[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7153-S7167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado still has, I think,
1 minute 10 seconds.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry in terms of the
time available with respect to the Inhofe amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the remaining 45 seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I understand that. Parliamentary inquiry: Since we
are talking about two amendments, the Salazar amendment and the Inhofe
amendment, then I would assume there would be another 10 minutes
equally divided later on this evening if it is the desire of the
offerors; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If they wanted to use the time, obviously it
would be respected.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry again: Just to be
clear, then, on the Salazar amendment No. 1384, there will be 10
minutes for debate equally divided between the majority and the
minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SALAZAR. And with respect to the Inhofe amendment, the minority
time has expired, and there is 43 seconds left on the majority side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I conclude by urging my colleagues to
vote no on the Inhofe amendment. At the end of the day, what the Inhofe
amendment is proposing to do is to undo executive orders that have been
signed by both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.
Those executive orders were created in order to be able to have people
understand what is happening with respect to the courts, with respect
to domestic violence, and with respect to other issues that our
government provides services for where they need to be able to
understand what is happening with respect to the communication they are
receiving.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Inhofe amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Amendment No. 1374
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1374.
Mr. President, this bill does a laudable job in setting up a new
merit-based system for the future. That is the right thing to do for
our country, but the bill misses the mark.
Our country needs an immigration system that recognizes we want to
attract the best and the brightest from around the world. We have been
doing that for many years because we recognize that people who are
smart, who are talented, when they come to this country they actually
create jobs in this country. They create opportunities for other people
in this country.
The current bill unfortunately misses the mark on this merit system.
The current bill is actually worse than current law. This bill today is
worse than current law, and that is why the high-tech community across
the country has come out in opposition to the provisions of the merit-
based system in this bill. I want to tell a small anecdote that will
illustrate the problems with our current system on attracting talent.
In my office today, a gentleman by the name of Bill Watkins from
Seagate Corporation out of California just opened a new branch in
Singapore and hired U.S. graduates, foreign students who graduated from
MIT and other universities. The reason he hired them to go to
Singapore, where he will pay them less money than he would have paid
them in the United States, the reason he sent those jobs overseas is
because of our immigration policy that basically will educate you in
the United States, but then after we educate you, we will send you
home.
The amendment I offer today says we are going to actually value
people who are educated here, especially in the science and mathematics
and engineering fields--we call those the stem fields--in the health
sciences fields, we are going to give you even more points than the
current bill does so that into the future we will attract the best and
the brightest from around the world. It is the idea of being a brain
drain to the rest of the world. People from all over the world want to
come to America. We want the best and the brightest to come to America
because of this fact--whether it is low-skilled or high-skilled
workers, 4 percent of the jobs, 4 percent of the people who have jobs
in the future will create the jobs for the other 96 percent of
Americans. Those are the talented people we want to attract.
Over half of the start-ups in Silicon Valley in the last 10 years
have come from immigrants. Those people, when they start up companies,
create jobs in America. They create opportunities, some high skilled,
some low skilled, but they are creating opportunities for people to
pursue the American dream. So while the current bill is going in the
right direction, it misses the mark.
So my amendment says we are going to reward those in the sciences,
those in the technical fields, those who have a Ph.D. in electrical
engineering. We are going to give you enough points to virtually
guarantee entrance into this country. It is a good thing. It is why the
high-tech community is supporting my amendment.
We also put in this amendment, if you are an immigrant, if you are
one of these Z visa holders, we actually want you to be rewarded for
doing military service. So we are going to offer another amendment to
make sure they can do military service, and then when they do that, we
want to reward them to come into this country. To serve in our military
should be the greatest honor, and we should reward people with legal
permanent status, the ability to get legal permanent status.
We have a shortage of nurses in this country. We give more rewards
for people in the health sciences as well in our amendment.
I think this is a critical amendment to improve this bill. If we are
going to do a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we certainly
shouldn't make it worse than current law, and this bill is worse than
current law when it comes to high-tech workers coming into this
country. So I would urge all of our colleagues to support this
amendment. I know it is a delicate balance that we have between the
various people who have brought this bill together, but I truly believe
this is an improvement on not only current law, but it is also a great
improvement on the current bill.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there anyone who is going to speak
on the other side on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator could be recognized, and the
person is free under the agreement to
[[Page S7154]]
speak later during the course of the evening.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in that case, I would like to use 4
minutes of my time and then reserve the remainder of my time for if
there is opposition to my amendment.
Amendment No. 1415
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1415.
Mr. President, will the Presiding Officer notify me at 4 minutes so
that I may reserve the remainder of my time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, our Social Security system, we all
know, is in a very precarious position. In fact, we are trying to pass
Social Security reform that would extend the life of our Social
Security system. We know we are facing impending insolvency. The trust
fund has $2.4 trillion and is supporting 46 million beneficiaries. In
2017, the trust fund will begin paying out more in benefits than it
receives in revenue. It is expected to be fully exhausted in 2041. If
we pass the bill before us, we will be adding millions of new
beneficiaries into the Social Security system, but we will also be
allowing individuals who were not authorized to work in this country
the opportunity to qualify from illegal work.
Under the current bill, Social Security credits for the time prior to
getting a valid card would not be allowed. That is the good part of the
bill. However, on a visa overstay or someone who has a card in their
name, but they are working illegally, they would still be able to get
quarters credited for that illegal work. My amendment would close that
loophole.
According to the GAO, about 22 percent of the whole Social Security
that an employee would pay over 40 quarters would be approximately
$193.42 per month. What I meant to say is, if you take the example of
an hourly worker making $9 an hour, they would, in a 40-hour workweek,
contribute $193 to the system per month. However, after working 40
quarters, which is the minimum, the payout would be $405 per month for
each overstay after the age of 65 and up to the expected life
expectancy of 78. So 22 percent would be paid in, while 78 percent
would come out. This means over the lifetime of the Social Security for
that worker, the payout would be $81,922 but the input would be
$23,210. So over the lifetime of that person, the deficit would be
$58,712.
Now, it is estimated that 40 percent of the illegals in this country
are visa overstays. So if you multiply the 40 percent, which is about
4.8 million people according to estimates, you would get $28 billion
that would be a deficit in the Social Security system. That is if it
were 1 year of overstay. We don't know how many years people overstay.
That is impossible to know right now. But if it were 2 years, it would
be $56 billion, and it goes on.
We asked for a scoring of this amendment, and we have a letter from
the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Amendment No. 1384
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1384.
Mr. President, I ask that the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes
remaining on my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify.
Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pete Domenici be
added as a cosponsor to this amendment No. 1384.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of my amendment
No. 1384 and to urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
commonsense legislation that supports English as the common language
for the United States of America.
Our amendment is a very simple amendment. It says that the Government
of the United States--and here I am quoting:
The Government of the United States shall preserve and
enhance the role of English as the language of the United
States.
Again, it is:
The Government of the United States shall preserve and
enhance the role of English as the language of the United
States.
This is a simple and straightforward amendment that recognizes the
reality of the United States of America, that we are a people who yearn
to speak English, want to speak English, and have the vast majority of
our people knowing how to speak English.
This language I have read is also part of a carefully crafted
compromise. It is included in the underlying legislation that was
worked upon by both Republican and Democratic Senators over a long
period of time. It was agreed that this was the language that made the
most sense in terms of including a provision relating to the English
language in the underlying legislation.
As I said earlier in opposition to Senator Inhofe's amendment, this
is in fact a States' rights issue. The States of America ought to
decide whether they are going to call English the official language of
their State, as they did in Colorado; or they should decide, as they
did in New Mexico in their constitution in 1912, to recognize English
and Spanish as part of the language within their State. That was their
right as New Mexicans. It is their right in Hawaii to be able to
recognize a language other than English. It is a matter that ought to
be left to the States. It would be a Washingtonian kind of thing to
require these mandates upon the States, and it is something that we as
the Senate should reject. Our language in amendment No. 1384 preserves
that ability of the States to be able to enact their own legislation
with respect to the English language.
Finally, I only say that in my own personal history the native
language in my home was Spanish. My family had lived along the banks of
the Rio Grande River in southern Colorado for a period of 407 years.
During all that time, they preserved their Spanish language, but they
also honored and preserved the English language. My father and mother,
who were veterans of World War II, had eight children who became
college graduates. They understood the importance of English as
something that would help them live the American dream, as all eight of
their children have.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I am in order, I will speak in strong
support of my amendment No. 1339 which will be voted on later tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is so entitled.
Amendment No. 1339
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in this
debate on the immigration bill about enforcement provisions. There has
been a lot of discussion about triggers in this bill to ensure that
enforcement actions are taken, are paid for, and are enacted before
other aspects of the bill, such as the Z visa program and the temporary
worker program, go into effect.
My grave concern is that these triggers are wholly inadequate and
represent thinking that is backward from where it needs to be. If you
look at the triggers designed in the bill, they were arrived at, again,
as I would put it, in a backward fashion.
The question was asked: Well, it is going to take about 18 months to
be ready to enact the other provisions of the bill, so what enforcement
are we teed up to do during the next 18 months anyway? We will define
that as the enforcement trigger for the bill.
I simply think that is the wrong way to arrive at a trigger. The key
question has to be: What needs to be done? What is the totality of
significant measures that needs to be done in order to have real
enforcement at the border and real enforcement at the workplace? Let's
make that totality the trigger in the bill. Of course, the triggers are
far less than that.
One perfect example is the subject of this amendment. The US-VISIT
Program has been authorized since 1996, but it is not near operational.
