[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6598-S6622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, what is the pending business before 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dodd amendment No. 1199.


                Amendment No. 1194 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside 
in order to call up amendment No. 1194.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself and 
     Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Obama, Mr. 
     Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1194 to amendment No. 1150.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1194

   (Purpose: To modify the deadline for the family backlog reduction)

       In paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of the quoted matter 
     under section 501(a), strike ``567,000'' and insert 
     ``677,000''.
       In the fourth item contained in the second column of the 
     row relating to extended family of the table contained in 
     subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of the quoted matter under 
     section 502(b)(1), strike ``May 1, 2005'' and insert 
     ``January 1, 2007''.
       In paragraph (3) of the quoted matter under section 
     503(c)(3), strike ``May 1, 2005'' and insert ``January 1, 
     2007''.
       In paragraph (3) of the quoted matter under section 
     503(c)(3), strike ``440,000'' and insert ``550,000''.
       In subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter 
     under section 503(c)(3), strike ``70,400'' and insert 
     ``88,000''.
       In subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter 
     under section 503(c)(3), strike ``110,000'' and insert 
     ``137,500''.
       In subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter 
     under section 503(c)(3), strike ``70,400'' and insert 
     ``88,000''.
       In subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter 
     under section 503(c)(3), strike ``189,200'' and insert 
     ``236,500''.
       In paragraph (2) of section 503(e), strike ``May 1, 2005'' 
     each place it appears and insert ``January 1, 2007''.
       In paragraph (1) of section 503(f), strike ``May 1, 2005'' 
     and insert ``January 1, 2007,''.
       In paragraph (6) of the quoted matter under section 508(b), 
     strike ``May 1, 2005'' and insert ``January 1, 2007''.
       In paragraph (5) of section 602(a), strike ``May 1, 2005'' 
     and insert ``January 1, 2007''.
       In subparagraph (A) of section 214A(j)(7) of the quoted 
     matter under section 622(b), strike ``May 1, 2005'' and 
     insert ``January 1, 2007''.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye be added as 
cosponsors of this amendment, along with Senator Hagel and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the legislation currently before us 
curtails the ability of American citizens, or U.S. permanent residents, 
to petition for their families to be reunified here in America. Right 
now, if the bill goes untouched, this bill sets two different standards 
for groups of people, and it sets it in a way that is fundamentally 
unfair. One group is those who have followed the law and obeyed the 
rules by having their U.S. citizen relative or U.S. lawful permanent 
resident petition to bring them into this country legally, and one more 
favorably--it treats the next group much more favorably, one who has 
entered or remained in the country without proper documentation. So 
those who have obeyed the rules, followed the law, relatives of U.S. 
citizens, get treated in an inferior way to those who have not followed 
the law, who get treated in a better way. Let me explain how.
  The Menendez-Hagel amendment simply states that at a minimum, the two 
groups should be treated equally under the bill. Our amendment is about 
fundamental fairness. All this amendment does is to make sure both 
groups face the same cutoff date.
  Right now, those who are in our Nation in an undocumented status are 
allowed under the bill to potentially earn permanent residency so long 
as they entered this country before January 1, 2007. All our amendment 
says is that those who followed the rules who are waiting outside of 
the country who are the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens shouldn't 
be treated worse because they obeyed the law and followed the rules. 
They should at least be treated the same, not worse. Therefore, they 
should have the same date: January 1, 2007. All this amendment does is 
simply apply the same standard, the same cutoff date to those who 
followed the rules so that those who did obey the law and who legally 
applied for their green card can potentially earn permanent residency 
so long as they apply for their visa before January 1, 2007.
  Now, this is a somewhat complicated issue, so let me explain exactly 
what the legislation as it is currently drafted does if we don't adopt 
this amendment. Right now, there is a family

[[Page S6599]]

backlog of people who have applied for legal permanent residency. These 
are the people waiting outside of the country, waiting as they are 
claimed and have their petitions by a U.S. citizen or permanent 
resident saying: I want to bring my father or my mother here. I want to 
bring my child here. I want to bring my brother or sister here. This 
legislation, as currently drafted, does away with the rights of U.S. 
citizens to make that claim if, in fact, those individuals have not 
filed their application before May 1, 2005.
  It is important to pay attention to that May 1, 2005 date because it 
is nearly 2 years before the cutoff for people who are here in an 
undocumented status--those who didn't follow the law, obey the rules, 
and those who may obviously have no U.S. citizen to claim them. So it 
actually says to a U.S. citizen and a U.S. permanent resident: You have 
an inferior right and a right that is now lost because it exists under 
the law as it is today. That right is lost, and your right is inferior 
to the rights of those individuals who have not followed the rules and 
obeyed the law. So as this bill seeks to clear the legal family 
backlog, we say: Don't treat a U.S. citizen worse. Don't treat a U.S. 
citizen worse. The legislation as currently drafted sets this arbitrary 
date of May 1, 2005, yet gives everybody else who didn't follow the law 
the date of January 1, 2007. That means a lot of family gets cut off. 
The rights of U.S. citizens get cut off as well.
  Right now, the legislation also says that if you overstayed a visa or 
came to this country without proper documentation before January 1, 
2007, you can ultimately become a lawful, permanent resident between 
the 9th and 13th year of the process that the bill describes. But if 
you applied for a visa outside of the country and you applied by a U.S. 
citizen or permanent resident and you followed the rules, there is no--
no--guarantee you will ever be able to be reunified with your family.
  Our amendment would remedy this injustice by moving the cutoff date 
for those who legally applied for visas to January 1, 2007--the same 
cutoff date that is currently set for the legalization of undocumented 
immigrants. And we would add the appropriate number of green cards to 
ensure we don't create a new backlog or cause the 8-year deadline for 
clearing the family backlog to slip by a few years. So we stay within 
the framework of the underlying bill; we just bring justice and 
fairness to the bill for those who have obeyed the law, followed the 
rules, and are the family members of U.S. citizens.
  Now, why shouldn't legal applicants be able to keep their place in 
line if they applied before January of 2007? Clearly, this legislation, 
as it is currently written, is unfair to those who legally applied for 
a visa. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules 
lose their place in line. The legislation unfairly says that those who 
followed the rules will have to wait at least an additional 8 years 
before they even become eligible to compete--eligible to compete--for a 
new proposed merit-based green card. The legislation unfairly says that 
those who followed the rules would have to wait a total of 10 years in 
addition to the time they have been waiting--in addition to the time 
they have been waiting--before they are eligible to compete under a new 
and different system, with a different set of rules, and no guarantee 
they will ever be able to be reunited with their family member, that 
U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Clearly, at a minimum, we should 
allow those who played by the rules to have the same cutoff date of 
January 1, 2007.
  Now, not only is it unfair to make people who follow the rules wait 
longer than those who chose not to, it is also wrong to make people who 
applied under our current system have to reapply under a totally 
different one. Those who applied on May 1, 2005, or after, applied 
under our current immigration system that values family ties and 
employment at a premium, unlike under this bill, would now be subject 
to a completely different standard that is primarily concerned with 
education and skill levels. This is like changing the rules of the game 
halfway through it. People who applied after May 2005 would not only 
lose credit for the up to 2 years they have been waiting under the 
legal process, they would also have to apply under a completely 
different system than the one under which they originally applied.
  Now, let's think of how fundamentally unfair that is.
  In this photo is the late Marine LCpl Jose Antonio Gutierrez, a 
permanent resident of the United States--the first American casualty in 
the war in Iraq. For people similar to the late Jose Antonio Gutierrez 
who served their country, for them, under this bill--he was not only 
here legally but was serving his country--oh, no, you apply for your 
family by May 1, 2005, or, sorry, we will give those people who don't 
follow the rules and obey the law a preference. But you, who served 
your country, you who wore the uniform, you who have done everything 
right--no, you have an inferior right.
  Is that the legacy we leave to people who have served their country, 
a legal permanent resident? Sometimes people don't even know we have 
legal permanent residents fighting in the service of the United 
States--tens of thousands. That is fundamentally unfair.
  In this photo is another group of lawful permanent residents, ``first 
called to duty.'' They were in different services of the Armed Forces 
of the United States, serving their country, in harm's way. Guess what. 
Under the bill, you have family abroad, you applied for them, you did 
the right thing, and you told them to wait. After May 1, 2005, sorry, 
Charlie, your right is gone, just like that. Your value and service 
doesn't matter. All these soldiers, sailors, and marines--all different 
services--all of them are ultimately serving their country.
  Under this bill, we take people such as them, and so many others, and 
vitiate their rights. That is fundamentally unfair. These people not 
only are serving our country abroad, they are protecting our airports, 
our seaports, and our borders. They risk their lives in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and around the world to protect us at home. To petition for your 
sister to come to live with you in America, you lose that right if you 
filed after May 1, 2005. You didn't do the right thing, but you get the 
benefit of 2 years more than those who obeyed the laws and followed the 
rules--brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. 
It is hard to imagine that one would have that right taken away from 
them.
  Here is another case for you to consider. You are a U.S. citizen, you 
have paid your taxes, you have served your Nation, you attend church, 
and you make a good living. You are a good citizen. You petition to 
have your adult child come to America, but you did so after the 
arbitrary date of May 1, 2005. Under this bill, that U.S. citizen would 
lose their right. However, those undocumented in the country after May 
1, 2005, get a benefit. It is hard to imagine, but it is true.
  Right now, this bill is unfair and nonsensical, capriciously 
punishing those who have followed the rules and legally applied for a 
green card. What message, then, do we send? I have heard a lot about 
the rule of law, a lot about waiting in line, a lot about all those who 
should have followed our immigration laws. Yet what message does the 
bill send? You followed it, but your rights are vitiated, taken away--
not the rights of the family member waiting abroad to come here, it is 
the rights of the U.S. citizen to make the claim for that individual. 
That is what bothers me about the underlying legislation. They are 
taking my right away and your right away as a U.S. citizen.
  We must make sure that people who have played by the rules and 
legally applied to immigrate here are not arbitrarily placed at a 
disadvantage in respect to those who are in this country in an 
undocumented status. As I have said many times before, comprehensive 
immigration reform must be tough but must also be practical and fair 
and tough on border security. Certainly, we have done that here--this 
bill even moved more to the right--by providing a pathway to earned 
citizenship.
  At the same time, we have to be fair by rewarding those who have 
followed the law. I think we have to remain true to those principles. 
Let me give you a little sense of this. I have heard a lot about chain 
migration. You know, it is interesting, we have seen during history 
that when we want to dehumanize something, take out the humanity of 
something, when we want to make it an abstract object, we find a word 
or a

[[Page S6600]]

phrase for it, such as chain migration. I have heard a lot about what a 
``nuclear family'' is and is not.
  I will use these paperclips to demonstrate this. I always thought a 
mother or father, son or daughter, brother and sister was not a chain; 
I thought that was a circle of strength. It is a circle of strength 
within our community. It is a sense of what our society is all about, 
regardless of what altar you worship at, what creed you believe in. I 
thought, when I heard the speeches of family values on the floor, that 
this was a circle of strength and dignity and the very essence of what 
is essential for our communities to grow and prosper.
  What does this bill do? It says that is not a value--a mother, 
father, son, daughter, brother, sister. It is not a value. That is what 
this bill does. Let me tell you what family values have meant to this 
country. Here on the chart are names of Americans who had immigrant 
parents. A lot of them probably could not have come to this country 
under the bill as proposed. Look at what their offspring have provided 
for this country.

  A gentleman known as General Petraeus happens to be leading our 
efforts in Iraq. He is our big hope to turn it around. He had immigrant 
parents.
  Thomas Edison, from my home State of New Jersey, Menlo Park, invented 
electricity. He may not have been the originator of that in this 
country if his parents had not come here.
  Martin Sheen, from the show ``West Wing,'' would not have been here 
under this bill.
  Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine, which was a great achievement. 
His parents would have likely not made it here under this bill.
  Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, former chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff--he is somebody who is admired on both sides of the 
aisle--he would not have made it here under this bill.
  Antonin Scalia--I may not agree with him all the time, but he is a 
distinguished member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Several 
of these names you might recognize as Republicans. He would not have 
likely made it here under the bill as proposed; Carl Sandburg, a great 
poet, who wrote of our humanity as a people; the late Peter Jennings, 
who talked to us every night on television.
  These are all people who have contributed in so many different ways 
to our country because their parents came to America. Family values 
have enriched America.
  Let me give you another group of citizens. These, unlike those others 
who were born in the United States, are naturalized U.S. citizens, 
meaning they weren't born in this country. They came here through the 
immigration process of our country. I would like to think some of them 
have contributed some good things:
  The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am not sure he 
would have made it into this country; Henry Kissinger, former Secretary 
of State; Ted Koppel, who brought us the news on ``Nightline:'' Levi 
Strauss, you have probably worn his products; Desi Arnez, one of my 
favorites, a Cuban immigrant, who loved Lucy every day on national TV; 
Bob Hope was a naturalized U.S. citizen. He brought an enormous amount 
of joy to our service men and women across the globe; Patrick Ewing, a 
great basketball player; Oscar de la Renta, a great designer; Liz 
Claiborne; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Albert 
Einstein. His parents never would have made it under this bill; Andrew 
Carnegie of the Carnegie Foundation; Joseph Pulitzer, of Pulitzer Prize 
fame; Michael J. Fox, who talks to us every day about the necessity for 
stem cell research and the incredible challenges of Americans with 
Parkinson's. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
  The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that under this bill, so 
many of those, such as General Petraeus, Colin Powell, Thomas Edison, 
and Antonin Scalia, whose parents came to this country and therefore 
gave them the opportunity to be born in America, they would not have 
made it under this bill. Family values. Those who did not have the good 
fortune to be born here, but because their parents immigrated here, 
were naturalized U.S. citizens. They have contributed greatly.
  So let's not dehumanize this reality. This isn't about ``chain 
migration.'' This isn't about some abstract sense of how we try to 
change a very important concept--family, family values, reunification, 
strengthening communities, and having great Americans who have altered 
the course of history and made this country the greatest experiment and 
country in the history of the world.
  Our amendment simply says to all those who have espoused family 
values, it is time to put your vote with your values. It says don't 
snuff out the right of a U.S. citizen or a U.S. permanent resident, 
these guys in this picture--don't snuff out their right, all permanent 
residents of the U.S. originally, don't snuff out their rights to be 
able to claim family members. Don't treat those of us who are U.S. 
citizens and legal permanent residents worse than those people who 
didn't obey the law, follow the rules, and came into the country. Don't 
do this. At least treat us equally. At least treat us equally.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from New 
Jersey and the passion and value he brings to this debate; it is 
tremendous, and we are all better for it. I am grateful to him.
  I rise this afternoon to, once again, discuss the dire need we have 
in this country and in our communities for comprehensive immigration 
reform. I do believe the debate on immigration reform has been the kind 
of meaningful, bipartisan approach in the Senate--with Senators Kyl and 
Kennedy working together, Senator McConnell and Leader Reid working 
together--this is a bipartisan approach and the debate the American 
people expect out of the Senate.
  I am proud we are moving forward on it because of the immediate need 
but also the way we are going about this process.
  Despite the Senate's success in producing a bipartisan bill last 
year, the issue still has not been resolved. There is still much to be 
questioned, and we are working through that.
  The majority of my colleagues will agree that our Nation's current 
immigration system is badly broken, it is out of date, and it 
desperately needs to be fixed. I plan to look for any plan that we can 
support that is tough and practical and fair in dealing with this ever-
increasing issue.
  Without a doubt, the top priority must be the safety and security of 
our country, as well as the economic needs of industry, U.S. citizens, 
and immigrants. But most importantly, the security issue is one of our 
top priorities.
  I am so pleased the underlying bill includes triggers to require that 
Border Patrol agents are significantly increased and vehicle barriers 
and fencing are installed along the southern border with Mexico before 
any of the other provisions can even begin, making sure that we are 
taking care of what we know we can do and we can do quickly.
  I believe this bill is a work in progress, though, just as any other 
bill we bring before the Senate--working hard through the committee 
process and through years of debate, but also recognizing that we are 
not here to create a work of art but to create a work in progress. 
Through these debates and actually through implementation, we learn 
what works and what doesn't work, what the current needs of our country 
are. But as we move forward with implementation, we learn the future 
needs.
  If we debate reform in this bill in the coming days and weeks, we 
must also address other important issues. As I stated during last 
year's debate, my home State of Arkansas had the largest per capita 
increase of the Hispanic population of any State in the Nation during 
the last census. Arkansas has become what is referred to as an emerging 
Hispanic community, with largely first-generation immigrants. These 
immigrants have had a dramatic impact on our communities and our 
economy.
  The majority of immigrants in my State came to the United States 
because they wanted an opportunity to work hard and achieve a better 
life for themselves and for their families. However, I believe it is to 
the detriment, oftentimes, of taxpaying Americans if we don't address 
the millions of illegal

[[Page S6601]]

immigrants living in our communities. We have to do so in a practical 
way, in a realistic way of how we effectively use the tax dollars we 
have, along with the rules and regulations and realistic barriers that 
we can put into place to rein in the problem that exists today in this 
country.
  No reform proposal should grant amnesty. Amnesty is total unqualified 
forgiveness without restitution, and no policy should provide amnesty. 
This policy does not, nor did the one we passed in the last session of 
Congress. I don't think it is fair to the citizens of this Nation or to 
those immigrants who do play by the rules to come into this great land. 
Those who have broken the law, including employers who knowingly hire 
illegal immigrants, must face proper recourse.
  However, I also don't believe it is practical, wise, or even, quite 
frankly, an economic reality to think that we can simply round up and 
deport all of the illegal immigrants who are residing in this country 
today. That is why I support an approach that includes serious 
consequences for those who are in our country illegally and yet want to 
remain. We create an earned path to citizenship and tough enforcement 
policies for businesses and those who are working toward that 
citizenship. We can eliminate the shadow economy that encourages 
illegal immigration.
  According to the bill being debated, all undocumented immigrants who 
arrive in the United States before January 1, 2007, will be required to 
pay a hefty fine, a $5,000 fine, go to the end of the line, and wait 8 
years before a green card can be issued, putting into place stiff 
regulations and expectations of those who have come here against the 
rules and yet want to remain, putting them at the back of the line not 
at the front.
  In addition, a touchback provision has been included that will 
require the head of a household to return to his or her country of 
origin to apply for a green card before being allowed to return. Many 
of us know how absolutely precious citizenship in this great land is. 
When I first ran for Congress, I can remember the first thing my father 
told me. I was a young single woman out campaigning and pleading with 
my fellow Arkansans in east Arkansas, people I had known ever since I 
was born, people who had helped raise me, those I had grown up around.
  My father said: Never, ever, ever miss an opportunity to ask someone 
for their vote. He said: When you have something that precious, you 
want to be asked for it.
  Citizenship in this great country, just as that vote, is a precious 
gift, and we, as Arkansans and Americans, know that anything similar 
that precious is worth working for.
  That is why these provisions are important because it demonstrates 
that citizenship is something that must be earned and is not free.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am sorry, I didn't know I had a 
restricted time limit. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for an 
additional 2 minutes for the Senator from Arkansas? Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as I said, citizenship in this country is not free, 
and it is something that has to be earned and worked for, and that is 
what this bill requires.
  I also believe any plan must consider guest workers. Many business 
leaders throughout our great State of Arkansas have told me about the 
valuable contribution that legal immigrant workers have made to the 
economic growth we have seen. It is my belief these workers are vital 
to sustained growth and development of many industries and farming 
communities throughout our land. However, we must ensure that adequate 
safeguards are in place to prevent guest workers from taking jobs from 
U.S. workers or driving down wages and benefits for hard-working 
Americans. We have seen that in this bill, and we will continue to work 
to strengthen it.
  I am pleased the immigration reform legislation we are currently 
debating contains provisions that will improve our agricultural guest 
worker program which will benefit our Nation's farmers.
  We stand at a crossroads in this country. Over the last decade and a 
half, the immigrant population has expanded in every area of our 
country, many of them coming here legally but some not; some coming 
illegally, many of them already paying local taxes. Almost half are 
paying into Medicare and Social Security with no promise of ever 
receiving any benefits.
  We are faced with the decision that gets to the heart of what values 
we hold near and dear as Americans. We have always said: If you work 
hard and play by the rules, there is a place for you in this great land 
of America to raise your children and contribute to our great melting 
pot.
  We now must consider as part of this debate what to do with those who 
have broken the rules to come here but have since worked hard to 
provide for their families. I hope the Senate will give this difficult 
question the reasoned, thorough debate it deserves.
  The problems we face today with border security and illegal 
immigration did not appear overnight, and they will not be solved 
overnight. It is a difficult and complicated issue, and fixing it will 
not be easy. But while I am still reviewing the provisions of this 
legislation and reserve the right to try to improve it through the 
amendment process, as others will, I believe strongly that we can work 
to complete an immigration bill this year because we no longer can 
wait.
  I thank the majority leader and Senator McConnell. I thank Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Kyl for their hard work. And I look forward to 
continuing our work on this bill and hopefully finding a solution to 
this issue and doing so in a timely way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                    Amendment No. 1186, as Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 1186, that it be modified 
with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting after subparagraph (G), as added by section 503 of 
     this Act, the following:
       ``(H) Aliens who are eligible for a visa under paragraph 
     (1) or (3) of section 203(a) and who have a parent who was 
     naturalized pursuant to section 405 of the Immigration Act of 
     1990 (8 U.S.C. 1440 note).''.


