[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7099-S7152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1348, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1348) to provide for comprehensive immigration 
     reform and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Kennedy/Specter) amendment No. 1150, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Cornyn modified amendment No. 1184 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, 
     and other criminals.
       Dodd/Menendez amendment No. 1199 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to increase the number of green cards for parents of United 
     States citizens, to extend the duration of the new parent 
     visitor visa, and to make penalties imposed on individuals 
     who overstay such visas applicable only to such individuals.
       Menendez amendment No. 1194 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     modify the deadline for the family backlog reduction.
       Sessions amendment No. 1234 (to amendment No. 1150), 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 antipoverty 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.
       Sessions amendment No. 1235 (to amendment No. 1150), 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 antipoverty 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.
       Lieberman amendment No. 1191 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     provide safeguards against faulty asylum procedures and to 
     improve conditions of detention.
       Cornyn amendment No. 1250 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     address documentation of employment and to make an amendment 
     with respect to mandatory disclosure of information.
       Salazar (for Clinton) modified amendment No. 1183 (to 
     amendment No. 1150), to reclassify the spouses and minor 
     children of lawful permanent residents as immediate 
     relatives.
       Salazar (for Obama/Menendez) amendment No. 1202 (to 
     amendment No. 1150), to provide a date on which the authority 
     of the section relating to the increasing of American 
     competitiveness through a merit-based evaluation system for 
     immigrants shall be terminated.
       DeMint amendment No. 1197 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     require health care coverage for holders of Z nonimmigrant 
     visas.
       Bingaman/Obama modified amendment No. 1267 (to amendment 
     No. 1150), to remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant 
     visa holders leave the United States before they are able to 
     renew their visa.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 hours of debate with respect to amendment No. 1184, as 
modified, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn; an amendment 
offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, related to the 
same subject, with time equally divided and controlled between Senator 
Cornyn and Senator Kennedy.
  Who yields time?

[[Page S7100]]

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am requesting just 30 seconds to make a 
unanimous consent request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that we call up three amendments, Nos. 1187, 
1188, and 1201, and then we be returned back to the pending amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the benefit of the Members, we 
have tried to establish a way of moving along today. We are going to 
consider the Cornyn amendment, and then there is an amendment that I 
will place at the desk. We will have a 2-hour time allocation equally 
divided, though I am not sure we will take all the time, and then we 
will have an opportunity to vote on that measure.
  We are trying to set up a series of votes through the morning, 
through the afternoon, and through the evening. What we are going to 
try to do is to give Members as much time as possible on these items, 
rotating back and forth through the course of the day, and we will work 
with our colleagues to try to accommodate their schedules. We have a 
rigorous program, and we will announce that.
  We have talked with the floor managers, Senator Specter, Senator Kyl, 
and others, on these measures, and we will proceed in that way. So 
Members need to understand that we will have a busy and full day, and 
we will start off with the amendment of the Senator from Texas, No. 
1184, as I understand.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 1184

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, this amendment we will vote on this morning is an 
important amendment. It was first filed 2 full weeks ago, and it has 
taken this long to be able to get a vote on this amendment, for which I 
am grateful, but I must say that, as the Republican leader indicated 
this morning, the rate of progress with getting amendments debated and 
voted on is not promising. And the fact that the majority leader has 
now filed cloture, potentially cutting off the opportunity for full and 
fair debate and an adequate number of votes on this bill, again, is not 
encouraging at all.
  I am one of those who would like to see a solution to this problem, 
but I think it is important that we reflect on what kind of solution we 
will accomplish if we are successful. To me, the goal is simply to 
restore law and order to our immigration system. It is important to our 
national security because we have to know who is coming into our 
country and why people are here in a post-9/11 world. It is important 
to public safety because we know the same broken borders that can allow 
people who are economic migrants to come across can also allow common 
criminals, drug traffickers, and even terrorists. And it is important 
to our prosperity in this Nation that we reestablish our heritage as a 
nation that believes in the rule of law. We simply cannot have people 
choosing to obey some laws and disobeying others. That is not adherence 
to the rule of law. That is picking and choosing, cherry-picking what 
laws you find convenient and what laws you find inconvenient.

  To my mind, and based upon my experience with my constituents across 
the State of Texas last week, this is the cause for so much distrust of 
the Federal Government when it comes to this issue. The basic objection 
to this underlying bill is not that people don't believe there is a 
serious problem, it is not that people are racist or anti-immigrant or 
nativists or know-nothings or any of the other names that sometimes 
people are called. It is that the American people believe we have been 
here before.
  In 1986, they gave their trust to the Federal Government to actually 
fix this problem by granting a one-time amnesty and then providing for 
an enforcement system that would actually be enforced against employers 
who hire people who cannot legally work here. They were sold a bill of 
goods. It didn't work. We got an amnesty, and we got no enforcement. 
That is why people are so distrustful.
  So if we are serious about restoring the rule of law, I believe the 
first place to start would be by passing this amendment, amendment No. 
1184, on the floor of the Senate.
  What does this amendment do?
  Well, first of all, this amendment would mandate that gang members 
cannot obtain legal status. It is well documented that members of MS-13 
and other gangs, ultra-violet gangs emanating from Central America, 
have come across our broken borders and committed terrible crimes of 
violence in the United States. In the underlying bill, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security could actually grant a waiver that would allow a gang 
member legal status.
  That just cannot be. Congress should draw a line about whom we are 
willing to allow in and whom we are not, and we shouldn't delegate this 
to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or the Attorney 
General or anyone who might hold those positions in the future.
  The next thing my amendment would do is it would address the 
definition of ``good moral character.'' We would allow only people with 
good moral character, as defined in the bill, to obtain legal status. 
The underlying bill does not contain a prohibition on those who are 
affiliated with terrorist organizations. My amendment makes the 
commonsense change that would bar them. The amendment also requires 
that those who apply for legalization under the bill must generally 
show they have good moral character.
  Third, my amendment makes the failure of sex offenders to register in 
high-speed flight crimes grounds of ineligibility for Z visas.
  Fourth, my amendment makes repeat DWIs, driving while intoxicated or 
driving under the influence, an aggravated felony. It is a simple fact 
of life that repeat DWI offenders are a substantial threat to a 
community's safety.
  They have a proven history of involvement in various serious 
collisions that kill, maim, and otherwise seriously injure innocent 
people.
  When I was in Texas this last week, I met with representatives of 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving and told them about the gaps in this 
underlying bill and received the assurance, at least of that 
representative, that this was an issue she cared passionately about. I 
suggest all of us who care passionately about public safety and 
decreasing the incidence of drunk driving and driving under the 
influence, that are a threat to public safety, that those who care 
about decreasing that threat should vote for this amendment. 
Designating a third DUI offense as an aggravated felony recognizes the 
acute danger that repeat DUI offenders present to the American people 
and the strong need to remove from the United States those who 
repeatedly commit DUI offenses.
  The fifth category is the one on which I believe there is the biggest 
disagreement. This has to do with so-called absconders and identity 
thieves. This gets to the essence of this bill and whether we are 
serious about restoring the rule of law to our immigration system and 
whether we are going to send a message, loudly and clearly, that while 
we might be willing to consider those who have entered our country 
without a visa, who are by definition guilty of a misdemeanor, or those 
who have come in legally and who have overstayed, who are guilty of a 
status violation under our immigration laws--while we might be willing 
to consider them for a path to legalization and citizenship under some 
conditions, we should not allow a path to legalization and citizenship 
for those who have openly defied our courts, the lawful orders of our 
courts, and who have shown themselves as having no regard for the rule 
of law.
  What kind of citizens can we expect these individuals to be, 
individuals who have been ordered deported, who have had their day in 
court and who simply defied that court order by going on the lam and 
melting into the American landscape, or those who have been ordered 
deported and who have actually

[[Page S7101]]

been deported but then who have reentered the country? Both of those, 
going on the lam after you have been ordered deported and reentering 
after you have been actually deported, are felonies under section 243 
of the Immigration and Naturalization Act--a felony.
  If we are serious about restoring respect for the rule of law, then 
we should, at the very least, prohibit felons and repeat offenders from 
getting the Z visa or path to legal status, including the opportunity 
to apply for legal permanent residency and citizenship. We should be 
willing to draw a bright line there.
  I have to say, with all due respect, if we do not adopt this 
amendment, then we might as well retitle that section of this bill, 
``No Felon Left Behind.'' It is clear, whether it is gang members, 
terrorists, sex offenders or repeat drunk drivers, these people have 
thumbed their noses at the law. While there is some common ground, and 
I congratulate Senator Kennedy for moving our way on this issue, it 
completely omits the category of felons who have shown no regard for 
our laws and who have shown themselves unwilling to live in peace with 
Americans in this country. We ought to draw a bright line there. My 
amendment would do that.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senator is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. I know we have a number of colleagues who not only are 
Members of the Senate but are also running for the highest office in 
our land, running for the office of President of the United States. I 
know there have been a number of debates on the Democratic side and 
Republican side. I believe this amendment and the vote on this 
amendment is a defining issue for those who seek the highest office in 
the land, for them to demonstrate their respect for the rule of law and 
to demonstrate their desire to return law and order to our immigration 
system. A ``no'' vote on the Cornyn amendment will demonstrate that we 
are not serious, that we do not believe the rule of law deserves 
respect because, unfortunately, under the Kennedy amendment, the 
alternative is literally a figleaf that has been offered to give people 
the sense they voted for something so they will have an explanation, 
even knowing they have not voted to exclude these felons. A failure to 
vote yes on the Cornyn amendment will indicate we are not serious about 
restoring the rule of law through our immigration system and will 
indicate we are willing to allow felons and people who have no desire, 
based on their experience, to comply with our laws and live in peace in 
this country, to become part of America. I think we need to send a loud 
and clear message as to where that line should be drawn.
  I reserve the remainder of our time on this side and yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will, Mr. President.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator about a hypothetical that 
is not a hypothetical. It is a real case that has come through my 
office in Chicago. I ask the Senator from Texas if he would consider 
the facts in this case and tell me how his amendment would apply to the 
case.
  In a family in Chicago, the father is a citizen of the United States 
and the four children that he and his wife have are all citizens of the 
United States. The mother is undocumented. The mother came into the 
United States illegally. She was married, raised a family--and her 
grandmother died in Mexico. She went back over the border and, when she 
tried to reenter the United States, produced identification that was 
false. They caught her. They deported her back to Mexico, but she made 
it back to the United States. She is now with her family in Chicago.
  It is a case that has had a lot of publicity because she was deported 
2 days before Mother's Day. She has been allowed to return to the 
United States on a humanitarian waiver to be with her family.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Texas, how would you treat her 
under your amendment? What would her status be? Would she be 
characterized as an aggravated felon? Could she, under any 
circumstances, be given any opportunity to become legal under your 
amendment?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will be glad to try to answer the 
question. Similar to a lot of hypotheticals, it has a lot of twists and 
turns. Let me give it a try.
  Under this amendment, people who entered the country illegally and 
who are guilty of illegal entry, or who come in legally and overstay, 
would not be rendered ineligible, not under the Cornyn amendment. Those 
who are repeat offenders--in other words, people who have entered 
illegally, then exited the country and reentered; exited, reentered--
are guilty of a more serious offense because they are multiple 
offenders.
  I am not sure, under the hypothetical the Senator asked, whether this 
individual would be barred. But people who are serial offenders and 
violators of our immigration laws would be barred under this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. So if I might ask the Senator from Texas: The Senator 
from Texas would suggest, then, that this mother of four citizens, 
married to a citizen of the United States, who has lived here for more 
than 10 years, should be deported?
  Mr. CORNYN. What my amendment would do would not order her deported. 
What it would do is say she is ineligible for a Z visa.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Texas--let's get down to the 
reality of the situation. As far as this family is concerned, where the 
mother has gone through the experience I described, you would say that 
family has to either break up or leave?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I disagree with the characterization of 
the Senator from Illinois. As this hypothetical individual is married 
to a U.S. citizen, she could get a waiver on that ground because she is 
married to a U.S. citizen. She would not, under existing law--she could 
get a waiver and would not be deported necessarily.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I might ask one last question, is that a provision in 
your amendment? Or is that in the underlying bill?
  Mr. CORNYN. In response to the question, that is a provision of 
current law that my amendment does not touch.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for 
raising that issue. I think our language makes it extremely clear. I 
think there is a real question. We are looking through the language of 
the Senator from Texas about whether that would necessarily define that 
individual as an aggravated felon and therefore would deny the judge 
the opportunity to make a humanitarian finding on it, but we can come 
back to that.


                    Amendment No. 1333, as Modified

  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1333, as modified.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1333, as modified, to amendment No. 1150.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 48, strike line 11 and all that follows through 
     page 51, line 37, and insert the following:

     SEC. 204. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF GANG MEMBERS.

       (a) Definition of Criminal Gang.--Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (51) the 
     following:
       ``(52)(A) The term `criminal gang' means an ongoing group, 
     club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons--
       ``(i) that has, as 1 of its primary purposes, the 
     commission of 1 or more of the criminal offenses described in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) the members of which engage, or have engaged within 
     the past 5 years, in a continuing series of offenses 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Offenses described in this subparagraph, whether in 
     violation of Federal or State law or in violation of the law 
     of a foreign country, regardless of whether charged, and 
     regardless of whether the conduct occurred before, on, or 
     after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, are--
       ``(i) a felony drug offense (as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
       ``(ii) a felony offense involving firearms or explosives, 
     including a violation of section

[[Page S7102]]

     924(c), 924(h), or 931 of title 18 (relating to purchase, 
     ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons);
       ``(iii) an offense under section 274 (relating to bringing 
     in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to 
     aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United 
     States), or section 278 (relating to the importation of an 
     alien for immoral purpose);
       ``(iv) a felony crime of violence as defined in section 16 
     of title 18, United States Code, which is punishable by a 
     sentence of imprisonment of 5 years or more, including first 
     degree murder, arson, possession, brandishment, or discharge 
     of firearm in connection with crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking offense, use of a short-barreled or semi-
     automatic weapons, use of a machine gun, murder of 
     individuals involved in aiding a Federal investigation, 
     kidnapping, bank robbery if death results or a hostage is 
     kidnapped, sexual exploitation and other abuse of children, 
     selling or buying of children, activities relating to 
     material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor, 
     activities relating to material constituting or containing 
     child pornography, or illegal transportation of a minor;
       ``(v) a crime involving obstruction of justice; tampering 
     with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant; 
     or burglary;
       ``(vi) any conduct punishable under sections 1028 and 1029 
     of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and 
     related activity in connection with identification documents 
     or access devices), sections 1581 through 1594 of such title 
     (relating to peonage, slavery and trafficking in persons), 
     section 1952 of such title (relating to interstate and 
     foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering 
     enterprises), section 1956 of such title (relating to the 
     laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 of such 
     title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in 
     property derived from specified unlawful activity), or 
     sections 2312 through 2315 of such title (relating to 
     interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen 
     property); and
       ``(vii) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in 
     clause (i) through (vi).''.
       (b) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (L); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Unless the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General waives 
     the application of this subparagraph, any alien who a 
     consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security knows or has reason to believe participated 
     in a criminal gang, knowing or having reason to know that 
     such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or supported 
     the illegal activity of the gang, is inadmissible.''.
       (c) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Any alien, in 
     or admitted to the United States, who at any time has 
     participated in a criminal gang, knowing or having reason to 
     know that such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or 
     supported the illegal activity of the gang is deportable. The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may 
     waive the application of this subparagraph.''.
       (d) Temporary Protected Status.--Section 244 (8 U.S.C. 
     1254a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
       (2) in subparagraph (c)(2)(B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``, or'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) the alien participates in, or at any time after 
     admission has participated in, knowing or having reason to 
     know that such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or 
     supported the illegal activity of the gang the activities of 
     a criminal gang.''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``Subject to paragraph (3), such'' and 
     inserting ``Such''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(under paragraph (3))'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, by adding at the end 
     the following: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may 
     detain an alien provided temporary protected status under 
     this section whenever appropriate under any other 
     provision.''.
       (e) Increased Penalties Barring the Admission of Convicted 
     Sex Offenders Failing to Register and Requiring Deportation 
     of Sex Offenders Failing to Register.--
       (1) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(2)(A)(i)), as amended by section 209(a)(3), is 
     further amended--
       (A) in subclause (II), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subclause (III), by striking the comma at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting after subclause (III) the following:

       ``(IV) a violation of section 2250 of title 18, United 
     States Code (relating to failure to register as a sex 
     offender); or''.

       (2) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C. 
     1227(a)(2)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (A) in subclause (I), by striking ``, and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subclause (II), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) a violation of section 2250 of title 18, United 
     States Code (relating to failure to register as a sex 
     offender).''.

       (f) Precluding Admissibility of Aliens Convicted of Serious 
     Criminal Offenses and Domestic Violence, Stalking, Child 
     Abuse and Violation of Protection Orders.--
       (1) Inadmissibility on criminal and related grounds; 
     waivers.--Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(J) Crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or violation 
     of protective orders; crimes against children.--
       ``(i) Domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse.--Any 
     alien who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, 
     a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child 
     neglect, or child abandonment, provided the alien served at 
     least 1 year's imprisonment for the crime or provided the 
     alien was convicted of or admitted to acts constituting more 
     than 1 such crime, not arising out of a single scheme of 
     criminal misconduct, is inadmissible. In 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 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 constitutes criminal contempt of 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. In 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 an independent order in another proceeding.
       ``(iii) Applicability.--This subparagraph shall not apply 
     to an alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme 
     cruelty and who is not and was not the primary perpetrator of 
     violence in the relationship, upon a determination by the 
     Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security that--

       ``(I) the alien was acting in self-defense;
       ``(II) the alien was found to have violated a protection 
     order intended to protect the alien; or
       ``(III) the alien committed, was arrested for, was 
     convicted of, or pled guilty to committing a crime that did 
     not result in serious bodily injury.''; and

       (B) in subsection (h)--
       (i) 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 
     waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (B), (D), 
     (E), (F), (J), and (K) of subsection (a)(2)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``or Secretary of Homeland Security'' 
     after ``the Attorney General'' each place it appears.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to any acts that occurred on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 205. INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES RELATED TO DRUNK 
                   DRIVING, ILLEGAL ENTRY, PERJURY, AND FIREARMS 
                   OFFENSES.

       (a) Drunk Driving.--
       (1) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(2)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (J), 
     as added by section 204(f) the following:
       ``(K) Drunk drivers.--Any alien who has been convicted of 1 
     felony for driving under the influence under Federal or State 
     law, for which the alien was sentenced to more than 1 year 
     imprisonment, is inadmissible.''.
       (2) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) Drunk drivers.--Unless the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security or the Attorney General waives the application of 
     this subparagraph, any alien who has been convicted of 1 
     felony for driving under the influence under Federal or State 
     law, for which the alien was sentenced to more than 1 year 
     imprisonment, is deportable.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 212(h) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(h)) is amended--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Subsection 
     (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E)'' and inserting 
     ``Certain Provisions in Subsection (a)(2)''; and

[[Page S7103]]

       (B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``and (E)'' and inserting ``(E), and (F)''.
       (4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to convictions entered on or after such date.
       (b) Illegal Entry.--
       (1) In general.--Section 275 (8 U.S.C. 1325) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 275. ILLEGAL ENTRY.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Criminal offenses.--An alien shall be subject to the 
     penalties set forth in paragraph (2) if the alien--
       ``(A) knowingly enters or crosses the border into the 
     United States at any time or place other than as designated 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security;
       ``(B) knowingly eludes examination or inspection by an 
     immigration officer (including failing to stop at the command 
     of such officer), or a customs or agriculture inspection at a 
     port of entry; or
       ``(C) knowingly enters or crosses the border to the United 
     States by means of a knowingly false or misleading 
     representation or the knowing concealment of a material fact 
     (including such representation or concealment in the context 
     of arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance requirements of 
     the customs laws, immigration laws, agriculture laws, or 
     shipping laws).
       ``(2) Criminal penalties.--Any alien who violates any 
     provision under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall, for the first violation, be fined under title 
     18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or 
     both;
       ``(B) shall, for a second or subsequent violation, or 
     following an order of voluntary departure, be fined under 
     such title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both;
       ``(C) if the violation occurred after the alien had been 
     convicted of 3 or more misdemeanors or for a felony, shall be 
     fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
     both;
       ``(D) if the violation occurred after the alien had been 
     convicted of a felony for which the alien received a term of 
     imprisonment of not less than 30 months, shall be fined under 
     such title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both; and
       ``(E) if the violation occurred after the alien had been 
     convicted of a felony for which the alien received a term of 
     imprisonment of not less than 60 months, such alien shall be 
     fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or 
     both.
       ``(3) Prior convictions.--The prior convictions described 
     in subparagraphs (C) through (E) of paragraph (2) are 
     elements of the offenses described in that paragraph and the 
     penalties in such subparagraphs shall apply only in cases in 
     which the conviction or convictions that form the basis for 
     the additional penalty are--
       ``(A) alleged in the indictment or information; and
       ``(B) proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or admitted 
     by the defendant.
       ``(4) Duration of offense.--An offense under this 
     subsection continues until the alien is discovered within the 
     United States by an immigration officer.
       ``(5) Attempt.--Whoever attempts to commit any offense 
     under this section shall be punished in the same manner as 
     for a completion of such offense.
       ``(b) Improper Time or Place; Civil Penalties.--Any alien 
     who is apprehended while entering, attempting to enter, or 
     knowingly crossing or attempting to cross, the border to the 
     United States at a time or place other than as designated by 
     immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty, in 
     addition to any criminal or other civil penalties that may be 
     imposed under any other provision of law, in an amount equal 
     to--
       ``(1) not less than $50 and not more than $250 for each 
     such entry, crossing, attempted entry, or attempted crossing; 
     or
       ``(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) if the 
     alien had previously been subject to a civil penalty under 
     this subsection.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents is amended 
     by striking the item relating to section 275 and inserting 
     the following:

``Sec. 275. Illegal entry.''.

       (3) Effective date.--Section 275(a)(4) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act, as added by this Act, shall apply only 
     to violations of section 275(a)(1) committed on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Perjury and False Statements.--Any person who willfully 
     submits any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement or representation (including any document, 
     attestation, or sworn affidavit for that person or any 
     person) relating to an application for any benefit under the 
     immigration laws (including for Z non-immigrant status) will 
     be subject to prosecution for perjury under section 1621 of 
     title 18, United States Code, or for making such a statement 
     or representation under section 1001 of that title.
       (d) Increased Penalties Relating to Firearms Offenses.--
       (1) Penalties related to removal.--Section 243 (8 U.S.C. 
     1253) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``212(a)'' or after ``section''; and
       (ii) in the matter following subparagraph (D)--

       (I) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than four years'' 
     and inserting ``and imprisoned for not more than 5 years''; 
     and
       (II) by striking ``, or both'';

       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``not more than $1000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both'' and 
     inserting ``under title 18, United States Code, and 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years (or for not more than 10 
     years if the alien is a member of any of the classes 
     described in paragraphs (1)(E), (2), (3), and (4) of section 
     237(a)).''; and
       (2) Prohibiting carrying or using a firearm during and in 
     relation to an alien smuggling crime.--Section 924(c) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, alien smuggling 
     crime,'' after ``any crime of violence'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, alien smuggling 
     crime,'' after ``such crime of violence''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by inserting ``, alien 
     smuggling crime,'' after ``crime of violence''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `alien 
     smuggling crime' means any felony punishable under section 
     274(a), 277, or 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324(a), 1327, and 1328).''.
       (3) Inadmissibility for firearms offenses.--Section 
     212(a)(2)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)), as amended by sections 
     204(e) and 209(a)(3), is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting after subclause (IV) the 
     following:

       ``(V) a crime involving the 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), provided the alien was sentenced to at least 1 year 
     for the offense,''; and

       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``Clause (i)(I)'' and 
     inserting ``Subclauses (I), (IV), and (V) of clause (i)''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will make a comment. I see my friend 
from Rhode Island. I would like to make a brief comment on the 
amendment of Senator Cornyn and a brief comment on our amendment. Then 
I hope the Senator from Rhode Island will speak to it.
  It is always interesting to listen, when we are talking about the 
immigration bill, to those who go back to the 1986 bill. I remember it 
very clearly. I voted against it. That was an amnesty. That was a real 
amnesty. We hear a great deal in the public about what is amnesty, what 
is not amnesty. That was amnesty. This legislation is not amnesty. That 
effectively said those people who were undocumented, who came here, 
were forgiven. They followed the basic recommendations of a report by 
the distinguished president of Notre Dame, the Hessberg Report. I 
remember it clearly.
  There were enforcement provisions in there. They were completely 
inadequate. I might remind my friend from Texas, from 1986 to 1992, we 
had a Republican administration, a Republican President, and they 
didn't enforce it, as they have not enforced the recent legislation. 
They have had three investigations in terms of investigating 
undocumented aliens--three. They are the great defenders of the 
American border? Great defenders about immigration reform?
  Please.
  We always have to go through the little dance about the 1986 bill and 
the enforcement. I wish, during that period of time--1986, 1987, 1988, 
1989--I wish all during those years we had the enforcement. But we did 
not. So we are where we are today. The real question is, is this 
legislation that we have now the downpayment on national security, on 
security internally? Does it provide the opportunity for those who are 
here to pay the fine, go to the back of the line, demonstrate a good 
working relationship and be able to emerge out of the shadows--the 
AgJOBS bill, the DREAM Act, and other provisions of the temporary 
worker program?
  With regards to the Cornyn amendment, we have an immigration program 
in this legislation that is strong, practical, and fair. One of the 
essential elements is to bring the 12 million men, women, and 
children--hard-working families--out of the shadows into the sunlight 
of America. We know we are not going to conduct massive roundups and 
deport 12 million people. We don't have the means to do it. It would 
disrupt our economy, inflict untold hardships on millions of hard-
working people. It is estimated it would cost more than $250 billion. 
We would have buses all the way from Los Angeles to New York and back 
to trying to do this, if it were even possible.

[[Page S7104]]

  But the Cornyn amendment would make vast numbers of these families 
ineligible for our program. We are trying to deal with a key element of 
the program and that deals with the families who are here. It would 
keep them in the shadows, where employers abuse and underpay them. That 
hurts the immigrants, but it hurts American workers, too, by depressing 
wages.
  That is what we see that is out there now, with undocumented--the 12 
million with a work record which is even better, in terms of 
percentages, than native born Americans, people who are willing to work 
and want to work hard. But there is exploitation of those individuals 
because every one of them knows all the boss has to do is go down and 
call the immigration service.
  Work 80 hours a week.
  Well, I don't want to.
  Well, I'm going to call the immigration service and you're deported.
  They do that. That individuals are exploited in this country is well 
understood. We are trying to free ourselves from that kind of a 
condition. But the Cornyn amendment would still make vast numbers of 
these families ineligible for our programs, keep them in the shadows 
where employers abuse and underpay them, which hurts the immigrants but 
it hurts American workers, too, by depressing their wages.
  The Cornyn amendment does this by classifying an array of common 
garden variety immigration offenses as crimes that would make them 
ineligible for the program. For example, the Cornyn amendment says that 
if you come here, have been ordered out of the country by immigration 
authorities, but if you fail to leave or you come back, you are 
ineligible. That is exactly what has been going on with our broken 
immigration system; people have come to work, employers want them to 
come, and they have benefitted our economy.
  Immigration officers may find them and order them home, but our 
employers beg them to come back. Our broken borders make that possible.
  Cornyn says: If you have used false identification, you may be found 
inadmissible and may be deported. But in our broken system, the people 
who have wanted to work have been forced to use the false 
identification. That is the reality of where we are today. Cornyn says 
he wants to be tough on gang members, sex offenders, individuals 
convicted of domestic violence. So do we. We have addressed any 
provisions not covered by the current law. Our amendment goes even 
further than the bipartisan compromise bill.
  He wants to exclude gang members. Our amendment does that too. Nobody 
who has engaged in illegal activity as part of a criminal gang will be 
allowed to enter or stay in this country. He says we should bar sex 
offenders from coming here. Our amendment does that. Any convicted sex 
offender who fails to register will not be allowed back in the country; 
if already here, then those offenders will face deportation.
  Cornyn says immigrants who commit acts of domestic violence or 
endanger their families should be punished. Our amendment does that. He 
says drunk drivers should be deported. Our amendment does that. Any 
immigrant with one felony conviction for drunk driving will not be 
allowed to enter this country. If convicted here, then the drunk driver 
will be deported.
  He says there should be consequences for individuals engaging in 
fraud. Our amendment does that. Our amendment punishes anyone who 
commits perjury or makes false statements when seeking immigration 
benefits. If any person lies on their application, then this individual 
will be prosecuted and subject to criminal penalties.
  He says we should go after immigrants convicted of firearms offenses. 
Our amendment does that, too. Who are the people we want to apply under 
our program? Who are the people the Cornyn amendment would condemn to 
the shadows of abuse? We know that the vast majority of the families 
who have come over here are hard-working people who care for their 
children, go to church, and contribute to their communities.
  In America, we respect hard work. Hard work built America. So our 
program says: If your only offense is that you came here to work, you 
came here to provide for your family, we will proceed in a way that you 
can atone for that offense and earn the right to stay and work legally. 
If you are a criminal, then we will arrest you. If you are a threat to 
our national security, a terrorist, then we will lock you up. If you 
try to cheat your way into the program through fraud, we will deport 
you. But if you came here to work and build a life, then you can stay. 
But first you have to meet the tough requirements: You have to pay the 
$5,000 fine, show a steady work history, learn English, get to the back 
of the line to get your green card, behind all those who have been 
waiting legally to get theirs.
  The Cornyn amendment creates harmful barriers for refugees fleeing 
persecution. In America, we have had a long and proud tradition of 
providing refuge to people who have faced persecution and oppression in 
their lands, whose lives are at risk because they stood up for their 
beliefs.
  We took in refugees from Cuba and from Vietnam as they fled 
communism. We have helped people from Somalia and Bosnia and other 
areas of conflict and oppression. Now we are beginning to help people 
whose lives are at risk because they helped our troops in Iraq.
  But often these persecuted refugees have no choice but to cooperate 
with their oppressors in order to save their families' lives and enable 
their escape. The Cornyn amendment says: If you do that, if you provide 
what is called material support to these oppressors and terrorist 
groups, then we are not going to rescue you from the hands of your 
oppressors. You have to take your chances and hope your oppressors do 
not persecute you or even kill you or your family.
  Consider the case of Helene from Sierra Leone, Revolutionary United 
Front rebels attacked her home, hacked one of her family members to 
death with a machete; they set her son on fire, leaving him near dead 
with severe burns. They held her family captive, raping her and her 
daughter and forcing them to cook, forcing her to cook and wash their 
clothes.
  The Cornyn amendment would bar legitimate refugees who were forced to 
assist their oppressors under duress. Under the Cornyn amendment, 
Helene would be ineligible to come to America as a refugee because she 
cooked for the rebels and washed their clothes. Under the Cornyn 
amendment, she and her family are ineligible because they provided 
material support for a terrorist group.

  If that is not bad enough, the Cornyn amendment says she can be 
excluded based on secret evidence, evidence that neither she nor anyone 
else outside the Government can see. She may never know why she was 
excluded. The Cornyn amendment even bars her from going to court to 
explain her situation and appeal the denial of her case. The decision 
of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General is final.
  Helene would never get her day in court to explain the tragic 
circumstances of her case. The door to freedom in America would be 
closed shut, end of the discussion, you go back into the hands of your 
persecutors.
  Madam President, surely by now, we have learned that closed 
proceedings conducted by executive branch officials based on secret 
evidence without any possibility of court review are inconsistent with 
American traditions and inconsistent with the search for justice; let's 
not go down that road again.
  The amendment makes all of its changes retroactive. They apply to the 
past and future conduct. The Cornyn amendment would change the rules in 
midstream. That is frowned on in American jurisprudence; it is 
unconstitutional in criminal law and disfavored elsewhere. People whose 
conduct would not have affected their immigration status at a time it 
was committed, will suddenly suffer severe consequence. The 
retroactivity provisions simply bring home the punitive nature of this 
amendment. It is not designed to contribute to creation of a tough but 
fair and practical system of immigration, it is designed to be harshly 
punitive.
  This amendment would exclude hundreds of thousands from benefits of 
this bill and undermine the bipartisan compromise that members of this 
body worked so long and so hard to produce. We will have an opportunity 
to vote for an alternative, the amendment I have offered. The amendment 
expands the

[[Page S7105]]

already tough criminal gang provisions contained in the bill.
  If you are associated with a gang, and that gang is known to be 
engaged in violent crimes, drug crimes, crimes involving firearms or 
explosives, alien smuggling or trafficking, you are not going to 
qualify for benefits. If you are associated with a gang and the gang 
has been engaged in crimes of violence, including murder, arson, 
possession, kidnapping, bank robbery, sexual exploitation, abuse of 
children, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, burglary, 
racketeering, among other crimes, you are not going to be entitled to 
receive lawful status in this country, and you are not going to qualify 
for benefits.
  This amendment expands the already tough grounds of inadmissibility 
and the criminal penalties in the current immigration law. We target 
essentially the same provisions as Senator Cornyn but in many instances 
go further. This amendment bars the admission of sex offenders who 
don't register as required and makes them subject to deportation as 
well.
  It ensures that wife beaters, child abusers, stalkers, and others who 
prey on the vulnerable are inadmissible to the United States. It 
ensures that a drunk driver who is sentenced to 1 year of prison cannot 
be admitted to the United States and can be removed as well. Our drunk 
driving provisions, which require only one felony conviction, are even 
more restrictive than Senator Cornyn's, which requires three 
convictions before a drunk driver becomes inadmissible. We increase the 
penalties for illegal entry. We ensure that immigration fraud is 
subject to perjury charges. We toughen the penalties for firearm 
offenses. We are tough, but we are practical too. That is where this 
side by side differs from Senator Cornyn. His provisions are bright-
line rules. He turns many of these criminal offenses into aggravated 
felonies. That is ``immigration speak'' for: You will never, ever be 
forgiven.
  For many offenses, such as murder, that is more than a reasonable 
consequence. Murderers should not become U.S. citizens. Under the 
current law, they can never become a citizen. But most immigrants are 
not murderers, they are people who have entered the United States 
illegally. Under the Cornyn amendment, they could be aggravated felons 
too.
  As a practical matter, Senator Cornyn does not want us to distinguish 
between murder and illegal entry; but that is not practical, nor does 
it reflect our criminal justice system. So it is true that we build in 
some small but important waivers that in extraordinary circumstances 
would give someone a second chance, not murderers but someone who had 
long ago made a mistake.
  This week, I received a letter about a young man named Adrian, a 
former gang member in Massachusetts who has turned his life around. 
Adrian went from a life of juvenile delinquency to that of a dedicated 
student; one who works full time now in hopes of going to college. 
Adrian's principal and his teachers praise him for his hard work, his 
commitment to family, his newfound motivation to go to college. They 
want him to have a chance to stay in this country.
  The author of the letter then says: ``It is a very, very hard thing 
to leave the gang life behind. There are other Adrians out there as 
well who have made the same decision regardless of difficulty. Is the 
message this country wants to send them, that what they have done is 
unforgivable regardless of whatever changes they may have courageously 
made? Wouldn't the country gain by having an incentive in law that 
might attract young people to leave gang life and move their lives 
forward a very different way? Wouldn't it be helpful to the country to 
have a waiver that a person could apply for if they can prove they have 
left a gang and provided evidence on how they have moved on?''
  Every change in our immigration law represents a statement about whom 
we are as a country. Are we a country that takes individual 
circumstances into account or are we a country that punishes with no 
regard for individual circumstances? We can be tough on crime and yet 
retain a level of discretion in our immigration laws? This is the crux 
of the difference between what I am suggesting to the Senate and what 
Senator Cornyn has proposed.
  That a measure of discretion is every bit as much a tool of law 
enforcement as the strictest ban. I see my friend who has been waiting 
here. I yield time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts if we may go back and forth across the aisle. I have 
a speaker on our side as well who would like to be recognized for 10 
minutes. Is that acceptable?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I would like to follow that. The good Senator was 
here even before I was this morning. Is that agreeable?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I would yield to the request of the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank all my colleagues for their courtesies.
  Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Cornyn amendment and 
in opposition to the much weaker, watered-down Democratic alternative.
  This amendment illustrates a lot about this debate. The Cornyn 
amendment is clear. It is necessary. It is common sense. It is 
absolutely necessary we pass amendments such as this and have the 
ability to debate and vote on amendments such as this in the important 
immigration debate.
  This amendment is very straightforward. It prevents terrorists, gang 
members, sex offenders, and other folks who have broken the law in 
significant ways, committed significant felonies, from receiving 
immigration benefits and citizenship in the future. How can any of us 
in the Senate oppose a straightforward and necessary commonsense 
amendment? How can any of us be comfortable with an underlying bill 
which has these gaping loopholes? We must address these gaping 
loopholes. How can we tell families across America that we are going to 
allow sex offenders and gang members to become legal residents, 
possibly citizens? The Cornyn amendment would prevent this. It would 
address all of these significant loopholes.
  Again, terrorists, gang members, violent gang members, those who have 
committed other significant felonies, those who have been detained for 
coming into the country illegally and have absconded, those who have 
been deported from the country for coming into the country illegally 
and have reentered illegally--all of those categories of illegals 
should be prevented from gaining the benefits of this bill. The Cornyn 
amendment clearly does that.
  The Democratic alternative clearly does not. It has significant 
omissions from the Cornyn amendment. It allows absconders, those who 
have been detained and have gone underground, to receive the benefits 
of the bill. It allows those who have been deported from the country 
and who came back in illegally to get the benefits of this bill. It 
allows others who fall into the category of gang members and those who 
committed serious felonies to gain the benefits of this legislation. 
That is simply wrong. We must support the commonsense, straightforward 
Cornyn amendment.
  I also want to spend a portion of my time urging my colleagues to not 
vote for cloture on this bill as it presently rests before us, because 
we have many important amendments to consider. Two of those are the 
amendments I will humbly offer to the Senate. They are important 
issues; they are important amendments. I urge us to pay careful 
consideration to them and to have an opportunity for debate and vote.
  In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendment and to call up my amendment No. 1338.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. I am sorry to hear that. Let me try my second amendment 
which is also at the desk. It concerns a significant provision in the 
bill which we need the opportunity to debate and vote on. That is 
Vitter amendment No. 1339.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page S7106]]

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, unfortunately, this illustrates the 
point about the inappropriateness of cloture. These are two significant 
amendments which go to important provisions of the bill. All of us--and 
more importantly, the American people--deserve to have these matters 
debated and voted on. Let me explain what these amendments are about. 
Everybody--certainly the majority side--has been given the amendments.
  My first amendment only requires what Congress originally mandated 
back in 1986; that is, the entry/exit system known today as US-VISIT. 
We must have that fully operational before all aspects of this bill are 
allowed to go into effect. It was authorized 10 years ago, but it is 
not near to fully operational now. We must make sure that it is a part 
of this bill's enforcement trigger.
  Without the US-VISIT system's completion, we can't be sure that we 
know what individuals are in the country. In fact, we can be sure we 
will not know because how can we possibly have a grasp of who is in the 
country and who is not in the country without this system which tracks 
people as they exit? There are a lot of folks on visas here for a 
limited period of time. Under that visa, they, of course, need to exit 
the country before their visa is up. The US-VISIT system allows us to 
know if they are doing that. How can we possibly be ready for the full 
implementation of this legislation, how can we possibly say we have the 
enforcement system we need in place without the US-VISIT system, 
without knowing who exits the country and when, without knowing whether 
they have overstayed their visa?
  As of 2006, the illegal population included 4 to 5.5 million 
overstays, people here illegally because they are overstaying the time 
limits of their visa. The US-VISIT system is absolutely necessary to 
get to the heart of the problem and to enforce against overstays. How 
can we say we have adequate enforcement, how can we trigger the other 
provisions of this bill without making sure we have that in place, 
functioning, fully operational?
  The US-VISIT system is not any part of the triggers now in the bill. 
It must be. That is what my amendment 1339 goes to.
  As I mentioned, I have another amendment, No. 1338, that would 
correct a provision in the bill which doesn't allow for a catch-and-
release program anymore but simply changes that to a catch, pay, and 
release program. In this legislation, those in this country illegally 
who are caught and who are not from Mexico don't have to be kept in 
custody. They can be released on a $5,000 bond. For months, and indeed 
years, we on the Senate floor and those around the country have decried 
the catch-and-release program, a program that has been in place where 
illegals are caught but are released into our country and simply given 
a piece of paper that says: Show up to court on such-and-such a date. 
Guess what. They never do. This bill merely changes that to a catch, 
pay, and release program. It allows catch and release to continue, only 
with a $5,000 bond.
  Why is that a problem? Because many of the folks we are talking 
about, particularly those who are among the most dangerous, those 
involved in illegal drug activity, those in other organized crime, can 
get the $5,000 bond. If they are already paying human smugglers to get 
them across the border, in many cases thousands and thousands of 
dollars, one has to assume they can get the resources to pay this bond. 
Changing catch and release to catch, pay, and release is completely 
inadequate. Yet that is what the underlying legislation does.