This is the program that would establish an entry and exit system so we
know absolutely who comes into the country on visas and when those
people leave, if they leave on time under their visa, or if they do not
and are, therefore, overstaying their visa.
Without such a system, we cannot possibly know who is in the country
and who is overstaying their visa. This
[[Page S7155]]
is a very serious part of our illegal immigration problem. As of 2006,
the illegal population, by most estimates, included 4 million to 5.5
million overstays. So visa overstays are a big part of the problem. We
know from 9/11, that visa overstays accounted for many of the
terrorists at the center of the 9/11 plot.
So how can we have meaningful enforcement without this US-VISIT
system, including the exit portion of the system? We cannot. The simple
answer is that we can't. My amendment No. 1339 would include full
implementation of this exit system of the US-VISIT Program into the
trigger of the bill. Therefore, the other significant portions of the
bill, such as temporary workers, such as Z visas, et cetera, cannot
take effect until the full trigger is pulled, including full
implementation of the US-VISIT system.
If we are serious about enforcement, we have to pass this amendment.
If we are serious about enforcement, we have to recognize that 4
million to 5.5 million illegals in this country are visa overstays, and
we cannot get our hands around that visa overstay problem without full
implementation of this system, which has been authorized but nowhere
near implemented since 1996.
So I urge all my colleagues to come together and build up the trigger
and enforcement provisions of this bill with the Vitter amendment No.
1339.
With that, I yield back my time.
(Mr. SALAZAR assumed the Chair.)
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. OBAMA. 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. 1202
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to speak about
the new point system created in this bill--a proposal that will
radically change the way we judge who is worthy of lawful entry into
American society.
For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have
been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country.
For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued
employees. The bill before us changes that policy--a policy that, while
imperfect, has worked well, and this bill will now replace it with a
new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who
look good on paper but who may not have any familial or economic ties
to our country.
I have serious concerns about this new experiment in social
engineering, not only because of the lack of evidence that it will work
but because the bill says the new point system cannot be changed for 14
years. For that reason, I come to the floor today, joined by Senators
Menendez and Feingold, to offer amendment No. 1202 to sunset the point
system after 5 years.
I am pleased that immigration experts, religious organizations, and
immigrant advocacy organizations have all endorsed our amendment.
These groups have endorsed our amendment because the point system in
this bill constitutes a radical shift in immigration policy, premised
on the view that there is something wrong with family and employer-
sponsored immigration. If this program were merely supplementing the
current system rather than significantly replacing it, it would not
have caused as much concern.
Religious organizations and immigrant advocacy groups have also
endorsed my amendment because the decisions about what characteristics
are deserving of points--and how points are allocated for those
characteristics--were made without a single hearing or public
examination.
They support the amendment because the new points system shifts us
too far away from the value we place on family ties and moves us toward
a class-based immigration system, where some people are welcome only as
guest workers but never as full participants in our democracy. Indeed,
the practical effect of the points system is to make it more difficult
for Americans and legal permanent residents with family living in Latin
America to bring them here.
Our current immigration system delivers the lion's share of green
cards--about 63 percent--to family members of Americans and legal
permanent residents, while roughly 16 percent of visas are allocated to
employment-based categories. The bill before us would reduce visas
allocated to the family system in order to dramatically increase the
proportion of visas distributed based on economic points. Once
implemented, these new economic points visas would then account for
about 40 percent of all visas, while family visas would account for
less than half of all visas, with the remainder going for humanitarian
purposes.
Under the new system, just a few of the current family preferences
would be retained in any recognizable form. Spouses and children of
U.S. citizens would still be able to come, but parents of U.S. citizens
would no longer be counted as immediate family. Thus, most parents
seeking to join their children and grandchildren in the United States
would be denied green cards.
The rest of the current family preferences--siblings, adult children,
and many parents--would be eviscerated.
The new points system would also eliminate employment-based green
cards altogether, forcing employers recruiting workers abroad to rely
exclusively on short-term H-1B and Y visas. This proposal takes an
admittedly problematic employment-based visa system and replaces it
with a far more problematic temporary worker visa system.
The design of the points system leaves numerous questions unanswered.
Beyond pushing workers from Latin America to the back of an endless
line with no hope of ever reaching the front, the new points system
leaves unspecified the crucial question of how migrants with sufficient
points will be prioritized. Government bureaucrats would thus be left
with unprecedented discretion to determine which immigrants have
acceptable education, employment history, and work experience to merit
admission into the country.
Taken together, the questionable design of this points program and
the fundamental shift away from family preferences in the allocation of
visas raises enough flags that we should not simply rubberstamp this
proposal and allow it to go forward.
Let me be clear. Senators Menendez, Feingold, and myself are not
proposing to strike the program from the bill, but this system should
be revisited after a reasonable amount of time to determine whether it
is working, how it can be improved, and whether we should return to the
current family and employer-based system that has worked so well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we live in a global economy, and I do
believe America will be strengthened if we welcome more immigrants who
have mastered science and engineering. But we cannot weaken the very
essence of what America is by turning our back on immigrants who want
to reunite with their family members, or immigrants who have the
willingness to work hard but might not have the right graduate degrees.
That is not who we are as a country. Should those without graduate
degrees who spoke Italian, Polish, or German instead of English have
been turned back at Ellis Island, how many of our ancestors would have
been able to enter the United States under this system?
Character and work ethic have long defined generations of immigrants
to America. But these qualities are beyond the scope of this bill's
points system. It tells us nothing about what people who have been
without opportunity can achieve once they are here. It tells us nothing
about the potential of their children to serve and to lead.
In short, the points system raises some serious concerns for me. I am
willing to defer to those Senators who negotiated this provision and
say we should give it a try, but I am not willing to say this untested
system should be made virtually permanent. For that reason, I urge my
colleagues to support to sunset this points system after 5 years so we
can examine its effectiveness and necessity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
[[Page S7156]]
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think it is very appropriate you be
occupying the Chair during this moment in this debate. My good friend
from Illinois says to those who have worked so hard to get this bill to
the point it is at: Nothing personal, but I can't live with this
provision.
Bipartisanship is music to the American people's ears. When you are
out there on the campaign trail, you are trying to bring us all
together. You are trying to make America better. Why can't we work
together? This is why we can't work together because some people, when
it comes to the tough decisions, back away because when you talk about
bipartisanship, some Americans on the left and the right consider it
heresy, and we are giving in if we adopt this amendment.
The 12 million who have lived in fear for decades, my Republican
colleagues and a majority have told our base we are not going to put
them in jail and we are not going to deport them. No matter how much
you scream, no matter how much you yell, we are going to make them
right with the law, we are going to punish them, but we are not going
to play like they don't exist, and we are going to do things
differently in the future.
If you care about families under this bill, people are united in 8
years who would be 30 years getting here. If you care about families
wanting to wake up one morning and not be afraid, this bill does it.
This amendment in the name of making the bill better says that
bipartisanship doesn't have the ``bi'' in it. It means everybody over
here who has walked the plank and told our base you are wrong, you are
going to destroy this deal. And that is exactly what it is, a deal--a
deal to make America more secure, to give people a chance to start
their lives over again and to have a new system that has a strong
family component but will make us competitive with the world because
some people don't want to say to the loud folks: No, you can't have
your way all the time.
Let me tell you, this is about as bipartisan as you will get, Mr.
President. Some of us on the Republican side have been beat up and some
on the Democratic side have been beat up because we have tried to find
a way forward on a problem nobody else wants to deal with.
To my friend, Senator Kennedy, thank you for trying to find a way, as
much as we are different, to make this country better, more secure, to
treat 12 million people in a way they have never been treated and, in
my opinion, deserve to be treated, to have a chance to start over.
What a sweet idea it is to have a second chance in life. Well, they
are not going to get it if this is adopted, and America will be all the
worse for it. What a great opportunity we have as a country not to
repeat the mistakes of 1986, by having a merit-based immigration system
that has a strong family component but frees up some green cards so we
can be competitive.
So when you are out on the campaign trail, my friend, telling about
why can't we come together, this is why.
Mr. OBAMA addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time.
Mr. OBAMA. I understand, but I wish to respond to my colleague from
South Carolina since it appears to be directed at me.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes of my time.
Mr. McCAIN. I object unless the Senator from South Carolina has
sufficient time as well.
Mr. OBAMA. I would like to give additional time. When the Senator
from South Carolina addresses me directly, I feel it is appropriate for
me to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the
opportunity to yield time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I think I am entitled to yield time. I am in charge of
the time on this side. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts yields 2
minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I have a very simple response to what we
just heard. I think it is important to consider the actual amendment
before us as opposed to what appeared to be a broad-based discussion of
the bill overall.
What this amendment specifically does is it says we will go forward
with the proposal that has been advanced by this bipartisan group. It
simply says we should examine after 5 years whether the program is
working. The notion that somehow that guts the bill or destroys the
bill is simply disingenuous and it is engaging in the sort of
histrionics that is entirely inappropriate for this debate. This is a
bill that says after 5 years, we will examine a point system in which
we have had no hearings in the public. Nobody has had an opportunity to
consider exactly how this was structured. It was structured behind
closed doors. And the notion that after 5 years we can reexamine it to
see if it is working properly, as opposed to locking it in for 14
years, that somehow destroys the bipartisan nature of this bill is
simply untrue.
I ask all my colleagues to consider the nature of the actual
amendment that is on the floor as opposed to the discussion that
preceded mine.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 1415
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to use the final minute of my
time on my amendment No. 1415 and say I want to make sure we are doing
everything to be fair to the people who pay into our Social Security
system. We know we will be adding more people in this bill, but we want
to make sure they are people who have worked legally in the system.
