[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14499-14528]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1348, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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


[[Page 14500]]


  Pending:

       Reid (for Kennedy/Specter) amendment No. 1150, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Cornyn modified amendment No. 1184 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, 
     and other criminals.
       Dodd/Menendez amendment No. 1199 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to increase the number of green cards for parents of U.S. 
     citizens, to extend the duration of the new parent visitor 
     visa, and to make penalties imposed on individuals who 
     overstay such visas applicable only to such individuals.
       Menendez amendment No. 1194 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     modify the deadline for the family backlog reduction.
       McConnell amendment No. 1170 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require 
     individuals voting in person to present photo identification.
       Feingold amendment No. 1176 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     establish commissions to review the facts and circumstances 
     surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans, 
     European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World 
     War II.
       Durbin/Grassley amendment No. 1231 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to ensure that employers make efforts to recruit American 
     workers.
       Sessions amendment No. 1234 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years 
     after passage of this act by preventing the earned-income tax 
     credit--which is, according to the Congressional Research 
     Service, the largest antipoverty entitlement program of the 
     Federal Government--from being claimed by Y temporary workers 
     or illegal aliens given status by this act until they adjust 
     to legal permanent resident status.
       Sessions amendment No. 1235 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years 
     after passage of this act by preventing the earned-income tax 
     credit--which is, according to the Congressional Research 
     Service, the largest antipoverty entitlement program of the 
     Federal Government--from being claimed by Y temporary workers 
     or illegal aliens given status by this act until they adjust 
     to legal permanent resident status.
       Lieberman amendment No. 1191 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     provide safeguards against faulty asylum procedures and to 
     improve conditions of detention.
       Cornyn (for Allard) amendment No. 1189 (to amendment No. 
     1150), to eliminate the preference given to people who 
     entered the United States illegally over people seeking to 
     enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation 
     system for visas.
       Cornyn amendment No. 1250 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     address documentation of employment and to make an amendment 
     with respect to mandatory disclosure of information.
       Salazar (for Clinton) modified amendment No. 1183 (to 
     amendment No. 1150), to reclassify the spouses and minor 
     children of lawful permanent residents as immediate 
     relatives.
       Salazar (for Obama/Menendez) amendment No. 1202 (to 
     amendment No. 1150), to provide a date on which the authority 
     of the section relating to the increasing of American 
     competitiveness through a merit-based evaluation system for 
     immigrants shall be terminated.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3:30 
this afternoon shall be for debate with respect to amendment No. 1189, 
offered by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, and amendment No. 
1231, offered by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, with the time 
equally divided between the managers and the amendments' proponents.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I see Senator Allard on the floor to move 
forward with his amendment, and we will be using the time between now 
and 3:30, obviously, for debate on the subjects.
  I understand the Senator from Alaska wishes to take--how long would 
the Senator like?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Three minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  (The remarks of Ms. Murkowski are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1189

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1189 
which strikes the supplemental schedule for Zs. We are scheduled, I 
understand, to vote on it around 3:30 or so. So I wish to take a few 
moments to talk about my amendment, which I think addresses a great 
inequity in the bill, one that rewards lawbreakers over law abiders. 
Ironically, this inequity is in the same section of the bill that 
rewards would-be immigrants based on merit. To be clear, I strongly 
support ending chain migration. I think the bill moves us in that 
direction, and I think that is great, and then moving us to a system of 
merit-based immigration. However, I believe all applicants under the 
merit-based system should be on a level playing field.
  By now, I believe most of us are familiar with the bill's merit-based 
system which awards points to immigrants based on criteria such as 
employment, education, and knowledge of the English language. What many 
of us may not know is the enormous advantage the bill's point system 
gives to people who have violated our immigration laws relative to 
people who are seeking to enter this country legally. I am referring to 
this so-called supplemental schedule for Zs which my amendment strikes. 
This separate schedule awards up to 50 bonus points--points that are 
unavailable to people who have never broken our immigration laws--to 
holders of Z visas seeking permanent status.
  Holders of Z visas are defined as lawbreakers in the bill. In fact, 
this bill specifically requires that an alien prove that he or she 
broke the law in order to even be eligible for the Z visa. In effect, 
this supplemental schedule rewards people who enter the country 
illegally. Worse yet, it disadvantages other qualified people who seek 
to enter this country legally.
  The bill's stated purpose of adopting a merit-based system is that 
the United States benefits from a workforce that has diverse skills, 
experience, and training, and I happen to agree. I am simply not 
convinced that a history of breaking the law contributes to this goal 
more than education and actual experience on the job. So my amendment 
simply strikes the special schedule that makes people who have violated 
our immigration laws eligible for 50 percent more points than anyone 
else. Z visa holders would, however, still be eligible for up to 100 
points under the regular schedule--the exact same number as anybody 
else. We should not reward those who have broken the law, and we 
certainly should not punish those who have abided by the law.
  Now, an argument that has been made against this amendment is that 
somehow or other it will strike at the heart of the AgJOB provisions. 
My amendment does nothing to limit the number of agricultural workers. 
The number of H-2A agricultural visas remains uncapped. Under current 
law and under the bill, there is no numerical limitation on 
agricultural visas. Even though it is unlimited, only about 35,000 H-
2As are issued each year. If this bill passes, anywhere from 12 million 
to 20 million illegal aliens will instantly gain legal status. The 
question is: Are those people not able to fill these agricultural jobs? 
Of course they are.
  My amendment addresses people who are applying for citizenship, not 
work, under the new merit-based system. It puts applicants for 
citizenship on a level playing field whether they worked in 
agriculture, whether they worked in construction, whether they worked 
in tourism, or whether they worked in any other industry. On the one 
hand, you say you want a merit-based system in the bill, and on the 
other hand, you say you want to give preferences to certain classes of 
people. My argument is simply that you can't have it both ways, and my 
amendment simply levels the playing field.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to level the playing 
field under the merit-based evaluation system, which I think is a good 
idea. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Allard amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Pennsylvania 
is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his 
amendment and for his analysis. I understand the reasoning and the 
point behind what he is seeking to do.
  The preference, which is contained in the proposed legislation, was 
structured in an elaborate arrangement