  Amendment No. 1338 would close that loophole, would say: No, we are 
going to end catch and release forever, and we are not going to allow 
cash, pay, and release. When we catch these folks coming into the 
country illegally who are not from Mexico, so we can't simply send them 
back to Mexico at the southern border, we are going to detain them. We 
are not going to let them into the country on a bond or anything else. 
We are going to detain them until they are deported, and we are going 
to work very hard to deport them as quickly as possible.
  Again, I believe my two amendments, which have not been allowed to be 
offered, clearly illustrate why we are not ready for cloture on this 
bill. This is a significant debate on a massive, 800-page bill. This 
bill, if enacted, will affect our country in major and significant ways 
for decades to come. Everybody admits that, no matter what side of the 
debate they may be on. Yet we have only been allowed to have a modest 
number of votes on the bill, something on the order of 12. That is 
ridiculous. We need these sorts of amendments considered and voted on, 
and we must oppose cloture until that happens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have tried to work out an orderly 
process as we have proceeded. We are going to have plenty of time to 
deal with a range of different amendments, as we did with the Vitter 
amendment previously.
  I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 39\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the Senator from Rhode Island 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                    remembering senator craig thomas

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, this is my first time speaking on 
the floor since the passing of our colleague, Senator Thomas. I know we 
are all very conscious of the desk draped in black across the way, next 
to Senator Cornyn. I extend my condolences to his many friends, my many 
esteemed colleagues who knew and admired Senator Thomas and mourn his 
loss and know he will be sorely missed by his friends in the Senate and 
his friends and family in his native State of Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 1184

  I rise today to address amendment No. 1184 offered by my friend from 
Texas, my former attorney general colleague, Senator Cornyn.
  I will oppose this amendment. It is not entirely without merit in 
every one of its many dimensions, but it would undercut the fundamental 
principles of due process which are a longstanding and vital hallmark 
of our legal system. I fully support the creation of new grounds for 
inadmissibility to the United States for convicted sex offenders, gang 
members, repeat DUI offenders, and for individuals who have been 
convicted of firearms offenses and domestic violence. I have prosecuted 
these crimes. I have a firsthand understanding of how dangerous these 
criminals are. Simply stated, America's doors should not be opened to 
people who commit such crimes. If Senator Cornyn believes there are 
loopholes, I am happy to plug them, although I would note that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the President, 
and others seem satisfied.
  For that reason, I will support the alternative amendment offered by 
Senator Kennedy which would add these offenses and others to the 
grounds for inadmissibility.
  There is a right way to ensure dangerous criminals don't enter the 
country and there is a wrong way. Unfortunately, the amendment we are 
debating goes about it the wrong way. Let me explain.
  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, good moral character is a 
prerequisite for a variety of benefits and privileges, the most 
important being naturalization. Therefore, the law lists a series of 
characteristics which exclude a person from the definition of ``good 
moral character'': for example, a person whose income is derived 
principally from gambling or one who has given false testimony for the 
purpose of obtaining benefits or one who has been convicted of an 
aggravated felony. This, of course, makes perfect sense. These 
individuals as a general rule should not get on a path to 
naturalization.
  But this amendment would change the definition of ``good moral 
character'' in a very novel and unsettling way: It would exclude from 
that definition 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). These sections list a 
series of security-related grounds under which

[[Page S7107]]

an alien is excludable or deportable. Those grounds, sensibly enough, 
include espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity, and any other unlawful 
activity. Anyone convicted of such offenses or even indicted for such 
offenses should be, of course, excludable. But that is not what this 
amendment says. This amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and the Attorney General unreviewable discretion to make a 
determination as to good moral character.
  First, as I have previously said, I am not inclined to expand the 
powers of the current Attorney General in any substantive way, much 
less to expand his power to make important unreviewable decisions. 
Setting aside my grave hesitation about this particular Attorney 
General, as a general rule, I don't believe we ought to prevent judges 
from reviewing important decisions which can affect life, liberty, and 
property. This would violate one of the most fundamental principles of 
American democracy--judicial review, a principle we have honored for 
centuries.
  The second issue is even more unsettling. That is, under the proposed 
amendment, a person could be determined to lack ``good moral 
character'' if the unreviewable decision is made that he or she is 
``described in'' these two specific sections of the immigration code.
  ``Described in,'' what exactly does it mean to be ``described in'' a 
statute? Not ``convicted'' under a statute, not ``in violation'' of a 
statute, not ``indicted'' under a statute but merely ``described in'' 
it.
  Who knows what it means? I have found no precedent for this 
formulation. Is it consistent with American values to grant the 
Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the 
unreviewable discretion to say that a person is ``described in'' those 
statutes; the unreviewable power to say that somebody is engaged in 
``unlawful activity''; and the unreviewable power to then deny them the 
benefits and privileges of American law?
  That is not my experience as a prosecutor. I found due process to be 
important and valuable.
  The amendment does not stop there. It would allow this unreviewable 
discretion to be based on evidence which the accused would never have 
the opportunity to confront.
  Madam President, like you, I have spent my professional life in the 
American legal system, a good deal of it I spent as a U.S. attorney and 
as an attorney general. My experience is that our American system of 
law stands on some fundamental principles, among them that people can 
be aware of the charges brought against them, that people have an 
opportunity to confront the evidence used against them, that the 
prosecution and the judge are not rolled into one, and that we have 
judicial review of important decisions affecting people's rights and 
privileges. These are basic principles, and they represent core 
American values.
  I do not know why we have to keep getting up to defend this. This is 
bedrock stuff. From the suspension of habeas corpus, to the 
administration's legal defense of torture, to ``extraordinary 
rendition,'' and so on, we have seen relentless efforts to chip away at 
bedrock principles of American law. With this amendment, there they go 
again.
  Of course, we must do everything proper and necessary to protect our 
borders and keep Americans safe. But to throw out the separation 
between prosecution and judge, to throw out the opportunity to 
understand and explain evidence used against you, to throw out our 
ancient principle of judicial review, to allow Government officials to 
take away rights and privileges without answering to anyone? I do not 
think so.
  These principles are too dear to be thrown away so lightly. Our 
country has been through a lot over the years, and these principles 
have survived and flourished, to lie today in our hands, in our 
stewardship, to protect and to pass on, as they were passed on to us.
  I do not think this immigration issue is so terrifying that we need 
to throw these principles away now over immigration. We are made of 
sterner stuff than that.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose Senator Cornyn's amendment No. 1184.
  I thank Senator Kennedy, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Alabama 10 
minutes from our allotted time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's comments 
about American law and principles. As a former U.S. attorney and 
attorney general, I share the general view. He mentions the historic 
privileges we have in America. But let me tell you, no one has a right 
to enter the United States of America. We decide who comes in and who 
does not.
  That is a core principle of sovereignty. Every Nation in the world 
makes those decisions, if they are a functioning state, and you then 
allow people to enter on your terms, on whatever conditions they may 
be. The condition may be, you can enter as long as you are enrolled in 
a college, you can enter for a certain period of time, you can enter on 
a tourist visa to do a certain number of things.
  But those conditions are not such that if you say someone cannot come 
here you violated the laws of America. If you say you can come to 
America but not if you have a history of being a sexual predator, what 
right does that violate? What principle of American law does that 
violate? I suggest none. We have every right to insist and ensure the 
immigration system of the United States serves the national interest. 
The national interest means you do not allow people to continue to stay 
in our country or to come to our country who have repeat DUIs or who 
sell drugs or who are associated with terrorists. How basic is that? 
Nobody has a constitutional legal right to demand entry into the United 
States of America. How much more basic can it be than that?
  So that is where we are confused. It amazes me the lack of 
understanding and comprehension of what it is all about. We set the 
standards. We have the most generous immigration laws of almost any 
country in the world. It has been a big part of our heritage. We are 
not going to end immigration. Nobody wants to do that, or to act 
irrationally, and so forth.
  But to set reasonable standards, as Senator Cornyn is attempting to 
do with his amendment, only makes common sense. For example, I have 
mentioned some of the loopholes. He fixes them. I give him every bit of 
credit for this: for standing firm, for insisting on this vote, after 
he has been objected to and objected to and blocked from getting his 
vote. But he stood firm on this issue. He is going to fix a number of 
the problems I wish to briefly mention.
  Some aggravated felons who have sexually abused a minor are eligible 
for amnesty under this bill. They have no entitlement to amnesty. 
Nobody has entitlement to amnesty, whether they are perfectly wonderful 
citizens and all that. They are not entitled to that. This is a gift we 
give. So why would you want to give that to somebody who sexually 
abused a minor?
  Well, the child molester who committed the crime, before this bill is 
enacted, is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction 
document omitted the age of the victim. If the conviction document did 
not put the age down, then they are to be admitted under this bill. 
After there was some objection to it, they fixed that language for the 
future but did not fix it for the past or current convictions. So I 
think Senator Cornyn is correct. I support that portion of his 
amendment very strongly.

  Another provision is that aliens with terrorism connections under 
this legislation are not barred from getting amnesty. They do not have 
a right to stay here. If we have any suggestion that someone in this 
country, now here, or someone who wants to come here is connected to 
terrorists, they do not have to be admitted. What kind of right do they 
have to demand to be admitted? If our State Department, in some country 
around the world, has information that a person is connected to 
terrorism, they do not have any right to demand to come here. They come 
at our pleasure, our sufferance.
  So one of the things this bill, as written, does is it says an 
illegal alien seeking most of the immigration benefits must show good 
character. But last

[[Page S7108]]

year's bill--let me say this on the terrorism question--specifically 
barred aliens with terrorism connections from having the required good 
moral character to enter the United States. That is one of the things 
we say. You cannot come here unless you have good moral character. You 
cannot come here if you are a felon, a thief, a drug dealer or a child 
molester. Surely, that would make sense. So this bill eliminated that.
  Another example, surprisingly, of this bill being weaker even than 
last year's fatally flawed bill: The bill's drafters have ignored the 
Bush administration's request that changes be made to the asylum, 
cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order 
to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. The 
bill drafters were told about this by the Bush administration and were 
urged to put different language in, and they refused to do so, for 
reasons I cannot fathom.
  But it begins to show a certain mindset. I think that mindset is we 
are somehow here to represent people who want to come into our country 
and stay in our country instead of representing the American people and 
the interests of the United States.
  Last year, we had good moral character as a requirement. Good moral 
character involved not being connected to terrorists. But according to 
current law, an alien cannot have good moral character if they are a 
habitual drunkard, a majority of their income comes from illegal 
gambling, giving false testimony for immigration benefit purposes, they 
have been in jail for 180 days, they have been convicted of an 
aggravated felony or they have engaged in genocide, torture, or 
extrajudicial killings. That is current law we have. But this year's 
bill is completely missing these new terrorism bars that were in last 
year's bill, and the bill no longer requires good moral character. That 
is a matter that leaves us at greater risk than we need to be. It 
concerns me.
  Another example. Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs, 
such as MS-13, are deported, the bill will allow violent gang members 
to get amnesty as long as they renounce their gang membership on their 
application. That is the current law. Under the bill, being in a 
violent gang is not going to prevent you from qualifying for amnesty. 
The bill requires amnesty applicants to list--to list--you are required 
to list that gang membership on your application. Then you get a blank 
that says ``renunciation of gang affiliation.'' So if you check that 
blank and say you renounce it, then you get to stay in, perhaps.
  So why don't we allow this: If an illegal alien has been a member of 
a violent international gang, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13, MS-13, why 
don't we say that blocks him or her from being eligible for the amnesty 
in the bill? Loyalty to the United States should be the requirement, 
not loyalty to some outside gang that is violent.
  The night before last, I happened to turn on C-SPAN and catch a 
National Press Club conference by a series of law enforcement officers 
involved in the Border Patrol, the former chairman of the Border 
Patrol. They were ferocious in their criticism of this bill. I was 
surprised how strongly they felt about it.
  Hugh Brien, himself an immigrant, was Chief of the Border Patrol from 
1986 to 1989. He called the bill a sellout, a complete betrayal of the 
Nation, a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have come here 
legally like he had done. In 1986, he recalled: ``Our masters, our 
mandarins promised it would work.'' Of course, the 1986 bill did not. 
He also said, based on his experience in many years with the Border 
Patrol: ``It's a disaster.''
  Kent Lundgren, the national chairman of the Association of Former 
Border Patrol Officers, said this: ``There are no meaningful criminal 
or terrorist checks'' in the legislation. He noted that the ``screening 
will not happen.'' He added Congress is lying about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair and support the 
Cornyn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-one minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
  First, I salute my colleague from Massachusetts for his undaunted, 
courageous, and effective leadership on this issue, which is one of the 
most difficult issues we face. I think he has the respect of everybody 
in this body for that--the Senator from Massachusetts does--whether 
they agree or disagree with the bill.
  Now, I rise in opposition to the Cornyn amendment and in support of 
the Kennedy alternative amendment No. 1333. There certainly are 
attractive parts of the Cornyn amendment, but the good parts of the 
amendment are buried in complicated language that strikes at the heart 
of the comprehensive immigration bill many of us are working hard to 
pass. At a minimum, my colleague's amendment would have the effect of 
stripping the path to citizenship, one of the mainstays of the 
compromise--one of the two mainstays of the compromise--out of the bill 
altogether. This body has already rejected that approach outright. It 
ought not do it now by stealth. It is a Trojan horse--nothing short of 
an attempt to kill the whole bill in the guise of tough enforcement.

  My colleagues know when it comes to tough enforcement, whether it is 
on immigrants, citizens, or anyone else, I don't yield to anybody. I am 
a tough-on-crime guy. I come from an area that was ravaged by crime, 
and the works of the Federal Government, State government, and city 
government helped make the communities I represent much safer.
  What we do in the Kennedy amendment is keep the tough enforcement 
without killing the bill. Let me repeat that. What we do in this 
amendment is keep the tough enforcement--it is all there--but we don't 
kill the bill. We don't eliminate the path to citizenship which is, of 
course, what the Cornyn amendment does and may well be intended to do.
  If we are serious about passing the best possible bill and passing a 
bill that makes good sense, we should support the Kennedy amendment and 
not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We all want a bill that is 
tough on people who have broken the law, and we all want a bill that 
keeps people who should not be let into the United States in the first 
place from coming here.
  Senator Kennedy's amendment is both tough and smart. It changes the 
law to prevent the worst criminals from getting into the country and 
kicks out people who shouldn't be here, and it picks out the best parts 
of the Cornyn amendment and leaves out the worst.
  Like Senator Cornyn's amendment, Senator Kennedy's amendment says any 
new immigrant who has participated in a criminal gang in any way, 
shape, or form can't come live in the United States, period. It doesn't 
wait for a felony conviction or anything else. If you are in a gang, 
you can't come in, and you can't become a citizen. Any immigrant in the 
United States who has been a member of a gang can be deported. That is 
how it should be. Also, Senator Kennedy's amendment cracks down on gang 
members who violate our gun laws.
  Under Senator Kennedy's amendment, aliens who have committed the 
horrible crimes of domestic violence--stalking, child abuse, child 
neglect, or child abandonment, and who have been sent to jail for a 
year--are barred from moving to the country or from attempting to 
naturalize as citizens. The amendment provides that sex offenders who 
don't register can't immigrate or come work here, and convicted sex 
offenders who don't register get deported.
  The amendment would keep drunk drivers from immigrating to the United 
States. Just one felony conviction for drunk driving and you are out. 
People who try to sneak into the country, illegally cross the border, 
or lie to immigration agents will face steep fines and jail time, as 
the bill provides, as this body ratified last week.
  The amendment has tough penalties for repeat offenders. An alien who 
tries

[[Page S7109]]

to enter the country after being convicted of a serious penalty can 
face up to 20 years in jail under the amendment.
  So this is one tough amendment. But, again, it doesn't seek by 
stealth, as the Cornyn amendment does, to eliminate the bill 
altogether. Some of the things in this amendment are exactly like the 
language in Senator Cornyn's amendment. Senator Kennedy's amendment 
takes the best of the Cornyn amendment and leaves out the parts that 
will gut or decapitate the bill. A vote for the Kennedy alternative is 
a vote for tough enforcement but also smart policy.
  Madam President, I yield back the remaining time to my colleague and 
friend from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, customarily, as a manager of the bill, 
I control time, but I think now the time is in whose hands? I ask for 
12 minutes of time, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, may I inquire whether the Senator 
intends to speak for or against the--
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CORNYN. I think that takes care of it. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I was about to say some nice things 
about the Senator from Texas, and I still will. He has been a very 
active and constructive participant in the consideration of immigration 
reform. In the 109th Congress he was very much involved and contributed 
greatly. We didn't always agree on a number of items, but he is very 
sincere, very studious, very thoughtful, and very constructive, and he 
continues in that role, although as is evident, there are some 
differences as to our approach. But I commend the Senator from Texas 
for what he has done and for what he continues to do here.
  I am in favor of the alternative to the Cornyn amendment. I say that 
because we have structured the bill with a great many compromises. 
While I might be inclined to agree with the Senator from Texas on some 
of the specifics that he has enumerated which would be a bar to 
citizenship, there was a tremendous amount of give-and-take in the 
structuring of this bill so that I am standing with the committee 
bill--strike that. We don't have a committee bill. I wish we did. But I 
am supporting the bill which came out of the lengthy consultation with 
about a dozen principal Senators participating. There are a number of 
specifics, in the amendment which is side by side, which I think are 
preferable to the amendment by the Senator from Texas.
  Illustrative of this preference is that the Senator from Texas makes 
a third conviction for drunk driving a crime of violence. Well, it may 
be a crime of violence, or it may not be a crime of violence. The 
alternative which has been proposed would make drunk driving a grounds 
for inadmissibility and deportability, providing the alien serves at 
least a year in prison. From my days as district attorney, I have seen 
quite a number of cases involving drunk driving, for example, and while 
I don't condone multiple convictions, I think it is a more appropriate 
ground that there be inadmissibility or deportability where the drunk 
driving was serious enough to call for a year in jail.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas also strips judicial 
review of findings that an alien is barred on national security 
grounds. From what we have seen about this issue in many contexts, 
there needs to be judicial review, although in a different context. In 
the last few days we have seen the Military Commission conclude that it 
had no jurisdiction because of problems with the indicting procedure 
with respect to whether one is an enemy alien or an unlawful enemy 
alien. This points to the necessity for judicial review, which would be 
excluded by the Cornyn amendment.

  The Cornyn amendment also would deport or prevent citizenship for 
someone who has ever violated a protective order. Well, it is a good 
bit more complicated than that. The alternative amendment provides that 
there would be an analysis. It would exclude people convicted of a 
felony domestic violation, but there would be a consideration about 
whether, on a protective order, the alien was acting in self-defense, 
along with other considerations, in fact. Most fundamentally, the 
Cornyn amendment would strip the authority of the Departments, the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, to waive 
certain grounds which would warrant deportation or inadmissibility. 
That discretion, which is lodged in the alternative, enables a fuller 
review of the facts. It gives a chance to really look beyond some of 
the technical categorizations which might appear ominous on their face, 
but which, after there is a detailed review of what has happened on the 
underlying factors, might reveal there ought not to be inadmissibility 
or deportation. That discretion ought to remain with responsible 
officials in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
Justice.
  It is for those reasons, but fundamentally because the pending 
legislation was crafted with a great many compromises, that I favor the 
substitute and oppose the Cornyn amendment.
  I would like to address something which is more fundamental and very 
serious, as we have had a statement by the majority leader that if 
cloture is not invoked tomorrow at 6 o'clock, he will take down this 
bill.
  I think that would be grossly erroneous. I think that would be very 
bad procedure. If you compare what was done last year in the 109th 
Congress with what we have done in this Congress, you would see there 
was much more consideration in the last Congress than has been afforded 
this bill at this time.
  For example, in the 109th Congress, we worked the bill through the 
committee. We did not work this bill through the committee. That was a 
leadership decision. I have stated on the Senate floor on several 
occasions the concern of not having gone through committee; that it was 
probably a mistake. Well, if this bill is taken down because we haven't 
made sufficient progress in the eyes of the majority leader, there is 
no doubt it would be a mistake because had we gone through committee, 
we would have worked through so many of these issues which we have had 
to legislate on the floor.
  In the 109th Congress, the Judiciary Committee, which I chaired, had 
6 days of committee markups. They were tough and laborious days, and we 
dealt with 59 amendments. We returned one Monday after a recess when 
the majority leader said he would proceed with the substitute bill, and 
a Monday back after a recess is a very tough day. But on March 27, 
2006, the committee made a special effort to reconvene. We had a 
quorum, believe it or not, by 10 o'clock in the morning, and we worked 
through, laboriously, until the evening when we reported out a bill. 
That is what happened during the markup, 6 days of markup in the 
committee where, as I say, we considered some 59 amendments.
  Then, when we moved to the floor of the Senate, we had 12 days on the 
bill. We had 4 days before cloture failed, and then we came back with 8 
days more and considered in excess of 50 total votes--some rollcall, 
some voice votes--in passing the bill out of the U.S. Senate.
  Now, contrast that with what we have had up to the present time. We 
have been on the bill 8 days, and 3 of those days were Mondays or 
Fridays pro forma without voting. We have only had 5 days where we have 
been involved in voting. Even on those days, they have not been as 
productive as voting days were on the bill in the 109th Congress 
because we have been in quorum calls. We have been negotiating. We have 
been trying to work through issues that, had this bill gone through 
committee, would have been resolved some time ago.
  So you have a comparison of, really, 5 days, plus 3 days of pro 
forma, 8 at the most, contrasted with 12 days before. It is more 
accurately a comparison of 12 to 5--12 in the last Congress where we 
legislated and where we passed the bill. Here, where we have voted on 
only 21 amendments, contrasted with more than 50 we voted on in the 
last Congress.
  We have also had a tremendous amount of Senators' time and time of 
the Secretary of Commerce and the

[[Page S7110]]

Secretary of Homeland Security. We met for 2 hours on Tuesdays, 
Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and sometimes on Mondays and Fridays as 
well, over a 10-week period.
  It is hard to calculate how many hours were put in by Senators, but I 
think it goes into the thousands. It is hard to calculate how much time 
was put in by the two secretaries, but I think that goes into the 
hundreds. If you talk about staff time, it is incalculable. The staff 
director, Mike O'Neill, worked for about 20 days solid, including 
weekends, and that was sort of par for the course.
  So to pull this bill tomorrow at 6 o'clock--I think it would be hard 
to find the right word that is appropriate in strength and not 
overboard. But I think ``outrageous'' would be a modest comment; it 
would be outrageous to pull this bill tomorrow.
  One of my staffers said this bill has been the result of blood, 
sweat, and fears--paraphrasing Churchill's blood, sweat, and tears--and 
maybe more fears than blood and sweat. But we have come a long way. We 
have already seen a lot of finger pointing on this floor. We seem to be 
a lot better in the Senate at finger pointing than at legislating. But 
if this bill is pulled down, then you may even see toe pointing, 
because 10 fingers won't be sufficient for Republicans blaming 
Democrats and the majority leader for pulling down the bill, and 
Democrats blaming Republicans for a lot of dilatory amendments.
  The majority leader has said these amendments are designed to kill 
the bill, that the people offering the amendments don't have any 
intention of voting for the bill. Senators who offer amendments don't 
have to have intentions of voting for the bill. Senators can offer 
amendments because they are Senators and because they think their 
amendments may pass, and because, who knows, they may even think their 
amendments could improve the bill. I think Senator Cornyn sincerely 
believes his amendment will improve the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ordinarily keep better track of time, 
but I am a little wound up and concerned about where all of the work we 
have done may end up if this bill is pulled and, more importantly, 
after the work that has been done, where it would leave the immigration 
mess in the United States. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants; 
we don't know where they are or what risks they face. We cannot deport 
them all. We have a porous border. If we don't have comprehensive 
immigration reform, we are not going to put up all the fencing, the 
barriers, and stop the additional people. The administration has made 
commitments, and there will be more about how the funds will be spent. 
We are not going to go through with employer verification. We are not 
going to spend the money on foolproof identification so employers can 
see who is legal and who is not legal, so that we have the basis for 
imposing tough sanctions, including jail. We are not going to eliminate 
the magnet to bring more people in. It will be a colossal failure.
  I think it is safe to say the Senate would be the laughingstock of 
the country, after all of the hyperbole and publicity and all of the 
proposals and objections, if we are not able to finish this bill. It 
doesn't have to be finished this week. There is next week. We are not 
known for necessarily using the full week. We vote very infrequently on 
Mondays, almost never on Fridays. The evening session is not really 
practiced around here. When I came to the Senate with Howard Baker, we 
used to have a lot of all-night sessions. One night in 1982 or 1983--I 
ask for 4 more minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 more minutes to the Senator. How much time 
will I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will have 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we had a tax bill on the Senate floor, 
and it was 11:45. Howard Baker, the majority leader, was consulting 
with the Finance chairman, Senator Dole. There were 63 amendments 
pending. Senator Baker said we are going to work through the night. He 
said amendments, like mushrooms, grow overnight. So we worked through 
the night. There were some amendments taken, some amendments withdrawn, 
and some voted upon. It is amazing how much shorter the debate is at 3 
a.m. It is also amazing how many more Senators there are on the floor 
at 3 a.m. There were a lot of people on cots in the cloakroom, but a 
lot of Senators were on the floor. The insomniacs outnumbered the 
sleepers by 2 to 1. We had a lot of comments like you heard in 
Parliament. Someone would be making an argument and there would be 
cries of ``vote, vote.'' At 3 a.m. the cries of ``vote'' and the lack 
of decorum carried the day.
  The point is that a few more days in the Senate will not impede the 
action of this body. Some of the items that are coming up on the agenda 
may not merit the kind of time and attention the immigration bill does.
  The American people are obviously sick and tired of the bickering in 
the Congress and in the Senate, sick and tired of the kind of finger 
pointing, and there will be an awful lot of it if we fail to legislate 
on this matter. The bill may be voted down. I think the bill will pass 
if we stick with it. Certainly, we ought to carry it through to 
conclusion.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the extra 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I rise today to discuss amendment No. 
1313, an amendment that I will offer to the immigration reform bill, 
which will address what I believe are two crucial flaws in this 
legislation. The first flaw relates to what some people may call 
amnesty, wherein the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this 
country by the beginning of this year. The second flaw relates to an 
unworkable set of procedures applicable to those who are properly 
offered legal status. It is important to the health and practicality of 
our system that these two flaws be addressed.
  My amendment would achieve three critically important goals: it 
creates a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have 
truly put down roots in America; it protects the legitimate interests 
of all working Americans; and it accords honor and dignity to the 
concept of true American justice.
  If one accepts the premises of these three goals, then I strongly 
believe that this amendment is the best way forward.
  As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues that the time has 
come for fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system. 
When I say ``fairness,'' I mean a system of laws that is fair to 
everyone here in the United States and especially our wage earners.
  I strongly support the provisions in this immigration bill that 
strengthen our Nation's borders. Our porous borders are a threat to our 
national security, and we have waited far too long to fix this problem.
  I also support the sections of the bill that create tough civil and 
criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire illegal immigrants, 
creating both a second-class population and undercutting American 
workers. The bill's employment verification system will help ensure 
that illegal workers cannot get employment in the United States and 
would therefore face little choice but to return to their homelands.
  As a point of reference, I do not support this bill's creation of a 
massive new temporary worker program. Two weeks ago, I voted to support 
Senator Dorgan's two amendments to strike and sunset that program, and 
I find it regrettable that the Senate did not adopt those amendments.
  We have seen a good bit of analysis on the Senate floor in recent 
days to the effect that the temporary worker program will be largely 
unworkable. To the extent that it would work, it would create a wage-
based underclass and a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, as I stated 
on the floor 2 weeks ago, I believe that guest worker programs--aside 
from purely temporary, seasonal work--drive down the wages of hard-
working Americans and of those who came here by following the law.
  With those points in mind, I now turn to my amendment, which regards 
the other major component of this bill--the legalization program.

[[Page S7111]]

  My amendment reflects a proposal that I have been discussing with 
Virginians ever since I began my campaign for the Senate. I have always 
supported tough border security and cracking down on large employers 
who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path to 
legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax 
immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in their 
communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for all 
undocumented persons.
  Under the provisions of the immigration bill we are debating, 
virtually all undocumented persons currently living in the United 
States would be eligible to legalize their status and ultimately become 
U.S. citizens. Estimates are that this number totals 12 million to 20 
million people. This is legislative overkill. It is one of the reasons 
that this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary Americans who have 
no opposition to reasonable immigration policies but who see this as an 
issue that goes against the grain of basic fairness, which is the very 
foundation of our society.
  By contrast, my amendment would allow a smaller percentage of 
undocumented persons to remain in the United States and legalize their 
status, based on the depth of a person's roots in their community.
  Under my proposal, undocumented persons who have lived in the United 
States at least 4 years prior to enactment of the bill could apply to 
legalize their status. I note that this 4-year period is even more 
generous than the 5-year threshold that was contained in several bills 
in the past few Congresses--bills that were supported by Senators from 
both parties and by immigrants' rights groups.
  After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security 
would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine 
whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to 
get on the path to citizenship.
  The statutory criteria to be considered would be work history, 
payment of Federal or State income taxes, property ownership and 
business ownership in the United States, knowledge of English, 
attendance at U.S. schools, immediate family members in the United 
States, whether the applicant has a criminal record, and whether the 
applicant wants to become a U.S. citizen.
  Like the underlying bill, applicants would be given probationary 
status while the DHS considers their Z visa application and could 
lawfully work during this probationary status period.
  I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population and 
also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in 
1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal 
wave of illegal immigration.
  My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical.
  It strikes the bill's unrealistic ``touchback'' requirement. Few 
immigrants would have the money or the ability to return to their home 
countries on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their 
U.S. jobs, leaving their families in turmoil and placing further strain 
on our communities. Basic fairness dictates that these persons be 
allowed to apply for a green card from within the United States.
  I believe that my amendment sets forth an equitable system that not 
only recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also 
introduces practical measures that will help us avoid the same mistakes 
our country made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill.
  I have heard loud and clear from Virginians, and I have talked with 
people on all sides of this issue. What I hear over and over again is 
that Congress should find a fair system that both protects American 
workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment represents the 
fairest method I know to do so and to do so realistically.
  I ask you all to support amendment No. 1313 when it comes for a vote 
in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield as a point of interest?
  Mr. CORNYN. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think I have 6\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am trying to get some information to the Senators who 
will follow along. Does the Senator plan to use the remainder of his 
time? I am not trying to hurry him; it is only for information 
purposes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I agree it is a good idea to try to give 
our colleagues notice as to when a vote will occur. I am happy to agree 
we can have the vote at 11:45. I probably will not use all of my time, 
but it depends on how wound up I get.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Why don't we sort of move along but indicate to our 
colleagues that we are reaching a conclusion and we expect votes fairly 
soon. Then we will have follow-on amendments with Senator DeMint and, 
hopefully, Senator Bingaman. If we can work those out in the next 20 
minutes or so, we can get stacked votes; otherwise, we plan to have 
these two votes reasonably soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of Senators, the vote will 
occur at approximately 11:55 if some time is not yielded back.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we have a number of speakers who have 
commented. I appreciate the wise comments of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and I am not talking about the part where he was 
complimentary of me; I am talking about his comments on the process and 
the difficulty, since this bill came to the floor without going through 
committee, of providing an adequate opportunity for debate and 
amendments. We have all tried to work our way through this.
  I do concur it is a terrible mistake in judgment to seek to close off 
debate on this bill before an adequate opportunity for votes occurs. We 
have had, by my count--and I could be off one or two--nine rollcall 
votes on this bill. By way of comparison, when the McCain-Kennedy bill, 
which later became the Hagel-Martinez bill, was on the floor last year, 
we had 32 rollcall votes, I believe. We need to have an adequate 
opportunity to flesh this out. As we have seen here, some of these 
details get very technical, but they have a profound consequence in 
terms of the outcome.
  Let me speak to some of the specific items that have been raised 
here. As we pointed out, first, there will be a vote on the Kennedy 
amendment, and then there will be a vote on the Cornyn amendment. With 
all due respect, I call the first one a watered-down version of the 
second one. I will point out the differences now, in part.
  The Kennedy amendment would still allow waivers to allow members of 
gangs to become legalized under the provisions of this bill. The 
Kennedy bill would still allow sex offenders to not be barred if they 
were sentenced to less than 6 months. The Kennedy bill would still 
allow waivers for firearms offenses; that is, allow people who have 
been convicted of firearms offenses to get a waiver and to be allowed 
legal status.
  My amendment covers those who are associated with terrorist 
organizations. Those innocents referred to under the material support 
provisions are covered by a waiver executed by the Department of State 
and Department of Homeland Security.
  As we can see, this gets exceedingly technical. Let me focus on sex 
offenders, by way of example, to point out why these differences are 
important. My amendment would bar those who have failed to register as 
sex offenders from becoming eligible for a Z visa and legal permanent 
residency status and a path to American citizenship. We have spoken in 
Congress on this issue through such legislation as the Adam Walsh Act. 
We have made it clear we will monitor and lock up those sex offenders 
who don't follow the rules and bar sex offenders from bringing 
individuals into the country whom they may also harm.
  Yet the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, would still give those sex offenders 
who fail to register a loophole to exploit if they can plea bargain 
their case to less than 6

[[Page S7112]]

months. The maximum penalty for the underlying offense is no more than 
1 year. All of us who have had experience in the legal system, 
particularly with the criminal law system, understand plea bargains are 
a way of life and it may well be a very serious sex offender will have 
plea bargained an indictment against him or her to less than 6 months, 
and still be allowed entry into the United States under the Kennedy 
amendment.
  Here is what the Kennedy amendment does. On page 20 of the amendment, 
it modifies the exceptions to the criminal bars admissibility by adding 
failure to register as a sex offender and firearm offenses to the list 
of offenses excepted from the criminal bars to accessibility.
  Why would we allow this loophole? We just got this amendment last 
night, of course. We have not been able to survey the sex offender 
registry laws of all 50 States. We know there is at least one State--
New York--where first-time failure to register a conviction is a class 
A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year.
  My simple question is: Why would we want to employ a loophole for sex 
offenders and allow them to gain the benefits under this bill by being 
eligible for a Z visa, with a path to legal permanent residency, 
potentially, and American citizenship?
  My amendment makes clear--unlike the Kennedy amendment--that all 
these loopholes are closed and this is not possible. I cannot imagine 
that the American people would feel, among the many other people who 
are arguably worthy of gaining benefits under this bill, we would want 
to demean what we are doing here by providing these benefits to people 
who so clearly have shown themselves unworthy of getting those 
benefits.
  I will point out that I know we have had a big debate in this country 
and in the Senate about what constitutes amnesty. I think the problem 
is the American people--many of them--don't feel we are serious about 
restoring the rule of law when it comes to our broken immigration 
system. I don't mean for a minute to impugn the good faith of Senators 
who have labored long and hard to try to bring this bill to the floor, 
and those of us who are trying to improve it, to make it better. But by 
way of example, these are the sorts of offenses that ordinarily would 
be punishable under our laws but which are completely ignored when it 
comes to applicants for a Z visa--and that is the 12 million or so who 
are here--who have committed these acts.
  Anyone who has entered the country without being inspected or 
admitted; that is, who came across the border before January 1, 2007, 
this bill would make eligible for a Z visa.
  Any alien who failed to show up for his or her removal proceeding 
without just cause would be eligible for legal status under this bill.
  Any alien; that is, any noncitizen, who, through fraud or willful 
misrepresentation, got a visa or other document or admitted to the 
United States would be eligible for a Z visa.
  Any individual who makes a false claim to U.S. citizenship--this is 
an independent offense against our criminal laws--would be eligible for 
a Z visa.
  Any noncitizen who was a stowaway who made their way into the United 
States, anyone who is the subject of a civil penalty for document fraud 
would be eligible under this bill for legalization and a Z visa.
  Any alien who, when trying to enter the country, did not have the 
proper documents, visa, passport, border-crossing card, et cetera; any 
alien who remained unlawfully in the United States for less than a 
year, left the United States before removal, and then tried to reenter 
in a 3-year period would be eligible for a Z visa under this bill, or 
was in the United States unlawfully continuously for more than a year, 
then tried to reenter the United States within 10 years after leaving 
or being removed from the United States. It gets a little convoluted, 
but that person would be eligible for a Z visa or legalization and 
potentially a path to legal permanent residency and American 
citizenship.
  Under this bill, any alien who, after previously violating 
immigration laws, for example, crossed the border multiple times and 
remained unlawfully in the United States for an aggregate of a year or 
more under this bill would be eligible for legalization under a Z visa, 
potentially eligible for legal permanent residency and American 
citizenship.
  Any alien who came with another alien who is not admissible to the 
United States who is certified as helpless due to sickness, disease, 
and disability and requires the protection or guardianship of an alien. 
That is one more example of the kind of offenses which ordinarily we 
would punish under our laws which are waived and not considered when it 
comes to eligibility of the Z visa.
  I don't think it is particularly productive on the floor of the 
Senate to talk about what is amnesty and what is not, but let me talk 
about the more basic consideration and one reason I think my 
constituents in Texas have expressed such strong concerns about it. It 
is really exemplified in the debate we are having on the Cornyn and 
Kennedy amendments. Are we serious about restoring respect for the law 
or are we going to simply turn a blind eye to violations in the future?
  What we are being told by the proponents of this bill--and I believe 
they in good faith believe this, but it is unfortunate that the bill 
language itself does not appear to bear out that optimism and hope when 
it comes to the enforceability--is that this is, as in 1986, the last 
time we are going to do this. If we deal with the 12 million people who 
have come into the country without a visa or who have entered legally 
and who have overstayed their visa, if we give them an opportunity to 
get a Z visa, this is it, last time, it will never happen again. That 
sounds ominously similar to what the American people were told in 1986 
when there were 3 million people in that category. Now we have 12 
million in that category.
  So the question people have, logically--these are not racists, these 
are not bigots, they are not nativists, they are not anti-immigrants; 
these are American citizens who are concerned about their country and 
about being a country that respects the rule of law--they want to know: 
Is this going to work? Will it be enforced? Are we serious about 
restoring the rule of law to our country?
  I have to say that the sort of fine and requirement that is being 
required with the Z visa is looked at with great skepticism. Last week, 
I had a constituent who said: Well, Senator, are you telling me that we 
are going to allow people who have not respected our immigration laws 
to pay $5,000, in effect, to buy legal status and then potentially 
apply for legal permanent residency and then become an American 
citizen? Who wouldn't go for that kind of deal? That caused me a lot of 
concern because I, frankly, had not thought about it in those terms.
  But what causes me even greater concern is the concept that is 
missing from this legislation that is so important; that is, when it 
comes to our laws, we believe in the role of deterrence. In other 
words, when we provide a penalty to somebody for violating the law, one 
of the considerations is, will it deter people from acting in a similar 
capacity in the future?
  I am afraid, when I look at this legislation, it completely omits any 
consideration of what will deter people from violating our immigration 
laws in the future. In fact, I am afraid what happens, as pointed out 
by my constituent, is that it is really viewed as an incentive. If all 
you have to do is to get into the country any way you can and then wait 
for the next bill to pass Congress which will allow you to pay a fine 
and then become legally here and on a path to legal permanent residency 
and citizenship, that is no deterrent. That is a powerful magnet which 
will continue to attract people to our country.
  I say this not in any spirit except to say we have to find a way to 
fix this. I have been one who wants to try to fix this legislation. The 
amendments I have offered are in that spirit. But I have to say that we 
are going to continue to be viewed as nonserious about workability, 
about enforcement, about restoring respect for the rule of law unless 
we vote to exclude those who have shown nothing but defiance for our 
laws by absconding, by going underground even after having their day in 
court and refusing an order of deportation, or those who have been 
deported following a day in court, following all the rights our country 
provides for judicial review and administrative review and who simply 
left to only reenter again illegally.