Therefore, I hope we will adopt my amendment No. 1415, cosponsored by
Senator Grassley.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration
in which he says the average annual savings in the bill from my
amendment would be approximately $300 million this year, and over the
75-year period there will be more savings up front, fewer savings
toward the end of the 75 years, but the average would be about $300
million per year. That is into our Social Security trust fund.
It is a matter of fairness to the people who have paid legally, and I
hope everyone will support amendment No. 1415.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief
Actuary,
Baltimore, MD, June 6, 2007.
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hutchison: Matthew Acock of your staff and
Derek Kan of the Republican Policy Committee have requested
that we produce preliminary estimates of the effect of two
amendments to S. 1348, as amended with A. 1150, on the
financial status of the Social Security program. They
emphasized the need for at least preliminary estimates as
quickly as possible. We have developed preliminary estimates
for these amendments consistent with the analysis provided to
Chairman Max Baucus on the current bill S. 1348/1150.
Amendment 1301: Option to Refund Payroll Taxes for Y-visa Guest Workers
Your amendment number 1301 to S.1348 would provide Y-visa
workers who have completed their time in this status and have
returned to their home country the option to get a refund of
employee payroll taxes from Social Security and Medicare.
Exercising the option would preclude obtaining credit for
these earnings toward Social Security or Medicare benefits.
It would also preclude returning to the United States as a Y-
visa guest worker in the future.
We assume that only those Y-visa workers who have no
intention of returning to the U.S. would exercise the option.
Such workers, without exercising the option, would often have
made the payroll tax contributions with no expectation of
receiving any benefits in the future because the limit of 6
years in Y-visa status is not sufficient to obtain insured
status for most Social Security benefits (unless the U.S. and
the worker's home country have an in-force totalization
agreement). Thus, refunded payroll taxes under the amendment
would represent a reduction in revenue for the OASDI program.
Of the 200,000 Y-visas granted each year we estimate that
roughly two thirds would ultimately exercise the option to
receive their employee payroll taxes back as a refund. Those
not exercising the option would be individuals who either
attain legal permanent resident status in the U.S. or
overstay the Y-visa and continue residing in the U.S. on an
unauthorized basis. We estimate that the reduction in revenue
from this amendment, assuming it is enacted along with S.
1348/1150, would be a negligible worsening in the long-range
OASDI actuarial balance. The average annual cost over the 75-
year long-range projection period would be about equivalent
to $200 million this year.
Amendment 1302: Withholding of Social Security Earnings Credits for Z-
Visa Workers When Not Legally Authorized to Work
S. 1348/1150 provides for legalization of current
undocumented immigrants who were
[[Page S7157]]
working in the United States on January 1, 2007. This
amendment would prohibit assigning credit toward OASDI
benefits for years in which earnings were received but the
worker was not legally authorized to work. The effect of the
amendment would restrict the use of such earnings credits for
Z-visa holders who obtained a legitimate Social Security
number (SSN) before January 1, 2007. S. 1348/1150 already
includes this restriction for workers who would first obtain
a legitimate SSN after 2006.
We estimate that almost one half of the 6.5 million
individuals expected to gain legal status under S. 1348/1150
(through Z-visas and agricultural visas) would be affected by
this amendment. We estimate that the long-range actuarial
balance would be improved by 0.01 percent of taxable payroll.
We are hopeful that these quick preliminary estimates will
be helpful. We will be working on more detailed estimates and
must caution that due to the preliminary nature of estimates
mentioned here, the more detailed estimates could differ
somewhat. We look forward to continuing to work with you on
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Goss.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 1151
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado
and I have each had 5 minutes on my amendment. I have not had 5 minutes
in rebuttal of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. Let me tell
you what is going on. I know a lot people in this Chamber are going to
think no one is going to figure this out. I am going to say it over and
over again after this is over if the outcome is as I anticipate it will
be.
First, this is probably the first time in 20 years we have had an
honest effort where we can make English our national language in the
United States of America. This is something all the polling data shows
is in the nineties--91 percent, 93 percent of the people in America who
want to have this amendment adopted.
In fact, a Zogby poll last month in May showed 76 percent of the
Hispanics in America want to have English as the national language.
The Salazar amendment is precisely what the underlying bill is. The
underlying bill--and I can read it to my colleagues, but I have done it
three times on the floor already--yes, it does put into law the
controversial Executive Order 13166. My colleagues have heard a lot
about this from their constituents.
It says you are entitled to have your information, if you receive
Government money, in any language of your choosing--Swahili or any
other language. That is what is in the underlying bill. That also is in
the Salazar amendment.
This is what is going to be happening. My colleagues have a chance to
change all of this when they vote on the Inhofe amendment, which is I
believe the third amendment in line tonight. What I don't want my
colleagues to do is vote for my amendment and then vote for the Salazar
amendment. All that does is put it right back where the bill is now. In
other words, it would do away with my amendment and put it back as the
language is in the underlying bill.
So there is no reason in the world to do it, unless someone is trying
to cover up their true position. If my colleagues believe we should
join the other 50 countries, such as Kenya, Ghana, and other countries
around the world, that have English as their official language, then
this is a chance to do it. If my colleagues do not believe it, then
this is their chance to vote against the Inhofe amendment.
It is an act of hypocrisy if colleagues vote for the Inhofe amendment
and then vote for the Salazar amendment to undo the Inhofe amendment.
That happened a year ago. Democrats and Republicans did that. However,
this time it will not go unnoticed.
It is interesting that every President back to and including Teddy
Roosevelt in 1916 said very emphatically that we should have English as
our official language, as our national language. It was said by
President Clinton, it was said by the other President Roosevelt, by
both President Bushes, and everyone has been for it.
I have a listing I wish to make part of the Record that shows all of
the polling data in the last 5 years. It shows that between 85 and 95
percent of the American people want this amendment adopted. My
colleagues can turn their backs on them or they can try the old trick
they do around here all the time: Vote for the Inhofe amendment, and
then turn around to vote to undo it if they want.
One thing that was stated by the Senator from Colorado was there are
a lot of statutes this would negate. I remind my colleagues, if they
read this bill, it says: 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.
I have a list I also want to be made part of the Record that shows
there are many statutes where they mandate languages other than
English. A good example is the Court Interpreters Act. That is put in
there to protect the sixth amendment to the Constitution, so people can
be advised of their rights.
Again, my colleagues are going to have the opportunity to vote to
make English our national language. I hope they will adopt this. They
will certainly be serving their constituents well if they do. But if
they do, they shouldn't turn around and undo what they just did because
that is not going to go unnoticed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the polling information
and the list of selected Federal laws requiring the use of languages
other than English be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National English Amendment Polls
Polls: All types of pollsters of all groups, liberal and
conservative, immigrant and nonimmigrant, with all wordings
show consistently high levels of support for making English
the official language of the United States:
1. A Zogby Poll conducted on May 17-20, 2007 showed that 83
percent of Americans favor official English legislation,
including 76 percent of Hispanics. 94 percent of Republicans,
72 percent of Democrats, and 83 percent of Independents are
favorable to official English legislation.
2. An April 2007 McLaughlin & Associates poll showed 80
percent of all Americans indicated that they would support a
proposal to make English the official language.
3. A December 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 92
percent of Americans believe that preserving English as our
common language is vital to maintaining our unity.
4. A June 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll showed that making
English the nation's official language is favored by 85
percent of Americans; this figure includes 92 percent of
Republicans, 79 percent of Democrats, and 86 percent of those
not affiliated with either major political party.
5. A March 2006 Zogby International Poll showed 84 percent
of likely voters support making English the official language
of government operations with commonsense exceptions.
6. A 2004 Zogby poll showed 92 percent of Republicans, 76
of Democrats and 76 percent of Independents favor making
Englisgh the official language.
7. In 2000, Public Opinion Strategies showed 84 percent
favored English as the official language with only 12 percent
oppposed and 4 percent not sure.
8. A 1996 national survey by Luntz Research asked, ``Do you
think English should be made the Official Language of the
United States?'' 86 percent of Americans supported making
English the official language with only 12 opposed and 2
percent not sure.
Latino immigrants support the concept of Official English:
1. An April 2007 McLaughlin & Associates poll showed that
80 percent of all Americans, including 62 percent of Latinos,
would support a proposal to make English the official
language.
2. A March 2006 Zogby poll found that 84 percent, of
Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics, believe English
should be the official language of government operations.
3. My favorite poll is this one: In 2004 the National
Council of LaRaza found that 97 percent strongly (86.4
percent or somewhat (10.9 percent) agreed that ``The ability
to speak English is important to succeed in this country.''
STATUTES
Selected Federal Laws Requiring the Use of Languages Other than English
The following are provisions of the United States Code
which expressly require the use of languages other than
English:
1. The Food Stamp Act of 1977--(7 U.S.C. Sec. 2020(e)--
Under certain circumstances, requires states to provide
written and oral assistance in languages other than English.
2. Immigration and Nationality Act--(8 U.S.C. Sec. 1224)--
Provides interpreters during examinations of aliens seeking
entry to the United States.
3. Domestic Violence Prevention--(8 U.S.C. Sec. 1375a(a))--
States that information for nonimmigrants shall be in
languages other than English.
[[Page S7158]]
4. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974--(20
U.S.C. Sec. 1703(f))--Upheld in Lau v. Nichols, (1974), this
Act necessitates some accommodation for students who don't
speak English.
5. Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students--(20 U.S.C. Sec. 6823)--Requires state
plans for educating limited English proficient students.
