[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8579-S8599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT--Continued

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have this matter before us. We are going 
to do our very best to work through it. To remind everyone about this 
legislation: This bill was taken up. We spent considerable days on the 
Senate floor. Prior to doing that, of course, we had a debate last year 
that encompassed much of what we have talked about this year. In 
addition to that, though, during the time we pulled the bill from the 
floor--this bill was pending here--of course, we brought that back with 
the amendments that had passed.
  In addition to that, with the concurrence of the President--because 
the No. 1 complaint that folks on the other side had initially was 
there was nothing that was going to take care of the border--$4.4 
billion is now in this matter that is now before the Senate, $4.4 
billion to strengthen the border. It does do that. Not only do we spend 
the money, but we spend it well in this bill. There will be 370 miles 
of fencing that will be paid for--will not be just talked about--300 
miles of vehicle barriers that work extremely well, probably better 
than the fences. It will now be possible to hire 20,000 new Border 
Patrol agents. The are 105 ground-based radar and camera towers. There 
will be a facility with detention beds for people who violate these 
immigration laws. There will be a place to put them.
  It toughens employer sanctions by creating a mandatory employer 
verification system. It doubles criminal and civil penalties against 
employers who hire unauthorized workers. Employers can be fined up to 
$5,000 per worker for the first offense, up to $75,000 per worker for 
subsequent offenses, or they can serve jail time.

[[Page S8580]]

Also, as it relates to employer sanctions, it strengthens document 
integrity by requiring tamper-resistant biometric immigration 
documents.
  And, yes, as the Republican Secretary of Commerce has said, and other 
administration officials have said, this is not amnesty. In fact, what 
Secretary Gutierrez has said is that if we do not do something, there 
is silent amnesty. We are going to move past that.
  If someone wants to be on a pathway to legalization, they have a job, 
they pay taxes, they stay out of trouble, they learn English, they pay 
penalties and fines. They go to the back of the line, not to the front 
of the line.
  This legislation, very importantly, includes AgJOBS and ends the 
exploitation of migrant farmworkers and provides them legal status.
  The DREAM Act, which a number of individuals worked very hard on--but 
no one harder than my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
Durbin--the DREAM Act is to legalize immigrant children brought by 
their parents to this country through no fault of their own and to 
allow them to go to college or join the military.
  So this is a nice piece of legislation. It is a step in the right 
direction. We have had 36 hearings since 9/11, 6 days of committee 
action, 59 committee amendments, 21 days of Senate debate, 92 Senate 
floor amendments. We have been pretty thorough with this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield to my friend for a question, and I would, of 
course, regain the floor when he completes his question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is it the Senator's understanding with 
this legislation we will have virtually the strongest border in the 
history of the United States of America in the Southwest? Is that the 
Senator's understanding of the effect of this legislation?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. He has been 
on the Judiciary Committee for decades in the Senate. He has been 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration for decades. He has watched 
what has gone on. We all recognize what happened in 1986 was not good. 
It is my understanding the senior Senator from Massachusetts voted 
against that legislation.
  This legislation will correct that. This legislation will put 4.4 
billion real dollars--not authorized--in direct funding. We got a 
signoff from the President to do this. If we did nothing else, zero--
for those people who have concerns about this legislation--if we did 
nothing else other than do this to secure our border, they should vote 
for this legislation. But there is much more in it. I have given a 
brief review of the good things in this legislation. It is a good piece 
of legislation to correct the problem we have.
  Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with the Council of Economic 
Advisers that said passing this legislation will mean there is $55 
billion--$55 billion--in fees and in fines that will be paid that will 
be used to strengthen the border, to enforce worksite enforcement, to 
make sure we are going to have a tamperproof card, which is essential 
for any kind of immigration system; and that if this legislation does 
not pass, that $55 billion is going to be paid for by the American 
taxpayer? Does the Senator understand that is the implication of these 
votes?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the people who are talking about the 
negativity of this legislation I do not think understand how good it 
is. I have talked about the $4.4 billion. But to think about that: $55 
billion to go toward making our country safer--not our borders--our 
country safer, and it is not paid for by the taxpayers. It will be paid 
for by the people who are seeking to change their status.
  I think it is a tremendous improvement, a step forward. I think it is 
so important that the American people not hear all this ``some of us 
have not been on the floor talking about this piece of legislation a 
lot.'' It seems the voices we hear are people who are talking about the 
process being unfair, that they have not had a right to be heard. Some 
people complain, ``I thought the Senate was different than this.''
  Mr. President, for my friends, some of whom are complaining who 
served in the House of Representatives, this is a fair process. People 
in the Senate have a right to speak. We have rules that after so much 
time, when 60 Senators say you talked enough, debate comes to an end. 
That is where we are in this matter. We are at a point where tomorrow 
morning cloture will be invoked on this bill. It would be so important 
that we do that. It would make our country a better country. We need to 
do this; otherwise, our borders remain porous, with no end in sight.
  Mr. President, what is now before the Senate?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Division III of the amendment is 
currently before the body.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader 
yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to in a minute.
  Division III is an amendment offered by the senior Senator from the 
State of Missouri. If anyone wishes to speak on that, what I would like 
to do is ask--not like to do; I am going to do--I ask unanimous consent 
that there be an hour of time, for debate only, on this amendment; that 
following that time being used--it would be divided equally between the 
two managers--following that time being used, I would have the right to 
the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I say to the leader, I am going to make 
about 5 minutes of remarks on it. I have not heard from many other 
people. I think we could move things along without taking an hour. I do 
not know if any of my colleagues on the floor wish to speak, but 20 
minutes equally divided would--
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw my unanimous consent request. I 
appreciate the suggestion of my friend from Missouri. I think it is a 
constructive one. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that on the Bond 
amendment there be 20 minutes equally divided, that this conversation 
during this 20 minutes be for debate only, that the time be controlled 
by Senator Specter--I am sure he will give his time to Senator Bond--
and Senator Kennedy on our side; and that following the using up of 
that 20 minutes, I obtain the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, as I consider the 
unanimous consent request, can I ask permission to pose two questions 
to the distinguished majority leader?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have the floor; is 
that right?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my friend for a 
question.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader. Two questions. One is on the 
substance of the bill. In particular, on the point you were making 
regarding funding for enforcement, are you aware of the CRS letter and 
report which says that $4.4 billion, or at least much of it, can go to 
the Z visa and the Y visa program, and that it is not clear at all that 
the trigger provisions have to be met and that certification has to 
happen before those funds can instead be used for the Z visa program 
versus enforcement?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in response to my friend's question, first 
of all, at least for the next 18 months, President Bush is our 
President. His Cabinet officers--two of whom have been heavily involved 
in this legislation, Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez--have 
confirmed that this money--anything the President has power over 
through his administration--this money will go to border security, the 
things I have outlined earlier this afternoon: fencing, vehicle 
barriers, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, 105 ground-based radar and 
camera towers, detention beds--and a lot of detention beds, 
specifically 31,000.
  One of the problems we have had at the border is that as our valiant 
Border Patrol agents grab these people coming across the border, they 
have no place

[[Page S8581]]

to put them. They will now have 31,500--a pretty good holding facility. 
It will alleviate many of the problems, many of the complaints that our 
own Border Patrol agents have.
  So in response to my friend from Louisiana, the administration 
assured all of us this money will be used in a manner to make our 
border more secure.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this June 
25, 2007, Congressional Research Service memorandum printed in the 
Record because it certainly states clearly that the trigger does not 
have to be fully met before these funds can go to the Z visa program.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2007.


                               Memorandum

     To: Honorable Jim DeMint
     From: Blas Nunez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic 
         Social Policy.
     Subject: Trigger language in S. 1639.
       This memorandum is in response to your request concerning 
     the trigger provisions in S. 1639, the Comprehensive 
     Immigration Reform Act. Specifically, you asked CRS to 
     analyze whether the $4.4 billion that would be authorized by 
     the bill to fund the trigger provisions could be used to fund 
     the processing of Y and Z visas. As such, this memorandum 
     will be restricted to a discussion of Sections 1 and 2 of S. 
     1639. If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, I 
     can be reached at 7-0622.
     Section 1 of S. 1639
       Section 1 of S. 1639 would establish certain requirements 
     that must be met by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
     before the programs in Titles IV and VI of the Act ``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'' can be implemented.
       The Act would make exceptions to this requirement for: the 
     probationary benefits conferred by Section 601(h); the 
     provisions of Subtitle C of Title IV (relating to non-
     immigrant visa reform); and the admission of aliens under 
     Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (as amended by S. 1639).
       Prior to the implementation of the majority of the programs 
     in Titles IV and VI, the Secretary of DHS would be required 
     to certify in writing to Congress and the President that each 
     of the following measures (commonly referred to as 
     ``triggers'') are ``established, funded, and operational:''
       DHS has ``established and demonstrated operational control 
     of 100 percent'' of the land border between the United States 
     and Mexico.
       Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has hired, trained, and 
     deployed 20,000 United States Border Patrol (USBP) agents.
       CBP has installed 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles 
     of fencing, 105 ground-based radar and camera towers, and 
     deployed 4 unmanned aerial vehicles to the border.
       DHS is detaining all removable aliens apprehended crossing 
     the border illegally, except as specifically mandated by 
     federal or state law or humanitarian circumstances. 
     Additionally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would 
     need to have the resources to maintain this practice, 
     including the ability to detain 31,500 aliens on a daily 
     basis.
       DHS has established and is using secure, effective 
     identification tools to verify the identity of workers and 
     prevent unauthorized aliens from obtaining employment in the 
     United States. These tools should include the use of secure 
     documentation that contains photographs and biometric 
     information on the work-authorized aliens and comply with the 
     requirements established by the REAL-ID Act (P.L. 109-13, 
     Div. B). Additionally, DHS would be required to establish an 
     electronic employment eligibility verification system capable 
     of querying federal and state databases in order to provide 
     employers with a digital photograph of the alien's original 
     federal or state issued identity or work-authorization 
     documents.
       DHS has received, is processing, and is adjudicating in a 
     timely manner applications for Z non-immigrant status under 
     title VI of this Act.
       The Administration would be required to submit a report 
     within 90 days of the enactment of S. 1639, and every 90 days 
     thereafter until the trigger requirements are met, detailing 
     the progress made in funding and satisfying each of the 
     requirements outlined above. The Governmental Accountability 
     Office (GAO) would be required to submit a report within 30 
     days of DHS' written certification that the trigger 
     provisions have been met concerning the accuracy of that 
     certification.
     Section 2 of S. 1639
       Section 2 would establish a new account within the DHS 
     appropriation known as the ``Immigration Security Account,'' 
     and would endow this account with a transfer $4.4 billion 
     from the Treasury's general fund. These funds would be 
     available for use by DHS for five years after the enactment 
     of S. 1639 in order to meet the trigger requirements outlined 
     above.
       Section 2 further stipulates that, ``to the extent funds 
     are not exhausted'' in carrying out the trigger requirements, 
     they would be available to be used for any of the following 
     additional activities: fencing and infrastructure; towers; 
     detention beds; the employment eligibility verification 
     system, including funds relating to the State Records 
     Improvement Grant Program outlined in Section 306; 
     implementation of the programs authorized by titles IV and 
     VI; and, other federal border and interior enforcement 
     requirements to ensure the integrity of the programs 
     authorized by titles IV and VI.
       This language appears to require DHS to expend the funds in 
     the Immigration Security Account to meet the trigger 
     requirements in Section I prior to funding the additional 
     activities outlined above. DHS would be given the authority 
     to transfer funds from the Immigration Security Account as 
     needed to fund the trigger requirements and the additional 
     purposes outlined above.
       DHS would be required to submit an expenditure plan for the 
     Immigration Security Account funds to the Senate Committees 
     on Judiciary and Appropriations within 60 days of enactment, 
     and annually thereafter, identifying: one-time and ongoing 
     costs; the level of funding for each program, project, and 
     activity and whether that funding supplements an appropriated 
     program, project, and activity; the amount of funding 
     obligated in each fiscal year by program, project, and 
     activity; the milestones required for the completion of each 
     identified program, project, and activity; and how these 
     activities will further the goals and objectives of the Act.
       Lastly, DHS would be required to notify the Senate 
     Committees on Judiciary and Appropriations 15 days prior to 
     the reprogramming of funds from their original allocation or 
     the transferring of funds out of the Immigration Security 
     Account.
     Conclusion
       In response to your question concerning whether the $4.4 
     billion in funding appropriated under the Immigration 
     Security Account could be used to fund the processing of Y or 
     Z visas under Titles IV and VI of S. 1639, S. 1639 appears to 
     require that the trigger mechanisms be funded first. 
     Receiving, processing, and adjudicating applications for the 
     Z visa authorized by Title VI of the Act is one of the 
     trigger mechanisms outlined in Section I; this means that 
     funding from the Immigration Security Account could be used 
     for this purpose. Section 2(C) would allow DHS to expend any 
     funds remaining after the trigger mechanisms have been fully 
     funded on certain activities, including the implementation of 
     the programs authorized in Titles IV and VI of the Act. Thus, 
     it appears the funding for the Y visa (and other programs) 
     authorized by Title IV of the Act could only be made 
     available through the Immigration Security Account once the 
     trigger mechnisms had been met. However, S. 1639 does not 
     explicitly stipulate whether the certification required by 
     Section I would have to take place prior to funding being 
     made available for the additional purposes outlined in 
     Section 2(C).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, does my friend have another question?
  Mr. VITTER. Yes. The second question for the majority leader is about 
procedure. I think he understands my frustrations in terms of the 
procedure we seem to be adopting. Does the distinguished majority 
leader see any opportunity between now and tomorrow's key cloture vote 
for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments on the floor 
versus his handpicked amendments or to be recognized on the floor for 
reasons of our choosing versus merely being recognized for reasons of 
his choosing?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are in the Senate. We have certain 
procedures and rules. I have tried to make things as family friendly as 
possible; that is, Senate family friendly. I say to my friend, during 
the early days of this legislation, amendments were offered by him and 
others, some of which got votes, some did not. That is the way the 
Senate operates. We are now in a process to work toward in the morning 
when we have a cloture vote.
  I think the process is very fair. The people who are managing this 
legislation, directed by Senators Specter and Kennedy--two of the most 
senior Members of our Senate--have been as fair as possible for our 
getting where we are. There are amendments in this procedure we are 
going through by people who have never supported the bill and do not 
intend to support the bill. The amendments were arrived at in a way to 
try to improve this bill. Will all amendments improve the bill? I guess 
that is in the eye of the beholder.
  I say to my friend, the procedure has been set here. I am sorry you 
are concerned about it. I, frankly, though, think we have been very 
fair. As a result of that, I would ask my friend if he has an objection 
to Senator Bond's suggestion, that we debate this amendment of his--
that is debate only--for 20 minutes equally divided.