[[Page 14501]]

with what has been accurately called the very fractional coalition. In 
order to get certain other concessions in the bill, it was deemed 
necessary to give this preference to the agricultural workers. You can 
justifiably raise an issue as to why give a preference to agricultural 
workers, and the answer, although not very satisfactory, is because it 
is part of an interwoven accommodation on many provisions of the bill. 
That is why, as one of the managers of the bill, I am constrained to 
object and to urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand and appreciate the ranking 
member's position on this particular piece of legislation. This part of 
the bill is not well drafted, and I hope we can get this amendment 
passed and then send a message to the conference committee that this 
part of the bill needs to be worked on so that we don't allow people 
who are here illegally an opportunity to step ahead of those citizens 
who have come here legally. If we can adopt my amendment, then I think 
the will of the Senate gets clearly expressed to the conference 
committee, and hopefully the problem with the drafting that has 
occurred with this section of the bill can be straightened out and 
preserve the compromise that the ranking Republican from Pennsylvania 
is striving to hold on to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the issue as to the contention by the 
Senator from Colorado that they are moving ahead of people who are here 
legally, factually I believe that is not so. The bill is structured to 
clear up the backlog of all of those people who are waiting now, and 
they will have their status resolved in an 8-year period--those who are 
following the procedures which are legal at the present time.
  It is after that occurs that the 12 million undocumented immigrants 
will come in, and then there will be points preference for those among 
the illegals who are here, who are the farm workers. I do not believe 
we are putting anybody who is here illegally ahead of those who are 
here legally.
  Mr. ALLARD. If I may respond, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. This is where the issue comes up. It is not exactly clear 
in this paragraph where it provides supplemental points for 
citizenship, or when in time it begins to apply. If it gets applied in 
one way in the bill, then the argument my colleagues make is probably 
valid. But if it gets put in another place in the bill, my arguments 
apply. This is where we have a drafting problem within the bill.
  My hope is that with the adoption of my amendment we will call this 
to the attention of the conference committee, and this can be rectified 
when we go to conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the seventh day that we have been 
on this legislation. We voted on 17 amendments. There are 13 others 
pending to the bill. We will be voting on those very soon.
  Over the past week, as the Senate has been in recess for Memorial 
Day, we witnessed a healthy debate across the country as Americans 
across the political spectrum have expressed their views on this 
legislation. Some support our legislation, others oppose it. With all 
of the editorials and newspaper articles and phone calls from the 
constituents, one theme occurs loud and strong: Americans know our 
immigration system is broken and they want us to fix it. This week we 
have a chance to meet that challenge for the good of the Nation.
  We have a bipartisan bill before us. It has the support of the 
President. I believe when we complete the debate in the Senate we will 
adopt it. It enforces our borders; it cracks down in the workplace by 
going after employers who hire illegal workers; it brings the 12 
million families who are here out of the shadows; it speeds up the 
reunion of families waiting legally in line who otherwise may never 
make it here; it sets up an immigration for the future that continues 
to reunite families, while stressing our Nation's economic needs. That 
is our program. It is strong, practical, and it is fair.
  I know the Senator from Illinois is looking to address the Senate. 
First, I want to speak briefly on the Allard amendment.
  The Allard amendment seeks to strike a blow at one of the central 
pillars of comprehensive immigration reform, which is the earned 
legalization program for undocumented people who are working and 
contributing in the United States. Virtually every demographic snapshot 
of the American public supports a practical solution for bringing the 
undocumented population into the light of day. The tough and practical 
solution contained in the bill requires undocumented workers to pay 
hefty fines and penalties, undergo background checks, clear up back 
taxes, learn English, continue working for a period of years in a 
probationary status, and go to the back of the line. Only after 8 
years, after getting right with the law and proving their commitment to 
becoming Americans, are these workers provided an opportunity at legal 
permanent residence.
  The Allard amendment seeks to nullify that shot at the American 
dream. It does so by eliminating the separate point schedule included 
in the bill for Z visa holders and the agricultural job applicants. The 
point schedule for Z visa holders and AgJOB applicants is designed to 
determine when they can apply for permanent residence, not whether they 
can apply. Eligibility to apply for permanent residence is earned by 
complying with tough requirements. I just mentioned them--paying fines, 
working hard, learning English, going to the back of the current line, 
and reentering the country legally.
  The intent of the Allard amendment is to require undocumented 
immigrants to compete with other future intending immigrants under the 
new merit-based system. There are two different merit systems, one for 
the temporary and one for agriculture. The amendment of the Senator 
from Colorado eliminates the one designed for agricultural workers. But 
given the merit-based system and the strong preference for the highly 
educated, this amendment is an attempt to keep the undocumented workers 
from ever obtaining permanent residence.
  The educational profile of the undocumented workforce is such that 
these workers will never, ever be able to compete in a meaningful way 
for the pool of merit-based green cards. As such, if it were to pass, 
the amendment would create a permanent underclass of lower skilled 
workers living here in legal limbo indefinitely without the rights or 
opportunities afforded to legal permanent residents.
  Similar situations are played out in other countries, resulting in 
highly problematic, even disastrous consequences. That is not the 
American way. I hope people will vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. President, the aspect of this legislation that deals with the 
agricultural workers is called the AgJOBS bill. Senators Craig and 
Feinstein are two of the principal sponsors. I have been a long-time 
sponsor. We are talking about agribusiness primarily in California but 
also in other parts of the Nation. We are talking about an agreement 
that was worked out between the farm workers and the agribusiness. 
These are two groups of people who have been at each other's throats 
for years. I was here when we abolished the Bracero Program, basically 
the exploitation of workers in the United States. It was a shame and a 
stain on the American workforce ethic. Then we had, over a long period 
of time, with the leadership of Cesar Chavez, an attempt to get justice 
for probably about 900,000 agricultural workers, who do some of the 
toughest work that is done in this country. No question, half of them 
are undocumented--probably 600,000 or 700,000 is the best estimate we 
have. They have been able to work out an agreement between agribusiness 
and these farm workers, which we basically included in this bill.
  What we were saying, basically, under the earlier provisions is that 
they would be able to gain the opportunity for getting a green card in 
5