[[Page S7113]]

  As I mentioned at the outset, the Immigration and Naturalization Act 
makes both those categories of individuals felons--felons. This is not 
a misdemeanor. This is not an inadvertency. These are not people, 
frankly, who are entitled to the generosity of the American people when 
it comes to dealing with their legal status. These are people who 
showed they have nothing but contempt for our laws, for restoring the 
rule of law, and I just cannot imagine why any Member of the Senate 
would vote to give these individuals a path to legal residence and a 
path to potentially American citizenship.

  If we are going to regain that lost credibility--and I think this is 
really where the rubber meets the road because, frankly, people across 
this country don't really believe we are serious about making this 
work. They are used to a history of being overpromised and undersold 
when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system. But I believe 
there is going to be a high price to pay for those of us who are still 
around in the coming years if, in fact, we pass this law knowing that 
it has these huge, gaping loopholes that excuse unlawful conduct, which 
is basically thumbing their noses at the rule of law. If we are not 
serious about making sure people who go through background checks are 
actually not criminals or terrorists, if we are not serious about 
making this work, there is going to be a high price to pay for those 
who support this legislation only in the coming years to find that it 
was another scam pulled on the American people.
  That is why it is so absolutely critical that we continue this 
debate, and I implore the majority leader to allow us to continue the 
debate, to allow us to have amendments offered. I understand and we all 
understand in this country that you win some and you lose some, 
majorities rule, but that is what we ought to be doing on this bill to 
make it as good as we possibly can to try to regain the respect and the 
trust of the American people because, frankly, we don't have it now. 
That is the reason for the outcry we have heard in my State and around 
the country when it comes to this legislation.
  We can fix it. I am an optimist, but we cannot fix it if there is not 
an opportunity for a full and fair debate and if the majority leader is 
determined to cut off the opportunity to provide votes on amendments 
and is going to insist on ``my way or the highway''; in other words, 
you are either going to have to agree to not let your amendments be 
heard and to let this bill go to a final vote or the majority leader is 
going to pull it down and deny us the opportunity to fix this problem.
  I don't know anyone in the Senate who doesn't want to fix this 
problem. It is enormously complicated because this problem has festered 
for 20 years or more without a solution. That is no excuse for not 
trying, and that is why I have tried, along with my colleagues, to come 
up with an acceptable solution. I would say 90 percent of it we agree 
with. There is no light separating us. It is in the 10 percent we 
talked about that is the subject of important amendments which need to 
be heard and voted on where we can regain that trust.
  Let me say in conclusion--and I may reserve a little bit of time--let 
me say before I sit down, Mr. President, that a ``no'' vote on the 
Cornyn amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the Kennedy amendment will, in 
essence, could retitle this section of this bill ``No Felon Left 
Behind'' because while we have excluded many categories of felons, we 
have, for some reason, left this big, gaping hole when it comes to 
those who show nothing but contempt for our laws. We need to fix this 
bill, we need to make it better, not make it worse, and we have an 
uphill climb to regain credibility of the American people to show we 
are serious and we want to restore our reputation as a nation that 
believes in the rule of law. A ``no'' vote on the Cornyn amendment will 
do nothing to help it; indeed, I think it will confirm the worst 
suspicions of the American people--that we really are not serious about 
fixing this problem.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator's 
presentation. I have come to a different conclusion. The Senator said a 
``no'' vote means we are really not for dealing with this issue. We 
have a bipartisan group that has worked long and hard. The Senator from 
Texas was involved in a lot of the discussions. As we pointed out 
previously, we wanted to have tough law enforcement internally. We 
wanted recognition that those 12.5 million people here were going to be 
able to be secure, they weren't going to be deported, they were going 
to go to the end of the line, they would have to go through the earned 
legalization program, bring families together again, set up a program 
in terms of a temporary worker program. I don't know what 90 percent 
the Senator agrees with because I haven't heard much.
  What is important is what his amendment does and what its impact 
would be.
  We ought to come back at the conclusion of this debate to the point 
that was raised at the beginning because after all the rhetoric, after 
all is said and done, listen to the example that was given by my friend 
from Illinois.
  Senator Durbin describes a mother of four U.S. citizens, married to a 
U.S. citizen, who is herself undocumented. She left the country to 
visit her sick mother. She was apprehended after she snuck back in. 
That means she has reentered the United States at least twice, and 
under the Cornyn amendment on page 2, she could be convicted of illegal 
reentry. That would make her an aggregated felon. Even if she is not 
convicted, the Cornyn amendment makes her ineligible for the Z program.
  On page 10 of the amendment, he eliminates the waiver for final 
orders available in the bill. This is a waiver for hardship to family, 
and he eliminates it. No harm, the Senator says, because she can get a 
different waiver as the wife of a U.S. citizen. That didn't stop DHS 
from deporting her.
  So why should people come out of the shadows? Why should they come 
out of the shadows if they are here with false papers, undocumented? 
Why should they come out of the shadows when they have seen what has 
happened to a mother of four citizens married to an American 
citizen? That is what we are basically talking about. That is 
undermining the basic core because we are talking about 12\1/2\ million 
people who are here, who came here to work in order to provide for 
their families, and they have been trying to do that for their 
families. More often than not, they probably went back to their 
countries of origin and came back in again. Probably more often than 
not they had false papers in order to be able to get their jobs. That 
in and of itself, under the Cornyn amendment, would effectively exclude 
them from participating in this program and would subject them to 
deportation. End of story. End of story because that undermines, 
obviously, the essential aspect of this legislation.

  The rest of the Cornyn amendment--which I mentioned earlier with the 
list of the amendments that we have put through--covers the bars, the 
criminal gang members, including the new provisions of gang members 
engaged in gun crimes. Sex offenders are covered by the comprehensive 
Adam Walsh Act. The sex offenders are not going to get Z visas.
  The Senator from Texas can say, under our language, under his 
interpretation, they will, but they would not. End of story. They would 
not.
  On the provisions regarding drunk-driving convictions and individuals 
convicted of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and other 
serious crimes, we increase the penalties for perjury, fraud, and 
firearm offenses.
  It is important that after all is said and done--and we gave the 
illustration earlier about the questions of material support--the 
terrorists are out.
  One thing about managing a bill, for those of us who have been here, 
we understand it; that there is always the possibility and the 
likelihood people will misrepresent what is in the bill and then differ 
with it. It is an old technique. I have even used it myself. But we 
ought to understand when we see it that it is just a technique that is 
being used.

[[Page S7114]]

  So with all respect to my friend and colleague, and I have a good 
deal of respect for him, the effect of the underlying Cornyn amendment 
would effectively exclude from the Z visa program any immigrant who had 
been or will be convicted of using false documents. That is the problem 
today. Because of our broken immigration system, almost every hard-
working immigrant in the country has been forced at one time or another 
to use false documents to get a job. These people have come here to 
work. They have been lured by the employers offering work. They are the 
very people this program is designed to bring out of the shadows. The 
Cornyn amendment will ensure they cannot come forward. Indeed, if they 
did come forward, they could be subject to prosecution and mandatory 
deportation for using a fake Social Security card.
  I believe we have addressed many of the concerns the Members have had 
on dealing with some of these other issues and questions with the 
Kennedy amendment, and I would hope the Members would vote in favor of 
that and against the Cornyn amendment.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire how much time remains on my side, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me assure my colleague, Senator 
Kennedy, that only those who have actually been convicted of document 
fraud would be excluded under my amendment.
  According to recent statistics, roughly 10 million Americans fell 
victim to identity theft last year, at an estimated cost of $50 billion 
to U.S. taxpayers, and victims spent an average of $1,500 and 175 hours 
to actually recover their good name and their good credit after 
identity theft. This is not a trivial matter, and it is only people who 
have actually been convicted, not those who have presented false 
documents to work in the country who have not been convicted.
  As far as the woman with four American children and married to an 
American spouse, my amendment does not touch her rights under current 
law. For example, we don't touch current law waivers for consent to 
reapply for admission. We don't touch the Secretary's ability to grant 
humanitarian parole. And we don't touch the waivers under current law 
that cover an immigrant who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen.
  I thought Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, was satisfied with 
that answer earlier, but I point that out to my colleagues just so they 
can be satisfied that there are exceptions for extraordinary 
circumstances.
  What this amendment does is it broadly says felons will not be given 
the benefits of legalization and a path to American citizenship. They 
have had their chance, they blew their chance, and they have shown 
themselves unworthy of the trust and confidence of the American people 
when it comes to living among us in compliance with our laws and 
respecting the fact that, yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and 
proudly so, but we are also a nation of laws. Those laws keep us safe, 
they keep us secure, and they assure our prosperity, and the prosperity 
of generations yet to come. We cannot, once again, turn a blind eye to 
the laws that protect all of us, including those immigrants who have 
come here to become part of our great country and to seek opportunity 
for their future.
  I hope my colleagues will support the Cornyn amendment, that they 
will vote against the Kennedy amendment as a dilution and watered-down 
figleaf of the Cornyn amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with regard to Senator Durbin, he could 
come back and speak to this issue, this was a mother of four U.S. 
citizens, herself undocumented, who left the country to visit her sick 
mother and was apprehended after she snuck back in. She had entered and 
reentered the U.S. twice. She had false documents, and she has been 
effectively deported.
  The Senator says, well, she had rights to appeal, rights to do this 
and to do that. This is the real impact. This is the real impact of the 
Cornyn amendment. This is what the Cornyn amendment is all about. We 
know the people who have come in here. Why do they come in here? They 
come to work. Why do they come to work? Because the job is there. They 
are devoted to their families, devoted to their work and faith, in many 
instances devoted to this country--with 70,000 of them working in the 
Armed Forces of the United States. But in order to be able to do that, 
somewhere along the way they get the false papers. That is what the 
facts are. The great majority have them.
  Under the Cornyn amendment, it says those individuals are subject to 
deportation. He thinks all 12\1/2\ million people are all going to 
volunteer and come out and say, well, by the way, Senator Cornyn gave 
us assurance that somebody down there in DHS can give me a waiver and 
let me stay. Come on. Come on. We believe that? That is going to be 
sufficient assurance to get these people to come out of the shadows so 
that they are not going to continue to be exploited? I don't believe 
that.
  I have a lot of respect for my friend. I know what he is attempting 
to do in order to deal with some of these other issues, and we have 
attempted to address that. But the fact remains his amendment 
undermines the basic core of this--recognizing that people here are 
undocumented, and the ones who are undocumented, by and large, have 
these false papers. That is a part of the reality.
  The question is: Are we going to say to those individuals: Look, you 
came here and are undocumented. You are going to pay a fine, and you 
are going to have to demonstrate that you are going to work, and you 
are going to show that you are going to be a good citizen. And in 8 
years, after all the other people who have been waiting in line, after 
all of that period, when you are able to pay the fine, demonstrate that 
you have worked all that time, and have been a good citizen trying to 
make a difference in terms of going into the country, that then you 
will be able to at least start--start--on the potential road to 
citizenship.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has 
expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, does the Senator desire the yeas and 
nays?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider the yeas and nays on both amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for the yeas 
and nays on both amendments?
  The chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Is there sufficient second on both amendments?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are 
ordered on both amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: There are going to 
be two back-to-back votes. The first one will be on the Kennedy 
amendment and the second one is on the Cornyn amendment; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kennedy amendment is the first vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And the second vote is the Cornyn amendment. I thank the 
Chair.
  To continue, Mr. President, it is our hope that we will move toward 
the DeMint amendment. We had good debate on that yesterday, and the 
Bingaman amendment, and then have votes on those fairly soon after. I 
thank all our Members for their cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1333, as modified, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:

[[Page S7115]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lott
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1333), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1184

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1184 offered by the 
Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues for a ``yea'' 
vote on this amendment. If you voted for the Kennedy amendment, you 
made an incremental improvement over the current law when it comes to 
banning criminals from getting the benefit of our immigration system. 
But in order to exclude felons, people who have shown their contempt 
and defiance of American law, and unless it is your intent to reward 
felons who have shown their contempt for the American legal system, to 
reward them with the most precious gift this country can offer, which 
is legal status, potentially legal permanent residency and a path to 
citizenship, you should vote yes on this amendment. I would urge my 
colleagues to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, make no mistake about it, with many good 
intentions which were covered in the Kennedy amendment, this guts the 
bill because it not only eliminates--it not only says that felons 
should not become citizens, and we agree with that, it says that anyone 
who has filed an illegal paper should not become a citizen. That is 
every immigrant who would be on the path to citizenship. This body 
voted against eliminating that provision overtly a few weeks ago. Now 
they are trying to do the same thing covertly because if you vote for 
this amendment, you will say no one will have a path to citizenship, no 
one who works, because everyone who has worked had to file a Social 
Security paper or something like that.
  Anyone who wants to keep this bill going at the moment should vote 
against the Cornyn amendment. The Kennedy amendment dealt with felons. 
This is a stealth, Trojan horse amendment to kill the bill by saying no 
one--no one--who has ever worked shall have the path to citizenship.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with all due respect, the Senator should 
read the amendment. It does not affect people who have committed 
identity theft unless they have actually been convicted of that. It 
would have no effect on people who have entered without a visa or who 
have come in on a legal visa and overstayed. This is no gutting of the 
bill; it is only to protect the American people from felons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1184, as modified, 
offered by the Senator from Texas.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez) Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Landrieu
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Craig
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coburn
       
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 1884), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
2 p.m. today be for debate prior to a vote in relation to the following 
amendments; that the time until then be equally divided and controlled 
between the two leaders or their designees, with the time to run 
concurrently; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments 
covered in this agreement; that at 2 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote 
in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote, with the vote 
after the first being 10 minutes in duration, with no amendments in 
order to the amendments prior to the vote: DeMint No. 1197, Bingaman 
No. 1267, as modified.
  I designate Senator Kennedy to have my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are making some good progress. The 
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, had a good discussion last 
evening, as well as Senator Bingaman. We are grateful to them. We will 
have a good discussion prior to 2 o'clock on these issues.
  We are hopeful, then, we will be moving along. Senator Cornyn had an 
amendment on confidentiality. We have Senator Dodd. There are a number 
of those where we are trying to go back one side to the other. We hope 
those Senators who have amendments who are ready, particularly those 
who would like to enter into a time agreement, will let us know as 
quickly as possible. We will be in touch with others during this 
luncheon period and continue to move along. But we are thankful for all 
the help and cooperation we have received.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, staff has been working hard to set up votes 
on the amendments that have been called up. We ran into a little 
problem; that is, we had too many Democratic amendments. But we think 
at this stage they are now working on setting up side by side, in some 
instances, Republican amendments. We need to clear

[[Page S7116]]

off the amendments that have been called up.
  Now, as I have just indicated, if we have offsets for the Democratic 
amendments, we will go ahead and allow those to be called up or have 
side-by-sides. Once we get this done, I have been assured by both 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Kyl and others that we can have a list of 
amendments people need a vote on--not they want a vote on but need a 
vote on. We hope both cloakrooms have hotlined this and Senators are 
working on a personal basis with individual Senators.
  Hopefully, we can get, by the 2 o'clock time, permission to do away 
with--I should not say ``do away with''--to dispose of the amendments 
that have been called up. Then, hopefully, we can shortly thereafter 
find out what amendments people wish to have votes on. If we can do 
that, it would really move this ball down the court a long ways.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  As I understand, 1 o'clock today is the deadline for the filing of 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. A number of Senators have spoken to me about having 
their amendments filed. Many of them I have given the insurances that 
we would. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, had asked that 2 days 
ago, and we are working with the Finance Committee. I see her in the 
Chamber. I think Senator Thune was here last evening. I objected to 
those individuals proceeding. It would appear to me, out of fairness we 
ought to make sure they are not excluded. Is our policy to make sure 
they are at least within--if they have indicated to the floor managers, 
they want to be in, we have them meet the deadline?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, all first-degree amendments would have to be 
filed by 1 o'clock. As we have indicated, we are going to try to be 
fair to everybody. If there are amendments that have been up at the 
desk, we will certainly do our best to get to those. I think what we 
need to do is find out, as I have indicated, what needs to be voted on. 
Some Senators on our side, for example, have been contacted this 
morning, and they have decided not to offer amendments. The same will 
happen over there. If people have been waiting around and feel 
aggrieved they have not been allowed to offer their amendments, of 
course, we will consider that. But I do not think we need to do 
anything right now as far as a unanimous consent request in that 
regard.
  We will do everything we can--everybody is working in good faith--to 
have people feel they have the opportunity to offer their amendments. I 
know the Senator from Texas--she is gone--she just walked in. I do not 
know what her amendment is about. I think it is Social Security. I am 
not too certain. She has been around here a lot. She is entitled, if 
for no other reason than having the endurance to hang around as long as 
she has, to have her amendment offered. We will work with everybody, 
both Democrats and Republicans, to see if we can work something out to 
have all these amendments offered and a time set to vote on them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, all they have to do is 
be filed by this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So for those who are back in their offices, they do not 
have to be called up. They just have to be filed. So they have until 1 
o'clock for the filing of amendments. We urge those who want to have 
amendments filed to make sure they understand that. They do not have to 
call them up. They are protected in that way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 
to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
me, the Senator from Maine be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me add another part to that 
unanimous consent request: that the Senator from Florida be allowed to 
speak for up to 10 minutes, following the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Chambliss are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, under the rules, the 
filing time was set for 1 o'clock, and the leader has indicated for 
filing any amendments that we extend that. I ask unanimous consent that 
the filing time be extended until 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could just say this--I would say this 
mostly to the staffs: We do not need a big rush over here as to filing 
amendments. It does not give anybody any benefit anyway. Just show some 
discretion on who has to file amendments, and then we will work our way 
through those and find out how we are going to dispose of them. So I 
think this is the right thing to do. There is no magic to the next 5 
minutes. So we will wait for the next 65 minutes. If people have 
trouble making that deadline, let us know.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might just add a word, we thank the 
majority leader and the Senator from Massachusetts for extending the 
time. That should ease substantial pressure on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1554 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Martinez are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask that the time be equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally 
between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. 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. 1183, As Further Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Clinton 
amendment No. 1183 be further modified with the changes that are at the 
desk.

[[Page S7117]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1183), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 260, line 13, strike ``567,000'' and insert 
     ``480,000''.
       On page 260, line 19, strike ``127,000'' and insert 
     ``40,000''.
       On page 269, line 18, insert ``or the child or spouse of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' after 
     ``United States''.
       On page 269, line 21, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident'' after ``citizen''.
       On page 269, line 22, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident'' after ``citizen''.
       On page 269, line 23, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident'' after ``citizen''.
       On page 269, line 23, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
       On page 269, line 24, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident'' after ``citizen''.
       On page 269, line 25, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
       On page 269, line 26, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
       On page 269, line 32, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
       On page 269, line 41, insert ``or lawful permanent 
     resident'' after ``citizen''.
       On page 269, line 42, insert ``or lawful permanent resident 
     status'' after ``citizenship''.
       On page 270, strike lines 18 through 29, and insert:
       (2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       On page 270, line 31, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 271, line 17, strike ``(4)'' the first place it 
     appears and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 273, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (5) Section 201(f) (8 U.S.C. 1151(f)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3),'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (2),''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(b)(2)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2);
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (D) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(b)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)''.
       (6) Section 202 (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).
       (7) Section 203(h) (8 U.S.C. 1153(h)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (d)'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``becomes available 
     for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date 
     on which an immigrant visa number became available for the 
     alien's parent)'', and inserting ``became available for the 
     alien's parent,''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``applicable'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The petition'' and all 
     that follows through the period and inserting ``The petition 
     described in this paragraph is a petition filed under section 
     204 for classification of the alien parent under subsection 
     (a) or (b).''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsections (a)(2)(A) 
     and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
       (8) Section 204 (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (iii)--

       (aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after 
     ``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
       (bb) in subclause (II)(aa)(CC)(bbb), by inserting ``or 
     legal permanent resident'' after ``citizenship'';

       (II) in clause (iv)--

       (aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after 
     ``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
       (bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after 
     ``citizenship'';

       (III) in clause (v)(I), by inserting ``or legal permanent 
     resident'' after ``citizen''; and
       (IV) in clause (vi)--

       (aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident status'' 
     after ``renunciation of citizenship''; and
       (bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after 
     ``abuser's citizenship'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (J) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (I), respectively;
       (iv) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)'' and 
     inserting ``clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A)''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--

       (I) by striking ``or clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph 
     (B)''; and
       (II) by striking ``under subparagraphs (C) and (D)'' and 
     inserting ``under subparagraphs (B) and (C)'';

       (B) by striking subsection (a)(2);
       (C) in subsection (h), by striking ``or a petition filed 
     under subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii)''; and
       (D) in subsection (j), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)(D)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(C)''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes 
of the remaining time be reserved for Senator DeMint.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1267

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to first speak on behalf of an 
amendment I offered with Senator Obama. It is one of the two amendments 
that will be voted on in the sequence at 2 o'clock. The amendment is 
aimed at addressing what I believe is a very shortsighted provision in 
this draft immigration bill.
  My amendment applies only to this new guest worker program we are 
creating under the bill, the so-called Y-1 program. It doesn't impact 
the Y-2 program, which is the seasonal and nonagricultural program that 
is based on the existing H-2B program, or the H-2A program, which is 
the agricultural temporary worker program.
  Under this immigration bill as it now stands, Y-1 workers--guest 
workers, which is how we refer to them--would be able to work in the 
United States for three 2-year work periods. But before they could 
renew their visas for the second and the third of those 2-year work 
periods, they would have to leave the country for at least a year. This 
is the so-called 2-1-2-1-2 provision. Work for 2 years, leave for 1 
year, work for 2 years, leave for 1 year, work for 2 years, and then 
leave for good. The total number of work years in the United States 
would be limited to 6 years, but the work pattern would be interrupted 
twice each time by a 1-year absence requirement.
  The amendment I have offered, and that we will be voting on in a few 
minutes, simply removes the requirement these guest workers leave the 
country before they renew their visas. It would leave in place the term 
of the visa, which is 2 years, and it would not alter the 6-year total 
work limit that is provided for in the bill. In addition, it would 
modify the requirement that Y-1 workers meet all of the relevant 
requirements under the program each time they apply to renew their 
visas.
  Over the last 2 days, I have come to the floor to discuss this 
provision a couple of times. I strongly believe it does not make any 
sense from a policy standpoint and, ultimately, we are going to be 
judged by how much sense this legislation makes. As I have pointed out, 
this provision is bad for employers; it harms American workers; it will 
be difficult and costly to implement; and it will likely encourage 
these workers, whom we are bringing here as so-called guest workers, to 
overstay their visas.
  For these reasons, my amendment has the broad support of labor 
groups, such as the Service Employees International Union; business 
organizations, such as the National Association of Home Builders and 
the Associated Builders and Contractors; and immigration and religious 
groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American 
Association of Immigration Lawyers, and the National Immigration Forum. 
The coalition of organizations supporting this amendment is indicative 
of how harmful the 1-year absence requirement would be from a variety 
of different perspectives.
  I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the following 
material be printed in the Record: the statement that was issued by the 
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a letter by the Associated 
Builders and Contractors Organization, a letter by the National 
Association of Home Builders, and a statement by the SEIU, the Service 
Employees International Union.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with regard to the employer, it would be 
extremely costly to require businesses to retrain and rehire new 
workers every 2 years. No employer I am aware of would think it 
satisfactory for an employee to take a 1-year so-called break every 
couple of years. Each of us in the Senate employs people in our 
offices, here in the Capitol and our home States. This would be an 
unacceptable condition for us, and I am sure it would be for any 
employer. Businesses would have to hire other workers to take over for 
the leaving guest worker, would have to invest time and money in 
retraining additional staff. This would be extremely burdensome, 
particularly on small businesses.
  From an economic standpoint, I believe it generally does not make 
sense

[[Page S7118]]

to enact laws that cause instability in the workforce and create 
requirements that unnecessarily impose significant costs on our small 
businesses. I am not an economist, but this does not seem to be a 
sensible way for us to do business.
  Let me take a moment to read a portion of a letter I received from 
the National Association of Homebuilders on this issue. The letter 
says:

       This system essentially makes the entire program in title 
     IV unworkable for the construction industry. In the 
     residential construction industry, employers spend much time 
     and resources training employees. To arbitrarily lose valued 
     employees at the end of 2 years, as they are forced to return 
     home for a full year, creates unnecessary amounts of 
     instability in our workplaces, and wastes scarce employer 
     resources.

  The construction industry is not the only sector of the economy that 
would be adversely impacted by this provision. The new guest worker 
program is not limited in the respect that existing temporary worker 
programs are in terms of the work being seasonal or within certain 
industries, such as in agriculture. These are, in fact, permanent jobs 
we are talking about, and they are scattered throughout our economy and 
will be affected if we leave this provision unchanged.
  The 1-year absence requirement is also harmful to American workers. 
Kicking workers out of the country every 2 years ensures that there 
will always be guest workers who will be coming in to be paid at the 
low end of the pay scale, and this will result in a depression of wages 
for all workers, not just those guest workers but for the American 
workers who are competing for those jobs as well.
  According to a letter of support I have asked to be printed in the 
Record that I received from the Service Employees International Union, 
they say the following:

       Employers will be less likely to invest in worker training 
     or other benefits and wages to retain workers. . . . The 2-1-
     2-1-2 is a recipe for wage depression, job turnover and 
     increased illegal workers.

  The structure of the new guest worker program will also result in a 
substantial number of these workers overstaying their visas so they 
don't have to leave the country for an extended period of time. The 
Government has not done a great job in the past of ensuring that 
individuals leave the country at the expiration of their visas, and I 
have no reason to believe--I don't think any of us have any reason to 
believe--that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to do a 
substantially better job in the near future.
  In December of last year, after the Government Accountability Office 
issued a report regarding the US-VISIT Program, which is a mechanism by 
which Government is supposed to be able to track the entry and the exit 
of foreign visitors, the Department of Homeland Security scrapped its 
plans to implement the exit portion of that program for U.S. land ports 
of entry.
  In essence, the GAO report found it could take up to 10 years to 
develop the technology required to fully implement the program and that 
the cost of doing so could be in the tens of billions of dollars. There 
is nothing in the immigration bill that indicates that this capability 
is within our reach.
  In section 130 of the bill, the Federal Government is required to 
come up with a schedule for deploying the exit component of the US-
VISIT system. However, we have already been told by the GAO that this 
will not be a reality for a very long period of time.
  In crafting this immigration bill, there has been a lot of attention 
given to trying to bring together individuals with a wide variety of 
political views. In my opinion, we have not focused enough on the 
practical aspects of how this bill is going to be implemented. 
Compromises need to be made as part of any legislative package, but we 
cannot lose sight of the need to craft legislation that makes sense 
from a policy standpoint and that actually can be implemented and can 
work.
  It is my belief the new guest worker program is currently structured 
in a manner that has more to do with the politics of getting a 
compromise among those who drafted the legislation than it does with 
sound policy. As I have discussed, the requirement that these guest 
workers leave every 2 years before renewing their visas is bad for 
employers, it is harmful to American workers, it is difficult to 
enforce, and it will likely result in a larger population of 
undocumented workers in this country in the future.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and 
to help make this bill more workable and better public policy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                       United States Conference of


                                             Catholic Bishops,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2007.

  U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Senate To Support Amendments Protecting 
 Asylum Seekers and Guest Workers in the Comprehensive Immigration Bill

       The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Senators to 
     vote for the following amendments to S. 1348, the 
     Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007:
       The Lieberman Safe and Secure Detention Amendment. 
     Lieberman amendment #1191 would maintain U.S. obligations to 
     international human rights by providing safe and secure 
     detention for victims of torture and persecution seeking 
     asylum protection in this country. While awaiting judgment on 
     their cases, persons claiming persecution or fear of 
     persecution in their home countries often are subjected to 
     prison-like conditions in U.S. detention facilities without 
     proper health, nutritional, physical or spiritual care. This 
     amendment makes major improvements to the U.S. detention 
     system by reinforcing the country's rich heritage and 
     tradition of assisting especially vulnerable persons.
       The Bingaman Guest-Worker Workability Amendment. Bingaman 
     amendment #1267 would eliminate the requirement for the 
     ``years out'' for guest workers who are renewing their 
     temporary Y-visas. By requiring workers to leave the country 
     after two years, only to return one year later, the 
     underlying legislation would create a highly-bureaucratic and 
     unstable system for guest workers to come in to the country. 
     It is likely that many guest workers would overstay their 
     visas, knowing that they are to return in just a year, and 
     many government resources would likely be devoted to seeking 
     out and punishing individuals who are providing valuable and 
     much-needed work. The Bingaman amendment provides a 
     significant step toward creating a worker program that is 
     more humane, workable, and desirous for both guest workers 
     and employers alike.
                                  ____



                    Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.,

                                                     June 6, 2007.
     The U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of 
     Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and its more than 
     24,000 general contractors, subcontractors, material 
     suppliers and construction related firms across the United 
     States, I urge you to vote YES on an amendment (#1267) being 
     offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Obama to S. 1348, the 
     ``Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
     Reform Act of 2007,'' which would remove the requirement that 
     Y-1 temporary workers leave the country before renewing their 
     visas.
       Currently, the immigration bill allows Y-1 guest workers to 
     work in the U.S. for 2-year periods (up to 6 years). However, 
     it requires the workers to leave the U.S. for at least 1 year 
     before renewing their visas. Requiring these workers to leave 
     the country for a lengthy period of time between each work 
     period is harmful for employers; extremely difficult and 
     costly to enforce; harms American workers; and increases the 
     likelihood that individuals will overstay their visas. 
     Moreover, the construction industry, more so than many other 
     industries, relies on highly trained workers to fill their 
     labor force. Having a temporary worker on the job for only a 
     two year time frame makes the current Y-1 visa program 
     outlined in S. 1348 virtually useless for our industry. This 
     is due to the fact that in most cases it takes two to four 
     years to properly train workers in the construction industry.
       The Bingaman/Obama amendment (#1267) would allow Y-1 
     temporary workers to stay in the United States for the entire 
     duration of their work visa. This would give ample time for 
     the employee to become fully trained in the construction 
     industry and it would make the new Y-1 temporary visa 
     beneficial to our ever expanding industry. It is imperative 
     that America's construction industry be allowed the time 
     needed to properly train their employees so that accidents on 
     jobsites can be avoided at all costs.
       ABC supports the Bingaman/Obama amendment (#1267) that 
     would remove the mandatory requirement that Y-1 temporary 
     workers leave the country before renewing their visa and ask 
     you to vote ``YES'' on this important amendment.
           Respectfully Submitted,
                                               William B. Spencer,
     Vice President, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Home Builders,

                                                     June 5, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: On 
     behalf of the 235,000 member firms of the National 
     Association of Home Builders (NAHB), we urge

[[Page S7119]]

     you (NAHB), we urge you to vote in support of the amendment 
     being offered by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Barack 
     Obama (D-IL), AMDT 1267, that would eliminate the mandatory 
     one year cooling off periods in the proposed 2-1-2-1-2 future 
     flow (``temporary worker'') program contained in Title IV of 
     S. 1348, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and 
     Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Because of the importance of 
     this issue to our members, and the overall workability of 
     comprehensive immigration reform, NAHB will be key voting in 
     support of this amendment.
       The future flow program in Title IV of S. 1348 will create 
     a legal process by which immigrants can enter the United 
     States in future years to work in industries that have 
     established labor shortages. Under the current proposed 
     legislation, the bill would require a worker to return to 
     their home country for a full year every two years. This 
     system essentially makes the entire program in Title IV 
     unworkable for the construction industry. In the residential 
     construction industry, employers spend much time and 
     resources training employees. To arbitrarily lose valued 
     employees at the end of two years, as they are forced to 
     return home for a full year, creates unnecessary amounts of 
     instability in our workplaces, and wastes scarce employer 
     resources.
       The Bingaman/Obama amendment will eliminate the mandatory 
     one-year ``cooling off'' periods in the current bill, and 
     replace it with a two-year visa, that can be renewed two 
     additional times for a total of six years--equal to the six 
     years that are ultimately allowed under the program in S. 
     1348 now. Removing the cooling off periods will create a much 
     more usable program for employers, and we urge you to support 
     this effort to improve the bill.
       NAHB believes that a workable future flow immigrant program 
     is essential to comprehensive immigration reform because 
     without it, it is likely to lead to a situation that will 
     encourage more illegal immigration in the future.
       Again, NAHB will be key voting in support of the vote on 
     the Bingaman/Obama amendment, AMDT 1267.
           Sincerely,
                                                Joseph M. Stanton,
     Chief Lobbyist.
                                  ____

       SEIU strongly support the removal of the requirement that 
     Y-1 temporary workers leave the U.S. for at least 1 year 
     before renewing their visas. While we are willing to accept a 
     temporary worker program in exchange for legalization of the 
     12 million undocumented living among us, we are very 
     disappointed with the guest worker program contained in the 
     ``Grand Bargain''. This is why the Bingaman/Obama amendment 
     is critical and would improve workers ability to stay 
     employed during the entire period of their Y visa. When 
     temporary workers are working in year round jobs it is more 
     difficult for all workers to raise their wages and improve 
     their working conditions. The Y-1 visa program as it is 
     currently drafted will ensure wage depression for all 
     workers, because it will ensure workers leave their jobs 
     every two years. Employers will be less likely to invest in 
     worker training or offer benefits and wages to retain 
     workers. Removing the 1 year return requirement will help all 
     workers raise the wages, gain job experience and receive 
     valuable training to improve the job skills. The 2-1-2-1-1 is 
     a recipe for wage depression, job turnover and increased 
     illegal workers, as history has demonstrated--guest workers 
     will overstay their visas, when they have no legal channel to 
     remain in the country.
       We thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Obama for their 
     continued leadership on comprehensive immigration reform. 
     SEIU urges all Senators to vote for this improving amendment.
     Alison Reardon,
       Director of Legislation, Service Employees International 
     Union (SEIU).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico and I have 
worked on a great many matters since he was elected in 1982. If I may 
have the attention of the Senator from New Mexico, I am about to 
compliment him. I don't like to compliment him behind his back. The 
Senator from New Mexico and I have worked on a great many matters since 
he was elected to the Senate in 1982. I came at about the same time 
after the 1980 election. I am especially interested in his amendment 
and the criticism of the bill because it is the politics of compromise 
and not based on sound public policy.
  The Senator from New Mexico and I are now working on a bill called 
the Bingaman-Specter bill on global warming. I am pleased to hear there 
has been no compromise in that bill that is based upon sound public 
policy. But in a very serious way, I suggest that is what we do. This 
place would be run a lot better if I ran it unilaterally. The Senator 
from New Jersey, who is presiding, smiles at that. I think more in 
humor than in disagreement. But we have 100 Members of this body with 
200 different ideas. Each of us has two ideas on the same subject at a 
minimum. I know the Senator from New Mexico has a full plate on many 
items. He chairs the Energy Committee. He has been working on the 
global warming issue. He is not on Judiciary, and he doesn't have a 
special concern--well, for whatever reason, he did not elect to become 
part of the group of Senators who worked on the bill, for good and 
sufficient reason. I am not suggesting he should have. He attended the 
sessions, as did the Senator from New Jersey who is presiding, and saw 
what we were doing. We were so compromised that people on opposite ends 
of the political spectrum left us. They wouldn't stay with us because 
we couldn't satisfy everybody, and understandably so. We simply could 
not satisfy everybody.
  The question is whether we would have satisfied anybody. We will know 
when we move along and try to get this bill to final passage. But when 
you take what happened to us last year--we passed a bill in the Senate, 
they passed one in the House, and we couldn't even conference it, 
wouldn't even conference it. There are people who just want a tight 
border and to deport 12 million undocumented immigrants. That is what 
they want to do.
  As we work through the compromises, I would consider it a compliment 
to be a party to the politics of compromise, and I would accept the 
term ``politician'' with grace and appreciation. I remember hearing 
Adlai Stevenson speak in the early fifties. Perhaps it was when he 
first ran for President in 1952. He said: Do you know the definition of 
a statesman? The definition of a statesman, Mr. President, is a dead 
politician. That is why I much prefer being a politician, at least for 
the moment. I much prefer being a politician.
  On this specific amendment, we hassled about this a long time. We had 
6 years in mind. Should it be 3 and 3 or should it be 2 and back and 2 
and back for a year and back? We finally accepted this compromise to 
try to make the workers temporary, that they would not get roots here 
and not return to their home country; that when we are working within 
the structure of the immigration laws, we have to accommodate the 12 
million because we cannot deport them. We would like to identify those 
who are criminals, who are not contributing, who do not have roots and 
deport them, if we can identify them in numbers that we can handle.
  Then there was the issue of trying hard to avoid the characterization 
of amnesty. Amnesty is a lot like Shakespeare's famous definition of a 
rose:

       That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as 
     sweet.

