[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 116 (Thursday, July 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9574-S9597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             COLLEGE COST REDUCTION ACT OF 2007--Continued

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think with the consent agreement we are 
prepared to yield back the time we still have. I want to join, first of 
all, in thanking my friend and colleague from Wyoming, as I did in the 
opening of the discussion and debate on education. This reauthorization 
legislation--the

[[Page S9575]]

one we will consider on Monday--is legislation that had Senator Enzi's 
name on it until the change in the makeup of the Senate. We had worked 
on it in a bipartisan way. I think with the exception of the ethical 
issues, which have been developed more recently, it is by and large a 
reflection of a really strong bipartisan effort, as our reauthorization 
on the Head Start Program is as well.
  That is the way we worked when Senator Enzi was the chairman. We have 
tried to follow that pathway. As he mentioned, there has been a long 
history of leaders in education who work on a bipartisan basis in the 
Senate, going back with the Republicans with Senator Stafford and with 
our friend Claiborne Pell, as well as Judd Gregg when he was chairman 
of the committee.
  So we want to see this passed. Hopefully, by Tuesday sometime, we 
will be able to look back on these past days and see a job well done. 
But we still have work to do.
  I want to take a moment of time, though, to join in thanking the 
staff. Senator Enzi has said it so well. There has been tireless work 
and a real willingness to find common ground. These staffs have worked 
very closely with all of us. These issues are of prime concern to every 
member of our committee. Every member of our committee is involved in 
these education issues. We have good exchanges on that, and they have 
all been interested for a long period of time.
  But I wish to thank, certainly, on my staff Michael Myers, who heads 
our committee staff and does such a wonderful job, Carmel Martin, and 
Missy Rohrbach. Missy even managed to get married during this period of 
time. I don't know how she found that time. J.D. LaRock, Erin Renner, 
Emma Vadehra, David Johns, Liz Maher, Parker Baxter and Nick Bath. For 
Senator Enzi, Katherine McGuire and Ilyse Schuman and Greg Dean, Beth 
Buehlmann and Ann Clough, Adam Briddell and Lindsey Hunsicker. There 
are many others, and I will include those as we go through the evening.

  Mr. President, I was concluding the earlier remarks but I think many 
of our Members are ready to move ahead now.
  The other major provisions of this legislation were the loan 
forgiveness for those in public service for 10 years, the ceiling on 
loan payments so they don't exceed 15 percent of monthly income, which 
assist people in repaying their loans in a responsible way. It is very 
solid legislation. It is good legislation. As I mentioned earlier, it 
deserves to be passed. We know the House is ready to move forward 
together on this bill. They have addressed this issue in the committee 
and they are ready to move ahead. I think the country is ready for us 
to move ahead.
  As we have been willing and able to deal with education issues, I 
join in the plea of my friend and colleague from Wyoming in the hope we 
will not extend these amendments that have no relevance to the 
education of the young people in this country. They are entitled, I 
believe, to the kind of respect they should receive with an important 
piece of legislation that has been bipartisan, it has been worked 
through, and reflects the Nation's judgment in terms of understanding 
the importance young people can play and must play in our country and 
in our democracy, in our economy and in our national security. This 
legislation deserves, I believe, to have a quick and speedy passage.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
work. I would like to understand, as we apparently go into some votes, 
what the requirements and circumstances are. There is no limitation on 
amendments at this point as I understand it; is that correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator understands correctly.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask, under reconciliation, I have watched the 
proceedings this afternoon, and I have heard discussions on the 
amendments that have nothing to do with this subject and are far 
afield. Is there a germaneness test with respect to amendments on the 
reconciliation portion of this bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, there is. So there will be points of order raised 
on amendments where those points of order should be raised.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might, let me thank again the chairman and the 
ranking member. My hope is we will deal with those amendments that deal 
with the education of the children in this country and move on and 
finish this bill. There will be plenty of other opportunities to 
address subjects well beyond that. I appreciate their work, and I hope 
we can finish this in due course.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator because this is important 
legislation. There are a lot of other items which all of us are 
concerned about that the Senate should address. But we have had good 
discussions, good debate. This is very important legislation, and it 
reflects the best judgment of the members of our committee and I think 
the Senate as a whole as well. Hopefully, we can get it passed.
  Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
  Mr. ENZI. Is the Senator going to be yielding back and then 
propounding a request for 1 minute on each side on each amendment and 
10 minutes after the first vote?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has a question for 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. SANDERS. My question was similar to Senator Dorgan's. I was going 
to say that if there was a substantive debate, we are prepared to offer 
several second-degree amendments. I hope I don't have to do that 
because I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts that we are dealing 
with higher education now, a very important issue, and I think we 
should keep it clean and move forward. But if something else evolves, 
we are prepared to offer several second-degree amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his very 
important contributions during the development of this legislation and 
his excellent statement on the floor.
  I am prepared to yield back the time, if my colleague is prepared to 
yield back. I think also for any amendments, can we request that we 
have the opportunity for 2 minutes of debate on any amendment that is 
going to be offered to be evenly divided. Furthermore, I ask unanimous 
consent that after the first vote, the time on each succeeding 
amendment be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if it is all right with the Senator from 
Wyoming, we would indicate the first vote then would start at 6:30. I 
see the leader. That gives people at least some notice, if that would 
be agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with the first vote to begin at 6:30 
then, we have 8 remaining minutes. I am glad to divide that with the 
Senator from Wyoming. Does the Senator from Alabama wish to be--I would 
be glad to divide that time with the Senator from Alabama, if he wishes 
to speak on his amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that we divide the time, the 8 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the provision in this bill that creates 
an entirely new loan forgiveness program for Government public service 
workers I believe is unprincipled and can only get worse in the years 
to come. Actually, it has some pernicious aspects to it.
  For example, it says if you are any Government worker or social 
service worker, it appears that as long as you are not in the private 
sector, after 10 years, the Government will forgive your loan debt. I 
think that is an odd thing for us to do, to have that many people have 
their loans forgiven.
  I think, No. 1, when people go to college and they make up their mind 
about how they are going to pay for college and whether they will work, 
this will be an inducement for people not to work and to borrow; it 
will encourage borrowing for loans. No. 2, it

[[Page S9576]]

does not have any limit on the amount of money involved, so those who 
go to more expensive colleges will obviously get more of the taxpayers' 
money than those who don't go to more expensive colleges in terms of 
the loan forgiveness. I think that is not a healthy thing.
  Eighty percent of the colleges and universities in America don't use 
the Direct Loan Program. Eighty percent do not. You don't get this loan 
forgiveness unless you are part of the Direct Loan Program, or 
consolidate your loans with it. I think that is an odd bias in the 
system that I am not comfortable with. So I will say, again, I think 
this is creating a new bureaucracy, an unwise way to help workers. I 
would suggest if we want to help people, we should expand our Pell 
grants--as we have dramatically and I support--and the loan programs in 
general but not to target a forgiveness program to people who have been 
working for the Government for 10 years who are probably better able to 
pay off the loan than they were the first 2 or 3 years they started to 
work. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't like this new program and 
all its ramifications.
  I think our focus should be on Pell grants, on improving the loan 
program for everybody equally, and I don't think the plumber who is 
taking business courses so he might one day run his own business, or 
the nurse who is advancing her skill level so she might one day reach a 
higher level of pay, that one ought to be favored over the other.
  I strongly believe our resources should be directed to overall 
strengthening of the loan program and not focusing on just Government 
employees. I am not putting down Government employees, but I will ask 
you about two Government employees, one who goes to a community college 
and works their way through and ends up with no debt and another one 
who incurs a good bit of debt, one gets benefits under this program, 
whereas the other one doesn't. I don't think that is a good principle. 
I think that is hard to defend.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 remaining seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Kennedy. I know 
the bill does do some good things with regard to Pell grants and to 
focusing more of our loan money on some of the professions and areas of 
our economy that need more students involved, so I salute that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 4 minutes. Earlier 
in the day, we had a good exchange with the Senator from Alabama. I 
pointed out that Alabama, under this legislation, gets an additional 
$442 million over the next 5 years in grant aid. My own State of 
Massachusetts gets $317 million. Alabama does exceedingly well, and 
that is under the need-based provisions of this program, the need-based 
provisions of this program.
  The Senator from Alabama has raised I think three important points, 
and they should be addressed. First of all, the loan forgiveness is 
applicable to those who are on the Direct Loan Program or those who are 
on the Pell Grant Program. That is spelled out on page 14 of the 
legislation. That is spelled out on page 14.
  Secondly, there is a cap--spelled out on page 30, that requires the 
borrower's annual adjusted gross income or annual earnings to be less 
than or equal to $65,000 for eligibility. So if they make more than 
$65,000, there is no loan forgiveness. So this is for those individuals 
who are working--the working middle class and the working poor.
  Third, we believe, as this chart points out, that there is a value in 
terms of public service employment. We have heard the announcement 
about the COMPETE Act and about those who are going to go to conference 
on the COMPETE Act. That bill addresses math and science education and 
many other important areas. Try to find a good math teacher to serve 
the public schools of Boston--it's extremely difficult--a good science 
teacher, a good chemistry teacher to work in a high-need school. Try to 
find individuals who are going to work with the disabled population. 
Increasingly, we are finding challenges in meeting the needs of our 
elderly population so they can have independent living. We have listed 
the range of what we consider to be public service fields in this bill, 
and it is extensive. There is enormous need in America. There is an 
enormous desire of young people to work in those areas. The principal 
barrier is their indebtedness. They know that if we provide some help 
and assistance, which this legislation does, to provide some 
forgiveness, if they work 10 years--10 years--10 years they have to 
work in these areas in order to be eligible for some forgiveness. That 
is what the amendment of the Senator from Alabama wants to eliminate.
  I have mentioned many times, and in traveling around to schools and 
colleges in my State of Massachusetts, the number of young people who 
want to do public service and work and make a contribution to their 
community, to their local communities, to their State or to the 
country. We were reminded earlier today by the excellent statement of 
the Senator from Maryland the difficulty in getting law enforcement 
people to work in many of the areas in the communities in Baltimore. 
There are important public responsibilities and services. We have a 
generation of young people who are prepared to do it. The principal 
thing that is blocking them is the limitation on their salaries. As we 
have seen, this chart gives you a pretty good example. A starting 
salary for teachers is $35,000, and the loan debt is $18,000. What this 
will do is provide some relief annually, up to $732, but if that 
teacher is a starting teacher in Massachusetts, at the end of 10 years 
of working with students in the public school system, they are going to 
get some loan forgiveness.
  They are going to get a $10,000 forgiveness. This is not taxpayer 
money, Mr. President; this is the lenders' money. I hope the amendment 
will not be accepted.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 2333) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Wyoming has 
an amendment we are going to hopefully accept on a voice vote, if it is 
the way I understand it to be.

[[Page S9577]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. On behalf of Senator Coleman, I send an amendment to the 
desk.
  Mr. COLEMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2334

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2334.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Coleman], for himself, Mr. 
     Inhofe, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Thune, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
     Isakson, Mr. Allard, Mr. Craig, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
     Graham, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Gregg, 
     Mr. Ensign, Mr. McCain, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Dole, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. 
     Corker, proposes an amendment numbered 2334.

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

    (Purpose: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from 
                 repromulgating the fairness doctrine)

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007''.
       (b) Fairness Doctrine Prohibited.--Title III of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after 
     section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

       ``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of 
     this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to 
     prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, 
     or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the 
     authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, 
     doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose 
     or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in 
     part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing 
     viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, 
     commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed 
     in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast 
     Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).''.

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this bill is about educating young 
people. Let them have unfettered access to information. This bill would 
prohibit the Government from monitoring ideas on our public airwaves 
and penalizing broadcasters who don't meet the Government's definition 
of fair and balanced. There is a reason why our first amendment is 
freedom of speech because all freedoms are at risk when Government 
monitors and controls the broadcast of ideas.
  Since the end of the fairness doctrine in 1987, talk radio has 
flourished because of consumer-driven market demand, not because of 
Government command, not because of Government control.
  That is why I am offering this amendment which will protect America's 
constitutionally granted right to free speech. It will prohibit the FCC 
from reinstituting the fairness doctrine.
  At the end of the day, there is nothing fair about the fairness 
doctrine. This issue is not which broadcaster is fair and which is not. 
The issue is who decides. I believe fairness is what the American 
public decides is fair, not some Washington politician or bureaucrat. 
Americans love a fair fight, but there is nothing fair if the intent is 
to silence debate because a politician disagrees with it.
  I ask for my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this has nothing to do with the 
underlying legislation. Young children in this country want this 
legislation, and this amendment has nothing to do with it.
  The pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I raise a point of 
order pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e)(1) of the Congressional 
Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is premature. No motion has been 
made.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the purposes of the pending 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 South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Republican leader.