[[Page 14502]]

years. Under this legislation, it is 8 years they have to wait. They 
have to demonstrate that they have worked hard in the agricultural 
sector. They have to demonstrate that they paid their taxes and that 
they are attempting to learn English, and they have to meet all of the 
other requirements. At the end of that time, this legislation says to 
those people who have been a part of our system that they will have 
some opportunity to get a good deal of credit for working in 
agriculture in America.
  The amendment of the Senator from Colorado strikes that provision. So 
these individuals who will be competing with the other provisions that 
have been put into this legislation for the more skilled--there are 
provisions in there for lower skilled, but it is basically for the 
higher skills. This undermines the core part of this kind of agreement 
that was made. There are a number of provisions in this legislation we 
have spelled out. There is border security and the local law 
enforcement, which are important; and there is AgJOBS, the DREAM Act, 
which the Senator from Illinois has fought for and made sure was 
important. There are other very important features in this legislation.
  What we would basically do with the Allard amendment is say we are 
going to change the mix, change the system. We have worked out a system 
saying agricultural workers are important. They have been able to work 
out their agreement. There were 67 Members of the Senate who signed on, 
Republicans and Democrats. We basically incorporated that, although we 
have extended the time for those workers. The effect of the Allard 
amendment, as I read it, is that we are saying that is not an agreement 
that we are going to continue to be committed to. We are going to say 
those undocumented workers are going to have to compete with those who 
are more highly skilled.
  This legislation is a balance between the AgJOBS, the DREAM Act, and 
the fact that we are going to permit those 12\1/2\ million people who 
are undocumented now to live here without fear of deportation and 
continue their jobs and give them, if they meet these other 
requirements after 8 years, in the next 5 years the possibility of 
getting a green card, and 5 years later be able to get citizenship with 
a long time in between, with heavy fines. The Allard amendment would 
undermine this understanding and agreement in a way that will 
disadvantage in a significant way the agricultural workers and other 
low-skilled individuals in this whole process.
  I think in that sense, as the Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, 
it would be unwise and unfair from a policy point of view.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform saying:

