted of crimes are deported.

I am pleased that we are moving towards ensuring that illegal entrants will be prosecuted when they come into the country illegally. This can be done by expanding the Del Rio, TX, zero-tolerance policy to other areas of our border so that illegal aliens who come across the border are not just met and greeted, given free meals, and taken back home, but actually are convicted of the crime that they committed when they came across the border illegally. We have seen good results from that program. And there are some other provisions that are important.

I have filed three amendments dealing with the fence. The first deals with a GAO study of the cost of the fencing. We need to know how much money has been spent thus far--there is a lot of confusion out there--how much fencing is now in place after all the money we have spent, how much it is costing and will cost the American taxpayers in the future, and whether there are better techniques and procedures by which we can build more fencing for less cost faster without significantly sacrificing quality. That is what that study would include. The Government Accountability Office regularly evaluates those kinds of issues, and I believe they will give us a valuable report that will help us in the future.

A second amendment calls for full funding of the fencing.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 that I offered, which was signed into law, requires 700 miles of fencing. This amendment which I offered would fully fund the 700 linear miles of southern border fencing required by providing $1.548 billion to be used for the construction of topographical mile 371 through 700. That is what the law requires.

The Congressional Research Service and the Department of Homeland Security have told us that 700 linear miles in the act will actually require more miles topographically; so the 700 linear miles becomes close to 854 topographical miles. So my amendment will fund the remaining 484 topographical miles of fencing not currently funded for construction by December 31, 2009.

I have drafted this amendment in two ways. One is to be paid for with an across-the-board cut, and the other is designated as emergency spending.

If we are able to adopt the amendment offered earlier today by Senator Graham and others, perhaps that will go a long way to solving the problems I have raised, but, in fact, we could go further and should go further.

My next set of amendments addresses State and local law enforcement's ability to assist Federal law enforcement. My amendment allows for some of the grant moneys appropriated by the bill to go for State and local training exercises, technical assistance, and other programs under the law. This would be a pot of up to $294 million to be used to reimburse State and local expenses related to the implementation of the INA section 287(G) agreements.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, State and local governments can sign memorandums of understanding--they are referred to as MOUs in the Government. When two foreign nations do it, they call them treaties. It is about as complex. MOUs are important--with the Department of Homeland Security to have their law enforcement officers trained to work with DHS and to enforce immigration law. That is how State and local people work together. My amendment encourages State and local governments to seek out these agreements and participate in them. The Federal Government needs to welcome State and local law enforcement's assistance at every opportunity, not discourage it.

Alabama was the second State, I am pleased to say, in the Nation to sign such an agreement. We have trained 3 classes of approximately 20 State troopers each for a total of 60 State troopers who are now "cross-designated'' to work with the immigration agency, ICE. Each class cost the State of Alabama about $40,000. The State of Alabama had to pay to train their officers in this fashion so they could participate with the Federal Government. They have spent about $120,000 to date to help the Federal Government enforce Federal immigration laws. I think we can do better. We should encourage State law enforcement officers, and we should help fund this partnership program. I have no doubt in my mind that is the right way.

Then I have an amendment that affirms State and local authority and expands of the immigration violators files in the National Crime Information Center, that is not in the Gregg amendment. My amendment would reaffirm the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to assist the Federal Government in the enforcement of immigration laws.

Confusion among the circuit courts, particularly dicta in a Ninth Circuit decision that appears to be somewhat contradictory to the Fifth and Tenth Circuits, is involved. That has led to a Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion that questioned some powers of State and local law enforcement. And then the Department of Justice withdrew that opinion. So there is uncertainty--the Presiding Officer knows how uncertain it can get involving the prosecution of cases in multiple jurisdictions--about what the power of local law enforcement is to participate in helping to enforce immigration laws.

The issue is very real. Just today in the Washington Times, there is an article about it. The article is entitled ``Virginia eyes plan to deport illegals. Panel suggests a statewide policy.'' It is being discussed all over the country. They say in that article:

Other areas, such as the role of local and State police officers in enforcing immigration law, are more ambiguous. It is not clear what the State's role is in enforcing immigration law, Mr. Cleator said.

He is senior staff lawyer for the Virginia State Crime Commission. He said it is not clear what the State role is, and there is some ambiguity, less than most people understand, but there is a perception of ambiguity, and there is some ambiguity. That is why my amendment is needed and important.

My amendment will place additional information in the National Crime Information Center's immigration violators file so that critical information on final orders of removal, revocation of visas, and expired voluntary departure agreements can be readily available to State and local law enforcement officers. They need that information so they can make the right decisions when they apprehend somebody going about their normal business on matters such as speeding and the like.