Describes how local schools will be given flexibility to
choose the language instructional method to be used, so long
as the plan is scientifically-based and demonstrably
effective.
6. Plans for Educating Limited English Proficient Student--
(20 U.S.C. Sec. 6826)--Calls for plans for educating limited
English proficient students, including demonstrations that
teachers are multilingual.
7. Authorizes Grants for Educating Limited English
Proficient Students--(20 U.S.C. Sec. 6913)--Authorizes and
mandates grants for educating limited English proficient
students without limitation on language used.
8. Education of Limited English Proficient Students--(20
U.S.C. Sec. 6932)--Requires research on education of limited
English proficient students.
9. Language Instruction Educational Program Definition--(20
U.S.C. Sec. 7011)--Defines ``language instruction educational
program'' as one that may include instruction in both English
and the child's native language to enable participating
children to become proficient both in English and in a second
language.
10. Parental Notification of Identity of Limited English
Proficient Students--(20 US.C. Sec. 7012)--Provides for
parental notification of identification of a student as
limited English proficient, including use of language other
than English to notify the parent.
11. Native American Languages Act--(25 U.S.C. Sec. 2902-
2906)--Preserves, protects, and promotes the use of Native
American languages. States that nothing in the Native
American Languages Act shall prevent the use of federal funds
to teach English to Native Americans.
12. The Court Interpreters Act--(28 U.S.C. Sec. 1827(d))--
Invoking the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses,
requires the use of interpreters in certain judicial
proceedings.
13. Labor Protection Notices for Migrant Workers--(29
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1821(g), 1831(f))--Migrant and farmworker
labor protection notices must be in languages other than
English, according to the level of fluency of the workers.
14. Migrant Health Centers and Alcohol Abuse Programs--(42
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 254b(f), 245c, 4577b)--Federally-funded
migrant health centers and alcohol abuse programs that serve
a significant non-English-speaking population must have
interpreters.
15. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration
Reorganization Act--(42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 290aa(d)(14))--
Requires some services in languages other than English.
16. Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act--(42
U.S.C. Sec. 300u-6(b)(7))--Requires the Office of Minority
Health to provide multilingual services.
17. Voting Rights Act--(42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1973b(f)(1),
1973aa-1a)--Restricts elections and election-related
materials published only in English in the bilingual ballots
and voting materials sections of the Voting Rights Act.
18. Older Americans Act--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 3027(a)(20)(A))--
Requires state planning agencies to use outreach workers who
are fluent in languages other than English when there is a
substantial number of limited-English proficient older
persons in a planning area.
19. Community Development Grants--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 5304)--
Requires applicants for community development grants to
explain how they will meet the needs of non-English-speaking
persons.
20. Child Development Grants--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 9843)--
Permits grants for child development (Head Start) programs
for limited English proficient children.
21. Domestic Violence Hotlines--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 10416)--
Requires a plan to provide domestic violence telephone
hotline operators in Spanish.
Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think there are 2 minutes left on the
discussion of this issue.
I hope our colleagues listened to the extraordinary history of the
Salazar family. It is the living of the American dream. It is respect
for the Spanish language and Spanish tradition, and the reverence that
it has for English today.
I am disappointed in the Inhofe amendment because the Inhofe
amendment doesn't add one nickel, it doesn't add 1 hour for those who
want to learn English. To learn English in my home city of Boston, MA,
immigrants have to wait 3 years in order to gain admission to a class
to learn English. There are long waits in all parts of the country. If
we had some effort to try and provide the opportunity for those who do
not know English to learn English, I think we would be much better off.
Finally, as the Senator from Colorado has pointed out, the great
civil rights protections of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and
Executive order 13,166 as well as protections dealing with public
health and safety that we have found to be so important in terms of
ensuring the health and the safety and the security of our people.
Providing information needed to protect health and safety depend on
communication--communication--and we have developed a process, a way of
respecting different traditions in order to be able to do that.
The Salazar amendment retains and respects that tradition, and it is
the way we should be proceeding and embracing this evening for the
reasons he stated so well.
Amendment No. 1374
Mr. President, I wish to yield time on the Ensign amendment. I think
I have 5 minutes on the Ensign amendment in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator has 5
minutes on the Ensign amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment basically rearranges
what we call the merit-based system that has been included in this
legislation. This was the subject of a good deal of debate: Do we want
to develop a merit-based system that has been developed in some other
countries. It has had some success in some areas, some challenges in
others.
During the debate there was a question about how we would develop a
merit-based system to take in the needs of the United States. There are
important needs in high skills, but we also understand from the
Department of Labor that 8 out of the 10 areas of occupations are
basically low skill, what they call low skill. Those may be teachers,
they may be managers, or professional people in some areas, but they
are basically individuals who have very important skills that are
essential to the American economy.
We had debate about how we were going to work out that merit system,
and in that whole process we worked diligently to find a system that is
going to respect the higher skilled but also provides some opportunity
for the low skilled as well to be able to gain entry and then to gain
what we call the sufficient points to move far forward and able to gain
green cards and eventually citizenship.
The Ensign amendment absolutely emasculates that amendment and
virtually closes out all of the low-skilled possibilities for people
who might come on in as temporary workers or may come on in under other
provisions of this legislation. Under the Ensign amendment, all of
those individuals, the lower skilled, are effectively eliminated and
closed out, make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it.
Finally, we have provisions in the legislation dealing with the
higher skills, called the H-1B provisions. That is directly related to
higher skills. We have addressed that issue in other provisions of the
legislation.
For those reasons, I would hope the Ensign amendment would not be
accepted.
Amendment No. 1339
Mr. President, on the Vitter amendment, let me add some additional
points to this debate. A great deal of time was spent listening to
Secretary Chertoff, to making recommendations about what is going to be
in the national security interest to preserve our borders. That was one
of the most important parts of the development of this legislation.
Senator Isakson came forward with a very important suggestion and a
proposal with regard to ensuring that we were going to have true
national security, protection of our national security before other
provisions were going to be set forth. We have had good chances during
the period of these past months to work with Homeland Security and to
work with all of the Members of this body to ensure we were going to
have effective provisions to protect national security. We even
accepted a Gregg amendment which we believed added to the provisions
that were accepted.
It is our belief those provisions are sufficient, the allocations of
resources for the border, the utilization of enhanced border patrols,
the enhanced border security, which has been outlined time and again
during the course of this debate. They are sufficient. So I would hope
at the time that amendment is addressed it would not be accepted.
[[Page S7159]]
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. 1316
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan
amendment. I was a little surprised to see it in order, but that
happens quite often around here. This is the same amendment we voted on
a couple of weeks ago. It was a close vote, I realize, but I didn't
know we were going to have a practice of second chances on amendments
after they were defeated.
It seems to me this is something that is very unnecessary. But if we
get into the custom here with so many amendments that we vote again and
again, I don't think that is good for this process. I think the process
that has taken place so far has been very commendable. Both managers
have done a great job, but this is another attempt to do away with the
temporary worker program. It is another attempt to kill this
legislation. That is what it will do. That is exactly what this
amendment does.
We had vigorous debate on it once, with a long period of debate, and
it was defeated. Now, basically, we are having another vote again. I
don't think that is appropriate. But more important, one thing that
hasn't changed, I say to my colleagues, if you pass this, it kills the
bill. We have made too much progress with too much debate and with too
much consensus to revisit the same issue over again and have it carry
this time.
I am sure the sponsor of the amendment has some reason for bringing
it up again, but I don't think there is a good reason, and I hope we
will reject this amendment because it has already been rejected.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Dorgan amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take the time on the Dorgan amendment
myself. How much time remains on this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have opposed the Dorgan amendment each
time for very important and basic reasons. We are attempting to secure
our borders. We are going to secure our borders. We know, even when we
secure our borders, we are going to have pressure on those borders to
come through. People are either going to come through the front door or
they are going to come through the back door.
What do I mean by that? If they are coming through the back door,
they are going to be the undocumented and the exploited undocumented
workers, such as we have seen in my own city of New Bedford, where they
are arrested and exploited and are driving down wages. If they come
through the front door, they are going to meet the needs of American
industry when we find there are no existing options for American
workers. There is going to be the requirement that you have to get
American workers first. We have accepted that and restated that with
the Durbin amendment. But if they are able to gain entry into the
United States, they are going to have the kind of protections that are
included in the legislation.
I have listened to those who have been opposed to the temporary
workers, saying there are no rights and protections for these temporary
workers. They ought to read the bill. They ought to read the bill,
because any temporary worker who is going to be hired is going to be
guaranteed the prevailing wage, they are going to be protected by the
OSHA provisions, they are going to be protected by workmen's
compensation, and they are going to have the opportunity, we believe,
over a period of time, if they have come in, to try to improve
themselves, to learn English, to involve themselves in an employment
program to begin to go up the ladder in terms of getting a green card.
So that is the choice.
If we act to eliminate the temporary worker program, we are going to
find what we have at the present time, that hundreds of individuals die
in the desert; that we are going to have those individuals who are able
to gain entry in the United States and are undocumented and they are
going to be exploited, as they are exploited today, and they will drive
down wages, as happens today. That happens to be the situation.
Some like some temporary worker programs better than others, but we
have the one we have in this bill and we have every intention to try
and make it work. We have set up a careful system in the bill to
accommodate the concerns about the size of the temporary worker
program. There is, as well, a market-based adjustment that is crucial
to the provision in the bill, and I think it would be a great mistake
to effectively emasculate the temporary worker program. That is what
the Dorgan amendment would do.