       We write to urge your opposition to the Allard amendment . 
     . .
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Agriculture Coalition for


                                           Immigration Reform,

                                                     June 5, 2007.
       Dear Senator: we write to urge your opposition to the 
     Allard amendment #1189, scheduled to be voted on late this 
     morning.
       By striking the merit point schedule for Z-visa workers, 
     the amendment would have the practical effect of eliminating 
     incentives for all workers subject to the merit system, 
     including farm workers, from providing the work necessary to 
     sustain our economy in the future. Retaining the experienced 
     agricultural labor force is essential to stabilizing the farm 
     labor crisis while consular capacity and farmworker housing 
     are built over a period of several years to allow agriculture 
     to rely more heavily on a reformed H-2A program.
       This amendment directly undermines the merit point system, 
     which is critical to the successful implementation. of Title 
     VI. Title VI is essential to American agriculture in ensuring 
     a stable and legal agricultural workforce.
       ACIR urges that you oppose this amendment. We also have 
     letters from Colorado agricultural groups opposing this 
     amendment.
       Thank you for your support for fixing America's broken 
     immigration system and solving the worsening farm labor 
     crisis.
           Sincerely,
     Luawanna Hallstrom,
       ACIR Co-Chair, Harry Singh & Sons, CA.
     Craig J. Regelbrugge,
       ACIR Co-Chair, American Nursery & Landscape Assn., DC.
     John Young,
       ACIR Co-Chair, New England Apple Council, NH.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Illinois. I will 
take a moment, if we have time, to go through this excellent letter 
that expresses reservations and opposition to the Allard amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have been 
allocated 18 minutes to speak on behalf of amendment No. 1231.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like the Chair to notify me when I have spoken 
for 8 minutes, and I will reserve time for Senator Grassley who will 
also come to the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1231

  This immigration bill is long overdue. Our immigration laws in 
America have failed us. Since 1986, when President Reagan issued 
amnesty, we thought for a long time we had laws on the books that would 
stop the inflow of workers from overseas. We were wrong. Up to 800,000 
come into our country each year. Three-fourths of them stay. When you 
do the math over a 20-year period of time, you realize how we ended up 
with 12 million undocumented workers in America.
  Our immigration system has failed. Let me salute Senators Kennedy, 
Specter, and all those who worked on trying to rewrite these laws.
  You can turn on the television any afternoon or evening and hear the 
screamers on the cable channels telling you how terrible it is that we 
are considering this law. Think for a moment. Those people screaming 
about this effort are endorsing what we currently have--a broken down, 
failed system that is unfair to the workers of America, unfair to our 
Nation, and unfair to those who were here working as part of our 
economy.
  What Senators Kennedy and Specter are trying to do is fashion a way 
through this madness to a law that will work. Are we sure it is going 
to succeed? Of course not. We cannot be sure. This is just the best of 
a human effort. But what they have tried to do is build into this 
concept basic principles. One of those principles that I think should 
be the bedrock of our discussion is this: Under this bill, we will have 
hundreds of thousands of new people coming into the United States each 
year to work. The arguments are made that we need them to pick crops 
that Americans don't want to pick. I think that is a fact. Also, we 
need them to fill jobs that many Americans don't want to take. Go to 
any packinghouse, whether it is a meat or poultry house in America--I 
know a little bit about that; that is the way I worked my way through 
college. Those are tough, dirty, hot jobs--and you will find many 
undocumented workers there because, frankly, people don't absolutely 
want to work in these places. We need to bring in these workers to fill 
jobs that Americans are not going to take.
  Then there is another level of workers, those who have skills that we 
need in this country. When Bill Gates of Microsoft says: I need the 
opportunity to bring in software engineers so Microsoft can expand its 
production operations in America, and if you don't give me that chance 
to bring in foreign engineers, I am going to have to put a production 
facility overseas where I can find the same engineering talents, well, 
I want those jobs in America. I want those production facilities in 
America. I am willing to listen to his request for H-1B visas.
  Whether we are talking about AgJOBS, jobs in these packing houses or 
jobs in Silicon Valley, we should have one guiding principle, and the 
guiding principle is this: Hire Americans first. Hire Americans first.
  Under this bill we are considering, the guest workers who come in are 
subject to that requirement. Someone cannot ask for a guest worker to 
take a job if there is an American that will take that job first. But 
there is a glaring loophole. The loophole says: If the