The National Crime Information Center is the bread-and-butter database of local law enforcement, and they need this information properly inputted into that computer center because the State law officers will be the ones routinely coming into contact with unlawful and deported aliens during the course of their normal duties, such as a DUI charge. They want to know something about them, and the information is not being readily placed in that computer.

Everybody knows that virtually every law enforcement officer in America who stops somebody for an offense--such as DUI, theft, burglary, robbery--runs the suspect's name in the National Crime Information Center, and this is done to determine whether there are pending charges against the suspect, whether the suspect had been convicted of other crimes or if other charges will require that the suspect be held in addition to the charge for the original stop. This is done every day through tens of thousands of inquiries to NCIC. I have discovered that they are not putting a sufficient amount of the immigration violation information in NCIC. We have to do that if we want that a lawful system of immigration to work. If someone doesn't want lawful immigration to work then they will not put that immigration violators' information in NCIC.

Another issue I have raised is Operation Jump Start. This deals with National Guard funding through the end of the year 2008 and improvement in the rules of engagement. There is funding in the Gregg amendment for this matter, but it did not include rules of engagement language.

My amendment, and a similar amendment filed by Senator Kyl for another bill, provides the funding, which is $400 million, needed to keep the current National Guard presence of 6,000 guardsmen on the southern border through the end of 2008. The administration's plan is to reduce those forces by half--down to 3,000--by September 2007. So by next summer, they want to have those numbers in half. The National Guard is working to deter illegal border crossings. They are big making a difference there. They are also helping us create the impression that our border is no longer open, that it is closed and it is not a good thing for someone to try to come across it illegally. Removing the National Guard members when they have been so successful would be premature.

If we take all these actions and keep the National Guard at the border, we can help reach that tipping point that I referred to earlier.

In addition, my amendment will allow the National Guard members to have a greater role in stopping illegal aliens along the border. National Guard members should be permitted to aid in the apprehension of illegal aliens crossing the border, at least until a Border Patrol agent comes on the scene. Today, they are only permitted to use nondeadly force for self-defense or the defense of others. So they cannot apprehend illegal aliens that they see crossing the border because they cannot use force unless it is to defend themselves or others. The rules of engagement prevent them from effectively apprehending illegal aliens. My amendment will allow those brave and effective National Guard members to apprehend illegal border crossers until the Border Patrol officer can come to their location.

Another big deal is that we want to make sure criminal aliens are deported. In effect, this language in the amendment I will offer and filed is included in the Gregg amendment. It deals with this problem. The American people understand the need to deport aliens, legal and illegal, who have committed crimes in the United States, crimes that make them deportable. We have laws that say that if you are here in a nonpermanent status and you commit a crime, then you are to be deported; nonpermanent status means that you do not have legal permanent status or citizenship in America.

And one of the conditions of that admission is that you don't commit crimes. That is not too much to ask. That is our standard. Most countries have a similar standard.

And criminal aliens should be deported, as a matter of policy, at the end of their State or local criminal sentences. They should not be allowed to slip through the cracks and be released back into society. That is not what our laws call for, but it is happening every day.

Additionally, State court judges should not be allowed to vacate convictions or to remit sentences for the purpose of allowing the alien to escape the immigration consequences of their crimes. Those events that criminal aliens are not being deported and that some criminal aliens are avoiding the immigration consequences of their crimes are of great concern to the American people and Border Patrol agents who are out there working their hearts out.

So my amendment will double the funding--$300 million--that DHS has for the institutional removal program, a program that allows DHS to identify criminal aliens while they are in jail serving State and local sentences. Once they have been identified, they go through the paperwork, and the administrative removal process can be completed while they are in jail. This allows the criminal alien to be put directly into the Department of Homeland Security's custody at the end of their prison term, so that they can be quickly deported.

My amendment expands the criminal alien program by directing that the Secretary of DHS implement a pilot project to evaluate technology to automatically identify incarcerated illegal aliens before they are released. Manpower alone won't get this job done. But if we start correctly with technology, we can make great progress. It can be a big improvement in our current system.

In addition, my amendment ensures that when a criminal alien commits a crime, then the original conviction and sentencing will stand when DHS has determined whether the alien is deportable based on their crimes. This ensures that the trial judge's decision to change the sentence or the judgment of conviction won't be able to undermine the immigration impact of the original judgment.

Madam President, we have a real problem. We have a situation in which 27 percent of the persons in the Federal and State penitentiaries are foreign born--this is an amazing number to me--and they are there for crimes other than immigration--for drugs, fraud, sexual abuse, violent crimes. Large numbers of them--the majority of them--are persons who are not citizens. They have been involved in crimes of a serious nature, and they should be deported when they complete serving their sentence for those crimes. That is what is not occurring.