[[Page S8582]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving, again, my right to object, I 
ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Is this for debate only?
  Mr. VITTER. For debate only.
  Mr. REID. I would have the floor as soon as the minute is up; is that 
right?
  Mr. VITTER. That is correct.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Well, again, I take it from the distinguished majority leader that 
his answer to my last question is no. Under this process, there will be 
no opportunity for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments. 
We will only consider his 26 handpicked amendments. Again, he put 
together that list. He could have included some amendments of folks who 
have serious problems with the bill. But there are no Vitter amendments 
on the list. There are no Sessions amendments. There are no DeMint 
amendments, no Cornyn amendments, no Dole amendments, no Bunning 
amendments, and we could go on and on. Is that a fair process?

  I also ask, is it a fair process for me to only be recognized on the 
floor of the Senate during this momentous debate leading up to a 
cloture vote only for purposes of the majority leader's choosing and 
for no purposes of my own choosing?
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. So the record is very clear, Harry Reid, the majority 
leader, did not pick the Republican amendments. The Republican 
leadership picked those amendments. Senator McConnell and I worked the 
process so that we would be back on the floor. It wasn't done by me; it 
was done by us.
  I would further say, these amendments, Republican amendments in this 
bill, were not picked by me; they were picked by the Republican 
leadership. I didn't stand over his shoulder. They chose what they 
decided to do.
  So I ask my friend if he has an objection to my request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes before yielding 
to the Senator from Missouri. I do so at this time before hearing from 
the senior Senator from Missouri to comment about what the Senator from 
Louisiana has had to say.
  When he objects to the procedure where he doesn't have an opportunity 
to offer amendments, I would remind the Senator from Louisiana and 
everyone else that there was a time when we were searching for 
amendments. I refer specifically to the Thursday afternoon before the 
majority leader took the bill down on the cloture vote. We sat around 
for hours looking for amendments, and the people who objected to the 
bill would not offer amendments, nor would they let anybody else offer 
amendments. That is why I supported cloture, first to protect the 
rights of the minority to offer amendments, but then when they would 
neither offer amendments nor let anyone else offer amendments, I voted 
for cloture.
  So when someone comes to the floor today and objects that they are 
not being able to offer amendments, I remind them as to what happened 
and what precipitated this unusual procedure.
  As I said earlier, candidly, I don't like this, but it is the lesser 
of the evils. We don't have any choice if we are going to exercise the 
will of the Senate on this bill before the recess, because after the 
4th of July recess, the Senate is going to be very heavily engaged in 
appropriations bills and other matters.
  Now I yield to the Senator from Missouri. How much time would the 
Senator like?
  Mr. BOND. To the distinguished ranking member of the committee, I 
would gratefully appreciate 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator has it.
  Mr. BOND. I thank Senator Specter and the majority leader for giving 
me this time.
  Mr. President, my part of the division of this amendment, simply 
stated, will cut the path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
  I think most people will recognize that citizenship is the most 
precious gift America can provide. There are many of us who believe it 
should not serve as a reward to those who broke the law to enter or 
remain in this country. The path to citizenship is at the heart of the 
amnesty criticism of this bill, which we are hearing very loudly in my 
State and across the Nation. I believe cutting this path cuts out the 
most severe complaint against this bill.
  I supported the Vitter amendment to strike the entire amnesty 
proposal for 12 million illegal aliens in the country, and that 
amendment was rejected. Perhaps it was too broad. So my division of the 
current amendment targets the most controversial aspect of the 
proposal: the award of citizenship to those 12 million illegal aliens 
who essentially will stay here--maybe take a 1-day trip--enjoy the 
benefits of residence, and then can become citizens without having to 
go through the process everyone else seeking to become a citizen has to 
go through, which is applying in their home country, and waiting for 
their time to arrive. Whatever we end up doing for those 12 million 
illegal aliens, it does not, in my view, require the further step of 
granting citizenship.
  Those 12 million illegal aliens came to this country to work--to 
work--without expectation of becoming citizens. We ought to understand 
that. They came here to work, not to become citizens. Now, more legal 
aliens will come to this country on a temporary basis to work without 
the expectation of citizenship. There is no need to grant these people 
the gift of citizenship when they came here to meet their economic 
needs. The bill, as we know, puts the 12 million illegal immigrants who 
comply with its terms on the path to citizenship. Illegal immigrants 
who pay a fine and pass a security check, learn English, touch back to 
their home country, and show employment can become legalized under the 
new Z visa program.

  After 8 years, formerly illegal immigrants, now legalized with Z 
visas, may apply for legalized permanent residence, otherwise known as 
a green card. As most of us already know, under existing law, once you 
have had a green card for a certain number of years, you can apply for 
and receive citizenship.
  My division simply will cut off that path, automatically invoked once 
a green card is bestowed, by preventing those formerly illegal 
immigrants with Z visas from obtaining green card status and therefore 
citizenship.
  Specifically, my portion of the amendment would strike the contents 
of section 602 on earned adjustment for Z status aliens, replacing it 
with a prohibition on issuing an immigrant visa to Z nonimmigrants, 
which is currently in the bill, and a prohibition on adjusting a Z 
nonimmigrant to legalized permanent residency, or so-called green card 
holders.
  This proposal of mine would not change any of the bill's requirements 
to obtain and keep a Z visa, such as a clean criminal record, 
progressively better English competency, or continued employment. Nor 
does my proposal change any of the rights afforded to Z visa holders, 
including work, residency, and travel. Z visa holders would remain in 
that status as long as they chose. Alternatively--and this is an 
alternative--Z visa holders could abandon their status, return to their 
home country and, if they choose, pursue legalized permanent residency 
and citizenship from outside the country, as any other foreign citizen 
could.
  As I discussed above, I do personally support granting the rights I 
enumerated for Z visa holders. I supported the Vitter amendment to 
strip all the Z program provisions. But the Senate had its vote on all 
of those provisions and we lost. This amendment is the next best thing.
  Our immigration system is broken and must be fixed. I support a 
strong emphasis on border security and enforcing the immigration laws, 
but we should not hold border security hostage to amnesty. I voted 
before and

[[Page S8583]]

will continue to vote to appropriate more money for funding for border 
fencing, detention facilities, and border agents. I urge my fellow 
Senators to support those ways to strengthen and protect our country 
and our security, but reject rewarding illegal immigrants with 
undeserved citizenship.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on this side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. In light of the comments which have been made as to the 
cost of this program, I think it is important to focus on the fact that 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made a finding that new 
Federal revenue from taxes, penalties, and fees under the bipartisan 
immigration bill will more than offset the costs of setting up any 
immigration system and the costs of any Federal benefits temporary 
workers, Z visa holders, and future legal immigrants under the bill 
would receive. CBO estimates that increased revenue from taxes, 
penalties, and fines under the bill will offset any estimated increases 
of mandatory spending, such as emergency Medicaid, and produce a net 
fiscal surplus of $25.6 billion over 10 years. The surplus will be used 
to cover costs, including implementing the new program, and a 
significant portion of the costs of better securing our borders and 
improving interior enforcement through additional Border Patrol and ICE 
agents.
  I ask unanimous consent that this fact sheet be printed in the Record 
at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Immigration Fact Check: CBO Report--The Rest of the Story

        The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds 
     that new Federal revenue from taxes, penalties, and fees 
     under the bipartisan immigration bill will more than offset 
     the costs of setting up the new immigration system and the 
     costs of any Federal benefits temporry workers, Z visa 
     holders, and future legal immigrants under the bill would 
     receive.
       CBO estimates increased revenue from taxes, penalties, and 
     fines under the bill will offset any estimated increases in 
     mandatory spending, such as emergency Medicaid, and produce a 
     net fiscal surplus of $25.6 billion over 10 years. This 
     surplus will be used to cover costs including: the costs of 
     implementing the new program; a significant portion of the 
     costs of better securing our borders and improving interior 
     enforcement through additional Border Patrol and ICE agents.
       CBO concludes temporary workers, Z visa holders, and future 
     legal immigrants under the Senate bill will have a positive 
     financial impact on Social Security and Medicare.
       The temporary worker and Z visa programs will be funded by 
     fees charged to participants, and will not be subsidized by 
     taxpayer dollars.
       Z visa holders and temporary workers under the Senate bill 
     must pay income taxes and are not entitled to welfare, food 
     stamps, SSI, or non-emergency Medicaid.
       CBO concludes that with border and interior enforcement 
     provisions, this immigration bill will have ``a relatively 
     small net effect on the federal budget balance over the next 
     two decades.''
       The bill authorizes more than $40 billion in spending. 
     Assuming all of this spending is appropriated, the bill would 
     produce a net fiscal deficit. However, more than three-
     quarters of this spending is for enhancements to border 
     security and interior enforcement. These enhancements will 
     benefit the country as a whole and reflect costs that 
     taxpayers currently bear. In addition, revenues generated by 
     new workers under the bill will still cover about half of 
     these enforcement costs.
       The bill is an improvement over last year's Senate bill (S. 
     2611), which CBO estimated would have required a taxpayer 
     contribution of twice the magnitude estimated for this year's 
     bill.
       CBO estimates the bill ``would reduce the net annual flow 
     of unauthorized immigrants by one-quarter'' but admits ``the 
     potential impact of the border security, employment 
     verification, and other enforcement measures on the flow of 
     unauthorized migrants is uncertain but could be large.''
       For the first time, CBO has found that the enforcement 
     provisions of an immigration bill are robust enough to reduce 
     significantly illegal immigration.
       CBO notes that, while previous attempts to cut illegal 
     immigration have been relatively unsuccessful, the bill 
     ``would authorize significant additional resources as well as 
     a comprehensive employment verification system to deter the 
     hiring of unauthorized workers.''
       The report also notes that ``the implementation of the new 
     guest worker program and the provision of visas to the 
     currently unauthorized population could occur only if the 
     Secretary of DHS certifies'' that certain enforcement 
     measures are in place.


          Background On The Bipartisan Immigration Reform Bill

       The bill commits the most resources to border safety and 
     security in U.S. history.
       Temporary worker and Z visas will not be issued until 
     meaningful benchmarks for border security and worksite 
     enforcement are met. These triggers include: increasing 
     border fencing, increasing vehicle barriers at the Southern 
     border, increasing the size of the Border Patrol, installing 
     ground-based radar and camera towers along the Southern 
     border, ensuring resources are available to maintain the 
     effective end of ``Catch and Release'' for every non-Mexican 
     apprehended at our border, establishing and putting in use a 
     reliable employment eligibility verification system.
       The bill recognizes that enforcement alone will not work to 
     secure our border and meet the needs of the U.S. economy. The 
     temporary worker program will help immigration enforcement 
     officers control the border by creating a lawful and orderly 
     channel for foreign workers to fill jobs that Americans are 
     not doing.

  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have, as I understand, 10 minutes; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes of that to the Senator from Colorado.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, and I thank the Chair.
  First, let me make a comment about the process here. On the other 
side of the aisle we have heard people stand up and try to use every 
procedural obstacle they can to kill the bill. They want to kill the 
bill. What this Chamber ought to be about is trying to find solutions 
to those huge problems that face our country, whatever those problems 
may be, including the issue of immigration.
  They have said this process is somehow unfair. Well, when I look at 
how much time this Chamber has spent dealing with the issue of 
immigration, I think there has been ample time for people to talk about 
and debate this issue over the last 2 years. Since 9/11--since 9/11--
the Senate has had 36 hearings on the issue of immigration--36 
hearings. Since 9/11, there have been 6 days of committee action with 
respect to immigration. Since then, there have been 59 committee 
amendments on immigration. Since then, there have been 21 days of 
Senate debate--21 days of Senate debate on immigration, and 92 Senate 
floor amendments--92 Senate floor amendments.
  So for those who want to use procedure to kill this bill, they are 
wrong in making the case that they have not been heard. There has been 
ample time and opportunity to hear their arguments, and that has gone 
on time and time again. It is time we in the Senate get down to 
business and fix the problem of immigration for our country.
  Secondly, this is a good bill. It may not be a perfect bill, but we 
can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill toughens 
border security. It does it by making sure that the $4.4 billion is 
there for border security, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle 
barriers, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, and it goes on. It doubles 
employer sanctions to make sure we can enforce our laws here in our 
country through a variety of different means, and it also makes sure 
that we develop a realistic and tough solution to the 12 million 
undocumented workers who are here in America. Those who are part of a 
``round them up and deport them'' crowd are being unrealistic because 
of the costs involved and the difficulty in ultimately fixing the 
problem we have. So we have come up with the right kind of solution 
that punishes them, fines them, puts them to the back of the line, and 
allows them to come out of the shadows of this society and into the 
sunlight.
  Finally, we can't forget the human values at stake in this debate on 
immigration. In this picture we see Army SPC Alex Jimenez. He was 
deployed for a second tour in Iraq. He has been missing in Iraq since 
May 12. We have found some other of his personal belongings. But as he 
is in Iraq missing in action, his wife was being questioned

[[Page S8584]]

by ICE in our country, in America, because her immigration status was 
undocumented. Now, is that the American way? Is that the American way, 
to have one of our soldiers missing in action in Iraq, with his wife 
concerned about her immigration status here in the United States of 
America?
  What this demonstrates to me is we have a system of chaos and 
disorder here in America. We need to fix the problem. This Chamber can 
fix the problem. I hope we will stand behind the solution we are 
bringing to the floor today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair would let me know when I have 1 minute.
  Mr. President, maybe we could take a moment and look at those words 
that are written in stone right above the Vice President's chair there: 
e pluribus unum, meaning one out of many. One out of many. That is the 
desire, that is the hope, that is the dream of this country: one out of 
many.
  Many come from different traditions, backgrounds, and experience, but 
we all are one country with one history and one destiny--not with the 
Bond amendment, not with the Bond amendment.
  The lines written at the Statue of Liberty are:

       Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning 
     to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
     Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my 
     lamp beside the golden door!

