Comprehensive Immigraton Reform Act of 2006
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been a Member of the Senate, now in my 26th year, and one of the issues that I have some regret about is voting for amnesty in the 1986 immigration bill, the last time that we had amnesty for people who illegally came to our country.
Another regret I have that has followed on is that probably we have not done enough to keep on top of our laws of anticipating when there was labor or workers needed from outside the country to come into our country, and we haven't provided then maybe the workers that we need when there aren't enough Americans to fill various jobs. That could be laborers in the case of construction, it could be service workers in the case of hotels, it could be engineers, if we don't educate enough engineers. And probably those two regrets I have relate to how I feel about the present legislation before the Senate.
I have looked back at my vote for amnesty, and I have tried to recall as best I can 20 years back. But it seems to me that I was convinced at that time that if we had amnesty along with worker verification, along with sanctions against workers, which I think was set in the law with a $10,000 fine, we would solve all of our illegal immigration problems.
Well, at that particular time, we did not predict and foresee the development of an industry of fraudulent documentmaking, so that if I came to this country illegally and I went in to get a job and I showed a passport that looked like the real thing but was fraudulent, and the employer didn't see the difference and they hired me, then he was absolved of any responsibility for willfully hiring a person illegally in this country. And amnesty was supposed to work with that to legalize 1 million people who were illegally in the country at that particular time.
So looking back now 20 years, it seems as though we winked at abuse of the law, and it gives credibility to people who think they can avoid the law because there is never going to be a penalty for it. So what was a 1 million-person problem in 1986, today the number is up to a 12 million-person problem, people coming into this country illegally.
So I have some apologies to the people of this country because I made a judgment that amnesty in 1986 would solve our problems, and ignoring illegality, I find, has encouraged further illegality, and we have 12 million people now in the country illegally.
Then I wonder whether, now that I am 72 years old, 20 years down the road when my successor is in office will they be dealing with an illegal alien problem of 25 million. Another thing I learned from 1986 was that we allowed family members of people who were here illegally to then come to the head of the line, and instead of legalizing 1 million people, we probably made it possible for 3 million people to be in this country as opposed to waiting to come in under the normal process. Then, the other part of it, to repeat, is maybe if we had been a little more on top of the employment situation in the United States in recent years, we would have changed our laws so that more people could come legally to this country to work.
Having learned from those lessons--obviously I have been burned once on the issue of amnesty--I am not sure I want to be burned twice on the issue of amnesty.
Of course, at this point, with 1 more week to go in the debate on this bill and many amendments, I don't know, there might be a bill I can vote for. But I don't think I am prepared to vote for amnesty again. I am not prepared to vote for amnesty again and then create a problem 20 years down the road for our successors to have yet a bigger problem.
I think we have learned in America that we are a nation of the rule of law and that we ought to enforce the law. I think we made a mistake by ignoring illegality in 1986 because it encouraged further illegality. It is a little bit like getting crime under control in New York City. When Mayor Giuliani first came into office, he decided that the way to get at big crime was not to allow the petty crime. He went to work concentrating on people who were abusing the law even in a minimal sense. Soon it made an impact that he was going to be tough on crime, and pretty soon you found a great reduction in major crime. If we start enforcing our immigration laws and if at the same time we have a realistic law for people to legally come to this country, then maybe we will be able to get the sovereignty of our Nation to what it is supposed to be, and that is at least the controlling of our borders.
One of the things I wish to make clear is that there is a guest worker program used in place of amnesty. I understood previous speakers to say you can earn your way to legality, you can earn your way to citizenship. There are a lot of people who commit crimes who never get a chance to work their way out of that crime. It probably signals to people in other lands a softness of our concern about whether people come here obeying our laws and sends a signal that it is OK to disregard our laws. So a guest worker program that is used to cover up amnesty I can't buy into.
There are proposals connected with this bill to allow people to come here legally to work, to have a job and to have papers when they cross the border to come into our country to work. We are expanding some of those provisions for people to legally come to this country, and we are inviting people to come in as guest workers.