                           Amendment No. 1181

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate and a vote in a 
few moments is an amendment by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Dorgan. It will sunset the guest worker program at 5 years. We will 
stop at 5 years and take a look at this immigration program and decide 
whether it is good for America, whether it is fair and just.
  I don't believe that is an unreasonable request. I think it is the 
right thing to do, and I will be supporting that amendment.
  I wish to speak to that amendment, but first I wish to say a word 
about the bill.
  Mr. President, 96 years ago, just a few miles from where we are 
meeting, on July 18, 1911, a woman came down a gangplank in Baltimore, 
MD. She had just arrived on a voyage from Bremen, Germany. She had a 2-
year-old little girl in her arms and two young children, a boy and a 
girl, by her side. She stepped foot in America in Baltimore and took a 
train to join up with her husband in a place called East St. Louis, IL.
  This woman who brought these three children across the Atlantic 
didn't speak English. She only knew that her husband was waiting 800 
miles away and was making her journey. That woman was my grandmother. 
The baby in her arms was my mother. That was 96 years ago. Ninety-six 
years later, the son of that little girl stands as a United States 
Senator from Illinois. It is a story about America.
  This Nation is great because of the immigrants and their sons and 
daughters who came here and made it great. I am certain that when my 
mother's family announced to their villagers in Jurbarkas, Lithuania, 
that they were leaving for America, that they were leaving behind their 
home, their garden, their church, their history, their language, and 
their culture and heading someplace where they couldn't

[[Page S6602]]

even speak the language, I am sure as their neighbors walked away in 
the darkness that evening they all said the same thing: They'll be 
back. They'll be back.
  They didn't go back. They stayed here. They built America. People 
similar to them have been building America since the beginning.
  This bill is about immigration. It is about a system of immigration 
that has failed us. It has failed us because 800,000 undocumented 
illegal people pour across our southern border every year into America. 
It has failed us because employers welcome these employees, often 
paying them dirt wages under poor conditions and say to them: We will 
use you until we don't need you, and then you are on your own.
  These immigrants sacrifice for themselves, send their money home, and 
dream of someday that they will have security and peace of mind. That 
is the story.
  Sadly, we have 10 or 12 million now in our country who came that way, 
with no legality or documentation.
  I salute Senator Kennedy and those who brought this bill to the 
floor. They have worked long and hard for years to deal with this issue 
honestly. They have to fight the talk show hosts who are on every 
afternoon screaming about immigration with not one positive thought of 
what we can do about it. Instead, Senator Kennedy and many like him 
have stood up and said: We will risk our political reputation by 
putting this measure before America. Let's do something and fix this 
broken immigration system.
  I salute them for that--for border enforcement, for workplace 
enforcement, for dealing honestly, fairly, legally, in an American way 
with the 12 million people who are here.
  The amendment before us addresses one part. It addresses the guest 
worker program. As written in this bill, we would allow 400,000 people 
a year to come into America and work as temporary workers, and that 
number could increase. By action of the Senate yesterday, we reduced 
the 400,000 to 200,000.
  Do we need 200,000 guest workers every year in America? I don't know 
the answer to that. I can tell you today that among college graduates 
in America, the unemployment rate is 1.8 percent. The unemployment rate 
for high school graduates is 7 percent. It tells me that there is a 
pool of untapped talent in America.
  Do we need 200,000 people coming from overseas each year to 
supplement our workforce? I don't know the answer to that question. 
There are those who insist we do and some who say we don't. And that is 
why Senator Dorgan's amendment is important. It says we will try the 
200,000 a year for 5 years and then stop and assess where we are, what 
has happened to wages of American workers, what has happened to 
businesses that need additional workers. We can make an honest 
assessment at that point. If we see American wages going down, if we 
see the unemployment rate of Americans going up, we may want to 
calibrate, reconsider.
  His is a thoughtful and reasonable approach. Senator Kennedy has 
said, and he is right, that we establish standards of treatment for 
these guest workers that are dramatically better than what they face 
today. There is gross exploitation taking place. We know that.
  Many of these undocumented, illegal workers are treated very kindly, 
but many are exploited. We know the stories. we hear them, we read 
about them. We can change that, and we should. A great nation should 
not allow people to be exploited in this way.

  It is not inconsistent to say that we will have a limited number of 
guest workers, that we will treat them fairly and honestly and in a 
decent manner, with decent wages, and then step back in 5 years and 
make an assessment of where we are. I think that is a reasonable 
approach to take.
  There are many positive provisions in this bill, but the one thing 
that troubles me is the idea of guest workers being here for 2 years 
and leaving, creating a rotating class of people with little investment 
in the United States. How will that work? We already know the answer to 
that question. That is what European nations are doing today. They are 
bringing in people from former colonies and other countries. The Turks 
are coming into Germany, Africans coming into France, but they never 
become part of those countries. They are always the workforce. They 
become angry. They become dispossessed. They riot in the streets 
because they have no investment in that country in which they are 
working. They are being exploited and used. I don't want to see that 
happen in America. I want those who are living here to be vested in 
this country and its values and its ideals.
  Finally, let me say that when it comes to guest workers and H-1B 
visas, where we invite higher skilled workers, our first obligation is 
to the workers of America, those who are unemployed and those who have 
the American dream but just need an American chance. As we look at each 
of these categories of workers, let us make certain that the first 
question we ask and answer is, are we dedicated to the workers and the 
families across America to make sure they have a fighting chance to 
realize the same American dream my mother realized when she came off 
the boat.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just as an inquiry, I think we are 
scheduled for a vote at 2:15; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see the Senator from North Dakota.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes, 
and the Senator from North Dakota has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes, and the 
Chair will let me know when I have \1/2\ minute remaining.
  Mr. President, just to summarize where we are, those of us who have 
studied this issue--and I respect all the Members of the Senate in 
giving this consideration--recognize we have to have a comprehensive 
approach. We don't rely on any one part in order to be successful with 
this recommendation in terms of immigration reform. We have the strong 
border security, but with the border security we do have some 
opportunity for people to come in the front door so they are not coming 
in the back door illegally. We have tough interior enforcement because 
we require that those individuals who are going to come in have a card. 
We treat them fairly, we treat them well, and we provide the same kinds 
of protections for those individuals that we give to the American 
workers. That doesn't exist today. It is an entirely different game.
  We have to understand at the outset that the guest worker doesn't get 
in here unless there is a refusal of any American to do that job. If 
there is any American anyplace that will do the job, they get it. Do we 
understand that? This is for jobs Americans will not do. We hear great 
stories about people being unemployed here and unemployed there. I 
agree with that. But the fact is, there are some jobs in the American 
economy which Americans just will not do. I don't think that needs to 
be debated. And there are those who will come here and will do those 
jobs with the idea that, hopefully, they will have an opportunity to be 
part of the American dream. So the advertising goes out for the job 
that is out there, and Americans can get the job. If no American wants 
it, then the opportunity is there for a guest worker.
  We have built in here a review of the guest worker program. The 
Senator from North Dakota says: Let's do a 5- year and then end it. We 
say: Let's take it to 18 months. I spoke earlier in the debate about 
what this commission does. It is made up of businessmen, it is made up 
of workers and of economists who will decide how this program is 
working. Is there exploitation? Is it functioning? If it is working, is 
it fair? It is 18 months, and then they have to give Congress the 
information. They do the study, they give the information, and we 
modify the program.
  Under the existing program, people will go out and work for a period 
of 5 years, and they may very well earn points to become part of the 
American dream. That doesn't exist in the European system. This is 
entirely different. These individuals, in 5 years, up to a million 
individuals, earn points to become part of the American dream, but

[[Page S6603]]

then suddenly the Dorgan amendment pulls the strings right out from 
under them. Down they go. Down they go. The promise to them is if they 
work hard and play by the rules and work in very tough and menial jobs, 
they may have an opportunity--not guaranteed, but they may have the 
opportunity to be a part of the American dream, but not under the 
Dorgan amendment, under our amendment.
  This is the way to go. We have in here the review that is essential 
and necessary. This can provide the Congress with the information of 
whether this program is working. It has been established, and it will 
be set up. It will be functioning, and it will give Congress the best 
information. We will have continuing oversight, and we will be able to 
adjust that program in ways that serve humanity and serve our economy.
  I hope the Dorgan amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is very rare that I have such a strong 
disagreement with my friend, Ted Kennedy, but I don't understand the 
agitation over an amendment that simply says that a program that allows 
200,000 foreign workers in here, a generalized program--this isn't 
AgJOBS, which is a specific industry program that we know we need 
because we know right now half the workers are foreign workers; this is 
a generalized, open program, 200,000 foreign workers a year. I think 
Senator Dorgan and I and others have shown that American workers are 
going to be hurt by this. So why is there so much angst about 
sunsetting a program that will allow in now 200,000 people a year? It 
was 400,000. Thanks to the Bingaman amendment, it is down. This is a 
modest amendment. This is a sensible amendment.
  Mr. President, I would ask my friend to yield me 1 more minute, or 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, here is the point: You are doing no harm 
to these people. Under this bill, these people have to leave at the end 
of 6 years. They are done. So for the Senator to say this somehow hurts 
people in the long run, it simply isn't true.
  This is a modest amendment. It makes a lot of sense. Who knows, in 5 
years, we could be in a massive depression. We don't want that, but we 
are certainly not going to want to extend the program in that case. 
This is a wise amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is no social program in this country 
as important as a good job that pays well. That is just a fact. Having 
a job that pays well, with some job security, is the way we expand 
opportunity in this country and allow someone to be able to take care 
of their family.
  We are told by those who offer this legislation that there are jobs 
Americans won't take, that we don't have enough workers and we should 
bring in workers from outside of our country. Well, it is true there 
are jobs, for example, at the lower end of the economic scale where 
businesses that offer those jobs don't want to pay anything for those 
jobs, and so they do not have people rushing to beat down the door to 
get those jobs. They do not have to pay a decent wage for those jobs if 
they can keep bringing in cheap labor. That is what is at work here in 
the guest worker program. I thought supply and demand was something 
that was cherished and embraced by the people who most strongly support 
this. Supply and demand. So if you are having trouble finding workers 
for a job, you raise the price, you raise the wage.
  Do my colleagues know what is happening to workers in this country? 
Their productivity has gone way up. We have had dramatic gains in 
productivity by workers. Has their income gone up? No, not at all, 
especially those at the bottom. There is downward pressure on their 
income. Why? Because we are told we can have an almost inexhaustible 
supply of cheap labor coming into this country.
  Even if this bill were not on the floor, we bring in 1.2 million 
people per year under the legal process by which people come to this 
country. So it is not as if there is not going to be immigration. On 
top of that, there will be well over a million people coming in for 
agricultural jobs without this bill. But this bill says that is not 
enough, that we need additional workers to come in because we need more 
of those workers, particularly unskilled workers, at the bottom.
  Here is what this group has put together as a plan. It is hard for me 
to see how you could come up with a plan such as this, but this is the 
plan. It used to be 400,000, but now it is 200,000. In the first year, 
we bring in 200,000 people from outside of this country to come in and 
take American jobs--200,000 people come on in. They can stay for 2 
years, by the way, and bring their family, if they want. Then they go 
home for a year, come back for 2, go home for a year, and come back for 
2 more years. If they bring their family, they can only come twice, 
with a year in between.
  So here is the way it works: 200,000 come in the first year. They 
stay here for the second year. That is 200,000. Another 200,000 come 
in, perhaps their families come in. Let's go through year 10. What you 
have, for example, in year 10 is you have 1,200,000 people here in year 
10; 11, 1,200,000 people; in year 8, you have 1,200,000 people. We are 
not talking about 200,000 people; we are talking about millions of 
people, including their families, coming in during this period of time 
for the sole and exclusive purpose of taking American jobs--jobs which 
we offer in this country and which we are told Americans will not 
perform.
  That is simply not true, by the way. Americans will perform these 
jobs if there are decent wages. But you don't have to pay decent wages 
if you can bring in people from elsewhere who are used to working for 
50 cents an hour or from Asia where they are used to working for 20 
cents an hour and working 7 days a week, 12 and 14 hours per day. If 
you dispute that, go to Xianxian, China, and check any of the factories 
there and find out the conditions and the wages.
  Well, my point is this: We will get these millions of people into 
this country on top of the 1.2 million who will already come in 
legally. Plus we will say to the 12 million who came in illegally that 
you, too, now are deemed to be legal and given a work permit. On top of 
that, we want to bring in additional guest or temporary workers. I ask 
this question: Of these millions of people--millions of people--how 
many of them are going to leave and go back home?
  My colleague yesterday said that the Governor of Arizona, who 
probably knows as much about this as any other Member of the Senate, 
has pointed out that you can build the fence down there--talking about 
the southern border--but if it is 49 feet high, they will have a 50-
foot ladder. Talk to the Arizona Governor, he says. It is a matter of 
fact that some workers will still come here illegally or legally, but 
one way or another, they will come in. So much for the proposition that 
the bill brought to the floor of the Senate solves the immigration 
problem.
  We are told we need a guest worker or temporary worker provision here 
because they are going to come anyway. Apparently, we are saying: OK, 
they are going to come in illegally anyway because we can't stop them--
we don't have a provision in the bill to stop them--so we will very 
cleverly say they are guest workers and give them a permit as they come 
in. That is the bottom line here.
  My amendment is very simple. I lost the amendment to strip out the 
guest worker provision, a provision we don't need and shouldn't need. 
It is a provision that is the price paid to the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce for their support for this bill even as they export good 
American jobs through the front door, mostly to Asia. We don't need and 
should not support this provision. I lost my amendment the day before 
yesterday to strike this provision. This amendment I offer today says 
at least--at least let us sunset this provision in 5 years so we can 
take a look at whether any of these promises have made any sense.
  I was here in the Congress in 1986. I heard all the promises of the 
Simpson-

[[Page S6604]]

Mazzoli Act. None of them were true, and 3 million people got amnesty. 
There was no border security to speak of, no employer sanctions to 
speak of, and there was no enforcement. Now, all these years later, we 
have 12 million people in this country without legal authorization. 
What do we do? We bring a new bill to the floor with border security, 
with employer sanctions, and a guest worker provision. Nirvana.
  The fact is, it is not going to work, regrettably, and this is the 
worst possible provision in this bill, in my judgment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve my time.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will reserve the 17 seconds unless the Senator from 
Massachusetts is ready to yield back, and then I will yield back and we 
can vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the time.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Thomas
  The amendment (No. 1181) was rejected.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought the Republican leader, the 
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, wanted to speak and introduce an 
amendment. Then we are hopeful that we would deal with the Vitter 
amendment, and after that we would go with the Feingold amendment, and 
perhaps even the Sanders amendment as well. That might be a way we 
proceed.
  I see the Senator from Kentucky, who is going to talk for a period of 
time. Then we would go back to the Republican side, Senator Vitter, 
come back over here to Senator Feingold, then perhaps they were looking 
on the other side--we had talked to our Republican colleagues--and we 
are hopeful to get a vote, potentially go to Senator Sanders after 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                Amendment No. 1170 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and 
I call up amendment No. 1170.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1170.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require 
     individuals voting in person to present photo identification)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       (a) New Requirement for Individuals Voting in Person.--
       (1) In general.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by redesignating 
     sections 304 and 305 as sections 305 and 306, respectively, 
     and by inserting after section 303 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 304. IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS AT THE POLLS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     section 303(b), each State shall require individuals casting 
     ballots in an election for Federal office in person to 
     present a current valid photo identification issued by a 
     governmental entity before voting.
       ``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after 
     January 1, 2008.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 401 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking ``and 303'' and 
     inserting ``303, and 304''.
       (B) The table of contents of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 is amended by redesignating the items relating to 
     sections 304 and 305 as relating to items 305 and 306, 
     respectively, and by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 303 the following new item:

``Sec. 304. Identification of voters at the polls.''.
       (b) Funding for Free Photo Identifications.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15401 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                     ``PART 7--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

     ``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payments made 
     under this subtitle, the Commission shall make payments to 
     States to promote the issuance to registered voters of free 
     photo identifications for purposes of meeting the 
     identification requirements of section 304.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible to receive a grant 
     under this part if it submits to the Commission (at such time 
     and in such form as the Commission may require) an 
     application containing--
       ``(1) a statement that the State intends to comply with the 
     requirements of section 304; and
       ``(2) a description of how the State intends to use the 
     payment under this part to provide registered voters with 
     free photo identifications which meet the requirements of 
     such section.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--A State receiving a payment under this 
     part shall use the payment only to provide free photo 
     identification cards to registered voters who do not have an 
     identification card that meets the requirements of section 
     304.
       ``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant made to a State 
     under this part for a year shall be equal to the product of--
       ``(A) the total amount appropriated for payments under this 
     part for the year under section 298; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to--
       ``(i) the voting age population of the State (as reported 
     in the most recent decennial census); divided by
       ``(ii) the total voting age population of all eligible 
     States which submit an application for payments under this 
     part (as reported in the most recent decennial census).