  That is right, as long as those individuals are working and who will 
never become citizens, who will never have that right to become a part 
of the American dream, and once you stop working, out of the country 
you go. Better gather up all of your belongings, because you are going 
to be out of status, and out of status means you can be subject to 
deportation.
  You can imagine what that individual is going to say to their 
employer when the employer says: Sure, you have worked 40 hours. You 
work 50 hours, 60 hours, and bring your wife in and make sure she works 
overtime this week as well; otherwise, you are out of status. You are 
out of here.
  That is what the Bond amendment would do to Americans. One America 
that has rights and privileges, and to a second group in America they 
say: Once we wring out of you the last bit of sweat that you can give 
to some employer, you are finished, you are out of status, you are 
deportable.
  That isn't what this country is about. Maybe we don't like the fact 
that people are not satisfied with the regime we have given or 
recommended in this legislation that says: You go to the back of the 
line. You came here because you wanted to work, because you wanted to 
provide for your family; you came here, and you are at church on the 
weekends; and you came here and your son or daughter is serving in Iraq 
or Afghanistan. But we say: OK, you go to the end of the line, pay a 
fee, learn English, and you have to demonstrate that you are working 
and you are going to become a good American. That isn't good enough for 
some.
  Well, Mr. President, this creates the two Americas, which I think all 
of us understand is not what this Nation is about. That is the result 
of the Bond amendment, and I think it would be a major step backward. 
We can imagine the resentment and hostility that will seethe and grow 
with generations that come with their families when they see them 
exploited. Talk about a danger and social dynamite in our society, this 
amendment will breed that. We don't need that or want it, Mr. 
President. We should not have it. I hope the amendment is not accepted.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield that time to the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my colleague from Massachusetts made a very 
powerful statement on behalf of those who came here, but he kind of 
forgot an important distinction. There are those who come here legally 
and those who come here illegally. We are talking about the illegals. 
With the argument so forcefully and persuasively made by my colleague 
from Massachusetts, if you took that argument to its end result, then 
there should not be immigration laws. We should not have a process for 
going for citizenship because anybody who wanted to come in could.
  We have changed those laws. We have provided laws, and the people we 
are talking about have come here illegally to work. If they wanted to 
become citizens, there is a process. If they join the military, I 
strongly believe they should become citizens.
  But if they come illegally just to work, then they have not earned 
citizenship like all of the others do, like my ancestors and the 
ancestors of almost every Member of this body. We are all immigrants, 
but we did not come here illegally and expect to get citizenship. 
Therefore, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues, if you believe 
there is a difference between people who come legally and people who 
come illegally, to support the Bond division or proposal, vote against 
the motion to table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have broken borders. The 1986 act had 
no enforcement mechanism, and that was under a Republican 
administration. We are not bringing that up. We have 12\1/2\ million 
immigrants. You can say we are going to ship them back, and it will 
take $250 billion and 25 years to be able to do it. Buses will stretch 
from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Are we going to do that? 
No, we are going to take another route and just exploit them and not do 
what is in this legislation, which makes them pay a fine and 
demonstrate that they are going to work hard and learn English and 
provide for their family and give something back to America, like they 
do when their sons and daughters serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. You 
will be able to stay here under the Bond amendment, but you are going 
to work for an employer. When you get tired of working, we are going to 
report to the INS that you are out of status, and out you are going to 
go, lock, stock, and barrel. It will be just sweat labor here.
  We are going to have two Americas. You may not like our solution, but 
it is preferable to this alternative, which will create a permanent 
underclass. I think it would be a mistake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Is all time expired?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bond
     Bunning

[[Page S8585]]


     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Johnson
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friends, Senators Vitter and DeMint and 
Sessions, have asked a number of questions during the day, and they are 
valid questions, but I feel it is appropriate to respond. The way I 
will respond now is with a letter I wrote in response to the letter 
they wrote to me a few days ago. This letter is dated June 25:

       Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint: 
     Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my effort to 
     bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the 
     Senate floor.
       As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on 
     the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of 
     Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated 
     efforts to call up further amendments to the bill. Following 
     the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators, 
     including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference 
     Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter, 
     came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration 
     bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a 
     large number of additional amendments could become pending to 
     the bill.
       The so-called ``clay pigeon'' procedure is unusual, and I 
     would not have considered employing it in this instance 
     without the full support of Senator McConnell. It seems to me 
     appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome 
     the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow 
     the full Senate to debate an important national issue like 
     immigration. The White House made clear that it also favors 
     such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of the 
     President's top priorities.
       I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend 
     to ``shut off the debate'' and that the procedure in question 
     will ``silence amendments instead of facilitate their 
     debate.'' On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate 
     on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill. In 
     contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as 
     few as five amendments during the earlier debate. The 
     American people can see clearly who wants to debate 
     immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate.
       Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate 
     amendments which I ``hand select'' is plainly untrue. The 
     dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to 
     the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not 
     by me.
       In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter 
     but consider them misplaced. Senator McConnell and I have 
     worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and 
     productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance 
     that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by 
     President Bush.

  I signed it, Senator Reid.
  Mr. President, what is the matter now before this body?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division IV is now pending.
  Mr. REID. What I would like to do, Mr. President--this is the Dodd 
amendment--I would like to ask, as I did with the prior amendments that 
have come up today, I ask unanimous consent for debate only; that we 
start with 1 hour, equally divided, to debate this amendment, and then 
following that, I would be recognized to do whatever I felt 
appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. There is objection. And I would like to ask the majority 
leader's----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Louisiana is not recognized. I have not 
given up the floor.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader, please.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Louisiana objected; 
is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Louisiana object?
  Mr. VITTER. I am reserving my right to object, and I was trying to 
gain recognition, and I believe I did gain recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is acknowledged but not 
recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Then I ask that the record be read with regard to whether 
I was recognized or not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a misstatement that the Senator was 
recognized. There is a unanimous consent request pending.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask my friend to object, if he cares 
to, and then I would be happy to enter into a dialog with the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. There is objection. I would like to enter into that 
dialog on two points.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I would be happy at this time 
to yield to my friend from Louisiana for 2 minutes for the purpose of a 
question, and then I, of course, would have the floor following the 
termination of those 2 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader, and simply two points, 
quickly.
  First, with regard to the statement the majority leader just made and 
the letter he read, let me end the debate. Let me stipulate for the 
record that Senator McConnell is not being railroaded and President 
Bush is not being railroaded. I am being railroaded and my allies on 
the floor of the Senate are being railroaded. So we will end that 
debate and stipulate that for the record.
  Second, with regard to your last unanimous consent request, I would 
love to agree to it if it can be modified so that my rights on the 
floor of the Senate are also preserved--specifically so that I can be 
recognized for 2 minutes for any purpose.
  Mr. REID. I could not agree to that, Mr. President, so I would 
certainly object to that.
  Now, we had in the last amendment that was laid down, I thought, a 
very sensible debate. People were able to offer their opinions as to 
the merits. In fact, it was a good debate. Senator Bond was advocating 
his position, and Senator Kennedy and others were advocating against 
that. My question to the Senate now is, Could we have the same 
procedure? I have suggested 1 hour equally divided, which would be for 
debate only, and following that period of time, I would be recognized.
  I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that request be back before 
the Senate at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am sorry. Oh, there you are. I would be happy to yield 
for a question from my friend from South Carolina for up to 2 minutes, 
and then I would get the floor back.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the leader. I would just ask that I have the 
opportunity, as you did, to read the letter that I wrote, along with a 
number of other Members, in response to your response to us. It is just 
a few paragraphs. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to put in 
the Record our particular response to what you read.
  Mr. REID. Go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you.

       Dear Senator Reid:
       Thank you for your response to our letter regarding your 
     unprecedented efforts to bring the immigration bill back to 
     the Senate floor after it was rejected three times by the 
     full Senate. We are writing to address several of the issues 
     you raised.
       First, you said the Senate was not allowed to complete its 
     earlier debate on this bill because some of us objected to 
     your calling up further amendments. This is untrue. You 
     repeatedly objected to Republican amendments being offered 
     and insisted on selecting our amendments for us and for the 
     entire Senate. Consequently, we objected to all amendments 
     until we could get a full and fair debate. We did not believe 
     you had the right to hand-pick amendments then, and we do not 
     believe you have that right now.
       Second, you said the abuse of Senate rules during this 
     debate is justified because it allows you to ``overcome the 
     tactics of a small number of Senators.'' This is also untrue. 
     We hope you realize that over 60 Senators voted against 
     cutting off debate because they opposed the substance of the 
     bill and the process you used to debate it. This is not a 
     small group.

[[Page S8586]]

       In addition, your unprecedented abuse of the rules and 
     precedents of the Senate will negatively impact every Senator 
     by fundamentally reducing their rights to debate and to offer 
     amendments in the future. We believe you understand our 
     concern because just two years ago you said, ``the Senate 
     should not become like the House of Representatives, where 
     the majority manipulates the rules to accommodate its 
     momentary needs.'' If you go forward with this plan, history 
     will show that your decision not only impacted the ever-
     growing number of Senators who oppose this immigration bill, 
     but hundreds of Senators in the years to come who wish to 
     make their voices heard.
       Third, you repeatedly defended this process for debate by 
     blaming the Senate Republican leadership and the President 
     himself. While their cooperation may give you comfort, it 
     does not justify your actions. As Senate Majority Leader, 
     only you can execute this abusive practice. Only you can set 
     up a process that guarantees consideration of a hand-selected 
     group of amendments to buy support for a bill while at the 
     same time blocking all other amendments. You may want 
     Americans to believe this is a Republican bill, but your 
     willingness to use your office to force it through the Senate 
     shows precisely how much you support it and the extent you 
     are willing to go to pass it.
       We respectfully ask you to reconsider your plan to force 
     this bill through the Senate. The American people do not 
     support this legislation and they do not support the heavy-
     handed tactics being used to pass it.

  That is signed by Senators Vitter, DeMint, Sessions, Elizabeth Dole, 
and I think several others on another page.
  I thank the majority leader for allowing us to read the letter.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the letter I wrote, along with Senator DeMint's--
that both appear in the Record, Senator DeMint's first, with mine 
following that.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25. 2007.
     Re: Unprecedented floor procedure will harm the United States 
         Senate as an institution, and will diminish the 
         senatorial powers of each individual member.

     Majority Leader Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Majority Leader Reid: We write to express serious concern 
     regarding the potential use of an unprecedented procedure to 
     place the Senate immigration bill's floor amendment process 
     under your sole control. Our understanding is that you are 
     considering the introduction of a specially crafted amendment 
     with 20 or more carefully selected parts, known as a ``clay-
     pigeon'' amendment. By exercising your priority right of 
     recognition, you can divide the amendment into its parts and 
     fill all available amendment slots with issues that you hand 
     select. All Senators who have amendments to the bill that 
     were not selected will be completely shut out of the floor 
     amendment process.
       Because you have priority right of recognition over all 
     other Senators, you are the only member that can use a 
     ``clay-pigeon'' amendment to limit the rights of the other 99 
     members in this body. To our knowledge, all previous uses of 
     a ``clay-pigeon'' amendment have been to preserve the rights 
     of minority members who sought votes on amendments the 
     majority wanted to block.
       Your use of the ``clay pigeon'' to shut of the debate and 
     amendment process will be the first time in history this 
     procedure has been used to silence amendments instead of 
     facilitate their debate. Undoubtedly, such a procedure would 
     significantly undermine the U.S. Senate's reputation as the 
     greatest deliberative body on earth. We ask you to announce 
     publicly that you will not allow such a procedure to be 
     invoked on this critically important legislation.
       This immigration legislation is critically important to the 
     American people. The public is becoming increasingly aware of 
     a number of serious problems with the bill, and, like all 
     legislation, this bill would only benefit from the sunlight 
     of a free, open, and transparent amendment process. Without a 
     fair, open, and robust debate to improve this bill, the 
     public's confidence in Congress will continue to erode.
           Sincerely,
     John Cornyn.
     David Vitter.
     Elizabeth Dole.
     Jeff Sessions.
     Jim DeMint.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                Office of the Majority Leader,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2007.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hon. David Vitter,
     Hon. Elizabeth Dole,
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Hon. Jim DeMint,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint: 
     Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my efforts to 
     bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the 
     Senate floor.
       As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on 
     the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of 
     Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated 
     efforts to call up further amendments to the bill. Following 
     the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators 
     including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference 
     Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter, 
     came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration 
     bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a 
     large number of additional amendments could become pending to 
     the bill.
       The so-called ``clay pigeon'' procedure is unusual, and I 
     would not have considered employing it in this instance 
     without the full support of Senator McConnell. It seems to me 
     appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome 
     the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow 
     the full Senate to debate an important national issue like 
     immigration. The White House made clear that it also favors 
     such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of 
     President Bush's top priorities.
       I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend 
     to ``shut off the debate'' and that the procedure in question 
     will ``silence amendments instead of facilitate their 
     debate.'' On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate 
     on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill. In 
     contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as 
     few as five amendments during the earlier debate. The 
     American people can see clearly who wants to debate 
     immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate.
       Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate 
     amendments which I ``hand select'' is plainly untrue. The 
     dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to 
     the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not 
     by me.
       In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter 
     but consider them misplaced. Senator McConnell and I have 
     worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and 
     productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance 
     that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by 
     President Bush.
           Sincerely,
     Harry Reid.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                    Senate Steering Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your response to our 
     letter regarding your unprecedented efforts to bring the 
     immigration bill back to the Senate floor after it was 
     rejected three times by the full Senate. We are writing to 
     address several of the issues you raised.
       First, you said the Senate was not allowed to complete its 
     earlier debate on this bill because some of us objected to 
     your calling up further amendments. This is untrue. You 
     repeatedly objected to Republican amendments being offered 
     and insisted on selecting our amendments for us and for the 
     entire Senate. Consequently, we objected to all amendments 
     until we could get a full and fair debate. We did not believe 
     you had the right to hand-pick amendments then, and we do not 
     believe you have that right now.
       Second, you said the abuse of Senate rules during this 
     debate is justified because it allows you to ``overcome the 
     tactics of a small number of Senators.'' This is also untrue. 
     We hope you realize that over 60 Senators voted against 
     cutting off debate because they opposed the substance of the 
     bill and the process you used to debate it. This is not a 
     small group.
       In addition, your unprecedented abuse of the rules and 
     precedents of the Senate will negatively impact every senator 
     by fundamentally reducing their rights to debate and to offer 
     amendments in the future. We believe you understand our 
     concern because just two years ago you said, ``the Senate 
     should not become like the House of Representatives, where 
     the majority manipulates the rules to accommodate its 
     momentary needs.'' If you go forward with this plan, history 
     will show that your decision not only impacted the ever-
     growing number of senators who oppose this immigration bill, 
     but hundreds of senators in the years to come who wish to 
     make their voices heard.
       Third, you repeatedly defended this process for debate by 
     blaming the Senate Republican Leadership and the President 
     himself. While their cooperation may give you comfort, it 
     does not justify your actions. As Senate Majority Leader, 
     only you can execute this abusive practice. Only you can set 
     up a process that guarantees consideration of a hand-selected 
     group of amendments to buy support for a bill while at the 
     same time blocking all other amendments. You may want 
     Americans to believe this is a Republican bill, but your 
     willingness to use your office to force it through the 
     Senate, shows precisely how much you support it and the 
     extent you are willing to go to pass it.
       We respectfully ask you to reconsider your plan to force 
     this bill through the Senate. The American people do not 
     support this legislation and they do not support the heavy-
     handed tactics being used to pass it.
           Sincerely,
     Jim DeMint.
     Jeff Sessions.
     David Vitter.