                Amendment No. 2351 to Amendment No. 2327

       (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the 
     detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. 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 Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2351.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY, 
                   CUBA.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) During the War on Terror, senior members of al Qaeda 
     have been captured by the United States military and 
     intelligence personnel and their allies.
       (2) Many such senior members of al Qaeda have since been 
     transferred to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, 
     Cuba.
       (3) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo 
     Bay include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind 
     behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which 
     killed approximately 3,000 innocent people.
       (4) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo 
     Bay also include Majid Khan, who was tasked to develop plans 
     to poison water reservoirs inside the United States, was 
     responsible for conducting a study on the feasibility of a 
     potential gas station bombing campaign inside the United 
     States, and was integral in recommending Iyman Farris, who 
     plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, to be an operative 
     for al Qaeda inside the United States.
       (5) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo 
     Bay also include Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was an al Qaeda 
     operations chief for the Arabian Peninsula and who, at the 
     request of Osama bin Laden, orchestrated the attack on the 
     U.S.S. Cole, which killed 17 United States sailors.
       (6) These senior al Qaeda members detained at Guantanamo 
     Bay also include Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who played a major 
     role in the East African Embassy Bombings, which killed more 
     than 250 people.
       (7) The Department of Defense has estimated that of the 
     approximately 415 detainees who have been released or 
     transferred from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, at 
     least 29 have subsequently taken up arms against the United 
     States and its allies.
       (8) Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, said in his 
     1998 fatwa against the

[[Page S9578]]

     United States, that ``[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and 
     their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty 
     for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is 
     possible to do it''.
       (9) In the same fatwa, bin Laden said, ``[w]e--with God's 
     help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to 
     be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans 
     and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it''.
       (10) It is safer for American citizens if captured members 
     of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not housed 
     on American soil where they could more easily carry out their 
     mission to kill innocent civilians.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including senior 
     members of al Qaeda, should not be released into American 
     society, nor should they be transferred stateside into 
     facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 6 years ago no one would have thought 
about deliberately bringing terrorists into American communities, but 
some of our friends on the other side of the aisle feel differently. 
The senior Senator from California actually has proposed that we 
require the President to move terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo 
Bay to the continental United States and to keep them here. That means 
moving them into facilities in cities and small towns in places such as 
California and Illinois and Kentucky. I can guarantee that my 
constituents don't want terrorists housed in their backyards in Fort 
Knox, Fort Campbell or, for that matter, anywhere else in the 
Commonwealth.
  My amendment would allow the Senate to express its view that it is 
better for the safety and the security of the American people that the 
terrorists at Guantanamo Bay are not moved into American communities.
  The amendment does not prohibit moving the terrorists elsewhere. It 
does not rule out closing Guantanamo Bay, although my personal view is 
that is a bad idea. All it does is say to the American people the 
Senate does not want these terrorists housed on our soil in our 
communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Madam President, there has been no shortage of public debate about 
the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately, much of the 
public debate seems somewhat at odds with what is really going on. As 
Morris Davis wrote in a recent editorial in the New York Times, 
``critics liken Guantanamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not 
match their hyperbole.'' Indeed, after an inspection last year by the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Belgian police 
official said, ``At the level of detention facilities, it is a model 
prison, where people are treated better than in Belgian prisons.''
  My trip to Guantanamo confirmed what Mr. Davis and many others have 
concluded. When I visited Guantanamo, the first detainee I came across 
was working out on a recumbent exercise bike.
  It is worth listening to some of the complaints registered by 
detainees themselves. One high-value detainee has alleged that he and 
others were given ``cheap branded, unscented soap.'' Perhaps the U.S. 
military should have provided the detainees with St. Ives Apricot Scrub 
or Bath & Body Works Sun-Ripened Raspberry shower gel.
  Mr. President, concerns over scented soap aside, the fundamental 
question is, what do we do with the detainees? There are several 
options I am willing to consider. I am willing to consider more 
aggressive repatriation efforts, for example. Or perhaps modifying the 
current facility or moving the detainees housed there to another 
overseas facility. One approach I oppose, however, is shipping these 
terrorists to our own shores. I am confident that most Kentuckians 
would not want al-Qaida housed down the street from them, and I would 
assume citizens from other States feel the same way.
  To me, the fundamental question in taking any action regarding 
Guantanamo should be: does this step make the American people safer? 
Accordingly, does bringing al-Qaida to America constitute the best way 
to protect the American people? I myself am heartened that 528 miles of 
ocean separates these dangerous men from the United States.
  It is perhaps worth recalling that these al-Qaida detainees take 
their instructions from Osama bin Laden. These are the words of their 
leader in his 1998 fatwa against the United States: ``The ruling to 
kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an 
individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which 
it is possible to do it.''
  Here is more guidance from bin Laden to his supporters: ``We--with 
God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be 
rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder 
their money wherever and whenever they find it.''
  It is because of words like these and actions like 9/11 that our 
policy in the global war on terror has been to keep al-Qaida out of 
this country. Better to fight them abroad than in the U.S. Yet now some 
on the other side of the aisle would require that we bring terrorists 
to the heartland of America and house them near our very own citizens.
  Lest we forget, these Guantanamo detainees include Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed. As most of us know, KSM, as he is called, was the mastermind 
behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. This attack killed 
approximately 3,000 innocent men, women, and children.
  These detainees also include Majid Khan. Mr. Khan was tasked to 
develop plans to poison water reservoirs inside the United States and 
was responsible for studying how to carry out a gas station bombing 
inside America. He also recommended Iyman Faris to al-Qaida. Iyman 
Faris, it will be recalled, was the man who plotted the destruction of 
the Brooklyn Bridge.
  These detainees also include Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Mr. al-Nashiri 
was responsible for orchestrating the attack on the USS Cole, which 
killed 17 U.S. sailors.
  These detainees also include Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. Mr. Ghailani 
played a major role in the East African Embassy bombings which left 
over 250 people dead.
  Nor should we forget that approximately 415 detainees have been 
transferred out of Guantanamo. Of these, no less than 29 have 
subsequently taken up arms against the United States and its allies.
  The senior Senator from California and other Democratic colleagues, 
however, proposed an amendment to the Defense Department authorization 
bill just last week that would mandate that we bring these terrorists 
into our own communities all across America, in cities and small towns 
in States like California and Illinois and Kentucky. There, they could 
either escape or litigate their way to freedom and then be among the 
innocent Americans they have sworn to kill. I guarantee you my 
constituents do not want terrorists housed in their backyards in Fort 
Knox, Fort Wright, or anywhere else in the Commonwealth.
  The Feinstein proposal reflects a pre-9/11, ``criminal justice'' 
approach to fighting terror. The amendment I offer today to H.R. 2669, 
the Education Reconciliation bill, reflects quite a different view; a 
post-9/11 understanding of terrorism; a view that recognizes the 
profound and enduring peril that terrorism poses to the U.S. and its 
citizens. My amendment is simply a sense of the senate that the 
detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into American 
society or transferred stateside into facilities near American 
communities and neighborhoods.
  For those who wish to close or modify the detention facility at 
Guantanamo Bay, however, my amendment is not a status quo amendment. As 
I discussed, my amendment would permit the administration to handle the 
detainees in other ways. All my amendment would do is to assure the 
American people that the United States Senate does not want these 
terrorists housed on our soil, in our communities.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have reviewed this. This side will be 
willing to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

[[Page S9579]]

  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Byrd
     Leahy
     Sanders

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 2351) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2352 to Amendment No. 2327

(Purpose: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure the right 
  of employees to a secret-ballot election conducted by the National 
                         Labor Relations Board)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2352 to amendment No. 2327.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
reading.
  The bill clerk continued with the reading, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                    TITLE--SECRET BALLOT PROTECTION

     SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Secret Ballot Protection 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. _02. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The right of employees under the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) to choose whether to be 
     represented by a labor organization by way of secret ballot 
     election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is 
     among the most important protections afforded under Federal 
     labor law.
       (2) The right of employees to choose by secret ballot is 
     the only method that ensures a choice free of coercion, 
     intimidation, irregularity, or illegality.
       (3) The recognition of a labor organization by using a 
     private agreement, rather than a secret ballot election 
     overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, threatens the 
     freedom of employees to choose whether to be represented by a 
     labor organization, and severely limits the ability of the 
     National Labor Relations Board to ensure the protection of 
     workers.

     SEC. _03. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

       (a) Recognition of Representative.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(2)) is amended by inserting 
     before the colon the following: ``or to recognize or bargain 
     collectively with a labor organization that has not been 
     selected by a majority of such employees in a secret ballot 
     election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board in 
     accordance with section 9''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to collective bargaining relationships in which a 
     labor organization with majority support was lawfully 
     recognized prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Election Required.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8(b) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to recognize 
     or bargain collectively with a representative of a labor 
     organization that has not been selected by a majority of such 
     employees in a secret ballot election conducted by the 
     National Labor Relations Board in accordance with section 
     9.''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to collective bargaining relationships that were 
     recognized prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Secret Ballot Election.--Section 9(a) of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Representatives'' and inserting ``(1) 
     Representatives'';
       (2) by inserting after ``designated or selected'' the 
     following: ``by a secret ballot election conducted by the 
     National Labor Relations Board in accordance with this 
     section''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The secret ballot election requirement under 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to collective bargaining 
     relationships that were recognized before the date of the 
     enactment of the Secret Ballot Protection Act of 2007.''.

     SEC. _04. REGULATIONS AND AUTHORITY.

       (a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the National Labor Relations Board 
     shall review and revise all regulations promulgated prior to 
     such date of enactment to implement the amendments made by 
     this title.
       (b) Authority.--Nothing in this title (or the amendments 
     made by this title) shall be construed to limit or otherwise 
     diminish the remedial authority of the National Labor 
     Relations Board.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, as our Nation's college graduates head out 
into the workforce, many of them will be faced with the question of 
whether they should join a union. Some will get to make that decision 
by secret ballot, while others will not.
  My amendment is very simple. It guarantees that every American worker 
will get a secret ballot election when deciding whether to join a 
union. This is especially important because there are some in this body 
who want to take this right away and conduct union elections by card 
check. This approach would open workers to harassment, intimidation, 
and other forms of union pressure. We need safeguards to allow 
employees to freely choose without intimidation and coercion from union 
bosses.
  Recent polls have shown that 87 percent of American people agree that 
every worker should have the right to a secret ballot election. I urge 
my colleagues to protect workers' rights and vote for this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, time has not been all yielded to ask for 
the yeas and nays. Point of order. Is it in order to ask for the yeas 
and nays on whether the amendment is passed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a request for the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I make a point of order.
  I withhold that. I have a minute, do I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I do not know what bothers the Senator 
from South Carolina, being antiworker, anti-union. We know this is the 
most antiworker, anti-union administration. This has nothing to do with 
education. We see what is happening over on this side. Slow the process 
down so we cannot vote on Iraq. Slow the process down so we cannot vote 
on energy. Slow the process down so we cannot vote on giving the young 
people of this country an opportunity to go to college. When is it 
going to end?
  The students of America and the families of America ought to know 
exactly what is happening out here on the floor of the Senate. This has 
nothing to do with education. It is an insult to the workers' 
committees of this country.

[[Page S9580]]

  We know this repeals existing law--existing law, which permits, if an 
employer wants to have a card check, respect for it, can go along. He 
is repealing that provision.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane, and 
I raise a point of order pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e) of 
the Congressional Budget Act.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold, we are going to try to work 
our way through these amendments. We will see how many more people have 
to offer. We are not going to try to match the amendments offered by 
the minority. They have a right to offer these amendments. This is a 
very important piece of legislation. We think we should work our way 
through it. We are going to work on this for a little while longer. I 
have already indicated through the floor staff to my distinguished 
friend the Republican leader that if we don't finish this pretty soon--
it is 8 o'clock now--we will just come back tomorrow and work on it. 
This could complicate things; people should understand that. Tomorrow 
we are obligated to have a vote on the motion to proceed to Homeland 
Security appropriations. If that is granted, that 30 hours will run 
through until the weekend. That is the process we are in. So if people 
want to continue offering these amendments, we will do it for a while 
tonight until people feel that they have offered enough in a way to get 
attention and focus attention away from this very good bill.
  I have come to the floor several times to talk about what a great 
bill this is and how well it was worked by the two managers. I hope we 
won't spoil it. We are not going to offer any amendments. Our 
imagination is as good as yours, but we are not going to do that. The 
decision has been made. We are going to work on this bill and try to 
get it completed.
  There has been a point of order made. My friend from South Carolina 
wishes to make a motion.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, please: Will the 
Chair confirm how many votes are required on a motion to waive the 
Budget Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn.
  Mr. DeMINT. How many is that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If my arithmetic is as good as yours, it is 
about 60.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair for confirming that the rules require 
60 votes on this matter, and I understand that controversial matters 
require 60 votes in the Senate.
  I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Congressional Budget 
Act with respect to my 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 yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Feinstein
     Johnson
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Maine.