[[Page 14503]]

Secretary of the Department of Labor announces there is a labor 
shortage in an area, then they waive the requirement to look for 
American workers first. But we, in this bill, fail to define what a 
labor shortage is. What does it mean? It means a lot of employers will 
be off the hook. They will be able to bring in guest workers and never 
ask an American to take the job. I don't think that is right.
  Senator Grassley and I have introduced this amendment. It eliminates 
this loophole, eliminates this labor shortage exception, and makes it 
the hard-and-fast rule when it comes to guest workers that we must hire 
Americans first. I hope my colleagues will take a look at this and 
consider it.
  Let me say a few words about the H-1B visa. Senator Grassley and I 
took a look at these H-1B visas. These are special visas with specialty 
talents to come in because there are not enough Americans with those 
talents. We took a look at those H-1B visas and, unfortunately, there 
are some companies that are gaming the system. There have been exposes 
across America where these so-called H-1B brokerage houses have been 
created. These are not high-tech companies looking for people with H-1B 
visas. These are companies, by and large in India, that try to bring in 
Indian engineers to fill jobs in the United States.
  The H-1B visa job lasts for 3 years and can be renewed for 3 years. 
What happens to those workers after that? Well, they could stay. It is 
possible. But these new companies out of India have a much better idea 
for making money. They send the engineers from India to America to fill 
spots--and get money to do it--and then after the 3 to 6 years, they 
bring them back to India to work for the companies that are competing 
with American companies. They call it their outsourcing visa. They are 
sending their talented engineers to learn how Americans do business and 
then bring them back and compete with those American companies. Is that 
what we have in mind here? Is that our goal, to create more 
opportunities for people to create businesses around the world to 
compete with us? I think not.
  Senator Grassley and I are trying to tighten up the H-1B visa. We 
wish to make sure that only those who are absolutely necessary are 
brought in, and, first and foremost, that we fill job vacancies with 
Americans who are out of work and Americans who are graduating from 
schools and developing the skills that are needed. Our first 
responsibility, whether it is in guest workers or H-1B visas, is to 
hire Americans first.
  The amendment the Senate will consider in a short period of time, No. 
1231, which Senator Grassley and I have offered, applies to the guest 
worker program. But it comes down to this basic concept, and I hope my 
colleagues will support me: Shouldn't this new guest worker program 
include the same protections for American workers? I think they should. 
Otherwise, in the future, we are going to see companies advertising 
that no Americans need apply for these jobs. We don't want that to 
occur. We wish to make it perfectly clear that companies doing business 
in the United States must first give priority to American workers; that 
they are bound by law to do that.
  Plain and simple, that is what the Durbin-Grassley amendment will do. 
This amendment is supported by the labor community, including the AFL-
CIO, the Laborers' Union, the Teamsters, and the Building Trades.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the AFL-CIO 
supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2007.
     Sen. Richard J. Durbin,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I write to 
     offer strong support for your ``Recruit Americans First'' 
     amendment to the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and 
     Immigration Reform Act (S. 1348). Your amendment would 
     prevent employers from avoiding compliance with the bill's 
     domestic worker recruitment requirement.
       S. 1348 would require employers to recruit workers from the 
     domestic workforce before hiring guest workers under the new 
     Y guest worker program. However, this recruitment requirement 
     would be waived if the Secretary of Labor determined that 
     there is a labor shortage in the occupation and geographic 
     area in which the employer seeks guest workers. The bill does 
     not specify any standards to be employed in making this 
     determination, which would be left solely to the discretion 
     of the Secretary. The Durbin amendment would strike this 
     waiver so that all employers petitioning for Y guest workers 
     would be required to recruit workers from the domestic 
     workforce before hiring Y guest workers.
       Thank you for your continued efforts to improve the pending 
     immigration reform bill.
           Sincerely,

                                               William Samuel,

                                                         Director,
                                        Department of Legislation.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I reserve any time remaining for Senator Grassley, who 
will be coming to the floor shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 7 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the quorum time be equally divided between opposing sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, the pending amendment, offered by the 
Senator from Illinois, is unnecessary because American workers are 
fully protected under existing law. This amendment would simply slow 
down the process, have a 90-day delay, require advertising, which is 
unnecessary, and would thwart the efforts of people undertaking 
important activities to get necessary workers.
  The current statute and regulations provide that:

       The Secretary of Labor must determine that there is a 
     shortage of U.S. workers and that the hiring of foreign 
     workers will not adversely affect the wages or working 
     conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed in the 
     following occupations: physical therapists, registered 
     nurses, and aliens of exceptional ability in the sciences or 
     art.