  If we could find more ways to make these 12 million people earn 
citizenship, we would. We have the fine. Maybe it is too high, maybe it 
is too low. We have back taxes. Maybe we can find that out and maybe we 
cannot. The requirement of English I think everybody agrees with. 
Having roots in this country, yes. Being a contributor to this country, 
yes. If we could shake the title of amnesty, we would like to do it, if 
somebody could tell us how to do it.
  There are many people who are so opposed to what we are trying to do, 
they will call anything amnesty. I am not going to say it is not 
amnesty--although I believe it is not amnesty because they are earning 
their way--because if you get involved in name calling, it all 
disintegrates. People are angry at President Bush for saying it is not 
amnesty when they are sure it is amnesty.
  I compliment the President for the leadership he has shown on this 
issue. He sent us Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez and Secretary of 
Homeland Security Chertoff. For hours, days, weeks, months they worked 
on it. There was a commitment by the administration.
  The President has spoken out on this issue loudly, plainly, and 
clearly. He has taken a lot of brickbats for it, but he is working hard 
on it. On the Senate floor a few weeks ago, I made a comment that it 
was either amnesty or anarchy. Anarchy is what we have here; that is, 
if it is amnesty--and, again, I say I think it is not, but I am not 
going to get into a name-calling contest with people who want to call 
names.
  Lou Dobbs of CNN has been one of the most vocal critics of the plan. 
He

[[Page S7120]]

has a right to do that, and I have been on his program and discussed it 
with him, debated it with him. But I was interested to see him comment 
about my characterization of anarchy. That struck a chord. Lou Dobbs 
doesn't like anarchy--nobody likes anarchy--but in a sense that is the 
choice we have.

  So I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment of the Senator 
from New Mexico, although I have great respect, and I know this is very 
thoughtful, very well presented, all except for his criticism of the 
politics of compromise.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague and 
congratulate him for his leadership on this bill. I know he has worked 
long and hard to bring this bill to the floor and is making the best 
out of a very awkward, difficult situation in trying to get all the 
interested parties under the same tent.
  I am reminded of when I was attorney general of my State of New 
Mexico. One of the duties of the attorney general in New Mexico is to 
issue what are called attorneys general opinions about different legal 
points that come up. Sometimes those opinions are followed by various 
State agencies and then they are challenged in court. I remember in one 
of the cases where it was challenged in our State supreme court, a 
friend of mine on the State supreme court, who was a very wise man, 
wrote an opinion essentially saying that the opinion I had issued, the 
attorney general opinion, was wrong. He said attorneys general opinions 
are entitled to great weight, except when they are wrong.
  That is sort of the way I feel about the bill that has been brought 
to the floor. I have great respect for those who have put it together, 
and it is entitled to great weight and deference, except where it 
clearly is wrong. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment, 
is to correct an area of the bill that clearly is wrong. I hope my 
colleagues will see it the same way and support my amendment. But I 
compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this 
important issue.


                           Amendment No. 1177

  I wish to speak very briefly about another amendment, unless the 
Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to say something, and then I would 
defer to him. I gather he does not need to at this point.
  Let me speak briefly about another amendment I have filed. It is 
amendment No. 1177. It provides forestry workers with Y visas some of 
the same rights to ensure that the terms of their guest worker 
contracts are honored the same way other guest workers in the 
agricultural sector can have their contracts honored.
  This is an amendment that is eminently reasonable. It was adopted by 
unanimous consent during the debate as part of the immigration bill we 
passed out of the Senate in the last Congress. I hope we can get 
agreement from the managers of the legislation to include it this year 
as well. So I wished to briefly allude to that amendment and urge every 
consideration of it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. 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. 1197

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I expect that Senator DeMint will come to 
the floor to address his amendment, but in the next 5 minutes that we 
have before he does so, I would say his amendment is basically saying 
there will be no adjustment in status unless all these individuals are 
going to be able to buy into the high-deductible HSAs, health savings 
accounts, and that because of the fact that immigrants are a burden on 
the health care system, that they should be required to do this 
additional kind of work to meet their responsibilities under this 
legislation.
  There are a couple factors I wish to mention. First of all, if you 
take the fact that you have 12 million of these individuals, the 12 
million who are the undocumentable, they are going to, as part of their 
fine, pay $500 per individual. That comes to some $6 billion--$6 
billion--that can go for support for various health care offsets into 
local communities. That is not an insignificant amount of resources. We 
anticipated this possibility, No. 1.
  No. 2, we ought to make an examination of what happens to these 
undocumented individuals. What is the utilization by the undocumented? 
We know they are basically healthier, they are younger, and the various 
information and statistics we see says there is not an overutilization 
of the health services.
  I have statistics for undocumented immigrants in one of the border 
States, this is in Texas, and I will read this and include the 
appropriate part in the Record. The Comptroller's office estimates the 
absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas 
would have been a loss to their gross State product of $17 billion. 
Also, the Comptroller's office estimates State revenues collected from 
undocumented immigrants exceed what the State spends on services, with 
the difference being $424 million. That is today, one State--Texas--in 
the utilization of services.
  So we find this population where there has not been an 
overutilization of services, and we have provisions in the current 
legislation to deal with this problem and deal with it generously. But 
the Senator from South Carolina wants to insist on a high-deductible 
program.
  Let us look at the average high-deductible program. The average 
annual deductible for a high-deductible plan required under the DeMint 
amendment is $1,900 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. The 
average annual premium for the plan: $2,700 for an individual and 
$7,900 for a family. The total average cost for an individual would be 
$4,600 and $11,000 for a family. That is for the average individual and 
family. This includes the fees and also the deductibility.
  We have the various studies that have been done, the reports, and 
this information is from the Los Angeles Times. It points out that 
plans with high deductibles of $1,000 or higher monthly premiums that 
can be less than $100, as Senator DeMint provides, are a good fit for 
healthy people with some financial resources. The median annual income 
of those using the high-deductible plans is $75,000. This is a fit for 
$75,000. Although the lower premiums make plans attractive, cash-
strapped families run the risk of being unable to afford the 
deductibles.

  Those are the facts. So the effect of the DeMint amendment is another 
way of denying the 12 million undocumented from being able to 
participate in the other provisions of the legislation, which we have 
very carefully crafted. They have to pay a high fine, they have to pay 
the State a set-aside, they are going to have to pay the fees as they 
move along. These are not insignificant. We are talking about thousands 
and thousands of dollars which have been worked out carefully and 
considered.
  This kind of additional burden will say to men and women whose 
average income may be $10,000 or $11,000 that they are not going to be 
able to do it. Take those individual Americans who are making $10,000 
and $11,000 and look at how many of them are able to afford health 
insurance. Virtually none. We know about that in Massachusetts because 
Massachusetts has passed a very effective program to bring those 
individuals in and to help and assist those individuals.
  So the idea that we are going to put this in as a requirement is 
another way of saying to those individuals, look, we might like other 
provisions of the legislation, but this is a way of effectively barring 
you from being able to participate in this program. That undermines the 
object of a very important aspect of this whole endeavor. Therefore, I 
hope the amendment will be defeated.
  As I understand from the Chair, the last several minutes are supposed 
to be for the Senator from South Carolina; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I don't see him in the Chamber. I think we ought to 
reserve that time for the Senator. As I understand, under the previous 
agreement,

[[Page S7121]]

we have agreed to vote at 2 p.m.; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak on my amendment that 
is up for a vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. At the present time, all time has 
expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes to speak on 
my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this amendment. I think all of us would agree that we would like to 
design an immigration program that benefited America, that actually 
brightened the future for Americans, for our children, and that we do 
not want an immigration system that is going to invite people from all 
over the world who will come here and be a burden to the American 
taxpayers.
  Unfortunately, the way this bill is written, the Z visas we offer all 
the illegal immigrants in this country do not require that these 
illegals have health insurance before they are given these legal 
passes. That means they will continue to be a heavy burden on the 
American health care system.
  Senator Kennedy has said the $500 one-time fee they have to pay is 
enough to cover these costs. I know every American wishes they could 
pay $500 and have free health insurance for life but, unfortunately, it 
is more expensive than that. Also, Senator Kennedy has said these types 
of minimum policies cost well over $2,000 a year, which is, frankly, 
not true. Many of us have policies that cost less than $1,000 a year 
for a high-deductible policy, which is the minimum level we ask for.
  The least we can ask of these immigrants we are granting permanent 
legal status in this country is not to be a burden on Americans for 
their health care. To have a minimum level of health insurance is the 
least we can ask. This amendment would require Z visa holders to have 
that minimum level, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
DeMint amendment No. 1197.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
is 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1197) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has an 
important amendment. He was over here yesterday afternoon and evening 
and spoke well about it. He came over here during the lunch hour. It is 
a very important amendment. He deserves to be heard.


                           Amendment No. 1267

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Bingaman 
amendment No. 1267, as modified.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Landrieu be added as a cosponsor to amendment 1267.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment tries to eliminate the 2-
1-2-1-2 provisions in this bill. The underlying bill says if a guest 
worker comes here, they can work for 2 years, they are kicked out for a 
year, they can come back, work for two more, they are kicked out for a 
year, they can come back work for two more, then they are kicked out 
for good.
  What my amendment does is to say: Let's bring them here for 2 years, 
allow them to renew their visa twice, so that they would be here a 
maximum of 6 years. This makes a lot more sense for employers, for 
American workers who are competing for these jobs, for the guest 
workers themselves.
  This has the support of the business community, the unions, the 
Catholic bishops. Everybody interested in this bill supports this. This 
is commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon the Senator from 
New Mexico criticized the bill as being the ``politics of compromise,'' 
as opposed to sound public policy. I told him, had he participated in 
the negotiations, he would have seen quintessential politics of 
compromise. You could not begin to make any progress at all on this 
legislation unless it was the politics of compromise. I suggest that is 
an art form frequently practiced in this body. I reminded the Senator 
from New Mexico of our cosponsorship of global warming. I am glad to 
hear there is nothing in the bill which he is the principal sponsor of 
that is a factor of the politics of compromise. I am glad our bill is 
pure.
  I have not seen the bill, in the short time I have been in the 
Senate, that doesn't have compromise in it. If it did not have any 
compromise, it would not have gotten here. If it did get here, it would 
not be passed.
  The principle of this bill is to make it temporary so people do not 
establish roots. If you dealt with Senator Kyl on this matter, you 
would understand how important he is to this bill and how important 
this provision is to his continued support.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in favor 
of the Bingaman-Obama Y-1 guest worker amendment.
  The Bingaman-Obama amendment removes the requirement that Y-1 visa 
holders under the new guest worker program leave the United States for 
at least 1 year before renewing their visas. Designing a worker program 
where people are supposed to come to the U.S. for 2 years, leave for a 
year, return for 2 years, leave for a year, and then return for 2 years 
is a recipe for creating a new undocumented population.
  Our amendment does not modify the overall number of permissible work 
years, which would still be limited to a total of 6 years, and it 
doesn't change the term of the visa, which would still be 2 years. In 
order to renew their visa, applicants would still have to demonstrate 
that they are eligible to meet the requirements of the program. The 
amendment maintains the general structure of the program, but revises 
it in a manner that makes the program more workable.
  We need to pass this amendment because the process in the underlying 
bill

[[Page S7122]]

is costly and burdensome on employers, especially small businesses. 
Requiring employers to rehire and retrain workers every 2 years imposes 
unnecessary costs and creates instability in the workforce.
  The underlying language is also harmful to American workers. The 1-
year absence requirement would ensure that guest workers are always at 
the lowest end of the pay scale, which would depress overall wages. And 
the system as now designed provides an additional incentive for guest 
workers to overstay the term of their visas. Rather than returning to 
their home countries after their 2-year visas expire, many workers will 
just remain in the United States and become undocumented immigrants.
  In short, the temporary worker design in the bill is unworkable and 
difficult to enforce. It is unlikely that the government will be able 
to sufficiently track the entry and exit of these workers to ensure 
that they comply with the 1-year absence requirement. By removing the 
1-year requirement to leave the country between renewals we would at 
least be making the program workable.
  Our amendment has the support of a variety of labor, business, 
immigration, and religious groups. Specifically, the Service Employees 
Union International, SEIU, the National Association of Homebuilders, 
NAHB, the Associated Builders and Contractors, ABC, the U.S. Conference 
of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, the American Immigration Lawyers 
Association, AILA, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National 
Immigration Forum, NIF, have voiced their strong support of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1267.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Tester
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1267), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
6:45 p.m. today be for debate prior to a vote in relation to the 
following amendments; and that the time until then be equally divided 
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the 
time to run concurrently; that no amendments be in order to any of the 
amendments covered in this agreement prior to the vote; that at 6:45 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order 
listed; and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to 
each vote, with the votes after the first being 10 minutes in duration; 
that if an amendment on this list is not pending, it is to be called up 
now. These amendments are Cornyn, No. 1250; Reid, No. 1331; Sessions, 
No. 1234; Menendez, No. 1194; Kyl, No. 1460; Lieberman, No. 1191; and 
that a half hour of the minority's time on these amendments be 
allocated to Senator Sessions, and another half hour allocated to 
Senator Cornyn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is this an 
exclusive list?
  Mr. REID. No.
  Mr. STEVENS. No objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not object, I wish to inquire of the majority leader: I have an 
amendment that is a change in the amendment by which we proposed to 
sunset the guest worker provision. That amendment failed by one vote. I 
have made a modification to that amendment and would intend to reoffer 
the amendment and have another debate on it and a vote on that 
amendment. I wonder if I could inquire of the Senator----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, at this time tentatively 
there are three Democratic amendments pending. There are no Republican 
amendments to match those. When we finish this tranche of votes, we are 
going to try to complete tonight at least these six more. I understand 
the Senator has or will refile his amendment, and we will be happy to 
take that into consideration as we try to move this bill along.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could the 
leader tell us when amendments can be called up which were not on the 
list he just read, that have not been allowed to be called up today?
  Mr. REID. We are working on that now. We are making progress. There 
are going to be three called up as soon as we get this vote started. 
That will be the next agreement we will enter into, and there will be 
three Republican amendments. So if you have something you care about, 
work with your colleagues over there to see if that can be one of the 
next three.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection, and 
it is so ordered.


          Amendments Nos. 1331 and 1460 To Amendment No. 1150

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report two 
amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1331 to amendment No. 1150.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To clarify the application of the earned income tax credit)

       At the end of subtitle F of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. ___. EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       Nothing is this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     may be construed to modify any provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 which prohibits illegal aliens from 
     qualifying for the earned income tax credit under section 32 
     of such Code.

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Kyl, for 
     himself and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 1460 
     to amendment No. 1150.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the allocation of visas with respect to the backlog 
                    of family-based visa petitions)

       Beginning on page 270, strike lines 31 and 32, and insert 
     the following:
       ``(3) Family-based visa petitions filed before january 1, 
     2007, for which visas will be available before january 1, 
     2027.--
       ``(A) In general.--The allocation of immigrant visas 
     described in paragraph (4) shall apply to an alien for whom--
       ``(i) a family-based visa petition was filed on or before 
     January 1, 2007; and
       ``(ii) as of January 1, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security calculates under subparagraph (B) that a visa can 
     reasonably be

[[Page S7123]]

     expected to become available before January 1, 2027.
       ``(B) Reasonable expectation of availablity of visas.--In 
     calculating the date on which a family-based visa can 
     reasonably be expected to become available for an alien 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall take into account--
       ``(i) the number of visas allocated annually for the family 
     preference class under which the alien's petition was filed;
       ``(ii) the effect of any per country ceilings applicable to 
     the alien's petition;
       ``(iii) the number of petitions filed before the alien's 
     petition was filed that were filed under the same family 
     preference class; and
       ``(iv) the rate at which visas made available in the family 
     preference class under which the alien's petition was filed 
     were unclaimed in previous years.
       ``(4) Allocation of family-based immigrant visas.--''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and the time to be charged to the majority side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1313

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to discuss amendment No. 1313, an 
amendment I will offer to the immigration reform bill, which will 
address what I believe are two important, crucial flaws in this 
legislation. The first flaw relates to what many are calling amnesty, 
wherein the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this country by 
the beginning of this year. The second flaw relates to an unworkable 
set of procedures that is applicable to those who are properly being 
offered legal status. It is important to the health and practicality of 
our system, in my view, that these two flaws be addressed.
  My amendment would achieve three critically important goals. It 
creates a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have 
truly put roots down in America; it protects the legitimate interests 
of all working Americans; and it accords honor and dignity to the 
concept of true American justice. If one accepts the premises of these 
three goals, then I strongly believe this amendment is the best way 
forward for our country.
  As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues that the time has 
come for fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system. 
When I say ``fairness,'' I mean a system of laws that is fair to 
everyone in the United States, and especially our wage earners.
  I strongly support the provisions in this immigration bill that 
strengthen our Nation's borders. Our porous borders are a threat to our 
national security, and we have wasted far too long to fix this problem.
  I also support the sections of the bill that create tough civil and 
criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire illegal immigrants, 
creating both a second-class population and undercutting American 
workers. This bill's employment verification system will help ensure 
that illegal workers cannot get employment in the United States and 
would, therefore, face no choice but to return to their homelands.
  As a point of reference, I did not support this bill's creation of a 
massive new temporary worker program. Two weeks ago, I supported 
Senator Dorgan's two amendments to strike and sunset that program, and 
I find it regrettable the Senate did not adopt those amendments. We 
have seen a good bit of analysis on the Senate floor in recent days to 
the effect that the temporary worker program will be largely 
unworkable. To the extent it would work, it would create a wage-based 
underclass and a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, as I stated on 
the floor 2 weeks ago, I believe guest worker programs--aside from 
purely temporary, seasonal work--drive down the wages of hard-working 
Americans, and of those who came here by following the law.
  With those points in mind, I wish to now turn to my amendment, which 
regards the other major component of this bill: the legalization 
program.
  My amendment reflects a proposal I have been discussing with 
Virginians ever since I began my campaign for the Senate last year. I 
have always supported tough border security and cracking down on large 
employers who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path 
to legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax 
immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in our 
communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for all 
undocumented persons. Under the provisions of the immigration bill we 
are now debating, virtually all undocumented persons living in the 
United States would be eligible to legalize their status and ultimately 
become citizens. Estimates are that this number totals 12 million to 20 
million people. This is legislative overkill. It is one of the reasons 
this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary Americans who have no 
opposition to reasonable immigration policies but who see this as an 
issue that goes against the grain of true fairness, which is the very 
foundation of our society.
  My amendment would allow a smaller percentage of undocumented persons 
to remain in the United States and legalize their status based on the 
depth of a person's roots in their community. Under my proposal, 
undocumented persons who have lived in the United States at least 4 
years prior to the enactment of the bill could apply to legalize their 
status. I note that this 4-year period is even more generous than the 
5-year threshold that was contained in several bills the past few 
Congresses addressed--bills that were supported by Senators from both 
parties and by immigrants' rights groups.
  After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security 
would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine 
whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to 
get on the path to citizenship.
  Among the statutory criteria would be an individual's work history; 
payment of Federal or State income taxes; property ownership and 
business ownership in the United States; knowledge of English; 
attendance, successfully, at American schools; immediate family members 
living in the United States; whether the applicant has a criminal 
record; and, very importantly, whether the applicant wants to become an 
American citizen.
  Like the underlying bill, applicants would be given probationary 
status while the DHS considers their Z visa application and could 
lawfully work during this probationary period.
  I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population, and 
also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in 
1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal 
wave of illegal immigration.
  My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical. It 
strikes the bill's unrealistic ``touchback'' requirement. Few 
immigrants would have the money or the ability to return to their home 
countries on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their 
American jobs. They would leave their families in turmoil and place 
further strain on our community services. Basic fairness and common 
sense dictates that these persons be allowed to apply for a green card 
from within the United States.
  I believe my amendment sets forth an equitable system that not only 
recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also 
introduces practical measures that will help us avoid the same mistakes 
our country made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill.

  I have heard loudly and clearly from Virginians, and I have talked 
with people on all sides of these issues. What I hear over and over 
again is that Congress should find a fair system that both protects 
American workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment 
represents the fairest method I know to do so, and to do so 
realistically.
  I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 1313 when it comes to a 
vote in the Senate.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I gladly yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was listening to the description of the 
amendment by Senator Webb. I think

[[Page S7124]]

it is a good amendment, and I intend to be prepared to support it. This 
amendment is about the treatment of those who have come here without 
legal authorization. The underlying bill, by the way, was cobbled 
together by a group of people, including the White House, I guess, and 
they said anybody who shows up in this country without legal 
authorization by December 31 is deemed to then have been legal and will 
be given a work permit.
  I think Senator Webb's approach is much more sensitive and much more 
realistic to our people who have been here 10, 15, 20 years without 
legal authorization but they have been model citizens, they raised 
families, have had jobs, have done things that would commend them to us 
for the future. He is suggesting a much more sensible way of dealing 
with that. I think that amendment makes a lot of sense.

  I did want to say we had a vote on the guest worker or temporary 
worker provisions, and I offered an amendment, or 2 amendments, and the 
second amendment was to sunset that after 5 years. I lost that vote by 
one vote in the Senate, and I have filed an amendment at the desk and 
will attempt to have another vote on that. I have modified section 2 
just a bit. But my hope is that the Senate would reconsider and pass 
the amendment that would sunset this temporary worker provision after 5 
years. Again, the vote was 49 to 48 against my amendment, and we will 
have another opportunity to vote on it.
  The reason I mention it is the Senator from Virginia mentioned that 
amendment and the other amendment I offered as well. I ask the Senator 
from Virginia if he doesn't think this piece of legislation, in 
addition to legalizing those who have come here as of December 31st of 
last year, saying you now have legal status--in addition to that--
saying we believe there are millions of people who don't live here at 
this point whom we want to be able to invite in to take American jobs--
I ask the Senator from Virginia whether that makes much sense in the 
scheme of trying to create economic opportunity for Americans at the 
lower economic scale in this country. There are a lot of people working 
at the bottom of the ladder here who want jobs, who can't find jobs, 
and find downward pressure on their income. I ask whether the Senator 
doesn't believe this temporary worker program displaces people in this 
country who need these jobs.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Dakota I was 
very pleased to support both his amendments for those reasons and 
reasons similar to them. I hope the Senator can get a vote on his 
revised amendment. I think it is important we deal with this 
immigration issue in a very realistic and practical manner, with the 
focus being the well-being of individuals who are here legally and who 
are citizens whose wages and salaries are in many ways being held down 
by these types of programs. The guest worker programs are classic 
examples of that.
  I also would like to say that with respect to the timeline in the 
present bill and the cutoff for full legalization being anyone who came 
here before December 31 of last year, or before January 1 of this year, 
one of the questions that has been raised on my amendment is: Well, 
what do we do with these people who haven't been here 4 years? Some 
questions have been raised saying this would create an unfairness in 
this amendment. But the answer to that--the obvious answer to that is: 
What do we do with people who came here after December 31? They are 
here. What are we going to do with the people who are here next year? 
They are going to be here.
  There is always going to be some leakage in our system. What we are 
looking for is a measure of fairness for people who have truly put down 
roots in their community and to allow them to assimilate and become 
American citizens. That is a separate thing from the guest worker 
program that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about, and I hope 
I get another chance to vote for his amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further for a 
question, there are some in this Chamber who say to us: The choice on 
immigration is between doing the wrong thing and doing nothing. That is 
not the choice at all. That is a false choice. They bring the wrong 
thing to the floor of the Senate and say: If you oppose this, then you 
are for nothing.
  One of the things we are for is enforcing the law. We have a law in 
this country about employer sanctions, about illegal immigration, 
trying to stop it. All one would have to do would be to enforce the 
law. In 2004, there were four cases in the entire United States of 
America that were brought by the U.S. Justice Department against 
employers who were employing illegal workers, illegal aliens--four. 
What does that tell us? That tells us that the administration says: We 
surrender on the issue. We surrender.
  The other point I wished to make is there is no discussion on the 
floor of the Senate in the construct of this bill, within the debate on 
this bill, about the American worker. I understand we have an 
immigration issue. I fully understand that, and we need to deal with 
that. But part and parcel of that, in my judgment, ought to be some 
discussion on the floor of the Senate about how this affects the 
American worker. We have a lot of workers in this country who aren't 
doing very well. It has been a long time since they have seen any 
increase in their income, despite their productivity rising. Where is 
the debate about the impact on the American worker? It is not selfish 
for us to believe that ought to be a part of this discussion.
  So I ask the Senator from Virginia whether he believes as well that 
when you bring an immigration bill to the floor, you ought to have some 
discussion about what is the impact of this issue on the American 
worker, on the people who have a high school education or perhaps don't 
even have a high school education and who are at the bottom of the 
ladder, got up this morning and went to work and are working at minimum 
wage, struggling to get by to raise a family to do the best they can 
and discover at the end of the day: Oh, by the way, there is more 
downward pressure on your income because the employer can bring 
somebody through the back door that is able to be paid lower wages, 
they will work for less money, even as the bigger employers are 
exporting jobs out the front door to China and Sri Lanka and 
Bangladesh.
  So I ask whether the American worker shouldn't play a bigger role in 
the debate on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would say that an enormous amount of work 
has gone into this piece of legislation, as we all know. I appreciate 
all the energy that the Senator from North Dakota has placed for years 
on the interests of the American worker. I share those interests. This 
amendment that I offer is based on two things. One is fairness to 
everyone, including the American worker, and the other is the 
practicality that is this particular part of the legislation.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1250

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is scheduled for 
a vote later on this evening, and I would like to spend a few minutes 
explaining it. This is--well, let me put it this way: If the definition 
of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and 
expecting a different outcome, the provisions in the underlying bill 
that my amendment will correct represents insanity in action because it 
repeats a mistake made in the 1986 immigration laws that is within our 
power to correct. I believe the amendment I am offering will allow that 
correction to take place, and I offer it in that spirit.
  At the very least, the American people expect we will not 
intentionally repeat mistakes. They don't expect us to be perfect. They 
do expect us to do our best, and we owe them that much. But in this 
case, doing our best means not repeating a mistake.
  Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security is, under the 
current bill, prohibited from using internally all information from Z 
visa applications, as well as sharing information with the relevant law 
enforcement agencies. That is right. You can actually apply for a Z 
visa if you are 1 of the 12 million or so people here in the

[[Page S7125]]

country already in violation of our immigration laws, whether it is 
entering without a visa or once having entered with a visa, overstaying 
that visa, and if you are seeking the benefits of this underlying bill 
which are mainly represented in the form of a Z visa, the information 
contained in that application by those 12 million individuals is 
effectively shielded from law enforcement authorities. For example, if 
an applicant comes forward and is denied a Z visa, this legislation 
currently pending prohibits the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Service from using that information in order to apprehend that person 
who is not legally present in the country.
  What we learned about the 1986 amnesty was that the New York Times 
said it created the largest immigration fraud in the history of the 
United States. That same view is shared by the general counsel of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Clinton with 
regard to statutory restrictions on sharing and using information. That 
general counsel, Paul Virtue, noted that this prohibition greatly 
contributed to this fraud.
  At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times 
article be printed in the Recored and I refer my colleagues to the 
testimony of Paul Virtue before the House Immigration and Claims 
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee at judiciary house.gov/
judiciary/106-52.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. In addition to questions of why we would want to put out 
of bounds to law enforcement agencies information which they could use 
to investigate and identify fraud and criminal conduct, you might ask: 
Why the double standard? For example, we don't afford these kinds of 
robust confidentiality provisions for other classes of immigrants such 
as asylees or battered women or those who fall under the temporary 
protected status provisions. So why would we have a double standard? 
When an asylum seeker applies for legal status, that asylum seeker must 
submit an application and return at a later date for the decision. If 
that asylum seeker's application is denied, then he or she is taken 
into custody on the spot, based on information contained in the 
application.
  Now, the proponents of this bill will tell us that without these 
guarantees of confidentiality, those who are already here in the 
country in violation of our immigration laws will not come forward and 
seek the benefits of the Z visa provided for under the bill, which 
leads me to ask: Aren't we granting the biggest benefit that can ever 
be given to anybody in the world--legal status and a path to American 
citizenship--even though these individuals have violated our laws?
  And to be clear, we are talking about those who cannot even establish 
that they meet the minimum requirements to get this valuable benefit. 
Even worse, they have continually flouted our immigration and criminal 
laws. Why would we consciously give these individuals broad privacy 
protections by the mere filing of their application for Z status, and 
why would they be treated differently from other immigrants?
  The proponents say they do exempt from confidentiality those who 
commit fraud or are a part of some other scheme in connection with 
their application. Of course, that is the very least we should do. But 
this bill does not go nearly far enough to effectively enforce our 
immigration laws and protect the American people from those who could 
and would and might do us harm.
  For example, on page 311 of the bill, in section 604(b) labeled 
``Exceptions to Confidentiality,'' the drafters of this bill have 
chosen to protect aliens who are criminal absconders who have not been 
removed from the United States; that is, people who are under orders of 
deportation but who have not yet been removed. This is, in fact, a 
felony offense under 8 U.S.C. 1253, which is punishable for up to 4 
years in prison. Yet the underlying bill would provide confidentiality 
for that individual.
  We all know that hundreds of thousands of individuals come across our 
borders each year in violation of our immigration laws. But what most 
Americans would be shocked to realize is that, according to recent 
estimates, almost 700,000 aliens who have immigrated illegally or 
overstayed who have been ordered deported have simply failed to comply 
with that court order. How many Americans think that it is OK to ignore 
a court order? How many Americans, after receiving a subpoena from a 
court, ignore it and simply skip that court date?
  Let me give two examples of what I am talking about. In section 
604(b), the drafters claim they allow law enforcement to go after 
information for those denied Z status because of felonies and serious 
criminal offenses, but what is missing are those aliens who have 
actually committed those felony offenses but who have not yet been 
actually convicted. In section 604, the drafters further claim they 
resolve the problem by allowing law enforcement access to those who 
commit fraud or misrepresentations in their Z applications. But again, 
what is missing is law enforcement's ability to reach third-party 
fraud: Where the alien, him or herself may not be complicit but to 
prosecute the third party, the Government needs the information from 
the Z application filed by such individuals in order to make the case. 
Simply stated and summarized, fraud by third parties involved in a Z 
application; crimes that have not yet resulted in a conviction; 
absconders--people who have ignored a valid court order and who have 
yet to be physically removed--as well as those Z visa applicants who 
are denied on noncriminal grounds, all of those categories of 
information are rendered confidential and kept from law enforcement 
authorities when it comes to investigating crime and other wrongful 
conduct.
  As I said earlier today, in fact, if we were more interested in 
regaining the public's confidence that we were actually serious about 
passing an immigration law that could be and would be vigorously 
enforced, I don't think I would be up here offering this amendment 
because it would be agreed to without the necessity of a vote. But 
strangely, to me, this commonsense sort of amendment is being resisted. 
In a way, it helps merely confirm what most people across the country--
particularly in my State--seem to suspect, which is that Congress 
cannot be trusted and is not serious about creating an immigration law 
system that can be adequately enforced.
  As my colleagues know, I offered a separate amendment that would 
categorically bar fugitive aliens from receiving the benefits under 
this bill. I believe this is an issue of fundamental fairness and 
integrity of the system. In exchange for what has been offered to this 
population, which is the largest legalization program in our Nation's 
history, we should be able to say that for any person who applies for 
and receives benefits under this program, we will authorize the 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service to look at that application 
and to, if necessary, if warranted under law, arrest that individual 
who made that application and deport them, in accordance with our laws 
that Congress has already passed.
  But the bill the Senate is considering today turns a blind eye to 
those who apply for the benefits under this bill and are denied. This 
bill would allow them simply to slide back into the shadows--the 
precise problem we are being told we are trying to fix.
  I daresay if you ask a random taxpayer on the street this simple 
question: Assume an alien comes forward to apply for legal status under 
this bill. Because the applicant doesn't satisfy one of the criteria 
for being awarded legal status, the applicant is denied benefits under 
the bill. What happens to that individual under the Senate immigration 
bill? If you were to ask that question to a man or woman on the street, 
I bet you that 100 out of 100 times people would say: Well, they ought 
to go home, they ought not to be granted benefits under the bill. 
Certainly, they would say you ought not to hide evidence of fraud or 
criminality or wrongdoing that could be investigated and prosecuted.
  Yet the so-called confidentiality provisions my amendment addresses, 
under the current bill, would prevent law enforcement officials from 
using information on the application to locate and remove a significant 
population of those who don't qualify for legalization but have applied 
for it.
  To be clear, this is for individuals who have actually applied for a 
Z visa, or benefits under the program, and

[[Page S7126]]

have been denied, not those whose Z visa status has been granted.
  This is, in essence, providing an opportunity--to significant 
categories of individuals whose applications are considered and 
rejected--to slide back into the shadows, which is the very problem we 
are told this solution is designed to solve.
  The whole point of this exercise, we continue to be told, is to 
enhance U.S. security by bringing people out of the shadows. But this 
bill would draw people out, only to allow them to slide back in if they 
demonstrate they are disqualified for the benefits under the bill--the 
very people we ought to be focusing on and having deported in 
accordance with our laws.
  I remind my colleagues of our Nation's recent history with mass 
legalization and the consequences of prohibitions on Federal agencies 
sharing information.
  As I have stated, reasonable observers have concluded that the 1986 
amnesty was rife with fraud. That is the conclusion of the New York 
Times in the article that will be part of this record, dated November 
12, 1989. The title is ``Migrants' False Claims: Fraud on a Huge 
Scale.''
  We also note, for example, from the 9/11 Commission staff statements, 
that Mohamed and Mahmud Abouhalima, conspirators in the 1993 World 
Trade Center bombing, were granted green cards, or legal permanent 
resident status, under the Special Agricultural Workers Program, which 
was an amnesty program created by the 1986 bill.
  Under this Special Agricultural Workers Program, a key component of 
the 1986 amnesty, these applicants had to provide evidence they had 
worked on perishable crops for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985, 
and May 1, 1986; their residence did not have to be ``continuous'' or 
``unlawful.'' Nearly 1 million illegal aliens received legal permanent 
resident status under this amnesty--``twice the number of foreigners 
normally employed in agriculture'' at that time, according to the 9/11 
Commission staff statements.
  In other words, the inference is inescapable that there was fraud on 
a huge scale, based on the very kind of confidentiality provisions this 
bill includes and which my amendment would remove.
  I wish to make one other point about this ill-conceived 
confidentiality provision. Under this bill we are considering, Congress 
would even prohibit the use of information from sworn third-party 
affidavits that are one of the documents that can prove eligibility. 
Who could not, with a little bit of creativity and initiative, get some 
third party to provide an affidavit that says: Yes, you were present on 
June 1, 2007; thus, you are eligible for the benefits under this 
program.
  If you designed a program to welcome and invite and embrace fraud 
more, I cannot imagine what it would be. Yet that very same sort of 
affidavit could be rendered confidential and could not be shared with 
law enforcement personnel, unless my amendment is passed.
  We already know from well-documented prosecutions of document vendors 
and other legalization cases that the type of documents submitted--
especially sworn affidavits from third parties, not even relatives--no 
qualification, just third parties--have been used routinely to further 
fraud.
  At the very least, we should not repeat the mistakes of 1986 by 
allowing the continued use of sworn affidavits by applicants to 
establish eligibility for the Z visa. My amendment takes care of these 
concerns.
  We know one thing: Criminals and terrorists have abused--and will 
continue to seek ways to abuse--our immigration system in order to 
enter and remain in this country.
  I regret this bill we are debating fails to give law enforcement the 
commonsense tools they need in order to prevent terrorists and others 
from exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in any massive 
legalization.
  My colleagues may tell you there is a confidentiality exception for 
national security and for fraud. But to rely solely on these exceptions 
is simply wishful thinking; it is not going to happen. It doesn't go 
nearly far enough to reach the kinds of fraud and criminal conduct and 
other wrongful conduct I have mentioned.
  This kind of information law enforcement needs may provide valuable 
leads of which they were previously unaware. Failure to allow law 
enforcement to connect the dots is a deadly mistake I have heard my 
colleagues promise they would ``never allow to happen again.'' So I 
urge those who are truly serious about the commitment to make sure this 
kind of fraud and the danger associated with it doesn't ever happen 
again to support my amendment and make a crucial improvement to this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 1989]

             Migrants' False Claims: Fraud on a Huge Scale

                           (By Roberto Suro)

       In one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever 
     perpetrated against the United States Government, thousands 
     of people who falsified amnesty applications will begin to 
     acquire permanent resident status next month under the 1986 
     immigration law.
       More than 1.3 million illegal aliens applied to become 
     legal immigrants under a one-time amnesty for farm workers. 
     The program was expected to accommodate only 250,000 aliens 
     when Congress enacted it as a politically critical part of a 
     sweeping package of changes in immigration law.
       Now a variety of estimates by Federal officials and 
     immigration experts place the number of fraudulent 
     applications at somewhere between 250,000 and 650,000.


                       lack of manpower and money

       The Immigration and Naturalization Service has identified 
     398,000 cases of possible fraud in the program, but the 
     agency admits that it lacks both the manpower and the money 
     to prosecute individual applicants. The agency is to begin 
     issuing permanent resident status to amnesty applicants on 
     Dec. 1, and officials said they were approving 94 percent of 
     the applicants over all.
       Evidence of vast abuse of the farm worker amnesty program 
     has already led to important changes in the way immigration 
     policies are conceived in Congress. For example, recent 
     legislation to aid immigration by refugees from the Soviet 
     Union was modified specifically to avoid the uncontrolled 
     influx that has occurred under the agricultural amnesty 
     program.
       Supporters of the farm worker amnesty argue that it 
     accomplished its principal aim of insuring the nation a 
     cheap, reliable and legal supply of farm workers and that it 
     made an inadvertent but important contribution in 
     legitimizing a large part of the nation's illegal alien 
     population. #1,000 Workers, 30 Acres Critics point to cases 
     like that of Larry and Sharon Marval of Newark. Last year 
     they pleaded guilty to immigration fraud charges after 
     immigration service investigators alleged that the Marvals 
     were part of an operation that helped about 1,000 aliens 
     acquire amnesty with falsified documents showing they had all 
     worked on a mere 30 acres of farmland.
       The amnesty for farm workers was a last-minute addition to 
     the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which sought 
     to halt illegal immigration with a two-part strategy. Under a 
     general amnesty, illegal aliens who could prove they had 
     lived in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1982, were 
     given the chance to leave their underground existence and 
     begin a process leading to permanent resident status. And 
     to stem further illegal immigration, the employment of 
     illegal aliens was made a crime.
       The agricultural amnesty program was adopted at the 
     insistence of politically powerful fruit and vegetable 
     growers in California and Texas who wanted to protect their 
     labor force. In several respects, the provisions for the 
     program were much less strict than the general amnesty 
     program, which drew 1.7 million applicants. Instead of having 
     to document nearly five years of continuous residence, most 
     agricultural worker applicants had to show only that they had 
     done 90 days of farm work between May 1, 1985, and May 1, 
     1986.
       Representative Charles E. Schumer, a Brooklyn Democrat who 
     was an author of this Special Agricultural Worker provision, 
     said that in retrospect the program seemed ``too open'' and 
     susceptible to fraud. But he argued that budget decisions had 
     made the battle to combat fraud more difficult.
       ``There has not been enough diligence in tracking down the 
     fraud,'' he said, ``because funding for the I.N.S. has been 
     cut by the White House in each of the last three budgets, 
     even though everyone agreed when the bill passed that greater 
     I.N.S. manpower was essential to make it work.''
       Congress rarely raises the immigration service budget above 
     Administration requests.
       Aside from its budget problems, the immigration service has 
     repeatedly come under fire this year in Congress and in an 
     audit by the Justice Department for what was termed 
     mismanagement and administrative inefficiency.
       John F. Shaw, Assistant Immigration Commissioner, agreed 
     that ``manpower restrictions'' at the agency were a major 
     factor in the fraud in the agricultural amnesty program. He 
     said much of the fraud ``shot through a window of 
     opportunity'' when the agency was frantically trying to deal 
     with many new burdens of the 1986 immigration law.