                Amendment No. 2340 To Amendment No. 2327

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2340 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. Kyl, 
     and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 2340 to 
     amendment No. 2327.

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

    (Purpose: To provide limited immunity for reports of suspicious 
                         behavior and response)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTS OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR AND 
                   RESPONSE.

       (a) Immunity for Reports of Suspicious Behavior.--
       (1) In general.--Any person who, in good faith and based on 
     objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be 
     made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized 
     official shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, 
     State, and local law for such report.
       (2) False reports.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     report that the person knew to be false at the time that 
     person made that report.
       (b) Immunity for Response.--
       (1) In general.--Any authorized official who observes, or 
     receives a report of, covered activity and takes reasonable 
     action to respond to such activity shall be immune from civil 
     liability under Federal, State, and local law for such 
     action.
       (2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     affect the ability of any authorized official to assert any 
     defense, privilege, or immunity that would otherwise be 
     available, and this subsection shall not be construed as 
     affecting any such defense, privilege, or immunity.
       (c) Attorney Fees and Costs.--Any person or authorized 
     official found to be immune from civil liability under this 
     section shall be entitled to recover from the plaintiff all 
     reasonable costs and attorney fees.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Authorized official.--The term ``authorized official'' 
     means--
       (A) any employee or agent of a mass transportation system;
       (B) any officer, employee, or agent of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, or the 
     Department of Justice;
       (C) any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; 
     or
       (D) any transportation security officer.
       (2) Covered activity.--The term ``covered activity'' means 
     any suspicious transaction, activity, or occurrence 
     indicating that an individual may be engaging, or preparing 
     to engage, in--
       (A) a violent act or act dangerous to human life that is a 
     violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any 
     State, or that would be such a violation if committed within 
     the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; or
       (B) an act of terrorism (as that term is defined in section 
     3077 of title 18, United States Code) that involves, or is 
     directed against, a mass transportation system or vehicle or 
     its passengers.
       (3) Mass transportation.--The term ``mass 
     transportation''--
       (A) has the meaning given to that term in section 
     5302(a)(7) of title 49, United States Code; and
       (B) includes--
       (i) school bus, charter, or intercity bus transportation;
       (ii) intercity passenger rail transportation;
       (iii) sightseeing transportation;
       (iv) a passenger vessel as that term is defined in section 
     2101(22) of title 46, United States Code;

[[Page S9581]]

       (v) other regularly scheduled waterborne transportation 
     service of passengers by vessel of at least 20 gross tons; 
     and
       (vi) air transportation as that term is defined in section 
     40102 of title 49, United States Code.
       (4) Mass transportation system.--The term ``mass 
     transportation system'' means an entity or entities organized 
     to provide mass transportation using vehicles, including the 
     infrastructure used to provide such transportation.
       (5) Vehicle.--The term ``vehicle'' has the meaning given to 
     that term in section 1992(16) of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     November 20, 2006, and shall apply to all activities and 
     claims occurring on or after such date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished Senator 
from Maine to withhold for a brief statement.
  Mr. President, I have talked to Senators on both sides of the aisle. 
I think it is appropriate we finish this legislation tonight, or in the 
morning, whatever the case will be. But we are going to continue 
working tonight. I think that is the most appropriate thing to do.
  The one thing I have asked for--and I hope the minority can complete 
that--is that we should have a finite list of amendments, so we at 
least can get that done and find out how many amendments we have to 
work through. I would hope the minority would work on that to see if we 
can come up with a finite list of amendments before final passage.
  I apologize to my friend for the interruption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, an alert citizenry is one of our best defenses against 
terrorist attacks. That is why the New York City subway system has 
signs saying: ``See Something, Say Something.'' That is just what a 
group of airline passengers did recently in reporting suspicious 
activity they thought represented a terrorist threat. What was the 
result? Those passengers, the pilot, the airline, and the airport were 
all sued. The Collins-Kyl-Lieberman amendment would protect individuals 
from lawsuits when they, in good faith, report reasonable suspicious 
behavior that may reflect terrorist activity.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Our amendment would protect from lawsuits individual citizens who 
report suspicious activity. The report would have to be in good faith. 
It would have to be reasonable.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is not germane. It is 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I would be 
happy to hold hearings on it. This is so overbroad that you could have 
all kinds of problems. It could invite racial and religious profiling. 
Suppose somebody is wearing religious garb and it frightens somebody. 
They could immediately--or maybe it doesn't frighten them, but they 
could say it does. It broadly protects Government officials from 
potential misconduct. It sets a new standard for a government official 
responding to reports of activity, and it is basically a court-
stripping bill.
  If this is for more than a political point on this bill, fine, bring 
it to the Judiciary Committee. We will hold a hearing on it before the 
committee that has jurisdiction.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, anybody who sees something that looks 
different: Hispanic, Black, someone wearing religious garb, they have a 
reasonable ground to turn them in under this. This is far too broad. 
Let it go to the Judiciary Committee--I guarantee we will have a 
hearing--but not on this.
  I make the motion that the pending amendment is not germane. I raise 
a point of order pursuant to section 305(b)2 and 310(e)1 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Feinstein
     Johnson
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2356 to Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2356 to amendment 2327:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Since I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby previously served as Chief 
     of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney;
       Since Mr. Libby was convicted in federal court of perjury 
     and obstruction of justice in connection with efforts by the 
     Bush White House to conceal the fact that Administration 
     officials leaked the name of a covert CIA agent in order to 
     discredit her husband, a critic of the Iraq War;
       Since U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Mr. 
     Libby to 30 months in prison to reflect the seriousness of 
     the offense, the sensitivity of the national security 
     information involved in Libby's crime, and the abuse of Mr. 
     Libby's position of trust in the United States government;

[[Page S9582]]

       Since President Bush chose to commute Mr. Libby's prison 
     sentence in its entirety, thereby entitling Libby to evade 
     serious punishment for his criminal conduct;
       Since President Bush has refused to rule out the 
     possibility that he will eventually issue a full pardon to 
     Mr. Libby with respect to his criminal conviction;
       Now therefore be it determined that it is the Sense of the 
     Senate that President Bush should not issue a pardon to I. 
     Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 1 minute.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, it is, frankly, regrettable that as we 
work on this floor on an issue that is absolutely important to the 
people of this country; that is, the future of our children and their 
education and providing them with the opportunity to have the American 
dream, that we are having to have votes on politically motivated 
amendments that are coming forward from the other side. It would be in 
the best interest of this institution and the American people to stop 
this and not to go forward with these kinds of amendments.
  Regrettably, if you are going to shoot this way, we have to shoot 
that way. I ask my colleagues to send the sense of the Senate to the 
President of the United States that he should not pardon Scooter Libby.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe there is an opportunity for someone 
to speak against the amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, until this last amendment, I haven't seen 
politically inspired amendments before this body, and we don't have to 
vote on politically inspired amendments.
  As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, a suggestion of 
political motivation is a violation of the rules of the Senate, and I 
don't believe that any of these amendments have been politically 
inspired.
  The next one offered by Republicans has to do with Pell grants. I 
think the senior Senator from California had a very serious amendment 
with respect to detainees at Guantanamo, and there was an amendment 
which related to that issue. We had an amendment on the fairness 
doctrine, another on the Secret Ballot Protection Act.
  These are serious amendments. I am sure my colleague did not wish to 
suggest they were politically inspired. I hope that we don't get into 
politically inspired amendments and that our colleagues will vote 
against the amendment that has been offered just for that reason.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  (Subsequently, action on this amendment was vitiated.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2357 to Amendment No. 2327

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2357 to amendment No. 2327:

       Deploring the actions of former President William Jefferson 
     Clinton regarding his granting of clemency to terrorists, to 
     family members, donors, and individuals represented by family 
     members, to public officials of his own political party, and 
     to officials who violated laws protecting United States 
     intelligence, and concluding that such actions by former 
     President Clinton were inappropriate.
       The Armed Forces of National Liberation (the FALN) is a 
     terrorist organization that claims responsibility for the 
     bombings of approximately 130 civilian, political, and 
     military sites throughout the United States, and whereas, on 
     August 11, 1999, President Clinton commuted the sentences of 
     16 terrorists, all of whom were members of the FALN, and 
     whereas this action was taken counter to the recommendation 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons, and two United States Attorneys;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     commuted the sentence of Susan L. Rosenberg, a former member 
     of the Weather Underground Organization terrorist group whose 
     mission included the violent overthrow of the United States 
     Government, who was charged in a robbery that left a security 
     guard and 2 police officers dead;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     commuted the sentence of Linda Sue Evans, a former member of 
     the Weather Underground Organization terrorist group, who 
     made false statements and used false identification to 
     illegally purchase firearms that were then used by Susan L. 
     Rosenberg in a robbery that left a security guard and 2 
     police officers dead;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned Patricia Hearst Shaw, a former member of the 
     Symbionese Liberation Army, a domestic terrorist group which 
     also advocated the violent overthrow of the United States, 
     and that carried out violent attacks in the United States;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned his half-brother Roger Clinton, who had been 
     convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and of 
     distribution of cocaine;
       Since, on March 15, 2000, former President Clinton pardoned 
     Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who had been convicted of 
     conspiracy to willfully misapply bank funds and to make false 
     statements and who, according to news reports, were 
     represented by the former President's brother-in-law, Tony 
     Rodham;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     commuted the sentence of Carlos Vignali, a convicted cocaine 
     trafficker who, according to news reports, was represented by 
     the former President's brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned Almon Glenn Braswell, an individual convicted of 
     money laundering and tax evasion, who according to news 
     reports, was represented by former President's brother-in-
     law, Hugh Rodham;
       Since, on December 22, 2000, former President Clinton 
     pardoned former Democratic Representative Dan Rostenkowski, 
     who had been convicted of mail fraud;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     commuted the sentence of convicted sex offender and former 
     Democratic Representative Mel Reynolds, who had been found 
     guilty of bank fraud, wire fraud, making false statements to 
     a financial institution, conspiracy to defraud the Federal 
     Elections Commission, and making false statements to a 
     Federal official;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned his former Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development Henry Cisneros, who had been convicted of making 
     false statements about payments to his mistress;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned Susan McDougal, who had been a key figure in the 
     Whitewater investigation and who had been convicted of aiding 
     and abetting, in making false statements, and who refused to 
     testify against the former President in the investigation;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned Christopher Wade, who was a real estate salesmen 
     involved in the Whitewater matter;
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned his former Director of Central Intelligence John 
     Deutch for his mishandling of national security secrets; and
       Since, on January 20, 2001, former President Clinton 
     pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a former Navy intelligence 
     analyst who was convicted on espionage charges: Now, 
     therefore, be it determined that it is the sense of the 
     Senate that
       (1) former President Clinton's granting of clemency to 16 
     FALN terrorists, two former members of the Weather 
     Underground Organization, and a former member of the 
     Symbionese Liberation Army was inappropriate;
       (2) former President Clinton's granting of clemency to 
     individuals either in his family or represented by family 
     members was inappropriate;
       (3) former President Clinton's granting of clemency to 
     public figures from his own political party was 
     inappropriate;
       (4) former President Clinton's pardons of individuals 
     involved with the Whitewater investigation, a matter in which 
     the former First Family was centrally involved, was 
     inappropriate; and
       (5) former President Clinton's pardons of individuals who 
     have jeopardized intelligence gathering and operations were 
     inappropriate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the Senate has decided to go into 
debating the appropriateness of future pardons, there is plenty of 
material to go around on past pardons. President Clinton's decision to 
pardon a host of individuals convicted of serious crimes then is 
certainly worthy of Senate comment as well.
  Many of the individuals were convicted of the crime of terrorism. 
Some