My belief is people would rather come to work legally than illegally. If we had a temporary worker program that was not a bureaucratic nightmare and people who wanted to work in America and had a job in America knew they could come here legally, they would choose the legal way to come as opposed to the illegal way to come. I believe if we had such a program that worked and was efficient and people could count on it, including employers counting on it, then pretty soon, one by one, we would have legal workers replacing illegal workers because surely employers would rather hire people who came here legally.
If we are going to have an amnesty program, it ought to be one about which people can at least say that it meets the commonsense test, that it is not a joke, that it is a real, serious effort to make people earn their way to citizenship. I want to point out some things in the present bill before the Senate that do not meet the laugh test, as far as amnesty is concerned.
The biggest flaw is providing legal status to 12 million people who are breaking our law by coming here illegally. Not only do we give amnesty to those who are here, but we give it to spouses and children in their home countries. In 1986, I voted for amnesty. I was burned once. I don't want to be burned twice. With a 1 million-people problem at that time, we actually ended up maybe with 3 million people coming here under the laws we passed at that time, particularly considering family. If it is 12 million people we are talking about now, and 3 times that, are we talking about 36 million people as opposed to 12 million people? Amnesty is giving a free ride to 12 million people, and maybe 36 million people if you consider 3 for 1. That was the lesson we learned in 1986.
Let's look at the so-called earned legalization provisions. Proponents of the bill say that an alien has to pay their taxes, pay a fine, learn English, and get in the back of the line--the line leading to legalization, the line that eventually could lead to citizenship.
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues who say that they are earning their citizenship. I will go into detail about each of these provisions, starting with the $2,000 fine. An illegal alien can go from illegal to legal just by paying a fine of $2,000. That is chump change, particularly considering that the same people could have paid a smuggler five times that amount to get across the border in the first place. This is not a heavy fine for the law that they broke. People here illegally knowingly crossed our border and overstayed their visa each day. They get legal status overnight for a small price; $2,000 is a small price to pay for citizenship, especially since they have been working in the country and making a living for over 5 years. This fine is nothing but a slap on the hand, and it doesn't fit the illegality involved.
The fine of $2,000 isn't due right away. In other words, you don't have to pay it right away. For those in the amnesty program, what is called the first-tier program, aliens here illegally are supposed to pay a fine of $2,000. However, the way the bill is written, many aliens here illegally may not have to pay that fine until year 8, 8 years from that point. The bill says that the $2,000 fine has to be paid, in the words of the legislation, ``prior to adjudication.'' What does that mean? The fine is not going to be required up front. If it is left the way it is, then the alien here illegally can live, work, and play in our country and is immune from deportation, all without paying any fine for maybe up to 8 years and all the time imposing a financial burden on local taxpayers for health, education, and infrastructure costs that are not reimbursed for 5 to 10 years.
Let's look at the requirement about learning English and civics. Under the bill, an illegal alien could fulfill the requirement of learning English history and U.S. Government by ``pursuing a course of study.'' Until Senator Inhofe's amendment last week, the alien didn't have to show their understanding of English or civics, yet the authors of this legislation wanted us to believe that in order to get this legal status, you had to show proficiency in English and understand how our political system works. The Inhofe amendment took care of that, but it was certainly a low bar for people illegally in our country to meet.
On the issue of paying taxes: Under the bill, aliens illegally in our country only have to pay 3 of the last years in back taxes. Let me ask any taxpayer, wouldn't you like to have the choice of only paying taxes on 3 out of any 5 years? But that is supposed to be a step toward earning your way to citizenship. Why, if any of us did that and fraud was involved, we would be in jail. At the very least, you would have to pay all your taxes for all those years and pay fines and penalties. But, no, people illegally in our country get an option. You don't get an option; my constituents don't get an option, what years they want to pay back taxes. We have a tax gap of $345 billion in this country, taxes that the IRS is owed but that are not collected. Of course, this makes the problem even worse. This bill would treat tax law breakers better than the American people. Let's make the alien who is here illegally, who gets amnesty, pay all outstanding tax liabilities. That is the only way this bill--or at least the portion of this bill we call amnesty--can meet the commonsense test.