[[Page S8587]]

     Elizabeth Dole.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will say that his letter makes our 
argument. Of course there were more than 60 who voted against 
proceeding on that legislation. That is precisely why we are back on 
this legislation, because a significant number of those 60 came to me 
and Senator McConnell and said that we need to bring this bill back and 
we need to have amendments heard. So I think the letters speak for 
themselves.
  Finally, let me say this. Would the Senator from Louisiana or South 
Carolina--I asked for 1 hour--would they agree to 30 minutes equally 
divided on this amendment, for debate only?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving my right to object, if I can inquire of the 
distinguished majority leader and explain to him, through the Chair, 
that my objection does not rest on the time period; it rests on my 
rights on the Senate floor being shut down.
  So I would again ask if the unanimous consent request can be modified 
to allow me to exercise my rights on the Senate floor--specifically, to 
have a mere 5 minutes on the Senate floor to be recognized for purposes 
of my choosing, not merely for purposes of the majority leader's 
choosing?
  Mr. REID. So is there objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the leader so modify his request?
  Mr. REID. No, I would not do that.
  Mr. VITTER. Regrettably, I must continue my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, my objection to the request comes from the fact that 
we are here as a result of the Republican leadership coming to me. And 
I am glad to be here, but we are here because, as everyone will recall 
in the first go-round, we had seven votes from the minority. We needed 
more than that. Everyone realized that. And in an effort to do that, we 
have these amendments which have been brought before this body. It is a 
fair process.
  I just think my friends from South Carolina and Alabama and Louisiana 
have made their point, and I think we have made our point, also. This 
is a process which we are trying to move. Why are we trying to move it? 
Because immigration is in need of fixing.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Arizona wishes 
to ask me a question, and I will be happy to yield to my friend for a 
question.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a question for the majority leader. Do 
I understand that currently the pending business before the Senate--or 
will be pending--is a motion to table the Dodd amendment; is that 
correct?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend that we have really no alternative. That 
is the process we are in. So the answer is, I would think there would 
be a motion to table made if we can't resolve this debate issue.
  Mr. KYL. Also, just for the purpose of propounding a unanimous 
consent request, Mr. President, my thought would be, given the fact we 
are about to vote on an amendment, it would help the body, obviously, 
to have a brief explanation of that amendment. I wonder if the body 
would agree to give the Senator from Connecticut 5 minutes to explain 
his amendment, for 5 minutes on this side, for me or----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona does not have the 
floor and cannot make that request.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy, Mr. President, because of the suggestion 
of my friend from Arizona, to make a unanimous consent request, so that 
people better understand this amendment, that the Senator from 
Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Arizona be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and then following that, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania would be recognized for purposes of making a motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving my right to object, may I ask if that can be 
amended to allow the Senator from Louisiana 30 seconds--30 seconds--to 
gain the floor for purposes of my own choosing rather than the majority 
leader's choosing?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. REID. Is there an objection to the request I made?
  Mr. VITTER. Regrettably, because I am being shut down, I will 
continue my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.


         Vote on Division IV of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd amendment, and 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--41

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Johnson
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The majority leader.


                         Division V, withdrawn

  Mr. REID. The next amendment up is the Kyl amendment. Is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division V.
  Mr. REID. Is that Kyl? I withdraw it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The division is withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. What is the next amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division VI.


             Division VI of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have been moving through these. We have 
a number more to go. What I have tried to do----
  Mr. VITTER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. REID. No, I do not. I yield to my friend for a question, if it is 
short. Does my friend have a question?
  Mr. VITTER. Yes. I would like to ask the leader if what happened, 
where apparently we withdrew one of the subamendments, takes unanimous 
consent or any consent?
  Mr. REID. No, it does not take consent.
  Mr. VITTER. I would like to ask for clarification from the 
Parliamentarian and what the effect is on that amendment?
  Mr. REID. I would direct a question to the Chair. It is my 
understanding that I have the right to withdraw that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does have a right to withdraw 
division V.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you for the opportunity to ask the question.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, during the time that we were in the well 
during the last amendment, I was told by my friend from New Jersey that 
he had a question he wanted to ask me. We want to move on. I certainly 
will try to get a time agreement on it. We haven't been too successful 
on that in the past. I would be happy to yield to my friend

[[Page S8588]]

from New Jersey for a question if, in fact, he still has one.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the majority leader yielding for a 
question. My question to the majority leader is----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, can we have order? These amendments are 
important and the Members deserve to hear the Senator.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. My question to the majority leader is: Is it his 
understanding that the next amendment that is up in the divisions is 
the Menendez-Obama-Feingold amendment that would, in essence, give the 
right to U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents the ability to be 
able to claim their family under the new point system that is 
envisioned under the bill, where that point system would, in fact, 
allow for up to 10 points, out of a 100-point score, to be subscribed 
on the basis of----
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Regular 
order.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. With an understanding that in doing so it does not 
guarantee a family member ultimately being able to achieve a visa but 
would, in fact, give them a fighting chance under the 100-point system 
to at least have the ability----
  Mr. VITTER. Regular order. The Senator is not asking a question.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. And would also give them the wherewithal at least to 
have a fighting chance to come in under our visa system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey must ask a 
question.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I was asking a question, Madam President. I am asking 
the majority leader for his understanding.
  Mr. REID. I understand the question. I will respond to it right now. 
He started it, if you read the Record, he asked me if I understand what 
his amendment does. I do understand what it does.
  A brief summary, Madam President. This legislation comes up with a 
point system. The point system----
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, regular order. The Senator is not 
responding to a question, he is making a statement; he is engaging in 
debate.
  Mr. REID. Madam President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. REID. I have a right to make a statement. Back to where I was 
before I was so rudely interrupted.
  Madam President, I understand the question. In this legislation which 
has been worked on, as I have indicated, 36 hearings, 6 days of 
committee action, 59 committee amendments, 21 days of Senate debate, 92 
floor amendments, one of the questions a number of us had and have is: 
What does it do for family reunification? And no one has spoken out 
more on that issue than the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
  The question he asked me is about the amendment. Now a point system 
has been set up where the process has been used over these many months 
coming up with this legislation to give various points to different 
parts of the immigration process.
  Now, what my friend from New Jersey and others feel would be 
appropriate is that out of a 100-point system, 10 points would be 
allocated to someone for family reunification. I understand the 
amendment. There is more to it than that, but that is a synopsis. That 
is what the amendment does. It recognizes the importance in America of 
family. It recognizes the importance in immigration of family.
  Madam President, I move to table the pending amendment. I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing 
to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     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
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Hagel
     Johnson
     McCain
     Sanders
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, under the order that is before the body, 
there is time that has been allocated to the distinguished junior 
Senator from Alabama. I would ask the Chair how much time he has under 
the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven minutes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I had a conversation during the vote with 
the Senator from Alabama. I ask him at this time, would this be an 
appropriate time for him to use the 47 minutes or any part thereof?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will be pleased to use 30 minutes 
now, and will reserve the remainder of my time, if I could.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Alabama be allowed to speak, for debate purposes only, for the 
next 30 minutes, and that following that, I be recognized to obtain the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are in the process of dealing with 
a very important issue. A number of our colleagues--in some ways 
dismissive, I think, of the concerns of the American public--refer it 
to as an emotional issue. I think it is more than an emotional issue. I 
think it is a serious issue that requires our serious concern. It 
requires that this great Senate, on a matter of tremendous importance 
to our Nation and to our constituents, do it correctly.
  I love my colleagues who met to try to write this bill. I believe 
their hearts were correct. But they are not law enforcement officers. 
They have not investigated and prosecuted cases. They apparently were 
inundated with information and ideas, and so forth, from special 
interest groups and others.
  I have said I wish the American people had been in the room. I wish 
the head of our Border Patrol association had been in the room or 
perhaps the chief of Border Patrol during President Reagan's tenure or 
the chief of Border Patrol during former President Bush's tenure. All 
of those people, including the current chairman of the association of 
retired Border Patrol officers, have criticized this bill in the most 
severe manner, saying it is a slap in the face to people who followed 
the law, saying it will not work, saying the 24-hour name check is not 
going to work at all, and will not provide security to our country, 
that it will actually be a benefit to terrorists. I am not saying this; 
they said this. It would be a benefit to terrorists. One called it the 
``Terrorist Relief Act,'' or something to that effect.
  What I want to tell my colleagues is, the professionals who deal with 
these issues absolutely oppose this legislation. Now, we can dismiss 
that. Maybe you talk to somebody from some news outlet or talk to 
somebody from some business group or some activist organization, and 
maybe you have a different view. But the people who enforce the laws 
every day oppose this legislation.

[[Page S8589]]

They do not believe it will work. I suggest it will be demoralizing to 
them.
  Our own Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the legislation. We 
have them for our use. We rely on that organization. It operates under 
the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority leader here, 
and all of us. It is a bipartisan group. But the Congressional Budget 
Office has analyzed our current law and concluded that if current law 
is not changed, we will have 10 million more illegal immigrants in our 
country in the next 20 years. We have 12 million now, maybe 20 million. 
But we would have 10 million more under current law. They say if this 
legislation were to be passed, we would have some reduction of 
illegality at the border--not much--but we would have an increase in 
visa overstays because we have so many temporary guest worker programs 
going on, and the net result would be that this Nation would only have 
a reduction of 13 percent in the illegal flow of immigrants into our 
country. Indeed, there would be 8.9 million more persons illegally in 
our country 20 years from now than today.
  Now, what does that say about my good and well-intentioned colleagues 
who are trying to tell us all that the thing is going to work, that if 
you do not pass this amnesty, if you do not give these benefits to 
people who came here illegally, then you will not get enforcement?
  Well, we are not getting enforcement, everyone. The bill does not 
provide enforcement--not in any significant way that would allow us to 
proceed effectively.
  We had hearings in our committees that dealt with the question of the 
impact of large numbers of foreign workers on the wages of American 
workers. It is not, I think, subject to dispute. At the current rate we 
are going, at the current rate of immigration, legal and illegal, wages 
of lower income Americans are being adversely affected. Professor 
Borjas at Harvard, who has written a most authoritative technical book 
on immigration at the Kennedy School, has said it has brought down the 
wage of low-income workers 8 percent. That is a lot. That is a lot, an 
8-percent decline in wages. In many areas, it could be even greater 
than that, I suspect. It is pretty understandable that it would happen. 
If you bring in more cotton in this country, if you bring in more 
cotton, you will have a lower price for cotton. If you bring in corn, 
you will have a lower price for corn. If you bring in large amounts of 
labor, it will pull down the value of a working man's hourly wage. So I 
am concerned about that.

  My colleagues have said a number of times that by getting this--Madam 
President, there is a little bit of a buzz.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So we have a number of questions that cause us concern. 
I talked about wages. Let me mention the rule of law.
  Our Nation is founded on law. Edmund Burke, when he talked about 
reconciliation between the Colonies and the King, asked that there not 
be a war against the Colonies. He said: They follow us in law. He even 
said: I understand the Colonies have more copies of Blackstone's 
Commentaries on the law than they have in England.
  We have always been a nation of laws. It is our strength. We should 
not create a system that will not restore that law, even at our 
borders; otherwise, we are going to have a difficult situation.
  Under this bill, we carefully looked at the number. I don't think 
anyone will dispute it. The level of legal immigration will double--
double the amount of legal immigration. That is a number I don't think 
most Americans understand. I think they are worried about the current 
level, which is at about the highest this Nation has ever had--highest 
by far in real numbers we have ever had--and it is going to double, 
without any reduction in illegal immigration. So this is a bargain, a 
grand bargain we should not take. If we do, I think we will regret it 
because the American people are not going to be happy with us.
  By the way, the polls continue to show that our constituents 
overwhelmingly oppose this legislation. A decent respect for our own 
constituents, even if we might think them wrong, on an issue of this 
importance where they are so decidedly hostile to this legislation 
suggests we ought to slow down and listen to them and talk with them 
about what their concerns are and make sure when we go back home and 
campaign and seek reelection, we can look them in the eye and say: I 
heard your concern, and I fixed that concern, or I believe the 
legislation answers your concern.
  But here we have a completely new bill that has been plopped down on 
the Senate floor, first with over 700 pages, and then I guess last 
night there was a 370-page amendment, and that had so many errors in it 
that even the sponsors themselves have plopped down another amendment 
of 403 pages. They want to vote that through right away. I don't think 
that is what we owe our constituents.
  They say: Well, we have had 2 years of debate, and all that. We had a 
bill last year that was quite different from this one. It had some 
things in it better than this one. I thought this year's bill was going 
to be better, and said it was better several times, but it actually--as 
I have studied it, I am not sure it is any better. It is weaker in a 
number of different areas. For sure, it is weaker in a number of 
different areas. So that is a matter we should consider as we go 
forward with this legislation. I think we ought to give careful 
attention to what we are doing.
  I want to address one more very important matter that very fine 
Senators have raised. They have suggested one of the best things that 
is going to be happening with this legislation is everybody will be 
given an identification, and the Nation will be safer for that. 
Therefore, even if the bill is not perfect and has lots of problems, 
let's vote for it anyway because it has that in it. Let me share some 
thoughts with my colleagues on that issue.
  Michael Cutler, who is a retired INS--Immigration and Naturalization 
Service--senior agent, participated in a press conference last Thursday 
at the National Press Club. It focused on the grave threat to national 
security the immigration bill represents. He also authored an op-ed in 
the Washington Times last Friday entitled ``Immigration Bill a No Go.'' 
This is an experienced INS agent. He focused on the security question 
in the bill: Does it make us safer? This is what he said. I doubt our 
good friends who met in secret and wrote this bill asked his opinion, 
but this is what he says after reading it:

       If a person--

  Let me quote:

     If a person lies about his or her identity and has never been 
     fingerprinted in our country, what will enable the 
     bureaucrats at the USCIS--

  That is who will be checking his 24-hour background----

     the bureaucrats at USCIS to know that person's true identity? 
     If the adjudicators simply make a fictitious identity through 
     a computerized database, they will simply find the name has 
     no known connection to any criminal or terrorist watch list.
       What is the value of that? Remember, we are talking about a 
     false name. There is absolutely no way this program would 
     have even a shred of integrity and the identity documents 
     that would be given these millions of illegal aliens would 
     enable every one of them to receive a driver's license, 
     Social Security card, and other such official identity 
     documents in a false name. Undoubtedly, terrorists would be 
     among those applying to participate in this ill-conceived 
     program. They would then be able to open bank accounts and 
     obtain credit cards in that false name. Finally, these cards 
     would enable these aliens to board airlines and trains even 
     if their true names appear on all of the various terrorist 
     watch lists and no-fly lists. That is why I have come to 
     refer to this legislation as the ``Terrorist Assistance and 
     Facilitation Act of 2007.''

  Do you get it? Unless you already happen to be fingerprinted and you 
come here and you are a known terrorist and you give a false name with 
some false electric bill, they will give you this temporary visa and 
you get an ID then. Before, if you are illegal, you would have a hard 
time getting a bank account or a Social Security card or a driver's 
license. Now, you are given one. You can travel all over the country 
with no problems. That is what he is saying. So in many ways, it is 
going to facilitate a dangerous situation.

  How about this gentleman, Mr. Kris Kobach, a former Department of 
Justice attorney under Attorney General Ashcroft, who specialized in 
the Department of Justice in terrorism and immigration issues and who 
has spoken out often and is a college professor

[[Page S8590]]

now. He agrees with Mr. Cutler. He posted an article on the Heritage 
Foundation Web site titled ``The Senate Immigration Bill: A National 
Security Nightmare.'' He says:

       The bill will make it easier for alien terrorists who 
     operate in the United States by allowing them to create 
     fraudulent identities with ease. Supporters of the Senate's 
     comprehensive immigration reform bill have revived it under 
     the guise of national security. However, the new public 
     relations campaign is a farce. The bill offers alien 
     terrorists new pathways to obtain legal status, which will 
     make it easier for them to carry out deadly attacks against 
     American citizens. The top priority in this bill is extending 
     amnesty as quickly and as easily as possible to as many 
     illegal aliens as possible. The cost of doing so is to 
     jeopardize national security.