Mr. President, I believe that I am the only one who has time that is
remaining. If that be the case, I would be glad to yield back the
remaining time.
I ask if the Chair would be good enough to state the amendments, the
first amendment that would be before the Senate at this time. We have a
series of different votes, and I think we ought to have the opportunity
to make sure all of us understand exactly what we are voting on.
I believe the hour of 10 o'clock has arrived, and I yield whatever
time remains, and I think we expect yeas and nays votes on all of them.
Amendment No. 1183
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the Clinton amendment,
No. 1183.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending
Clinton amendment, No. 1183, 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions
in the Budget Act and 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 the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal 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 (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--53
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are
53. 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.
Amendment No. 1374
Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided on amendment No. 1374, offered by the junior Senator
from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
[[Page S7160]]
Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my amendment goes to the merit-based
system. We have a serious problem in this country where we are
graduating incredible engineers from our high-tech universities. When
they graduate, we say: You must go home.
I had a company in my office today from Silicon Valley. They are
opening an office in Singapore, hiring American graduates, foreign-born
graduates from American universities, opening in Singapore because they
cannot hire them in this country. There are not enough visas.
My amendment fixes the merit-based system and says we want to attract
the best and the brightest from around the world. The high-tech
community supports my amendment because they think the underlying bill
is flawed.
Mr. President, India and China will graduate 600,000 to 700,000
engineers. We will be graduating 65,000 to 70,000. Half of ours are
foreign-born. We do not have enough of that brain power coming into
this country like we have had in the past. Those who came here will
come here and create opportunities for other people in the United
States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the merit-based system that is included
in this legislation as it exists at the present time is heavily skewed
toward the high skills. I would say 75 to 80 percent of those who are
going to qualify in the merit-based system are going to be for the
highly skilled.
There is the reservation under the skill system, 25 or 30 percent for
lower skills because our economy designed high skills, and the
Department of Labor says 8 out of 10 occupations that our Nation needs
are low skills: teacher's aides, home health aides, and others.
That has been worked out. That is the way it is. Under the Ensign
amendment you would completely skew it to shortchange all of the low
skills, all for the high skills. We are taking care of the high skills
with the H-1B program. If we need to do something about that, then
let's have amendments to do it.
But this way effectively is saying to millions of people who have
come here and have been absolutely indispensable to our economy that
they are never going to have a chance to be part of the American dream.
I hope the amendment will be defeated.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment. 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 42, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Warner
NAYS--55
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Craig
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1374) was rejected.
Amendment No. 1384
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1384 offered by the
Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. Who yields time?
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on Salazar 1384
and a ``no'' vote on Inhofe 1151, and the 2 minutes under that time I
will yield to Senator Domenici from New Mexico.
Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, before the Senator speaks: Is the
2 minutes equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 2 minutes equally divided. The senior
Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Parliamentary inquiry: The senior Senator from New
Mexico is recognized for 2 minutes to speak on both amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are now considering only the Salazar
amendment. There are 2 minutes to be divided equally.
Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from New
Mexico be given 2 minutes to speak on both Salazar 1384 and Inhofe
1151.
Mr. INHOFE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SALAZAR. I yield 1 minute on Salazar 1384 and request a ``yes''
vote and yield the time to the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I, too, ask for a ``yes'' vote on the
Salazar-Domenici amendment which everybody should understand says that
the English language is the common language of the United States. I
come from a State that is different from most of yours in that we have
had a long history of trouble regarding what language we speak; this
has been so from the very time New Mexico started to become a State.
The legislature of the United States played around with New Mexico in
an effort to see if there could be enough Anglos so there wouldn't be a
majority of Spanish speakers at the State's infancy. We were told we
had to wait for Statehood until there was a majority of English
speakers in New Mexico, and the U.S. Supreme Court later said the
Congress could not do that to New Mexico. New Mexico could do what they
desired. We voted in a State constitution that still stands that says
English and Spanish are common languages and you can speak both
languages.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is very simple. I hope everyone
understands and is listening. We are going to have an opportunity in a
few minutes to vote on another amendment which we will describe at that
time with 2 minutes equally divided.
If you are opposed to English as the national language of the United
States, then vote for the Salazar amendment. That is exactly what it
does. His amendment says anyone who receives Federal money is
entitled--this is an entitlement--to have the documentation in any
language he or she chooses. It could be in Swahili, French, any other
language.
So if you are opposed to English as the national language, go ahead
and vote for this amendment. But keep in mind, when you do, that 91
percent of Americans are on our side of this issue and want English to
be the national language, and 76 percent of the Hispanics, as a result
of a poll that was taken in May of this year--a Zogby poll--are for
English as the national language.
I ask you to defeat the Salazar amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to Salazar amendment No. 1384.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The 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.
[[Page S7161]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--39
Alexander
Allard
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
y
The amendment (No. 1384) was agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified to be a first-degree amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1151
Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided on amendment No. 1151 offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last year, a year and a month ago, we had
this same vote. Sixty-two people in this Chamber voted in favor of it,
and I will ask them to do the same again. This, very simply--we talked
about this many times--makes English the official, the national
language of the United States as opposed to giving an entitlement to
anyone, to any other language, which is in, of course, the amendment we
passed.
If this amendment passes, it will go to conference, and we will have
an opportunity to do something in conference to decide whether it is a
combination of these or one or the other should prevail. So I ask that
you do what 90 percent of your constituents want you to do and that is
vote yes on the Inhofe amendment to make English the national language
of the United States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Colorado is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote no on 1151
for three reasons. First, it is in violation of the very delicate
compromise, the bipartisan compromise that has been put together by
both Republicans and Democrats. Second of all, it is an absolute
transparent attempt to undo the Executive Orders of President Bush and
President Clinton and the implementation memorandums from both of those
Presidents. Third, this is a States' rights issue.
Fourth, for me, I remember having my mouth washed out with soap as a
young man for speaking the Spanish language, which is my native
language. I love English and we should encourage people to speak
English.
This amendment is nothing but a divisive amendment among the people
of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from 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 64, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]
YEAS--64
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Klobuchar
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wyden
NAYS--33
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Casey
Clinton
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Murray
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1151) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1415
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 1415 offered by
the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Allard be added as a cosponsor on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the underlying bill does not allow
Social Security credits for work done with a fraudulent card. However,
it does allow credit for work done on visa overstays. We all know that
is estimated to be about 40 percent of the 12 million estimated illegal
immigrants.
Mr. President, if we don't pass this amendment, it could jeopardize
the integrity of the Social Security system for all the hard-working
people who are going to depend on that for their retirement. It would
be a loss of about $28 billion per year. I urge adoption of my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. She has
worked with the managers of this legislation. We are prepared to accept
this amendment. We thank her for the courtesy, and we hope the
membership will support her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Texas.
The amendment (No. 1415) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1339
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 1339 offered by
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and
straightforward. It would add to the enforcement trigger mechanism of
the bill that the US-VISIT Program be fully operational. This is the
entry/exit system program that has been authorized since 1996 but has
never been put into operation.
As Senator Hutchison just mentioned, we all know a huge part of the
[[Page S7162]]
illegal immigration problem is visa overstays. The latest estimate, in
2006, is that 4 million to 5.5 million visa overstays are illegal
immigrants in this country. We cannot get a handle on that problem
without the US-VISIT system knowing when people are leaving the country
and, thus, whether they are overstaying their visa. Yet that is not
part of the enforcement mechanism in the bill at all.
Let's vote for this amendment and make it part of the bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there was no difference among all of us
in trying to ensure that we were going to have a secure America. We
worked very closely with Secretary Chertoff. In this legislation, we
have increased it to 27,000 detention beds, 20,000 border guards, 375
miles of fencing, 275 vehicle barriers, 70 ground-based radars and
cameras, sensors, and 4 unmanned aerial vehicles. We accepted the
Isakson trigger, saying that the other aspects of this legislation will
not go into effect until these are committed. Then we accepted the
Gregg additions. We are in the process now of trying to negotiate with
the administration to get mandatory spending to make sure all these are
done, and done expeditiously.
The Secretary of Homeland Security thinks we have met our
responsibilities. I hope the amendment will not be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. 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 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Webb
NAYS--49
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Voinovich
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1339) was rejected.
Mr. KYL. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1202
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes
of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1202 offered by the Senator
from Illinois, Mr. Obama.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It sunsets
after 5 years the points system that has been structured in this bill.
I wish to emphasize that I think the authors of this legislation
deserve credit for working diligently and coming up with a carefully
balanced bill, but the points system we are transitioning to is a
radical departure from the one we have had in the past. The question
is, do we, after 5 years, take a look and see whether it is working
properly? Is it one that is inhibiting families from unifying in this
country? Is it something that is making it easier or harder for
employers to operate effectively in a lawful fashion?
What this amendment simply says is that after 5 years, we will
reexamine the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. OBAMA. I leave it there. I ask my colleagues to support the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues who worked to put
this bill together, they know what this does. The deal is that in 8
years people will be reunited as families who never would have seen
each other for maybe 30 years. We have united families in 8 years. The
Z visa people have a chance to start over, but only after the backlog
is cleared.
The merit-based system is the vehicle to be used after 8 years so
they can come into our system and maybe one day be a citizen and get a
green card. If we sunset the merit-based system at 5 years, there is no
vehicle left, and to us over here, what would my colleagues say if we
sunsetted the Z program in 5 years? My colleagues would walk, and they
should.
This is not right. This does not help us as a country.
This destroys the vehicle to solve a problem that has been neglected
for 20-something years.
I ask my colleagues to vote no for the sake of the country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1202.