[[Page S7127]]

                    people who sold false documents

       Mr. Shaw said law-enforcement efforts had been limited to 
     the people who sold false documents to applicants for the 
     farm worker amnesty. The immigration service has made 844 
     arrests and won 413 convictions in cases alleging fraud in 
     the amnesty program. The people involved ranged from notaries 
     public to field crew leaders. ``It was a cottage industry,'' 
     Mr. Shaw said.
       The immigration service can revoke legal status if it finds 
     the applicant committed fraud, but even this effort is 
     limited. Only applications that appear linked to a fraud 
     conspiracy are held for review, as when an unusually large 
     number of applicants assert that they have worked in the same 
     place. Some 398,000 aliens have fallen into this category 
     since the application period ended last Nov. 30, but it is 
     likely that many of them will get resident status.
       Mr. Shaw said the fraud conspiracies often involved farms 
     that actually did employ some migrant labor. So it is 
     frequently impossible to separate legitimate from illicit 
     claims.
       Given the limited law-enforcement effort, no precise count 
     of fraud in the agricultural amnesty program is possible. But 
     some rough estimates are possible based on information from 
     the aliens themselves. An extensive survey conducted in three 
     rural Mexican communities by the Center for U.S.-Mexican 
     Studies at the University of California in San Diego found 
     that only 72 percent of those who identified themselves as 
     applicants for farm worker amnesty had work histories that 
     qualified them for the program. A similar survey conducted by 
     Mexican researchers in Jalisco in central Mexico found that 
     only 59 percent qualified.
       But fraud alone does not explain why the program produced 
     more than five times the applicants Congress expected. Frank 
     D. Bean, co-director of the Program for Research on 
     Immigration Policy at the Urban Institute in Washington, said 
     the miscalculation in the Special Agricultural Worker program 
     reflected longstanding difficulties in tracking the number of 
     temporary illegal migrants from Mexico.
       ``It is at least plausible that a very large percentage of 
     the S.A.W. applicants had done agricultural work in the U.S. 
     even if they did not meet the specific time requirements of 
     the amnesty,'' Mr. Bean said. `It Was a Weak Program'.
       Mr. Shaw of the immigration service, and other critics of 
     the law, believe there were more fundamental flaws. ``It was 
     a weak program and it was poorly articulated in the law,'' he 
     said.
       Unlike almost all other immigration programs, which put the 
     burden of proof on the applicant, the farm amnesty put the 
     burden on the Government. Consequently, aliens with even the 
     most rudimentary documentation cannot be rejected unless the 
     Government can prove their claims are false.
       Stephen Rosenbaum, staff attorney for California Rural 
     Legal Assistance, a nonprofit service organization for farm 
     workers, argued that there was no other way to structure an 
     immigration program for an occupation ``that does not produce 
     a paper trail.'' He noted that farm workers are paid in cash 
     and neither the employers nor the workers keep detailed 
     records. `Immense Logistical Problems.'
       ``You can argue the wisdom of a farm worker amnesty, but if 
     you have one, you have to recognize the immense logistical 
     problems involved in producing evidence,'' he said.
       The immigration service at first tried to apply the 
     stringent practices common to other immigration programs, 
     like rejecting applicants with little explanation when their 
     documents were suspect. But three lawsuits brought in 
     Florida, Texas and California over the last two years forced 
     the agency to follow the broader standards mandated by 
     Congress.
       The burden-of-proof issue arose again earlier this year 
     when the House of Representatives approved legislation that 
     would have made any person who could prove Soviet citizenship 
     eligible for political refugee status.
       A legislator with a powerful role on immigration policy, 
     Senator Alan K. Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, eliminated 
     the provision because of concerns raised by the farm worker 
     amnesty program, an aide said. Mr. Simpson, who is on the 
     Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee 
     Affairs, substituted a series of specific circumstances that 
     had to be met for a Soviet citizen to be considered a 
     refugee, like denial of a particular job because of religious 
     beliefs.
       Immigration experts believe that the agricultural amnesty 
     program will probably color policy debates over other 
     categories of aliens whose qualifications will be difficult 
     to document, like the anti-Sandinista rebels of Nicaragua.
       ``One certain product'' of the agricultural amnesty 
     program, Representative Schumer said, ``is that in developing 
     immigration policies in the future, Congress will be much 
     more wary of the potential for fraud and will do more to stop 
     it.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeMINT pertaining to the submission of S. Con. 
Res. 35 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent 
and Senate Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, so I understand, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 hour 42 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as I might use.
  On the Cornyn amendment, the issue is basically confidentiality. Why 
is confidentiality important? What we are trying to do with this 
proposal is to say to the 12.5 million who are living here, the 
undocumented as well as those in agricultural jobs: Come out of the 
shadows, and if you are going to meet the other requirements of the 
bill--paying fines, go to the end of the line, demonstrate solid work 
achievement and accomplishment--you will eventually be able to get in 
line after the backlog is completed for a green card and citizenship. 
We are saying to the individuals: If you are undocumented today, we 
want you to register.
  There is a question with regard to people who are undocumented today. 
If I go down and say my name is--maybe an undocumented Irish person, 
say his name is Halloran, and he goes in and says: I am Halloran and 
live on Linden Street. I am undocumented, my wife is undocumented, and 
my children are undocumented. We want these people to come out of the 
shadows and register to begin this process, right? Right. We have to 
make sure those people are going to have a certain amount of 
confidentiality, that they are not thinking they are just going to sign 
in and register and report to be deported. That is what the Cornyn 
amendment effectively does, is report to deport because he eliminates 
all kinds of protections of confidentiality.
  We provide levels of protection of confidentiality for individuals, 
but not if they have been involved in any criminal activity and any 
fraudulent activity.
  The Senator from Texas mentions the 1986 act. He has been mentioning 
the 1986 act time and time again. I responded that President Reagan 
signed that act. Republicans were in charge at that time, and they 
administered that act from 1986 to 1992. I voted against that 
legislation for many of the reasons that have been outlined. That is a 
different time.
  If they want to talk about what President Reagan and what the 
Republicans did at that time, they can be my guest. But the fact is, as 
we do know, there were incidents where fraud was committed during that 
program in the submission of various agricultural documents, and fraud 
was committed. That is all outlined in a 1988 report which has been 
quoted here. But that has been the document. We have not seen other 
documents about similar kinds of fraudulent activities.
  As a result, what did we do with this legislation? We did a number of 
things because of what happened in 1986.
  We provide additional protections and requirements in these areas of 
identification. We provide a number of protections in this legislation, 
and I will include those at the conclusion of my statement.
  Secondly, we have included in this legislation that if the DHS 
believes fraud has been committed, they can move ahead and deport. Do 
my colleagues understand? If the Department of Homeland Security thinks 
fraud has been committed by these individuals, they can move ahead and 
deport. That has been included. We have also included random audits of 
these various programs.
  The point that has been made that in 1986 there were irregularities 
we accept and agree. The fact that the 1986 act was not well managed, 
we agree. Was there fraud in a number of these affidavits? We say, yes, 
and that is why we took action in this legislation to address it. And I 
will include those particular citations.
  I will run through these points very quickly. If the applicant is 
inadmissible for criminal reasons or an alien smuggler, that 
information is turned over to the local law enforcement and police. If 
there has been a conviction of a crime, criminal activity, smuggling, 
marriage fraud, all of that information is turned over to the police. 
If there is any indication of any kind of intelligence activity, it is 
turned over to the Department of Homeland Security.

[[Page S7128]]

  We have written into this legislation protections so we are not going 
to have abuses of confidentiality. But--but, Mr. President--when we are 
talking about other kinds of activities--for example, if they fail the 
English test, or because there is a certain amount of work requirement 
time, there is an issue as to whether they completed the work 
requirement, we protect their confidentiality. If they fail the English 
test, we protect their confidentiality. If there is a technical 
registration issue, we protect their confidentiality.
  This is enormously important because if we do not protect their 
confidentiality, they are not going to register. It is as clear and 
simple as that.
  This represents a very careful balance that was worked out. I respect 
the Senator from Texas on this issue, but it is important that we have 
guarantees for individuals if we expect them to register as this system 
is being set up because it is going to transition. We know parts of 
this system are not going to go into effect until we have border 
security, and if we expect individuals to participate in that system, 
we have to guarantee their confidentiality. We do so. It is enormously 
important. This system isn't going to function unless we do.
  If the Cornyn amendment is adopted, the bottom line is this system 
will not function, and it will not work because as individuals in this 
community are wondering whether they ought to sign up for this system, 
by and large they are going to check with perhaps their local parish, 
maybe their local priest, maybe a nonprofit organization, social 
service organizations, community organizations in which they have 
confidence and trust, and those individuals are going to know whether 
there is confidentiality or not. Those individuals upon whom they rely 
in the local community, extended members of their family, nonprofit 
organizations, church organizations, unless they are able to give the 
assurance to these individuals that their confidentiality is going to 
be protected, we are not going to have people involved, and we are not 
going to have success with this legislation.
  As I mentioned, in the incidence of fraud, we have addressed those 
extensively with provisions in the legislation. If there are incidents 
of fraud, criminal activity, terrorist activity, any of the other kinds 
of issues that involve criminality, of course, that protection is 
effectively out the window. We provide confidentiality, but limited in 
a very important way. It is enormously important to the success of the 
program.
  Mr. President, I anticipate that we are going to have presentations 
by my friend and colleague from Alabama sometime with regard to the 
earned-income tax credit. I have comments in response to that 
amendment. I know there will be an alternative amendment that will be 
offered in that area. I will address the Senate when we have that 
particular proposal.
  Eventually, we are going to have the Lieberman amendment, which is a 
very thoughtful amendment. We will have opportunity to address it at 
that time.
  Mr. President, 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. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask that the time during the quorum 
call be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, 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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the tremendous effort that 
has been made on both sides of the aisle to try to address the 
immigration dilemma facing our country. In my view, other than the war 
in Iraq, the war on terror, there is nothing more important before us, 
and we should leave the bill on this floor for as long as it takes to 
get it right because as difficult as it is to get it right, it seems to 
me that failure is not an option. If we fail, then what we have done is 
admitted that we have just simply allowed a situation to continue where 
perhaps a million new illegal persons will come into our country each 
year. That contravenes the rule of law upon which this country is 
founded, it works against our ability to be a country that lives by the 
motto that is engraved up there on the wall, ``one from many,'' to 
assimilate into our country the number of people who are coming, and it 
is a poor example for the rest of the world when we suggest to them 
that they create governments that rely upon the rule of law. It also 
absolutely enrages the American citizens, who look at Washington and 
say that the Government has done a horrible job for the last 10, 15, 20 
years in enforcing our immigration laws. Americans have, in many cases, 
lost faith that we even have the ability to fix the mess. I used to 
feel that way myself before I came here. I haven't been here that 
long--just 4 years.
  Twelve years ago, I was a candidate for President of the United 
States. I was in those debates which we watched on television last 
night, or those kinds of debates. One of my proposals was that we 
should create a new branch of the military in order to secure the 
border. In 1994, 1995, and 1996, Americans were upset about our 
inability to distinguish between legal immigration, which is the 
lifeblood of our country, and illegal immigration, which is an affront 
to the rule of law and the principles of what it means to be an 
American. So this has been going on year after year after year.
  When I was home last week in Tennessee, I spent a lot of time 
listening and talking to Tennesseans. In fact, I just left a group of 
homebuilders from Tennessee in my office who were talking to me about 
the immigration bill and about some concerns they have. But of all the 
concerns that came through to me last week in my conversations with 
Tennesseans, it boils down to this: We don't really trust you guys in 
Washington, DC, to fix this problem. You don't seem to be willing to do 
it.
  So I have a suggestion today that I will make, an amendment that I 
intend to offer. I won't call it up at this moment, but I want my 
colleagues to know about it and the country to know about it because I 
think if this bill were to become law, it would increase the level of 
trust the American people would have in the ability of this Government 
to enforce whatever law we pass. I am not suggesting it would solve 
everything or that we would regain trust overnight, but I am suggesting 
it would be a step forward. I will describe the legislation in just a 
moment, but it boils down to this: We would involve the Governors of 
the border States between the United States and Mexico in determining 
whether the new border control system we put in place is actually 
operational.
  Right now, particularly amendment offered by my distinguished 
colleague from New Hampshire (Senator Gregg) the other day, the 
proposed bill has been strengthened in the following way: He said that 
his amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to 
certify that it has established and demonstrated operational control 
over the entire U.S.-Mexico land border before other parts of the bill 
involving legal status could go into effect. We call this the trigger.
  Senator Isakson from Georgia suggested this last year. It is a wise 
idea. It says, first we secure the border, and then, when it is secure, 
we do the other things about legalization of people already here, to 
the extent we decide to do that. But the question still remains: Who is 
going to say when the border is secure? The people out across the 
country--at least those in Tennessee--don't trust us, don't trust the 
Government in Washington, because of this poor record of 20 years. It 
doesn't matter that I just got here 4 years ago. They look up here and 
see the Government and they say: You didn't do it last year, you didn't 
do it 3 years ago, you didn't do it 10 years ago or 15 years ago, so 
how do we know you are ever going to do it, even if you pass the law?
  Well, the three things I can think of that would make a difference 
are, No. 1, to pass a bill with teeth in it. For example, the Gregg 
amendment says

[[Page S7129]]

there will be 20,000 Border Patrol agents. That is more than we 
currently have. Today, there are 13,000. There will be four unmanned 
aerial vehicles. There will be 300 miles of vehicle barriers. 
Currently, there are about 78. There will have to be at least 370 miles 
of fencing already built. Now, there are 700 already authorized by the 
Secure Fence Act of 2006, and that hasn't changed, but 370 miles would 
have to be built. There would have to be 70 ground-based radar and 
camera towers on the southwest border. There would have to be a 
permanent end to catch and release. There would have to be an 
employment verification system that requires employers to 
electronically verify new hires within 18 months and all existing 
employees within 3 years. All of those things would have to be in 
place. The words are they would have to be ``established and 
demonstrated, that the Federal Government had operational control over 
the entire U.S.-Mexico land border.''

  The amendment that is already part of the bill, the Gregg amendment, 
said the Director of Homeland Security would certify that. What I add 
with my amendment is it has to be concurred in, agreed with, signed off 
on by three of the four Governors on the United States-Mexico border. 
In other words, we pass the law with teeth--the teeth of the Gregg 
amendment and maybe more. I have suggested, and others seem to have 
agreed, what we ought to do is then fund the law. Either the President 
challenges us to pass an appropriations bill within 30 days after we 
pass the law, we do it ourselves, or we set up a trust fund--the way we 
do for highways and the way we do for Social Security, the way we do 
for anything else--and we say that money goes to secure the border, to 
fund these things. We pass a law with teeth. Then we provide the money. 
Then the Director of Homeland Security says the border is secure. That 
is the trigger. My amendment would say: The Governors of the border 
States, three out of four, have to agree.
  The Governors of the border States are not in Washington, DC. They 
have not been infected with whatever is up here. They have not even 
been vaccinated. I have been up here long enough to be vaccinated with 
whatever disease is up here, and for that reason more Tennesseans trust 
the Governors than they do the Washington officials to solve this 
problem. If the Governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas 
say yes, the border is secure, we agree with the certification of the 
Department of Homeland Security, I think that would be good enough for 
most Americans. That is the point of my amendment.
  We need to put together a good bill that secures the border first. 
After border security, the other biggest problem is what to do about 
those already here illegally. I think that issue is less of an issue if 
most Americans believe we would pass a law that permitted the Border 
Patrol agents and the verification system to be done, that we would 
fund it and we would actually do it as certified by the Director of 
Homeland Security and the Governors on the border. Then I think they 
would be willing to accept different solutions for those already here.
  But the week before last I voted for the amendment offered by Senator 
Vitter that would have sent the bill's drafters back to the drawing 
board on the question of what to do about the 12 million illegal 
persons, more or less, who are already here.
  Senator Hutchison and Senator Corker have done some very important 
work on this issue, which I intend to support and to cosponsor. That 
amendment would require illegal immigrants, who want to work here, to 
return to their home countries and reenter through legal channels in 
addition to paying a fine and passing the criminal background check.
  In addition to that, this bill should be about another subject about 
which we hear almost nothing, and that is the number of people who come 
here legally every year. A little more than a million people come into 
the United States each year legally. Today, if I remember the figures 
right, most are family members. Some come here as students. Some come 
here as researchers, to create jobs for us. Some come here as refugees. 
For those Americans who come here legally and who are prospective 
citizens, especially given the large number of people coming from 
overseas, we need to do everything we can to help those persons become 
Americans.
  I have filed several amendments. They seek to promote learning 
English, our common language, and what it means to become an American 
through an understanding of history and civics. For example, one of 
these amendments will help these legal immigrants learn English and 
what it means to be an American, to codify the oath of allegiance, and 
to make English our national language.
  Another amendment would ask the Government Accountability Office to 
provide a comprehensive report on the costs imposed on the public and 
private sector by having millions of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent 
residents who are not proficient in English. So far in this debate the 
Senate has already passed my amendment to establish a Presidential 
award to recognize companies who have taken extraordinary efforts to 
help their employees learn English and American history and civics.
  Some may say that is not so important, we all agree with that. It is 
awfully important. If you take a look at Europe today and you see the 
difficulty France has helping immigrants become French, and that 
Germany has helping immigrant workers become German, and that Japan 
has--because no one has an idea of what it might mean to become 
Japanese if you are not born Japanese--you can see how fortunate we are 
in this country to have literally invented the concept of becoming 
American. We say it does not matter what your race is, it doesn't 
matter who your grandfather is, you come here, you take the oath George 
Washington gave his officers at Valley Forge and you say: I am not 
whatever I was. I pledge allegiance to America. I learned the language, 
I learned the history, and we have a few principles we agree on, and I 
am an American. I am proud of where I came from, but I am prouder to be 
an American. Race doesn't matter. Religion doesn't matter. We pride 
ourselves on that. It is a tremendous advantage we have, so we ought 
not lose sight of the importance of helping legal citizens learn 
English and what it means to be an American.
  I have heard some talk that encouraging people to learn English is 
somehow divisive. I can't imagine that. In fact, it is the reverse. It 
is our unifier. It unifies us, to have a common language. It unifies us 
to know that the rule of law and equal opportunity are common 
principles.
  We debate what that means, and often they collide and conflict and we 
have to work that out as legislators, but we all agree on the same 
common principles and we enjoy the fact we have a common language, so I 
can speak to the President, and I can argue with the Senator from 
Colorado or I can agree with him as we are doing on an Iraq piece of 
legislation right now. We have a common language.
  So, common language, what it means to be an American, finding many 
different ways to honor these new citizens who come here legally--that 
ought to be as important a part of this bill as securing the border and 
creating a verification system in dealing with the people who already 
got here illegally.
  Primarily I came to the floor this afternoon to let my colleagues 
know I have a suggestion for how to begin to regain the trust of the 
American people on this issue, and that is this bill should pass with 
strong new provisions for border security, with funding to pay for it, 
and with a trigger that says the legalization parts of the bill don't 
take effect for 2, 3, 4, maybe even 5 years, until the border is 
secure.
  Then the question is how are we going to know if the border is 
secure? The bill says trust the Director of Homeland Security. I say 
ask him, pay attention to him or her, but also trust the Governors of 
the border States. Let three out of the four Governors, of California, 
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas concur with the Director of Homeland 
Security that the border is secure before we begin the legalization 
process, and I think the American people might buy it, they might 
believe that, and we might begin to regain their trust, after 20 years 
of mismanagement, that we are willing to take seriously securing the 
border and establishing respect again so we can have a rule of law.

[[Page S7130]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I thank my friend from Tennessee for his comments on the 
importance of immigration reform. I would say there is agreement in 
this Chamber among both Democrats and Republicans that what we need to 
do is secure our borders. The legislation before us today and the 
legislation we have been working on is, in fact, intended to secure our 
borders. We all recognize we need to move from a system of lawlessness 
and broken borders that create a wake of victims, to a system of law 
and order and a system of immigration reform that works for our 
country. We have been making significant progress as we move forward 
with this legislation. At this point we have already had 15 rollcall 
votes on this legislation. We expect to have another seven rollcall 
votes on this legislation as we move forward today. That gets us up to 
22 rollcall votes. Last year before cloture was invoked on the 
immigration bill that was before the Senate, there were, at that time, 
23 rollcall votes. So by the end of tonight we should be at a point 
where we would have equaled at least the number of votes we had last 
year.
  We have some difficult amendments still coming up that we will be 
voting on, both today and tomorrow, but it seems to me we are making 
significant progress, and I appreciate the hard work that is going on 
today on the Democratic side as well as the Republican side.
  Again, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Reid. What he did is 
say: I am going to take the time of the Senate, 100 Senators. All of us 
here in the Chamber know how important our time is. We get a 6-year 
license to serve as Senators, so how we spend our time and how our time 
is allocated is at a very high premium. What Senator Reid did was to 
say a long time ago we would spend the latter part of May, and now we 
are into June, dealing with this huge issue of immigration reform. At 
the end of the day it is a national security issue that goes to the 
heart of what Senator Alexander was saying, which is we have to secure 
the borders of this country, we have to deal with the economic 
realities that have created the immigration issues we are facing here 
today, we have to deal with the reality of 12 million undocumented 
workers who live here in the shadows of America's society, and we have 
to create a system for immigration that is going to work into the 
future.
  The people who have worked on this, including President Bush in the 
White House, have helped us move this debate forward--hopefully closer 
to conclusion.
  I see my friend from New Jersey, who is I think ready to speak, so I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Reid be added as a cosponsor of the Menendez-Hagel amendment, 
No. 1194.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1194

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me first commend my distinguished 
colleague from Colorado, who has been a voice of reason throughout this 
whole process. He has been a leader in trying to fashion a 
comprehensive immigration reform that is tough and smart. We need 
immigration reform that is tough as it relates to making sure our 
borders are protected. We have not only the right but the obligation to 
secure those borders and ensure that we have the wherewithal and the 
resources to make sure only those who cross, cross in a fashion that is 
safe, legal and orderly. At the same time, we need immigration reform 
that deals with our economy, fueling that economy, and finally finds 
justice for individuals who are often subject to human trafficking as 
well as exploitation.
  To my distinguished colleague from Colorado, I tip my hat for the 
tremendous effort he has made--and that brings us to where we are 
today. But I do want to go toward one of the pending amendments that 
will be voted on in the next block. It is the amendment I have offered 
with Senator Hagel and many others that goes to the core of one of the 
great issues the Senate will decide as it relates to this immigration 
bill, and that is whether families and the reunification of families is 
still a value to the Senate, is still a value in our family, whether 
families who come together and are strengthened by being together and 
helping each other and working with each other and nurturing each other 
and by so doing strengthening communities in the process are to be 
preserved, or are they, in terms of that battle, likely to be 
eliminated and struck, at least in our immigration context?

  I certainly hope when the Senate comes to vote, it will be voting in 
a way that is in line with the many speeches I have heard here, that I 
have heard in committee hearings, that I have heard in the other body, 
in the House of Representatives, where I served before coming here, 
about family values, family reunification is going to be preserved. It 
is time to put our votes where our values are. The Menendez-Hagel 
amendment offers that opportunity.
  Now, I do wish to wave my saber to the managers of the bill. I have 
heard some suggestion that there may be an attempt to offer a budget 
point of order which would require a higher vote total. I would simply 
say that there are also budget points of order on the underlying 
substitute. If in fact we are going to go down that slippery slope, 
then I would have the expectation myself to be offering budget points 
of order against the substitute. I think what is fair is to have a vote 
up or down on the amendment as it relates to the majority of the 
Senate's will. We will see what the majority will of the Senate is.
  But if we are going to move down that road, I would acknowledge that 
there is a budget point of order as it relates to the underlying 
substitute. So I hope we will not move to that type of tactic as we 
pursue the vote on this amendment.
  Now, it seems to me that under the existing bill, people who apply 
under the existing rule, under the law as it is today, who observe the 
law, who follow the rules, who said to their family member: No, no, do 
not come to the United States, wait your turn, follow the law, obey the 
rules, who filed an application as is a right of a U.S. citizen to file 
for a petition for their immediate relative, who paid their application 
fee, whose Government took their application fee, whose Government went 
ahead and made an analysis of that petition to see if it was a petition 
that was lawfully entitled to be approved, and who approved the very 
essence of that petition saying: Yes, this person, as a U.S. citizen, 
has the right--the right--to go ahead and apply for their family 
member, their brother or sister, their mother or father, their son or 
daughter--that is the universe that we are talking about--and says: 
Having approved my documentation and having approved of that petition, 
then you must wait your turn to the time that ultimately the priority 
date will invoke the possibility for you to come to the United States.
  That is the law. That is obeying the law. That is the rule of law. So 
you would think that in the legislation we are debating, those who have 
obeyed the law, followed the rules, and those who are U.S. citizens and 
have done the right thing, that we would not extinguish, eliminate 
their right for having done the right thing--for having done the right 
thing.
  But that is the very essence of what this bill does, unless we adopt 
our amendment. Under the bill, not only does, of course, the Senate 
bill propose a radical change to who and how you can come to this 
country, but it also cancels the applications that are pending--
pending--of many people who have been waiting patiently in line for 
family-based visas. If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent 
resident, you filed after May of 2005, the date that arbitrarily was 
taken and put into the bill to bring in a relative to the family 
immigration system, your application is gone. It is voided. You are 
told: Get to the back of the line--the back of the line, by the way, 
which is the back of the line with people who violated the law, who 
violated the law. Imagine that.
  Whose right is being extinguished here? Not the family member who is 
waiting abroad. No. The right of the individual that is being 
extinguished is the U.S. citizen. That is where the right accrues. It 
is that person who has

[[Page S7131]]

the right to make this claim under existing law.
  So we take away their right after they filed the petition, paid their 
fees, and told their family members to wait. They are told to get in 
the back of the line. The back of the line is after those individuals 
who did not follow the law and obey the rules.
  It boggles the mind. Under the Senate bill, employment-based 
immigrants are allowed to continue their applications as long as they 
are pending after the date of enactment. Employment-based verification. 
What about those families who have done everything right? It is only 
fair, in my mind, that family-based immigrants be given the same 
treatment.
  The Menendez-Hagel amendment goes a long way to restoring fairness to 
this situation by doing what? We simply take the cutoff date that is in 
the bill, May 2005, and we say: Do not treat American citizens any 
worse than you are going to treat those who came into the country in an 
undocumented fashion. You are going to give them a benefit, January 1, 
2007. They had to be here by January 1, 2007. Well, then, let those who 
followed the law, obeyed the rules, paid their fees, told their 
families to wait, they have the same benefit: January 1, 2007.
  It is not outside the ``grand bargain.'' It is within the same 
context. You want to clear out a backlog? Fine, clear out a backlog but 
be fair in the process. Do not extinguish the rights of U.S. citizens.
  It is important to understand, as we talk about this, the stringent 
requirements that exist under the law today governing family 
sponsorship for immigration. They would continue to apply in these 
cases. Any U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident wishing to sponsor 
a family member, as part of the approval of that petition, must 
demonstrate that he or she earns at least 125 percent of the Federal 
poverty level and must sign a legally enforceable ``affidavit of 
support,'' pledging to ensure his or her relative will not become a 
public charge.
  On top of that, based upon the welfare reform legislation that was 
passed several years ago, legal immigrants are barred, barred from 
accessing most Federal means-tested public benefits for the first 5 
years in the United States and are thereafter subject to further 
limitations until they have worked 40 quarters in this country, which 
is the equivalent of 10 years--10 years. Five years first, in terms of 
being barred from any public benefit because you came in on the 
affidavit of a family member who said: I am going to be responsible for 
this individual, and then 10 years after, in terms of being subject to 
further limitations of their necessity to have worked 40 quarters, 10 
years.

  Now, I have heard a lot about the rule of law. I am for the rule of 
law. But how does the rule of law get promoted, how does the rule of 
law get promoted when we say to a U.S. citizen who has applied for 
their family member waiting abroad, waiting their time, following the 
rules, obeying the rule of law, that, in fact, they have an inferior 
right to someone who did not follow the rules, who did not obey the 
law, and who ultimately will receive a benefit superior, superior to 
that U.S. citizen who is claiming their family member and waiting under 
the law and pursuing the law?
  In my mind, it sends out totally the wrong message. The message 
should have been: No, no. Come across. Come however you can. Then, by 
the way, you know we are going to give you a benefit. Do not stay out 
there waiting. Yes, it breaks our heart that we are not together. Yes, 
you are going to have to wait a period of time. But you know that is 
the law. We are going to do this right.
  Oh, no. Instead of honoring and rewarding that and sending a message 
that when you observe the law there is a benefit, you know, we do the 
opposite. We do the opposite under this bill. Our amendment very simply 
says: A U.S. citizen claiming their family member, waiting under the 
legal process, waiting to proceed, that their right should not be 
snuffed out like that, under this bill, in May of 2005, when those who 
have crossed the borders of our country through a process that is 
unchecked, undocumented, get a benefit--January of 2007.
  Because here is the message we send under this bill: Break the law, 
you get a benefit--January of 2007. Follow the law, follow the rule of 
law, obey it, your right is snuffed out in May of 2005. So I think if 
we want to send a message about the rule of law, what we want to do is 
to ensure we put on an equal footing the rights of a U.S. citizen 
claiming their family member, obeying the law, to give them the same 
opportunity that those who have not. That is what our amendment is all 
about.
  Now, as we approach moving toward a vote on this amendment, I wish to 
remind our colleagues about whose rights they are snuffing out. Rights 
of individuals good enough to wear the uniform of the United States, 
good enough to serve their country, good enough to fight for their 
country but not good enough to observe their right to claim their 
family member.
  Under this bill, both U.S. citizens and U.S. legal permanent 
residents' rights are snuffed out. These men in different branches of 
the armed services of the United States, they were good enough to fight 
for their country, but they were not good enough, under this bill, to 
have their rights preserved to claim their family member.
  That does not make sense to me. Now, I have heard about this killer 
amendment--killer amendment. One of our colleagues has tried to 
describe our amendment on family reunification as a killer amendment. 
What is a killer amendment? A killer amendment is an amendment that is 
proposed by a sponsor who does not want to see comprehensive 
immigration reform pass the Senate.
  Now, the ironic part of that is many who used that language last year 
when I was in the Senate voting for comprehensive immigration reform, 
that was used against me in my election last year. They were voting 
against comprehensive immigration reform. Killer amendment? When did 
family reunification--family reunification--strengthening of families, 
preserving the rights of U.S. citizens, including those who wear the 
uniform of the United States, when did that become a killer amendment?
  Now, I have heard a lot about family values in my 15 years in 
Congress. You know, when you want to move away from the human aspect, 
when you want to forget, for example, the face of Marine LCpl Jose 
Antonio Gutierrez, a legal permanent resident of the United States who 
gave his life, the first soldier to die in Iraq, under this bill, had 
he survived, you would have extinguished his right to claim his family. 
He was good enough to die for his country, not good enough to have his 
rights preserved. When you don't want to see the human faces, you 
dehumanize it so you can deal with it abstractly. So what have we heard 
about? We have heard about chain migration. We can treat it like an 
inanimate object; we have to stop that chain migration.