     ``SEC. 298. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under this subtitle, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary for 
     the purpose of making payments under section 297.
       ``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of this section shall remain available until 
     expended.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 296 the following:

                     ``PART 7--Photo Identification

``Sec. 297. Payments for free photo identification.
``Sec. 298. Authorization of appropriations.''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Members on both sides have voiced a

[[Page S6605]]

lot of legitimate concerns about the immigration bill that we brought 
to the floor earlier this week, which is precisely what we were hoping 
for when we decided to move forward with it. We needed to air things 
out. Many of our Republican colleagues have rightly focused on border 
security and their concern that people who have broken the law can 
somehow get away with it under the proposed legislation.
  As we have debated this issue on the floor, the American people have 
spoken very loudly. Phones have been ringing off the hooks. If we have 
settled anything this week, it is that Americans are not shy about 
expressing their views on immigration. It is my hope this debate will 
move forward until every apprehension will be addressed.
  Now I wish to voice a concern of my own. The Constitution says: All 
persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, and are 
therefore free to vote. As a corollary, we have always maintained that 
no one who is not a citizen has a right to vote. But in order to 
preserve the meaning of this pledge, we need to make sure the influence 
of those who vote legally is not diluted by those who do not; those who 
do not abide by the laws are not free to influence our political 
process or our policies with the vote.
  As we move forward on this immigration bill, we need to make sure we 
protect voters, protect the 15th amendment by strengthening protections 
against illegal voting. This is the principal concern, but it is also 
practical.
  The fundamental question we have been debating this week is what to 
do about the fact that 12 million people in this country are here 
illegally. We would have to go back more than two decades to find a 
Presidential election in this country in which 12 million votes would 
not have tipped the balance in the other direction.
  Only citizens have the right to choose their elected representatives. 
Regardless of what we decide to do about these 12 million, those who 
are not here legally and are not citizens should not have the ability 
to upend the will of the American people in a free and fair election. 
This is not fantasy. It was reported last week that hundreds of 
noncitizens in and around San Antonio have registered to vote over the 
past several years. Most are believed to be here illegally and many are 
thought to have cast votes.
  We have no reason to believe this practice, if true, is not being 
replicated in other cities and towns all across our country. So the 
question is: Given the current reality, how do we safeguard the 
integrity of the voting system? If these millions were eventually to 
become citizens, how do we propose to make sure their vote counts, that 
it isn't diluted?
  Now the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, founded 
after the 2004 election and spearheaded by former President Jimmy 
Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, has already addressed 
the problem. Here you see President Carter and former Secretary Jim 
Baker together addressing this issue as they cochaired the Federal 
Election Reform Commission. That report said, quite simply, election 
officials need to have a way to make sure the people who show up at the 
polls are the ones on the voter lists.
  I cannot think of anyone who would disagree with that. The solution 
the commission proposed, the Carter-Baker Commission, is the same one I 
am proposing today as an amendment to the immigration bill.
  In our country, photo IDs are needed to board a plane, to enter a 
Federal building, to cash a check, even to join a wholesale shopping 
club.
  In a nation in which 40 million people change addresses each year, in 
which a lot of people don't even know their neighbors, some form of 
Government-issued tamperproof photo ID cards should be used in 
elections as well. If they are required for buying bulk toothpaste, 
they should be required to prove one's identity, to prove that someone 
actually has a right to vote and a right to influence the laws and 
policies of our country. We need to ensure those who are voting are the 
same people on the rolls and that they are legally entitled to vote. ID 
cards would do that. They would reduce irregularities dramatically and, 
in doing so, they would increase confidence in the system.
  We have all been through elections where groups of voters questioned 
the results based on rumors of coercion or fraud. Photo IDs would 
substantially limit this kind of voter skepticism and loss of faith in 
the political process.
  Consistent with the purpose and the aim of the 15th amendment, we 
don't want anyone who has the right to vote to have any difficulty 
acquiring an ID. This amendment addresses this concern by establishing 
a grant program for those who cannot afford a photo ID. People who 
qualify will be provided one for free, no cost. No less an advocate for 
poor Americans than Ambassador Andrew Young has said photo IDs would 
have the added benefit of helping those who don't have drivers licenses 
or other forms of official ID to navigate an increasingly computerized 
culture. Photo IDs would make it easier to cash checks, rent movies, or 
gain access to other forms of commerce that are closed to people who 
don't have them.
  An overwhelming majority of Americans support this attempt to ensure 
the integrity of our elections. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll 
last year showed 26 percent of respondents strongly favored requiring a 
universal tamperproof ID at the polls. Nineteen percent said they 
mildly favored the IDs. You can do the math, Mr. President. That is 80 
percent of the American people think this is a good idea. On issues in 
America, 80/20 is about as good as it gets. Twelve percent were neutral 
and didn't have an opinion at all, only 3 percent mildly opposed, and 4 
percent opposed. So let's add those together. We are talking about 80 
to 7, with the rest of Americans not having a view. Ninety-three 
percent of those who were asked for their opinion were either undecided 
or in favor of implementing this control. State polls show similar 
results. Americans are clearly divided on what to do with illegal 
immigrants in our communities, but they seem to agree on the benefit of 
an ID.
  Members from both sides of the aisle agree we need to address voting 
irregularities. The junior Senator from Illinois is sponsoring a bill 
that would stiffen penalties for preventing someone from exercising his 
or her right to vote. He has already drawn 12 Democratic cosponsors. 
The bill is meant to respond to a problem we all recognize and which we 
should do something about by requiring photo ID for voters. Two dozen 
States already require--that is 24 States--some form of identification 
at the polls.
  As a result of the Help America Vote Act, photo ID is required for 
those who register to vote by mail but who can't produce some other 
identifying document. What I would like to do is to provide a Federal 
minimum standard that is consistent but which allows States wide 
flexibility in determining the kind of ID that is required. It doesn't 
have to be a driver's license. It could be a hunting or fishing 
license. Either way, we would be ensuring for the first time the same 
verification standards from rural Iowa to Dade County, FL. This would 
be one of the surest steps we could take to protect the franchise 
rights of every American citizen in a fast-changing and increasingly 
mobile society.
  The promise of America is that every law-abiding citizen has an equal 
stake in the political process and should be treated equally under the 
law. The most concrete expression of this right is the right to vote. 
It is a right that has been at the core of our democracy for more than 
a century, and whenever it has been deprived at the local level, we 
strengthen it federally. We need to strengthen it again now as part of 
our effort to reform America's immigration laws. Stronger borders would 
do nothing to prevent noncitizens who are already here from abusing the 
system further through illegitimate voting. To protect franchise rights 
of all born and naturalized citizens, we need to harden antifraud 
protections at the polls. For the sake of the citizen who is already 
here and for those who dream of becoming citizens in the future, this 
amendment is an important step in the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 1157

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up Vitter amendment No. 1157.

[[Page S6606]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, Mr. 
     DeMint, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1157.

  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To strike title VI (related to Nonimmigrants in the United 
                 States Previously in Unlawful Status)

       Strike title VI.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is an important amendment that goes 
to the heart of our debate. This amendment strikes all of the text of 
title VI, the Z visa amnesty section. It takes all of that Z visa out 
of this massive immigration bill. I thank several Members for joining 
me in this important amendment: Senator DeMint, Senator Thomas, Senator 
Bunning, Senator Enzi, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Coburn. They are all 
cosponsors of this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues to join in 
this fundamental but necessary correction of the bill.
  Many folks will say: We can't do this. This goes to the heart of the 
bill. It goes to the heart of the compromise. Well, indeed, it does. It 
does that because that is where an absolutely fundamental flaw with 
this approach resides. The Z visa is amnesty, pure and simple. Amnesty 
is at the heart of this bill and is a fundamental problem and flaw with 
the bill that we must correct. Make no mistake about it, the American 
people know this. It is obvious. Why is it so hard for us to 
acknowledge the fact, acknowledge the negative consequences that flow 
from it, and correct it?
  Considering how badly received last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill 
was, I am shocked we are here again, admittedly with a better bill in 
some respects but with a bill with Z visa amnesty right at the heart of 
it. The American people don't want this. They don't want the Z visa, 
because they don't want to reward law breaking and thereby encourage 
more of the same. The Z visa amnesty provision absolutely rewards those 
who have broken the law and, in doing so, is a slap in the face to 
those thousands upon thousands of folks who are honoring the law, 
following the law, standing in line, waiting their turn under the 
rules.
  I ask my fellow Senators, are we going to be a nation that values 
that rule of law? These Z visas tell lawbreakers the opposite, that it 
is OK to break the law. In doing so, most importantly, most negatively, 
that has to encourage more like behavior in the future. Clearly, that 
sort of amnesty sends the wrong message, a reward for breaking the law. 
Clearly, that encourages the same sort of behavior we absolutely don't 
want in the future.
  I think the fundamental question in this debate is, is this bill 
going to be a repeat of the 1986 immigration reform the Congress passed 
at that time or is this bill fundamentally different? Again, that is a 
central question that goes to the heart of the Z visa issue and others.
  In 1986, Congress took up immigration reform. They passed a 
significant bill, not as wide sweeping as we are talking about now but 
certainly a significant bill. Arguments were very much the same: We are 
going to beef up enforcement. We are going to get serious. We are going 
to have real enforcement at the border. We are going to have meaningful 
enforcement at the workplace. In that context, we need this amnesty one 
time, and it will be done and the problem will be solved.
  What is the history since then? The history is clear. A problem that 
was then about 3 million illegal aliens has grown at least fourfold--
12, 13 million, or more. So it has mushroomed. The problem has gotten a 
lot worse. Why? Because the amnesty provisions of that bill in 1986 
absolutely went into force and effect. They were absolutely honored. 
But at the same time, the enforcement never happened to an adequate 
extent.
  So what happens with those two dynamics? It is simple to see what did 
happen--inadequate enforcement, real amnesty that sent the message 
loudly and clearly: You will eventually be forgiven for breaking the 
law to get into this country illegally. The problem mushroomed. The 
problem quadrupled from more than 3 million illegal aliens in the 
country to 12 or 13 million or more today.
  That is an awfully fundamental question we need to ask as we look at 
this legislation. I have asked that question. My answer is: This is a 
vastly improved bill from last year, but this bill still has that 
fundamental flaw. This bill still risks--and I believe will inevitably 
repeat--the mistake of 1986, only on a far broader, a far bigger, and 
far more dangerous scale. We cannot afford that.
  There are colleagues of both parties in this Chamber who make the 
argument that we hear about most legislation: The status quo is broken. 
This bill is not perfect, but this bill will move it along. This bill 
will make it better.
  That sort of incrementalist approach is true in a lot of cases. In 
this case, I don't think it is true at all. In this case, a flawed bill 
gives us the real threat, the real danger of making the problem a lot 
worse, not better. That is the history of what happened in 1986. That 
is what will happen again with inadequate enforcement plus amnesty.
  How do we correct this? One way is to beef up enforcement. I support 
a lot of different measures to make the enforcement more certain, to 
nail it down absolutely before we go into any of these other areas such 
as a temporary worker program, certainly Z visas. The triggers in this 
bill are much ballyhooed, but the triggers don't get us to where we 
need to be before they trigger the Z visa. All the triggers do is say: 
We are going to do what was planned for the next 18 months anyway, 
which isn't all of what we need to do, which isn't half of what we need 
to do to secure the border and have real workplace enforcement. But 
then we are going to trigger the amnesty. We are going to trigger the Z 
visa. That is not enough. We need to beef up those enforcement 
provisions.
  The other way to fix going down the 1986 road again is to get rid of 
amnesty, to get rid of the Z visa. That is exactly what this amendment 
does.
  Certainly many of my colleagues will protest wildly about calling 
this amnesty. If you look at the facts, there is no other conclusion to 
reach. If you look at history, there is no other conclusion.
  For those lawyers in the Chamber, probably the best known legal 
reference book is Black's Law Dictionary. Open it. Turn to ``amnesty.'' 
It is very straightforward. Amnesty is ``a pardon extended by the 
government to a group or class of persons.'' Black's Law Dictionary 
cites as its first example of what that means the 1986 Immigration 
Reform and Control Act. It points to that very act and says it 
``provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the 
country.'' That is the example it cites in the very definition of the 
concept of amnesty.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this definition with the example in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)]

       amnesty, n. A pardon extended by the government to a group 
     or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act 
     of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of 
     persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been 
     convicted
       The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided 
     amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the 
     country.
       Unlike an ordinary pardon, amnesty is usually addressed to 
     crimes against state sovereignty--that is, to political 
     offenses with respect to which forgiveness is deemed more 
     expedient for the public welfare than prosecution and 
     punishment.
       Amnesty is usually general, addressed to classes or even 
     communities.--Also termed general pardon. See PARDON. [Cases: 
     Pardon and Parole 26. C.J.S. Pardon and Parole Sec. Sec. 3, 
     31.]--amnesty, vb.
       ``Amnesty . . . derives from the Greek amnestia 
     (`forgetting'), and has come to be used to describe measures 
     of a more general nature, directed to offenses whose 
     criminality is considered better forgotten.'' Leslie Sebba, 
     ``Amnesty and Pardon,'' in 1 Encyclopedia of Crime and 
     Justice 59, 59 (Sanford H. Kadish ed., 1983).
       express amnesty. Amnesty granted in direct terms. Implied 
     amnesty. Amnesty indirectly resulting from a peace treaty 
     executed between contending parties.
  Mr. VITTER. In that context, one obvious question is: How does that 
amnesty provision compare to what is in this 2007 bill?

[[Page S6607]]

  I think if you go down the requirements of the 1986 law and the 
requirements of this bill before us, you will see they are disturbingly 
familiar.
  In 1986, how do you gain temporary residence status? Continuous 
unlawful residence in the United States since before January 1, 1982. 
Fees: a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 fee for each child, a 
$420 family cap. You have to meet certain admissibility criteria: 18-
month residency period, English language and civics requirement. Those 
are the basic requirements under that 1986 law.
  Let's compare it to what is in this bill, which is very similar. The 
dollar amount fees are higher, more significant, but in terms of the 
nature of the requirements in this bill, they are disturbingly similar: 
physically present and employed in the United States since a certain 
date--January 1, 2007; $1,000 penalty and a $1,500 processing fee; meet 
admissibility criteria; background check; English language basic 
requirement, et cetera--the exact same type of requirements under the Z 
visa provisions of this bill, as well as the 1986 law, which ``Black's 
Law Dictionary'' itself labels amnesty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this simple side-by-side comparison of the 1986 law and this bill 
presently before the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               1986 IRCA


                       temporary resident status

       Continuous unlawful residence in the U.S. since before 
     January 1, 1982.
       $185 fee for principal applicant, $50 for each child ($420 
     family cap).
       Meet admissibility criteria.
       Ineligible for most public benefits for five years after 
     application.
       18-month residency period.


                    Adjustment to Permanent Resident

       English language and civics requirement.
       $80 fee per applicant ($240 family cap).

                                  2007


                             z visa status

       Physically present and employed in U.S. since January 1, 
     2007.
       $1,000 penalty and $1,500 processing fee.
       Meet admissibility criteria.
       Background check.


                    adjustment to permanent resident

       Meets merit requirements, file application in home country.
       $4,000 penalty.
  Mr. VITTER. So, again, let's not repeat the horrible mistakes of the 
past. Let's not repeat the fundamental mistake of 1986 that got us to 
the situation we are in today, that quadrupled, or more, the problem 
then faced in 1986. Let's not repeat it in either side of the ledger: 
by having inadequate enforcement--and I am afraid the enforcement 
provisions of this bill, the trigger requirements, et cetera, are 
inadequate--and let's not repeat it on the other side of the equation 
by granting amnesty and creating a magnet for more illegal activity 
into this country.
  We cannot afford to do that. This amendment goes to the core of that 
fundamental problem and corrects it by taking out title VI, the Z visa 
amnesty provisions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
introduced by the Senator from Louisiana. I am proud to be a cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  I am disappointed in the way the substitute amendment to S. 1348 was 
brought before the Senate. I do not believe Senators have had adequate 
opportunity to fully understand all the impacts this legislation will 
have on our Nation. Over the next 2 weeks, Senators and staff will 
continue to study the language. I hope the Senate leadership will 
ensure that all Members have the opportunity to have their amendments 
considered by the full Senate. I am pleased an agreement was reached to 
vote on the Vitter amendment.
  If this was the first time the Senate was considering offering 
amnesty to illegal aliens, I think this debate would be under a 
different tone. When the 1986 legislation was enacted, Members of the 
House and Senate had the best of intentions--to improve our border 
situation and decrease illegal immigration by offering permanent status 
to those in the United States illegally. Those good intentions, 
however, were not without fault. We can see that now, 21 years later, 
and we cannot ignore the problems caused by that legislation.
  Our goal here is to make an immigration system that works--one that 
meets the economic needs of our Nation and allows for legal immigration 
and legal workers. We need to make it less complicated to immigrate 
legally rather than illegally. The status quo is just the opposite. It 
has become so difficult to follow the legal path that many look for the 
easier route of crossing our border without paperwork, without filing 
fees, and without bureaucratic delays. It has become so difficult for 
employers to hire legal temporary workers that many hire illegal 
immigrants without legal Social Security numbers, without labor 
certifications, and without bureaucratic delays. Our laws should not be 
a deterrent to themselves.
  Our immigration system is complicated. Our borders remain open. 
Border security must be the top priority of the debate. We cannot have 
immigration reform without strengthening the security of our borders. 
This is why I am pleased that the language the Senate is considering 
includes triggers that must be met before certain provisions can be 
enacted.
  There are some positive ideas in this legislation, but there remain 
many problems. The Senate should not pass flawed legislation merely for 
the sake of voting on something.
  Amnesty is one of the main concerns of my constituents in Wyoming. 
Amnesty sends a message to illegal immigrants that if you break our 
immigration laws and avoid being detected for several years, the United 
States will not only forgive you but reward you with permanent resident 
status. Amnesty encouraged illegal immigration. In 1986, 7 million 
immigrants were granted amnesty. Today, we are facing an illegal 
population of over 12 million. The 1986 legislation did not stop 
illegal immigration. We should not repeat this policy without ensuring 
that we are not making the same mistake.
  I continue to closely examine bill language as new developments 
unfold and will make decisions keeping in mind what concerns I have 
heard from the people and businesses of Wyoming. We expect to spend the 
first week of June continuing to debate and amend the bill. I am 
concerned about where we will be in 2 weeks on this legislation. This 
issue is too important to refuse to consider amendments for members of 
either party.
  Again, I state my strong support for Senator Vitter's amendment to 
remove the amnesty provisions from this legislation. I hope my 
colleagues in the Senate will join me in taking a strong stance against 
amnesty.
  With that, I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed as in morning business for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. BIDEN are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. KLOBUCHAR). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside so I might call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1176 to Amendment No. 1150