[[Page S9583]]

were individuals who jeopardized intelligence gathering. Some were 
family members and represented by family.
  My fundamental point is if the Senate wants to spend the evening 
commenting on the advisability of pardons that have not yet occurred, 
maybe we ought to go on record discussing the appropriateness of 
pardons that have already occurred.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what in the world does the Republican 
leader have against this legislation? The legislation we have here 
before the Senate passed 17 to 3. The authorizing provision that 
changes policy was virtually unanimous. Young people all over the 
country are looking in on the Senate. This is about the future of this 
next generation, their hopes and their dreams. It is about our country 
and being able to compete in the world. It is about the quality of our 
Armed Forces, about getting well-trained, well-educated young people. 
It is about our institutions, whether they are going to be functioning 
and working.
  Why can't we go ahead and vote on this legislation? We were here for 
2 days waiting for different amendments on education and few of them 
came. Why in the world are you holding up this legislation that means 
so much to the future of our young people? We are prepared to vote. We 
didn't have amendments over here on our side. We want to get this 
legislation going ahead. We are looking forward to the reauthorization 
debate for next week, and we are looking forward to getting something 
worthy of this institution.
  In the 45 years I have been in the Senate under the leadership of 
Stafford of Vermont, of Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, of the Members 
whom we have had here--we have had true commitment.
  Why are we disrupting this effort?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the Salazar 
amendment, the vote be vitiated, stricken from the Record, and that we 
not have a rollcall vote on the amendment that was offered by my 
distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I very much agree with the consent 
agreement the majority leader propounded. I think we have a chance here 
to wrap up this bill in the next hour, hour and a half. We are 
whittling down the amendments. I have given a list to the majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do say there has been--I say this with 
everyone here--I said a few things today when no one was here. But I 
complimented these two managers of this bill. They have been exemplary, 
the way they--with two different political philosophies, we all know 
that, but they have worked together, not just this year but for a 
number of years, to put out some good legislation in that committee.
  I do not want to make any of the chairmen and ranking members feel 
bad, but this committee has a lot of good work they have finished and 
they will be able to bring to this floor things we have been waiting 
for for years. I appreciate the intensity of everyone's feelings on 
issues.
  I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments remaining in order 
on this piece of legislation subject to second-degree amendments be the 
Coleman amendment, innocent child; Graham amendment, no Pell grants for 
drug dealers; Cornyn amendment, H-1B visas; Sununu amendment, tuition 
deduction permanence; DeMint amendment, adoption tax permanence; Ensign 
amendment, Social Security for illegal immigrants; Dole amendment, 
voter ID; Kyl amendment, AMT repeal.
  We are going to be very selective in our second-degree amendments. We 
hope we can move through this very quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want 
to understand what the majority leader's position is with regard to the 
possibility of second degrees.
  Mr. REID. I have told the Republican leader we definitely will have 
an amendment on No. 6. I told everybody that. You already have that 
amendment. We will look at these others. I haven't seen those. But you 
will have plenty of time to look at them. They will be relating to the 
subject matter of the amendment that is offered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my concern is to make sure these first-
degree amendments do, in fact, get votes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will not prevent votes on these, subject 
to second-degree amendments and points of order.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Understood.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
ask both of the leaders--I have not even given any speeches; you all 
are lucky. But let me ask, is it the intent now that we are at this 
point that we are not going to--whatever amendments are left, we do not 
intend to get back into the regime of amendments we just got through 
taking out by unanimous consent? Those ideas are no longer--we are not 
going to consider them? I am not agreeing to unanimous consent unless 
you are agreeing to that. We are not just agreeing to these amendments 
and second-degrees, we are not going to have that kind of amendment.
  Mr. REID. I would hope on this bill and any other bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not talking about any other bill.
  Mr. REID. On this bill, yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I may, the majority leader has the list. They do 
not include content of the kind we were dealing with in the last two 
amendments, so I think the Senator from New Mexico will be pleased.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 2357 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. If my friend would withhold.
  Would the Chair withdraw the McConnell amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
McConnell amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, because I have 
been waiting to offer my amendment, if my amendment would be allowed to 
be the first amendment.
  Mr. REID. I think we have the list here. We do not personally care. 
We do not care what order, so it is up to you. You have the next 
amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, I think 
he should proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2355 to Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2355.

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

    (Purpose: To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and 
preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that 
   individuals are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a 
                      result of unlawful activity)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PRECLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY CREDITS PRIOR TO 
                   ENUMERATION OR FOR ANY PERIOD WITHOUT WORK 
                   AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Insured Status.--Section 214 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 414) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) no quarter of coverage shall be credited for purposes 
     of this section if, with respect to any individual who is 
     assigned a social security account number on or after the

[[Page S9584]]

     date of enactment of the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, 
     such quarter of coverage is earned prior to the year in which 
     such social security account number is assigned; and
       ``(B) no quarter of coverage shall be credited for purposes 
     of this section for any calendar year, with respect to an 
     individual who is not a natural-born United States citizen, 
     unless the Commissioner of Social Security determines, on the 
     basis of information provided to the Commissioner in 
     accordance with an agreement entered into under subsection 
     (e) or otherwise, that the individual was authorized to be 
     employed in the United States during such quarter.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any 
     quarter of coverage earned by an individual who, at such time 
     such quarter of coverage is earned, satisfies the criterion 
     specified in subsection (c)(2).
       ``(e) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into an agreement 
     with the Commissioner of Social Security to provide such 
     information as the Commissioner determines necessary to carry 
     out the limitations on crediting quarters of coverage under 
     subsection (d). Nothing in this subsection may be construed 
     as establishing an effective date for purposes of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Benefit Computation.--Section 215(e) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 415(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) in computing the average indexed monthly earnings of 
     an individual who is assigned a social security account 
     number on or after the date of enactment of the Higher 
     Education Access Act of 2007, there shall not be counted any 
     wages or self-employment income for which no quarter of 
     coverage may be credited to such individual as a result of 
     the application of section 214(d).''.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I hate to be offering an amendment such as 
this on this bill, but as we know around here, a lot of times we do not 
get to offer amendments. I wanted to offer my amendment on the 
immigration reform debate, so we are offering it tonight because it is 
one of the only chances we will have to offer it this year.
  My amendment denies Social Security benefits for illegal, fraud-based 
work. It also ensures an individual who is on a visa overstay, or 
someone who has a card in their name but is working here illegally will 
not get credit for that illegal work.
  There have been many media reports recently about illegal immigrants 
stealing Americans' Social Security numbers. Last year I spoke about 
Audra, who was a stay-at-home mom since 2000. Over 200 different 
illegal immigrants stole her identity, used her Social Security number. 
She ended up owing the IRS over $1 million. That is the kind of thing 
we have to have stopped. We should not reward those who have stolen 
people's identities with Social Security benefits.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, this has nothing to do with our 
education bill whatsoever. It is completely not germane.
  Secondly, it says to every American citizen who was not born here in 
the United States of America, who might have been an American citizen 
for 30 years or 40 years, you are going to have to go back in your 
history and demonstrate and show you were authorized to be here for the 
last 30 or 40 years if you are an American citizen, if you are born 
outside of this country.
  What in the world does that have to do with our education system? 
Absolutely nothing. This amendment would apply to Henry Kissinger, it 
would apply to Madeleine Albright, it would apply to Mel Martinez. It 
would apply to all American citizens who were not born in this country.
  That is where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                Amendment No. 2358 to Amendment No. 2355

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2358 to amendment No. 2355.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after line 1, page 1 and insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON ILLEGAL ALIENS QUALIFYING FOR SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY BENEFITS AND PRECLUSION OF SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY CREDITS PRIOR TO ENUMERATION OR FOR 
                   ANY PERIOD WITHOUT WORK AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Prohibition on Illegal Aliens Qualifying for Social 
     Security Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this Act, or the amendments 
     made by this Act, shall be construed to modify any provision 
     of current law that prohibits illegal aliens from qualifying 
     for Social Security benefits.
       (2) Enforcement.--The Attorney General shall ensure that 
     the prohibition on the receipt of Social Security by illegal 
     aliens is strictly enforced.
       (b) Preclusion of Social Security Credits Prior to 
     Enumeration or for Any Period Without Work Authorization.--
       (1) Insured status.--Section 214 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 414) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) no quarter of coverage shall be credited for purposes 
     of this section if, with respect to any individual who is 
     assigned a social security account number on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, such quarter of coverage is 
     earned prior to the year in which such social security 
     account number is assigned; and
       ``(B) no quarter of coverage shall be credited for purposes 
     of this section for any calendar year, with respect to an 
     individual who is not a United States citizen if the 
     Commissioner of Social Security determines, on the basis of 
     information provided to the Commissioner in accordance with 
     an agreement entered into under subsection (e) or otherwise, 
     that the individual was not authorized to be employed in the 
     United States during such quarter.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any 
     quarter of coverage earned by an individual who, at such time 
     such quarter of coverage is earned, satisfies the criterion 
     specified in subsection (c)(2).
       ``(e) Not later than 180 days after the date of this Act 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Commissioner of Social Security to provide 
     such information as the Commissioner determines necessary to 
     carry out the limitations on crediting quarters of cover 
     under subsection, (d), however, this provision shall not be 
     construed to establish an effective date for purposes of this 
     section.''.
       (2) Benefit computation.--Section 215(e) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 4159e)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) in computing the average indexed monthly earnings of 
     an individual who is assigned a social security account 
     number on or after the date of enactment of this Act, there 
     shall not be counted any wages or self-employment income for 
     which no quarter of coverage may be credited to such 
     individual as a result of the application of section 
     214(d).''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall be effective as of the date of enactment of this Act.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is very clear. It 
reaffirms that illegal immigrants cannot and will not receive Social 
Security benefits. It focuses the Attorney General to strongly and 
vigorously enforce this provision, and it focuses enforcement efforts 
against those who are here illegally, not American citizens who are 
naturalized and here legally.
  Unfortunately, whether intended or not, the Ensign amendment would 
threaten the Social Security benefits of millions of Americans. It 
makes no sense. We need to focus the Attorney General on those who are 
here illegally, and make it very clear that no one who is here 
illegally can receive Social Security benefits, period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first I want to address what Senator 
Kennedy said in case there is misinformation out there in what he said, 
that Mel Martinez and others would not qualify for benefits under my 
amendment. That is absolutely false. We have cleared this, we have run 
the traps on it. It is necessary to make sure that not just someone who 
is here illegally now who is stealing someone's identity but it is when 
they become legalized that we want to prevent them from getting Social 
Security benefits.
  That is the problem with the Stabenow amendment, that illegals cannot 
get benefits now. What we want to do is prevent them, if they become 
legalized--that the work they did when they stole someone's Social 
Security number, we don't want them to have benefits.
  Mr. President, is all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is not expired.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I make a point of order that the second-degree amendment is not 
germane.

[[Page S9585]]

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
section of that act for the purposes of the pending 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 assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, some of my Members have criticized we are 
not enforcing the 10-minute vote rule--10 minutes and a 5-minute leeway 
period. We are going to strictly enforce that. We have a lot to do 
tonight, so everyone should know if they are not here, after the 10 
minutes, plus the 5 minutes, the vote will be terminated. The votes 
will be a total of 15 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2355

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e) of 
the Congressional Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions 
of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to my 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see the Senator from South Carolina on his feet 
looking for recognition. I hope he will be recognized because I think 
he has an amendment that we might be able to voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2360 to Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this actually relates to the bill. 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 South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2360 to amendment No. 2327.

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

        (Purpose: To discourage drug use among college students)

       Strike section 701 of the Higher Education Access Act of 
     2007, relating to student eligibility.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to do something else unusual. I 
think we have an agreement to voice vote this amendment. Quite frankly, 
the amendment is pretty simple. I think that is why we are all going to 
agree to it.
  Under the current student loan application process you are asked: 
Have you ever been convicted of a drug offense? That question 
determines whether or not you are eligible for a period of time to get 
student loan money. If you have been convicted of simple possession, 
you are ineligible for a year; the second offense, 2 years; the third 
offense, indefinite ineligibility. If you sold, first offense, two 
years of ineligibility from date of conviction.
  The application has a question that I think makes all this relevant: 
``Have you ever been convicted'' is the question. That has been taken 
off the application. It needs to stay on. I would urge everyone to 
support this amendment to keep current law as it is.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge our Members to support this 
amendment. Those who are ineligible because of drug usage, for the Pell 
grants, will be ineligible under our legislation. This clarifies it. We 
had simplified the application form. The Senator's amendment addresses 
that simplification, and we will accept that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2360) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota is 
seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2359 to Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S9586]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Coleman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2359 to amendment No. 2327.