  This is much more than chain migration. This chain my colleagues so 
abstractly refer to, the top of this chain is someone who is a mother 
or a father. When did that become such a horrible thing? I thought we 
wanted to strengthen families, honor our parents, honor their ability 
to perform and to be strengthened. But that is chain migration. We 
can't let a U.S. citizen be able to claim their family. No, that is 
chain migration. We can't do that.
  When did we decide our brothers and sisters are nonnuclear? But they 
are part of the chain, brothers and sisters. Then our children--this is 
a good one--if they are under the age of 21, they are part of our 
nuclear family. If they are over the age of 21, they are no longer part 
of our nuclear family, just a little part of this chain.
  I have two children. One is 21; the other is 23. I have never for a 
moment, because they changed from 20 to 21, believed they were not part 
of my nuclear family. I don't view them as part of a chain. I don't 
love them any less. I couldn't live without them any less. The mere 
passage of a year, some numerical figure makes them part of a chain, 
nonnuclear. I guess we can do away with our children. I guess we can do 
without the right of U.S. citizens to claim their children. We can just 
discard them. I guess when you become 21, you really don't matter 
anymore. As a matter of fact, all of that family values stuff doesn't 
matter anymore. Unless we adopt this amendment, that is what we are 
talking about.
  Imagine if we couldn't have such a set of circumstances be preserved 
by

[[Page S7132]]

virtue of this amendment. I have shown some of these pictures before, 
but as we move to the vote, I hope people understand what I am talking 
about. Under the bill, family reunification that I believe is so 
critical, we wouldn't have a lot of people in our country who have made 
enormous contributions. Ultimately, we ended up thriving because of 
their contributions. We ended up thriving on the contributions of a 
Colin Powell whose parents, under this bill, would not have been 
eligible to come to this country and, therefore, unlikely that he would 
have been born here and had the opportunity to become chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of State. He has made a good 
contribution to this country.
  Right now in Iraq our leadership comes from GEN David Petraeus. The 
reality is, under this bill his parents would have been unlikely to 
come to this country, and he would not be a United States general and 
leading the best efforts we can have in Iraq.
  Under this bill, the inventor of the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk, would 
not have made it to this country. Yet he saved the lives of millions 
and millions of people here and across the world. Under this bill, at 
least, America wouldn't have been the place in which electricity and 
the light bulb would have been found. Thomas Edison, from my home State 
of New Jersey, likely would not have made it because his parents 
weren't rocket scientists.
  The list goes on and on. We have a gentleman who did a great service 
to our service men and women across the globe, Bob Hope. Under this 
bill his parents wouldn't have made it, and we wouldn't have had an 
incredible ambassador for our country and an incredible sponsor of 
goodwill for the men and women who served us over decades around the 
globe.
  What do we say? This came out recently in one of the newspapers. What 
are our priorities? Stopping terrorists, stopping drugs at the border? 
No. Drugs or explosives? No. We are just checking to make sure you 
don't take any loved ones with you.
  Under this bill, it doesn't matter because even when you obey the law 
and follow the rules, you ultimately have your right extinguished.
  It seems to me we have our values wrong. It is not about chain 
migration, not about just looking at the ability to say that family 
reunification should not happen, especially when the burden is on the 
family member who happens to be a U.S. citizen. I simply believe the 
question before the Senate will be, are you willing to vote to 
eliminate the right that exists today of a U.S. citizen who filed his 
papers, the Government took his money, he obeyed the law, followed the 
rules, you are going to take away his or her right? But you are going 
to give a right to individuals who didn't follow the law and obey the 
rules. I certainly don't believe that ultimately is in pursuit of the 
rule of law.
  There are many organizations that have joined us. I ask unanimous 
consent to have this list printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    Asian American


                                               Justice Center,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2007.
       Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, write to 
     urge you to vote yes on the Menendez-Hagel Amendment to 
     ensure fairness for U.S. citizens and their families. Without 
     this amendment, U.S. citizens will be punished for playing by 
     the rules and waiting in line to be reunited with their 
     family members.
       The current immigration bill being considered by the Senate 
     contains a provision that would address the current family 
     backlog of people that have applied for lawful permanent 
     residence, but only for those who applied before May 1, 2005. 
     Applications that were filed by U.S. citizens to sponsor 
     their adult children or siblings after this cut-off date--an 
     estimated 833,000--would be thrown out. Not only does this 
     send the wrong message to people who are citizens and obey 
     the law, the government will be severely taxed with the 
     administrative cost of returning application fees for the 
     past two years.
       Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have 
     introduced an amendment, co-sponsored by Senators Daniel 
     Akaka (D-HI), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Christopher Dodd (D-
     CT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Frank 
     Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Barack Obama (D-IL), to the current 
     Senate bill that would correct this grave injustice by 
     changing the cut-off date for legal immigrant applicants from 
     May 1, 2005 to January 1, 2007--the same cut-off date that is 
     currently set for the legalization of undocumented 
     immigrants--and adding 110,000 green cards a year for a 
     meaningful backlog reduction so as to not lengthen the 8-year 
     deadline for clearing the adult children and sibling backlog.
       By voting for the Menendez-Hagel Amendment, you will help 
     immigrants who have gone through the long and sometimes 
     arduous process of learning English and becoming citizens. 
     These Americans have filed applications and paid fees to the 
     U.S. government so that they can bring in their adult 
     children or siblings. They have made life choices based on 
     the very reasonable expectation that they would be eventually 
     reuniting with their family members. Our country can't tell 
     people who have been waiting patiently in line for visas that 
     we are now retroactively rewriting the rules and effectively 
     forcing them to start from scratch.
       We urge you to vote yes on the Menendez-Hagel Amendment and 
     ensure our immigration system is fair for United States 
     citizens.
           Very truly yours,
         National Organizations: Asian American Justice Center; 
           Advocates for Children and Elders International; 
           American Friends Service Committee; American 
           Immigration Lawyers Association; Amerian-Arab Anti-
           Discrimination Committee; Asian & Pacific Islander 
           American Health Forum; Association of Community 
           Organizations for Reform Now; Cambodian American 
           National Conference; Church World Service, Immigration 
           and Refugee Program; Coalition for Comprehensive 
           Immigration Reform; Democracia Ahora; Dominican 
           American National Roundtable; Ethiopian Community 
           Development Council; Federation of Indo-American 
           Seniors' Association of North America; Friends 
           Committee on National Legislation; Hate Free Zone; 
           Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Hmong National 
           Development; Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project; 
           Immigrant Legal Resource Center; International 
           Immigration; Foundation Japanese American Citizens 
           League; Kurdish Human Rights Watch; Laotian American 
           National Alliance; Latin American Legal Defense and 
           Education Fund; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; 
           Legal Momentum; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee 
           Service; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington 
           Office; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational 
           Fund; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the 
           Good Shepherd; National Alliance to Nurture the Aged 
           and the Youth; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; 
           National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
           Officials Educational Fund; National Council of La 
           Raza; National Korean American Service & Education 
           Consortium; National Immigration Forum; National 
           Immigration Law Center; NETWORK, A National Catholic 
           Social Justice Lobby; Organization for Justice & 
           Equality; Organization of Chinese Americans; People For 
           the American Way; Sikh Council on Religion and 
           Education; Sojourners/Call to Renewal; Somali Family 
           Care Network; South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow; 
           Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Unitarian 
           Universalist Association of Congregations; United 
           Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; 
           U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; World Relief.
         Local Organizations: Asian American Federation of New 
           York; Asian American Institute, Chicago, IL; Asian Law 
           Caucus, San Francisco, CA; Asian Pacific American Legal 
           Center of Southern California; CASA of Maryland; Causa, 
           Oregon; Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition; EI CENTRO 
           de Igualdad y Derechos, Albuquerque, NM; Filipino-
           American Coalition of Florida; Filipino American 
           Political Alliance of Florida; Fresno 
           Interdenominational Refugee Ministry; Guru Gobind Singh 
           Foundation Sikh Center, Rockville, Maryland; Illinois 
           Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Iowa 
           Citizens for Community Improvement; Korean Resource 
           Center, Los Angeles, CA; Korean American Resource & 
           Cultural Center, Chicago, IL; La Casita: Servicios 
           Legales para inmigrantes, Trenton, NJ; Latin American 
           Community Center, Wilmington, DE; Massachusetts 
           Immigrant And Refugee Advocacy Coalition; National 
           Capital Immigrant Coalition; New Jersey Immigration 
           Policy Network; New York Immigration Coalition; 
           Northwest Federation of Community Organizations; OCA--
           South Florida Chapter; Stone Soup Fresno; Tennessee 
           Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition; The Pyonghoa 
           Gospel Church, Flushing, NY; United Chinese Association 
           of Florida; YKASEC--Empowering the Korean American 
           Community, Flushing, NY.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. There are 80 of them. I will not read them all, but I 
want to give a sense of some who have moral authority behind them, as 
it relates to saying the Senate should adopt this amendment: The Church 
World Service; the Hebrew Immigrant Aids Society; the Lutheran 
Immigration

[[Page S7133]]

and Refugee Service; the Mennonite Central Committee; NETWORK, a 
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; the Unitarian Universalist 
Association of Congregations; the United Methodist Church; the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops; and a whole host of organizations that 
are not religious in nature but clearly are advocates from all of the 
different sectors of society: For example, the Asian American Justice 
Center, the Asian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum, the 
Federation of Indo-American Seniors' Association of North America, the 
Friends Committee on National Legislation, the National Association of 
Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La 
Raza, the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, to 
mention a few. They all believe this Senate should be putting its votes 
where its values are, into the reunification of families.
  Finally, I know there will be an attempt to offer what we call a 
side-by-side, something to try to produce a figleaf for those who don't 
want to be seen as casting a vote against family reunification, a vote 
against snuffing out the rights of U.S. citizens. And that figleaf 
actually would do absolutely nothing. What it would do is guarantee the 
underlying bill. It would guarantee that a U.S. citizen who obeyed the 
law, followed the rules, did everything right, had their family member 
waiting, it would guarantee that their right would be snuffed out. It 
would guarantee that they would go to the back of the line, a line in 
which there are people who didn't follow the law, obey the rules, 
violated the law, and they will be in the back of the line with them.
  That amendment that is going to be offered clearly is a figleaf. It 
clearly is poorly constructed. It doesn't deal with the present 
realities of undermining that right of a U.S. citizen. It does nothing 
to preserve the right of those people who filed and who are now being 
snuffed out, being cut out in terms of the rights of those U.S. 
citizens because of the underlying bill.
  There is only one way to make this right. There is only one way to 
preserve family reunification. There is only one way to preserve the 
rights of these individuals who wore the uniform of the United States, 
who were good enough to wear the uniform, serve their country, and 
should have the right, which this bill snuffs out, to claim family 
members. There is only one way of making sure we don't turn this into 
an abstract object of chain migration, but that we understand the core 
values of family; that we understand a child who turns 21 is no less a 
child you love dearly and want to be with and who doesn't stop being 
part of your nuclear family because they magically turned 21 and are 
now nonnuclear. That is what is at stake in this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez-Hagel, and others, 
amendment so that, in fact, we can still stay within the ``grand 
bargain'' but we can do what is right on family reunification.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Klobuchar are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and 
ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As we noted earlier, we are going to have a series of 
votes at 6:45. I wanted to address the amendment which has been offered 
by my friend, Senator Sessions from Alabama, which relates to the 
earned-income tax credit.
  I see the Senator from Alabama has just arrived, so I will be glad to 
let him make his presentation and then respond. If that is what the 
Senator would like to do, I will withhold.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think I am ready, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1235

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his 
courtesy, and I would just like to make some general comments about the 
earned-income tax credit and why I think this is important. I ask that 
I be notified in 20 minutes if I have gone that far.
  The earned-income tax credit is one of the major--the major, in 
fact--transfer programs in the Federal Government. It is a payment of 
monies, in reality. It doesn't work the way it was intended, but in 
reality, it provides a substantial check every year to persons who are 
low-wage workers. It is for people who are trying to do well but are 
not making much money, so they give them a check to encourage work. I 
have felt for some time--and maybe I will talk with Senator Kennedy one 
day about it, and we might reach an agreement on this--I think it would 
be much better if tax credit were paid along with your paycheck. It is 
designed to increase--it is allowed, under the EITC, but we don't do it 
that way. You file a return, and the next year, after you have 
completed your year's work, they send you a large check. On average, 
the recipient receives a benefit of almost $1,800 a year; that is, the 
people who qualify receive that amount. Again, the people who qualify 
are individuals who are working in lower wage jobs, which, in fact, are 
the types of jobs most of the 12 million illegal aliens are doing. They 
are working at low-wage jobs. Therefore, we can expect there will be a 
disproportionate number of persons who will qualify for this tax 
credit.
  Now, the tax credit was designed to encourage Americans to work--
American citizens. When it started in the 1970s under President Nixon, 
they thought there had to be some incentive so that you would get more 
money by working than by drawing welfare, or else you would just stay 
home and draw welfare. There still is a problem with that, in reality. 
But this bill was supposed to incentivize work, and that is why it was 
drafted the way it was and has continued to grow and become quite 
substantial. But, again, it was designed to take care of American 
citizens, our own people.
  Now, we are into an immigration reform bill where we have 12 million 
people here who came into our country illegally. They are being 
considered for amnesty. They are going to be allowed to stay in this 
country and be given that right. Maybe some didn't want it or didn't 
expect it, but they will be given the right to stay here. But under 
present law, because they are not legally here, they are certainly not 
entitled to the earned-income tax credit. Unless they file fraudulent 
documents and receive it fraudulently, they don't get an earned-income 
tax credit.
  So we say we are going to have a $1,000 fine that people must pay as 
part of a punishment for being in the country illegally, and it is not 
really amnesty because they pay a fine, but in reality, the fine can be 
paid on the installment plan, and only $200 has to be paid the first 
year when you apply for the Z visa. So under the bill, as I understand 
it--I think there is little dispute about it--as soon as this bill 
passes, everybody can come in and get a probationary legal status in 
America, and then before long, they are entitled to apply for and 
receive a Z visa that is good for 4 years. It can be renewed 
indefinitely. At some point, they can apply, if they so choose, for 
legal permanent residency.
  What I want to tell my colleagues is that not only will we be 
providing amnesty to the persons who came into our country illegally 
for a $200 payment, we will be giving them--even for the temporary 
probationary status and the

[[Page S7134]]

Z visa, prior to legal permanent residency, the earned-income tax 
credit. I think that is quite a step. Indeed, you pay $200 for your 
fine, and you file your tax return next year and get a $1,800 check 
from Uncle Sam.
  Don't be mistaken, the earned-income tax credit is for people who 
don't pay income tax. It is a gift from Uncle Sam. It is meant to 
encourage Americans to get out and work, not to encourage people to 
come into our country illegally to gain this benefit. So I just would 
say to my colleagues, this is an important principle.

  According to the Congressional Budget Office--and they run the 
numbers on this--it is the largest single benefit program and cost of 
this bill in the first 10 years--not in the outyears; there are some 
big costs that aren't being calculated. But in the first 10 years, this 
is the largest direct single benefit.

       Over the 2008 to 2017 period--

  Ten years--

       the Joint Tax Committee estimates that S.A. 1150 would 
     increase outlays for refundable tax credits by about $13 
     billion, the largest direct spending effect of the 
     legislation. Enacting 1150 would increase the amount of 
     refundable tax credits mainly by increasing the number of 
     resident aliens for income tax purposes.

  In other words, it would increase the number of people eligible.

       Resident aliens are taxed in the same manner as U.S. 
     citizens and thus could qualify for the refundable tax 
     credit.

  They are taxed, but they are not going to be paying high taxes 
because many of them are lower income people, but they will get the tax 
credit.
  So my amendment would reduce the bill's direct spending cost, the 
cost to the American taxpayer. Who pays the big check they get every 
year? Who pays the check they get every year? They are not paying it. 
It is the taxpayers, the American taxpayers. It is an additional reward 
on top of the amnesty that is provided. So my amendment would reduce 
the estimated cost of this legislation by nearly half, No. 1, and it is 
right, and it is fair.
  Now, last year, my amendment--which I believed was justified, but 
this Congress didn't agree--said you would not receive the earned-
income tax credit until you became a citizen. Why not? How is an 
illegal alien able to come here, not expecting the earned-income tax 
credit, and then be rewarded with it by our government? That never made 
sense to me.
  But in this legislation--because I think it is important, and we can 
make a big difference here--in this legislation I have offered, it 
would simply say that during the time you have a probationary visa or a 
Z visa up until the time you become a legal permanent resident, you 
wouldn't get the earned-income tax credit. How much simpler is it than 
that?
  I hope my colleagues will see that this is a perfectly logical 
amendment, and I would suggest it reflects on our mindset, our approach 
to this entire process, if we are not able to draw this kind of line as 
we go through passing--or attempting to pass--this historic piece of 
legislation. I really think we should give thought to that and ask 
ourselves what right does somebody who came into our country illegally, 
who has been here maybe for a number of years, expect to receive this 
benefit, where we say: OK, we are just going to give up; we are not 
going to make you go home; we will let you stay; you can have amnesty. 
By the way, you start receiving the earned-income tax credit of $2,000. 
How much sense does that make? I don't think that is good public 
policy. It raises questions about how serious we are about defining our 
immigration system in a way that works, that has bright lines, and 
carries out a logical policy. But I understand that people are 
determined to see that this goes forward.
  Now, Senator Reid has offered an amendment that is going to be a 
side-by-side. This amendment is very short, and basically all the 
amendment says is--I don't have it before me. Our majority leader, our 
Democratic majority leader, is offering an amendment that says: Well, 
we will comply with all the current laws of the IRS, and you don't get 
the earned-income tax credit if you are illegal. Well, of course. That 
means zero--nothing. I have to tell my colleagues, I am amazed at that 
amendment, unless I have missed something entirely, because that is 
what it is all about. They won't be illegal when they are given the 
probationary status or the Z visa status. They become legal and would 
get it. I was going to meet with some of the White House people to 
discuss this issue. I don't think they understood it that way, and I am 
not sure the President understood that this was actually going to 
happen under the legislation. But if this bill becomes law, they would 
get it.
  So you say: Well, maybe they wouldn't get it. Well, if they don't get 
it, why wouldn't you vote for my amendment, which quite plainly assures 
that they don't get it? Follow me?
  So I don't understand this cover amendment. It is not even a fig 
leaf, I say to my colleagues. I don't think you are going to be able to 
hide behind the Reid amendment because it is not going to do anything 
but guarantee that persons who are here and are given this amnesty will 
pay $200 and then they will get to draw nearly $2,000 a year under the 
earned-income tax credit.
  The amendment being offered by Senator Reid makes no sense to me. 
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. I would be delighted to 
hear what is in play. It is what you call a cover amendment. So what I 
say to my colleagues is, let's get realistic about what we are doing. 
Let's understand the cost this legislation is going to have. The 
Congressional Budget Office has found in their report--although it was 
written so that it is a little hard to find, but it is perfectly 
plain--the bill, over 10 years, will cost the American taxpayers $32 
billion. A substantial chunk of that amount is the earned-income tax 
credit. They say the earned-income tax credit is for children. It is 
not for children, it is for American workers. You may get more if you 
have children, but it is not for children, it is for American workers.
  I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona on the 
Senate floor. I was going to respond at some time to the Senator from 
Alabama. I am glad to wait until the Senator from Arizona is finished.


                           Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, since 
it is important that, prior to a meeting we have at 5:30, to speak to 
an amendment offered by Senator Menendez.
  I want to be clear that we have a side-by-side amendment that we will 
also be voting on, which I think goes to the heart of what Senator 
Menendez is trying to get at here, but it does so in a way that will 
not upset the bipartisan consensus that has been worked out on the 
legislation.
  I think the Menendez amendment has been discussed in the past. It is 
an amendment that would, in significant ways, change the basic 
agreement that has been made by some of the Senators. Therefore, it 
would be very problematic were it to pass. There is a budget point of 
order against the Menendez amendment, and that point of order will be 
raised. Because of the extra cost that would be imposed by additional 
immigrants being permitted to come into the country over time, in fact, 
I think there is more than one budget point of order because of those 
increased costs. The general proposition is that some have said the 
bill is not family friendly and that we need to do more for families. I 
want to try to dispel that, Mr. President.
  We start out with the proposition that somewhere between 12 million 
and who knows how many million illegal immigrants who are in the United 
States, for the most part, are going to be able to stay. If everything 
that can be expected of them is accomplished, they have the ability to 
apply for a green card and eventually potentially become citizens of 
the United States of America. That is a tremendous benefit for people 
who came illegally.
  One of the reasons some of us have been willing to accommodate that 
is people have come here with families or have created families here, 
and we do not want to disrupt those families.
  Secondly, there are family visas that historically have been issued 
by the United States. This bill doesn't in any way affect the ability 
of any legal permanent resident or citizen to bring

[[Page S7135]]

into the United States their spouse or minor children. That is the so-
called nuclear family.
  In addition, 40,000 parents per year can be brought into the United 
States, and there are extraordinarily liberal visitations for parents 
beyond that 40,000 number. We have said the so-called nonnuclear 
family--the extended family--in the future is going to compete the same 
as workers are going to compete, so that we can get in balance with 
some of our competitors in the global economy, where more of the visas 
are reserved for work purposes and fewer for family purposes. But in 
the meantime, some 4 million people, roughly, who have applied for a 
family visa--extended or nonnuclear family--are going to be allowed to 
immigrate to the United States, and instead of taking 30 or 40 years, 
in some cases, it is going to all happen within an 8-year period of 
time. That is extraordinarily helpful to families and family 
reunification.
  Now, it is true, if somebody has come here illegally and their family 
is still outside the country, we don't permit that family to come. But 
the object, obviously, is to try to encourage that individual to go 
back with his family. That would be family reunification.
  But the problem the Menendez amendment poses is, instead of allowing 
those people who have applied for visas for extended families who have 
a reasonable expectation to come to the United States, he would change 
the date that measures their eligibility in such a way as to allow a 
lot of people--thousands, hundreds of thousands, actually--to immigrate 
to the United States who, today, under current law, have no reasonable 
expectation they would ever make it to the United States. What we have 
tried to do is to be fair and say, if you have a reasonable expectation 
you will be permitted to immigrate to the United States, we will allow 
you to come in, and we will do it within a very short period of time--8 
years, or perhaps less than that period of time, as opposed to the 
perhaps 20 or 30 years it may have otherwise taken. If you didn't have 
a reasonable expectation to get in, then you are not going to come.
  The reason the date was drawn where it was in May 2005 is that 
represented a compromise. I believe the original date was March or July 
of 2004--the time when people who were in line but had no reasonable 
expectation--that their application was going to be processed and were 
notified by the U.S. Government. Basically, the Government said: For 
the time, we are not going to be processing these numbers anymore 
because the backlog is too long. The backlog numbers are truly 
astounding. There are people in Mexico, for example, who have no 
reasonable expectation of getting here. For example, if you are the 
brother or sister of a U.S. citizen, and if you are a Mexican national 
and you recently filed to become a legal permanent resident of the 
United States, you have an expected wait of about 80 years. So even if 
you are 21 years of age, at the time when you can expect to get here 
you would be 101 years of age. That is not a reasonable expectation you 
will be allowed into the United States.

  I went to Senator Menendez and said: I think you have a point because 
we have drawn an arbitrary deadline. Remember, the date at which they 
were told we were no longer going to be processing, temporarily, these 
applications was in 2004. But in order to be more liberal, we moved the 
date to May 2005. His argument was, there may be some people who still 
had an expectation because they filed last year, and maybe they had an 
expectation they could make it.
  I said: You know, there may be some such people, so let's take a look 
at it and see if we can redo this so everybody who had a reasonable 
expectation they could get here will be allowed to be here, no matter 
when they applied--whether it was 2 years ago, last year, 2 months ago, 
or 10 or 12 years ago--if they had a reasonable expectation of getting 
in.
  We have crafted an amendment that I offered to Senator Menendez, but 
he preferred to go forward with his amendment. But the side-by-side 
that I will be proposing is an amendment that stretches the date out to 
2027. It says: If you had a reasonable expectation, based upon your 
category of immigration, the country you are from, the lines that 
currently exist with that country, if you had a reasonable expectation 
within the next 20 years you could have made it into the United States, 
then you get to come in under a family visa. That is extraordinarily 
liberal--everybody who really had an expectation that they could make 
it. Like I said, if you are this Mexican national, and you are the 
brother of an American citizen, and you were 21 years of age when you 
applied, you would be over 100 years old today. That is not a 
reasonable expectation. So you would not be permitted to come into the 
United States. You never had a reasonable expectation that you could 
make it.
  The effect of my amendment and the Menendez amendment is almost 
identical in terms of the number of people who would be allowed to come 
to the United States. There is only a 3,000 difference out of about 
600,000 people. So we are not reducing the number of people. We are 
making it accurate as to who can actually come.
  There is also a general notion that somehow we are being unfair to 
families. As Senator Kennedy has frequently pointed out, after this 
legislation is passed, for a period of 8 years, the total family 
percentage coming into the United States will be 74 percent. And you 
add another 15 percent for humanitarian visas, and there is only 11 
left for the employment visas. Today, 65 percent are family visas. In 
subsequent years, families will still be the majority of immigrants to 
the United States--51 percent. Then you add to that another 17 percent 
for asylum seekers and other humanitarian visas; 17 percent of the 
total is a very humane number for the United States. We can still be 
very proud of our tradition of allowing the poor, hungry, and 
downtrodden to come to this country, and we will still have a majority 
of family-based visas in this country.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. For those who are worried about this, on the issue of 
families, you should be worried about this. Is it not true that in this 
bill, in terms of family reunification, the way we have accomplished or 
dealt with the bill, families will be reunified decades earlier, and 
those who are waiting to join their families under this bill--those who 
have done it right--will be together no later than 8 years; is that 
correct?
  Mr. KYL. That is exactly correct. Instead of waiting 20, 30 years, 
they will have to wait no longer than 8 years.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So if you want to be the person who keeps families apart, 
bring this bill down. I assure families will not be reunified under the 
current system like they are here, that we will have a dramatic 
increase in green cards to get these families reunited. We go up to 74 
percent. If you want to keep families apart, bring this bill down and 
let the current system survive.
  Secondly, when it comes to families, there are 12 million people here 
illegally. Is it not true that their families, under this bill--if they 
will do the right thing--will never live in fear again?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to me, that is one of the main features of 
the bill. Today, we have people who are being exploited, people against 
whom crimes are being committed, but they are afraid to report it to 
the law enforcement authorities. They are not being paid adequate wages 
and their working conditions are poor. Frankly, they are being taken 
advantage of. As long as they are in this gray status, that will 
continue.
  This bill offers them immediately an opportunity to begin a process 
by which they are playing by the rules and, as a result of that, they 
can have the freedom and the assurance of being protected by the laws 
of the United States.
  Mr. GRAHAM. To my good friend from Arizona, I say this: If you are 
concerned about the 12 million people who are living in fear, subject 
to exploitation, then this is the best chance you will ever have in my 
political lifetime to fix it. If you want to bring this bill down, the 
one thing I can assure you is that the 12 million, or however many 
there may be, will not only live in fear, they are going to live in 
more fear because we have stirred up a hornets nest in this country.

[[Page S7136]]

  I argue, if you care about people who have families not being afraid 
anymore, if they get themselves right with the law, help us pass this 
bill. In the future, after everybody has been accommodated who has a 
reasonable expectation, we are going to allow families to be part of 
the new immigration system.
  Could the Senator tell me again, in the future, what percentage of 
visas will be given to families?
  Mr. KYL. The answer I give the Senator is that family visas alone are 
51 percent--a majority--and another 17 percent is humanitarian.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator acknowledge that is twice the family 
component of other nations with whom we are competing?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is almost exactly right. I know in the 
case of--in fact, I will give you the exact number. In Canada, it is 24 
percent. If we have 51 percent, obviously, that is close to twice that 
number. In Australia, it is 27 percent. And, again, if we are at 51 
percent in the future, that is almost exactly twice. But remember, that 
is only after 8 years. For the next 8 years, it is 74 percent because 
of what the Senator from South Carolina was pointing out.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the bottom line, I say to my good friend 
from Arizona, is we would have no bill without him. He stepped to the 
plate and said I am willing to look at the 12 million anew; I don't 
believe we are going to deport them, and I don't believe we are going 
to put them in jail; So I am going to give them a chance to identify 
themselves, come out of the shadows and do things that will make them 
valuable to our country and will be fair and humane.
  We have accomplished that. We couldn't do it last year. We are going 
to reunite families who have been waiting for decades to get into this 
country. We are going to expedite family reunions in an 8-year period 
for some people because they would not live long enough to get back 
with their families.
  In the future, we are going to have a new system. There is going to 
be a strong family component, but I make no apologies about this, in 
the future we are going to have immigration based on the global economy 
and merit. We need to start looking at where we are in the world and 
making sure people come into our country under a merit-based system. 
Neither one of my parents graduated high school. There is a way forward 
for the semiskilled and low-skilled workers to come into our country in 
the future. But the family component in the future will be spouses and 
minor children, freeing up thousands of green cards for merit-based 
employment. They are not going to bring in their adult children unless 
they have a way to get in on their own. They are not going to bring in 
their third cousin. Nobody else does that. They are going to come in as 
a nuclear family, and we are going to do it based on merit, and merit 
is not a degree.
  Under this bill, if you come in with a strong back and a strong heart 
and a desire to get ahead, you get points for getting a GED, you get 
points for an apprenticeship, you get points for doing the things that 
make you a better person. So I reject completely the idea that the 
merit-based system excludes hard-working people.
  I end with this one thought. If we don't get it right now and correct 
the flaws in our system which led to the 12 million which will make us 
globally noncompetitive, then who will? When will they do it? There are 
a million reasons to say no to something this hard, there are 12 
million reasons to say yes, and there are many reasons in the future to 
say yes because our country cannot survive with a broken immigration 
system that makes us noncompetitive.
  This is a national security issue. This is a global economic issue. 
Now is the time to understand we will never have a perfect bill but to 
do something that will be good for America.
  I thank my good friend, Jon Kyl, and Senator Kennedy for getting us 
this far.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate that from the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Let me make one final point. I know Senator Kennedy wishes to speak.
  It was not easy for some people to agree to allow at least 12 million 
immigrants who came to this country illegally to stay here and 
eventually become citizens. That was not easy. One of the bases upon 
which we were able to do that was to respond to an argument that had 
frequently been made: Why should we let all those people, is the way it 
is described, become U.S. citizens and then chain migrate all their 
family--their uncles, cousins, grandparents, and so on? The answer to 
that question is we probably shouldn't. So that was ended in this 
legislation. That is what was stopped. That is part of the agreement 
that was reached, the consensus that was reached.
  The adoption of the Menendez amendment would undo that. You can 
imagine how someone like me feels. I have taken a lot of heat for 
agreeing that the people who are here illegally should stay here, but I 
knew one of the reasons that was more palatable was because we had at 
least stopped the chain migration that would occur for anybody 
subsequently in the future, after we cleared the backlog of people who 
already applied.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield?
  Mr. KYL. Yes, I will be happy to yield. I was going to conclude and 
turn to Senator Kennedy. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. One point. Remember how the Senator from Arizona said 
how all ``those people'' would be able to claim their families. The 
Menendez amendment has nothing to do with ``those people.'' The 
Menendez amendment has everything to do with U.S. citizens today who 
have a right under the law. So I hope we do not confuse both of those.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Jersey that 
what he said, as far as he said it, is, of course, exactly correct. 
What I was talking about was the tradeoff that existed between the 
accommodation to the 12 million people and--by the way, I don't use 
that phrase ``those people.'' I hope the Senator understands that I was 
referring to the criticism of those who say we shouldn't allow the 
illegal immigrants in the country, especially if we chain migrate their 
families. We ended the chain migration.
  We had to draw a time when applicants would be able to apply and 
their applications would be considered. We had it at one point. We 
agreed to move that date to accommodate the people on the Democratic 
side of the aisle. The Menendez amendment would move it to January 1 of 
this year, bringing in, I think, a total of well over 800,000 people. 
That, obviously, would undo the rather delicate balance of agreements 
that was reached that deals with this subject.
  Recognizing, however, we wanted to make sure anybody who had a 
reasonable expectation of being able to immigrate should be able to do 
so, we have prepared an amendment that would, in fact, allow anybody 
with a reasonable expectation to be able to immigrate here. We put the 
date way back to 2027, and we say that if you could have reasonably 
expected to get here by 2027, you are in and you are in within an 8-
year period from now.
  I think that is very fair. The person who is excluded under our 
proposal is the person who, as I said, is the sibling of a Mexican 
national who is a sibling of a U.S. citizen who might be 101 years old 
when he gets to the United States of America. That is not a reasonable 
expectation.

  I think our approach is reasonable. It is consistent with the 
underlying agreement we reached. I regret to say--and I appreciate the 
Senator from New Jersey has every right to raise a budget point of 
order on the underlying bill--we fully expected there would be points 
of order at the conclusion presumably of the consideration of the bill 
and we would have to vote on those. Obviously, it is a 60-vote point of 
order. We expected to have 60 people who would support the legislation, 
and we believe that to be the case. But if the Senator wants to bring 
the bill down, as the Senator from South Carolina said, by raising an 
amendment such as that which has been proposed or at this time trying 
to conclude the budget point of order, I don't think that is the best 
way forward.
  As the Senator from South Carolina said, we have one good chance to 
get legislation passed. I don't think we want to blow that chance. Now 
is our time. We were sent here to do difficult

[[Page S7137]]

jobs. I hope, in the bipartisan spirit that has so far characterized 
our debate, we can move forward and continue to keep this bill as 
literally a beacon of hope for a lot of people who are counting on us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Vermont is 
looking for some time to speak. I believe there is 30 minutes I have 
remaining; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 30 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, wants time. 
I yield 10 minutes to Senator Lieberman. I will use probably 6 or 7 
minutes. I will be more than glad to give 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Vermont if not, we will try and extend that if we can.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I might interrupt the Senator for a 
question. Would it be possible also to make sure Senator Domenici will 
be able to speak after the Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 5 minutes of the 30 minutes; Senator 
Domenici can have 5 minutes; 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; and 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, 
Mr. Sanders. I think that takes up 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent 
that another minute be given to each of us, 33 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1234

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will be brief in response to the 
Sessions amendment. We are talking about the earned-income tax credit. 
That was developed in the 1970s. Why was the earned-income tax credit 
developed? Because of the increased number of children living in 
poverty.
  We have, as this chart shows, in the United States more children who 
live in poverty than any other country in the world. This amendment 
would say to legal immigrants that you are not eligible for the earned-
income tax credit that benefits children.
  If we look at the report from the CRS, it shows that over 98 percent 
of the earned-income tax credit goes to families with children. That 
was its purpose, that is where it is focused, that was the reason for 
it, and this is the need.
  Why in the world would we want to take benefits away from needy 
children? Who are the workers of the earned-income tax credit? Their 
average income is less than $20,000 a year. This is phased out at about 
$30,000 to $33,000 a year. This is the low-income individuals who are, 
what? Are they on welfare or are they out working? They are working. 
They have children. They are legal. Why take the benefits away from the 
children, the neediest children, most of whom are living in poverty?
  We don't take the earned-income tax credit away from people who go to 
jail and commit murder. We don't take away the earned-income tax credit 
from people who have defrauded the Government. We don't take the earned 
tax credit away from burglars, child molesters, and the rest of the 
individuals who commit crimes. But this amendment wants to take it from 
one particular group and that is legal workers.
  Who are those legal workers? They are trying to provide for their 
families, pay the penalties, show that they are working, and go to the 
end of the line. Many of these children are American children. They are 
not undocumented. They are American children because they were born 
here.
  I find it difficult to understand, when we are talking about 
individuals who are working, who want to work, will work, are trying to 
make a better future for themselves and their families and particularly 
for their children, why they should be the only class of working people 
in the United States who ought to be penalized. That is what the 
Sessions amendment would do. That is wrong and it is not fair and it 
should not be accepted.
  Mr. President, I yield the time as I have indicated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding me 
time.
  As I think we all know, this is a long and complicated bill. An 
important part of this bill deals with illegal immigration--how do we 
make sure we stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country; how 
do we finally begin to deal with employers who are knowingly hiring 
illegal immigrants; what do we do with 12 million people who are in 
this country who, in my view, we are not going to simply, in the middle 
of the night, throw out of this country. These are difficult and 
important issues.
  On those issues I am in general agreement with the thrust of this 
legislation. But, Mr. President, I wish to tell you there are areas in 
this bill where I have strong disagreement, and one is the issue of 
legal immigration, what we are doing in terms of bringing people into 
this country who, in my view, will end up lowering wages for American 
workers right now.
  Senator Kennedy a moment ago made a very important point. He talked 
about the truth that in our country today we have the highest rate of 
child poverty of any major country on Earth. That is a national 
disgrace. But on top of that, we have the highest rate of poverty of 
any major country on Earth. In fact, since President Bush has been in 
office, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty.
  Today, in our country, as many people know, the middle class is 
shrinking. Millions of American workers are working longer hours for 
lower wages. In my State of Vermont, it is not uncommon for people to 
work two jobs, even three jobs, to make enough income to pay their 
bills. According to a recent Pew-Brookings Institute study, men in 
their 30s earned, on average, 12 percent less in 2004 than their 
fathers did in 1974, after adjusting for inflation. In other words, in 
America, we are moving in the wrong direction. Our standard of living, 
in many ways, is going down. If we don't reverse trends, our kids will 
have a lower standard of living than we have.
  Now, in the midst of all of that, we are finding many large 
corporations, both those who employ skilled workers--professional 
workers--and those who employ low-wage workers, that are coming to this 
body and are saying, my goodness, yes, we are outsourcing millions of 
decent-paying jobs; yes, we have opposed vigorously raising the minimum 
wage; yes, we have done everything we can to make sure workers can't 
form unions, but what we want to do now, because we love the American 
people so much and we are so concerned about the American worker, what 
we want to do now is bring millions of new workers into this country, 
both low-wage workers and professional workers.
  The argument there is Americans don't want to do the work. They say: 
We can't find American workers to do the work. That is a crock, in many 
instances. It is not true. One of the groups that has come to Congress 
to tell us how much they are concerned about the need to find workers 
because they can't find Americans to do the jobs is our old friends at 
Wal-Mart.
  As many Americans know, Wal-Mart pays low wages. They often hire 
people for 30 hours a week rather than 40 hours a week, and they 
provide minimal health care benefits. Yet Wal-Mart has come in and 
said: Well, we can't find the workers. Bring us in more low-wage 
workers.
  Well, guess what. Two years ago, when Wal-Mart announced the opening 
of a new store in Oakland, CA, guess how many people showed up for that 
job in Oakland, CA, at a Wal-Mart. Eleven thousand people showed up--
11,000 people showed up in Oakland--filled out applications for a job 
when only 400 jobs were available. Eleven thousand people for 400 jobs.
  Wal-Mart says they need more low-wage workers coming in from around 
the world because they can't find workers. Well, that was a couple of 
years ago. So you might say: Well, that doesn't happen today. In 
January of 2006, when Wal-Mart announced the opening of a store in 
Evergreen Park, just outside of Chicago, in your home State, Mr. 
President, 24,500 people applied for 2,325 jobs. Yet Wal-Mart and their 
friends are coming in here saying we can't find Americans who want to 
work.
  Let us be clear. Wal-Mart does not provide good wages, does not 
provide good benefits, does not provide good health care, yet we are 
finding many people who want to do that because

[[Page S7138]]

people in this country are desperate, because people in this country 
want to work at almost any job.
  Some of the people at the other end of the economic spectrum, the 
people who are hiring professionals, make the same argument. There are 
organizations out there, including companies such as Motorola, Dell, 
IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Boeing, that say the same thing: We can't 
find professionals to do the jobs. I find it interesting that while 
these companies claim they can't find workers in the United States, 
some of these very same companies have recently announced major layoffs 
of thousands of American workers.
  Let me repeat that. These companies are saying we desperately need to 
bring workers from other countries into America because we can't find 
people in the United States to do these skilled jobs. Yet, at the same 
time, they are laying off tens of thousands of American workers.
  Let me give a few examples. A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times 
reported Dell would be eliminating 10 percent of its workforce, 
slashing 8,800 jobs. Dell is part of the group saying we need to bring 
more professionals into America. Meanwhile, as Dell has eliminated 
decent-paying jobs in the U.S., it applied for nearly 400 H-1B visas 
last year.
  But Dell is not alone. On May 31, the Financial Times reported 
Motorola would be cutting 4,000 jobs on top of an earlier 3,500-job 
reduction designed to generate savings of some $400 million. This is 
nothing new. Motorola has cut jobs in this country year after year 
after year. But guess what. Motorola, part of a group saying they can't 
find American workers, recently received 760 H-1B visas. That was last 
year.
  On May 30, Reuters reported IBM would be laying off more than 1,500 
American workers, bringing total layoffs to that company of 3,700 last 
year. In April, CBS MarketWatch reported Citigroup announced it would 
be laying off 17,000 workers, yet Citigroup received over 330 H-1B 
visas.
  Here is the point, and this is not a complicated point. Many of the 
largest corporations in this country are supporting this legislation. 
And you know why? It is not because they are staying up late at night 
worrying about some Mexican kid in Detroit or Chicago and what will be 
the future of that kid. They are not worrying about that. What they 
want to see is a continued influx into this country of cheap labor. 
They are not content with outsourcing millions of good-paying jobs. 
They are not content with fighting against working people who want to 
form unions. They are not content with their opposition, successful 
until recently, of keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour for 10 
years. That is not good enough. Now they are saying: Gee, we can't move 
Wal-Mart from America to China, we can't move hotels to China, we can't 
move restaurants to China, so what is the best way to continue keeping 
wages low for those workers?