  Now, there can hardly be any doubt, as it is a matter of common 
knowledge, about the shortage of registered nurses. That is 
illustrative of the kinds of jobs which can be filled not to the 
detriment of American workers because there has been a determination 
made that in these categories there are no workers available. With 
regard to the category of aliens of exceptional ability in the sciences 
or art, the regulations specify the following:

       Include college and university teachers who have been 
     practicing their science or art during the period of their 
     immigrant petition and who intend to stay in the same 
     occupation in the United States.

  Another category provided under the regulation:

       Applicant with exceptional ability is one who possesses a 
     level of expertise above that which would normally be 
     encountered in the field.
  Now, while that is a generalization, it can certainly be sensibly 
applied. The regulation further provides that:

       Applicant would need to provide evidence of the applicant's 
     widespread acclaim and international recognition by 
     recognized experts in the alien's field, such as the Nobel 
     prize.

  What we have in effect at the present time is a system which is 
adequate to protect the American workers. The Senator from Illinois is 
no more concerned about the protection of the American workers than the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, but the question is how we get there. What 
this amendment essentially does is to delay the process. The nurse 
example is perhaps the best. It is well-known that we have an 
insufficient supply of nurses in this country. If we have somebody who 
is not an American citizen, an alien, who

[[Page 14504]]

is qualified to be a nurse, why not make that nurse available to a 
hospital which needs a nurse? Why not make that nurse available to a 
nursing home which needs a nurse, rather than have a delay and have 
advertising?
  If the system offered by the Senator from Illinois works, they do no 
better than what the Secretary of Labor has undertaken to do. The 
Secretary of Labor can be trusted to be interested in protecting 
American workers, but there is a determination that there is a 
shortage. So this amendment is not only unnecessary, it would be 
counterproductive.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand I have 8 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is now 7 minutes, due to the quorum call.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair will notify me when I have 3\1/2\ minutes, 
I would appreciate it.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleague from 
Illinois. I think it makes a needed change in the legislation, one that 
will help provide additional protection for American workers, and I 
thank him for calling the issue to our attention.
  The amendment is very simple. It would require every employer who 
wants to bring guest workers into the country to advertise for and 
recruit American workers first. This is a general principle that has 
been agreed to, certainly by me and my colleagues, and one that I am 
sure most Members of the Senate would support.
  Senator Durbin's language ensures this principle is implemented 
fairly and effectively with respect to all employers who are looking 
for more workers. Specifically, it eliminates an exception in those 
areas where the Department of Labor has determined there is a shortage 
of U.S. workers in the occupation and area of intended employment.
  The shortage occupation idea relies on an exception in existing law 
which applies to green cards but not in the temporary worker context. 
So I agree with Senator Durbin that in the context of ensuring that 
temporary workers do not unfairly compete with Americans, we do need an 
exception to this rule. This legislation is based upon the principle 
that guest workers should only be brought in if Americans cannot be 
found to fill these jobs, and what better way to ensure this is the 
case than to require all employers advertise these positions broadly.
  I know there are some Members who might say that since this exception 
only applies when the Department of Labor says there is a shortage of 
workers to fill these jobs, that we shouldn't require employers to 
advertise. I would argue the opposite: Because we know employers are 
seeking more American workers, they should easily be able to meet the 
requirements under these laws.
  I mean, the fact remains you might have a shortage in a particular 
area or region designated by the Department of Labor, but there may be 
hospitals in those areas that have more than they need; with other 
hospitals having less. If those other health facilities are looking, 
they are probably investing in trying to find additional workers and 
are probably advertising in any event. This makes sure they are going 
to give the first opportunity--and there are other requirements in the 
legislation that give the first opportunity to Americans to be 
protected.
  It doesn't seem to me this would be onerous or more costly. It may 
be, for example, that elsewhere in the country there are Americans who 
are willing to fill these jobs. Maybe there are groups of Americans who 
have traditionally been overlooked or discriminated against who will 
want to know of these opportunities so that they can have a fair 
chance. For all these reasons, I support the amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to do so as well. I think it makes a good deal of sense, and 
I would hope that it would be accepted.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I wish to speak on the bill for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss amendment No. 
1231. I cosponsored this amendment with the senior Senator from 
Illinois to protect American workers. The amendment would require 
employers who intend to hire foreign workers to first recruit and find 
Americans to do the job.
  The bill before us creates a new guestworker program, known as the 
``Y'' visa program. I support this guestworker program. In fact, I 
voted to keep this program in the bill when the Senator from North 
Dakota offered an amendment to strike it.
  I have consistently said that I support new and expanded avenues for 
willing workers to enter the United States and work for employers who 
need them.
  Our country's employers want to hire legal immigrants. They need a 
better program, and one that allows nonseasonal or nonagricultural 
workers to come here.
  We have programs--such as the H-2A and H-2B visas--to bring in 
willing workers. But, there are some jobs that don't fit these 
categories. For example, in Iowa, we have meatpacking and egg 
processing facilities that require low-skilled workers. Yet they do not 
have a legal channel to bring in workers. Our existing visa categories 
don't help them. The ``Y'' visa program will.
  But, the bill is flawed in that it doesn't require these employers to 
first recruit Americans. Companies who use the ``Y'' visa program 
should try to find U.S. workers first.
  How can anyone argue against that? Why not offer the job to U.S. 
citizens before bringing in more foreign laborers?
  Under the bill, employers who use the ``Y'' visa program may be 
required to recruit U.S. workers through their State agencies, job 
sites, and trade publications.
  Some employers will be required to ``first offer the job with, at a 
minimum, the same wages, benefits and working conditions, to any 
eligible United States worker who applies, is qualified for the job and 
is available at the time of need.''
  But, as throughout this entire immigration bill, there are waivers, 
exceptions, and ways of ducking out of such requirements. The authors 
of this bill make it seem as though Americans will be recruited first. 
However, these requirements are at the discretion of the Secretary of 
Labor. The Secretary can decide who has to fulfill these requirements.
  The Durbin-Grassley amendment will ensure that all employers who use 
the ``Y'' visa program are looking first at U.S. citizens before 
looking abroad. I think that is what we all want. We should agree to 
this amendment for the sake of American workers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Since nobody is seeking the floor, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum and ask that time be charged against all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. Mr. President, we are drawing to a close here. I have 
most of the time, I believe. I want to make a few comments on my 
amendment and then yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Senator Kennedy. I think he 
needs that to wrap up arguments on his time. I will be glad to yield 
him that time.
  My amendment strikes the supplemental schedule for Zs. Basically this