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

                (Purpose: To protect innocent children)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ___. INNOCENT CHILD PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any authority, 
     military or civil, of the United States, a State, or any 
     district, possession, commonwealth or other territory under 
     the authority of the United States, to carry out a sentence 
     of death on a woman while she carries a child in utero.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``child in 
     utero'' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any 
     stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my amendment, the protection of the 
innocent child, will prohibit any level of government--Federal, 
military, and State governments--from carrying out a death sentence on 
a pregnant woman.
  In existing law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 already prohibits Federal executions of a woman while pregnant. 
However, this law does not apply to the military or States. In fact, 
most executions are carried out by States. Additionally, the existing 
law does not recognize the principle of the unborn child is innocent 
and, therefore, must be shielded from wrongful execution.
  My amendment does not reflect any point of view on the desirability 
or appropriateness of capital punishment. This amendment is grounded in 
the undeniable fact that a human being is being carried by the pregnant 
woman and cannot possibly be guilty of a crime and, therefore, should 
not be subject to the death penalty itself.
  Women do become pregnant in prison, even at maximum security 
facilities, from sad and unfortunate situations involving rape or 
having relations with a guard. Congress should prevent the government 
at any level from taking the life of an innocent human being by 
prohibiting within all U.S. jurisdictions any death sentence from being 
carried out when a woman convicted of a capital crime is pregnant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we could accept this antideath penalty 
amendment, and we are going to accept it, so we would rather avoid a 
vote, if we might. We are willing to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2359) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to proceed 
for 30 seconds. We have three tax amendments and one voter ID. They are 
still remaining on the list, so that is what we will try to address 
next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2341 to Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2341 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2341 to amendment No. 2327.

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

     (Purpose: To permanently extend certain education-related tax 
                              incentives)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EDUCATION-RELATED 
                   TAX INCENTIVES.

       Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions 
     of such Act) shall not apply to title IV of such Act 
     (relating to affordable education provisions).

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment that 
has a great deal to do with education. That is the underlying issue 
that we are debating tonight. We have an important bill that tries to 
address accessibility of higher education for millions of Americans, 
and my amendment addresses that very subject by extending a number of 
important provisions that are currently in tax law, but they expire in 
2010. These are provisions that have broad bipartisan support, 
provisions that many in this Chamber have voted for time and again; 
allowing a $2,000 contribution to educational savings accounts, having 
an exclusion for your employer if they provide you with education 
assistance to encourage those employers to foster additional education 
for their employees; having tax exempt bonds for qualified education 
facilities; giving deductions, tax deductions for tuition to millions 
of Americans across the country seeking higher education, and allowing 
a deduction of student loan interest, not just for those who itemize on 
their taxes but for all Americans.
  I hope my colleagues will support me in this effort to extend these 
existing provisions in law, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, certainly the sentiments of this 
amendment are absolutely correct. We certainly want to increase 
deductibility.
  As my friend from New Hampshire knows, I have worked long and hard on 
this and was able to work with some others--the Senator from Maine and 
some others--to actually get into law and then get extended a $4,000 
tuition deductibility for the vast majority of families.
  But the trouble with this amendment, of course, is not only is it not 
paid for, but if it were to be added to this bill, it would rob from 
Peter to give to Paul because it would undo all of the good things in 
the underlying bill--not just the Pell grants but the excellent 
provision that says that no one, even of middle income and higher 
middle income, should pay more than 15 percent of their adjusted 
earnings when they pay back their student loans.
  So I will be offering a second-degree amendment that says we 
certainly agree with increasing tuition deductibility but not at the 
expense of what the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New 
Hampshire are trying to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                Amendment No. 2361 to Amendment No. 2341

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2361 to amendment No. 2341.

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

       In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert 
     the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should provide 
     tax relief to help families afford the cost of higher 
     education, including making tuition deductible against taxes, 
     and eliminate wasteful spending, such as spending on 
     unnecessary tax loopholes, in order to fully offset the cost 
     and avoid forcing taxpayers to pay substantially more 
     interest to foreign creditors; and that such relief should be 
     provided on an appropriate legislative vehicle that won't 
     jeopardize legislation providing greater access and 
     affordability to higher education for millions of students by 
     subjecting the bill to a ``blue slip'' by the House.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, is there time remaining on the second-
degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this second-degree amendment expresses 
the sense of the Senate that Congress should provide tax relief to help 
families afford the cost of higher education, including making tuition 
deductible against taxes and eliminate wasteful spending such as 
spending on the necessary tax loopholes, in order to fully offset the 
costs and forcing taxpayers to pay substantially more interest to 
foreign creditors.

[[Page S9587]]

  We do believe on this side in pay-go. We are going to pay for the 
worthy programs we want to enact and put our fiscal house in order. 
This amendment expresses that. It expresses the view also that we 
should not jeopardize that, because if this amendment were to be 
adopted, it being tax legislation, the bill would be blue-slipped by 
the House and sent back to the Finance Committee, and all of the good 
work we have done over the last day or two and the great things that 
would be done to help those who need Pell grants and those middle-class 
students who will have their loan repayments capped will be gone down 
the drain. That is what the second-degree amendment does.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I have three quick points. I certainly 
trust the Finance Committee. If the Finance Committee believes in all 
these tax provisions, it could send the bill back expediently, and it 
could move on its merry way. But the suggestion that doing the right 
thing on taxes is incompatible with the Senate doing its work is wrong.
  Second, this is a second degree. It is a sense of the Senate that we 
agree with all these tax provisions. But we don't quite agree enough to 
actually write them into law. I think that is a little disappointing 
and disingenuous. I think if we believe this is good policy, it is the 
right thing to encourage accessibility of higher education, if it is 
the right thing to do for the 75 percent of filers in that $50,000 to 
$65,000 range to take advantage of these provisions, we should put it 
in this bill and pass it into law, and we should make sure these 
provisions continue to be accessible to the Americans who use them.
  I make a point of order that this second-degree amendment is 
nongermane, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the point of order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending 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 West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Byrd
     Johnson
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with my Republican friends. 
It will be in everyone's interest if the votes be 10 minutes. That is 
the vote will be cut off at 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that be 
the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope people will stay in the Chamber. It 
makes it very difficult for staff if they are in and out of here. We 
have as many as seven more votes, eight more votes. Probably seven. If 
they are willing to stay here, we can whip through them in an hour; 
otherwise, it is going to take a long time.
  Let's proceed with the underlying amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2341

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment pursuant to section 305(b)(2) and 310(e) of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I move that the applicable portions of the 
Budget Act be waived, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brownback
     Byrd
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                           correction of vote

  Mr. SHELBY. On rollcall vote No. 265, I was present and voted 
``yea.'' The official record has me listed as absent. Therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately 
reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

[[Page S9588]]

                amendment no. 2339 to amendment no. 2327

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2339 at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself, Mr. Enzi, 
     Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 2339 
     to amendment No. 2327.

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

 (Purpose: To provide interim relief for shortages in employment-based 
 visas for aliens with extraordinary ability and advanced degrees and 
                              for nurses)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISAS.

       (a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas.--
     Section 106(d) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-
     first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313; 8 U.S.C. 1153 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``1994, 1996, 1997, 1998,'' after 
     ``available in fiscal year'';
       (B) by striking ``or 2004'' and inserting ``2004, or 
     2006''; and
       (C) by striking ``be available'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``be available only to--
       ``(A) employment-based immigrants under paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b));
       ``(B) the family members accompanying or following to join 
     such employment-based immigrants under section 203(d) of such 
     Act; and
       ``(C) those immigrant workers who had petitions approved 
     based on Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary 
     of Labor.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1999 through 2004'' 
     and inserting ``1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, 
     and 2006''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by amending clause (ii) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(ii) Distribution of visas.--The total number of visas 
     made available under paragraph (1) from unused visas from 
     fiscal years 1994, 1996 through 1998, 2001 through 2004, and 
     2006 shall be distributed as follows:
       ``(I) The total number of visas made available for 
     immigrant workers who had petitions approved based on 
     Schedule A, Group I under section 656.5 of title 20, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor 
     shall be 61,000.
       ``(II) The visas remaining from the total made available 
     under subclause (I) shall be allocated equally among 
     employment-based immigrants with approved petitions under 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (and their family members 
     accompanying or following to join).''.
       (b) H-1B Visa Availability.--Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following:
       ``(vii) 65,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007;
       ``(viii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2008; and''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, no one disputes that a key part of 
America's economy is our ability to innovate and retain the most 
qualified workers, especially in areas such as math, science, and 
engineering. There is one step Congress can take this year to help 
provide at least temporary relief. My amendment would allow the 
Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to 
recapture unused employment-based visas. These unused visa numbers 
would go to nurses, physical therapists, and other key areas for people 
with extraordinary ability with advanced degrees.
  This amendment would also include a one-time H-1B visa increase of 
115,000 for fiscal year 2008 only, given if that cap was hit in the 
first day this year.
  This amendment will go a long way to help provide the legal workers 
who are the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this H-1B visa issue was debated during 
the course of the immigration bill. We decided to increase the number 
of the H-1B visas but also increase the safeguards against abuse. We 
know abuses are taking place. We wanted to be sure American workers 
have first chance at these jobs, No. 1; and, No. 2, we want to stop 
these foreign job shops that are using thousands of these H-1B visas to 
outsource jobs in the United States then back to their home country.
  None of those reforms are included. All we have is an increase in the 
H-1B visa numbers. We need a balanced and coordinated approach that 
increases the numbers with the safeguards. Unfortunately, Senator 
Cornyn's amendment does not do that, and I urge my colleagues to oppose 
it.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I 
raise a point of order pursuant to section 305(b)(2) and section 310(e) 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of the Budget Act for the consideration of this amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays--40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brownback
     Byrd
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.


                Amendment No. 2362 to Amendment No. 2327

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2362.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2362 to amendment No. 2327.

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

 (Purpose: To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
    Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the 
           adoption credit and adoption assistance programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC 
                   GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 
                   2001 WITH RESPECT TO ADOPTION CREDIT AND 
                   ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     amendments made by section 202 (relating to expansion of 
     adoption credit and adoption assistance programs).''.


[[Page S9589]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I may have an amendment that we can 
actually all agree on tonight.
  As many of my colleagues know, the infant adoption tax credit is a 
powerful tool that is making it possible for thousands of American 
families to open their homes to children in need. I know everyone here 
agrees with me that there is nothing more important than for a child to 
have someone to call a mom and a dad. There is nothing more important 
to the success of education than a good family.
  Unfortunately, the current adoption tax credit is scheduled to sunset 
in 2010. If we don't make this tax relief permanent, adoption taxes 
will go up and many American families will not be able to afford the 
expenses associated with adoption, which are now between $10,000 and 
$25,000. I wish to thank all the people in this Chamber who have done 
so much for the cause of adoption, especially Senator Landrieu, Senator 
Craig, and Senator Bunning, whose amendment we are actually bringing up 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 minute on this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a very basic and fundamental issue. This 
is a constitutional issue. The taxes that are raised result in a blue 
slip, which effectively is automatically exercised. The chairman of our 
Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, understands this and 
understands it well. It effectively ends the bill. It effectively ends 
the bill constitutionally.
  I understand the Senator from Louisiana is going to have an 
alternative. There are only three tax provisions, but the tax 
provisions that are offered effectively result in what is a 
constitutional blue slip. I have not talked about killer amendments or 
poison pills, I am talking about this constitutionally.
  I see the Senator from North Dakota, from the Budget Committee, 
agrees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2363 to Amendment No. 2362

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to offer a second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2363 to amendment No. 2362.