  That is Mr. Kris Kobach who has testified before Congress a number of 
times, former Assistant Attorney General specializing in immigration 
and national security issues.
  So I urge my colleagues to look at this bill because we don't need to 
pass a piece of legislation that we can't defend to our constituents, 
that we cannot tell our constituents with confidence it will make them 
safer. It will reduce illegality dramatically at the border 13 percent; 
80, 90, 95 percent is the goal we should have to reduce illegality, and 
that should be the beginning point. We can get there. We don't need to 
pass a piece of legislation that is going to double the legal flow, not 
reduce the illegal flow, and end up having the wages of Americans 
further diminished by this incredibly large flow of low-skilled, low-
wage workers. We don't need to further erode the morale of our Border 
Patrol officers and erode American confidence in the rule of law.
  Those are my thoughts. I hope we will give this serious consideration 
as we make our judgment tomorrow about whether we should proceed. If we 
don't proceed tomorrow, that is not the end. Of course, we are going to 
consider this bill and this issue--continue to consider it. Polling 
data suggests the American people, what they want us to do, is to take 
incremental steps focusing on enforcement.
  Why don't we just do that? We might could get that done. That would 
be what I suggest.
  Also, one more time, I urge my colleagues to give the most serious 
consideration to the procedure by which we are moving forward with this 
legislation. People have said it is unfair. I think it is unfair, but 
it is more than unfair. It is a historic departure from the traditions 
of the Senate. The leader of this Senate is arrogating to himself the 
ability to approve every single amendment that is voted on. No 
amendment can be voted on the leader does not approve. That is the way 
this clay pigeon has been set up. That has never been done before. Any 
Senators willing to come down here and battle and hold out and not give 
up can get his amendments up and voted on. I think it is a matter that 
most of us haven't fully comprehended yet. I think Senators who are 
proud of the great ability of individual Senators, when they feel 
strongly about an issue--it doesn't happen often--but they can stand up 
and make sure their amendments get voted on, and they have an 
opportunity to speak.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama has about 27 minutes in the time 
that has been ordered; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has 28 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I am also of the understanding, having spoken to the 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, that Senator 
Sessions is at this time willing to give him part of the time he has 
been allocated for debate only on this matter.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized for 
up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will yield up to 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. REID. Yes, Madam President.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I understand this would be time allotted to me. The 
Senator does still have his entitlement to speak on his amendment when 
that appropriate time comes.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the Senator from Iowa is going 
to take 10 minutes of the time of the Senator from Alabama for debate, 
and if we have an opportunity to debate his amendment, of course, he 
can speak on it.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, if this is a unanimous 
consent request, I have comments to make in opposition to the amendment 
of the Senator from Iowa and would like to be afforded an opportunity 
to do so. So if the agreement is to afford time to one side, but the 
other side won't get an opportunity to speak, then I will object to 
that. I hope we can work something out where I would get at least 5 
minutes. The Senator from Iowa should have time to debate his 
amendment, but I want time to respond.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I can handle the issue dealing with the 
Senator from Iowa because that is simply time the Senator from Alabama 
is giving him. As to the amendment itself, I know how strongly the 
Senator from Arizona feels on this amendment. He has explained that to 
me. He knows what we have been going through trying to get people the 
opportunity to speak. The only thing I can do now is ask unanimous 
consent that the time of the Senator from Alabama, which is 10 minutes, 
be allocated to the Senator from Iowa for debate only, leaving the 
Senator from Alabama, at a subsequent time, 17 or 18 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, under the circumstances 
and the nature of the amendment, I am prepared to yield 5 minutes to 
the Senator from Iowa from the balance of my time.
  Mr. REID. I think that is very fair. I thank the Senator from 
Alabama.
  I propound a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Iowa be 
recognized for 5 minutes from the time given to the Senator from 
Alabama and 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona for debate only.
  Mr. SESSIONS. No, I object, Madam President. If the Senator is going 
to be speaking on his amendment, it is not mine. I don't like his 
amendment. I am going to give him 5 minutes out of courtesy. I am 
disappointed that the Senator from Arizona would not be able to 
respond.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't care if I speak. Let's forget all this. I can 
speak some other time. I would like to say why I ought to have debate 
on my amendment. If I don't talk about the substance of the amendment, 
can I talk about why I ought to be able to bring up the amendment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Iowa looks at me. The majority leader 
won't allow you to speak. I was trying to give you 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Would you mind if I said why I ought to be able to 
bring my amendment up?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Iowa, I have been trying all day to 
allow people to speak to their heart's content. I have had objections. 
At this time, I have no objection to you speaking for a reasonable 
period of time and the Senator from Arizona speaking for a reasonable 
period of time. You can talk about your amendment, and he can talk 
about why he doesn't like your amendment. Forget about the Senator from 
Alabama. He reserved his 28 minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized for 
up to 10 minutes for debate only, and following his remarks, I ask that 
the Senator from Arizona be recognized for up to 10 minutes for debate 
only and following their remarks, that I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 10 minutes and then the 
Senator from Arizona for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you. I am not going to talk about the substance 
of my amendment. I want to remind people before the amendment comes up 
that, No. 1, I was promised by the Senator from Pennsylvania and, in 
turn, his talking to the Senator from Massachusetts, that I would have 
an opportunity to offer an amendment. Now I

[[Page S8591]]

have that opportunity to offer the amendment, so that promise has been 
kept. I have tried to clear it with my Republican colleagues who have 
been objecting all afternoon so that they would not object to my 
efforts to offer and debate my amendment. So I hope you realize it 
doesn't do much good to make a promise for me to offer my amendment if 
I don't have an opportunity to debate the amendment. That is the first 
point.

  The second point is that I should not even be here having to offer 
this amendment. If you go back to that Thursday afternoon in April when 
there were rump sessions in S. 219, I was invited by some of the people 
to the rump session who were working on this compromise--to come in and 
offer a compromise on Social Security identification, employer 
identification, or verification. I went to that meeting and sat there 
for a long time and explained a compromise. I had no objections to the 
compromise at that particular time, but 3 weeks later, the document 
comes out and it is not the compromise I had presented, which I assumed 
was agreed to. That doesn't surprise me because going back to January 
or February, Senator Kyl had met with me and some other people, because 
this is in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee--we have 
jurisdiction over IRS and over the Social Security system--saying that 
they were very strongly in favor of having something that went way 
beyond protecting the privacy of Internal Revenue tax records and 
Social Security information and were hellbent on going down a route of 
giving the Department of Homeland Security any sort of information they 
want, not within the tradition of protecting the privacy of income tax 
records.
  So that is why my amendment is being offered, because I am going back 
to that compromise which I presented to the committee in the rump 
session back in April which I thought was OK. I find out now that it is 
not. That is why I am going to offer my amendment.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). Seven minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak generally about the 
legislation before us.
  There is some concern that I have expressed--not so much on the floor 
but in other public comments I made--that I am one of about 22 or 23 
Members of the Senate who were here in 1986 when we passed amnesty, as 
is in this bill as well. I was one of those Senators who voted for 
amnesty at that particular time. At that particular time, we had maybe 
1 million to 3 million people cross the border illegally and who were 
here illegally. We all thought--and there have been plenty of 
references to statements made in the Congressional Record 20 years 
ago--that if we were to adopt amnesty, it would settle this problem 
once and for all, do it once and for all. You know, I believed that. 
But do you know what I found out maybe 5 or 10 years ago? When you 
reward illegality, you get more of it. Now the guesstimate is that we 
have 12 million people here illegally. They are not illegal people, but 
they came here illegally.
  I think I have an obligation to consider the votes I made before and, 
if they are wrong, not make that mistake again. You know, it is a 
little like the chaos you would have if you didn't respect and enforce 
red lights and stop signs. You would have chaos at intersections and 
accidents. Wherever you don't enforce the rule of law, those are the 
things that happen. You need social cohesion, and social cohesion comes 
from respect for the rule of law in our country.
  So it seems to me that, as we go down this road, what we ought to do 
is concentrate on legal immigration, the reforms we are bringing to the 
H-1B program, the reforms we are bringing in the way of a temporary 
worker program. People would rather come here legally rather than 
illegally, I believe. I know it is not very satisfying to people to 
hear that we have 12 million people in the underground. The point is 
that if people could come here legally to work, they would soon, one by 
one, by attrition, replace people who are here illegally, I believe.
  I am not one who wants to make that mistake again. That is why I am 
weighing very heavily the issue of what we do with amnesty or what 
other people who don't like the word ``amnesty'' would say is earned 
citizenship, guest worker program, those sorts of things that are 
covering up really what we are doing.
  I say if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a 
duck. If it looks like amnesty, it is amnesty. That is the bottom line. 
We ought to learn the lesson that in 1986 it didn't work. I don't think 
it will work now. I am 73 years old, so obviously I am not going to be 
here 20 years from now when we have another immigration bill. But I 
should not make that problem so that a successor of mine has to deal 
with 25 million people being here illegally as opposed to the 12 
million now or the 1 to 3 million before.
  I yield the floor and whatever time I didn't use I will retain or 
whatever is done with the surplus.
  Mr. REID. Why don't you just yield it back?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona is to be recognized at this point for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I be notified after 5 minutes so I might 
yield time to Senator Kennedy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from 
Iowa. He was absolutely assured by people on our side that he would be 
allowed to bring up an amendment, and I am glad we have been able to do 
that. He certainly should be afforded that right.
  With that said, however, I can't match his opposition to the bill 
with his amendment. If you want to assure that the bill will not work, 
then adopt the Grassley amendment. It substitutes the existing title 
III in the bill, which is a very good title to ensure employee 
verification, with a potpourri of provisions that, frankly, look a lot 
like the status quo and will not ensure that employees are adequately 
checked to ensure they are entitled to be employed.
  For example, the Grassley amendment provides that none of the current 
employees are checked. In other words, the only people who have to be 
checked are future employees, so all the people working today, 
including all the illegal immigrants working today, don't have to be 
checked under the Grassley amendment.
  Secondly, amazingly, the only way to physically verify that the 
person seeking the job is, in fact, the person with the identity 
entitled to be employed is with a photograph. Nobody is proposing that 
we fingerprint people to get jobs, and that leaves the photograph as 
the best identity document. The bill provides that either a passport 
with a photograph or a driver's license with a photograph be the 
document. You have to verify that the person standing in front of you 
is the person to whom the document has been issued and the rightful 
owner of the Social Security number he has given you.
  The Grassley amendment does not require that a photograph be used in 
the identification process. This is one of the first things that was 
recommended by the 9/11 Commission, to have a secure document with a 
photograph with which you can confirm identity.
  Third, and this is amazing, and I honestly don't understand why this 
would be in the Senator's amendment, but it gives foreign temporary 
workers the right to file legal complaints against employers who hire 
American workers instead--basically, to file a discrimination complaint 
based upon the fact that they were not hired.
  Current law does not permit temporary workers to file these 
complaints. The basic bill would not allow workers to file these 
complaints. But the amendment does this by eliminating current laws 
that prohibit temporary workers from filing a discrimination claim 
based on immigration status.
  Next, one of the key things we did after 9/11 was to ensure that 
Government agencies could share information with each other. When we 
determined the best way to ensure people are legally eligible to work, 
we quickly understood that we had to have sharing of information from 
the Social Security Administration, from the Department of Homeland 
Security, even, in some cases, from the Internal Revenue Service. 
Unless these agencies are able to

[[Page S8592]]

share the information with each other when we access the databases, we 
are not going to know for sure whether the individual is entitled to be 
employed. What the amendment provides is that after 5 years, the 
information-sharing provisions are sunsetted.
  None of these are really calculated to ensure that we can have a good 
employee verification system. They undercut that system and, as a 
result, they would weaken our ability to ensure employee eligibility to 
work.
  Finally, in some cases, we have employers who are violating IRS rules 
because they don't report income. The underlying bill allows the IRS to 
identify those employers and go after them. This is one of the things 
the American people are upset with today, that we are not going after 
employers who are violating the law, who commit tax violations in 
hiring unlawful workers. The underlying bill allows us to do that. The 
amendment doesn't allow us to do that, and I don't understand why.
  The bottom line is that title III of the underlying bill is a very 
good, strong provision supported on a bipartisan basis to ensure that 
we can verify the eligibility of workers to be employed.
  Title III, unfortunately, is weakened dramatically by this Grassley 
amendment which would in all the five ways I indicated undercut our 
ability to verify employment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has explained 
the technical provisions of this legislation very well, but I want to 
underscore a very important difference. And that is how each system 
will treat their workers.
  If there is some glitch in the system, under the legislation before 
us, under the existing law, the worker should be able to continue to 
work and can continue to work until ultimately there is a determination 
by a court that the worker should not be confirmed. The decision being 
appealed is called a nonconfirmation. If there is a glitch in the 
system--and we understand there are going to be a number of glitches in 
the system, but this was a provision that we took a considerable amount 
of time to make sure that workers who are going to be caught up in the 
system, if there is a glitch in the system, they will still be able to 
continue to work until there is a real indication of trouble. They will 
continue to work, unlike the proposal of the Senator from Iowa.
  The amendment of the Senator from Iowa says that if there is found to 
be some glitch in the system, they will have a legal case, but they 
will have to demonstrate--this is the test: that the government's 
conduct has either been negligent, reckless, willful, or malicious. The 
employee will have to demonstrate one of those qualities, which means 
they have to go out and get a lawyer. They will be let go, and they 
will have to go out and get a lawyer and go through the whole legal 
process in order to recover some damages. There is a large difference.
  I believe the underlying provisions which have been included--this is 
it, and I agree this is one of the most important provisions in the 
legislation. We want employer enforcement. That has to be a part of it. 
Tough borders that are going to be enforced and legality in the 
workplace, and the only way we are going to have legality in the 
workplace and also protection for the workers is the underlying bill.
  The bill requires SSA to begin issuing only fraud-resistant, tamper-
resistant, wear-resistant Social Security cards within 2 years. This 
will help prevent counterfeiting and identity theft by undocumented 
workers. The Grassley amendment has no comparable provision. It only 
requires that the worker give an employer a Social Security number 
rather than presenting an actual card.
  If we are serious, and I think all of us in this body, are serious, 
about dealing with the undocumented, we have to have tough worksite 
enforcement, and we are also going to have to have tamper-proof cards. 
I think this moves us in that direction in a very positive and 
important way.
  As I say, most importantly, at a time that we are going to go into 
this transition, how are the workers going to be treated, and really 
there is a dramatic difference between how those workers are going to 
be treated under the proposal we put forward under the existing bill 
and under the Grassley amendment.
  For these reasons, I hope his amendment will not be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa retains 3 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have 3 minutes left, I have been told. 
First of all, I think the Senator from Massachusetts was doing a good 
job reading from a letter Secretary Chertoff sent to me. I sent back a 
rebuttal letter, and I would like to provide the letter for the Senator 
from Massachusetts to read. It is a point-by-point rebuttal of what is 
wrong with Secretary Chertoff's analysis of my amendment.
  One of the criticisms that Senator Kyl gave against my amendment is 
we are not going to force employers to look through 160 million workers 
to find illegal workers. Let's look at the basic legislation. The 
legislation legalizes people who are here already illegally. So if they 
are illegally working, and this bill legalizes them, don't you see how 
ridiculous it is that we are going to tell people to go out and find 
people who are here illegally when the bill has already legalized them?
  The second point is that we eliminate the requirement of a photograph 
for identification. My amendment requires every U.S. citizen to present 
a passport or driver's license and every noncitizen to present a legal 
permanent resident card or work authorization card. Each of these 
documents is required to contain an individual's photograph.
  Moreover, my amendment requires workers to submit their passport 
number, driver's license number, or employment authorization number in 
addition to their Social Security number through the employment 
verification system. Without that information, there is no guarantee 
that Homeland Security will be able to contact the issuing agencies or 
determine which document was issued. This is the very same problem that 
has prevented Homeland Security from utilizing Social Security 
Administration data in the past.
  My amendment further requires the Social Security Administration, the 
State Department, and the State departments of motor vehicles to 
establish a reliable and secure method to allow the Department of 
Homeland Security to verify the identity document of each issuing 
agency.
  On another point Senator Kyl made saying it eliminates after 5 years 
the information sharing among Government departments, which is critical 
to making this work, a sunset is standard practice when we compromise 
the protection for the individual taxpayer, that the taxpayer's income 
tax information will be private so that, like President Johnson and 
President Nixon, it cannot be used to violate your privacy for 
political reasons. That is why that law was passed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
several letters regarding this issue.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2007.
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: We are again disappointed that you have 
     written another erroneous and misleading letter regarding our 
     amendment to Title III of the immigration bill. However, we 
     appreciate the opportunity to explain why our amendment 
     provides a more cost effective and administratively feasible 
     employment verification system.
       (1) Your letter states that ``employers have no independent 
     obligation to resolve no-match problems . . . (DHS) could 
     only ask employers to resolve no-match problems.'' This 
     statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our 
     amendment. Our amendment establishes criteria to determine 
     mandatory participation in the employment verification system 
     with respect to current workers. Current workers identified 
     by DHS would be verified through the employment verification 
     system in exactly the same manner as newly hired workers.
       The purpose of an employment verification system is to 
     prevent unauthorized workers from using fraudulent Social 
     Security numbers (SSN) or misusing legitimate SSNs to obtain 
     employment in the United States. This goal is accomplished by 
     comparing the name and SSN submitted by the worker to the 
     records maintained by the Social Security Administration. 
     Regardless of whether