[[Page 14505]]

section of the bill provides an advantage for those who came in 
illegally in applying for citizenship, as opposed to those who came 
legally.
  This is a question of basic fairness. I know there is debate related 
to one part of the workforce as to another part of the workforce. I am 
not concerned about that. I am concerned about this as a basic fairness 
issue. I believe this supplemental schedule for Zs rewards those who 
came here illegally, and could disadvantage those who came legally. I 
am here to ask that the Members of the Senate support my amendment, 
because the bill's stated purpose of adopting a merit-based system is 
that the United States will benefit from a workforce that has diverse 
skills, experience, and training.
  I happen to agree with that. However, I am simply not convinced that 
a history of breaking the law should contribute to this goal more than 
education or even experience. So my amendment simply strikes the 
special schedule for Z visas that allows people who have violated 
immigration laws eligible an additional 50 points. Z visa holders 
would, however, still be eligible for up to 100 points under the 
regular system, the exact same number as anybody else.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Allard amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his graciousness 
in yielding a minute and a half.
  I am opposed to the Allard amendment. We have in this legislation 
very important commitments to, one, the AgJOB workers, and we have also 
said for the 12 million: If you pay the fines, you go to the back of 
the line, you work hard, you demonstrate you are going to be good 
citizens for the 8 years until all of the line is cleared up, and we 
have a way for dealing with these individuals to permit them at least 
to get on the path for a green card and eventually citizenship.
  The Allard amendment changes all of that framework. Under the Allard 
amendment, we were basically saying to those who are working in 
agriculture, because as his amendment shows, they get a big chunk of 
points on this kind of thing, that that would be eliminated, and that 
agricultural worker who has been playing by the rules, who is a part of 
the AgJOB's bill, will lose out in any kind of competition in terms of 
green cards and the opportunity to move on into citizenship, because 
the other one will have the skills, will have the points, and those 
agriculture workers and the other lower skilled workers will not have 
the opportunity to do so. It will change the framework of the bill in a 
very important way. I know he is looking for equity in terms of all 
workers here to be able to start a new day. We have worked long and 
hard in terms of the ag workers in terms of how we are going to treat 
the undocumented, how we are going to treat newer workers. We have 
worked that out.
  It seems to me that is the fairer way. We can look to the future with 
the new merit system, but we ought to be able to meet our commitments, 
which this bill does, to those who have been a part of this system and 
are playing by the rules, and to whom we have made a commitment.
  I hope his amendment would not be accepted.
  I think the time has about expired, Mr. President.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, on amendment No. 1189, I would ask for the 
yeas and nays, and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time has been yielded. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brownback
     Dodd
     Johnson
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 1189) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1231