       Strike all after the first word and insert:
       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should 
     permanently extend the adoption tax credit and eliminate 
     wasteful spending, such as spending on unnecessary tax 
     loopholes, in order to fully offset the cost and avoid 
     forcing taxpayers to pay substantially more interest to 
     foreign creditors; and that such relief should be provided on 
     an appropriate legislative vehicle that won't jeopardize 
     legislation providing greater access and affordability to 
     higher education for millions of students by subjecting the 
     bill to a ``blue slip'' by the House.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this second-degree. I appreciate 
the Senator's compliments about the work we have done to put this tax 
credit on the books. It is a very important tax credit, but if we are 
going to have it, we need to pay for it.
  The problem with the first-degree amendment is it is not paid for and 
it is going to jeopardize the underlying bill. So, yes, we do need to 
extend this tax permanently but not on this bill and not tonight, and 
we need to find a way to pay for it. That is why I am offering this 
amendment as a second-degree.
  I ask all of us who are supporting it to vote for the second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her comments as 
well. We all know adoption is an important issue. I wish the situation 
were such in the Senate that we could bring this up at a different 
time. As we look forward to between now and the rest of this year and, 
frankly, through 2008, it is going to be very difficult to get this 
amendment up. We know the process of getting back to the Finance 
Committee and then back as part of this bill will not bring this bill 
down. I encourage my colleagues to look at the greater good, the issue 
here. There is no reason we can't create some predictability with the 
adoption tax credit so we can continue to grow the number of adoptions 
in this country.
  For that reason, I raise a point of order that the pending second-
degree amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of 
the act for the purposes of the pending amendment.
  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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 48. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane, and raise a point of order pursuant to 
section 305(b)(2) and section 310(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
portion of the Budget Act, and ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 
No. 2362.
  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 South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and

[[Page S9590]]

the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The 
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2350 to Amendment No. 2327

  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 
2350, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Dole], for herself, 
     and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2350 to 
     amendment No. 2327.

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

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

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

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

``Sec. 304. Identification of voters at the polls.''.

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

                     ``PART 7--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

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

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

     ``SEC. 298. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                     ``PART 7--Photo Identification

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

  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I am proposing a commonsense measure to 
uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require 
voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in 
minimizing potential for voter fraud.
  When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate 
voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure 
that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair 
elections, is protected.
  This provision was approved by the Senate in the 109th Congress when 
it was filed by Minority Leader McConnell, who I am proud to have as a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly 
support this initiative. I strongly encourage my colleagues to stand 
with the American people and support this measure.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to speak against this 
measure. If one would want to suppress the election, suppress the vote 
in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes 
into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes 
essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the 
minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way 
to do it. I urge a ``no'' vote. Many of these people do not have 
driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of 
dollars to actually carry out. It is a grant program to the States, but 
it goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I raise a point of 
order pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I move to waive all applicable provisions 
of the Budget Act for the consideration of my 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.

[[Page S9591]]

  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are coming to the final amendment. 
There will be one consent agreement that Senator Enzi and I have, and 
then final passage. I hope we will give the Senator from Arizona time 
so we can hear him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2353

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2353, 
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2353.

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

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 
                  individual alternative minimum tax)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Section 55(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to alternative minimum tax imposed) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new flush 
     sentence:
       ``For purposes of this title, the tentative minimum tax on 
     any taxpayer other than a corporation for any taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 2007, shall be zero.''.
       (b) Modification of Limitation on Use of Credit for Prior 
     Year Minimum Tax Liability.--Subsection (c) of section 53 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for 
     prior year minimum tax liability) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     credit allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
     shall not exceed the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the regular tax liability of the taxpayer for such 
     taxable year reduced by the sum of the credits allowable 
     under subparts A, B, D, E, and F of this part, over
       ``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Taxable years beginning after 2007.--In the case of 
     any taxable year beginning after 2007, the credit allowable 
     under subsection (a) to a taxpayer other than a corporation 
     for any taxable year shall not exceed 90 percent of the 
     regular tax liability of the taxpayer for such taxable year 
     reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subparts A, 
     B, D, E, and F of this part.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, the AMT patch that protected most taxpayers 
from the alternative minimum tax expired on December 31 of last year. 
As a result, 15 million additional taxpayers on top of the 4 million 
taxpayers already subject to AMT are subject to the tax this year. This 
bill affords us an opportunity to correct the problem now, and we 
should. We are halfway through the year, and the tax is adding up. The 
AMT should be repealed as soon as possible.
  The text of my amendment is identical to a bill introduced by Senator 
Baucus on January 4. It is S. 55. Very simply, the bill would repeal 
the individual AMT without any revenue offsets.
  In his introductory statement, Senator Baucus noted that the AMT is a 
``monster that really cannot be improved. It cannot be made to work 
right.'' I agree with him. That is why the Senate should vote to repeal 
the AMT now, before it overwhelms the middle class.
  While I believe the Chair will rule it is not germane to this bill, I 
would suggest to my colleagues it is propitious; that this bill gives 
us the opportunity to act now to repeal this tax.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to my colleagues, if you want to 
kill this bill, this is the way to do it. If your real intention is to 
eliminate the educational assistance for millions of young people in 
America, vote for this amendment.
  Everybody knows what is at stake. The Constitution provides revenue 
bills must begin in the House of Representatives. To begin it here 
violates the blue slip process, violates the Budget Act, and will kill 
this bill.
  All of us know the AMT has to be fixed. In the budget we have passed 
it is fixed. It will be fixed by consideration in the Finance 
Committee, which is where alternatives for fixing it should be 
considered.
  This is not the time. It is not the place. It violates the Budget 
Act. It violates the constitutional requirement for the initiation of 
revenue measures. I hope my colleagues will resist the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                Amendment No. 2364 To Amendment No. 2353

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment to this 
amendment. I call it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2364 to amendment No. 2353.

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

       Strike all after the first word and insert:
       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should provide 
     relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax to prevent the 
     expansion of the AMT to nearly 23 million taxpayers in 2007 
     and eliminate wasteful spending, such as spending on 
     unnecessary tax loopholes, in order to fully offset the cost 
     of such repeal and avoid forcing taxpayers to pay 
     substantially more interest to foreign creditors; and that 
     such relief should be provided on an appropriate legislative 
     vehicle that won't jeopardize legislation providing greater 
     access and affordability to higher education for millions of 
     students by subjecting the bill to a ``blue slip'' by the 
     House.

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, if we are going to vote--and clearly this 
is blue slip material--No. 1., No. 2, it is not germane. And No. 3, it 
is not paid for. Madam President, $872 billion is what is contained in 
that. So if we are going to do the AMT, which all of us believe we 
ought to do, we ought to do it in a responsible way that raises the 
question of unnecessary spending, closing tax loopholes, and doing what 
is necessary to try to pay for this. That is what my amendment 
suggests. If you want to vote somehow to do something about the AMT, 
let's vote in a responsible way, do it in a way that repeals those 
loopholes, looks at the Tax Code, and pays for that purpose.

[[Page S9592]]

  So accordingly, Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Madam President.
  I will suggest that under the Budget Act the proposed second-degree 
amendment is not germane. Let me make two comments about it first.
  I think it is responsible for us to repeal the AMT in the way the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has proposed to this 
body in S. 55. I happen to be a cosponsor of that bill. I think it is a 
very good idea.
  It is true it repeals the AMT without any revenue offsets. I happen 
to believe, as the chairman of the Finance Committee does, that is a 
responsible action, given the number of Americans who otherwise would 
be subject to the tax.
  While I appreciate the notion that a sense of the Senate that we 
should do tax relief on AMT would be a good thing for this body to do, 
one of two things will happen. Either the blue slip issue will not be a 
problem because it will not be raised and we can, in fact, use this 
vehicle to accomplish this result now or it will and, in effect, my 
amendment would have been the equivalent of a sense of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I raise a point of order under the 
Congressional Budget Act that the proposed second-degree amendment is 
not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act 
of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the 
purpose of the consideration of this 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 South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. 
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 2353

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 2353.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the pending amendment is not germane; 
therefore, I raise a point of order pursuant to sections 305(b)2 and 
310(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I move that the applicable provisions of 
the Budget Act be waived, 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. MCCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 271 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2338

  Mr. ENZI. Senator Kennedy and I need one more voice vote in order to 
clarify a definition. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 
2338.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. ENZI], for Mr. Coleman and 
     Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 2338.

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

     (Purpose: To make a technical correction to the definition of 
        independent student in the Higher Education Act of 1965)

       In section 480(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (as amended by section 604(2) of the Higher Education Access 
     Act of 2007), insert ``when the individual was 13 years of 
     age or older'' after ``or was in foster care''.

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask for a voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2338) was agreed to.

[[Page S9593]]

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I opposed the Ensign and Stabenow 
amendments regarding Social Security and illegal immigrants, because 
those amendments violated section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd 
Rule--which prohibits extraneous matter on budget reconciliation bills.
  I oppose providing Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. I have 
supported and will continue to support legislation to help ensure that 
Social Security benefits are not provided for work unlawfully performed 
by illegal immigrants.
  Madam President, I opposed the McConnell amendment regarding 
detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba, because it violated 
section 313 of the Budget Act--the Byrd Rule--which prohibits 
extraneous matter on budget reconciliation bills.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I voted to sustain the point of order 
that the DeMint amendment was not germane to the pending higher 
education bill. There is no doubt that the DeMint amendment on labor 
law involving secret ballots has nothing to do with education. 
Therefore, it is out of order on this bill unless 60 Senators vote to 
waive the Budget Act.
  I recently voted to invoke cloture on the so-called card check bill 
for reasons detailed in a lengthy floor statement that was a vote on 
procedure in order to debate and consider the adequacy of the NLRB's 
handling of unfair labor complaints including elections for union 
certification.
  That vote and tonight's vote do not signify my position on the 
substantive provisions of the entitled Free Choice card check Act or 
the DeMint amendment.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, we must develop a visa system that is 
not only fair but also good for America. That is why tonight, I voted 
against an amendment that would have raised the cap on H-1B visas 
without providing many of the safeguards that are necessary to the H-1B 
visa system. While we must maintain our competitive edge in the world 
by bringing in the world's most talented and keen minds, we also must 
take steps to ensure that the program is not abused and does not 
displace U.S. workers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
the coming months to achieve comprehensive H-1B reform that will 
improve the program in a balanced and fair manner.
  I also want to express my profound disappointment that this and other 
unrelated issues were permitted to slow down and distract from the 
important work of helping more students achieve the dream of a college 
education. The Higher Education Access Reconciliation Act was not the 
place to legislate these issues and only jeopardized our ability to 
help millions of students who await the passage of this bill and the 
$17.3 billion increase in student aid that it provides.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I first want to thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership in bringing a bill 
to the floor to make college more affordable for millions of students. 
I also want to thank him for the example he has set over many years in 
standing up repeatedly to protect the interests of the students of 
America, and in so doing, to work tirelessly for the future benefit of 
our economy and our country. I am fortunate to now serve on the Senate 
HELP Committee and have seen first hand the efforts of Senator Kennedy 
and his counterpart on the minority side, Senator Enzi. I appreciate 
their effort, the hard work of their capable staffs, and the bipartisan 
collegiality that allows us today to provide much needed support to the 
college students of America.
  The success of our Nation's youth increasingly requires a college 
diploma. But that diploma is becoming, for many, ever more difficult to 
attain. That difficulty arises not from lack of ambition or lack of 
ability. Increasingly, the difficulty arises from lack of any realistic 
way for many American families to afford the college education needed 
for the success of their daughters and sons.
  The math here is simple. College costs have increased, but family 
incomes have not, nor has the Federal commitment to provide financial 
aid. The cost of college continues to increase for many reasons. Over 
the past 5 years, the cost of a 4-year public college in my State 
increased 47 percent. At private colleges in Illinois, the increase was 
27 percent. Incomes have increased little, and so even with financial 
aid, 35 percent of a family's income is needed each year to pay for 
attendance at a 4-year public university in my State.
  Federal student aid has not kept pace with these increased costs. The 
proportion of college expenses met by Pell grants decreased from 47 
percent to 29 percent over a recent 5-year period for students in my 
State. Students are increasingly forced to rely on loans, and college 
graduates are increasingly burdened by debt. Graduates from a 4-year 
college in Illinois owe, on average, over $17,000 in student loan debt. 
That is the average.
  The resulting difficulty in financing a college education impacts not 
only the dreams of millions of students but also the future of our 
country. Capable high school graduates from low- and moderate-income 
families are much less likely to earn a college degree than their 
wealthier peers. Yet competition in the global economy requires that 
our students attain a college degree, whether to become engineers or 
entrepreneurs, in order to maintain the creative and competitive 
workforce America needs. And for those students who do make it through 
college, their large debt loads make it difficult for them to choose 
occupations which might serve the public good but might not pay enough. 
Student debt is too often limiting options for those very students who 
should have the greatest opportunities and whose talents might provide 
the greatest good to society.
  We must change this. The bill we are considering here today is a step 
in that direction. With it, we expand loan forgiveness for graduates 
who enter public service, we increase the threshold for income that may 
be earned by students receiving financial aid, and we make other 
significant changes. But most importantly, we increase college access 
by increasing the amount of support for students through increased 
grant aid.
  My support of this legislation today echoes the first piece of 
legislation I introduced in the Senate. That was the Higher Education 
Opportunity through Pell grant Expansion Act of 2005 the HOPE Act, 
which called for a significant increase in the maximum Pell Grant to 
$5,100, financed by decreased Federal subsidies to banks and lenders. 
The bill we debate today would provide that increase to $5,100 by next 
year and further increase the maximum to $5,400 by 2011. I applaud Mr. 
Kennedy and my colleagues on the HELP Committee for keeping this the 
main focus of the benefits provided in this package.
  I realize that we are asking lenders to dig a little a deeper to help 
students, to come up with innovative ways to continue to provide 
services students, even while receiving lower subsidies from the 
Federal Government. But I have faith that they can do this, to the 
benefit of our students and our country.
  I look forward to soon considering the remainder of the comprehensive 
package to improve higher education contained in the Higher Education 
Amendments of 2007. But for today, I am proud today to support this 
bill to bring needed assistance to college students, and I urge my 
colleagues to join in this effort.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I speak today in support of the Higher 
Education Access Act of 2007, a bipartisan piece of legislation that 
will increase student aid by billions of dollars by curbing Federal 
subsidies to private banks and lenders. This is a significant victory 
for students around the country and in my State of Wisconsin, which 
will receive over $270 million dollars in new need-based grant aid by 
the year 2013. Wisconsin has a world-class higher education system, and 
I am pleased to support this much-needed legislation that will help 
open the doors to college for more students in my State.
  I have long supported and led efforts in Congress to expand the 
availability of student aid and ensure that qualified students have 
access to a postsecondary education, including raising the individual 
Pell grant award. I was pleased to join with my colleagues in February 
to pass a significant increase in the maximum Pell grant award to 
$4,310 from $4,050, the first increase in 4 years. Earlier this year, I 
also joined with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy,