[[Page S8593]]

     this comparison occurs when a worker is hired, or when a 
     worker's W-2 is processed, the result is the same.
       Our amendment requires every employer to verify every newly 
     hired worker through the employment verification system. 
     According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, more than 60 
     million workers would be verified each year through this 
     process. In addition, under current tax law, every employer 
     must submit an annual W-2 for every worker. According to 
     Social Security Administration data, more than 160 million 
     workers will be verified each year through this process.
       Requiring every employer to verify every worker through the 
     employment verification system would merely duplicate the 
     results of verifying every worker through the W-2 process. If 
     the names and SSNs match in one case, there is no reason to 
     believe they won't match in the other case. In order to avoid 
     needless duplication, our amendment allows DHS to obtain data 
     through the W-2 process and thereby identify every worker 
     using a fraudulent SSN, or misusing a legitimate SSN. The 
     employers of these workers would be required to utilize 
     the employment verification system to verify each of these 
     workers.
       (2) Your letter states that under the version of Title III 
     supported by DHS ``we will be relying on electronic 
     verification . . . [to prevent] . . . illegal employment. 
     Your amendment does not require equivalent security 
     measures.'' This statement reflects a fundamental 
     misunderstanding of our amendment. Our amendment requires 
     workers to submit their Passport number, driver's license 
     number, or employment authorization number (as applicable 
     based on citizenship status) in addition to their Social 
     Security number through the employment verification system. 
     It further requires SSA, the State Department, and state DMV 
     agencies to establish a reliable and secure method to allow 
     DHS to verify the identity documents issued by each agency. 
     Thus, DHS will be able to determine when identity documents 
     are fraudulent or when more than one person is using the same 
     legitimate document.
       Our amendment differs from the approach envisioned in the 
     version of Title III being supported by DHS. The approach 
     being advocated by DHS would require employers to verify the 
     photo on every identity document presented by every employee 
     at the time of hiring. This represents an unnecessary and 
     overly burdensome requirement for workers and employers. Our 
     amendment would allow DHS to generate a tentative 
     nonconfirmation whenever the identification number does not 
     match agency records, or when the same number appears 
     multiple times. In such cases, the employee would be required 
     to resolve the tentative non-confirmation with the issuing 
     agency.
       (3) Your letter states ``The need for no-match information 
     . . . will not disappear in five years.'' Our amendment 
     provides DHS with the ability to independently verify SSNs, 
     state driver's license numbers, and U.S. Passport numbers. 
     There is no reason to believe continued access to SSA no-
     match data will be necessary once DHS has fully implemented 
     the employment verification system. However, should continued 
     access be needed, we would fully support an extension of the 
     5-year limitation, provided DHS meets its obligation to 
     protect and properly use this confidential taxpayer data.
       (4) Your letter states that we ``. . . misunderstand the 
     current bill . . .'' There is no misunderstanding on our 
     part. The current version of Title III supported by DHS 
     states ``An employer may not terminate an individual's 
     employment solely because that individual has been issued a 
     further action notice . . . [ or] . . . reduce salary, 
     bonuses, or other compensation . . .'' The comments in our 
     previous letter referred to individuals who are issued a 
     ``final nonconfirmation,'' not a further action notice. 
     Moreover, your letter states ``. . . the current bill allows 
     workers to earn a living while they appeal what they believe 
     to be erroneous eligibility determinations.'' This statement 
     is true only with respect to a further action notice. The 
     current version of Title III supported by DHS does not 
     require employers to pay workers who appeal a final 
     nonconfirmation. In contrast, our amendment protects workers 
     throughout the entire appeals process.
       (5) Your letter states we oppose the requirement that 
     employers resolve no match letters ``. . . because the 
     letters are not sent to every single employer.'' That is not 
     correct. We oppose the no-match requirement because it is 
     ineffective and unenforceable. DHS would have no knowledge of 
     who received a no-match letter. Moreover, employers could 
     continue to rely on the current flawed I-9 process to 
     ``resolve'' their no-match letters. Our amendment would allow 
     DHS to readily identify every single employer with a no-
     match, and target those with the biggest problem for worksite 
     enforcement or accelerated participation in the employment 
     verification system.
       Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to explain 
     our amendment. We stand ready to work with you to create a 
     more effective and feasible verification system.
           Sincerely,
     Charles E. Grassley.
     Max Baucus.
     Barack Obama.
                                  ____



                              Department of Homeland Security,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2007.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I received your June 20, 2007 letter 
     regarding my concerns that your amendment to the immigration 
     reform legislation represents a serious step backward in our 
     worksite enforcement effort. I must respectfully disagree 
     with your statement that your amendment ``would improve Title 
     III.'' On the contrary, reading your response to my letter 
     underscores my initial concerns, for the following reasons:
       (1) Your letter acknowledges that under the Grassley-
     Baucus-Obama amendment, employers need not use the Electronic 
     Employment Verification System (EEVS) to find out whether 
     their existing employees are working legally except ``when 
     there is evidence to suspect unlawful employment.'' Under 
     your amendment, employers have no independent obligation to 
     resolve no match problems, and the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) could only ask employers to resolve no-match 
     problems if DHS already had enough information to begin an 
     investigation. But if DHS has enough information to begin an 
     investigation, it should not ask employers for their help, 
     The value of verification is that it generates evidence of 
     unlawful behavior. It is odd to say that DHS must have 
     evidence of potential wrongdoing before utilizing the best 
     means of uncovering this wrongdoing in the first place.
       DHS has no intention of asking employers to act as police. 
     The EEVS is a convenient nondiscriminatory but powerful tool 
     that will bring violations to DHS's attention without 
     imposing heavy burdens on employers. We should not impose 
     arbitrary limits on its use.
       (2) As you observe, the current bill requires that only 
     secure licenses and identification cards be accepted after 
     2013. In the meantime, we will be relying on electronic 
     verification as the principal means of identifying identity 
     fraud and preventing illegal employment. Your amendment does 
     not require equivalent security measures. In view of the 
     widespread industry specializing in production of fake 
     documents, I believe that your amendment keeps us and 
     innocent employers vulnerable to such documents and weakens 
     the protections against identity theft.
       (3) We all agree that DHS should have access to the ``no-
     match'' information that both the current bill and your 
     amendment allow. Our difference arises from the fact that the 
     Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment arbitrarily cuts off that 
     access after five years. As you will recall, our recent 
     enforcement efforts have shown that fake IDs and made-up 
     Social Security numbers are rampant in many industries. The 
     need for ``no-match'' information to combat such fraud win 
     not disappear in five years.
       We should not exempt employers from enforcement of 
     immigration laws because we fear that they may refuse to 
     comply with tax law. I am confident that the vast majority of 
     employers want to follow the law. Indeed, our enforcement 
     system rests on the expectation that individuals--employers 
     and employees alike--will obey the law. For those few who may 
     flout the law, however, the tight response is more 
     enforcement, not less.
       (4) I believe your letter misunderstands the current bill 
     in one important respect. The current Title III would not 
     allow employers to cut off pay to workers who seek 
     administrative review of their further action notices. In 
     fact, Title III expressly prohibits businesses from doing so, 
     or from taking other adverse actions against an employee who 
     received such a notice.
       I am pleased to correct this misunderstanding.
       I am also surprised that you appear to prefer a system 
     requiring that a worker who receives a nonconfirmation notice 
     be fired first, and that he pursue his administrative and 
     judicial appeal while unemployed, with the distant prospect 
     of getting back lost wages. By contrast, the current bill 
     allows workers to earn a living while they appeal what they 
     believe to be erroneous eligibility determinations.
       (5) We agree that the Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment does 
     not require employers to act on the no-match notices they 
     receive. You argue that the law should not require employers 
     to resolve no-match letters because the letters are not sent 
     to every single employer. But the letters are sent to the 
     employers with the biggest no-match problems. And your 
     alternative proposed solution is far less effective. Your 
     amendment proposes that all of the no-match data be sent to 
     DHS, which would then have to repeat everything that the 
     Social Security Administration has already done to locate and 
     send notices to employers whose employees may be violating 
     the law.
       In sum, I committed to inform the bill managers if I became 
     concerned about an amendment that would threaten the 
     enforceability and/or workability of the underlying bill A 
     good enforcement program benefits the vast majority of law 
     abiding employers by ensuring that they are not competitively 
     disadvantaged by the unscrupulous few. Unfortunately, I 
     continue to believe that your amendment will perpetuate the 
     kinds of obstacles that have burdened effective enforcement 
     of immigration law at the worksite since 1986.
       I appreciate your genuine concern about this matter and 
     please know that I am always glad to meet and discuss these 
     concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Chertoff.

[[Page S8594]]

     
                                  ____
                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     Department of Homeland Security,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: We are extremely disappointed that your 
     June 19th letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter contained a 
     number of erroneous and misleading allegations regarding our 
     amendment to Title III.
       Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
       ``(1) Job Security for Criminal Aliens . . . existing 
     workers are never checked out . . .''
       Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
       The pending immigration bill requires all employers to run 
     all existing workers through the verification system within 
     three years. This is an onerous and unnecessary requirement 
     given the fact that these workers are already subject to the 
     annual wage reporting (no-match) process. Our amendment would 
     require employers to run existing workers through the system 
     only when there is evidence to suspect unlawful employment. 
     To accomplish this goal, DHS would be given access to Social 
     Security and IRS data to identify all mismatched, duplicate, 
     deceased, minor children, or non-work SSNs.
       Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
       ``(2) Loophole for Fake Documents . . . present any 
     driver's license . . . not required to . . . provide a second 
     document . . . eliminate grant program . . .''
       Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
       The pending immigration bill says state driver's licenses 
     and ID cards that are not REAL ID compliant will no longer be 
     accepted beginning in 2013. The language also gives the 
     Secretary of DHS the authority to modify state driver's 
     licenses and ID cards prior to the implementation of REAL ID. 
     Finally, it authorizes--but does not fund--grants to States 
     for REAL ID. Congress can only fund REAL ID though the 
     appropriations process. Our amendment avoids imposing an 
     arbitrary deadline and allows the continued use of state 
     driver's licenses and ID cards (subject to new verification 
     procedures with the state DMVs) in recognition of the fact 
     that final implementation of REAL ID remains in doubt.
       Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
       ``(3) Arbitrary End to Information Sharing . . . cuts off 
     all information sharing after five years . . .''
       Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
       The pending immigration bill provides DHS with access to 
     Social Security and IRS data. Our amendment would sunset 
     these provisions after five years, subject to a future 
     extension, as is standard practice when allowing access to 
     private taxpayer data for the first time for a new purpose. 
     Moreover, the long-term value of SSA and IRS data for 
     immigration enforcement is highly suspect. Once employers 
     realize their W-2s will be used against them, they may simply 
     stop filing suspect W-2s.
       Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
       ``(4) Punishing the Enforcers Instead of the Violators . . 
     . individuals . . . can seek compensation . . . even if the 
     initial error was caused by the individual and not the 
     government . . . ''
       Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
       The pending immigration bill prohibits employers from 
     firing workers for as long as DHS wants to review a worker's 
     appeal of a final nonconfirmation notice. This would force 
     employers to keep workers on their books, but allow them not 
     to be paid, while the government attempts to find and correct 
     the mistakes in its databases. This will put legal workers in 
     a financial bind while providing no incentive for DHS to 
     improve the system. Under our amendment, illegal workers who 
     receive a final nonconfirmation notice would be immediately 
     fired. But, legal workers who are erroneously fired could 
     recover lost wages, if they did not cause the error, and the 
     government was at fault.
       Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
       ``(5) Ignoring the Government's Best Evidence of Illegal 
     Workers . . . Grassley-Baucus-Obama . . . would not . . . 
     require employers to resolve no-match letters''
       Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
       The pending immigration bill requires employers to retain 
     SSA no-match letters and document steps taken to resolve 
     them. But, SSA sends no-match letters only when there are 
     more than 10 employees whose names and numbers do not 
     match, and the total number of no-matches exceeds 0.5 
     percent of total employees. Thus, an employer with 11 no-
     matches and 2,199 employees would get a letter, but an 
     employer with 11 no-matches and 2,200 employees would not. 
     No-match letters are completely at the discretion of SSA. 
     SSA does not inform DSH which employers receive a no-match 
     letter. Under our amendment, DHS is granted access to all 
     no-match data. They can use this data to identify 
     employers for worksite enforcement or to require early 
     participation in the verification system with respect to 
     new or existing employees.
       Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
       ``(6) No Improvement to IRS Authority... Grassley-Baucus-
     Obama drops all of these important provisions ...''
       Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
       The pending immigration bill would increase IRS penalties 
     for filing incorrect information returns and authorizes--but 
     does not fund--additional IRS personnel to investigate 
     incorrect returns. This is a poorly concealed effort to 
     recruit IRS personnel to do the job DHS is supposed to do: 
     enforce our immigration laws.
       We strongly support creating an effective, mandatory 
     employment verification system for all employers to verify 
     the legal status of their workers. But the design, 
     implementation, and oversight of the system as proposed in 
     the pending immigration bill are flawed in several respects.
       Our amendment would improve Title III by (1) protecting 
     U.S. citizens and legal workers from errors in the system; 
     (2) protecting the states from excessive federal intrusion; 
     (3) protecting the rights of all legal workers; (4) 
     protecting the privacy of all Americans; and (5) improving 
     our ability to prevent unauthorized employment while 
     minimizing the burden on workers and employers.
       We hope that your future correspondence to the Hill will 
     acknowledge these much needed improvements and avoid the 
     erroneous and misleading allegations contained in your 
     previous letter.
       Sincerely,
     Charles E. Grassley.
     Max Baucus.
     Barack Obama.
                                  ____