  When I was a kid, I worked in a hotel. I was a busboy. There is 
nothing wrong with that job. Millions of people do that job. I resent 
very much the fact that many of these large corporations are continuing 
their war against the middle class and against the American worker. I 
think it is high time the Senate begins to stand up for the American 
worker rather than the large multinational corporations who have so 
much sway over what we do in this body. I would hope before an 
immigration bill is passed, it will respect the rights of American 
workers, both low-wage workers and professional workers, and say that 
is our major responsibility, to make sure our kids----
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute to yield to my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. My question, I guess, Mr. President, would be something 
like this: Perhaps it could be true that the large number of job 
applications received by Wal-Mart facilities is because even though 
Wal-Mart does not pay great wages, they do have health care benefits 
and job security, as opposed to construction work. Would the Senator 
agree that if businesses raised wages at the construction sites, if 
they had jobs that had a more permanent status to them, and actually 
offered a retirement plan and health care benefits, they might get more 
people willing to work at the construction sites?
  Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President, the Senator makes an 
important point, and that is we have all been educated that economics 
is about supply and demand. If you don't get the workers you want, you 
raise wages and you raise benefits. You don't simply open the door and 
bring in other workers at low wages.
  The Senator makes an important point.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I came to the floor tonight for a few 
moments to talk about the significance of the bill that is before us 
and the work that has been done by Senators and a couple of Cabinet 
members and great staff.
  The American people have been telling us for many years that we are 
confronted with a problem that is apt to destroy our land, destroy our 
country, destroy our values, and that problem is that we have an 
inability to control our borders. We have illegal immigrants who come 
across our borders by the thousands who are, for the most part, 
interested in jobs. But after some of them get here and their jobs are 
procured, there are other things they bring with them or do here that 
make the American people very worried about our future.
  I, for one, as a Senator of long standing, grow more worried every 
year as to whether we will ever be able to control our borders and thus 
control who comes in and who goes out so that we know who they are. We 
have heard the American people tell us this is our biggest 
responsibility; that if we don't secure our borders, something bad is 
going to happen to our country. We have heard them tell us of the 
horror stories that happen when some of these immigrants come here 
without authority, without the law on their side; they sneak in, in the 
dark of the night, or however they have been able to come, and then 
they form gangs. We have heard about how they have scared our people, 
hurt them, killed them, and how they fight amongst each other. Of 
course, I am not talking about all of them. I am saying the American 
people see this and say to us, can't you ever control our borders?
  I want to say I think a terrific job has been done with this bill. It 
is not finished--there are a few more amendments that need to be 
considered and some time taken to review the final bill--but I believe 
the bipartisan group that wrote this bill under the leadership of 
Senator Jon Kyl on the Republican side and Senator Ted Kennedy on the 
other side, working with their best staff for months, and then both day 
and night for the last 2 months, have put together a piece of 
legislation that shows how you can work out practical differences if in 
fact your goal is significant and you forget about politics, you forget 
about party, and you begin to write a law you can be proud of.
  I think we are close to that. I don't think you get there very often. 
Rarely do you get the opportunity to be part of such a law as a 
Senator. So for those who are going to vote against this bill, tonight 
they are saying to themselves, I think I am going to vote against it, I 
ask you and urge you to think of when you are going to be given an 
opportunity to vote on a bill, a piece of legislation that is more 
important than this. If we don't do it now, with your vote, when will 
we do it?
  If for some reason this bill fails, those who cause it to fail have 
to ask themselves, when will we get a bill we can rely on, that we can 
trust, which is put together by good, practical people who resolved 
issues in a practical manner by working on the issues that are now 
confronting us, which are that our borders are wide open and we have no 
control over what is happening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7139]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I am certain if, after we pass legislation such as 
this, we provide the resources that are needed--and that is very 
important, and I think we are providing a means and a manner for 
resources to go to the border in this bill--and, secondly, if we 
annually make sure the resources and manpower are there to implement 
this law--because it will require much by way of manpower, much by way 
of technology--if we give this law that, we will return to say this was 
a historic event. Indeed, we will have done something good for America 
and good for our children. Something good for the families of existing 
immigrants, good for immigrants who are coming in the future and their 
families, who will also be permitted. We will also look for merit in 
those who are coming to help America, which is competing in a very 
difficult world.
  I am very proud to be on the side of those who are trying to maintain 
the measure intact, or practically intact, because you can't do much 
better than was done by this hard-working bipartisan group. The more 
you try to change it, the more you risk losing it. When you end up 
thinking what did you lose it for, you end up really wondering whether 
you did right for your country.

  I urge that we move as fast as we can, giving Senators an 
opportunity, those who need it, and, yes, saying we are going to pass 
it soon--I don't know about tomorrow or the next day but certainly send 
to our leader a message that if you will give us an opportunity to call 
up a few more amendments, it will get accomplished.
  I look forward to more debate, more amendments.
  Mr. MENENDEZ addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields to the Senator? If 
no Senator yields time, then the time will be divided equally between 
both sides.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that it be equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1345

  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I ask that at the conclusion of the 
consented time and the stacked votes, I be recognized to call up my 
amendment No. 1345 and that after 2 minutes of consideration, the 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Who yields time to the Senator? At this time, the Senator from 
Alabama controls 17 minutes and the Senator from Texas 12.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Is there any other time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not at this time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to yield to the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I am very concerned that amendments to 
this bill are being limited because there are many issues that deserve 
attention in this debate. For instance, in my home State of North 
Carolina, we have had a number of fatal automobile accidents caused by 
an intoxicated person who was in the United States illegally. Sadly, 
just yesterday morning on Interstate 40 near Raleigh, a man was killed 
on his way to work when his vehicle was struck by an SUV barreling 
across the median. The SUV driver, according to initial news reports, 
is an illegal alien, who now faces a number of criminal charges, 
including DWI.
  In several of these incidents, the illegal alien driver has a record 
of DWI, sometimes repeated offenses, but has been caught and released. 
Just this past March, in Johnston County, NC, a 9-year-old boy and his 
father lost their lives in an accident caused by an intoxicated driver 
who had been convicted twice of drunken driving and had an outstanding 
warrant stemming from a probation violation--and he was in the United 
States illegally. Another tragic case was the death of Scott Gardner, a 
Gaston County school teacher, who was killed in 2005 by a drunk 
driver--a driver who was an illegal alien with five previous DWI 
charges. I want to thank my colleague Richard Burr who introduced the 
Scott Gardner Act to deal with this serious issue, and on the House 
side, my good friend Sue Myrick has been a true leader on this front.
  I hear from many North Carolinians who ask me what is Washington 
doing to stop this from happening. When are we going to take action to 
make our communities safer.
  Such senseless tragedies are not unique to North Carolina. Automobile 
accidents caused by intoxicated illegal aliens are occurring around the 
Nation--too often killing innocent people who are just going about 
their daily lives, or leaving the victims with crippling, disabling 
injuries.
  It is a privilege, not a right, for an immigrant to receive legal 
status to live in the United States of America. My amendment would 
ensure that this privilege is not granted to an illegal alien with a 
DWI conviction.
  No question, our DWI laws should be vigorously enforced, regardless 
of the offender's immigration or citizenship status.
  My amendment addresses an all too prevalent problem and should be 
considered. There are a number of other amendments that deserve a place 
in this debate. The bill we are considering would have enormous 
ramifications for nearly every American, as well as those who want to 
work in this country or become American citizens. We must do our due 
diligence and not rush this bill through. The majority in this body 
must not stifle the voice of the minority Members. More amendments must 
be considered.
  I yield back my remaining time to Senator Sessions, the Republican 
manager.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Dole for her insight, sharing that 
important information, and for offering an amendment and demonstrating 
once again that good amendments dealing with very important issues are 
not being allowed to be considered. This is not a free and open debate. 
This is not a free opportunity to amend. The majority leader is 
controlling his machinery, the train is moving down the track, and very 
few amendments are being approved.
  I have offered and filed quite a number. I have only gotten two 
amendments, and I said at the beginning that only one would be voted 
on. We are having the first vote on one I have offered.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--I see my colleague, Senator 
Kennedy, here--I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set 
aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 1253.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. On behalf of Senator Kennedy, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we have quite a number of other 
amendments. That is what we are going to hear when we offer any of them 
because we now have a cloture motion filed. If cloture is obtained and 
you don't have an amendment pending, you can't get a vote on it. We 
know what the game is, and it is not a free, open debate on one of the 
most important bills in the time that I have been in the Senate that we 
are considering today.
  I would like to share a few more thoughts. Maybe I will have a few 
minutes left for Senator Lieberman. I know he wants more time than he 
has gotten so far. Senator Kennedy is maneuvering for me to give him 
some of my time and maybe I will be able to do that.
  The earned-income tax credit will not be taken away from people who 
are illegally in the country today if my amendment is passed. The 
earned-income tax credit is a credit given to working individuals who 
have lower incomes to encourage people to work. That is what it is all 
about. It is for Americans and people legally here.
  So what I propose is that we do not provide this, on average, almost 
$2,000-per-year paycheck from the U.S. Government, to people who came 
into the

[[Page S7140]]

country illegally and were given this probationary card status through 
their Z card status.
  I am not offering an amendment to take the earned-income tax credit 
away after they become legal permanent residents. So if they become a 
legal permanent resident, they would be entitled to have the earned-
income tax credit.
  Last year I offered an amendment that said that you would not get the 
earned-income tax credit until you became an actual citizen. That was 
voted down. Why? I still am not sure. I still don't think that was a 
good vote. But at least we ought not to give this credit to someone who 
was here illegally a few days ago, and now we give them some sort of 
probationary status and they immediately start getting paychecks from 
the Federal Government.
  I don't think that is what this system is about. People would be 
given a great thing. They would be given amnesty, they would be able to 
stay in the country legally, continue to work, and any family gets to 
stay with them. All of this is in this piece of legislation.
  A lot of people think that is too generous, but that is what this 
legislation does. The next question is: What else do they obtain by 
virtue of having this legal status bestowed on them when they were 
illegal? They are not receiving the earned-income tax credit now. It is 
not something that is being taken away from them. It is a question of 
when are we going to bestow that additional benefit on people who were 
in our country illegally and how much of an incentive does this payment 
to them create for other people who want to come into our country 
illegally?
  That is some of the confusion we have. In my view, the first thing 
you do to reduce the flow of illegal immigration into the country is to 
quit rewarding it by Federal largesse. That is the first thing. If you 
cannot go out and arrest everybody--and that is not practical--and we 
are not going to do these other things, at least don't give people 
extra financial benefits as a reward to coming into our country 
illegally.
  I am very concerned about that. I think that it is not a little bitty 
matter because the--Madam President, I would ask that I be notified 
when there is 5 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So what I would say to my colleagues is, this is going 
to cost a lot of money. You do not have to be trained in economics to 
understand that money comes from somebody. Who does the money come 
from? It comes from American workers and taxpayers, many of whom are 
having their wages depressed as a result of this huge flow of illegal 
labor. They are being asked to pay an earned-income tax credit check of 
$1,800, on average, to individuals who were illegal a few months before 
and possibly still have not completed the full background check. They 
still may not have completed the process to go to even a Z visa. Then 
they may be in a Z visa status for some time.
  I know it is said it is not amnesty because they have to pay a fine. 
How much is the fine? $1,000. They pay a $1,000 fine. Well, they do not 
actually pay a $1,000 fine. When they get this probationary status 
visa, they only pay $200. They pay the rest of it on an installment. 
Nobody has stated and set out how they are going to pay it. Presumably, 
they can pay it for 8 years or more.
  So a person here illegally under the legislation that is now before 
us, that person would obtain legal status in the country, be able to 
work, and would then be entitled to receive an earned-income tax 
credit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So they would receive that earned-income tax credit, 
which would be, on average, almost $2,000, and they would pay only 
$200. Now, that is a pretty good deal, if you can get it, it seems to 
me. It is not necessary. It is not necessary as a matter of law, and it 
is not necessary as a matter of morality. It is certainly contrary to 
sound principles of Government. We should not do that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is an amendment 
that would impact our Treasury by perhaps, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, $10 billion in the next 10 years--$10 
billion. So it is quite a sizable chunk.
  Madam President, I see my friend, Senator Lieberman is here. I yield 
the remainder of the time I have left to him. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                           amendment no. 1191

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend, Senator Sessions. 
I appreciate his kind gesture. That brings me back within 30 seconds of 
what I originally had. I appreciate that.
  I am going to speak on amendment No. 1191, which is set down for a 
vote this evening. This is an amendment that would improve our Nation's 
treatment of asylum seekers, that is, people who come to our shores 
seeking refuge from persecution they have suffered in their home 
countries based on race, religion, nationality or political conviction.
  As far as I know, this is the only amendment on the treatment of 
those seeking asylum that will be considered as part of this 
comprehensive immigration legislation. I offer this amendment because 
the Congressionally chartered Commission on International Religious 
Freedom has told us that our country, our Government, is failing in its 
historic duty to those ``longing to breathe free'' from the Statue of 
Liberty.
  I believe, as the Commission outlined, we can address this serious 
challenge at very little expense, with no adverse affect on our 
Nation's security, and without impairing immigration enforcement 
operations. It is the right thing to do. It is consistent with our best 
values in our history. In fact, as you know, our Founding Fathers 
understood the Nation's role to be not just a haven for those seeking 
freedom but a haven for those seeking freedom from persecution.
  Thomas Jefferson once likened the United States to a ``New Canaan,'' 
the Biblical Canaan in mind, where victims of persecution, and I am 
quoting here, ``will be received as brothers and secured against like 
oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government.''
  That is exactly what America has become. To the great benefit of this 
country, some of the greatest Americans in our history came here as 
refugees seeking asylum from persecution. Nobel Laureates Albert 
Einstein and Thomas Mann became neighbors in Princeton, NJ. Henry 
Kissinger and Madeline Albright came with their families to the United 
States, fleeing from the Nazis and Communists, respectively, and went 
on, of course, to become Secretaries of State.
  If I might, on a point of personal privilege say, most special to me, 
on a day in 1949, then a child, my wife, Hadassah Freilich Lieberman, 
came here with her parents seeking asylum from Communist 
Czechoslovakia. This national duty to those fleeing persecution is 
emblazoned in a particular stanza on the Statue of Liberty that says:

     Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
     A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the
     imprisoned lightning,
     And her name . . . Mother of Exiles.

  Yet despite that lofty sentiment, too often today we are apparently 
turning asylum seekers away without the proper hearings guaranteed them 
by law, or confining them in prison conditions alongside convicted 
criminals while their cases are pending. That is what the U.S. 
Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported to Congress. 
This group was established, I am proud to say, in 1998, pursuant to 
legislation I introduced along with then-Senator Nickles and still, 
fortunately, Senator Specter.
  It was aimed at strengthening our Government advocacy on behalf of 
individuals around the world who were being persecuted for their faith. 
Congress in the year that we established the Commission on 
International Religious Freedom also expressed its concern that 
recently enacted expedited removal procedures might be causing our own 
Government to mistreat victims of oppression, religious oppression, who 
came to the United States seeking asylum.

[[Page S7141]]

  To find out if this was happening, Congress directed the newly 
established Commission to study the treatment of asylum seekers. The 
Commission conducted a comprehensive investigation and released a 
report in February of 2005 that was quite critical of the procedures of 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  The report's recommendations were reasonable and straightforward. 
Unfortunately, 2 years passed. I persistently asked officials at the 
Department of Homeland Security when it would respond to the report and 
was always told the same: The recommendations are under review.
  It appeared that little or nothing was being done. In fact, this 
February, 2007, the Religious Freedom Commission itself issued a 
blistering report 2 years after its initial report in which it gave out 
grades. The Customs and Border Patrol Agency received an F with respect 
to its treatment of asylum seekers. The Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement Agency received mostly Fs, and an overall grade of D. The 
Department of Homeland Security itself generally received an overall 
grade of D as well in its treatment of those claiming to be coming to 
America to seek asylum from persecution--religious, racial, nationality 
or based on political conviction.
  That is unacceptable. Remember it was Congress that originally 
expressed concern about the treatment of asylum seekers. It was 
Congress that directed the Commission it had created to study whether 
there is a problem, was a problem, and now, in this Congress, as part 
of this comprehensive immigration reform bill, it must be Congress that 
will fix the problems the Commission has found.
  That is why I introduced separate legislation earlier this year and 
then filed this amendment. I am pleased to say it appears I have come 
to some agreement with the Department of Homeland Security on a 
modified version of the amendment which I hope will be broadly 
supported by my colleagues.
  It implements the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom and will improve our treatment of those 
who come to our shores claiming they seek asylum from persecution.
  We have made a number of changes to address the concerns the 
Department of Homeland Security brought to us. I am pleased to describe 
them briefly.
  The Commission on Religious Freedom found that too often the 
Department of Homeland Security was returning asylum seekers to 
countries where they were persecuted without giving them a chance to 
adequately make their case that they had a credible basis for their 
claims of persecution. Often employees of the Department of Homeland 
Security were failing to even ask these asylum seekers if they feared 
persecution, as required by Department procedures, before they were 
removed. This amendment would require what might be called simple 
quality assurance procedures so that the Department of Homeland 
Security can ensure its practices comply with its policies.
  Secondly, virtually all the defense facilities the Department of 
Homeland Security uses are run as maximum security prisons, and in many 
cases those seeking asylum in this country, because they claim to be 
fleeing countries that were persecuting them, those detainees are 
forced to share cells with convicted criminals in maximum security 
prisons, sometimes in county jails. This is not appropriate for asylum 
seekers and other detainees who are not criminals and are not being 
criminally prosecuted. This amendment would require better Department 
of Homeland Security standards for those detention facilities to make 
them more consistent with our best values and the words that are 
emblazoned on the Statute of Liberty. This amendment would also 
encourage the development of more appropriate facilities for asylum 
seekers and families with children. These would be modeled after two 
secure but less restrictive facilities that the Department of Homeland 
Security already operates, one in Florida and the other in 
Pennsylvania.
  The amendment will also encourage the expansion of secure 
alternatives to detention such as supervised release programs. Congress 
has already funded programs of this kind, and they have been 
successful. The amendment ensures the Department of Homeland Security 
will conduct vigorous oversight of the detention facilities it uses so 
the facilities, in fact, are complying with Department standards.
  It is time we put in place and enforce safeguards to ensure people 
fleeing persecution are treated humanely and in accordance not just 
with our Nation's laws but with our best values.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.


                    Amendment No. 1191, as Modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I have a modification to the amendment, which I send 
to the desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

               Subtitle __Asylum and Detention Safeguards

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Secure and Safe 
     Detention and Asylum Act''.

     SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Credible fear of persecution.--The term ``credible fear 
     of persecution'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     235(b)(1)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(v)).
       (2) Detainee.--The term ``detainee'' means an alien in the 
     custody of the Department of Homeland Security who is held in 
     a detention facility.
       (3) Detention facility.--The term ``detention facility'' 
     means any Federal facility in which an alien detained pending 
     the outcome of a removal proceeding, or an alien detained 
     pending the execution of a final order of removal, is 
     detained for more than 72 hours, or any other facility in 
     which such detention services are provided to the Federal 
     Government by contract, and does not include detention at any 
     port of entry in the United States.
       (4) Reasonable fear of persecution or torture.--The term 
     ``reasonable fear of persecution or torture'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 208.31 of title 8, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (5) Standard.--The term ``standard'' means any policy, 
     procedure, or other requirement.

     SEC. __03. RECORDING EXPEDITED REMOVAL INTERVIEWS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish quality 
     assurance procedures and take steps to effectively ensure 
     that questions by employees of the Department exercising 
     expedited removal authority under section 235(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)) are asked 
     in a standard manner, and that both these questions and the 
     answers provided in response to them are recorded in a 
     uniform fashion.
       (b) Factors Relating to Sworn Statements.--Where 
     practicable, as determined by the Secretary in his 
     discretion, any sworn or signed written statement taken of an 
     alien as part of the record of a proceeding under section 
     235(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1225(b)(1)(A)) shall be accompanied by a recording of the 
     interview which served as the basis for that sworn statement.
       (c) Exemption Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to 
     interviews that occur at facilities, locations, or areas 
     exempted by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection.
       (2) Exemption.--The Secretary or the Secretary's designee 
     may exempt any facility, location, or area from the 
     requirements of this section based on a determination by the 
     Secretary or the Secretary's designee that compliance with 
     subsection (b) at that facility would impair operations or 
     impose undue burdens or costs.
       (3) Report.--The Secretary or the Secretary's designee 
     shall report annually to Congress on the facilities that have 
     been exempted pursuant to this subsection.
       (d) Interpreters.--The Secretary shall ensure that a 
     competent interpreter, not affiliated with the government of 
     the country from which the alien may claim asylum, is used 
     when the interviewing officer does not speak a language 
     understood by the alien and there is no other Federal, State, 
     or local government employee available who is able to 
     interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially.
       (e) Recordings in Immigration Proceedings.--Recordings of 
     interviews of aliens subject to expedited removal shall be 
     included in the record of proceeding and may be considered as 
     evidence in any further proceedings involving the alien.
       (f) No Private Right of Action.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to create any right, benefit, trust, or 
     responsibility, whether substantive or procedural, 
     enforceable in law or equity by a party against the United 
     States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, 
     entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any person, nor 
     does this section create any right of review in any 
     administrative, judicial, or other proceeding.

[[Page S7142]]

     SEC. __04. OPTIONS REGARDING DETENTION DECISIONS.

       Section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1226) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the first sentence by striking ``Attorney General'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence by striking ``Attorney 
     General'' and inserting ``Secretary'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary''; and
       (II) by striking ``or'' at the end;

       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``but'' at the end; 
     and
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) the alien's own recognizance; or
       ``(D) a secure alternatives program as provided for in this 
     section; but'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Attorney General'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary'' each place it appears; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or for humanitarian 
     reasons,'' after ``such an investigation,''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Attorney General'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), in subparagraphs (A) and (B), by 
     striking ``Service'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Department of Homeland Security''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Service'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.

     SEC. __05. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PAROLE PROCEDURES AND 
                   STANDARDIZATION OF PAROLE PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall jointly conduct a review and report 
     to the appropriate Committees of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives within 180 days of the date of enactment of 
     this Act regarding the effectiveness of parole and custody 
     determination procedures applicable to aliens who have 
     established a credible fear of persecution and are awaiting a 
     final determination regarding their asylum claim by the 
     immigration courts. The report shall include the following:
       (1) An analysis of the rate at which release from detention 
     (including release on parole) is granted to aliens who have 
     established a credible fear of persecution and are awaiting a 
     final determination regarding their asylum claim by the 
     immigration courts throughout the United States, and any 
     disparity that exists between locations or geographical 
     areas, including explanation of the reasons for this 
     disparity and what actions are being taken to have consistent 
     and uniform application of the standards for granting parole.
       (2) An analysis of the effect of the procedures and 
     policies applied with respect to parole and custody 
     determinations both by the Attorney General and the Secretary 
     on the alien's pursuit of their asylum claim before an 
     immigration court.
       (3) An analysis of the effect of the procedures and 
     policies applied with respect to parole and custody 
     determinations both by the Attorney General and the Secretary 
     on the alien's physical and psychological well-being.
       (4) An analysis of the effectiveness of the procedures and 
     policies applied with respect to parole and custody 
     determinations both by the Attorney General and the Secretary 
     in securing the alien's presence at the immigration court 
     proceedings.
       (b) Recommendations.--The report shall include 
     recommendations with respect to whether the existing parole 
     and custody determination procedures applicable to aliens who 
     have established a credible fear of persecution and are 
     awaiting a final determination regarding their asylum claim 
     by the immigration courts should be modified in order to 
     ensure a more consistent application of these procedures in a 
     way that both respects the interests of aliens pursuing valid 
     claims of asylum and ensures the presence of the aliens at 
     the immigration court proceedings.

     SEC. __06. LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall ensure that all 
     detained aliens in immigration and asylum proceedings receive 
     legal orientation through a program administered and 
     implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review of 
     the Department of Justice.
       (b) Content of Program.--The legal orientation program 
     developed pursuant to this section shall be based on the 
     Legal Orientation Program carried out by the Executive Office 
     for Immigration Review on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Expansion of Legal Assistance.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure the expansion through the United States Citizenship 
     and Immigration Service of public-private partnerships that 
     facilitate pro bono counseling and legal assistance for 
     aliens awaiting a credible fear of persecution interview or 
     an interview related to a reasonable fear of persecution or 
     torture determination under section 241(b)(3).

     SEC. __07. CONDITIONS OF DETENTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that standards 
     governing conditions and procedures at detention facilities 
     are fully implemented and enforced, and that all detention 
     facilities comply with the standards.
       (b) Procedures and Standards.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate new standards, or modify existing detention 
     standards, to comply with the following policies and 
     procedures:
       (1) Fair and humane treatment.--Procedures to prevent 
     detainees from being subject to degrading or inhumane 
     treatment such as physical abuse, sexual abuse or harassment, 
     or arbitrary punishment.
       (2) Limitations on solitary confinement.--Procedures 
     limiting the use of solitary confinement, shackling, and 
     strip searches of detainees to situations where the use of 
     such techniques is necessitated by security interests, the 
     safety of officers and other detainees, or other 
     extraordinary circumstances.
       (3) Investigation of grievances.--Procedures for the prompt 
     and effective investigation of grievances raised by 
     detainees.
       (4) Access to telephones.--Procedures permitting detainees 
     sufficient access to telephones, and the ability to contact, 
     free of charge, legal representatives, the immigration 
     courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Federal 
     courts through confidential toll-free numbers.
       (5) Location of facilities.--Location of detention 
     facilities, to the extent practicable, near sources of free 
     or low-cost legal representation with expertise in asylum or 
     immigration law.
       (6) Procedures governing transfers of detainees.--
     Procedures governing the transfer of a detainee that take 
     into account--
       (A) the detainee's access to legal representatives; and
       (B) the proximity of the facility to the venue of the 
     asylum or removal proceeding.
       (7) Quality of medical care.--
       (A) In general.--Essential medical care provided promptly 
     at no cost to the detainee, including dental care, eye care, 
     mental health care, and where appropriate, individual and 
     group counseling, medical dietary needs, and other medically 
     necessary specialized care. Medical facilities in all 
     detention facilities used by the Department maintain current 
     accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional 
     Health Care (NCCHC). Requirements that each medical facility 
     that is not accredited by the Joint Commission on the 
     Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) will seek 
     to obtain such accreditation. Maintenance of complete medical 
     records for every detainee which shall be made available upon 
     request to a detainee, his legal representative, or other 
     authorized individuals.
       (B) Exception.--A detention facility that is not operated 
     by the Department of Homeland Security or by a private 
     contractor on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security 
     shall not be required to maintain current accreditation by 
     the NCCHC or to seek accreditation by the JCAHO.
       (8) Translation capabilities.--The employment of detention 
     facility staff that, to the extent practicable, are qualified 
     in the languages represented in the population of detainees 
     at a detention facility, and the provision of alternative 
     translation services when necessary.
       (9) Recreational programs and activities.--Frequent access 
     to indoor and outdoor recreational programs and activities.
       (c) Special Standards for Noncriminal Detainees.--The 
     Secretary shall promulgate new standards, or modifications to 
     existing standards, that--
       (1) recognize the distinctions between persons with 
     criminal convictions or a history of violent behavior and all 
     other detainees; and
       (2) ensure that procedures and conditions of detention are 
     appropriate for a noncriminal, nonviolent population.
       (d) Special Standards for Specific Populations.--The 
     Secretary shall promulgate new standards, or modifications to 
     existing standards, that--
       (1) recognize the unique needs of--
       (A) victims of persecution, torture, trafficking, and 
     domestic violence;
       (B) families with children;
       (C) detainees who do not speak English; and
       (D) detainees with special religious, cultural, or 
     spiritual considerations; and
       (2) ensure that procedures and conditions of detention are 
     appropriate for the populations described in paragraph (1).
       (e) Training of Personnel.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that personnel 
     in detention facilities are given specialized training to 
     better understand and work with the population of detainees 
     held at the facilities where such personnel work. The 
     training should address the unique needs of--
       (A) aliens who have established credible fear of 
     persecution;
       (B) victims of torture or other trauma and victims of 
     persecution, trafficking, and domestic violence; and
       (C) families with children, detainees who do not speak 
     English, and detainees with special religious, cultural, or 
     spiritual considerations.
       (2) Specialized training.--The training required by this 
     subsection shall be designed to better enable personnel to 
     work with detainees from different countries, and detainees 
     who cannot speak English. The training shall emphasize that 
     many detainees have no criminal records and are being held 
     for civil violations.
       (f) No Private Right of Action.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to create any right, benefit, trust, or 
     responsibility,

[[Page S7143]]

     whether substantive or procedural, enforceable in law or 
     equity by a party against the United States, its departments, 
     agencies, instrumentalities, entities, officers, employees, 
     or agents, or any person, nor does this section create any 
     right of review in any administrative, judicial, or other 
     proceeding.

     SEC. __08. OFFICE OF DETENTION OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Establishment of the Office.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be established within the 
     Department an Office of Detention Oversight (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Office'').
       (2) Head of the office.--There shall be at the head of the 
     Office an Administrator. At the discretion of the Secretary, 
     the Administrator of the Office shall be appointed by, and 
     shall report to, either the Secretary or the Assistant 
     Secretary of Homeland Security for United States Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement. The Office shall be independent of 
     the Office of Detention and Removal Operations, but shall be 
     subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary or 
     Assistant Secretary.
       (3) Schedule.--The Office shall be established and the 
     Administrator of the Office appointed not later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Responsibilities of the Office.--
       (1) Inspections of detention centers.--The Administrator of 
     the Office shall--
       (A) undertake regular and, where appropriate, unannounced 
     inspections of all detention facilities;
       (B) develop a procedure for any detainee or the detainee's 
     representative to file a confidential written complaint 
     directly with the Office; and
       (C) report to the Secretary and to the Assistant Secretary 
     all findings of a detention facility's noncompliance with 
     detention standards.
       (2) Investigations.--The Administrator of the Office 
     shall--
       (A) initiate investigations, as appropriate, into 
     allegations of systemic problems at detention facilities or 
     incidents that constitute serious violations of detention 
     standards;
       (B) conduct any review or audit relating to detention as 
     directed by the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary;
       (C) report to the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary the 
     results of all investigations, reviews, or audits; and
       (D) refer matters, where appropriate, for further action 
     to--
       (i) the Department of Justice;
       (ii) the Office of the Inspector General of the Department;
       (iii) the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the 
     Department; or
       (iv) any other relevant office or agency.
       (3) Report to congress.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator of the Office shall 
     submit to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives an annual report on 
     the Administrator's findings on detention conditions and the 
     results of the completed investigations carried out by the 
     Administrator.
       (B) Contents of report.--Each report required by 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) a description of--

       (I) each detention facility found to be in noncompliance 
     with the standards for detention required by this subtitle; 
     and
       (II) the actions taken by the Department to remedy any 
     findings of noncompliance or other identified problems; and

       (ii) information regarding whether such actions were 
     successful and resulted in compliance with detention 
     standards.
       (c) Cooperation With Other Offices and Agencies.--Whenever 
     appropriate, the Administrator of the Office shall cooperate 
     and coordinate its activities with--
       (1) the Office of the Inspector General of the Department;
       (2) the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the 
     Department;
       (3) the Privacy Officer of the Department;
       (4) the Department of Justice; or
       (5) any other relevant office or agency.

     SEC. __09. SECURE ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a secure alternatives program under which an alien 
     who has been detained may be released under enhanced 
     supervision to prevent the alien from absconding and to 
     ensure that the alien makes appearances related to such 
     detention.
       (b) Program Requirements.--
       (1) Nationwide implementation.--The Secretary shall 
     facilitate the development of the secure alternatives program 
     on a nationwide basis, as a continuation of existing pilot 
     programs such as the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program 
     developed by the Department.
       (2) Utilization of alternatives.--In facilitating the 
     development of the secure alternatives program, the Secretary 
     shall have discretion to utilize a continuum of alternatives 
     to a supervision of the alien, including placement of the 
     alien with an individual or organizational sponsor, or in a 
     supervised group home.
       (3) Aliens eligible for secure alternatives program.--
       (A) In general.--Aliens who would otherwise be subject to 
     detention based on a consideration of the release criteria in 
     section 236(b)(2), or who are released pursuant to section 
     236(c)(2), shall be considered for the secure alternatives 
     program.
       (B) Design of programs.--In developing the secure 
     alternatives program, the Secretary shall take into account 
     the extent to which the program includes only those 
     alternatives to detention that reasonably and reliably 
     ensure--
       (i) the alien's continued presence at all future 
     immigration proceedings;
       (ii) the alien's compliance with any future order or 
     removal; and
       (iii) the public safety or national security.
       (C) Continued evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate 
     regularly the effectiveness of the program, including the 
     effectiveness of the particular alternatives to detention 
     used under the program, and make such modifications as the 
     Secretary deems necessary to improve the program's 
     effectiveness or to deter abuse.
       (4) Contracts and other considerations.--The Secretary may 
     enter into contracts with qualified nongovernmental entities 
     to implement the secure alternatives program and, in 
     designing such program, shall consult with relevant experts 
     and consider programs that have proven successful in the 
     past.

     SEC. __10. LESS RESTRICTIVE DETENTION FACILITIES.

       (a) Construction.--To the extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall facilitate the construction or use of secure but less 
     restrictive detention facilities for the purpose of long-term 
     detention where detainees are held longer than 72 hours.
       (b) Criteria.--In pursuing the development of detention 
     facilities pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall--
       (1) consider the design, operation, and conditions of 
     existing secure but less restrictive detention facilities; 
     and
       (2) to the extent practicable, construct or use detention 
     facilities where--
       (A) movement within and between indoor and outdoor areas of 
     the facility is subject to minimal restrictions;
       (B) detainees have ready access to social, psychological, 
     and medical services;
       (C) detainees with special needs, including those who have 
     experienced trauma or torture, have ready access to services 
     and treatment addressing their needs;
       (D) detainees have frequent access to programs and 
     recreation;
       (E) detainees are permitted contact visits with legal 
     representatives and family members; and
       (F) special facilities are provided to families with 
     children.
       (c) Facilities for Families With Children.--In any case in 
     which release or secure alternatives programs are not a 
     practicable option, the Secretary shall, to the extent 
     practicable, ensure that special detention facilities for the 
     purposes of long-term detention where detainees are held 
     longer than 72 hours are specifically designed to house 
     parents with their minor children, including ensuring that--
       (1) procedures and conditions of detention are appropriate 
     for families with minor children; and
       (2) living and sleeping quarters for children under 14 
     years of age are not physically separated from at least 1 of 
     the child's parents.
       (d) Placement in Nonpunitive Facilities.--Among the factors 
     to be considered with respect to placing a detainee in a less 
     restrictive facility is whether the detainee is--
       (1) part of a family with minor children;
       (2) a victim of persecution, torture, trafficking, or 
     domestic violence; or
       (3) a nonviolent, noncriminal detainee.
       (e) Procedures and Standards.--Where necessary, the 
     Secretary shall promulgate new standards, or modify existing 
     detention standards, to promote the development of less 
     restrictive detention facilities.
       (f) No Private Right of Action.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to create any right, benefit, trust, or 
     responsibility, whether substantive or procedural, 
     enforceable in law or equity by a party against the United 
     States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, 
     entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any person, nor 
     does this section create any right of review in any 
     administrative, judicial, or other proceeding.

     SEC. __11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this subtitle.
       (b) Effective Date.--This subtitle and the amendments made 
     by this subtitle shall take effect on the date that is 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it is my understanding that based on 
the agreement we have reached after negotiation with the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Senate is prepared to agree to the amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent that occur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1191), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. This will mean the amendment now listed as No. 6 of 
those

[[Page S7144]]

to be voted upon would no longer have to be voted upon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the remainder of 
the time.


                           Amendment No. 1250

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of my earlier 
amendment which would take the blinders off law enforcement personnel 
when it comes to investigating fraud and other wrongful and even 
criminal conduct on the part of those who are claiming an advantage 
under this legislation, as well as third parties who might be 
implicated in fraud or other criminality.
  I would first like to respond to Senator Kennedy's comments, and then 
I want to speak to the Menendez amendment briefly. Senator Kennedy 
earlier claimed my amendment eliminated all kinds of protections of 
confidentiality. He said he provided a level of protection of 
confidentiality for individuals so it will encourage them to come 
forward and file their applications for Z visas, and he is worried if 
we allow law enforcement access to that information to investigate 
third party fraud or other criminality, the applicants for the Z visas 
will not be willing to come forward.
  It should be noted that my amendment does not eliminate all 
protections. It simply ensures law enforcement has access to 
information for those who cannot qualify for Z status under the terms 
of the underlying bill, including those who are criminals and 
absconders who have reflected their prior disregard for our laws. Also, 
despite Senator Kennedy's claim, their proposal still protects 
information for aliens who have committed crimes but have not been 
convicted and are denied Z status. My amendment would make that 
information available to law enforcement personnel in the discharge of 
their official duties.
  Furthermore, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
acknowledges there was fraud in sworn affidavits and claims.
  He said he is now alluding to the 1986 fraud under the agricultural 
amnesty bill that I mentioned in my earlier remarks and which were the 
subject of a New York Times article dated November 12, 1989. He said we 
took action in this legislation to fix it.
  First, let me express my appreciation to the Senator for 
acknowledging that the third party affidavits that were used to qualify 
for benefits in 1986 were a large source of fraud.
  I see nothing in the bill that would ensure that fraudulent sworn 
affidavits, especially those provided by third parties, are accessible 
to law enforcement to prosecute the fraud.
  This type of fraud remains protected and thus we haven't come very 
far from the problems we encountered in the 1986 amnesty.
  Senator Kennedy says we must guarantee confidentiality.
  He said:

       If we expect individuals to participate in that system, we 
     have to guarantee their confidentiality. It's enormously 
     important. This system isn't going to function and work 
     unless we do.

  What my esteemed colleague is essentially saying is, we need to 
protect those who have violated our laws, even committed felonies and 
other crimes for which they have not yet been convicted, because they 
would not come out of the shadows and register.
  The point is, it is more than just coming out of the shadows. It is 
giving legal status to a person who has arguably violated our laws and 
put them on a path to citizenship, denying law enforcement the 
opportunity to investigate and to prosecute where appropriate.
  Further, we are essentially binding the hands of law enforcement 
because even if they wanted to prosecute these individuals and remove 
them from the country, they couldn't get the evidence needed to make 
the case, nor could they remove the person because by merely applying 
for Z status, they get the protection from removal.
  Is that really what we want to say to our country about who should be 
permitted to remain in the United States? I think not. Nothing in my 
amendment would affect the ability of those who have entered the 
country in violation of our immigration laws or who have simply 
overstayed their visa or even those who have produced false documents 
in order to gain access to work. My amendment would not even address 
any of those individuals. This present amendment would not do that.
  But, surely, we want to remove the cloak of confidentiality, the 
blinders, from our law enforcement personnel that would allow them to 
investigate cases of fraud, wrongful conduct, and other criminality.
  I remain flabbergasted that the proponents of this bill would embrace 
this sort of provision. I would think what they would want to do is 
restore public confidence that we are actually reestablishing the rule 
of law when it comes to this broken immigration system. If anything, 
this serves to confirm the worst fears of skeptics about this bill 
because, frankly, it does nothing but confirm their worst fears that 
this is a vehicle for perpetuating the same sort of mistakes we 
encountered in the 1986 legislation, but apparently those lessons were 
not learned.


                           Amendment No. 1194

  I want to speak briefly about the amendment offered by Senator 
Menendez while he is on the Senate floor regarding those who want to 
immigrate to our country, but particularly those who have respected our 
laws and who have waited patiently in line.