[[Page S9594]]

Collins, and Coleman, to lead letters to both the Budget and 
Appropriations Committees that advocated for the highest possible 
increase in funding for Pell grants. The Pell grant program provides 
need-based aid to low income students, and I am pleased that the Higher 
Education Access Act retains the Pell grant's focus on need-based aid 
for low-income students.
  Access to a higher education is increasingly important in the 
competitive, global environment of the 21st century workforce as an 
increasing number of jobs require education or training beyond high 
school. But while the importance of attending college continues to 
increase, the cost of attending college also continues to increase, 
which often causes financial strain on students and their families as 
they seek to finance the cost of higher education.
  My colleagues and I have long fought against the declining purchasing 
power of the Pell grant by supporting substantial increases in the 
maximum grant award. According to data from the Department of 
Education, the maximum Pell grant covered half the cost of tuition, 
fees, room and board at public 4-year colleges 20 years ago but only 
covered a third of these same costs during the 2005 to 2006 period. The 
declining power of the Pell has impacted my State of Wisconsin as well. 
In 1986 to 1987, the $2,100 maximum Pell grant covered 58 percent of 
college costs for Wisconsin students. In 2005-06, the $4,050 maximum 
Pell grant only covered 38% of college costs in Wisconsin. This 
legislation seeks to address the declining purchasing power of the Pell 
grant by funding new Promise grants which will supplement the Pell 
grant awards received by students throughout the country and target 
need-based funds to Pell-eligible students.
  In addition to the declining purchasing power of need-based aid like 
Pell, the availability of such need-based grant aid does not come close 
to meeting the demand for it. As a result, an increasing number of 
students turn to Federal and private loans to finance their education. 
According to the College Board, in the late 1970s, over three-fourths 
of the Federal aid to students were grants, while 20 percent of Federal 
student aid were loans. Recent data from the College Board indicates 
that the breakdown between grant aid and loans had switched by 2006, 
with grant aid only making up 20 percent of the federal student aid.
  Students in my State of Wisconsin, like students in other parts of 
the country, are greatly affected by the Federal Government's increased 
reliance on student loans at the expense of grant aid. The Project on 
Student Debt reports that more than 60 percent of Wisconsin graduates 
in 2005 graduated with debt and the average student who graduated from 
a 4-year college in my State in 2005 owed over $17,000. While the 
prospect of these large debt burdens impact many students' decisions 
about whether to attend college, low-income students may be even less 
inclined to attend college if they have to take out large amounts of 
student loans. These students are understandably nervous about the 
significant debt burden they would have to undertake, and some students 
choose to forego college altogether for this very reason. This 
legislation's focus on increasing need-based grant aid for these very 
students takes a big step in the right direction toward promoting 
better access to higher education for low-income students.
  Higher levels of debt can also influence the decisions students make 
about whether to take a job in the public interest sector or in the 
more-lucrative private sector after graduation. We have all heard about 
students who are interested in working in public interest jobs fields 
like teaching, law enforcement, legal aid, or State and local 
government but who decide against taking these public interest jobs 
because of their high debt loads. It is unfortunate that so many 
students are forced to consider their debt loads when deciding which 
jobs to take or pursue. The loan forgiveness and income-based repayment 
provisions of this legislation will help those graduating students in 
Wisconsin and around the country who want to pursue careers in public 
service.
  While I applaud much of the policy included in this measure, I am 
disappointed that we are again seeing the reconciliation process used 
to advance legislation that is not primarily a deficit-reduction 
package. While there are better arguments for using reconciliation to 
consider this particular bill than there were for the reconciliation 
protection proposed for the legislation to open up the Alaska National 
Wildlife Refuge to drilling, I am still troubled by the use of this 
extraordinary procedure as a way to advance a significant policy change 
that is not primarily a deficit reduction package. Thanks to the 
efforts of our Budget Committee chairman, Senator Conrad, the days when 
the reconciliation process could be totally subverted to protect 
legislation that actually worsened the deficit are over. I also commend 
Chairman Conrad for insisting during the conference discussions on the 
budget resolution that this particular reconciliation instruction move 
closer to a more reasonable qualifying threshold of deficit reduction 
than was initially proposed. I hope that in future budget resolutions, 
we can further tighten the use of reconciliation to ensure that it is 
used for what it was intended, namely to advance significant deficit 
reduction.
  A student's access to higher education should not depend on his or 
her family's income but, rather, on the student's desire to obtain a 
higher education. Passage of the Higher Education Access Act of 2007 
moves our Nation in the right direction and represents a great victory 
for students in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. I have 
long led and supported efforts to expand Federal higher education 
programs, including Pell and TRIO, and I am pleased to support passage 
of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
the coming months and years to continue to expand important need-based 
grant programs so that hard-working students will be able to take 
advantage of the full opportunities that access to a higher education 
offers.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wish to express my support for the 
Higher Education Access Act of 2007. I applaud Chairman Kennedy and 
Ranking Member Enzi for their work on crafting this bill that will 
widen access to higher education by providing for increased funding 
assistance available to American students for their higher education 
studies.
  The need for these improvements by now should be as clear to the 
Senate as it is to America's families. In recent years average college 
tuition rates have been rising faster than inflation and outpacing 
student financial aid. Skyrocketing tuitions are pricing our families 
out of their ability to afford higher education. This trend not only 
closes doors to opportunity in the lives of the Nation's young people; 
it also poses harsh consequences on our country and our communities, in 
ways that are evident across our economy. I am pleased that, in this 
new Congress, this bill has been brought forward to reverse the 
direction of recent budgets that have continued to erode the Federal 
Government's support of higher education with deep cuts in the funding 
support for colleges and universities.
  The Federal Government must rise to the challenge and improve our 
financial aid programs to ensure that college is an affordable option 
for all qualified students. No student should be thwarted from 
enrolling and graduating from college because of financial concerns. 
This bill accomplishes this goal through need-based grant aid to 
students by raising the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year, and up 
to $5,400 by 2011.
  Because tuition has increased well beyond the rate of student 
assistance, students today are graduating with staggering debt burdens. 
With the weight of this debt on their backs, recent college graduates 
understandably gravitate toward higher paying jobs that allow them to 
pay back their loans. Unfortunately, all too often these jobs are not 
in the arena of public service or areas that serve the vital public 
interests of our communities and of our country. We need to be doing 
more to support graduates who want to enter public service, be it as a 
child care provider, a doctor or nurse in the public health field, or a 
police officer or other type of first responder.
  I appreciate that the chairman has included strong provisions in this 
bill that will forgive the debt of borrowers who continue in public 
service careers

[[Page S9595]]

such as nursing, teaching, or law enforcement for 10 years. Under this 
bill, a starting teacher in Vermont earning less than $30,000, and with 
debt of $20,000, could have his or her loan payments capped at 15 
percent, reducing monthly payments by almost 40 percent.
  The increases for student aid in this bill are paid for by reducing 
the subsidies the government provides to lenders. I believe that 
increasing student assistance should be our highest priority in this 
bill and that this offset is a worthy and sensible exchange. However, 
while this bill reduces the subsidies for lenders, I am pleased that it 
recognizes the importance of not-for-profit lenders, by differentiating 
between the size of cuts intended for for-profit and for nonprofit 
lenders. Several States have established not-for-profit State agencies 
to administer financial aid and to provide their residents and students 
attending their schools with quality counseling services and low-cost 
loans. Vermont pioneered this movement by creating the Vermont Student 
Assistance Corporation more than 40 years ago.
  I do have concerns with the auction proposal contained within this 
bill. I am worried that it could potentially prevent Vermonters from 
exercising their right to choose where to borrow money by requiring the 
Secretary of Education to conduct an auction to select two lenders that 
will be permitted to make parent loans. Bids will be sealed, invisible 
to the public and to Congress, and awards will be made solely on the 
Secretary's determination of who offers the lowest cost to the 
government.
  We do not want to crowd out the not-for-profit agencies from 
providing PLUS loans to families in their State. I am hopeful that the 
chairman and ranking member will be willing to work on this portion of 
the bill in order to continue to recognize the important role of not-
for-profit lenders.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
higher education reconciliation bill that would increase critical grant 
aid to our Nation's neediest college students, help make loan repayment 
more manageable and encourage students to pursue careers in public 
service.
  It is crucial that we help make college more affordable and 
accessible for students at a time when they are struggling to pay 
skyrocketing college costs and taking on more debt to pay for school.
  In California alone, the cost of attending a 4-year public college 
increased 43 percent between the school years of 2000-2001 and 2005-
2006.
  Furthermore, 46 percent of California students graduating from 4-year 
colleges in the 2004-2005 school year had student loan debt--at an 
average of over $15,200. Nationwide, almost two-thirds of all 4-year 
college graduates had loan debt.
  What is even more concerning is that many students are being shut out 
of college altogether.
  Each year, more than 400,000 low and moderate income high school 
graduates who are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college do not do 
so because of financial barriers.
  It is imperative that all students seeking a college education have 
an opportunity to achieve their goals and this bill takes important 
steps to provide much-needed relief to students across the country.
  Specifically, this bill would: Provide $17.3 billion in new grant aid 
to low-income college students. Increase the maximum award for Pell 
grant recipients to $5,100 in 2008 and to $5,400 in 2011. The current 
amount is $4,310 and this means low-income California students will be 
eligible for an additional $290.9 million in need-based grant aid next 
year, and an additional $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. Increase 
the family income level under which a student is automatically eligible 
for the maximum Pell grant from $20,000 to $30,000.
  Eliminate the ``tuition sensitivity'' provision in the Pell grant 
program's eligibility formula that unfairly penalizes our neediest 
students who attend low-cost institutions, such as community colleges, 
from receiving the maximum Pell grant award. In California, over 
260,000 community college students would benefit.
  I was pleased to work with my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, as 
the lead cosponsor of legislation to eliminate this unfair provision. 
Cap Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's 
discretionary income providing needed relief to students with high loan 
burdens.
  Provide new loan forgiveness under the Federal direct loan program 
for individuals in public service careers for 10 years, such as 
teaching, nursing or law enforcement. It would include Head Start 
teachers and expands on a proposal that I have been working on for 
several years to provide loan forgiveness to educators in this 
important field.
  Eliminates the 3-year limitation on the period for which certain 
members of the Armed Forces may receive deferments on the interest on 
their student loans. It also extends this deferment period to cover 180 
days after such a member of the Armed Forces is demobilized. Extends 
the amount of time student borrowers can receive a deferment for 
economic hardship from 3 to 6 years. Would apply to borrowers who take 
out their first loan after October 1, 2012.
  This legislation would bring significant help to many low-income 
California students and those across the country who would otherwise 
not be able to afford a college education.
  A college degree is more important than ever to ensure success in 
today's global economy and we must help provide students that need it 
most with the resources necessary to reach their highest potential.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I believe that we must provide 
access to higher education, which still too many hard-working American 
students cannot afford without the help of Federal financial aid.
  I support the Higher Education Access Act because it will increase 
the access to education for many more students. In the 2005 to 2006 
academic year, the average cost of a U.S. public college or university 
was $12,108, with the average Pell grant covering 33 percent of 
tuition, fees, and room and board. For a West Virginia public college 
or university in the 2005 to 2006 academic year, the average cost was 
$9,992, with the average Pell grant covering 41 percent of tuition, 
fees, and room and board. A senior in West Virginia graduating from 
college has an average of $16,041 in student loan debt.
  This bill will help offset that cost. The first provision of the bill 
will increase the aid available to those students who qualify for 
Federal assistance. By making changes to the current provisions of the 
Pell grant program, more low-income students will have the opportunity 
to pursue higher education that otherwise might have been out of their 
reach.
  Another vital and helpful component of this legislation is the 
repayment cap and loan forgiveness program, which would help repay 
student loans of those individuals who have decided to enter the public 
sector. Those students who go on to become social workers, public 
defenders, or teachers in high-need subject areas deserve our help 
getting the education they need for these essential careers.
  Too often, a college graduate who wants to pursue a career in social 
work or another aspect of public service may not be able to afford to 
choose that career because of the low salaries and their high student 
loan debts. The Higher Education Access Act will address this concern 
by placing a cap on Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a 
borrower's discretionary income, which will bring much needed relief to 
graduates with excessive loan burdens.
  For example, a social worker with one child in West Virginia earning 
$26,800, with average loan debt of $16,041 would have his or her 
monthly payments reduced by $107, from $185 to $78, a reduction of 58 
percent. We should encourage those willing to work in public service by 
offering relief from the high cost of student loans when they start off 
on their careers through the 15-percent cap and loan forgiveness.
  Over 4 years ago, I sponsored legislation with the former Senator 
Mike DeWine to provide student loan forgiveness for social workers and 
attorneys in the child welfare system. This legislation reflects our 
goals and expands it to cover a broader range of public service 
careers--it is a strong, long-term investment in our communities and 
families.