                              Department of Homeland Security,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2007.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I promised at the start of this 
     process that I would tell you if the bill you were 
     shepherding became so unworkable or unenforceable that it 
     threatened to worsen our current illegal worker problem. In 
     general, the Senate has avoided workability and 
     enforceability pitfalls, but for the first time I must write 
     to you to express concern about a proposed amendment that 
     would be a serious step backwards in our enforcement effort.
       Enforcing the law means more than border enforcement. We 
     have to shut off the job magnet that pulls illegal aliens 
     into our country. The current bill's Title III wi11 do just 
     that. It creates a much stronger, more effective worksite 
     enforcement system than the one that exists today. This 
     system will stop illegal aliens from getting hired, and it 
     will punish employers who make illegal workers part of their 
     business model. By contrast, the Grassley-Baucus-Obama 
     Amendment will significantly weaken the current Title III, 
     with the result that illegal workers wil1 still be drawn 
     across our borders by the lure of easy employment.
       These are just some of the specific examples of 
     deficiencies in the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment that will 
     lead to a lack of enforceable worksite enforcement:
       (1) Job Security for Criminal Aliens--Current Title III 
     requires mandatory verification of all existing workers. 
     Under the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment, existing workers 
     are never checked. So serious criminals, and other aliens who 
     are not eligible for legal status, would be able to hide in 
     their existing jobs indefinitely, without ever having to 
     prove that they are authorized to work in this country.
       (2) Loophole for Fake Documents--Current Title III requires 
     that new hires show a secure identification card to keep 
     their jobs. Under the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment, in 
     contrast, most new hires will be able to present any driver's 
     license, whether or not it meets federal standards for secure 
     documents. And unlike the current Title III, individuals 
     presenting a non-secure license will not be required by the 
     Amendment to provide a second document to establish that they 
     are authorized to work in the United States. Finally, the 
     Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment eliminates a grant program to 
     reimburse States for the costs of improving license 
     security. The result will be to continue a flourishing 
     market for fake documents and identity theft.
       (3) Arbitrary End to Information Sharing--The best way to 
     catch unscrupulous employers who do not verify their 
     employees is to compare Social Security records to the 
     records of the EEVS. Current Title III allows DHS to do so. 
     But the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment cuts off all 
     information sharing after five years. Grassley-Baucus-Obama 
     tells unscrupulous employers that, after five years, when the 
     government agencies stop talking to each other, they can 
     return to ``business as usual,'' employing unauthorized 
     workers.
       (4) Punishing the Enforcers Instead of the Violators--Many 
     Americans want tough financial sanctions and strict liability 
     on employers who hire illegal workers. So far as I am aware, 
     none of them want to impose sanctions and no-fault liability 
     on immigration enforcers. But that is precisely what the 
     Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment would do. Under the Grassley-
     Baucus-Obama Amendment, any individual who wins his judicial 
     appeal against the government's determination of his 
     employment eligibility can seek compensation for lost wages--
     even if the initial error was caused by the individual and 
     not the government. Moreover, in a poorly concealed effort to 
     make DHS avoid tough enforcement, the Grassley-Baucus-Obama 
     Amendment actually proposes that any award come from DHS's 
     enforcement budget. This would actually make the enforcement 
     climate worse than it was after the 1986 law.
       (5) Ignoring the Government's Best Evidence of Illegal 
     Workers--Every year, SSA sends out millions of ``no-match 
     letters'', indicating that an individual's name and social 
     security number do not match. These letters are a powerful 
     indicator that the individual may not be work-authorized. The 
     current bill gives DHS authority to require that employers 
     take action to resolve ``no-match letters.'' Grassley-Baucus-
     Obama would not.

[[Page S8595]]

     It would encourage employers to continue to turn a blind eye 
     to evidence that their workers may be illegal.
       (6) No Improvement in IRS Authority--Nothing worries an 
     unscrupulous businessman more than the prospect of a tax 
     audit. The IRS has great investigative skills; it also has 
     authority to punish immigration violators who file incorrect 
     information about their employees, but this authority does 
     not have the deterrent effect it should because the current 
     fines are so low. Title III fixes this problem by raising the 
     fines and creating a dedicated Criminal Investigation Office 
     to investigate tax violations related to immigration 
     violations. Grassley-Baucus-Obama drops all of these 
     important provisions.
       Title III is the foundation of comprehensive reform. We 
     will not reform our immigration system. nor will we shut off 
     the stream of illegal immigrants pouring across our border, 
     without addressing the force that draws them here in the 
     first place. We need better documents and stronger tools to 
     uncover identity fraud. The current version of Title III 
     gives us these tools; by contrast the Grassley-Baucus-Obama 
     Amendment eliminates needed tools and allows unscrupulous 
     businesses to continue to freely hire illegal workers.
       Finally, weak enforcement is bad for business. Legitimate 
     businesses that comply with the law will be undercut by 
     competitors who disobey that law if enforcement is lacking. I 
     ask that you help to defeat the Grassley-Baucus-Obama 
     Amendment, not just to help our enforcers but to give a fair 
     shake to those who want to obey the law.
       In the end, the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment 
     unfortunately fuels public skepticism about whether 
     enforcement will work or political forces will frustrate 
     serious efforts to bring employers into compliance with the 
     law. I reject that view. We must enforce the law, and with 
     your help we will. I urge you to join with me in opposing the 
     Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Chertoff.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Isn't it true that the Finance Committee estimated that 
under these systems, there were going to be a certain number of 
mistakes that were going to be made?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, we presented that to you that day in April----
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly right. It is significant numbers, in the 
hundreds of thousands, as I remember. It is in the hundreds of 
thousands of mistakes that are going to be made as they set this up. I 
am just wondering about the protection of those workers. In our bill, 
we provide that those individuals should be protected because they can 
keep their jobs while they appeal a nonconfirmation. I am wondering if 
the Senator will relate to us how he thinks----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute yielded by the 
Senator from Arizona. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Iowa have an additional minute to respond, and then I will take my last 
minute.
  Mr. REID. For debate only.
  Mr. KYL. Yes, for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the only response I can give to the 
Senator from Massachusetts is that we have worked very hard in the 
Finance Committee to make sure that private income tax information and 
private Social Security information is protected. It seems to me that 
is basic to a system of taxation that is voluntary compliance.
  We have made some compromises of that, some use of that under very 
strict guidelines in the past. We presented it to the Senator's 
committee on this bill the same as we have in the past. The 5-year 
sunset is one example. Certain penalties for misuse of the information 
is another one.
  It seems to me that is very basic if we are going to have confidence 
in our tax system and protect the privacy of the individual taxpayer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  Three quick things. The amendment of the Senator from Iowa eliminates 
both the requirement of an employee to show an official identification 
card with a photo in State or Federal databases and the DHS-run photo 
match system that is the ultimate protection against document fraud in 
the workplace. You have to be able to do that match.
  Second, the Senator from Iowa says why would we want to check workers 
after we have made them legal? Well, the whole point is to be sure we 
don't have anyone continuing to work here illegally.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of organizations that oppose the Grassley amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The following organizations are publicly opposing the 
     amendments listed below.


                                Grassley

     American Farm Bureau Federation
     Compete America
     Information Technology Industry Council
     TechNet
     Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
     Alabama Employers for Immigration Reform
     Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform
     Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform
     Federation of Employers and Workers of America
     Florida Employers for Immigration and Visa Reform
     Nevada Employers for Immigration Reform
     New York Employers for Immigration Reform
     Oklahoma Employers for Immigration Reform
     Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy
     Texas Employers for Immigration Reform
     Tennessee Employers for Immigration Reform
     American Health Care Association
     American Hotel & Lodging Association
     American Nursery & Landscape Association
     American Subcontractors Association
     Associated General Contractors
     California Landscape Contractors Association
     Federation of Employers & Workers of America
     Florida Transportation Builders Association
     Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
     International Franchise Association
     National Chicken Council
     National Club Association
     National Restaurant Association
     Outdoor Amusement Business Association, Inc,
     PLANET
     Society of American Florists
     US Chamber of Commerce


                                 Baucus

     American Farm Bureau Federation
     Coalition for a Secure Drivers License
     Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
     Alabama Employers for Immigration Reform
     American Health Care Association
     American Hotel & Lodging Association
     American Nursery & Landscape Association
     American Subcontractors Association
     Associated General Contractors
     California Landscape Contractors Association
     Federation of Employers & Workers of America
     Florida Employers for Visa and Immigration Reform
     Florida Transportation Builders Association
     Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform
     Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
     International Franchise Association
     National Chicken Council
     National Club Association
     National Restaurant Association
     Outdoor Amusement Business Association, Inc.
     PLANET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as one of the managers of the bill, I 
will speak very briefly, and then I will move to table the Baucus 
amendment; and after conferring with the majority leader, it is my 
understanding that we are going to proceed without further debate to 
move to table two additional amendments this evening. All efforts to 
reach some reasonable time agreements have proven to be of no avail.
  I think it is worth stating again that when those object that they 
are not able to offer their amendments, we had time before the bill was 
taken down a week ago Thursday for people to offer amendments and the 
objectors did not offer amendments or even allow others to offer 
amendments. So they have had their opportunity, which has fomented the 
current situation.
  I wish to respond briefly to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, who 
made a comment that the Senator from Pennsylvania had not kept a 
promise.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I said you would have to have debate in order to keep 
your promise or it doesn't mean anything.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, I am not going to ask the record be read back. If 
the Senator from Iowa said I did not keep

[[Page S8596]]

a promise, I am glad to hear that. I don't make promises, I follow 
procedures. The Senator from Iowa wanted an amendment and he got an 
amendment, but I didn't make any promises. And if I made a promise, I 
certainly don't break promises.
  When an amendment is offered and you seek a time agreement around 
here, you have to have unanimous consent to get a time agreement. If 
you don't have unanimous consent, somebody gets the floor and can 
filibuster and can talk forever and the majority leader was not going 
to put this body in a position to have someone get the floor and talk 
forever. So that the Senator from Pennsylvania doesn't control 
unanimous consent agreements.
  The Senator from Iowa and I have worked together now for 27 years 
plus. We came to the Senate on the same day. Regrettably, he had an 
edge in seniority because he had been in the House. They didn't base it 
on State size. We have had no disagreements up till now, and I am glad 
to see we don't have a disagreement now.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We don't.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would add one addendum, Mr. President, and that is 
that I have to differ with him when he says he will not be around here 
20 years from now. He is only 73 and Strom said he is a young fella.


        Vote on Division VII of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified

  Mr. President, I move to table the Baucus amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know this is not debatable, I understand 
that, but we are going to move to table Baucus, Grassley, and Domenici. 
I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be the standard time; the 
next two votes be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. Reserving my right to object, if I could simply make a 
clarification about a statement that has been made.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to 
table.
  Well, first, we have a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request?
  Mr. VITTER. I object.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has been made. Is there a 
sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDIENT OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Bunning
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Vitter
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Johnson
     McCain
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, as I indicated earlier, I am going to move 
to table the--oh, we can't do that. We are stuck on this amendment. Why 
don't we agree to the amendment now and move on to something else?
  Mr. VITTER. I object.
  Mr. REID. Madam 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the distinguished junior Senator from 
Oklahoma has indicated he wants to speak for up to 10 minutes as in 
morning business. I ask unanimous consent that he be so recognized and 
that I be recognized following his 10 minutes. I have explained to the 
Senator from Oklahoma, and he understands, this is for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator 
from Nevada allowing me the time. I think it is really important for us 
to ask ourselves what the test is before us today in the Senate.

  As many of you know, I spent the last 2 weeks recuperating from a 
surgical illness, and I got to see--from a perspective of watching 
television on all the different channels, reading all the different 
papers--there was a recurring theme that I noticed that came through 
from all across this country. It did not matter what part of the 
country. It did not matter who was saying it, no matter whether they 
tend to lean liberal or they tend to lean conservative. That theme is 
this: We have failed to instill the confidence in the American people 
in the Congress that we are about doing what is in the best long-term 
interest of our country.
  It is not about being against immigration or for immigration. It is 
not about being against an ethnic group or for an ethnic group. It is 
not about being liberal. It is not about being conservative. It is 
about the worry that the American people have for this concept called 
liberty. They are worried about that concept right now. They are 
worried about whether we have the mettle to stand up to the test, to 
put us back on a road that will give them the confidence that what we 
do will be done in the best interests of them and their children. There 
is worry that the thing that gives us liberty, which is the rule of 
law, is somehow now being tinkered with in a way that undermines their 
confidence and security in what this American dream is all about.
  So we have had a very interesting experience today, but it is really 
not about the immigration bill. It is about something much greater that 
we should be paying attention to. It is about the right to govern with 
the confidence the people of this country give us and the 
responsibility that comes with us to have the integrity to do that in a 
way which builds that confidence, which rebuilds the strength, rebuilds 
the positive attitude, rebuilds the ``I can do'' America has been known 
for.
  I asked for this time to speak not as a Republican but as a citizen 
of this country with children and grandchildren, like everybody else 
out there who wants the best for our country. We can debate about the 
details.
  I had this wonderful experience about a year ago traveling with 
members of the opposite party to China. We met with students at Chinese 
Harvard. What we found was 95 percent of the things we agree on, we 
were solid in our bond.
  The very thing that makes this country great is what Democrats and 
Republicans agree on: the idea of the rule of law; the idea of freedom; 
the idea that we have a Constitution that has to be supported, 
nurtured, and maintained. The only way that happens is if we rebuild 
the confidence of the American people in our abilities to do that.
  We are in the midst of a debate on immigration that is a very wildly 
moving, emotional issue for all sides. But it should be a signal to us 
that when it is this wildly emotional and wildly divided, it should 
temper our thoughts to

[[Page S8597]]

say the most important thing is not to finish the bill, the most 
important thing is to reestablish credibility in what we do for the 
American people.
  I happen to believe if we do the right things that the American 
people in their gut know are right, ultimately, we will go from the 17-
percent approval rating the country has of this body today back to 
where we should be--a healthy, vibrant confidence that the people who 
are elected to represent them in the Senate will, in fact, have the 
confidence of the American people to do and carry out this wonderful, 
creative experiment our Founders started over 200 years ago.
  My question for the body and my challenge to the body is that we have 
a greater problem than immigration. The problem is the test: Do we meet 
the test that is before us of regaining the confidence of the American 
people? I think that is the biggest test we have today. I think all 100 
of us need to redouble our efforts to assure that No. 1, we listen; No. 
2, the Constitution is our guide; that the oath we took said nothing 
about Republican, said nothing about Democrat, said nothing about an 
individual State, but said we have an oath to uphold the Constitution 
of these United States without regard to party, without regard to 
locale.
  So I would beg my fellow Senators, over the next few weeks, as we go 
on break in a week and we come back here, that the No. 1 goal that 
ought to be in front of us is, how do we change that approval rating? 
How do we restore the fact that we are listening, that we are hearing, 
that our action is based on what we know to be right, what we know to 
be good, and what we know is in the best interests long term for our 
country?
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam 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. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the legislation.