On the issue of payment of taxes and the burden that might cause for the IRS, that is another portion of this bill that doesn't meet the commonsense test. Under the bill, the Internal Revenue Service has to prove that an alien here illegally has paid their back taxes. Frankly, it will be impossible for the Internal Revenue Service to truly enforce this because the Agency cannot audit every single person in the country.
I am chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Service. I can tell you that the tax man is going to have a difficult time verifying whether an individual owes any taxes. Why aren't we putting the burden on the aliens? They need to go back and they need to figure out what they owe. That is what each one of us does every spring between January and April 15, before we file our taxes. We figure out how much we owe, and we have to pay what we owe. Then in turn let who is here illegally certify to the Internal Revenue Service that they have paid their dues.
I have an amendment to fix this language and allow the IRS to devise a system to make that work. But the end result for this chairman of the Finance Committee is that these people who are here illegally should not have a better tax posture toward the IRS than any other hard-working American man and woman.
Now I want to go to security clearances to be given in 90 days, another part of this bill that doesn't meet the commonsense test. The compromise would require the Department of Homeland Security to do a background check on aliens who are here illegally. In fact, this compromise has placed a time limit on our Federal agents. The bill encourages the Federal Government to complete the background checks on 10 million aliens who are here illegally within 90 days. Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine taking care of background checks on 10 million people in 90 days? That doesn't meet the commonsense test. It is unrealistic. It is not only unrealistic, it is impossible, and a huge burden, as you can see, and a huge expense. Homeland Security will surely try to hurry with those background checks. They will pressure Congress to rush them. There will be a lot of rubberstamping of applications despite possible gang participation, criminal activity, terrorist ties, or other violations of our laws.
I am not talking about the vast majority of people who are working in America and here illegally. I am talking about a small percentage of these people. But with that small percentage, we ought to be sure our national security concerns are taken care of, and, no, we should not be rushing these clearances through in 90 days.
When it comes to criminal activity, terrorist ties, other violations of the law, and gang participation, that is not true. I will bet that 99 percent of the people who are here illegally, who are working hard to improve their lot in life but still here illegally, violating our laws, want a better life. But a small group of them, we have to know that they are not a national security risk. And you can't do that in 90 days with 10 million people.
Let's talk about during the amnesty process and people having to go to the back of the line to work their way toward citizenship. The proponents say the aliens who are illegal would have to go to the back of the line so they are not getting ahead of those who use our legal channels. That whole approach, if you are going to have amnesty, is the way to do it. This doesn't meet the commonsense test, but someone has to explain to me actually how it works.
This is important because at my town meetings--I had 19 town meetings in Iowa during the Easter break--some of the most vociferous statements against amnesty were made by naturalized citizens who said: How come I had to go through all these things and stand in line for long periods of time to become a citizen or even be legally in this country and you are going to move all of these other people to the head of the line?
The theory is that they are going to take care of that criticism in this bill, but it isn't very practical. How is the Citizenship and Immigration Service going to keep track of these people? They can't even count right because they give out more visas than the law requires. Besides, an alien on an amnesty track is getting the benefits that people in their home countries waiting in line to come here legally can't get. This whole process denigrates the value of legal immigration.
While here, they get to travel, send their kids to school, open a business, and get health services. Is that really going to the back of the line?
The work requirements also don't meet the commonsense test. The bill says that an illegal alien has to prove that they have worked in the United States for 3 of the last 5 years. It also says they have to work for 6 years after the date of enactment. However, there is no continuous work requirement through amnesty. So you could work 30 days on, 30 days off, 30 days on. It is dishonest to say these people are working the entire time.