       (Purpose: To establish commissions to review the facts and 
     circumstances surrounding injustices suffered by European 
     Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees 
     during World War II)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1176.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1176 to amendment No. 1150.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S6608]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, May 23, 2007, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment contains the language 
of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bill I have introduced 
with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
  This amendment would create two fact-finding commissions: one 
commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German 
Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World 
War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's 
treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War 
II.
  I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senator Lieberman 
and Senator Inouye, have agreed to cosponsor this amendment. They are 
also cosponsors of my bill, and I appreciate their continued support 
for this important initiative.
  This amendment would help us to learn more about how, during World 
War II, recent immigrants and refugees were treated. It is an 
appropriate and relevant amendment to this immigration bill.
  I would have preferred to have moved this bill on its own. Senator 
Grassley and I have introduced the Wartime Treatment Study Act in the 
last four Congresses, and the Judiciary Committee has reported it 
favorably each time, including just last month. It has been cleared for 
adoption by unanimous consent by my Democratic colleagues. But I am 
forced to offer this as an amendment because the Wartime Treatment 
Study Act has not cleared the Republican side in this Congress or any 
of the last three Congresses. It is time for the Senate to pass this 
bill.
  During World War II, the United States fought a courageous battle 
against the spread of Nazism and fascism. Nazi Germany was engaged in 
the horrific persecution and genocide of Jews. By the end of the war, 6 
million Jews had perished at the hands of Nazi Germany.
  The Allied victory in the Second World War was an American triumph, a 
triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed 
by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of 
great pride for all of us. But we should not let that justifiable pride 
in our Nation's triumph blind us to the treatment of some Americans by 
their own Government.
  Sadly, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe 
and the Pacific, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of some 
of its own people here, at home. While it is, of course, the right of 
every Nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government can 
and should respect the basic freedoms that so many Americans have given 
their lives to defend.
  Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the 
authority of Executive Order 9066 and the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. 
Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes 
and ultimately into relocation and internment camps. Japanese Americans 
were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their 
communities. They were held behind barbed wire and military guard by 
their own Government.
  Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 1980, this unfortunate 
episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgement 
and condemnation it deserved.
  Congress and the U.S. Government did the right thing by recognizing 
and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World 
War II. But our work in this area is not done. That same respect has 
not been shown to the many German Americans, Italian Americans, and 
European Latin Americans who were taken from their homes, subjected to 
curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, 
and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.
  Most Americans are probably unaware that during World War II, the 
U.S. Government designated more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 
German-born U.S. resident aliens and their families as ``enemy 
aliens.'' Approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, 
and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, or other European 
Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in 
internment camps. Some even remained interned for up to 3 years after 
the war ended. Unknown numbers of German Americans, Italian Americans, 
and other European Americans had their property confiscated or their 
travel restricted, or lived under curfews. This amendment would not--
would not--grant reparations to victims. It would simply create a 
commission to review the facts and circumstances of the U.S. 
Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and 
other European Americans during World War II.

  Now, a second commission created by this amendment would review the 
treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing 
Nazi persecution and genocide and trying to come to the United States. 
German and Austrian Jews applied for visas, but the United States 
severely limited their entry due to strict immigration policies--
policies that many believed were motivated by fear that our enemies 
would send spies under the guise of refugees and by the unfortunate 
antiforeigner, anti-Semitic attitudes that were sadly all too common at 
that time.
  It is time for the country to review the facts and determine how our 
immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish 
refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible 
truth that the United States turned away thousands of Jewish refugees, 
delivering many to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime we were 
fighting.
  It is so urgent that we pass this legislation. We cannot wait any 
longer. The injustices to European Americans and Jewish refugees 
occurred more than 50 years ago. The people who were affected by these 
policies are dying.
  In fact, one of them died earlier this month. Max Ebel was one of the 
thousands of German Americans who were interned during World War II in 
the United States. He died on May 3, 2007. His death brings me great 
sadness.
  Max Ebel was only 17 when he came to America in 1937. He fled Germany 
after he was assaulted for refusing to join the Hitler Youth. When he 
came to the United States, he lived with his father in Massachusetts. 
He learned English. He joined the Boy Scouts. He completed high school. 
When the war broke out, he registered for the draft.
  Nonetheless, in 1942, this new American was arrested by the FBI and 
interned under the Alien Enemies Act because of his German ancestry. He 
spent the next 18 months in a series of detention facilities and 
internment camps and ultimately was transferred to a camp in Fort 
Lincoln, ND, where despite the way he had been treated, he found a way 
to help the war effort. He volunteered for a government work detail and 
spent a North Dakota winter laying new railroad track on the Northern 
Pacific Rail Line. Max Ebel's crew boss saw how hard he worked and 
petitioned for his release.
  Finally, in April of 1944, the Government let him go home. Despite 
everything that had happened, he remained loyal to his new country and 
became a citizen in 1953. A few years ago he told a journalist:

       I was an American right from the beginning, and I always 
     will be.

  Max Ebel's death is a loss not only to his family and friends but 
also to our country.
  But losing Max Ebel does more than bring me sadness; it also makes me 
a bit angry. It makes me angry because he did not live to see the day 
that Congress recognized what he went through: his internment at the 
hands of his newfound country.
  I have been trying for years to pass this legislation creating a 
commission to study what happened to Max Ebel and to other German 
Americans and other European Americans and to Jewish refugees during 
World War II. I am gravely disappointed that Max Ebel and many others 
affected by these policies will not be here to see that legislation 
become law.
  Americans must learn from these tragedies now, before there is no one 
left. We cannot put this off any longer. These people have suffered 
long enough without official, independent study of what happened to 
them and without knowing this Nation recognizes their

[[Page S6609]]

sacrifice and resolves to learn from the mistakes of the past that 
caused them so much pain.
  As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board put it, Congress 
must move forward with this legislation:

       Lest the passage of time deprive more Americans of the 
     justice that they deserve.

  Let me again repeat that this amendment does not call for 
reparations. All it does is ensure that the public has a full 
accounting of what happened. We should be proud of our victory over 
Nazism, as I am. But we should not let that pride cause us to overlook 
what happened to some Americans and refugees during World War II. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study 
Act that is an amendment to this immigration legislation, and I hope 
the managers of the bill can accept it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are in the process where we will 
begin to make comment on the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. 
We will address that very shortly. I am finding that the amendment of 
the Senator from Wisconsin is enormously compelling. I would have 
thought it would be generally accepted. We are in the process of trying 
to get a review of that amendment.
  But for the notice of our colleagues, we expect that we will probably 
have two votes, if we are unable to get clearance, and we will probably 
have that somewhere in the relationship of probably about--hopefully 
about 4 o'clock. I haven't had the chance to clear this time with 
Senator Vitter, but that is generally sort of the plan we are looking 
at, at the present time. I am not asking unanimous consent on that, but 
that is just in terms of information for our colleagues.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1157 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the Vitter 
amendment No. 1157, which strikes title VI of the bill, the title that 
authorizes Z visas for illegal immigrants.
  Z visas are amnesty, pure and simple. They allow illegal immigrants 
to stay here permanently without ever returning home to their 
countries. This is the provision that has so many Americans upset.
  By removing Z visas from the bill, illegal immigrants will be able to 
go home and get right with the law. Once they have returned, they can 
apply for legal entry, just like everyone else, but they would not be 
allowed to violate our laws.
  I know many will say this amendment will be too disruptive to the 
illegal workers who would ultimately be forced to return to their home 
countries, but I disagree. Last year, 51 million people traveled to and 
from the United States from abroad, and 13 million of these travelers 
were from Mexico alone. People are very mobile, and moving this number 
of people around is relatively easy today. In fact, this bill 
acknowledges this very point by requiring them to go home to apply for 
citizenship.
  I have also heard some say the opposition to amnesty is being driven 
by an anti-immigrant bias. This is also untrue. Americans are extremely 
pro-immigrant, but they are upset that their Government has lied to 
them for 20 years on this issue, and they have lost confidence in our 
ability to control our borders.
  Let me be clear: I am pro-immigrant. I believe in legal immigration. 
I want people to come here, respect our laws, embrace our values, and 
become American citizens, but we must reject amnesty if we ever expect 
that to happen.
  That is why eliminating the amnesty provision in this bill is the 
most compassionate and pro-immigrant thing we can do.
  By striking the Z visas from this bill, this amendment will allow us 
to uphold the rule of law, create fairness for millions of people who 
want to come here legally, and allow us to focus on securing our 
borders.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are working with our colleagues and 
trying to go back and forth, trying to be bipartisan. We have gone to 
Senator Vitter, to Feingold, to Hutchison, and then to Sanders. We 
expect votes and reasonably short debate. We are trying to get votes on 
all of those before the debate starts on the supplemental. I thank the 
Senator from Vermont for his patience.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I would appreciate the Senator from 
Vermont going first, after which I will offer mine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1223 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1223 to amendment number 1150.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To establish the American Competitiveness Scholarship 
                                Program)

       At the end of title VII, insert the following:

        Subtitle C--American Competitiveness Scholarship Program

     SEC. 711. AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation (referred to in this section as the ``Director'') 
     shall award scholarships to eligible individuals to enable 
     such individuals to pursue associate, undergraduate, or 
     graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, health 
     care, or computer science.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a scholarship 
     under this section, an individual shall--
       (A) be a citizen of the United States, a national of the 
     United States (as defined in section 101(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)), an alien 
     admitted as a refugee under section 207 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1157), or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence;
       (B) prepare and submit to the Director an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Director may require; and
       (C) certify to the Director that the individual intends to 
     use amounts received under the scholarship to enroll or 
     continue enrollment at an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) in order to pursue an associate, 
     undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics, 
     engineering, computer science, nursing, medicine, or other 
     clinical medical program, or technology, or science program 
     designated by the Director.
       (2) Ability.--Awards of scholarships under this section 
     shall be made by the Director solely on the basis of the 
     ability of the applicant, except that in any case in which 2 
     or more applicants for scholarships are deemed by the 
     Director to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and 
     there are not sufficient scholarships available to grant one 
     to each of such applicants, the available scholarship or 
     scholarships shall be awarded to the applicants in a manner 
     that will tend to result in a geographically wide 
     distribution throughout the United States of recipients' 
     places of permanent residence.
       (c) Amount of Scholarship; Renewal.--
       (1) Amount of scholarship.--The amount of a scholarship 
     awarded under this section shall be $15,000 per year, except 
     that no scholarship shall be greater than the annual cost of 
     tuition and fees at the institution of higher education in 
     which the scholarship recipient is enrolled or will enroll.
       (2) Renewal.--The Director may renew a scholarship under 
     this section for an eligible individual for not more than 4 
     years.
       (d) Funding.--The Director shall carry out this section 
     only with funds made available under section 286(x) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by section 712) (8 
     U.S.C. 1356).
       (e) Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act,

[[Page S6610]]

     the Director shall publish in the Federal Register a list of 
     eligible programs of study for a scholarship under this 
     section.

     SEC. 712. SUPPLEMENTAL H-1B NONIMMIGRANT PETITIONER ACCOUNT.

       Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1356) (as amended by this Act) is further amended by 
     inserting after subsection (w) the following:
       ``(x) Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as 
     the `Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account'. 
     Notwithstanding any other section of this Act, there shall be 
     deposited as offsetting receipts into the account all fees 
     collected under section 214(c)(15).
       ``(2) Use of fees for american competitiveness scholarship 
     program.--The amounts deposited into the Supplemental H-1B 
     Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall remain available to the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation until expended 
     for scholarships described in section 711 of the Secure 
     Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 
     2007 for students enrolled in a program of study leading to a 
     degree in mathematics, engineering, health care, or computer 
     science.''.

     SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.

       Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is 
     required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11), 
     the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or 
     the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a 
     supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee 
     required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in 
     the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $8,500, 
     except that the fee shall be \1/2\ that amount for any 
     employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States (determined by 
     including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
       ``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 
     286(x).''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I will begin by quoting from an article 
today in Congress Daily by Bruce Stokes. He sets up in one paragraph 
pretty much what we are going to talk about in this amendment:

       The immigration deal under consideration in the Senate 
     raises the number of H-1B visas, a long-sought boon for the 
     high-tech industry that will provide Silicon Valley firms 
     with skilled workers at rock-bottom salaries, who will 
     bolster company profits.

  This amendment I am offering now is supported by the AFL-CIO. I will 
read the few paragraphs of the letter they sent today:

       Dear Senator Sanders:
       On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to offer strong 
     support for your amendment to the Secure Borders, Economic 
     Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act.
       Your amendment would provide scholarships in math, science, 
     engineering, and nursing for our domestic workforce by 
     increasing fees on H-1B employers.
       The last paragraph, signed by William Samuel, director of 
     the Department of Legislation for the AFL-CIO, writes this:
       It is completely irresponsible for Congress to increase yet 
     again the total annual number of available H-1B visas without 
     addressing the myriad well-documented problems associated 
     with the H-1B program, or considering long-term solutions 
     involving access to training and educational opportunities 
     for domestic workers.

  That is William Samuel, director of the Department of Legislation for 
the AFL-CIO.
  The amendment I am offering today also has the support of the 
Teamsters, the Programmers Guild, and the International Federation of 
Professional and Technical Engineers.
  The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is a long and complicated 
bill. It touches on a number of very important issues, and some of 
those issues I strongly agree with, no question. The time is long 
overdue that we control our borders. No question, the time is long 
overdue that we begin to hold employers--those people who are hiring 
illegal immigrants--accountable. Those items are long overdue, and we 
have to deal with them. This legislation does that. I support that.
  In my view, this bill is also responsible in how it deals with the 
very contentious and difficult issue of how we respond to the reality 
that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country 
today. This bill carves out a path which eventually leads to 
citizenship, and that is something I also support.
  But--and here is the but: There are a number of provisions in this 
bill I do not support, that I think are going to be very harmful to the 
middle-class and working families of this country.
  The amendment I am offering right now concentrates on only one aspect 
of this very long bill and of that problem. That point centers on the 
state of the economy for working people in our country and the negative 
impact this legislation will have for millions of workers--low-income 
workers and professional workers as well.
  The fact is there is a war going on in America today. I am not 
talking about the war in Iraq and I am not talking about the war in 
Afghanistan; I am talking about the war against the American middle 
class, the American standard of living and, indeed, the American dream 
itself.
  The American people understand very well that since George W. Bush 
has become President, an additional 5.4 million Americans have slipped 
into poverty out of the middle class--5.4 million people who are poor. 
Nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance. Income for 
the average American family has fallen by over $1,200 since President 
Bush has been President, and some 3 million Americans have lost their 
pensions.
  All over this country, from Vermont to California, people get up in 
the morning and they are working incredibly long hours. People need two 
incomes in a family to try to make ends meet. Yet, at the end of the 
day, they are falling further and further behind. There are a lot of 
reasons for that, but I think this bill, and what this bill proposes to 
do, is part of the problem.
  During the debate over NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations 
with China, we were told by President Clinton and many others that, 
well, yes, globalization and unfettered free trade, such as our trade 
relations with China, yes, they will cost us blue-collar factory jobs, 
and the result is that because of our trade agreements, we have lost 
millions of good-paying blue-collar factory jobs and, in fact, today 
there are fewer people working in manufacturing than since President 
Kennedy was in office in the early 1960s.
  Yes, we have lost millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs, but 
what people told us is: Look, don't worry about that. Yes, we are going 
to lose blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but not to worry because your 
kids are going to become very sophisticated in terms of using 
computers, and the future for them is white-collar information 
technology jobs. We don't need those factory jobs anymore; we have 
white-collar information technology jobs, and those are the kinds of 
jobs which are going to be growing. Unfortunately, that has not quite 
occurred. From January 2001 to January 2006, we lost over 600,000 
information technology jobs.
  Alan Blinder, the former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, has told 
us that between 30 and 40 million jobs in this country are in danger of 
being shipped overseas. In other words, what we are looking at right 
now is not just the loss of blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but we are 
looking at the loss of significant numbers of white-color information 
technology jobs. I know that in my State--and I expect in Senator 
Kennedy's State and all over this country--we have seen white-collar 
information technology jobs heading off to India and other countries. 
There is nothing more painful than to see people in my State--I have 
gone through this experience--having to train people to do their jobs 
as those people return to India.
  Some of the leading CEOs and information technology companies have 
told us point blank--this is not a secret--that the new location for 
high-tech jobs is going to be India and China; it is not going to be 
the United States of America.
  John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, has said:

       China will become the IT center of the world, and we can 
     have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or 
     2040. What we're [in Cisco] trying to do is outline an entire 
     strategy of becoming a Chinese company.