Mr. OBAMA. 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 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 42, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--55
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1202) was rejected.
Amendment No. 1316
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1316 offered by the
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will this be the last vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This will be the last vote; that is correct.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a sunset of the temporary worker
program in 5 years. It is a new bill, a new program, with more
questions than answers. It seems to me that we ought to ask some
questions at the end of 5 years.
[[Page S7163]]
In the fifth year, we will have 600,000 jobs assumed by temporary
workers coming in; in the fourth year, 400,000 jobs, and on and on. So
the question is, How many of them are going to leave? What if they do
not leave? Are we going to come back to the floor with a new
immigration bill, talking about illegal immigration? Why don't we
sunset after 5 years to see if this has worked?
Let me make a final point as we vote. We have had a lot of discussion
about immigration, but no one on the floor of the Senate is talking
about the impact on American workers. All of these jobs the temporary
workers will assume are going to compete with people at the bottom of
the economic ladder in this country. They are called American workers
as well.
Let us sunset this and evaluate what we are doing, what kind of
contribution to illegal immigration this will amount to, and what
impact it has on American workers. Let us sunset this at the end of 5
years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the third time we have dealt with
this issue. As much as I respect the Senator from North Dakota, he
doesn't care more about American workers than I do.
The fact is, if you have a secure border, workers are either going to
come in through the front door or the back door. If they come in
through the back door, as they are now doing, they are going to be
exploited and humiliated. If they come through the front door, as a
result of the fact that there is no American worker prepared to take
that job, they are going to get labor protections, the prevailing wage,
OSHA protections, workmen's compensation, and they are going to have
those kinds of protections which they do not have now.
You may not like the temporary worker program, but we have to have
predictability for a period of time. In the legislation are correcting
mechanisms for this program. Let us at least give it a chance to work.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient
second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1316.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Byrd
Cardin
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Corker
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Webb
Wyden
NAYS--48
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Ensign
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Voinovich
Warner
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1316) was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the hour is late and we have had a
long day. I think it has been a very productive day. Due to the delay
in getting amendments actually voted on, of course, the amendment I had
voted on this morning had been pending for a full 2 weeks before we
were able to secure an agreement to vote.
I ask unanimous consent to call up some of my pending amendments so
we can get them pending. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
1400, which is at the desk, be called up for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would have to object. We are in the
process of attempting to clear up these. We have had a very full day. I
want to thank the Senator from Texas for his cooperation. We will try
to address these in an orderly way. We have been trying to process some
of these back and forth. I think we have made extraordinary progress
today. We are trying to make sure everyone's voice and interests
positioned on those issues are going to have an opportunity to be
heard. Now I have to object. I will work with the Senator and see if we
cannot arrange time for consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know it has been a long day. But the
majority leader has filed a cloture motion which will be voted on
tomorrow. There is concern that there are many amendments that have
been filed which have not been allowed to be called up and be made
pending.
While I think there have been some recent indications that there is
more of a willingness to allow amendments to be considered, I am very
concerned, because of the procedural posture we will find ourselves in
very soon, that some of these amendments will not be allowed to be
considered.
I am concerned as well that may very well affect how many of us are
required to vote on cloture. I think there has been a recent spirit of
cooperation which I hope continues. But if there is going to be an
insistence on a vote on cloture, and at the same time a denial of the
opportunity of many of us to call up amendments and actually have them
considered and voted on, I do not think we will have any alternative
but to vote against cloture.
I regret the reluctance to allow us to call up amendments continues
at this time. If permitted, I want to call up at least four of my
amendments: 1400, 1208, 1337, and 1399. But I understand there has been
objection lodged. There likely will be objection lodged to additional
unanimous consent requests.
I would note for the record here that there are a lot of other
amendments that have not been allowed to be considered, and we have got
a lot of work to do before we can consider that everybody has had the
opportunity to call up amendments and have them voted on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would state for the record that last
year before cloture was successfully invoked on immigration, the Senate
disposed of 30 amendments with 23 rollcall votes. This year, after
votes just completed, the Senate has disposed of 41 amendments, with 27
rollcall votes, 11 amendments more than when we last considered this
bill under the other party's control. Not counting side-by-side
alternative amendments, there have been 18 Democratic amendments
offered, compared to 21 Republican amendments. Counting side by sides,
it is 21 Democrats, 22 Republicans. So I would say to my friend from
Texas, by standards of the last debate on the immigration bill, we have
considered 11 more amendments, we have had more rollcall votes, there
have been more side by sides and other votes offered from the
Republican side than the Democratic side.
So I say at this point this has been a fair and complete process. It
is now 12:20 in the morning. We have worked a long day; probably have 2
long days ahead of us. But to argue that Members have not had their
chance to express themselves through the amendment process is not
reflected in the actual vote.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I do not dispute the numbers. They are
what
[[Page S7164]]
they are. But I would point out that this bill did not go through the
Judiciary Committee. Last year when the McCain-Kennedy amendment and
the bill considered in the Judiciary Committee, I believe there were 62
amendments filed. I think there were a lot more filed than that, but
actually 62 amendments. So there was a process at the Judiciary
Committee level last year which gave people an opportunity to have
their positions heard. That has not been the case this year. I would
point that out as an obvious point of distinction. I hope there is not
going to be any attempt to try to force this bill through before
Senators are ready to consider all or at least a reasonable number of
amendments, because I do not think we will have any alternative but to
vote against cloture, to allow debate to continue and allow additional
amendments to be heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the interests of allowing Senator
Cornyn and other Senators to offer amendments, I make a unanimous
consent request that cloture votes be postponed tomorrow until 4 p.m.
so Senator Cornyn and others who wish to can offer amendments before
the cloture vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe a
demonstration of willingness to allow us to call up amendments and have
them debated and actually voted on would have been reflected in the
last 2 weeks. As I have pointed out, I was denied for a full 2 weeks an
opportunity to have the very first amendment I called up actually
scheduled for a vote. I know the distinguished deputy majority leader
is acting in good faith. But I think we need to have a vote on that
cloture motion at the time it is currently scheduled. So I would
respectfully object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have offered amendments on a number of
occasions and had asked those amendments be made pending, and set aside
the pending business to make certain amendments pending. I have had
objection.
At this time I once again ask that amendment No. 1323, which we
referred to as the Charlie Norwood amendment, that deals with
empowering State and local law enforcement officers to participate
through the normal process, if they choose, be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is pretty clear what has been
occurring is very few amendments have had the opportunity to get a real
debate. This is an important amendment. It deals with whether local law
enforcement can actually participate in any meaningful way in the
enforcement of Federal immigration laws. I will tell you what the facts
are, with the help from my fine staff chief counsel, Cindy Hayden.
We wrote a law review article for Stanford University Law School that
dealt with this issue, and it is a very important issue. It is one
well-understood by the legal professionals who have been behind the
scenes crafting this legislation.
The ninth circuit has held that visa overstays, which make up 40,
maybe 45 percent, and in the future, if this bill becomes law, maybe
more than 50 percent of the people illegally in the country, would be
visa overstays.
Those persons, if involved in some traffic accident, like many of the
terrorists were before 9/11--they were stopped for traffic violations
by local police officers, but because that is not a normal criminal
violation, as is the case for people who have come across the border,
they are not detainable under the ninth circuit ruling by local police
officers.
So it is a weird thing. Several other circuits seem to have held
differently. But the ninth circuit case was most on point. Lawyers for
police departments all over America are telling their police
departments: You may not have authority to hold anybody, so even if you
apprehend someone you are concerned about who could even be a
terrorist, like those people involved in 9/11, or like John Malvo, who
was involved in those murders, was stopped for traffic violations, we
do not have a system in place to even allow local police to detain them
for even a short period of time until they are turned over to the
Federal authorities.
That is the way the system ought to work. There are 600,000 to
800,000 State and local law enforcement officers in America. We are not
trying to mandate that they do anything. But in the course of their
business, their normal duties, if they come upon people in violation of
the law, they ought to be able to hold them and turn them over to the
Federal authorities.
I am disappointed we are not getting to move forward on that
amendment, very disappointed. We had this matter sort of fixed in
Judiciary Committee last year. Then an amendment came up--somebody
figured out the significance of it, and that amendment took it out.
Ever since, any effort to get that to be made a part of this fix has
been undermined and blocked.
I say to my colleagues, I do not believe anybody can say they have a
commitment to having an enforceable immigration system if they throw
roadblocks up that undermine the ability of State and local law
enforcement to participate in their normal course of their duties by
detaining people they come upon who are here illegally. You would think
that would be an easy thing to get done. I have said before, it seems
when it comes to immigration, many things can be accepted, many things
people approve of. But if you come up with something that actually is
very effective, that is what gets objected to. This is something that
is critical. It is a testament and a test of our will and our
seriousness as a body.
If we are not prepared to pass legislation like the Norwood
amendment, named after former House Member Charlie Norwood from
Georgia, who died recently, if we are not prepared to do that, we are
not serious about this.
I will say one more thing. Time and time and time again, I have heard
Members of this body say: Oh, we cannot vote for this amendment, or you
must vote against that amendment. Why? Because we have an agreement. A
compromise. It violates our compromise. Well, who was in on that
compromise? I am frankly getting tired of that. That is not
satisfactory to me.
The question really should be, is this amendment good or not good for
the legitimate interests of the Nation? No one small group of people
have a right to meet in secret with special interest groups and write
an immigration bill and ram it down the throat of this Senate. I oppose
it. It is not right. You can agree or disagree on these amendments, but
do so on the merits, whether or not it actually makes sense, not on
some deal made by some advocacy group or some business interest. That
is not what this Senate is all about.