Let's get to the evidence of that work history which the bill requires. It says a person illegally in the United States has to prove they have worked in the United States 3 of the last 5 years. How do you do that? They can show the IRS or Social Security Administration records or records maintained by Federal, State, and local governments. Their employer can attest that they have been working; their labor union or day labor center can attest, but that is not all. It might meet the commonsense test. But if you can't get records from the IRS or the labor union, you can ask anybody to attest that you have been employed. The bill doesn't even prohibit the alien to attest themselves. Anybody, including a friend, a neighbor, a man on the street, could sign the attestation.
This opens the door to fraud. The Government cannot realistically investigate them. Senator Vitter tightened this loophole, but sworn affidavits still exist. This is an issue of confidentiality in reporting. If an alien illegally in the country is applying for amnesty, the Federal Government cannot use information provided in the application by adjudication; that is, adjudicating that petition. If aliens illegally in the country write in their application that they are related to, let's say, Bin Laden, then our Government cannot use that information. In fact, it says that the Secretary of Homeland Security can only share that information if someone requests it in writing.
Why shouldn't the Secretary be required to provide that information to the CIA? If we can link an alien to a drug trafficking kingpin, then why shouldn't the application be a source of intelligence?
This provision severely handicaps our national security and criminal investigators, and again a provision in this bill that doesn't meet the commonsense test.
Let's look at the so-called $10,000 fine for bureaucrats. Let's say a Federal agent uses the information I just spoke about by an alien in an application for amnesty. Under the bill, the agent would be fined $10,000. Yes, fined five times more than the alien has to pay to get amnesty in the first place. That does not pass the commonsense test.
Let's look at qualifying for Social Security for aliens who are here illegally. The bill does not prohibit illegal aliens from getting credit for the money they put into the Social Security system if they worked in the United States illegally. Immigrants here illegally who paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security number did not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social Security benefits. They paid those taxes solely as a cost of doing their job. They never paid into the system with a reasonable expectation that they would receive any benefits. People who have broken the law should not be able to collect benefits based upon unlawful conduct. Their conduct has caused damage to countless numbers of American citizens and legal immigrants. Because of breaking our law, the victims are faced with Internal Revenue audits for unpaid taxes. Americans have trouble finding their own jobs and are left to reclaim the credit and clear up their personnel information. The Enzi amendment would have taken care of this, but it did not pass.
Our Members, again, gave up an opportunity of having this legislation meet another commonsense test. Employers get a criminal pardon for hiring illegal aliens under this bill. Not only does this bill legalize people who are here illegally, it is going to pardon employers who committed criminal activity in hiring illegal aliens in the first place.
The bill says employers of aliens applying for adjustment status ``shall not be subject to civil or criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such aliens.''
That means a business that hired illegal workers now gets off Scott-free from paying the taxes they should have paid. This encourages employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the Federal Government. Why should they get off the hook?
What damage are we doing, once again as we did in 1986, in ignoring the breaking of law, giving amnesty and encouraging further disregard for the law in the future?
In addition to not having to pay their taxes, employers are also off the hook for providing illegal aliens with records or evidence that they have worked in the United States. The employers are not subject to civil or criminal liability for having employed illegal aliens in the past or before enactment.
Then fines for failing to depart, for aliens illegally in this country--those in what the bill calls the second tier who have been here for a period of time, from 2 years to 5 years, they must depart and reenter. If an alien doesn't depart immediately, they face a fine of $2,000. If they don't leave within 3 years, they get a $3,000 fine. These fines are not incentives for aliens to leave. They could then live in the United States for up to 3 years without facing deportation. There is no requirement for them to leave immediately.
Take a look at that subtlety in this legislation. If you want to be satisfied with paying a $3,000 fine, you can stay here an additional 3 years illegally, and we presumably know that you are here illegally.