  The founder of Intel predicted in the Wall Street Journal that the 
bulk of our information technology jobs will go to China and India over 
the next decade. That is the reality. That is what the heads of the 
information technology industry are telling us.
  Over the last few days, a number of us have expressed the concern 
about the impact of bringing low-wage workers into this country and 
what that

[[Page S6611]]

would mean to Americans at the lower end of the economic ladder. Today, 
I wish to address a concern I have about what language in this bill 
could do to the middle class and, indeed, the upper middle class, 
people who hold professional jobs and who often earn a very good 
income.
  The bill we are discussing today substantially increases the number 
of well-educated professionals coming into the United States from 
overseas. This bill, in fact, would allow 115,000 new professionals to 
come into this country each year, and that number could go up to 
180,000.
  This program which allows well-educated professionals to come into 
our country is called the H-1B program. It is currently capped at 
65,000 visas a year. Under the language in this bill, the number would 
increase at least by 50,000 and by as much as 115,000.
  The argument that corporate America is using in supporting this 
increase is that there are just not enough highly educated, highly 
skilled Americans to fill available job openings in the high-tech 
industry and in various science fields. Proponents of the H-1B visa 
program also say it allows us to bring in the ``best and the 
brightest'' from around the world to help America's competitiveness 
position. That sounds good on its face, and it may also have the 
benefit of being true in some cases, but there are those in this 
Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many 
instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American 
high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used 
to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for 
substantially lower wages.
  First, we should be clear that H-1B visas are not being used only in 
the high-tech and highly specialized technology and science fields. 
That is the argument often made, but it is really not true. The reality 
is that a whole host of jobs in various categories are going to H-1B 
visa holders.
  Let's take a look at some of the jobs that corporate America is 
telling us that there are just not enough Americans who are smart 
enough, who are educated enough to perform. Here they are: information 
technology computer professionals--I guess we can't do that kind of 
work; university professors--oh, my word, I guess we just don't have 
enough people to be university professors; engineers, health care 
workers, accountants, financial analysts, management consultants, 
lawyers--lawyers, I love that one. Is there anyone in America who 
doesn't think we have too many lawyers? I guess we need to bring some 
lawyers in as well. Architects, nurses, physicians, surgeons, dentists, 
scientists, journalists and editors, foreign law advisers, 
psychologists, market research analysts, fashion models--Madam 
President, fashion models--teachers in elementary or secondary schools. 
In America, we do not have enough people to become teachers in 
elementary or secondary school. Does anyone really believe that we 
cannot, with proper salary inducements, bring people into secondary and 
primary education?
  Given that we all know there are many Americans who have college 
degrees and advanced degrees in these fields who cannot find work, why 
is it that we need to bring in more and more professional workers from 
abroad? For those who believe that the law of supply and demand applies 
to labor costs, the evidence shows there is no shortage of college-
educated workers in America. What we learn in economics 101 is if you 
cannot attract people for certain jobs, you pay them higher wages and 
you give them better benefits. Unfortunately, in America today, from 
2000 to 2004, we have seen the wages of college graduates decline by 5 
percent. So on one hand, corporate America says: Oh, my goodness, we 
can't find people as professionals to fill these jobs, but amazingly 
enough, wages have gone down for college graduates from 2000 to 2004 by 
5 percent. Maybe somebody is not trying hard enough to find American 
workers to fill these jobs.

  In truth, what many of us have come to understand is that these H-1B 
visas are not being used to supplement the American workforce where we 
have shortages but, rather, H-1B visas are being used to replace 
American workers with lower cost foreign workers.
  There are studies which conclude that H-1B workers earn less than 
what U.S. workers make in similar jobs at similar locations. According 
to the Center for Immigration Studies, wages for H-1B workers average 
$12,000 a year below the median wage for U.S. workers in computer 
fields. Another study by Programmers Guild found that foreign tech 
workers who came to the United States with H-1B visas are paid about 
$25,000 a year less than American workers with the same skill.
  According to the GAO:

       Some employers said that they hired H-1B workers in part 
     because these workers would often accept lower salaries than 
     similarly qualified U.S. workers.

  What is very important to mention here is that some in corporate 
America are giving the impression that most of the jobs within the H-1B 
program are for highly specialized technical work which just can't be 
found in the United States. The truth is that most of the H-1B visas go 
to people who do not have a Ph.D., who do not have a master's degree, 
but only have a bachelor's degree, a plain old college degree.
  In today's Congress Daily, there is a very insightful article on H-1B 
visas which is relevant to this debate:

       As Ron Hira, a professor at Rochester Institute of 
     Technology, points out . . . the Labor Department 
     acknowledges that ``H-1B workers may be hired even when a 
     qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be 
     displaced from the job in favor of a foreign worker.''

  The article goes on to state:

       The median wage for new H-1B computing professionals was 
     $50,000 in 2005, far below the median for U.S. computing 
     professionals, according to the annual report of U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services.

  These findings are extremely troubling given the promises made to the 
American people that the future for our economy was with high-skilled, 
high-paying, high-tech jobs. What we have found is that in the last 4 
years, wages for college graduates are going down, and we are finding 
that people from abroad are coming in and doing jobs American 
professionals can do and they are doing them for lower wages.
  To bolster their argument for increased H-1B visas, proponents point 
to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the jobs of the 
future. That is what it is entitled, ``Jobs of the Future.'' According 
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the next decade, 2 million jobs 
will be created in mathematics, engineering, computer science, and 
physical science. That equates to about 200,000 jobs a year times 10--2 
million jobs. Under this legislation, the number of H-1B visas would 
increase to as many as 180,000 a year. That means virtually every job--
about 90 percent--that will be created in the high-tech sector over the 
next 10 years could conceivably be taken by a H-1B visa holder. What 
sense does that make? What are we telling our young people? We are 
saying: Go to college, get the best education you can, and we have all 
kinds of jobs available to you, except those jobs in a significant way 
are going to be taken by people from another country.
  We would hope that companies in the United States would have just 
enough patriotism, maybe just a little bit of patriotism so they would 
work to hire qualified American workers. But if you look at the 
statements and conduct of some of these companies, you realize that 
patriotism, love of country is becoming a dated concept for those who 
are pushing extreme globalization.

  Let me take one case study, and that is Microsoft. In 2003, 
Microsoft's vice president for Windows engineering was quoted in 
Business Week as saying:

       It is definitely a cultural change to use foreign workers. 
     But if I can save a dollar, hallelujah.

  The CEO of Microsoft, Steven Anthony Ballmer, has said, and this is 
an interesting quote, very relevant to today's discussion:

       Lower the pay of U.S. professionals to $50,000, and it 
     won't make sense for employers to put up with the hassle of 
     doing business in developing countries.

  In other words, if we lower wages for professionals in this country, 
maybe our companies won't outsource and go to India or China.
  The economic benefit of H-1B visas, though, is not limited to 
American companies. The truth is, as my colleagues, Senator Durbin and 
Senator Grassley, have pointed out, the top companies applying for H-1B 
visas are actually outsourcing firms from India, known in the industry 
as ``body shops.'' According to a February 7, 2007, article in 
BusinessWeek:


[[Page S6612]]


       Data for the fiscal year 2006, which ended last September, 
     showed that 7 of the top 10 applicants for H-1B visas are 
     Indian companies. Giants Infosys Technologies and Wipro took 
     the top two spots, with 22,600 and 19,400 applications 
     respectively.

  In fact, 30 percent of the H-1B visas approved last year went to nine 
Indian outsourcing firms. In other words, the very same companies that 
are involved in the H-1B program of supplying American companies with 
cheap foreign labor are exactly the same corporations that are involved 
in outsourcing, providing cheap labor to these very same companies when 
they move to India. Two sides of the same coin.
  In my view, the H-1B system is working against the best interests of 
the American middle class. It is displacing skilled American workers, 
it is lowering our wages, and it is part of the process by which the 
middle class of this country continues to shrink. Meanwhile, it is 
creating huge profits for foreign companies that traffic in H-1B visas.
  I do wish to commend Senators Durbin and Grassley for their work to 
reform the H-1B program and their efforts to include in the substitute 
some provisions that strengthen protection for American workers. But as 
important as these strengthened protections are, the H-1B program, 
which will be increased from 65,000 slots to 115,000 slots, and 
potentially even 180,000 slots, continues to pose a threat to American 
jobs and American wages.
  The question is: Where do we go from here? What is our response to 
this problem? I could certainly offer an amendment to remove the 
increase in H-1B visas or even to restrict them below the current 
65,000 level. But that amendment would be defeated. So where do we go? 
What is the sensible thing to do? How do we bring people together 
around this issue?
  I think the author of the Congress Daily article I referred to 
earlier said it quite well when he wrote:

       More importantly for the American taxpayer, the current 
     allocation system for H-1B visas conveys a valuable 
     resource--access to talented workers who add value to a 
     company's bottom line--at almost no cost. This is a subsidy 
     in violation of market principles for firms that are too 
     quick to appeal to market forces when they are fighting 
     Washington over export controls or other issues.

  The amendment I am offering has two goals. First, raising the H-1B 
visa fee from $1,500 to $10,000 will go a long way in telling corporate 
America they are not going to be able to save money by bringing foreign 
professionals into this country, and they may want to look at the 
United States of America to find the workers that they need. If they 
have to pay $10,000, that will cut back on their margin.
  Secondly, to the degree it is true that the United States does not 
have a significant number of skilled workers in certain categories--and 
in certain categories that may well be true--this new revenue will be 
dedicated toward providing scholarships to students who are studying in 
areas where we currently lack professionals.
  Specifically, my amendment would create a new American Competitive 
Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation that would 
provide merit-based scholarships of up to $15,000 a year, and which are 
renewable for up to 4 years, to students pursuing degrees in math, 
science, engineering, medicine, nursing, other health care fields, and 
other extremely important fields vital to the competitiveness of this 
Nation. These new scholarships would create the incentive for the best 
and the brightest of American students to enter these fields where 
there is reputedly a shortage.

  In other words, we have the absurd situation today where we are 
bringing people from all over the world into this country to do this 
job, yet we have large numbers of middle-class, working-class families 
who can't afford to send their kids to college or to graduate school. 
Well, maybe we ought to pay attention to American workers and American 
families first.
  How will this program be paid for? Under current law, companies 
applying for H-1B visas pay a $1,500 fee. That fee is split up in a 
number of ways, with some of it going to scholarships and retraining 
programs. Unfortunately, it is too small to effectively create a 
scholarship program of the scale needed to address the claimed shortage 
in math, science, and technology specialists. This amendment imposes an 
$8,500 surcharge on those companies seeking H-1B visas. This fee would 
only apply to those who are required to pay the current $1,500 fee. 
Therefore, universities and schools would be exempt, as they are under 
current law. Companies with less than 25 employees would pay only half 
the fee.
  I am sure corporate America will tell us this $8,500 fee is too 
expensive; that they can't afford it. After all, many of these people 
are the same exact people who opposed raising the minimum wage above 
$5.15 an hour. However, this fee represents a very small amount 
compared to the incredible economic benefits that companies realize 
from bringing in foreign H-1B visa workers.
  H-1B visas are valid for 3 years. So the $8,500 surcharge on an 
annual basis is only $2,800. Compared to the median $50,000 wage of a 
new H-1B computing professional, it is only about 5.5 percent of that 
wage. For this small fee, what would be the benefit to American 
students and our families? If there are 115,000 H-1B visas issued for 
which fees are paid, we could provide over 65,000 scholarships each 
year to our students--65,000. If the number of H-1B visas goes to 
180,000, we could provide scholarships to over 100,000 American 
students.
  If the Members of this body believe we need H-1B visas to compensate 
for a shortage of skilled American professionals, this amendment will 
attract tens of thousands of America's best and brightest to those 
fields.
  One of the reasons I am offering this amendment, which will provide 
much needed scholarships for the American middle class, is I was very 
interested in reading an article that appeared in BusinessWeek on April 
19, 2004. In that article, BusinessWeek reported that:

       To win favor in China, Microsoft has pledged to spend more 
     than $750 million on cooperative research, technology for 
     schools, and other investments.

  If Microsoft and other corporations have billions of dollars to 
invest in technology for schools, research, and other needs in China 
and other countries, these same companies should have enough money to 
provide scholarships for middle-class kids in the United States of 
America.
  Another major supporter of the H-1B program is IBM. Last year, IBM 
made $9.5 billion in profits. Meanwhile, IBM has announced it will be 
investing $6 billion in India by 2009 and--get this--IBM has also 
signed deals to train 100,000 software specialists. Where? In 
Massachusetts? In Vermont? In California? No, in China, according to an 
August 4, 2003, article in BusinessWeek.
  Other major supporters of increasing H-1B workers include Intel, 
which made $5 billion in profits last year; Bank of America, 
Caterpillar, General Electric, Boeing, and Lehman Brothers. All of 
these companies, making billions and billions of dollars in profit, 
can't afford to pay American workers the wages they need. Well, if they 
can't do that, at least let them contribute to an important scholarship 
program.
  Let me conclude by saying a vote for this amendment is a vote for 
preserving American competitiveness in the 21st century, it is a vote 
for giving our children a brighter future, and it is a vote--
unfortunately all too rare--to help middle-income families in this 
country who are struggling so hard to make sure their kids can have the 
education they need.
  Madam President, I am not quite sure of the proper legislative 
approach, but on this amendment, I will be calling for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We had intended, Madam President, to vote on the 
amendment. We are working out the sequence at the present time.
  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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1184, As Modified

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, by way of housekeeping, I wish to submit 
a modification of my amendment that is pending, amendment No. 1184.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object----

[[Page S6613]]

  Mr. CORNYN. If I may explain to my colleagues, there is a problem 
with the pagination in the original draft of the bill. I noticed the 
original amendment appears to be off. This is to reconcile the problem 
with the handwritten note on page 224, which was added on the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would my colleague from Texas yield for a moment?
  Mr. CORNYN. Surely.
  Mr. DURBIN. If he would be kind enough to share with us a copy of the 
modification, if it is routine, there will be no problem. I object at 
this moment until he does. I will be glad to work with him and the 
chairman once we have seen a copy.
  Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely. I am glad to do that and withhold until that 
time. I do have some other comments I wish to make.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, could I ask my colleague, and also 
the Senator from Massachusetts, when the Senator from Texas is finished 
with his remarks, I wish to be recognized for 5 minutes--just to speak, 
not to offer my amendments, but I wanted to speak on the bill. I ask 
unanimous consent to do that, after he speaks. Then we will talk about 
my amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a minute, for a point of 
information?
  Mr. CORNYN. Certainly. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will make a unanimous consent request in a few moments 
to vote at 5 o'clock on the Vitter amendment, and then the amendment of 
Senator Sanders. Then, at that time, we have been told, those who want 
to address the supplemental will begin that debate--a discussion on the 
Senate floor.
  I thank the Senator from Texas. She has an amendment on Social 
Security. She has been kind enough, as always, to cooperate with us, 
and indicated a willingness to work out an appropriate time. It is a 
substantive amendment. We will look forward to considering it. I want 
to give her every assurance we will consider this and will deal with 
it. If not today, we will do the best we can to deal with it on the 
Tuesday we get back. There are members on the Finance Committee, since 
it is dealing with Social Security, who wanted to at least have an 
impact. This in no way will delay the consideration of this amendment. 
We want to give her those assurances.
  I know the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, is on his way 
over. He wants to be able to enter an amendment as well. We certainly 
will look forward to that. We had hoped we might have been able to get 
an earlier consideration. He has been over in the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Members have been extremely cooperative, incredibly helpful. We have 
made good progress here today. We want to make some brief comments at 
an appropriate time, when the Senator finishes, on the Vitter 
amendment. Then, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to vote on 
these amendments. Then those who are dealing with the supplemental will 
have a chance to address the Senate.
  I thank the Senator. We look forward to his comments.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, could I also have 5 minutes 
following Senator Cornyn?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered; 5 minutes following the junior 
Senator from Texas.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand now, talking to the 
majority whip, there is no objection to the modification of my 
amendment, No. 1184.
  As I was explaining, we checked with the legislative counsel last 
night and this morning we were told the problem was with the 
handwritten page, No. 224, that was added on the floor. So it is a 
matter of pagination. I appreciate the accommodation of my colleagues 
to allow that modification to go forward. Also, legislative counsel 
corrected a technical error in the text which this modification 
corrects.
  I have two things I want to speak on, briefly. First, on my original 
amendment, No. 1184, as you recall, this is composed of two parts. The 
first part is what I would assume to be technical errors in the 
underlying bill. In the haste of writing the bill, I think there were 
some errors made that we pointed out in the amendment, errors that need 
to be corrected. I do not expect there will be a lot of controversy 
about that.
  What is more controversial, what I want to address, is the second 
part. That has to do with excluding from the benefits under this bill 
individuals who have already come into our country in violation of our 
immigration laws, who have been detained, who have had due process, a 
trial, who have had their day in court and then, once they were ordered 
deported, rather than agree to show up and be deported, they simply 
went on the lam and went underground and melted into the great American 
landscape. A second category is people who have had their day in court, 
who have been deported but then who have reentered illegally. Under 
section 234 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, both of those 
actions would constitute felonies. I think it would be a grave error 
for this bill to reward individuals who have committed that sort of 
open defiance of our laws. For, whatever you can say about other 
people who have entered the country in violation of our immigration 
laws, certainly those who have had a day in court, who have been 
ordered by court to exit the country but who have gone on the lam, or 
those who have reentered after they were deported, represent a 
different type of lawbreaker. I do not believe we should reward those 
by conferring upon them a Z visa, outlined in the underlying bill.

  The Senator from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, argued my amendment 
would amount to an unconstitutional ex post facto rule because of its 
retroactive application. This is a misreading of the bill. In order for 
any immigration provisions to have immediate effect, it is imperative 
that they apply to conduct and convictions that actually occurred 
before enactment. If prior conduct and convictions were not covered, 
you would have an immigration regime that essentially welcomes the 
following people--this is not how the U.S. immigration should operate. 
Consider an immigration regime where a known criminal gang member could 
not be removed unless the Department of Homeland Security can show he 
was a member after the statute was enacted, even if the DHS had 
videotaped evidence, or even a confession from last month, showing the 
alien involved in gang activities. Surely that could not be construed 
as unconstitutionally retroactive or ex post facto.
  Another example would be an undisputed terrorist fundraiser who would 
not, unless we agree to this amendment, be barred from naturalization 
on terrorism grounds. Not only would the citizenship application of 
someone who has been engaged in terrorist activity not be barred for 
that reason, unless the terrorist activity occurred after the date of 
enactment, but this effective date could also be used to call into 
question the use by the Department of Homeland Security of existing 
discretionary authority to determine a terrorist did not possess good 
moral character. To create a regime that turns a blind eye to these 
known facts would be foolish and would not be in our country's national 
interest.
  To avoid such perverse and unintended consequences, Congress has on 
many occasions enacted grounds of deportability and inadmissibility 
that are based on past conduct and criminal convictions. For example, 
section 5502 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
made aliens who committed acts of torture or extra judicial killings 
abroad a ground of inadmissibility and a ground of deportability. That 
provision applies to offenses committed before, on, or after the date 
of enactment.
  The Holtzman amendment, enacted in 1978, rendered Nazi criminals 
excludable and deportable. It applied to individuals who ordered, 
advocated, assisted, or otherwise participated in persecution on behalf 
of Nazi Germany or its allies at least 33 years earlier, between the 
years of 1933 and 1945.
  It is clear from past experience, as well as common sense, that the 
only actions we would be taking in this legislation would be to say to 
those who have had their day in court, who literally thumb their nose 
at our legal system and at our court system, you