 Amendment No. 1978 to Division VII of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1978 to division VII of amendment No. 
     1934, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       This section shall take effect one day after the date of 
     enactment.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I think all of us understand we have 
had a very full day today of voting on this legislation, the 
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. After more than 30 days of 
hearings since 9/11, after the 6 days of markup in our Judiciary 
Committee on the legislation that we addressed last year, which is very 
similar to the underlying legislation that is before us; after now some 
23 days of debate on the legislation, both last year and now; after the 
consideration of more than 70 different amendments--70 different 
amendments--there is an awareness and understanding by the Members of 
this body about the substance of this legislation and, hopefully, a 
recognition of its importance.
  We are sent here to legislate--not just to make speeches and to 
submit amendments but to legislate in our national interests, and we 
have a national challenge. We have a national challenge. I think 
everyone as Members of this body understands it. Certainly we receive 
the phone calls, the wires, the e-mails, and the rest. After it is all 
said and done, I think the people in our respective States and the 
people of this country are expecting us to exercise the best judgment 
about this legislation. They are not asking us to put our finger to the 
wind and say, from which way is the wind blowing the strongest and from 
what direction, but to try and take some initial steps--and they are 
initial but very important and fundamental steps--that can make a 
difference in terms of our national and border security.
  (Mr. CASEY assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. The American people are expecting action in this body. 
Tomorrow, in the morning, it will certainly be an extremely important 
and perhaps decisive vote about whether we are going to complete our 
responsibility, or whether we are not. I have respect for those who 
have expressed reservations and observations. But my commitment and 
view is stronger than when we first started this legislation. The 
importance of this legislation, I think,--I find it more persuasive 
than the day it was initially introduced, developed, and shaped over 
the period of the last years.
  We all have been faced with this legislation more closely over this 
debate and the debates we have had in recent days. We know, as we have 
heard frequently, and as I have said and many others have said, we have 
a national security issue and a problem. We can, as a nation, no longer 
afford to have, effectively, almost an open border in the Southwest. We 
also know, because in our committee we have listened to those who 
understand this issue, when they say we need to have secure borders, 
they also understand that with the strong kind of magnet attraction the 
American economy has, there is going to be leakage on that border. No 
matter how high we build walls or how many radars or air drones we have 
there or how many border guards we have, there is going to be leakage, 
unless we provide at least some opportunities for those who have some 
skills that in the United States we find we are unable to get filled in 
terms of the American workforce.
  There has to be at least some opportunity for those individuals to 
come to the United States. Those of us who support this legislation 
believe in legality. We believe in national security, but we believe in 
legality. What we have today is lawlessness. We have lawlessness on the 
border, approaching the border, after the border, and in too many 
shops, plants, and factories around our country, including in my own 
State, in which we find the undocumented exploited, and they continue 
to be exploited. That is happening today.
  We have to ask: Do we have something that is going to be basically 
serious about the border? Are we going to have a way for us to be able 
to say, OK, there are certain skills that we need here in terms of the 
American economy--those may be high skills, but in many circumstances 
it is going to be low skills, according to the Department of Labor. 
This legislation approaches that issue. We may say we would like to 
have it skewed this way or that, to some degree, but the fundamentals 
are essential in terms of the legality on our borders, in terms of 
national security, and also with regard to worksite enforcement.
  As one who has, along with others, been involved in these debates 
about immigration reform, unless you are going to have a tamperproof 
card, you might as well forget it. We have learned that lesson in the 
1986 act and in the 1992 act and earlier periods of time. The idea that 
somehow tomorrow we are not going to be willing to continue this 
process and end this process without the assurances that we are going 
to end up with a tamperproof card is going to mean that the challenges 
we are facing on this issue at this time are going to be multiplied 
many times over, many times over. That is a fact.
  Some people are troubled by the way that has been fashioned in this 
legislation. I think there is a strong and persuasive case we can make. 
We will have an additional opportunity with the Schumer amendment and, 
hopefully, with passage of cloture tomorrow. So we have those elements 
that are law enforcement at the border, respectful law, by coming into 
the United States and respecting our laws and our immigration laws, law 
enforcement at the worksite, and respect for the laws in that period of 
time. To say to those individuals who have come that--their motivations 
for coming here, by and large, are the values which Americans respect 
and admire, such as hard work. Sure, there may be some individuals who 
have gamed the system out there. But there can be no denial when any of 
us look at this situation and examine it and when you look at 
particularly the faces and meet the individuals, as

[[Page S8598]]

we all have, and we have had the issue spoken to so well by many of our 
colleagues, this is a population that is interested in hard work. That 
is a value Americans admire. They also admire the fact that these are 
families who work hard and care about the members of their family.
  Mr. President, $40 billion a year is sent back to Central and South 
America by the primarily undocumented workers in the United States. 
This is where individuals are making $10,000 to $12,000 a year. So they 
care about their families. They are not coming in on their own to try 
to game the system. The statistics are there. I think those figures 
speak for themselves in terms of their willingness to work hard, care 
about their families and, as we all know, this community, this 
constituency--they are men and women of faith and belief, strong 
individuals of faith and belief.
  On another occasion, we would say those are American values that we 
admire, and so many of them want to be part of the American dream and 
make America better. They reflect it by urging their sons and daughters 
to go into the service--thousands of them being in the service of our 
country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of them have lost their lives in 
the service of this country. So many of these families--as I listened 
to the mayor of Los Angeles today talk about a number of mothers he had 
met who lost their children in Iraq--the particular one he referred to 
had been undocumented and their son had been lost. In any event, that 
is the general sense of their desire and willingness, similar to other 
immigrants who came at other times.

  So what is their great violation? The violation is that they have 
violated our immigration laws. That is serious. What is on the other 
side of those barriers? The magnet of the American economy. The magnet 
of the American economy has drawn these individuals like moths to a 
flame. Sure, it is all there because they have violated our laws, but 
they work hard and they care for their families. They are men and women 
of faith, with an extraordinary record of looking after their 
grandparents, and they have a great desire to be part of the American 
dream. They have violated laws and they should have a penalty. We 
looked around and looked around, those of us, Republicans and 
Democrats, at what should be the penalty. Should they get a penalty? 
The $5,000 processing fee can vary. We can put a requirement in about 
learning English. In Boston, MA, it is not that the undocumented don't 
want to learn English; it is a 3-year wait. Courses in English cost 
from $2,000 to $3,000 in my part of the world. I look forward to the 
Alexander amendment--the Senator from Tennessee. He wants to at least 
provide greater access to individuals to learn English. We are for 
that. There are requirements that they have to learn English. They have 
to demonstrate they have worked here and that they paid their taxes and 
they have to demonstrate that they are good Americans and that they are 
learning English. We have those requirements. Before they can even 
think about moving on the pathway to a green card, they have to wait in 
line for the 8 years to clear up.
  Then, according to a merit system, over the next 5 years, they will 
be able to hopefully get on the path for a green card and then wait 
another 5 years to become a citizen--8 years, 5 years, and 5 more 
years. That is 18 years for some of those individuals, plus the 
penalties and fines--for people who want to be a part of the American 
dream.
  This has, as others have spoken to, very important provisions in here 
about the ag jobs. I remember going through the Southwest in the early 
1960s when I arrived in the Senate. Americans were involved in the 
Bracero Program, which, outside of slavery, was the greatest 
exploitation of humanity. Perhaps we could talk about some of the 
incidents in terms of the Native Americans certainly. But this was a 
sanctioned program that continued for years and years with the 
exploitation and abuse of people.
  That was the beginning of the rise of the farmworker movement and the 
extraordinary tensions that existed between the farmworkers and the 
agricultural interests. It took a long period of time. Finally, they 
got together to try to have a program which both of them agreed with, 
which is the AgJOBS bill, to make a difference to 800,000 or 900,000 
people who are some of the hardest working people in America. Then 
there's the DREAM Act. There is some responsibility in the areas of 
education. We know of the difficulty so many have in completing high 
school. It is true in the Latino community. This kind of opportunity--
if they are the sons of people who came here undocumented, these 
children didn't know about it, but if they work hard and complete 
school, they have the opportunity to serve this country and they can 
get on a pathway for citizenship, or if they are otherwise eligible and 
the State approves, they can also continue in education.
  So there are, I know, strong views about these different provisions; 
but, quite frankly, I think it is a compelling story that demands and 
requires action. If we fail this opportunity, we know we are going to 
miss this opportunity for some time. It is getting late into the season 
now, July and August we will be out and in September is the 
appropriations time. We will move into a highly politicized period of 
time, and we will move into a Presidential campaign. So we will miss an 
incredible opportunity.
  I hope the Senate is going to be responsible tomorrow. We know if we 
fail, those individuals are all going to be out there; the numbers are 
going to increase, exploitation will increase, and we are going to have 
the silent amnesty that others have referred to. That is the real 
alternative. I don't say that because I believe the failure to act is 
bad, and it is going to get worse, although I believe it will. It is 
that if we can take this action and make this downpayment, we can 
continue to work on this issue as the House does. That will take time. 
We can obviously work with those who are interested in it and try to 
make adjustments and changes and try to strengthen and improve it. That 
is the way the legislative process works. Hopefully, we will be able to 
come to the period where we can all feel the final product is the best 
judgment we have had on this bill. That is the optimum, and it seems to 
me this is an exceedingly important opportunity we should not miss.
  Finally, I again thank our leaders for giving us a chance to come 
back to this issue. We know it has been a complicated and difficult 
one. As I have said repeatedly, immigration and civil rights are the 
hot-button issues. We have had complex issues in our HELP Committee 
dealing with biologics, an enormously complex and difficult issue. We 
came together and passed that legislation. We had issues dealing with 
information technology, privacy, grants, and we came together and took 
action. Our committee has been dealing with the general cost of 
education and loan programs, and we were able to, Republicans and 
Democrats, cut some $18 billion from the lenders and return $17 billion 
to the students. We came together, Republicans and Democrats, and have 
been able to get reauthorization of the Food and Drug Administration. 
We look forward to continuing with mental health parity and other 
issues. But it is the issues of immigration and civil rights that are 
the hot-button issues, and they get the juices flowing.
  I hope tonight people will stand back and think through the 
significance of this vote tomorrow. It is going to be a matter of 
enormous importance to our country. It is going to have enormous 
importance in terms of quality of life for millions of people. We are 
going to make the decision whether they are going to continue to live 
in fear or whether they are going to be able to come out of that 
darkness into the sunshine and be part of this country. If we don't 
act, we all know what is going to be happening in local communities all 
across the country and the increasing backwash that is going to arise 
that is going to make other matters much more difficult for us to 
continue to make progress on.
  I look forward to tomorrow, and I hope all our Members will exercise 
their best judgment. We will have an opportunity to move ahead and 
complete this legislation and then hopefully we will continue the 
progress we made in the Senate so we can work with those who have 
differing views in the House and in the Senate and ultimately get 
legislation that is worthy of the Senate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for the

[[Page S8599]]

Baucus-Tester-Collins-Leahy amendment to strip the references to the 
problematic REAL ID program from the underlying immigration bill. We 
may agree or disagree about the merits of the actual REAL ID program, 
but as hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security 
and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being 
ready for prime time.
  While the Department of Homeland Security has not even released final 
regulations directing the States on REAL ID implementation, REAL ID 
licenses are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card, since you 
will need one to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and--
if this bill passes--workplaces all across the country. With roughly 
260 million drivers in this country, I do not see how we could have the 
massive national databases required by REAL ID and this immigration 
bill up and running by the 2013 deadline set in this bill. Moreover, 
REAL ID raises multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges 
could delay final implementation for years.
  In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID 
is a massive drivers' tax that could cost Americans taxpayers more than 
$23 billion. Opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to 
the left, and a large number of States have expressed concerns about 
the mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions that 
oppose REAL ID. Georgia, Washington, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina, 
Maine, and New Hampshire have gone so far as to pass binding 
legislation that says they intend to refuse to comply with REAL ID. The 
National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors 
Association have expressed serious reservations about the costs imposed 
on the States--and the structure of the poorly drafted grant program in 
the underlying bill. The Center for Democracy and Technology and the 
ACLU have expressed serious concerns about the lack of privacy and 
civil liberties protections within the REAL ID program. The reaction to 
the unfunded mandates and lack of privacy standards in the REAL ID Act 
is a good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes a 
unilaterally devised and ill-considered mandate rather than working to 
meet goals through cooperation, bipartisanship, and partnership.
  For any new immigration measures to be effective, they must be well 
designed. Forcing employers, employees, and the States to use this 
troublesome national ID card will slow down the hiring process, stifle 
commerce, and not serve as an effective strategy. In addition, the 
States have already told us that they will not all have their new 
license programs up and running by the 2013 deadline called for in this 
bill. On top of that, I have gone through this bill several times, and 
I have found money for border fences, money for surveillance 
technologies, money for border patrol agents, and money for detention 
facilities, but I cannot find any hard money that actually goes into 
REAL ID implementation. So doing away with this poorly drafted grant 
program will not take $1 away from the $4.4 billion in enforcement 
money contained in this bill.
  As a result, I do not believe that we should jeopardize the future 
success of the immigration reforms sought in this bill by tying REAL ID 
too closely to it. Instead of mandating REAL ID licenses for employment 
verification, I think we should support the Baucus-Tester-Collins-Leahy 
amendment to strip REAL ID from this bill and put together a workable 
employment verification system that does not needlessly burden every 
legal job seeker in this country with the onerous and problematic 
requirements of REAL ID.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know my friend from South Dakota wishes to 
speak. I have a unanimous consent request I wish to make that will put 
us into a situation where he can speak. I understand he wants to speak 
for 5 minutes. This will only take a minute, and then I will be 
recognized to do some other business we have to do tonight. It is 
nothing in relation to immigration. No one need worry about that.

                          ____________________