Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 116 (Thursday, July 19, 2007)

[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

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

NAYS--48

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.

____________________