[[Page S6614]]

will not be rewarded with the benefits under this act; that you will be 
excluded. You have had your chance, you have blown it, you have defied 
the American legal system and, in fact, this is not the kind of acts 
from somebody we would expect to be a law-abiding citizen in the 
future.
  I also want to speak briefly on an amendment Senator Menendez has 
offered. Ironically, I find myself in opposition to him on amendment 
No. 1184, the amendment I have offered, but I find there is a lot to 
like in his amendment. I want to explain why. This is what I would call 
the line-jumping amendment Senator Menendez has offered. I have heard 
the proponents explain that the underlying bill is not an amnesty 
because it does not allow anyone to jump in line. This is a 
fundamentally important concept. It is a matter of fundamental fairness 
and crucial to the integrity, not only of our immigration system, but 
to our entire legal system. It would be extremely unfair to allow 
someone who has not respected our laws to be able to obtain a green 
card as a legal permanent resident before someone who has respected our 
laws and waited in line for a chance to legally enter this country.
  Please understand, I am not just talking about the fact that those 
who wait in line legally have to do so in their home country while 
someone who has entered our country in violation of our immigration 
laws and obtains Z status can wait in our country. That certainly is an 
issue, that those here are getting the advantage over those who are 
observing our laws.
  I point to a story in today's USA Today, where the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, admits there is 
``a fundamental unfairness'' in allowing undocumented immigrants to 
stay in the country while those who have respected our laws wait 
patiently outside the country. Should we make what even Secretary 
Chertoff admits is ``a fundamental unfairness'' that much more unfair?
  To the proponents' credit, they have attempted to craft a proposal 
that would not allow anyone who came here illegally obtain their green 
card until everyone who chose to follow the law gets their green card. 
But the problem with the bill is this: The compromise bill arbitrarily 
sets the cutoff date for being in line legally at May 1, 2005, while 
setting the date for the end of the line for those illegally here at 
January 1, 2007. I understand the reason why that was done. It was so 
there would not have to be added a huge number of additional green 
cards in order to clear the backlog of people who have been waiting 
patiently, legally, in line to clear before Z visa holders would get 
the benefits under the law.
  But the problem is this: What this means is someone who chose to 
respect the law, chose not to enter illegally, and filed the proper 
immigration paperwork on, for example, June 1, 2005, is not considered 
to be ``in line'' under the terms of the bill, while someone who 
decided not to respect the laws and entered illegally on the very same 
date can obtain Z status and ultimately obtain citizenship.
  Family groups such as Interfaith Immigration Coalition, Jewish 
Council for Public Affairs, the U.S. Conference of Bishops, and MALDEF, 
have written to my office to explain that those people who played by 
the rules and applied after May 1, 2005 will not be cleared as part of 
the family backlog pursuant to the terms of this bill and will lose 
their chance to immigrate under the current rules and be placed in line 
behind the Z visa applicants. Some of these family groups reported that 
more than 800,000 people who will have patiently waited in line will, 
in essence, be kicked out of the line.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters I just referred to from 
these organizations, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Interfaith 
Immigration Coalition, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and MALDEF, 
be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With respect to the earlier modification of 
the Senator's amendment, is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1184), as modified, is as follows:


                    amendment no. 1184, as modified

 (Purpose: Establishing a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, 
                          and other criminals)

       On page 47, line 25, insert ``, even if the length of the 
     term of imprisonment for the offense is based on recidivist 
     or other enhancements,'' after ``15 years''.
       On page 47, beginning with line 34, strike all through page 
     48, line 10, and insert:
       (3) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) or 
     (2) of'';
       (4) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``section 275(a) or 
     276 committed by an alien who was previously deported on the 
     basis of a conviction for an offense described in another 
     subparagraph of this paragraph'' and inserting ``section 275 
     or 276 for which the term of imprisonment is at least 1 
     year'';
       (5) by striking the undesignated matter following 
     subparagraph (U);
       (6) in subparagraph (E)--
       (A) in clause (ii), by inserting ``,(c),'' after ``924(b)'' 
     and by striking ``or'' at the end, and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(iv) section 2250 of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to failure to register as a sex offender); or
       ``(v) section 521(d) of title 18, United States Code ( 
     relating to penalties for offenses committed by criminal 
     street gangs);''; and
       (7) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
       ``(F) either--
       ``(i) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of 
     title 18, United States Code, but not including a purely 
     political offense), or
       ``(ii) a third conviction for driving while intoxicated ( 
     including a third conviction for driving while under the 
     influence or impaired by alcohol or drugs), without regard to 
     whether the conviction is classified as a misdemeanor or 
     felony under State law,
     for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) apply to any act that occurred before, on, or after 
     such date of enactment.
       In title II, insert after section 203 the following:

     SEC. 204. TERRORIST BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.

       (a) Definition of Good Moral Character.--Section 101(f) (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (1) 
     the following:
       ``(2) one who the Secretary of Homeland Security or the 
     Attorney General determines, in the unreviewable discretion 
     of the Secretary or the Attorney General, to have been at any 
     time an alien described in section 212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4), 
     which determination--
       ``(A) may be based upon any relevant information or 
     evidence, including classified, sensitive, or national 
     security information; and
       ``(B) shall be binding upon any court regardless of the 
     applicable standard of review;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to--
       (1) any act that occurred before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and
       (2) any application for naturalization or any other benefit 
     or relief, or any other case or matter under the immigration 
     laws, pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 204A. PRECLUDING ADMISSIBILITY OF ALIENS CONVICTED OF 
                   AGGRAVATED FELONIES OR OTHER SERIOUS OFFENSES.

       (a) Inadmissibility On Criminal and Related Grounds; 
     Waivers.--Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(2) the following 
     new subparagraphs:
       ``(J) Certain firearm offenses.--Any alien who at any time 
     has been convicted under any law of, or who admits having 
     committed or admits committing acts which constitute the 
     essential elements of, purchasing, selling, offering for 
     sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or 
     of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for 
     sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, 
     part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device 
     (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code) in violation of any law is inadmissible.
       ``(K) Aggravated felons.--Any alien who has been convicted 
     of an aggravated felony at any time is inadmissible.
       ``(L) Crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or violation 
     of protection orders; crimes against children.--
       ``(i) Domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse.--Any 
     alien who at any time is convicted of, or who admits having 
     committed or admits committing acts which constitute the 
     essential elements of, a crime of domestic violence, a crime 
     of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or 
     child abandonment is inadmissible. For purposes of this 
     clause, the term `crime of domestic violence' means any crime 
     of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United 
     States Code) against a person committed by a current or 
     former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom the 
     person shares a child in common, by an individual who is 
     cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person

[[Page S6615]]

     as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a spouse 
     of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of 
     the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other 
     individual against a person who is protected from that 
     individual's acts under the domestic or family violence laws 
     of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, 
     or unit of local or foreign government.
       ``(ii) Violators of protection orders.--Any alien who at 
     any time is enjoined under a protection order issued by a 
     court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct 
     that violates the portion of a protection order that involves 
     protection against credible threats of violence, repeated 
     harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for 
     whom the protection order was issued is inadmissible. For 
     purposes of this clause, the term `protection order' means 
     any injunction issued for the purpose of preventing violent 
     or threatening acts of domestic violence, including temporary 
     or final orders issued by civil or criminal courts (other 
     than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether 
     obtained by filing an independent action or as a independent 
     order in another proceeding.''; and
       (2) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking ``The Attorney General may, in his 
     discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), 
     (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``The 
     Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security may, 
     in his discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs 
     (A)(i)(I), (III), (B), (D), (E), (J), and (L) of subsection 
     (a)(2)'';
       (B) by striking ``if either since the date of such 
     admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated 
     felony or the alien'' in the next to last sentence and 
     inserting ``if since the date of such admission the alien''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``or Secretary of Homeland Security'' 
     after ``the Attorney General'' each place it appears.
       (b) Deportability for Criminal Offenses Involving 
     Identification.--Section 237(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is 
     amended by adding after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) Criminal offenses involving identification.--An alien 
     shall be considered to be deportable if the alien has been 
     convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to 
     violate) an offense described in section 208 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to social security 
     account numbers or social security cards) or section 1028 of 
     title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and related 
     activity in connection with identification).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) any act that occurred before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment, and
       (2) to all aliens who are required to establish 
     admissibility on or after the date of enactment of this 
     section, and in all removal, deportation, or exclusion 
     proceedings that are filed, pending, or reopened, on or after 
     such date.
       (d) Construction.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall not be construed to create eligibility for relief from 
     removal under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act if such eligibility did not exist before the 
     amendments became effective.
       On page 48, line 36, insert ``including a violation of 
     section 924 (c) or (h) of title 18, United States Code,'' 
     after ``explosives''.
       On page 49, lines 7 and 8, strike ``, which is punishable 
     by a sentence of imprisonment of five years or more''.
       On page 49, beginning with line 44, through page 50, line 
     2, strike ``Unless the Secretary of Homeland Security or the 
     Attorney General waives the application of this subparagraph, 
     any'' and insert ``Any''.
       On page 50, lines 20 through 22, strike ``The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security or the Attorney General may in his 
     discretion waive this subparagraph.''.
       On page 283, strike lines 32 through 38, and insert:
       (A) is inadmissible to the United States under section 
     212(a) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)), except as provided in 
     paragraph (2);
       On page 285, strike lines 1 through 7, and insert:
       (I) is an alien who is described in or subject to section 
     237(a)(2)(A)(iii), (iv) or (v) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (iv) or (v)), except if the alien has 
     been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President 
     of the United States of the Governor of any of the several 
     States, as provided in section 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) of the Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi);
       (J) is an alien who is described in or subject to section 
     237(a)(4) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4); and
       (K) is an alien who is described in or subject to section 
     237(a)(3)(C) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(C)), except if 
     the alien is approved for a waiver as authorized under 
     section 237 (a)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1227(a)(3)(C)(ii)).
       On page 285, line 21, strike ``(9)(C)(i)(I),''.
       On page 285, line 41, strike ``section 
     212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II)'' and insert ``section 212(a)(9)(C)''.
       On page 286, between lines 2 and 3, insert:

       (VII) section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(6)(E)), except if the alien is approved for a waiver 
     as authorized under section 212(d)(11) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(d)(11)); or
       (VIII) section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(9)(A)).

       On page 287, between lines 10 and 11, insert:
       (5) Good moral character.--The alien must establish that he 
     or she is a person of good moral character ( within the 
     meaning of section 101(f) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(f)) 
     during the past three years and continue to be a person of 
     such good moral character.
  Now, Madam President, I wanted to express the concerns I have just 
expressed and say that I am still studying the amendment from Senator 
Menendez. I know it adds new green cards on top of all the green cards 
this compromise has already provided. I will listen carefully to the 
arguments of Senators Menendez and Hagel, the main cosponsors of that 
amendment, as well as arguments of the opponents of the amendment 
before deciding finally how to vote. But I am troubled by those this 
bill disadvantages simply because they chose to abide by our laws as 
opposed to those who chose not to abide by our laws.
  I, too, have an amendment, but my amendment does not increase the 
number of green cards. The effect of my amendment will be to cause the 
8-year time period to clear family backlogs to slip a few years. But my 
amendment speaks to an important principle, one I have been speaking to 
here for the last few minutes, which is, no one who came here illegally 
should be placed ahead in the citizenship path in front of someone who 
has played by the rules.
  Finally, let me just say that I anticipate there may be an argument 
that Citizenship and Immigration Services discontinued taking 
applications in May of 2005. However, we are told that the State 
Department has currently approved petitions dated after May 2005 for 
family members who are just waiting for an immigrant visa.

                               Exhibit 1

  U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Senate Support for Family Reunification 
                         Amendments to S. 1348

       The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly urges 
     senators to vote ``For'' the following family reunification 
     amendments to S. 1348, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act 
     of 2007:
       Menendez/Hagel Backlog Reduction Amendment. The Menendez/
     Hagel amendment would bring equity to the backlog reduction 
     contained in the substitute amendment to S. 1348 by 
     establishing the same cut-off date for backlog reduction 
     visas as is contained in the substitute for legalizing 
     undocumented aliens. Unless amended by Menendez/Hagel, the 
     substitute amendment would kick all relatives of U.S. 
     citizens and permanent resident aliens who filed petitions 
     after May of 2005 for family reunification visas out of line, 
     thus providing better treatment to undocumented aliens than 
     would be given to persons who have followed the law.
       Dodd Parents of U.S. Citizens Amendment. The Dodd amendment 
     would mitigate the damage done to parents of U.S. citizens by 
     the substitute amendment. It would do this by increasing from 
     40,000 to 90,000 the number of such parents who can be 
     admitted to the United States each year as permanent 
     residents. Under current law, there are an unlimited number 
     of such parents who can immigrate to the United States each 
     year.
       Clinton/Hagel Spouses and Unmarried Children Amendment. The 
     Clinton/Hagel amendment would categorize spouses and 
     unmarried children (under the age of 21) of legal permanent 
     resident aliens as ``immediate relatives.'' This would ensure 
     that longterm residents in the United States have the 
     opportunity to reunite with their immediate family members.
       Menendez/Obama Sunset Amendment. The Menendez/Obama sunset 
     amendment would sunset the new, untested and little-
     considered point system provision in the substitute amendment 
     to S. 1348 after 5 years in order to enable lawmakers to 
     assess whether the consequences of the experimental program 
     are unacceptable and warrant a return to the existing family- 
     and employment-sponsored preference systems.
                                  ____

       Dear Sir: The Interfaith Immigration Coalition is a 
     coalition of faith-based organizations committed to enacting 
     comprehensive immigration reform that reflects our mandate to 
     welcome the stranger and treat all human beings with dignity 
     and respect. Through this coalition, over 450 local and 
     national faith-based organizations and faith leaders have 
     called on Congress and the Administration to enact fair and 
     humane reform. Members of the coalition are extremely 
     concerned about the provisions of S. 1348 that would 
     undermine family reunification, and therefore urge Senators 
     to VOTE YES on the following amendments that will reaffirm 
     the United States' longstanding commitment to family values 
     and fairness.
       Vote ``Yes!'' Menendez Amendment on Family Backlog Cut Off 
     Date. Currently, the compromise legislation will clear the 
     backlog under our existing family and employer based system, 
     but only for those who submitted their applications before 
     May 1, 2005. As a result, an estimated 833,000 people who 
     have played by the rules and applied after that date will not 
     be cleared as part of the

[[Page S6616]]

     family backlog and will lose their chance to immigrate under 
     current rules. The Menendez amendment would change the ``cut-
     off'' date for legal immigrant applicants who would otherwise 
     be handled under the backlog reduction part of the bill from 
     May 1, 2005 to January 1, 2007, which is the same cut-off 
     date that is currently set for the legalization of the 
     undocumented immigrants. It would also add 110,000 green 
     cards a year to ensure that we don't start creating a new 
     backlog or cause the 8 year deadline for clearing the family 
     backlog to slip by a few years.
       Vote ``Yes!'' Clinton Amendment to Include Minor Children 
     and Spouses of Lawful Permanent Residents in ``Immediate 
     Relative'' Category. Current immigration law limits the 
     number of green cards available to spouses and minor children 
     of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to 87,900 per year. For 
     these spouses and minor children, quota backlogs are 
     approximately 4 years and 9 months long. The inequitable 
     treatment of minor children and spouses who are dependent on 
     the status of their U.S. sponsor has devastated thousands of 
     legal immigrant families. The Clinton amendment will re-
     categorize spouses and children of LPRs as ``immediate 
     relatives,'' thereby lifting the cap on the number of visas 
     available to these close family members, allowing permanent 
     residents of the U.S. to reunite with their loved ones in a 
     timely fashion.
       Vote ``Yes!'' Dodd Amendment Related to Foreign-Born 
     Parents of U.S. Citizens. Currently, the compromise 
     legislation would set an annual cap for green cards for 
     parents of U.S. citizens at 40,000 (less than half the 
     current annual average number of green cards issued to these 
     parents). It would also create a new parent visitor visa 
     program that only allows parents to visit for 100 days per 
     year and includes overly harsh collective penalties. The Dodd 
     amendment would increase the annual cap of green cards from 
     40,000 to 90,000, extend the duration of the parent visitor 
     visa from 100 days to 365 days in order to make it easier for 
     families to remain together for a longer period; and make 
     penalties levied on individuals who overstay their S-visa 
     only applicable to that individual and not collectively 
     applied to their fellow citizens. This amendment is essential 
     to making sure that our permanent legal immigration system is 
     fair to US citizens and their parents, and facilitates family 
     reunification.
                                  ____

                                                     May 22, 2007.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: The Jewish Council for Public Affairs 
     (JCPA) applauds the Senate's commitment to finding a workable 
     compromise on Comprehensive Immigration Reform and supports 
     S.1348 as a starting point for the debate. The introduction 
     of a comprehensive framework that secures our borders, clears 
     much of the current family backlog, and provides a path to 
     citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented workers 
     in the United States is a step in the right direction toward 
     fixing our broken immigration system.
       As the umbrella body for policy in the Jewish community, 
     representing 13 national agencies and 125 local community 
     relations councils in 44 states, the JCPA has long been 
     active in supporting comprehensive immigration reform that is 
     workable, fair and humane.
       However, JCPA holds serious reservations about other 
     aspects of the bill, particularly those that address family-
     based immigration.
       For example, the JCPA believes that several aspects of 
     Title V of the Senate compromise are unworkable and unjust. 
     Cutting entire categories of family-based immigration and 
     restructuring our current immigration system to favor 
     employment-based ties over family ties not only undermines 
     the family values that our central to our national identity, 
     it is also detrimental to our economy.
       Immigrant families bring an entrepreneurial spirit to our 
     country. Family-based immigration allows newcomers to pull 
     their resources together, start businesses, integrate more 
     easily into their communities and be more productive workers. 
     In addition, using education, English proficiency and job 
     skills as the basis for obtaining a green card does not 
     necessarily meet the economic need, as the U.S. Department of 
     Labor predicts that the U.S. economy has a higher demand for 
     low-skilled workers.
       Therefore, the JCPA urges you to:
       Vote ``Yes'' on the Clinton/Hagel Amendment to Include 
     Minor Children and Spouses of Lawful Permanent Residents in 
     the immediate Relative'' Category, thereby lifting the cap on 
     the number of visas available to these close family members.
       Vote ``Yes'' on the Dodd/Hatch Amendment related to 
     Foreign-Born Parents of U.S. Citizens, which would increase 
     the annual cap of green cards for parents from 40,000 to 
     90,000, extend the duration of the parent visitor visa from 
     100 days to 365 days, and not impose collective punishment on 
     families when one member overstays their visa.
       The JCPA is also concerned about the Title V provision that 
     arbitrarily sets the date of May 1st, 2005 as a cut-off for 
     clearing the backlog of applicants who have gone through 
     legal channels to try to reunite with their families in the 
     United States. Excluding individuals who have filed family-
     based applications and paid fees after May 2005 sends the 
     wrong message that playing by the rules is not rewarded. 
     Unless this provision is fixed, the 800,000 applicants that 
     applied after the May 2005 cut-off will be re-directed to the 
     new application process, where they will have to compete 
     in an untested point system that is stacked against them, 
     in order to reunite with their family members.
       Therefore, the JCPA urges you to:
       Vote ``Yes'' on the Menendez/Hagel Amendment on Family 
     Backlog Cut-off Date, which would change the May 1, 2005 cut-
     off date to January 1, 2007, the same cut-off date set for 
     the legalization for undocumented immigrants. The Menendez 
     amendment would also add 110,000 green cards a year to avoid 
     creation of a new backlog or cause families who went through 
     legal channels to wait longer than 8 years to reunite with 
     their loved ones in the United States.
       The JCPA applauds the Senate's commitment to passing a 
     comprehensive immigration reform package this year. The 
     alternative is the status quo, which has proven to produce 
     suffering, exploitation, family separation and chaos. 
     However, the JCPA maintains serious reservations due to the 
     concerns outlined above. We therefore urge you to support the 
     above amendments to the agreement that reflect family values, 
     workability and fairness.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me at [email protected] or 202-789-2222 X10l.
           Sincerely,