  I am particularly troubled by the situation that his amendment is 
designed to remedy because the proponents of the underlying bill have 
said: We are not going to allow any line jumping. We are going to 
provide an opportunity for those who have violated the law to get right 
with the law, but we are not going to do so to the detriment of people 
who have followed the rules and waited patiently in line, expecting 
that their application for a visa or legal permanent residency would be 
acted on. As I said before the recess, this is a very important 
principle to me. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and crucial to 
the integrity of not only our immigration system but 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 before someone who 
has respected our laws and waited in line for a chance to enter the 
country legally.
  I am not talking about the claim that those who wait in line legally 
have to do it in their home country while someone who is here illegally 
and obtains a Z card can wait in country. That certainly is an issue. 
Those who are here illegally are getting the advantage over and above 
those who have made the decision to obey our laws waiting patiently 
outside the country. Even Secretary Chertoff, a key negotiator of the 
compromise, admits in a USA Today article that there is a ``fundamental 
unfairness'' anytime illegal immigrants are permitted to stay in 
country, while those who have respected our laws wait patiently outside 
of the country. I am afraid we make what even Secretary Chertoff admits 
is a ``fundamental unfairness'' that much more unfair in the underlying 
bill. To their credit, proponents of this compromise have stated that 
the proposal would not allow anyone who came here illegally to obtain 
their green card until everyone who chose to follow the law gets their 
green card. That is a laudable goal, and that should be our goal. But 
to achieve this goal, the compromise arbitrarily sets the cutoff date 
for legally ``being in line'' at May 1, 2005, while setting the date 
for the end of the line for those illegally here at January 1, 2007.
  As an illustration, this means someone who chose to respect our 
immigration laws, chose not to enter illegally, and filed the proper 
immigration paperwork on June 1, 2005, is not considered to be ``in 
line'' under the terms of this bill, while someone who decided not to 
respect the laws and enter illegally on the same date can obtain a Z 
status and ultimately secure American citizenship.
  My staff has met with a number of groups who have focused on this 
particular problem. I know Senator Menendez has been listening to their 
same concerns. The Asian American Justice Center in particular has made 
compelling arguments that declaring the end of the line for legal 
immigration as May 1, 2005, is unfair. Other groups, including the 
Interfaith Immigration Coalition, the Jewish Council for Public 
Affairs, the U.S. Conference of Bishops, the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund have written to my office to explain that 
those people who played by the

[[Page S7145]]

rules and applied after May 1, 2005, will not be cleared as part of the 
family backlog pursuant to the terms of the bill and will lose their 
chance to immigrate under current rules and be placed in line behind Z 
visa applicants. Some of these groups report that more than 800,000 
people who have patiently waited in line will in essence be kicked out 
of the line.
  I understand the Menendez amendment will be voted on soon. It 
addresses an important issue, ensuring that those who decided to abide 
by the laws will not be disadvantaged simply because they chose not to 
come here illegally.
  As I said, I have been struggling with this over the past couple 
weeks because this is a matter of fundamental fairness. So I continue 
to consider this amendment. I know others are likewise considering it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1250

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided on 
amendment No. 1250.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand we have 2 minutes equally 
divided before the vote.
  Simply stated for my colleagues, my amendment would remove the 
blinders that would prevent law enforcement from investigating and 
prosecuting wrongful conduct, including fraud and criminality.
  I would think if there is one thing we learned from the 1986 amnesty, 
this type of confidentiality provision, if it protects any information 
to be gleaned from the applications of those who have actually been 
denied Z visas, it would be that we should pursue and support this kind 
of amendment which would help law enforcement and, even more 
importantly, help restore public confidence that we are not playing 
games with them but that we are actually serious about restoring the 
rule of law when it comes to our broken immigration system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Cornyn amendment attacks the whole 
issue of confidentiality for these undocumented aliens. If the Cornyn 
amendment is adopted, there are no individuals who are going to 
register for any of these programs--none--because all their information 
will be available.
  This is a report-to-deport amendment. How are you going to convince 
individuals to come in and register for the Z visa program or any of 
the programs if they know all of their information is going to go to 
the Immigration Service and every other agency?
  With regard to criminality, with regard to terrorism, with regard to 
all the fraud and all the abuse, we have put in here careful 
protections. Those kinds of protections are supported by Jon Kyl, by 
other Republican Members, and by all of us here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If you accept the Cornyn amendment, it effectively 
undermines all confidentiality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate everyone allowing me to say a 
few words before the vote starts. We have six votes that will take 
place. Any minute, the votes will start. We worked out an agreement--
tentative in nature, but I think it is fairly firm--we will have six 
more votes tonight. I want to alert Members we will have more votes 
tonight. It could be a late night, for sure.
  When that is all completed, we will have had--I do not know the exact 
number--35 votes, or something like that, and it is evenly divided 
between Democrats and Republicans. There is one vote difference as to 
who offered the amendment. But I think we have made a lot of progress.
  I hope people feel they are having an opportunity to have their 
voices heard in this regard. Within a short few votes, we will 
certainly have had more votes than we had last year. I am not sure that 
is a good guide for anything, but that is at least what we will be able 
to show everyone. I hope people would be able to see that the end is in 
sight.
  Remember, if cloture is invoked on this matter, we will have 30 hours 
more of amendments. As I have indicated to my friend, the distinguished 
junior Senator from Arizona and others, upon being asked the question 
whether all these postcloture votes would take place, the answer is, we 
are not going to be blocking any people from voting on germane 
amendments.
  I hope everyone understands it will be a late night tonight, and we 
will start early in the morning.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Cornyn amendment No. 1250.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dodd
     Johnson
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 1250) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1331

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes evenly divided on 
the Reid amendment, No. 1331.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit is an important 
program that benefits low-income workers with children who are legally 
working in this country. Those working illegally in this country are 
ineligible for the earned-income tax credit.
  This amendment makes it perfectly clear that nothing in the bill 
changes the prohibition of an illegal alien's access to the earned-
income tax credit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is not a cover vote. It is not a 
cover vote at all. It leaves the bill exactly as it was. The problem 
with the legislation is that those people who are today illegal and 
would be made legal through the probationary status visa or the Z visa 
would be entitled to receive the earned-income tax credit, which is, on 
average, nearly $1,800 per recipient. That earned-income tax credit is 
a direct payment from the taxpayers of America.
  This amendment--unlike the vote you cast last year when I raised it--
would allow the earned-income tax credit when you get a green card but 
not when you are on a Z visa or probationary visa. So this is less far-
reaching than the amendment I offered last year.
  I urge that this amendment not be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1331.

[[Page S7146]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1331) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1234

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided before 
the vote on the Sessions amendment No. 1234.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, who is eligible for the earned-income tax 
credit? Legal workers. They work. Who are the beneficiaries of the 
earned-income tax credit? Ninety-eight percent of it goes to poor 
children. What country in the world has the greatest percent of poor 
children? The United States of America. Ninety-eight percent of the 
benefits of the earned tax credit go to poor children, and many of them 
are American children.
  In the history of the Internal Revenue Code, we have never excluded a 
class. We have treated everyone equally. The Sessions amendment for the 
first time in the history of the United States of America is going to 
say: Workers who are here legally are going to be denied the earned-
income tax credit that can benefit their children who are looking for a 
better future.
  I hope the Sessions amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit was 
designed and has been in effect as a support for American workers. That 
is what it is. Four million people who do not have children receive it.
  This amendment says those people who are here illegally today who are 
made legal under this bill through the Z visa or the probationary 
status who have not yet obtained legal permanent residence would not 
get this benefit. The people are supposed to pay a fine, $1,000. They 
only have to pay $200. They pay that $200 fine, sign up, and they get a 
$2,000 earned-income tax credit, which is basically a check from the 
United States Government.
  The people who are here illegally would be, under this bill, made 
legal, be allowed to work. They are not receiving earned-income tax 
credit today. There is no moral, legal, or principled reason to give 
them that in the future until they become a legal permanent resident.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1234.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1234) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1194

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes evenly divided before 
the vote on the Menendez amendment, No. 1194.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, under the bill before us, U.S. citizens 
have less rights than an undocumented alien. The base bill says, you 
break the law, you get benefits up to January 1, 2007. You follow the 
rule of law, and your right as an American citizen to claim your 
family, for which you have already submitted a petition, is 
extinguished as of May 1, 2005. That is fundamentally wrong.
  How do we promote the rule of law when we say to a U.S. citizen, who 
has already applied for their family member waiting abroad, paid their 
fees, the government has collected them, their application has been 
approved, they followed the rules and obeyed the law, that they have an 
inferior right--an inferior right--to someone who did not follow the 
rules and crossed the border and who will ultimately receive a benefit 
superior to that of a U.S. citizen who is claiming their family?
  Why do we tell the family of the U.S. citizen to go to the back of 
the line behind people who violated the law? This is a vote about 
family values and family reunification. This is a vote about the rule 
of law. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, this is an amendment that would 
enable people to enter the United States and become immigrants, green 
card holders, and eventually citizens, who, under the current law, have 
no expectation of ever getting those rights because they are in 
categories or are from countries in which the waiting line is so long 
that they would never, ever be able, under existing law, to become a 
U.S. citizen.
  In addition, because it would allow several hundred thousand 
immigrants to come into this country who would not otherwise be legal 
under existing law, there are three budget points of order, and, 
therefore, at the conclusion

[[Page S7147]]

of these remarks, I will be making a budget point of order. I hope my 
colleagues agree that we should not waive the budget under these 
circumstances.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment, No. 1194, to S. 1348, violates section 201, the pay-as-you-
go point of order of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2008.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I regret that we have started down this 
road. I move to waive section 201 of the concurrent resolution for 
purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1460

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided before 
the vote on the Kyl amendment No. 1460. Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, could we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate not waiving the budget in this 
last point of order. I will confess to you, I think that Senator 
Menendez had a point in saying we should only allow people who had a 
reasonable expectation to be immigrants, and those who didn't should 
not. The bill itself drew an arbitrary deadline. Senator Menendez drew 
a different arbitrary deadline. This side-by-side actually is 
constructed so that, under existing law, everyone who has a reasonable 
expectation of being allowed to immigrate under a family visa will be 
able to immigrate under a family visa. Only those people who never had 
any reasonable expectation would be denied.
  What it does is to take it out to the year 2027, 20 years from now, 
and anyone who could have had a reasonable expectation of immigrating 
within that 20-year period would be allowed to immigrate under this 
amendment. It is a more precise and fair and just way to allow family 
members to come into the United States. The numbers are approximately 
identical to those who would be allowed to immigrate under the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this. It is not more than a figleaf. It sounds great, 2027. The 
definition of ``reasonable expectation'' means absolutely nothing. The 
majority of the Senate voted to have some form, although it did not 
pass a budget point of order, to have some form of family reunification 
of U.S. citizens waiting to go be reunited with their family abroad.
  This does nothing. As a matter of fact, I have heard some of the 
children, family members of U.S. citizens, would have to wait 60 years. 
I have the State Department's report. None of them are more than 15 
years. So the reality is, this is a figleaf for those who voted against 
the last one. It does absolutely nothing for family reunification.
  Let's keep at least a strong message we do want to reunify families 
as we move this bill ahead and vote against the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 1460) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1182 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1182, the Thomas 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Thomas, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1182.

  Mr. REID. 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 authorize the Secretary to establish new units of Customs 
                            Patrol Officers)

       At the end of section 101 of the amendment, insert the 
     following:
       (c) Shadow Wolves Apprehension and Tracking.--
       (1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to 
     authorize the Secretary, acting through the Assistant 
     Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (referred to 
     in this subsection as the ``Secretary''), to establish new 
     units of Customs Patrol Officers

[[Page S7148]]

     (commonly known as ``Shadow Wolves'') during the 5-year 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Establishment of new units.--
       (A) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to 
     establish within United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement up to 5 additional units of Customs Patrol 
     Officers in accordance with this subsection, as appropriate.
       (B) Membership.--Each new unit established pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall consist of up to 15 Customs Patrol 
     Officers.
       (3) Duties.--The additional Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement units established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall operate on Indian reservations (as defined in section 3 
     of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452)) located 
     on or near (as determined by the Secretary) an international 
     border with Canada or Mexico, and such other Federal land as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate, by--
       (A) investigating and preventing the entry of terrorists, 
     other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, 
     and other contraband into the United States; and
       (B) carrying out such other duties as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as 
     are necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.

  Mr. REID. I believe there is no debate on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1182) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1272 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1272 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Schumer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1272.

  Mr. REID. 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 improve security by providing for the establishment of B-1 
     visitor visa decisionmaking guidelines and a tracking system)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. B-1 VISITOR VISA GUIDELINES AND DATA TRACKING 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) the Secretary of State shall review existing 
     regulations or internal guidelines relating to the 
     decisionmaking process with respect to the issuance of B-1 
     visas by consular officers and determine whether 
     modifications are necessary to ensure that such officers make 
     decisions with respect to the issuance of B-1 visas as 
     consistently as possible while ensuring security and 
     maintaining officer discretion over such issuance 
     determinations; and
       (B) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review 
     existing regulations or internal guidelines relating to the 
     decisionmaking process of Customs and Border Protection 
     officers concerning whether travelers holding a B-1 visitor 
     visa are admissible to the United States and the appropriate 
     length of stay and shall determine whether modifications are 
     necessary to ensure that such officers make decisions with 
     respect to travelers admissibility and length of stay as 
     consistently as possible while ensuring security and 
     maintaining officer discretion over such determinations.
       (2) Modification.--If after conducting the reviews under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of State or the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security determine that modifications to existing 
     regulations or internal guidelines, or the establishment of 
     new regulations or guidelines, are necessary, the relevant 
     Secretary shall make such modifications during the 6-month 
     period referred to in such paragraph.
       (3) Consultations.--In making determinations and preparing 
     guidelines under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State and 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with 
     appropriate stakeholders, including consular officials and 
     immigration inspectors.
       (b) Data Tracking Systems.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) the Secretary of State shall develop and implement a 
     system to track aggregate data relating to the issuance of B-
     1 visitor visas in order to ensure the consistent application 
     of the guidelines established under subsection (a)(1)(A); and
       (B) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop and 
     implement a system to track aggregate data relating to 
     admissibility decision, and length of stays under, B-1 
     visitor visas in order to ensure the consistent application 
     of the guidelines established under subsection (a)(1)(B).
       (2) Limitation.--The systems implemented under paragraph 
     (1) shall not store or track personally identifiable 
     information, except that this paragraph shall not be 
     construed to limit the application of any other system that 
     is being implemented by the Department of State or the 
     Department of Homeland Security to track travelers or travel 
     to the United States.
       (c) Public Education.--The Secretary of State and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall carry out activities to 
     provide guidance and education to the public and to visa 
     applicants concerning the nature, purposes, and availability 
     of the B-1 visa for business travelers.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 6 and 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress, 
     reports concerning the status of the implementation of this 
     section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1272) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all Senators, we now have a number of 
amendments lined up which we can vote on this evening. There will be 
about 80 minutes, an hour and a half, before the vote starts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 10 o'clock 
be for debate with respect to the following amendments and that the 
time be equally divided and controlled between the majority and 
Republican leaders or their designees, with the time to run 
concurrently; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments 
in this agreement prior to the vote; that at 10 o'clock tonight, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order 
listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, with the 
votes after the first being 10 minutes in duration; and that if the 
amendment is not pending, then it be called up now.
  The first amendment we will vote on is Clinton, No. 1183, as further 
modified; second is Ensign, No. 1374; the third one will be Salazar, 
No. 1384; fourth one is Inhofe, No. 1151; the fifth one is Hutchison, 
No. 1415; sixth is Vitter, No. 1339; seventh is Obama, No. 1202, as 
modified with the changes at the desk; and eighth is Dorgan, No. 1316.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment NO. 1374

   (Purpose: To improve the criteria and weights of the merit-based 
                           evaluation system)

       Beginning on page 262, strike line 36 and all that follows 
     through page 264, line 1, and insert the following:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Maximum
        Category                       Description               points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment                ....................................        66
Occupation                U.S. employment in specialty
                           occupation
                          (as defined by the Department of
                           Labor)-35 pts
                          Honorable Service within any branch
                           of the United States Armed Services
                           for (1) 4 years with an honorable
                           discharge, or (2) any period of
                           time pursuant to a medical
                           discharge-35 pts
                          U.S. employment in STEM or health
                           occupation, current for at least 1
                           year (extraordinary or ordinary)-35
                           pts
Employer endorsement      A U.S. employer willing to pay 50%
                           of a legal permanent resident's
                           application fee either 1) offers a
                           job, or 2) attests for a current
                           employee-23 pts
                          U.S. employment in high demand
                           occupation (the 30 occupations that
                           have grown the most in the
                           preceding 10-year period, as
                           determined by the Bureau of Labor
                           Statistics)-21 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. employment           Years of lawful employment for a
 experience                U.S. employer (in the case of
                           agricultural employment, 100 days
                           of work per year constitutes 1
                           year)-5 pts/year
                           (max 30 pts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of worker             Worker's age: 25-39-18 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education                 Graduate degree in a STEM field             50
(terminal degree)          (including the health sciences).-50
                           pts

[[Page S7149]]

 
                          Graduate degree in a non-STEM field-
                           34 pts
                          Bachelor's degree in a STEM field
                           (including the health sciences)-40
                           pts
                          Bachelor's degree in a non-STEM
                           field-32 pts
                          Associate's degree in a STEM field
                           (including health sciences)-30 pts
                          Associate's degree in a non-STEM
                           field-25 pts
                          Completed certified Department of
                           Labor registered apprenticeship-23
                           pts
                          High school diploma or GED-21 pts
                          Completed certified Perkins
                           vocational education program-20 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
English and civics        Native speaker of English or                30
                          TOEFL score of 100 or higher-30 pts
                          TOEFL score of 90-99-25 pts
                          Pass USCIS Citizenship Tests in
                           English & Civics-21 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home ownership            Sole owner of place of residence-8          24
                           pts per year of ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical insurance         Current private medical insurance           30
                           for entire family-10 pts per year
                           held
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                     ....................................       200
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Amendment No. 1202, as modified

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 509. TERMINATION.

       (a) In General.--The amendments described in subsection (b) 
     shall be effective during the 5-year period ending on 
     September 30 of the fifth fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year in which this Act is enacted.
       (b) Provisions.--The amendments described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       (1) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 501.
       (2) The amendments made by subsections (b), (c), and (e) of 
     section 502.
       (3) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), (c)(1), 
     (d), and (g) of section 503.
       (4) The amendments made by subsection (a) of section 504.
       (c) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--
       (1) Temporary supplemental allocation.--Section 201(d) (8 
     U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended by adding at the end the follows 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Temporary supplemental allocation.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), there shall be a temporary 
     supplemental allocation of visas as follows:
       ``(A) For the first 5 fiscal years in which aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an 
     immigrant visa, the number calculated pursuant to section 
     503(f)(2) of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and 
     Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
       ``(B) In the sixth fiscal year in which aliens described in 
     section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an immigrant visa, the 
     number calculated pursuant to section 503(f)(3) of Secure 
     Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 
     2007.
       ``(C) Starting in the seventh fiscal year in which aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an 
     immigrant visa, the number equal to the number of aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) who became aliens admitted 
     for permanent residence based on the merit-based evaluation 
     system in the prior fiscal year until no further aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) adjust status.
       ``(4) Termination of temporary supplemental allocation.--
     The temporary supplemental allocation of visas described in 
     paragraph (3) shall terminate when the number of visas 
     calculated pursuant to paragraph (3)(C) is zero.
       ``(5) Limitation.--The temporary supplemental visas 
     described in paragraph (3) shall not be awarded to any 
     individual other than an individual described in section 
     101(a)(15)(Z).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall be effective on October 1 of the sixth fiscal year 
     following the fiscal year in which this Act is enacted.
       (d) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants.--
       (1) Increase in level.--Section 201(c)(1)(B)(ii) (8 U.S.C. 
     1151(c)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``226,000'' and 
     inserting ``567,000''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall be effective during the period beginning on October 1 
     of the sixth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which 
     this Act is enacted and ending on the date that an alien may 
     be adjust status to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence described in section 602(a)(5).


                           amendment no. 1384

  (Purpose: To preserve and enhance the role of the English language)

       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 702A. DECLARATION OF ENGLISH AS LANGUAGE.

       (a) In General.--English is the common language of the 
     United States.
       (b) Preserving and Enhancing the Role of the English 
     Language.--The Government of the United States shall preserve 
     and enhance the role of English as the language of the United 
     States. Nothing in this Act shall diminish or expand any 
     existing rights under the laws of the United States relative 
     to services or materials provided by the Government of the 
     United States in any language other than English
       (c) Definition of Law.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``laws of the United States'' includes the Constitution 
     of the United States, any provision of Federal statute, or 
     any rule or regulation issued under such statute, any 
     judicial decisions interpreting such statute, or any 
     Executive Order of the President.


                           amendment no. 1151

 (Purpose: To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as 
 the national language of the Government of the United States, and for 
                            other purposes)

       Strike section 702 and insert the following:

     SEC. 702. ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``S.I. 
     Hayakawa National Language Amendment Act of 2007''.
       (b) In General.--Title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new chapter:

                ``CHAPTER 6--LANGUAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT

``Sec.
``161. Declaration of national language.
``162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the national language.
``163. Use of language other than English.

     ``SEC. 161. DECLARATION OF NATIONAL LANGUAGE.

       ``English shall be the national language of the Government 
     of the United States.

     ``SEC. 162. PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL 
                   LANGUAGE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Government of the United States 
     shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the 
     national language of the United States of America.
       ``(b) Exception.--Unless specifically provided by statute, 
     no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the 
     Government of the United States or any of its officials or 
     representatives act, communicate, perform or provide 
     services, or provide materials in any language other than 
     English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a 
     language other than English, the exception does not create a 
     legal entitlement to additional services in that language or 
     any language other than English.
       ``(c) Forms.--If any form is issued by the Federal 
     Government in a language other than English (or such form is 
     completed in a language other than English), the English 
     language version of the form is the sole authority for all 
     legal purposes.

     ``SEC. 163. USE OF LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH.

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the use of a 
     language other than English.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for title 
     4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:
``6. Language of the Government..............................161''.....

                           amendment no. 1316

 (Purpose: To sunset the Y-1 nonimmigrant visa program after a 5-year 
                                period)

       At the end of section 401, add the following:
       (d) Sunset of Y-1 Visa Program.--
       (1) Sunset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, or any amendment made by this Act, no alien may be 
     issued a new visa as a Y-1 nonimmigrant (as defined in 
     section 218B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added 
     by section 403) on the date that is 5 years after the date 
     that the first such visa is issued.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may be 
     construed to affect issuance of visas to Y-2B nonimmigrants 
     (as defined in such section 218B), under the AgJOBS Act of 
     2007, as added by subtitle C, under the H-2A visa program or 
     any visa program other than the Y-1 visa program.


                           amendment no. 1415

   (Purpose: To prohibit obtaining social security benefits based on 
    earnings obtained during any period without work authorization)

       Strike section 607 and insert the following:

     SEC. 607. PRECLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY CREDITS FOR PERIODS 
                   WITHOUT WORK AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Insured Status.--Section 214 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 414) is amended by striking subsection (c) and 
     inserting the following new subsections:
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes 
     of subsections (a) and (b), no quarter of coverage shall be 
     credited for any calendar year beginning on or after January 
     1, 2004, with respect to an individual who is not a natural-
     born United States citizen, unless the Commissioner of Social 
     Security determines, on the basis of information provided to 
     the Commissioner in accordance with an agreement entered into 
     under subsection (d) or otherwise, that the individual was 
     authorized to be employed in the United States during such 
     quarter.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an individual who 
     was assigned a social security account number prior to 
     January 1, 2004.
       ``(d) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall enter into an agreement with the Commissioner 
     of Social Security to provide such information as the 
     Commissioner determines necessary to carry out the limitation 
     on crediting quarters of coverage under subsection (c).''.
       (b) Benefit Computation.--Section 215(e) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(e)) is amended--

[[Page S7150]]

       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) in computing the average indexed monthly earnings of 
     an individual, there shall not be counted any wages or self-
     employment income for any year for which no quarter of 
     coverage may be credited to such individual as a result of 
     the application of section 214(c).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to benefit applications filed on or after the 
     date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act based on the wages or self-employment income of an 
     individual with respect to whom a primary insurance amount 
     has not been determined under title II of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) before such date.


                           amendment no. 1339

 (Purpose: To require that the U.S. VISIT system--the biometric border 
 check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is 
 already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date--
            be finished as part of the enforcement trigger)

       On page 3, line 25 insert the following new subsection:
       (6) The U.S. Visit System: The integrated entry and exit 
     data system required by 8 U.S.C. 1365a (Section 110 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996), which is already 17 months past its required 
     implementation date of December 21, 2005, has been fully 
     implemented and is functioning at every land, sea, and air 
     port of entry.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New York.


                Amendment No. 1183, As Further Modified

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1183, as further 
modified, and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
majority leader, Senator Reid, and Senator Dodd be added as cosponsors 
to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I know there are very strongly held and 
honestly felt disagreements in this Chamber on the legislation before 
us. Many of these differences are mirrored across our country. The 
issue of immigration strikes deeply at our values and our concept of 
America and stirs our emotions. While we may reach different 
conclusions, we all have to begin at the same place. Our immigration 
system is in crisis. I have concerns about this underlying bill, but we 
all do. This is not the bill any of us individually would have written 
and produced for the Senate's consideration. But I commend the primary 
sponsors for bringing this to the floor of the Senate so we can debate 
the issues it raises and try to craft a solution that simultaneously 
honors our Nation's strong immigrant heritage and respects the rule of 
law.
  As a nation, we place a premium on compassion, respect, and policies 
that help families. But our immigration laws don't reflect that. In 
fact, our current laws tear families apart. For lawful permanent 
residents and their spouses and minor children, this bill not only 
fails to help them, it actually makes matters worse. It is time to take 
all the rhetoric about family values and put it into action and show 
that we mean what we say when we talk about putting families first. 
That is what my amendment does.
  This amendment is a bipartisan amendment offered with Senator Hagel 
and Senator Menendez. It is our view we must make reuniting families a 
priority in our immigration system, that we should show compassion for 
those living apart from their spouses and minor children, that we 
should reform immigration in a way that honors families and brings them 
together. Unfortunately, the compromise bill before us fails to help 
families and children stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire created by our 
tangled, broken immigration system. Spouses and minor children of 
lawful permanent residents applying for a green card are required to 
remain overseas while awaiting their new legal status. The problem is 
there is a huge backlog.
  Despite what some have suggested this week, the visa backlog for 
spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents is significant 
and substantial. According to the June 2007 State Department visa 
bulletin, the backlog is currently more than 5 years long. For some, 
that backlog could stretch even longer. What does that mean? In very 
human terms it means parents are forced apart from their children. 
Husbands are separated from their wives. Tax-paying, law-abiding, legal 
immigrants who are doing the right thing are treated as though their 
families don't matter at all.
  If you are a lawful permanent resident and your spouse and minor 
children are caught in this long line, your family is not allowed to 
enter the United States even for a brief visit. You are limited in your 
ability to leave the United States to visit your spouse and children 
overseas. Under our current policies, lawful permanent residents are 
forced to choose between their newly adopted country and living with 
their spouse or children. Five years may not seem long to some of us. 
We serve 6 years in the Senate. It seems to go by very fast. But 5 
years in the life of a young child or in a marriage is precious time 
indeed. For a 10-year-old child, it is half their life. It is time that 
can never be recaptured. Unfortunately, that 5-year timeframe is often 
much less than what actually happens to these families.
  We are proposing that spouses and minor children of lawful permanent 
residents be exempt from the visa caps and that we finally allow these 
nuclear families who have been separated for far too long to be 
reunited. This amendment is necessary because the compromise bill does 
absolutely nothing to bring these families together. In fact, the 
compromise actually reduces the number of visas for spouses and minor 
children of lawful permanent residents. It does not allocate a single 
visa to address the existing backlog for these family members.
  As I have said many times, we have a national interest in fostering 
strong families. This amendment is supported by more than 100 faith-
based, family, and immigrant advocacy organizations and denominations. 
I thank all of these organizations that have endorsed and rallied 
support for the Clinton-Hagel-Menendez amendment. They do an invaluable 
service in speaking out for people whose voices would otherwise not be 
heard.
  The amendment is not considered a bill killer. It is not considered 
an amendment everybody has to vote against who has agreed to the 
compromise, because many of us know these legal permanent residents. 
Many of us actually work with them. Some of them even contribute to the 
campaigns of people in this Chamber. These are people who are doing 
everything they can to play by the rules, except they are divided for 
years from their spouses and minor children. I hope the Chamber will 
endorse this act of compassion and common sense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I certainly agree with the Senator from 
New York about the value of having family unity. A strong family is 
certainly a very important value that we ought to maintain to the 
maximum extent possible. I intend at the appropriate time, before the 
vote comes up, to raise a point of order under concurrent resolution 
21, but for a few moments I will deal with the merits as to the issue 
advanced by the Senator from New York.
  The effect of adoption of this amendment would mean those who are now 
legal permanent residents or green card holders would have an immediate 
right to bring in their spouse and children, and it is estimated there 
are some 800,000 of these green cards in existence at the present time. 
From many perspectives, it would be worthwhile to have that 
accomplished. That would certainly be a personal preference of mine, if 
it were not for many collateral constraining factors about the 
difficulty of allowing that many additional green cards all of a 
sudden. The 800,000 figure is the best estimate that is available at 
this late hour.
  The effect of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York as 
to the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants would be that 
as soon as the backlog is cleared after 8 years, then at that time they 
would be eligible to have green cards issued as green card holders or 
as legal permanent residents, after the backlog is

[[Page S7151]]

cleared in 8 years. Under the amendment by the Senator from New York, 
they would have the right to bring in their spouse and minor children.
  Again, if I were to devise an ideal system and there were not other 
limitations, I certainly would not disagree with that as a desirable 
way to proceed. But this compromise was constructed very carefully and 
very painfully by the dozen or so Senators from both the Democratic 
side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle who structured 
it. The Presiding Officer was a member of that group, the junior 
Senator from Colorado. In structuring the arrangement to not allow 
legal permanent residents or so-called green card holders from bringing 
in their spouse and minor children, there were many tradeoffs. As I 
have said on the floor earlier, many of the provisions which were 
excluded, rejected, were ones I personally would have favored. I have 
cast a fair number of votes here during the course of this debate that, 
given my preferences, I would have cast differently. But the overall 
objective of getting a bill passed is worth the compromises which have 
been made.
  Earlier today, this amendment was characterized by the Senator from 
New Mexico as the politics of compromise. Well, that might sound bad, 
but that happens to be the reality of what goes on in the Senate all 
the time. It goes on in all political bodies. We don't have anyone who 
can structure a bill to his or her precise specifications. If I could 
structure a bill, it would be a very different bill. But my role, along 
with a number of other Senators, was to try to find accommodations to 
find a bill which we could agree to and bring to the floor and then, if 
the full Senate wanted to work its will to the contrary, that is the 
way the system works. But there is nothing inappropriate about the 
politics of compromise. That means we sacrifice the better for the 
good.
  The overall good is to get a bill passed which will deal with 12 
million undocumented immigrants in a constructive way. It gives them an 
opportunity to escape the fear they now have that they will be detected 
at any time. It gives us an opportunity to identify those who are not 
contributing, who have criminal records, who ought to be deported. We 
can't deport all 12 million, but for the balance to be on the path 
toward citizenship, that is a very worthwhile, commendable objective as 
to the greater picture. We have comprehensive reforms. We have securing 
the border and employer verification. I will not go through all of the 
details, but this bill is very important. This accommodation to reject 
the contentions of the Senator from New York is necessary if we are to 
attain the greater good.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I just interrupt with a question to the 
Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is it not true that under this amendment, 
this amendment would wipe out the difference between a citizen of the 
United States and a green card holder with respect to their right to 
immigrate the nuclear family? So there would be no distinction between 
a green card holder and a citizen's rights?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is correct. It 
is the citizen who has the right to bring a spouse and minor children, 
not legal permanent residents, so-called green card holders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it was the intention of the majority 
leader to ask that there be 10 minutes on each amendment to be evenly 
divided. I think that was the desire in order to be fair to all of 
those who were going to offer amendments. I think those who are 
offering amendments were given that kind of assurance. So I ask 
unanimous consent that the remaining time be allocated equally between 
the amendments and equally in terms--well, I ask unanimous consent that 
there be 10 minutes on each amendment equally divided between those who 
favor the amendment and those who are opposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may I inquire, was a budget point of 
order or other point of order made against the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not raised. It is not in order at this 
time.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, let me, just if I could, respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes of my time on the 
following amendment and yield it to the Senator. She was not aware of 
the time limitation when she made her remarks. I think she ought to be 
entitled to make her comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  I think it is important to recognize that there are many distinctions 
between a U.S. citizen and a foreigner living legally in the United 
States which uphold the value of citizenship, but the right to marry 
and to live with your family should not be one of them.
  Denying legal permanent residents, who are on the pathway to pledging 
their allegiance to the United States, the right to marry and live 
together in our country is an obstacle to their becoming the kind of 
full-fledged citizens we want them to be.
  Also, under current law, guest workers, students, and others can be 
with their spouses and minor children and then adjust to legal 
permanent resident status with them. Due to the backlogs, only lawful 
permanent residents are treated differently.
  So, Mr. President, I understand that those who worked so hard on 
coming up with this compromise may not be able to find their way clear 
to support this at this time, but I do not believe we have a national 
interest in separating legal permanent residents from their spouses and 
minor children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 1151

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make an inquiry. It is my 
understanding that under the UC, all of the eight amendments that will 
be considered on the floor have been called up and are in order to be 
considered; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not all been reported at this time.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me tell you something procedurally 
that is going to happen here in about an hour at 10 o'clock. There is a 
list of amendments. First, there are two of them, and then the Salazar 
amendment will be considered. After that, the Inhofe amendment will be 
considered.
  Now, I want to get something understood procedurally because I think 
it is very important for everyone, particularly the occupant of the 
chair at this time, who has the Salazar amendment, to know what is 
going on.
  A year ago, we debated the Inhofe amendment that would make English 
the national language for the United States of America. We debated it 
at length, hour after hour. We talked about that every President back 
to and including Theodore Roosevelt in 1916 made comments that English 
should be the official and should be the national language of the 
United States of America. We talked about the 50 countries that have 
English as a national language, one being in west Africa--Ghana--and 
one being in east Africa--Kenya--but not the United States of America.
  Now, one of the things that happened a year ago is I had my amendment 
up, which is essentially the same amendment that will be up tonight. I 
would like to have you listen carefully. It is really a one-sentence 
amendment. All it says is:

       Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a 
     right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the 
     United States or any of its officials or representatives act, 
     communicate, perform or provide services, or provide 
     materials in any language other than English.

  In other words, this is an entitlement.
  Now, it has exceptions in there for laws that are on the books, such 
as laws protecting the sixth amendment, which would be the Court 
Interpreters Act and other such things. However, it

[[Page S7152]]

was aimed--I don't want to act as if I am hiding this because we talked 
about this a year ago. One of the things has been very controversial: 
At the very end of the Clinton administration was when he passed 
Executive Order No. 13166, and 13166 essentially said that if you are a 
recipient of Federal funds, then your documentation can all be done in 
whatever language you desire, so it could be Swahili, it could be 
Spanish, or any other language.
  Now, what happened a year ago was they passed my amendment--and my 
amendment was exactly the same as it is today--and it passed by a vote 
of 62 to 35. Does that sound right? So, 62 to 35. Then right after 
that, the Salazar amendment--and I see the Senator from Colorado is 
preparing to respond--was passed, which gutted my amendment, did away 
with it.
  So those individuals who voted for my amendment and then voted for 
the Salazar amendment--and there are quite a few Democrats and 
Republicans who did that--voted to make English the official language 
and then, in the next vote, 3 minutes later, voted to take it away.
  Now, I see that this is happening again tonight because, 
unfortunately, I have to offer my amendment first. I anticipate it will 
be adopted because it is very popular. Right now, the polling shows 
that 91 percent of the people in America want English as an official 
language, and 76 percent of Hispanics believe English should be an 
official language.
  Now, I am prepared to go on and debate this issue. I should not have 
to do it since 62 Members of this body already voted in favor of it. 
What I am going to say now, though, is very significant because if you 
vote for the Inhofe amendment when it comes up tonight, then vote for 
the Salazar amendment, you are essentially saying you are gutting the 
Inhofe amendment and you do not want English to be the official or the 
national language of the United States of America.
  The Salazar amendment is exactly the language in the underlying bill. 
I have it before me. I would be glad to read it. In fact, I am not sure 
how this time is going to work out. If we have time equally divided, I 
am going to run out of time. So I will just state that the language is 
precisely the same in the underlying bill. The underlying bill actually 
puts into law executive orders, and this specific executive order of 
13166, which gives anyone an entitlement to any language he or she 
wants, will become law. That is the language which is in there right 
now.
  I am attempting to change that language. If my amendment is adopted, 
it will change. However, the next vote is going to be on the Salazar 
amendment. I am just saying to you, as my friends out here, do not vote 
for both of us because if you vote for both of us, you are voting to 
make English the official language, and then, in the very next vote, 
you are taking it away and reinstating the original language in the 
bill.
  So I hope no one is going to think it is going to go unnoticed if 
anyone votes for my amendment and then votes to kill the amendment they 
just supported. That is what is going to happen tonight. I look forward 
to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
proposed amendment by my good friend from Oklahoma. First and foremost, 
I want to say I believe all Members of this Chamber and the people in 
the United States understand that English is important and that people, 
in order to succeed in our society, need to learn English; that the 
ability to acquire the English language and to speak it well is 
something we all support, and we support a number of different programs 
that would assist people who have limited English proficiency to 
acquire the English language as a keystone to success. I think that 
goes without saying.
  The amendment that is proposed by my friend from Oklahoma would, in 
fact, do a number of things that I think are problematical and should 
cause all of us to vote against the amendment.
  The first and a very important reason to vote against his amendment 
is that it is contrary to the provisions of law that exist in many 
States. For example, in the State of New Mexico, you have in the 
Constitution--in the Constitution of the State of New Mexico--as my 
good friend, Senator Domenici, would articulate here, a provision that 
says that many of the documents within that State have to be provided 
in both English and Spanish. The same thing is true for the State of 
Hawaii. I believe this is a States rights issue, and those 
constitutions of those States ought to be respected. There are other 
States in our Union which have decided they are going to adopt English 
as their official language. I believe that is a matter the States ought 
to decide. I do not believe it is a matter we ought to be imposing here 
from Washington, DC, on the backs of the States of our Union.
  Also, at the end of the day, what my good friend from Oklahoma is 
attempting to do with his amendment is to undo an executive order that 
has been long recognized by President George Bush, implemented by 
President George Bush, conceived by President Bill Clinton, and put 
into law with his signature.
  President Clinton's executive order was signed on April 11, 2000, on 
October 26, 2001. That executive order was recognized by Ralph Boyd 
with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Bush administration. It 
was again recognized on January 11, 2002, and again on November 12, 
2002, and then again on December 1 of 2003.
  If I may take a moment to just read a portion of what was included in 
that communication that went out from the U.S. Department of Justice to 
all of the court administrators across the United States and all of the 
U.S. district courts. It said the following in the memorandum:

       It is beyond question that America's courts discharge a 
     wide range of important duties and offer critical services 
     both inside and outside the courtroom. Examples range from 
     contact with the clerk's office in pro se matters to 
     testifying at trial. They include but are not limited to 
     matters involving domestic violence, restraining orders, 
     parental rights, and other family law matters, eviction 
     actions, alternative dispute resolution or mediation 
     programs. . . .

  And on and on.
  What both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration 
recognized in this executive order is that it is important to make sure 
people who have limited English proficiency receive the kinds of 
services so they can understand what is going on in terms of the 
interface between the Government and themselves.
  Mr. President, I believe my friend from Oklahoma has an amendment in 
search of a problem, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes. I am sorry 
to interrupt the debate.

                          ____________________