I hope today the people will begin to see that a small group of
Senators who meet in secret and plot out a bill, that if printed in
actual bill language would be 1,000 pages, don't have the power to say
we can't have amendments and we can't change it, and if you do get an
amendment up, we are all going to stick together and vote it down
because it doesn't comply with our little compromise.
The masters of the universe are playing a tough game here. I have
called them that affectionately. I respect the Members who have
attempted to do what maybe they thought was right. But when you look at
the bill, it is a product of a political compromise. A group of
politicians met in secret and wrote a bill that is exceedingly
technical, exceedingly important.
Let me tell you who was not there in this meeting. The American
people were not there. Who was advocating for the American people?
I will tell you another group who was not there. That is the law
enforcement agencies that are charged with enforcing our laws at the
border. They weren't there. As a matter of fact, they had a press
conference a couple of days ago. They were at the national press club
and made a presentation. These are senior retired officials who had
many decades of experience in enforcing our laws at the border. They
uniformly condemn this legislation, as do the Border Patrol Agents
Association. They condemn it roundly. Hugh Brien, himself an immigrant,
became chief of the Border Patrol from 1986 to 1989. I started making
notes on C-SPAN the night before last. I just happened to
[[Page S7165]]
turn it on. He said this bill is a ``sell out, a complete betrayal of
the nation, a slap in the face to millions coming here legally.''
He referred to the people in 1986 who passed the 1986 act and
promised it would do things as our masters and our mandarins, who said
the bill was going to work and it never worked. He said:
Based on my experience, it's a disaster.
Kurt Lundgren, national chairman of the Association of Former Border
Patrol Agents said this:
There are no meaningful criminal or terrorist checks in the
bill.
He said:
Screening will not happen.
He said:
Congress is lying about it.
With regard to the proposal that record checks would be performed
within 24 hours, he said:
There's no way records can be done in 24 hours. As to the
proposal that Senator Cornyn tried to fix that allows gang
members, MS-13 international gang organization groups to get
amnesty by simply saying they renounce their allegiance to
the gang, he said:
What planet are they from?
Jim Dorcy, an agent for 30 years and inspector general with the
Department of Justice that handled investigations into all these areas
involving the Border Patrol, internal investigations, he said:
The 24-hour check is a recipe for disaster.
Referring to the bill, Mr. Dorcy, 30 years with the Border Patrol
said:
I call it the al-Qaida dream bill.
Roger Brandemuehl, chief of the Border Patrol from 1980 to 1986,
second one I am calling on here that was chief of it, said:
We have fallen into a quagmire.
He said:
The so-called comprehensive reform is neither comprehensive
nor reform.
He said:
It's flawed.
He set forth some principles that he thought would actually work.
When asked had he been consulted by the masters of the universe who
cobbled this bill together, a bunch of politicians who have never
arrested anybody in their lives, they joked about it. They never have
been consulted. Nobody wanted to know what they knew or cared about.
I will just wrap up and say I am not comfortable with the way this
bill is going. I think we have been slow-walked in the way the majority
leader and the group that is trying to move this bill forward is doing
this. They are objecting to having amendments pending. So when cloture
is filed, if an amendment is not pending, it fails. It can't be voted
on postcloture. So this way they have been able to maintain control
over the amendment process and will be able to maintain it, even if
cloture is obtained tomorrow. I don't know what will happen tomorrow,
but I know this: There are a lot of good amendments. I have seen some
of the amendments Senator Cornyn has that are important. I know some of
the amendments I have are important to having a good, lawful
immigration system. There remain major flaws in this legislation. We
should not pass it in its present form.
In rebuttal to the constant refrain that somehow this bill is going
to end the lawlessness and create a lawful system, I point out that the
Congressional Budget Office, just 2 years ago, issued their analysis of
the bill and concluded there would only be a 25-percent reduction in
the number of people coming into our country illegally. We have gone
through all this, and we are only going to get a 25-percent reduction
in the number of people who come here illegally, when we arrested last
year over a million people. What kind of system is this?
I wish the principles and goals contained in the talking points that
were bandied about early on in this process could have been achieved. I
had hoped they would and said some good things about it because I
thought some of the principles involved in this year's process were a
bit better than last year, but the truth is, when you read the fine
print, very little progress was made in those directions, and the major
flaws continue. I just wish it weren't so. But that is my opinion of
it. I don't think we are on the road to improving the bill. I don't
think we are proceeding effectively to allow full debate and amendment.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1311, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1150
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Good morning, Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Coburn, I call up amendment No. 1311 and ask
that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk and then be
set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse], for Mr.
Coburn and Mr. DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 1311,
as modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the enforcement of existing border security and
immigration laws and Congressional approval before amnesty can be
granted)
Strike section 1 and all that follows through page 4, line
11 and insert the following:
SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE TRIGGERS.
The provisions of subtitle C of title IV, and the admission
of aliens under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)), as amended
by title IV, the programs established by title IV, and the
programs established by title VI that grant legal status to
any individual or that adjust the current status of any
individual who is unlawfully present in the United States to
that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
shall become effective on the date that the Secretary submits
a written certification to the President and the Congress,
based on analysis by and in consultation with the Comptroller
General, that each of the following border security and other
measures are established, funded, and operational:
(1) Operational control of the international border with
mexico.--The Secretary of Homeland Security has established
and demonstrated operational control of 100 percent of the
international land border between the United States and
Mexico, including the ability to monitor such border through
available methods and technology.
(2) Staff enhancements for border patrol.--The United
States Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol has hired,
trained, and reporting for duty 20,000 full-time agents as of
the date of the certification under this subsection.
(3) Strong border barriers.--There has been--
(A) installed along the international land border between
the United States and Mexico as of the date of the
certification under this subsection, at least--
(i) 300 miles of vehicle barriers;
(ii) 370 miles of fencing; and
(iii) 105 ground-based radar and camera towers; and
(B) deployed for use along the along the international land
border between the United States and Mexico, as of the date
of the certification under this subsection, 4 unmanned aerial
vehicles, and the supporting systems for such vehicles.
(4) Catch and return.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
is detaining all removable aliens apprehended crossing the
international land border between the United States and
Mexico in violation of Federal or State law, except as
specifically mandated by Federal or State law or humanitarian
circumstances, and United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement has the resources to maintain this practice,
including the resources necessary to detain up to 31,500
aliens per day on an annual basis.
(5) Workplace enforcement tools.--In compliance with the
requirements of title III of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security has established, and is using, secure and
effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized
workers from obtaining employment in the United States. Such
identification tools shall include establishing--
(A) strict standards for identification documents that are
required to be presented by the alien to an employer in the
hiring process, including the use of secure documentation
that--
(i) contains--
(I) a photograph of the alien; and
(II) biometric data identifying the alien; or
(ii) complies with the requirements for such documentation
under the REAL ID Act (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 231); and
(B) an electronic employment eligibility verification
system that is capable of querying Federal and State
databases in order to restrict fraud, identity theft, and use
of false social security numbers in the hiring of aliens by
an employer by electronically providing a digitized version
of the photograph on the alien's original Federal or State
issued document or documents for verification of that alien's
identity and work eligibility.
(6) Processing applications of aliens.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security has received, and is processing and
adjudicating in a timely manner, applications for Z
nonimmigrant status under title VI of this Act,
[[Page S7166]]
including conducting all necessary background and security
checks required under that title.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the border security and other measures described in
subsection (a) shall be completed as soon as practicable,
subject to the necessary appropriations.
(c) Presidential Progress Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter until the
requirements under subsection (a) are met, the President
shall submit a report to Congress detailing the progress made
in funding, meeting, or otherwise satisfying each of the
requirements described under paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a), including detailing any contractual
agreements reached to carry out such measures.
(2) Progress not sufficient.--If the President determines
that sufficient progress is not being made, the President
shall include in the report required under paragraph (1)
specific funding recommendations, authorization needed, or
other actions that are or should be undertaken by the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
(d) GAO Report.--Not later than 30 days after the
certification is submitted under subsection (a), the
Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress on the
accuracy of such certification.
(e) Certification of Implementation of Existing Provisions
of Law.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the requirements under
subsection (a), at such time as any of the provisions
described in paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the Secretary
of the department or agency responsible for implementing the
requirements shall certify to the President that the
provisions of paragraph (2) have been satisfied.
(2) Existing law.--The following provisions of existing law
shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the
Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph
(1):
(A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational
control over the entire international land and maritime
borders of the United States as required under the Secure
Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)
(B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have
been constructed.
(C) All databases maintained by the Department which
contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as
required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).
(D) The Department shall have implemented a system to
record the departure of every alien departing the United
States and of matching records of departure with the records
of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program
as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221
note).
(E) The provision of law that prevents States and
localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that
prevents State and local employees from communicating with
the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).
(F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at
each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that
allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas,
travel documents, passports, and other documents
authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C.
1732).
(G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from
entering the United States until the biometric identifier on
the border crossing card is matched against the alien as
required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).
(H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is
denied entry into the United States pursuant to section
212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(4)).
(f) Presidential Review of Certifications.--
(1) Presidential review.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the President
has received a certification, the President may approve or
disapprove the certification. Any Presidential disapproval of
a certification shall be made if the President believes that
the requirements set forth have not been met.
(B) Disapproval.--In the event the President disapproves of
a certification, the President shall deliver a notice of
disapproval to the Secretary of the department or agency
which made such certification. Such notice shall contain
information that describes the manner in which the
immigration enforcement measure was deficient, and the
Secretary of the department or agency responsible for
implementing said immigration enforcement measure shall
continue to work to implement such measure.