                                               Hadar Susskind,

                                              Washington Director,
     Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
                                  ____


            MALDEF--Promoting Latino Civil Rights Since 1968


  IMMIGRATION DEBATE STARTS IN THE U.S. SENATE--Positive and negative 
                details emerge; first votes being taken

       May 22, 2007.--On Monday, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 69-
     23, voted to begin debate on comprehensive immigration 
     reform. Contrary to the original plan to complete action by 
     Memorial Day, Senate leaders acknowledged that deliberations 
     will continue into June after the Memorial Day recess. MALDEF 
     will work with local organizations and leaders to organize 
     meetings and events while Senators are in their home states 
     to highlight the need for comprehensive immigration reform. 
     We encourage you also to work with local coalitions in your 
     area.
       MALDEF is working to restore family reunification, support 
     realistic employment verification systems, and remove 
     unnecessary obstacles to legalizing the immigration status of 
     otherwise law-abiding people already in the United States. In 
     addition to drastically limiting the ability of U.S. citizens 
     to be reunited in the U.S. with their brothers, sisters, and 
     parents, the Senate bill arbitrarily terminates family 
     reunification petitions filed after May 1, 2005. Urge your 
     Senator to support Senator Menendez's effort to restore the 
     hope for reunification for families whose applications were 
     filed after May 1, 2005. Over 800,000 legal immigrants 
     currently waiting in line will be harmed if this provision is 
     not improved.
       A key provision in the Senate bill requires all employers 
     to use a new government database to verify the employment 
     eligibility of every new hire within 18 months and every 
     existing employee, U.S. citizen or not, within three years. 
     Based on our experience with employer sanctions, we expect 
     significant discrimination to result against Latino workers. 
     The bill would bypass the existing Department of Justice 
     Civil Rights office and require discrimination victims to 
     complain to the Department of Homeland Security. The bill 
     also shields the implementing rules from class action 
     challenges and bars a court from awarding attorney fees to 
     those, like MALDEF, that would challenge the regulations. 
     These features must be changed.
       The legalization program makes unauthorized immigrants 
     eligible for a new ``Z'' visa if they entered the United 
     States as late as December 31, 2006. The program would start 
     six months after the bill is enacted and individuals (and 
     heads of households on behalf of their spouse and minor 
     children) would have up to a year and potentially two years 
     to apply. If they are eligible, unauthorized immigrants would 
     have an immediate interim stay of removal even before they 
     applied. These are the most positive features of the 
     compromise. MALDEF is working to strengthen other features 
     such as the costs, timing and eligibility restrictions.
       One of the first amendments expected, as early as today, 
     may be offered by Senators Feinstein (CA) and Bingaman (NM). 
     It would reduce the number of future ``temporary workers'' by 
     50% and permit 200,000 instead of 400,000 to enter per year. 
     This amendment does not address our key objections to the 
     temporary worker provision, namely, that it would be costly 
     to the workers and complicated for employers; it would allow 
     the families of only higher income workers to join them in 
     the United States; and it would require workers to leave 
     after two years and remain outside the U.S. for a year before 
     returning. The United States needs more workers than are 
     currently available in the domestic workforce. The flaws in 
     the program relate not to the number of workers but to the 
     conditions upon their entry and in their work environment.
       While the U.S. Senate is in session debating the 
     immigration bill, you will be receiving a special daily 
     edition of The MALDEFian.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I had originally come to the floor 
to

[[Page S6617]]

offer two amendments on Social Security. However, I have yielded to the 
request from Senator Kennedy to withhold, and he has told me that I 
will be able to offer those amendments on the first day we return and 
take this bill up on the floor again.
  Madam President, I did wish to speak, however, on what I hope to do 
with this bill. I think there are some very good features of this bill. 
It has been negotiated really for years. The good features are the 
border security and we do have benchmarks that are required to be done 
before any temporary worker program or dealing with the backlog of 
people who are in our country illegally begins.
  We will have benchmarks that are finite for border security. That is 
a good feature of this bill. It also has a temporary worker program 
going forward. I think it is essential, if we are going to have border 
security in the future in this country, that we have a temporary worker 
program that works. If we do not have a temporary worker program that 
works, we will not have border security. Many people are not putting 
that together, but it is essential that you put it together because if 
we do not have a way for people to come into this country and fill the 
jobs that are being unfilled because we do not have enough workers who 
will do those jobs, then we will never be able to control our borders.
  I am supportive of those parts of the bill. What I cannot support in 
this bill and what I am going to try to make a positive effort to 
change are basically two areas. First is the amnesty portion of the Z 
visa. It would allow people to come to this country illegally, stay 
here, and if they do not wish to have a green card, they would never 
have to return. And that visa would be able to be renewed as long as 
the person wanted to stay here and work. I will offer an amendment at 
the appropriate time that will take the amnesty out of the bill and 
require that before a person can work in this country legally, if they 
are here illegally, they would have to go home and apply from outside 
the country. We will have a time that will allow that to happen in an 
orderly way, probably 2 years after the person gets their temporary 
card when they register to say they are in our country illegally, which 
they will be required to do. Then they would have 2 years from the time 
they get that first temporary card to go home and register at home to 
come in our country legally.
  I think taking out the amnesty part of this bill would be a major 
step in the right direction, to say, for people who are here illegally 
today, they can get right with the law by applying from home, just as 
all future workers will have to do. So there would not be an amnesty 
for people who would be able to work here, stay here, and never go 
home. That would be my amendment which I would like to offer at the 
appropriate time.
  The second area I think must be fixed is in the Social Security area. 
We all know our Social Security system is on the brink of failure. We 
know that in the year 2017, the system will start to pay out more than 
it receives. By 2041, the trust fund will be exhausted.
  Now, in 2017, under the present law, we will have to make adjustments 
that will either increase Social Security taxes or decrease payments to 
Social Security recipients. If we put more people into our system who 
have gotten credits illegally working in this country, it is going to 
bring forward the year in which we have to start either lowering the 
payments or raising the taxes. I don't think that is right. I do not 
think we should give Social Security credits to people who will be Z 
visa holders in this country for the time they have worked illegally.
  In the underlying bill, they do address the issue of fraudulent 
cards. I commend them for putting that in the bill. If you have paid 
Social Security with a fraudulent number or a card that is not yours, 
you will not be able to get credit for Social Security. To be very fair 
and honest, that is a good part of this bill, but it does not deal with 
the people who have a card in their own name, but they have worked 
illegally.
  That is what one of my amendments will attempt to address, that we 
will also not give credit to people who have a card in their name, but 
they either obtained it illegally or they have overstayed a visa. So I 
hope we can also not give credit for that illegal time they have worked 
even if the card is in their name, but it was not their legal right to 
work. If we can do that and then start a person, when they are on the 
proper visa, toward getting credit, I think the American people will 
feel that is a fairer system.
  The second area I hope to address is the new future flow of temporary 
workers. Now, under the bill, the temporary workers who will be coming 
in after the backlog of the illegal workers is dealt with, those people 
should not ever go into the Social Security system because, according 
to this bill, they will be limited to a 6-year period. It is very 
important that in dealing with those temporary workers, that they will 
not ever be eligible for Social Security, nor should they be, because 
they will not have the requisite number of quarters.
  What my second amendment does is allow them to take what they have 
actually put into the Social Security system through the employee 
deduction. It will allow them to take that home when they leave the 
system. We think--I think that is a fair approach for both the person 
working and also the Social Security system itself, that they would get 
back what they put in, but they would not be eligible for our Social 
Security system, which would be much more costly down the road.
  In addition, the Medicare deduction which is taken from the employee 
would also go into a fund which is already a fund in place that now 
allows compensation for uncompensated health care to a county hospital 
or to a health care provider that delivers a baby of an illegal 
immigrant who cannot pay or does any emergency service for an illegal 
immigrant today.

  We know many hospitals--I know that in my home State of Texas, my 
hospitals in my major cities always talk about how much they are having 
to raise taxes on the taxpayers who live in their districts because 
there is so much use of the health care facilities by illegal 
immigrants who cannot pay. So the Medicare deduction would go into a 
fund that would compensate health care providers for service to foreign 
workers who would not be able to pay.
  Those are the two amendments which I think would assure that the 
taxpayers of our country and the contributors to the Social Security 
system who have earned the right to have that safety net would not be 
unfairly taxed for people who have not been legally in the system or 
people who do not have the quarters that would be requisite. I hope we 
can take these amendments up. I hope they will be acceptable. If we can 
take the amnesty out of this bill by assuring that everyone who is here 
illegally will have to apply outside of our country to be able to come 
in legally to work, then we have set the precedent of the rule of law 
which we have always prided ourselves on in this country. If we can 
assure that the Social Security system is not also unduly burdened with 
quarters given for illegal work, then I think the American people will 
accept that we have to address this issue in a responsible way.
  I have heard the outcry of people about this bill, and I think some 
of that outcry is justified. But I think we can fix the parts that are 
not in tune with the American people and also do what is right for our 
country going forward because there is one thing on which I think we 
can all agree; that is, we have a system that is broken when you have 
10 to 12 million people--and that is an estimate because we do not know 
for sure--who are working in our country illegally. They are not being 
treated fairly, nor are the American people who do live by the rule of 
law being treated fairly. It is a system that is broken, and it is a 
very complicated and hard problem to fix, but that is our 
responsibility.
  I respect those who have tried, in a bipartisan way, to put forward a 
bill. As a person who has written a book, as a person who has written 
legal briefs, I know that the person who puts out the first draft is 
always going to be the one who is under attack. But someone has to do 
it, and the people who have worked on this bill did step out and say: 
Here is the starting point.
  Congressman Mike Pence and I, last year, when the House and Senate 
broke down in negotiations over this issue, did the same thing. We came 
out with

[[Page S6618]]

what we thought was a starting point that would be the right approach, 
and the principles we laid down were that we would have a guest worker 
program which would not include amnesty but would be a fair and 
workable guest worker program. It would have private sector 
involvement. It would have border security as our No. 1 goal. It would 
also preserve the integrity of our Social Security system. Congressman 
Pence and I tried to do that last year. Many of the elements in the 
Hutchison-Pence plan are in the bill before us.
  If we can perfect this bill and take the amnesty out by requiring 
everyone to apply outside our country--and it can be done in a 
responsible way mechanically because you would have some amount of 
time--1 or 2 years--to do it so that it would not be a glut on the 
system. I regret the argument that you cannot do it. I think we can. I 
also think we need to make a responsible effort, and that is exactly 
what I am going to try to do.
  I hope all our colleagues will work in a positive way to try to fix 
the parts that we think are bad, to admit that there are some good 
parts. The border security and the temporary worker program are very 
good, and the part about the Social Security protection for fraudulent 
cards is good. Let's try to make it better. Let's try to make it a bill 
that everyone will accept as fair for America, fair for foreign 
workers, helps our economy, and keeps our borders secure. That is what 
we owe the people. I hope to make a contribution in that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see my friend from Vermont on his 
feet. I know from conversation that he wants to modify his amendment. I 
hope the Chair will recognize him for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 1223, as Modified

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I have a modification of my amendment 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his 
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of title VII, insert the following:

        Subtitle C--American Competitiveness Scholarship Program

     SEC. 711. AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation (referred to in this section as the ``Director'') 
     shall award scholarships to eligible individuals to enable 
     such individuals to pursue associate, undergraduate, or 
     graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, health 
     care, or computer science.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a scholarship 
     under this section, an individual shall--
       (A) be a citizen of the United States, a national of the 
     United States (as defined in section 101(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)), an alien 
     admitted as a refugee under section 207 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1157), or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence;
       (B) prepare and submit to the Director an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Director may require; and
       (C) certify to the Director that the individual intends to 
     use amounts received under the scholarship to enroll or 
     continue enrollment at an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) in order to pursue an associate, 
     undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics, 
     engineering, computer science, nursing, medicine, or other 
     clinical medical program, or technology, or science program 
     designated by the Director.
       (2) Ability.--Awards of scholarships under this section 
     shall be made by the Director solely on the basis of the 
     ability of the applicant, except that in any case in which 2 
     or more applicants for scholarships are deemed by the 
     Director to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and 
     there are not sufficient scholarships available to grant one 
     to each of such applicants, the available scholarship or 
     scholarships shall be awarded to the applicants in a manner 
     that will tend to result in a geographically wide 
     distribution throughout the United States of recipients' 
     places of permanent residence.
       (c) Amount of Scholarship; Renewal.--
       (1) Amount of scholarship.--The amount of a scholarship 
     awarded under this section shall be $15,000 per year, except 
     that no scholarship shall be greater than the annual cost of 
     tuition and fees at the institution of higher education in 
     which the scholarship recipient is enrolled or will enroll.
       (2) Renewal.--The Director may renew a scholarship under 
     this section for an eligible individual for not more than 4 
     years.
       (d) Funding.--The Director shall carry out this section 
     only with funds made available under section 286(x) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by section 712) (8 
     U.S.C. 1356).
       (e) Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall publish in 
     the Federal Register a list of eligible programs of study for 
     a scholarship under this section.

     SEC. 712. SUPPLEMENTAL H-1B NONIMMIGRANT PETITIONER ACCOUNT.

       Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1356) (as amended by this Act) is further amended by 
     inserting after subsection (w) the following:
       ``(x) Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as 
     the `Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account'. 
     Notwithstanding any other section of this Act, there shall be 
     deposited as offsetting receipts into the account all fees 
     collected under section 214(c)(15).
       ``(2) Use of fees for american competitiveness scholarship 
     program.--The amounts deposited into the Supplemental H-1B 
     Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall remain available to the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation until expended 
     for scholarships described in section 711 of the Secure 
     Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 
     2007 for students enrolled in a program of study leading to a 
     degree in mathematics, engineering, health care, or computer 
     science.''.

     SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.

       Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is 
     required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11), 
     the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or 
     the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a 
     supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee 
     required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in 
     the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500, 
     except that the fee shall be \1/2\ that amount for any 
     employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees 
     who are employed in the United States (determined by 
     including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
       ``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section 
     286(x).''.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see my friend and colleague from 
Illinois here, as well as my colleague from Alabama. I did wish to 
address the Vitter amendment briefly. We are very hopeful we may be 
able to accept the Senator's amendment. We will know that momentarily.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1231 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to first describe what I am going 
to try to do at this moment so all Senators will know. I am going to 
ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending Sanders amendment 
for the purpose of offering an amendment which I am going to offer and 
then, after a brief comment of 3 to 5 minutes, I will ask unanimous 
consent to return to the Sanders amendment as the pending business 
before the Senate. I don't wish to mislead anybody about what I am 
doing. This should be a total of about 5 minutes, and we will be back 
where we started. My amendment will be at the desk for later 
consideration.
  I make that unanimous consent request to set aside the pending 
Sanders amendment for the purpose of offering my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I had understood there 
would be an opportunity for me to speak after Senator Sanders and 
Senator Durbin. Are we going to be in a situation where I may not be 
allowed to offer an amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Alabama through the Chair, I 
will be completed in 3 to 5 minutes, and we will be in exactly the same 
place we started. The Sanders amendment will be pending with no other 
requirements under the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, and 
     Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1231 to 
     amendment No. 1150.


[[Page S6619]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To ensure that employers make efforts to recruit American 
                                workers)

       In section 218B(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     as added by section 403(a), strike ``Except where the 
     Secretary of Labor has determined that there is a shortage of 
     United States workers in the occupation and area of intended 
     employment to which the Y nonimmigrant is sought, each'' and 
     insert ``Each''.

       In section 218B(c)(1)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, as added by section 403(a), strike ``Except where the 
     Secretary of Labor has determined that there is a shortage of 
     United States workers in the occupation and area of intended 
     employment for which the Y nonimmigrant is sought--'' and 
     insert ``That--''.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Grassley. The new Y guest worker program included in 
the immigration bill would require employers to recruit Americans 
before hiring a guest worker. That is our first obligation. If there is 
a job opening in America, an American should have the first chance to 
get it. That is the intent of the bill, but there is one loophole. The 
loophole allows the Secretary of Labor to declare a labor shortage and 
then waive the requirement of offering the job to an American. We don't 
define what a labor shortage is. This amendment removes that right of 
the Secretary of Labor.
  What it means is, as there are job openings, they will always be 
offered first to Americans. Shouldn't that be our starting point, 
always offer the job first to an American, to see if an unemployed 
person or someone else wants to take it? Then if the job is not filled, 
we can consider other options. We know when it comes to H-1B visas, 
which are visas offered to skilled workers to come into this country to 
fill in gaps for engineers and architects and professionals, there have 
been abuses. When we had the openings for the H-1B visas, opportunities 
for people to come into this country, it turned out that 7 out of the 
10 firms that won the right to offer H-1B visas were not American 
companies trying to fill spots where they couldn't find Americans. They 
turned out to be foreign companies that were outsourcing workers to the 
United States, exactly the opposite of what we had hoped for. We don't 
want that to happen with the temporary guest worker program. This 
amendment would eliminate this jobs shortage exception. It would 
require that in temporary guest worker positions, the first job 
offering always be to an American. It is simple. Senator Grassley and I 
offer it. It is supported by the AFL-CIO and the building trades 
unions, the laborers and Teamsters, many other organizations. I urge my 
colleagues, when we return after our Memorial Day recess, to consider 
this amendment. It is a very important amendment to stand faithful to 
our first obligation, our people in America who are looking for jobs.
  I ask unanimous consent to set my amendment aside and return to the 
Sanders amendment as the pending amendment before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think we are in a position to accept 
the amendment of the Senator from Vermont as modified. What I propose 
to do is to speak very briefly on the Vitter amendment, and then it 
would be my expectation that we would move to Senator Sessions to have 
an opportunity for him to offer his amendment. He has been on the floor 
a great deal today trying to be recognized. He has been at a markup on 
Armed Services so he couldn't be here earlier.
  I have been informed there are some objections to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Vermont. We will have to process them and 
see what we will do. It is not unusual that the information given to us 
is that we can accept and then others come forward. But we will try to 
work it out.