The second-tier employment requirements--these illegal aliens also have to prove that they have been working in the United States since January 7, 2004. They can prove it by attesting to the Federal Government or an employer, not necessarily the one that employed them. They can also get around the requirement by providing bank records, business records, sworn affidavits, or remittance records.
Since when does proof of sending money back to Mexico prove employment? That, too, doesn't meet the commonsense test and is another case where the legislation talks about mandatory departure. It really is not mandatory.
The bill says the Secretary of Homeland Security may grant deferred mandatory departure for aliens here illegally in the 2- to 5-year category. He may, the law says, also waive the departure requirement if it would create a substantial hardship for the alien to leave.
In this legislation, there is a waiver interview requirement. Illegal aliens in the second tier who are required to leave the country can reenter the United States on a visa, but the bill says they do not have to be interviewed. In fact, it doesn't even give discretion to our consular officers around the world to require an interview.
I have advocated for in-person interviews since 9/11, especially since the hijackers weren't subject to appear in person. Today, the State Department is requiring interviews for most applicants and waives them for certain people, particularly those over 60 years of age.
If an adjudicator wants to have an interview before giving a person a visa, they should have the power to do it.
Guest workers, under the provisions of this compromise, can become permanent workers. Unlike almost all visas, the H-2C visa can be used as an avenue to legal permanent residence and citizenship. The H-2C visa was created as a temporary worker program. In fact, the alien, at the time of application, has to prove they did not plan to abandon their residence in the foreign country. However, the visa can be redeemed for legal permanent residence after only 1 year in the United States.
H-2C workers can self-petition under this compromise. No other visa program allows an alien to petition for himself or herself to go from temporary worker to seeking citizenship. After 4 years, the alien can sponsor themselves for permanent residence in the United States. We had an amendment to tighten this provision, but the self-petition measure is still in the bill.
Family members of H-2C visa holders need not be healthy. Under current law, aliens must prove they are admissible and meet certain health standards. Many times, visa applicants must have a medical exam to show they do not have communicable diseases. They have to be up to date on immunizations and cannot have mental disorders. Spouses and children of H-2C visa holders, however, are exempt from this requirement. I have an amendment to fix this provision.
The H-1B visa cap can increase automatically. The annual cap is increased from 65,000 to 115,000, but it contains an
additional built-in escalator. If the cap is reached in 1 year, it can be increased by 20 percent the next year. It cannot be decreased; it can only go up.
There will be no serious evaluation of the need for foreign workers, and Congress loses its control over importation of cheaper labor.
There are no strings attached in this bill to new student visas. The bill creates a new visa that lowers the bar for foreign students who wish to come here and study math, science, and engineering. They can work off campus while in school, thus taking American jobs. They also can easily adjust from a student to a U.S. worker. They do not have to prove they will return to their home country when applying for the visa. Why would a student come here to study anything if they could be approved instantly without the requirement of the old visa system? Have some people forgotten that the September 11 terrorists came on student visas?
Now the US-VISIT provision. Congress mandated in 1996 the entry-exit system known to us under the acronym of US-VISIT. This program was authorized 10 years ago. It is still not up and running.
The bill says Homeland Security has to give Congress a schedule for equipping all land border ports of entry and making the system interoperable with other screening systems. Why, oh why, aren't they getting this job done? Why does Congress give the agency more time to get this system running? It does not make sense for us to ask for another timeline; it seems sensible just to get it done.
In the final analysis, I am probably only 1 of 15 Senators still in this Senate since the 1986 immigration law was passed, but I was led to believe in 1986 that by voting for amnesty with employer sanctions, we would solve our illegal immigration problem. It just encouraged further illegal immigration. I quantify that by saying it was a 1 million-person program in 1986. Today, it is a 12 million-person problem. And 20 years from now, if we do not do it right this time, it is going to be a 25 million-person problem. You get burned once, but you should not get burned twice or you have not learned anything. In the process, we ought to get it right this time. I don't think granting amnesty 20 years after we made the first mistake is the way to do it.
I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/