In fact, we have at this moment, we believe, some 600,000 absconders. These are people who have been apprehended and ordered deported, who are told to report for deportation, or similar orders, and have just simply absconded into the country and never shown up. That is a huge number of illegal aliens that we could eliminate, or reduce, if we could handle this process of taking care of their deportation as soon as they have finished their criminal time in jail.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have implemented a zero tolerance policy at the Del Rio sector of the border. This policy makes sure that every illegal alien is prosecuted for their illegal entry into the United States. It is a misdemeanor for the first offense. It is a criminal offense, but it is a misdemeanor for the first offense of coming into our country illegally. This policy has decreased illegal entry into the Del Rio sector by 58 percent.

Now, when you consider that last year we arrested 1 million people attempting to enter our country illegally, you get an understanding of what a 58-percent reduction in illegal entries means when that kind of policy is enacted. Though there are nine border sectors, Del Rio is the only one that has such a policy. My amendment would expand the success of the Del Rio project to the two border sectors with the highest crossing rates--Tucson, AZ, and San Diego, CA.

My amendment also requires that until a zero tolerance policy is fully in place, the Department of Homeland Security must refer all illegal entries along the Tucson-San Diego sector to the respective U.S. Attorneys' Offices for prosecution. The U.S. Attorneys' Offices must then provide a formal acceptance or declaration of that prosecution request, which would then allow a record so that Congress can know what all is happening--whether additional resources are needed to fully implement this highly effective policy along the entire border. I think that is a good step in the right direction.

Also, Madam President, we have the question of affidavits of support and their lack of use and my amendment deals with that. Since 1997, most family-based and some employment-based immigrants have to have, and do have, a sponsor that guarantees the immigrant will not become a public charge. In other words, they are admitted into the country, but only on the condition that if they have financial needs, this sponsor will take care of that, not the taxpayers of the United States. That is a legitimate condition, I submit, to place on entrance into the United States.

So the sponsor would enter into a contract with the Federal Government, promising to pay back any means-tested public benefits the immigrant would receive. There are some exceptions--medical assistance, school lunch, Federal disaster relief.

To my knowledge, the Federal Government has never gone after sponsors to ensure they follow through on the commitment they have made. My amendment will require a study to be done by the Government Accountability Office to determine the number of immigrants with signed affidavits of support that are receiving or have received Federal, State, and local benefits when those immigrants really are not eligible and should have turned to their sponsors for support. A GAO study is needed to determine how much revenue the Federal Government could collect if they enforced these contracts and insisted that the individual who sponsored the person into the country actually pays what they are supposed to pay.

We need to preserve means-tested public benefits for those who are truly needy. We don't have enough money to take care of all the people in our country and shouldn't have to take care of people when they have a sponsor who promised to take care of them and promised that the sponsors would pay back the money for any benefits that the immigrants received.

So those are some of the amendments I offered. There is much that we can do to make our system of immigration at the border more effective. I would just cite that it is a matter of national security. We absolutely know that we have many people who simply want to come to America to work and don't want to cause any attack on the United States, and they are good people. They simply would like to make more money, which is available in the United States, than if they stay in their home country. But we also know that since we are not able to accept everyone who would like to come to America, we have to have rules about who can come and who cannot come and those we let come have to obey our laws.

One of the first and toughest rules should be that we don't allow people to come here who are terrorists, or have terrorist connections that could threaten our country.

Next, we need to ask ourselves how many persons should come in legally, and under what conditions, what kind of skills and abilities and education level and language skills they should have. That should be part of a good and effective immigration policy.

I will just say, however, that any such rules are absolutely worthless if we have a wide open system where people come across illegally on a regular basis and they know they have a high probability for success to come here illegally. Indeed, we know they do because we have about 12 million people here illegally.

So those are some steps I suggest we can take that will improve our legal system. I am pleased that a number of those will be included in the Gregg-Graham amendment and will not require a separate vote.

I hope we will take this responsibility seriously. I see no reason we should not undertake the actions that I have suggested, which have bipartisan support in the Congress. I hope they will not become part of some grand agreement that everything else that we can't agree on has to be a part of it. In other words, these provisions, which I think would have broad bipartisan and public support, these provisions should not be used as a vehicle to try to drag on things that people don't agree with--certainly not at this time.

So I support these amendments. I am glad we do have the Graham-Gregg-McConnell-Kyl amendment on the floor, and I support that. And I would ask these amendments be considered in due course.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source