                           Amendment No. 1157

  Briefly, Madam President, I oppose the Vitter amendment. The core of 
the legislation is to provide for border security, employer 
verification, a guest worker program, and a way to handle the 12 
million undocumented immigrants. The Vitter amendment strikes title VI, 
which provides for the way of handling the 12 million undocumented 
immigrants, which is, if not the heart of this bill, a vital organ of 
the bill. Without this provision, the bill doesn't have the import 
which is necessary to deal with the immigration problem.
  The 12 million undocumented immigrants are going to be in the United 
States whether we deal with them in a systematic, appropriate way or 
not. The only question is whether we eliminate the anarchy, having 
them, as the expression is often used, living in the shadows, living in 
fear. If we systematize the approach, they come out of the shadows. 
They register. We will have an opportunity to identify the criminal 
element, deport a reasonable number when we identify those who can be, 
should be deported, and then deal with the balance as the bill provides 
with the Z visas.
  Stated briefly, if you were to accept the Vitter amendment, there 
would be nothing left but a shell of this bill. The whole bill is an 
accommodation of border security, employer verification for what we do 
in the guest worker program, and the 12 million undocumented 
immigrants. For those reasons, I vigorously oppose the Vitter 
amendment.
  I believe we are now ready for the Senator from Alabama to offer his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, at the request of the leaders, we were 
in the process of trying to get some votes this afternoon. We were 
moving along as well because the Appropriations Committee had asked us 
if we would be finished by 5 o'clock. I see my friend from Alabama who 
has been extremely patient. He has been in the Armed Services 
Committee, where I should have been earlier in the afternoon. He was 
diligent there and arrived over here. He has important amendments on 
the earned-income tax credit and others. The Senator from Vermont has 
been here all afternoon. He has a good amendment. We had initially, at 
2:15, said we would do the Vitter amendment. We were going to come back 
and do the Feingold amendment, but then we were told we couldn't vote 
on that.
  We were told we couldn't vote on Vitter because there were some 
members of his own party who chose not to do so. But we wanted to vote 
on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. Hopefully, he was going 
to be accepted, but that is not the case.
  I hope we would have the opportunity to vote on that; then after 
that, to recognize the Senator from Alabama for whatever time he might 
need for the purpose of debate, rather than for voting. The request of 
the leadership is to do the supplemental. We give assurance to the 
Senator from Alabama that we will consider his amendment at the 
earliest possible time after we return.

  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator 
from Pennsylvania to consider the following--if we could enter into a 
unanimous consent request that would allow the Senator from Alabama to 
lay down his amendments, to speak, and then withdraw the amendments, 
returning to the Sanders amendment, and have unanimous consent at a 
time certain that we would have a vote on the Sanders amendment; would 
that be agreeable?
  I would like to make that unanimous consent request, if the Senator 
from Alabama can tell us how much time he would need.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would prefer to have a vote on my 
amendment tonight, if we could do so. I would be reluctant to have 
another vote if we can't have a vote on the amendment I will offer.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Vermont has been here 
all day waiting for this opportunity and has patiently waited as 
several suggested rollcalls have passed by. In fact, one was to be at 5 
o'clock. Without prejudicing the Senator from Alabama, I have a pending 
amendment, too, or had one earlier, which I am willing to wait until 
after the recess to consider. I think it might be a gesture of fairness 
to allow the Senator from Vermont to have his vote this evening, 
whether the Senator and I get our chance or not. We will be back after 
Memorial Day.

[[Page S6620]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. It is a tough life in the pit here. If I desire to have 
a vote tonight myself, what would be the difficulty with that? We could 
do that at the same time as the vote on the Sanders amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think we have had a good debate and discussion on the 
Sanders amendment. It was the request of the leadership that we have 
the supplemental, which has been extremely important. There is going to 
be action on that later this evening. They had initially asked us if we 
could conclude at 4 o'clock. We have been trying to conclude so that 
Members who want to address the supplemental would be able to address 
the supplemental. That is basically the reason for that. We have been 
here, as the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, ready to do business 
since 9:30 this morning. We were glad to. I had hoped--and I apologize 
to the Senator from Vermont because we were all set to have a rollcall 
on that. Then it appeared it might have been accepted. I was asked, 
requested by Senators to hold for a few moments to see whether it could 
not have been cleared. I could ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments of the Senator from Alabama be considered on Tuesday at a 
time agreeable to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there will be a number of amendments I 
would like to have considered and a number of others that need to be 
considered after we come back.
  I would just reluctantly state that if we have a vote, I would need 
and request that my vote be also tonight; otherwise, I would object to 
the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I have been 
informed by staff that his amendment has not been filed, and we have 
not seen a copy of it. Senator Feingold, who earlier had an amendment, 
stepped aside so Senator Sanders would have his chance. I say to the 
Senator from Alabama, it appears some who have been waiting all day are 
looking for a chance for a vote, and the Senator from Alabama is asking 
for consideration of an amendment that has not been filed and we have 
not seen.
  Madam President, I say to the Senator, could I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senator from Alabama be recognized to offer an amendment and 
that he then be recognized for up to 15 minutes; that following his 
remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the Sanders amendment and 
there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Sanders 
amendment, with no second-degree amendment in order to the Sanders 
amendment prior to the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, if I would be allowed to make my two 
amendments pending and to speak for 15 minutes, I would forgo a request 
for a vote tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, did the Senator say two amendments?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have two amendments. They are both 
on the same subject. I would rather offer both. I am not sure which 
one--I would never ask the Senate to vote on both, but I would like to 
offer both.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I will renew my unanimous consent 
request and see if the Senator from Alabama will find it acceptable.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions be recognized to offer 
two amendments and be given up to 15 minutes to speak to those 
amendments; that following his remarks, the Senate resume consideration 
of the Sanders amendment and there be 2 minutes of debate prior a vote 
in relation to that amendment, equally divided, with no second-degree 
amendments in order to the Sanders amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WHITEHOUSE). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Illinois for 
his expertise in extracting that agreement from this confusion.


                Amendment No. 1234 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and I 
send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1234 to amendment No. 1150.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years 
after passage of this Act, by preventing the earned income tax credit, 
which is, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest 
anti-poverty entitlement program of the Federal Government, from being 
claimed by Y temporary workers or illegal alients given status by this 
       Act until they adjust to legal permanent resident status)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON CLAIMING EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       Any alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, 
     receives adjustment of status under section 601 of this Act 
     (relating to aliens who were illegally present in the United 
     States prior to January 1, 2007), or enters the United States 
     to work on a Y visa under section 402 of this Act, shall not 
     be eligible for the tax credit provided under section 32 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code (relating to earned income) until 
     such alien has his or her status adjusted to legal permanent 
     resident status.

                Amendment No. 1235 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1235 to amendment No. 1150.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years 
after passage of this Act, by preventing the earned income tax credit, 
which is, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest 
anti-poverty entitlement program of the Federal Government, from being 
 claimed by Y temporary workers or illegal aliens given status by this 
       Act until they adjust to legal permanent resident status)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. 5-YEAR LIMITATION ON CLAIMING EARNED INCOME TAX 
                   CREDIT.

       Section 403(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613) is 
     amended by inserting ``, including the tax credit provided 
     under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to 
     earned income),'' after ``means-tested public benefit''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the more significant 
ramifications of the immigration bill that is on the floor today is 
that it will confer immediately on persons in our country illegally the 
benefit of the earned-income tax credit. This is not a little bitty 
matter. The earned-income tax credit is the largest aid program for 
low-wage workers in America. Last year, the earned-income tax credit 
benefitted over 22 million people who. The average recipient who 
receives a benefit under the earned-income tax credit receives over 
$1,700 per year--a very generous event. Last year, we spent $41.2 
billion on the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  What this bill would do, for the people who are here illegally, is 
confer on them a Z status, a legal status, and under the impact of the 
legislation, these individuals would immediately become eligible for 
the earned-income tax credit.
  Let me tell you why this is not good policy, it is not required by 
morality, and it certainly is not required of Congress as a matter of 
law or policy. The earned-income tax credit was created in 1975 to 
provide extra income to the working poor. Before welfare reform 
particularly, there was a widespread understanding that many people 
could not work, could stay at home, draw a panoply of welfare benefits, 
and end up making more money not working than working. It was creating 
a disincentive to work.
  Back when President Nixon was President, Republicans--and I guess

[[Page S6621]]

Democrats--moved forward with the earned-income tax credit. It has 
grown and become a major factor for low-wage working Americans. The 
whole concept behind the earned-income tax credit was to encourage 
Americans to work, to affirm their work, to provide aid and assistance 
to them, unlike welfare. It is tied to their work. Now, I have to tell 
you, I have looked at it, and I do not think it is achieving quite what 
we want it to do. In fact, I would like to change that and have 
suggested it over the years but, regardless, that is the deal.
  So how is it, then, that we would think we have an obligation to 
provide, as a reward to someone who came to our country illegally, a 
benefit they are not now receiving, did not expect to receive when they 
came to the country, legally or illegally, and then, just as an 
additional benefit and reward to their legalization, we provide a 
$1,700-per-year benefit? It does not make good sense to me. I think it 
is bad policy, and it has a huge impact on our bottom line in the 
budget we have to deal with.
  I also note that in 1996, when we passed the Welfare Reform Act, 
after much effort and work--President Clinton vetoed it twice but 
finally signed it--an effort was made to ensure that persons who 
obtained a green card did not receive means-tested benefits until at 
least they had a green card for 5 years. In other words, if you were 
coming to our country as an immigrant, we wanted to be sure you were 
not coming for welfare benefits, but to work, and that you would not 
receive means-tested benefits until you had a green card for at least 5 
years.
  So what happened was, when they wrote that, it did not touch the 
earned-income tax credit. I guess that is a Finance Committee matter. 
It is a tax committee matter. It was not considered a normal welfare-
type payment, and that was not included in the list of things a person 
was not allowed to get. But, in my own mind, I say to my colleagues, it 
is perfectly consistent in philosophy and in principle with that 
because the earned-income tax credit is a payment from the Federal 
Government to working Americans. You file a tax return and obtain the 
Earned Income Tax Credit after a year's work. When your work shows your 
income level was below a certain level in America, you reach a 
qualifying level, and you get a tax refund of $1,700, $1,000, $2,400, 
depending on the circumstances of yourself and your family. So that is 
what happens today for working Americans. The individuals who are in 
our country illegally at this moment have not been expecting to get 
that, have not been getting it unless they are filing fraudulently, and 
they should not get it. They should not get it as an additional benefit 
to receiving a Z visa, which allows them permanent residence in the 
United States and a pathway to citizenship.
  That Z visa would also allow them to obtain quite a number of other 
benefits, such as food stamps--which would not be affected by my 
amendment--health care for children, and, of course, anyone who goes 
into a hospital who has an emergency need will be treated whether they 
have insurance or legal status or not. So their children would be 
educated in our school systems. All those things would occur. Nothing 
would impact those things. But it is not correct as a matter of law, as 
a matter of principle, and certainly it is not a matter of fiscal 
responsibility for this Congress to pass an immigration reform bill 
that confers another $18 billion to $20 billion in earned-income tax 
credit on people whom we just rewarded with permanent residence in our 
country. That is not required. There is no requirement of that.
  The Congressional Research Service describes the EITC in this way:

       The earned income tax credit began in 1975 as a temporary 
     program--

  Typical of Washington, isn't it, that we start something that is 
temporary, and it is $40 billion a year now--

     to return a portion of the Social Security taxes paid by 
     lower-income taxpayers and was made permanent in 1978. In the 
     1990s the program was transformed into a major component of 
     Federal efforts to reduce poverty and is now the largest 
     antipoverty entitlement program.

  I bet most Americans did not know that the EITC is the largest 
entitlement program on the books.
  Now, I have had a fairly positive view of the earned-income tax 
credit. I think in many ways it is a good philosophy to help Americans 
get out, get moving, make some work. They often start out at lower wage 
jobs, and it sounds bad sometimes for them, and they are not making 
enough to get by. This earned-income tax credit can really be a benefit 
to them, and if they stay at that job, if they work at it, if they are 
responsible and they come to work on time and do their duty 
effectively, most people in America get promoted. Their wages go up, 
and they do better and better. So I do not think it is a bad program, 
but it is a very expensive program, and for a number of reasons it 
could be operated better.
  I will again say to my colleagues, I am not of the belief that it is 
required of us that we should confer on persons who came into our 
country illegally every single benefit we confer on those who wait in 
line and come to our country legally. I just do not think that is 
required. One of the things in particular I would suggest not to be 
conferred--should not be conferred--upon them is the extensive benefits 
of the earned-income tax credit.
  In other words, we do not want to attract people to America on things 
other than their wages and salary. We have enough people who need help 
in America. We have a lot of people out there working who, frankly, 
maybe did not have a good home life. They have not been as reliable as 
they should have been. Maybe they have gotten in trouble a time or two. 
We need our American businesses to take a chance on those people. We 
need to help them get their lives together and establish a good work 
history and start making some money. The earned-income tax credit comes 
in as a refundable tax credit on top of that as a real bonus to them, 
and that is good. But it should not be an attraction to draw people 
into our country because most of the persons who come into America as 
an illegal immigrant, at least in the first years, tend to make the 
salary levels that qualify for the earned-income tax credit. So there 
will be a disproportionately high number of persons who will qualify 
for that.

  I see my time is about up. I will reluctantly accept having a vote, 
as Senator Kennedy suggested we can do early in the next week when we 
come back, if that will help move us along tonight. But I want to tell 
my colleagues to think about this amendment--really think about it. 
This is not a harsh amendment. This is not an amendment to hurt 
anybody. It is an amendment that says: OK, if you are in our country, 
just like the 1996 Welfare Reform Act said, and you qualify for the Z 
visa under this amnesty program, or whatever you would like to call 
what we have in this bill, you are not automatically eligible for the 
earned-income tax credit. We absolutely should not allow that to 
happen. It is not necessary. It is not right to do so. It is a raid on 
the Treasury of the United States. It draws money from people who have 
paid taxes for years.
  I would have to note, under the bill that is on the Senate floor, the 
immigration bill before us, are individuals who have been here 
illegally, some of whom may have made nice incomes and are absolved 
from paying a portion of their back taxes. So they don't even pay all 
back taxes. Then we are going to give them, immediately, the next year, 
an earned-income tax credit that could be a very substantial amount of 
money, and that comes right out of the taxpayers' pockets, a billion 
here and a billion there and a billion here and a billion there. It 
does add up, and it is significant.
  So I would urge my colleagues to consider this and hope that they 
will.
  I also wanted to express my support for Senator Hutchison for the 
analysis on Social Security of persons who come here to work and who 
violate their stays and overstay, that they should not receive the full 
benefit of Social Security. One of the things you have to have if you 
are going to have an effective immigration policy is you must have a 
situation in which you don't reward people for bad behavior, for 
heaven's sake. We certainly are not very good at apprehending people 
who violate the law, who either came in illegally or overstayed and 
removed them from the country, but surely we ought to set up a system 
that says if you violate the law, the way you come or stay here, you 
don't get Federal taxpayer benefits and a reward as a result of

[[Page S6622]]

that illegal behavior. If we are not able to make those distinctions 
and stand with clarity on those kinds of questions, I suggest we are 
not able to take a stand on most any principle of law. So that worries 
me.
  Senator Cornyn, who spoke earlier and very effectively, asked me to 
make this note for the record; that his modification corrected--he 
stated in his remarks that he made a modification to his amendment to 
correct the page number. He also wanted to make clear that he did also 
include a technical correction beyond that, and he didn't want to 
mislead anyone. He asked that I clarify that for him so that there 
would be no dispute about that.
  Also, some people have suggested that the Cornyn amendment would 
amount to an unconstitutional ex post facto rule because of its 
retroactive application. Now, that is a pretty harsh thing to say about 
Judge Cornyn. Senator Cornyn served on the Supreme Court of the State 
of Texas and he would just suggest this: In order for any immigration 
provision to have immediate effect, it is imperative that they apply to 
the conduct and convictions that occurred before enactment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 15 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more 
minute, and I will wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So, also, I would note on behalf of Senator Cornyn's 
amendment that if prior conduct and convictions were not covered, you 
would have an immigration regime that essentially welcomes the 
following people, and this is not how the immigration system should 
operate. For example, as recently as 2005--I see my time is up, and I 
won't go into that. I will just note that Senator Cornyn's amendment as 
he offered it will meet constitutional muster, and it is not subject to 
the criticism some have suggested, and please do support it.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of the men and women who would become 
legal residents of the United States under the terms of this 
legislation are required to pay income tax like every other worker in 
America. What the Sessions amendment would do is really quite 
extraordinary and grossly unfair. It would arbitrarily deny those 
immigrants who have become legal residents one of the tax benefits 
available to every taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code. That 
provision is the earned-income tax credit, a provision designed to 
reduce the I tax burden on low income families with children.
  It is fundamentally wrong to subject immigrant workers to a 
different, harsher Tax Code than the one that applies to everyone else 
in the country. An immigrant worker should pay exactly the same income 
tax that every other worker earning the same pay and supporting the 
same size family pays--no less and no more. We should not be designing 
a special punitive Tax Code for immigrants that makes them more than 
everyone else. Yet that is exactly what the Sessions amendment seeks to 
do.
  The Session amendment would result in highly inconsistent treatment 
of legal immigrant residents, and would drastically increase the amount 
of tax that many of these families had to pay. They would be subject to 
income and payroll taxes in the same manner as other workers but would 
be denied the use of a key element of the Tax Code that is intended to 
offset the relatively heavy tax burdens that low-income working 
families, especially those with children, otherwise would face.
  Most of the EITC is simply a tax credit for the payment of other 
taxes, especially regressive payroll taxes. The EITC was specifically 
designed to offset the payroll tax burden on low-income working 
parents. The Treasury Department has estimated that a large majority of 
the EITC merely compensates for a portion of the federal income, 
payroll, and excise taxes paid by the low-income tax filers who qualify 
to receive it.
  A significant share of families that receive the EITC owe federal 
income tax before the EITC is applied, in addition to paying payroll 
taxes. Low-income working immigrant families in this category who would 
be denied the EITC under the Sessions Amendment would consequently face 
a dramatic increase in their income tax bill, requiring them to pay 
much higher taxes than other taxpayers with similar earnings.
  Other families with even less income would not receive a refund to 
offset the disproportionately large payroll taxes they paid, unlike 
other workers with comparable wages and dependents.
  To qualify for the EITC, under current law, a taxpayer must satisfy 
the following criteria: 1., Be a US citizen or legal resident; 2., have 
a valid Social Security number for both the worker and any qualifying 
children; 3., have earned income from employment or self-employment; 
4., have total income that falls below a certain level, and; 5., file 
an income tax return.
  Current law already clearly prohibits illegal immigrants from 
receiving the EITC. No immigrant can receive the earned income tax 
credit unless he or she is a legal resident who is a low wage worker 
paying payroll taxes and filing an income tax return. These are men and 
women who are conscientiously fulfilling their responsibilities to 
their adopted country and they deserve to be treated like all other 
workers in America.
  This amendment would hurt children. The United States has more 
children living in poverty than any other industrialized country. We 
need to help children, not hurt them. And they should not have to pay 
for the sins of their parents.

                          ____________________