(C) Continuation of implementation.--The Secretary of the
department or agency responsible for implementing an
immigration enforcement measure shall consider such measure
approved, unless the Secretary receives the notice set forth
in subparagraph (B). In instances where an immigration
enforcement measure is deemed approved, the Secretary shall
continue to ensure that the immigration enforcement measure
continues to be fully implemented as directed by the
Congress.
(g) Presidential Certification of Immigration
Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the final
certification has been approved by the President, the
President shall submit to the Congress a notice of
Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement.
(2) Report.--The certification required under paragraph (1)
shall be submitted with an accompanying report that details
such information as is necessary for the Congress to make an
independent determination that each of the immigration
enforcement measures has been fully and properly implemented.
(3) Contents.--The Presidential Certification required
under paragraph (1) shall be submitted--
(A) in the Senate, to the Majority Leader, the Minority
Leader, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee
on the Judiciary, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs; and the Committee on Finance; and
(B) in the House of Representatives, to the Speaker, the
Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and the chairman and
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Committee on Homeland Security; and the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(h) Congressional Review of Presidential Certification.--
(1) In general.--If a Presidential Certification of
Immigration Enforcement is made by the President under this
section, subtitle A of title IV, title V, and subtitles A
through C of title VI of this Act shall not be implemented
unless, during the first 90-calendar day period of continuous
session of the Congress after the date of the receipt by the
Congress of such notice of Presidential Certification of
Immigration Enforcement, the Congress passes a Resolution of
Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement in
accordance with this subsection, and such resolution is
enacted into law.
(2) Procedures applicable to the senate.--
(A) Rulemaking authority.--The provisions under this
paragraph are enacted by Congress--
(i) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate,
and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of the
Senate, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to
be followed in the Senate in the case of a Resolution of
Immigration Enforcement, and such provisions supersede other
rules of the Senate only to the extent that they are
inconsistent with such other rules; and
(ii) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the Senate to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of the Senate) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the
Senate.
(B) Introduction; referral.--
(i) In general.--Not later than the first day on which the
Senate is in session following the day on which any notice of
Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement is
received by the Congress, a Resolution of Presidential
Certification of Immigration Enforcement shall be introduced
(by request) in the Senate by either the Majority Leader or
Minority Leader. If such resolution is not introduced as
provided in the preceding sentence, any Senator may introduce
such resolution on the third day on which the Senate is in
session after the date or receipt of the Presidential
Certification of Immigration Enforcement.
(ii) Referral.--Upon introduction, a Resolution of
Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement shall
be referred jointly to each of the committees having
jurisdiction over the subject matter referenced in the
Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement by the
President of the Senate. Upon the expiration of 60 days of
continuous session after the introduction of the Resolution
of Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement,
each committee to which such resolution was referred shall
make its recommendations to the Senate.
(iii) Discharge.--If any committee to which is referred a
resolution introduced under paragraph (2)(A) has not reported
such resolution at the end of 60 days of continuous session
of the Congress after introduction of such resolution, such
committee shall be discharged from further consideration of
such resolution, and such resolution shall be placed on the
legislative calendar of the Senate.
(C) Consideration.--
(i) In general.--When each committee to which a resolution
has been referred has reported, or has been discharged from
further consideration of, a resolution described in paragraph
(2)(C), it shall at any time thereafter be in order (even
though a previous motion to the same effect has been
disagreed to) for any Member of the Senate to move to proceed
to the consideration of such resolution. Such motion shall
not be debatable. If a motion to proceed to the consideration
of such resolution is agreed to, such resolution shall remain
the unfinished business of the Senate until the disposition
of such resolution.
(ii) Debate.--Debate on a resolution, and on all debatable
motions and appeals in connection with such resolution, shall
be limited to not more than 30 hours, which shall be divided
equally between Members favoring and Members opposing such
resolution. A motion to further limit debate shall be in
[[Page S7167]]
order and shall not be debatable. The resolution shall not be
subject to amendment, to a motion to postpone, or to a motion
to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion
to recommit such resolution shall not be in order.
(iii) Final vote.--Immediately following the conclusion of
the debate on a resolution of approval, and a single quorum
call at the conclusion of such debate if requested in
accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on such
resolution shall occur.
(iv) Appeals.--Appeals from the decisions of the Chair
relating to the application of the rules of the Senate to the
procedure relating to a resolution of approval shall be
limited to 1 hour of debate.
(D) Receipt of a resolution from the house.--If the Senate
receives from the House of Representatives a Resolution of
Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement, the
following procedures shall apply:
(i) The resolution of the House of Representatives shall
not be referred to a committee and shall be placed on the
Senate calendar, except that it shall not be in order to
consider such resolution on the calendar received by the
House of Representatives until such time as the Committee
reports such resolution or is discharged from further
consideration of a resolution, pursuant to this title.
(ii) With respect to the disposition by the Senate with
respect to such resolution, on any vote on final passage of a
resolution of the Senate with respect to such approval, a
resolution from the House of Representatives with respect to
such measures shall be automatically substituted for the
resolution of the Senate.
(3) Procedures applicable to the house of
representatives.--
(A) Rulemaking authority.--The provisions of this paragraph
are enacted by Congress--
(i) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives, and as such they are deemed a part of the
rules of the House of Representatives, but applicable only
with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House of
Representatives in the case of Resolutions of Certification
Immigration Enforcement, and such provisions supersede other
rules of the House of Representatives only to the extent that
they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
(ii) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the House of Representatives to change the rules (so far as
relating to the procedure of the House of Representatives) at
any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in
the case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.
(B) Introduction; referral.--Resolutions of certification
shall upon introduction, be immediately referred by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives to the appropriate
committee or committees of the House of Representatives. Any
such resolution received from the Senate shall be held at the
Speaker's table.
(C) Discharge.--Upon the expiration of 60 days of
continuous session after the introduction of the first
resolution of certification with respect to any measure, each
committee to which such resolution was referred shall be
discharged from further consideration of such resolution, and
such resolution shall be referred to the appropriate
calendar, unless such resolution or an identical resolution
was previously reported by each committee to which it was
referred.
(D) Consideration.--It shall be in order for the Speaker to
recognize a Member favoring a resolution to call up a
resolution of certification after it has been on the
appropriate calendar for 5 legislative days. When any such
resolution is called up, the House of Representatives shall
proceed to its immediate consideration and the Speaker shall
recognize the Member calling up such resolution and a Member
opposed to such resolution for 10 hours of debate in the
House of Representatives, to be equally divided and
controlled by such Members. When such time has expired, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution to adoption without intervening motion. No
amendment to any such resolution shall be in order, nor shall
it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which such
resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.
(E) Receipt of resolution from senate.--If the House of
Representatives receives from the Senate a Resolution of
Certification Immigration Enforcement, the following
procedures shall apply:
(i) Such resolution shall not be referred to a committee.
(ii) With respect to the disposition of the House of
Representatives with respect to such resolution--
(I) the procedure with respect to that or other resolutions
of the House of Representatives shall be the same as if no
resolution from the Senate with respect to such resolution
had been received; but
(II) on any vote on final passage of a resolution of the
House of Representatives with respect to such measures, a
resolution from the Senate with respect to such resolution if
the text is identical shall be automatically substituted for
the resolution of the House of Representatives.
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Presidential certification of immigration
enforcement.--The term ``Presidential Certification of
Immigration Enforcement'' means the certification required
under this section, which is signed by the President, and
reads as follows:
``Pursuant to the provisions set forth in section 1 of the
Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform
Act of 2007 (the `Act'), I do hereby transmit the
Certification of Immigration Enforcement, certify that the
borders of the United States are substantially secure, and
certify that the following provisions of the Act have been
fully satisfied, the measures set forth below are fully
implemented, and the border security measures set forth in
this section are fully operational.''.
(2) Certification.--The term ``certification'' means any of
the certifications required under subsection (a).
(3) Immigration enforcement measure.--The term
``immigration enforcement measure'' means any of the measures
required to be certified pursuant to subsection (a).
(4) Resolution of presidential certification of immigration
enforcement.--The term ``Resolution of Presidential
Certification of Immigration Enforcement'' means a joint
resolution of the Congress, the matter after the resolving
clause of which is as follows:
``That Congress approves the certification of the President
of the United States submitted to Congress on ____ that the
national borders of the United States have been secured and,
in accordance with the provisions of the Secure Borders,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.'',
TITLE I--BORDER ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A--Assets for Controlling United States Borders.
SEC. 101. ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) Additional Personnel--
(1) U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS--In each of
the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Secretary shall,
subject to the availability of appropriations, increase by
not less than 501 the number of positions for full-time
active duty CBP officers and provide appropriate training,
equipment, and support to such additional CBP officers.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise to clarify the record of my vote on
Bingaman amendment No. 1267. I intended to vote against the amendment.
I do not support the amendment and I wish to explain why.
The Bingaman amendment No. 1267 would have allowed certain future
legal temporary workers to renew their work visas from the United
States, rather than being required to leave the country for a period of
time to reapply. In order to have a true temporary worker program,
workers must only come to the U.S. for a season and then return to
their home country. If workers are instead permitted to stay in the
U.S., they will likely establish economic and familial roots, and will
not want to leave when their legal visa has expired. People who want to
take part in our society should seek legal citizenship, rather than
extending upon an agreement that was intended to be temporary. I
encourage those who have respected our laws and want to live in our
country to apply for a green card and become a U.S. citizen.
____________________