[[Page S9596]]

  The act is designed to keep rates for the lenders fair and direct as 
much help as possible to our students.
  This year, 37,297 West Virginia students will receive $103.3 million 
in Pell grants. If this legislation debated today is enacted into law, 
West Virginia students in the coming academic year will have access to 
$19 million more in Pell grants and student aid.
  Pell grants have not increased during the past year while the cost of 
education has increased exponentially. This bold increase in the Pell 
grant program is needed to keep pace with the changing financial 
demands of higher learning.
  The Higher Education Access Act will provide hope and opportunity for 
students in West Virginia and across our country. It represents a 
commitment to education and a wise investment in our future. This 
legislation will also encourage public service, a cause to which I have 
long been dedicated. I am proud to support this bill and hope it will 
become law this year to improve student aid for the high school seniors 
who will begin their last year of classes in just a few weeks and all 
the students who will follow them.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as written, the higher education 
authorization bill takes us down a dangerous fiscal road. Democrats are 
using a privileged rule that was originally meant to cut the deficit to 
expand the government instead with more than $19 billion in new 
mandatory spending.
  Ironically, they're trying to paper over this by cutting existing 
programs that help teachers and students in States like mine to reach a 
net savings of less than $1 billion. Compare that to previous 
Congresses, which used reconciliation rules to save nearly $500 billion 
in 1990, $433 billion in 1993, $118 billion in 1997, and $39 billion in 
2005. The Democratic majority is using one of the few budget tools we 
have for shrinking government and using it to grow government instead.
  This is surprising to say the least--given that the Senate just 
passed a resolution by unanimous consent saying we wouldn't use these 
rules for new spending. Democrats conveniently dropped that provision 
in conference.
  Both sides have used reconciliation to move tax policy in the past--
Republicans to cut taxes seven times; and Democrats to raise them four 
times. What's unprecedented here is using it for no other reason than 
to create new mandatory programs and expand the government--by tens of 
billions of dollars. These budget shenanigans are standard operating 
procedure for tax and spenders, but they set an extremely dangerous 
precedent.
  Now, I would like to say a word about the programs this bill would 
cut. Democrats justify the cuts to lender subsidies in the higher ed 
bill with the old Robin Hood line that the money they plan to take from 
private lenders will go to students instead. But this just isn't true 
in places like Kentucky, where the Federal loans of three out of every 
four borrowers are held by not-for-profits.
  These are groups that don't have profits--they funnel their earning 
back to borrowers. When you cut subsidies to them, you're cutting 
subsidies to students, parents, nurses, and National Guard members 
throughout my State. To Kentuckians, this bill is a reverse Robin Hood: 
it takes money from our students and funnels it back to Washington.
  They know what's going on, and they don't like it, regardless of 
their political affiliation. I just got a letter from the State 
Treasurer, Jonathan Miller, who also happens to chair the Kentucky 
Democratic Party. Here's what he wrote:
  ``If the additional Federal Family Education Loan Program cuts are 
enacted, the entire borrower benefits program will be seriously 
jeopardized, and the impact would be immediate and significant for 
thousands of Kentucky families who depend upon Kentucky's nonprofit 
higher education agencies to help make higher education affordable.''
  Teachers in Kentucky would also get hit: Last year, thousands of 
teachers in my state received $15 million in student loan forgiveness 
from non-profit lenders like the Higher Education Student Loan 
Corporation and the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority.
  These benefits are targeted to teachers in high need subjects, like 
math, science, and special education. The President of the Kentucky 
Education Association, Frances Steenbergen, has informed me that if 
these cuts enacted, over 14,000 Kentucky teachers will be impacted 
immediately.
  Republicans will have an opportunity to salvage this bill, but it 
won't be easy. It violates the intent of reconciliation to expand 
government, and slashes programs that are an enormous help to students 
and teachers. We'll also use the amendment process to repair some of 
the damage from yesterday. I think everyone was startled when the 
Democratic Leadership pulled the Defense Authorization bill from the 
floor. As the senior Senator from Arizona said, ``He was more sad than 
angry.''
  Here's a bill that would authorize pay raises for the men and women 
in the military, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, M-RAP, vehicles for 
Iraq, and a lot of other urgent military support. Just this week, the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee issued a statement decrying 
delays in the delivery of these M-RAP vehicles--vehicles that have the 
potential of substantially reducing U.S. casualties in Iraq.
  He sent a letter to the Defense Secretary in which he asked how it 
was possible ``that with our nation at war, with more than 130,000 
Americans in danger, with roadside bombs destroying a growing number of 
lives and limbs, we were so slow to act'' in getting this technology to 
the troops. He should be asking the Democratic leadership today how it 
could have pulled the plug on a bill that authorizes the production of 
M-RAP vehicles.
  He should ask them how they could have complained about the shameful 
neglect at Walter Reed--and then pulled a bill that addressed the most 
critical failing in our treatment of wounded soldiers and marines 
returning from battle He should ask them how they could pull a bill 
that delays a pay raise for military personnel.
  Republicans have an opportunity today to restore this vital support 
for our military men and women, and we are going to seize it. It's 
unacceptable to wait: it's now late July and we haven't done a single 
appropriations bill--not one. The House has done six. At this rate, we 
won't have sent a single appropriations bill to the President by the 
time we leave here in August--an outrageous waste of time. These pranks 
and gimmicks guarantee we will have our backs to the wall in September.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as this debate comes to a close, I am 
reminded of the great moments in our Nation's history in which we look 
to the future and invested in future generations of Americans. We did 
it when we passed the GI bill. We did it when the Federal Government 
created the student loan program. We did it when we created Pell 
grants. And we do it again today with the largest new investment in 
student aid since the GI bill.
  A vote for this bill is one we can cast with pride and great hope--
pride in doing our part for the future of our great country and hope 
that our actions tonight will mean a better future for millions of 
young Americans. By passing this bill tonight, we will recognize that 
principle once again.

  We know that our students today face significant challenges in paying 
for college. Each year, over 400,000 talented, qualified students do 
not attend a 4-year college because they cannot afford it.
  In 1993, fewer than half of all students took out loans to finance 
their education, but today, more than two-thirds of students borrow for 
college.
  Today, the average student leaves college with more than $19,000 in 
student loan debt.
  That is why this higher education legislation is so important. We 
will provide more than $17 billion to help students and families pay 
for college. This legislation will help reverse the crisis in college 
affordability in several ways: It will immediately and dramatically 
increase the amount of aid for Pell grant recipients; it will help 
students manage their debt, by capping student loan payments at 15 
percent of their monthly income; it will provide longer deferments in 
loan repayments for student borrowers facing economic hardship; and it 
will completely forgive

[[Page S9597]]

the loans of those who enter society's most needed professions. It will 
restore balance to our grossly unfair student loan system by reducing 
unnecessary subsidies for lenders.
  Everything we know about the college affordability crisis tells us 
that low-income students and families are struggling the most. With 
this bill, we will increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next 
year--a $790 increase--and to $5,400 in 2011.
  I am very pleased that our legislation will expand loan forgiveness 
to borrowers who stay in public service professions for 10 years. Our 
society needs more teachers, more emergency management and law 
enforcement professionals, more public health doctors and nurses, more 
social workers, more librarians, more public interest lawyers, and more 
early childhood teachers. Under our bill, we will produce more of them, 
because they--and all the groups I have just mentioned--will be 
eligible for loan forgiveness.
  The bill before us will deliver long-overdue relief to students and 
families across the Nation who are struggling to afford college. But 
there is more we can--and must--do to improve higher education for 
students and families.
  Next week, we will take up other important changes in our higher 
education amendments of 2007. In this bill, we take commonsense steps 
to improve higher education. We will address the rising cost of 
college, pursue needed sunshine ethics reforms to the student loan 
industry, and steps to simplify the federal financial aid application 
form.
  These are critical reforms--but the most critical steps are the ones 
we take tonight to dramatically increase college aid for our Nation's 
students.
  From our earliest days as a nation, education has been the engine of 
the American dream. We can look to the landmark success of the GI bill 
to see what a difference higher education makes.
  The GI bill produced 67,000 doctors, 91,000 scientists, 238,000 
teachers, and 450,000 engineers. It also funded the education of three 
Presidents, three Supreme Court Justices and about a dozen Senators who 
served in this very Chamber.
  This bill is a big step in the right direction. It dedicates over $17 
billion for students and families to benefit from a college education 
and keep our country strong in the years ahead. It will help keep the 
doors to college open for all students, regardless of income level or 
background, just as the GI bill did half a century ago.
  We can't let the engine of education stall today. More than ever 
college is the key to opportunity for students and the key to a strong 
America for the future. I urge the Senate to approve this important 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the substitute 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2327) as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
passage of H.R. 2669, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, 
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate, and that the HELP Committee be appointed as conferees, with the 
above occurring without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the 
majority whip would indicate whether there will be no votes tomorrow.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think I will defer to the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have in wrap-up the agreement that we 
are not going to do the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to 
homeland security. We will proceed to that legislation as soon as we 
complete the additional education bill we are going to work on on 
Monday. We are working really hard to try to not have a lot of votes 
Monday night. The first vote will be 5:15. Under the order entered, 
there could be as many as 12 or 15 votes. We hope that doesn't occur, 
but it is possible. There will be multiple votes Monday. We may not be 
able to complete them all Monday. We hope we can, but that is where we 
are.
  Tuesday, we will start the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  I tell all Members that we have now 2 weeks left in this work 
session. As I have indicated from the first day, we are going to do our 
best to have everybody out of here 2 weeks from tomorrow. We have a lot 
to do. We have to complete homeland security, work on SCHIP and 
complete that, we have two conference reports, one on which Senator 
Lieberman today had a real conference. Democrats and Republicans 
appointed to the conference sat down to see what they could work out on 
the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Progress was made. Senator 
Lieberman said he thinks that can be done early next week.
  And then I had a number of conversations today with the distinguished 
Republican leader. We are where we are on the ethics lobbying reform. I 
wish we could approach it a different way. That is not going to work 
out, it appears. We are going to attempt to complete that also before 
we finish this work period.
  We have a lot to do, and I know there are things people want to do a 
week from this weekend. We are going to try to see that they can do 
that. There are no guarantees. We have to finish this legislation or we 
will work into the August recess. Those are the choices we have. There 
will be no votes tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Allard
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
  The bill (H.R. 2669), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair appoints 
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
Enzi, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Burr, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Murkowski, 
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Allard, and Mr. Coburn conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.




                          ____________________