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, on the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this immigration bill will offer an 
opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people to come to the United 
States and go to work. But I believe there should be one guiding 
principle behind this bill: First offer the jobs to Americans. Those 
who are unemployed, those who are developing the skills should have the 
first chance to fill these jobs.
  Senator Grassley and I have a bipartisan amendment which eliminates 
the loophole and makes it a requirement, when it comes to guest 
workers, that the jobs first be offered to Americans to fill. I think 
that is a reasonable starting point for any debate on immigration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would simply delay 
unnecessarily the hiring of important people, such as registered 
nurses. We currently have an elaborate system, where the Department of 
Labor makes a determination that there will not be a loss of American 
jobs in certain special categories and that it will not depress wages.
  This will simply impose a 90-day waiting period. For example, a 
registered nurse who is needed in a hospital would have to wait 90 
days. There would be the expense of advertising.
  The purpose of this amendment is already satisfied under existing law 
to protect American jobs, and the amendment ought to be defeated.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1231, offered by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.

[[Page 14506]]

Johnson), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     Roberts
     Specter
     Sununu
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brownback
     Dodd
     Johnson
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 1231) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to enter a unanimous consent 
request, but I will wait until Senator McConnell, the Republican 
leader, arrives.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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 have spoken to a number of my colleagues 
today--in fact, within the past hour or so. There has been a concern by 
the minority that there have not been enough votes on this bill.
  Keeping that in mind, I am going to propound a unanimous consent 
request that would allow 20 votes. I will outline it as follows: I ask 
unanimous consent that at 5:45 today, the Senate vote in relation to 
Senator Kennedy's alternative to Senator Cornyn's amendment No. 1184; 
that immediately upon the conclusion of that vote, the Senate vote in 
relation to Senator Cornyn's amendment No. 1184.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I agree 
in concept with what is being proposed by the majority leader, and that 
is that we start voting on pending amendments. The amendments mentioned 
in the unanimous consent request are all amendments that were proposed 
prior to the recent recess of the Senate. So I am in favor of moving 
forward and allowing our colleagues votes on the various proposals, 
many of which have been offered some time back.
  I do not agree with the implication that, at that point, we would 
then be finished with the bill, or that further amendments would be 
limited. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have been 
patiently waiting to get amendments in the queue. Some have waited on 
the floor for long periods of time only to be told there would be an 
objection to their amendments being called up.
  I propose to the majority leader that we allow the managers to 
continue to set up votes on pending amendments. I even encourage 
Senators on this side of the aisle to keep their remarks quite short in 
order to process additional amendments.
  I think it is premature to file cloture on this bill and cut off 
debate on amendments. If we can continue to let the managers work in 
good faith on setting votes on the amendments, we will have given this 
important national issue an opportunity for the kind of fair process 
that it deserves. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to propound another request. 
Based upon my distinguished colleague's statement, that we have spent a 
lot of time on this immigration bill--and every minute of it has been 
deserved. As Senators will recall, the vehicle that was brought to the 
floor was the bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last 
year. It was believed that by spending more time on a bipartisan basis 
a substitute could be reached, and that was done. We now have before 
the Senate a substitute amendment that has been bipartisan in nature, 
with 10 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, having worked this out. 
Mr. President, we have had a number of votes. Keep in mind the 
substitute amendment that is now before the Senate is a result of a 
number of things, not the least of which is all the work that went into 
the bill that did not go forward last year.
  We had numerous votes, and the Democrats and Republicans who put 
together the substitute took all that into consideration when they came 
up with the substitute. So we don't need the same number of amendments 
we had last year.
  I think we should have amendments, and I am going to propound a 
request. This does not limit amendments or limit amendments in the 
future. As we all know, once cloture is invoked, all germane amendments 
are subject to votes following that cloture vote during the 30 hours. 
So we have today, Tuesday, Wednesday, and you will see that we would 
also have Thursday under one of the proposals I am going to offer. But 
my concern is, when is enough enough? We have a number of 
considerations here that are so important to our country. I recognize 
the importance of immigration, and I am going to do everything I can to 
make sure people feel they have had an alternative to the substitute 
that was offered. But there has to be a limit as to the amendments 
Senators offer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow the Senate vote 
in relation to Senator Sessions' amendment No. 1235; further, that the 
Senate vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment No. 1176; further, 
that the Senate vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 1151; 
further, that the Senate vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment No. 
1250; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the Menendez 
amendment No. 1194; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the 
Clinton amendment No. 1183; further, the Senate vote in relation to the 
Sessions amendment No. 1234; further, that the Senate vote in relation 
to the Dodd amendment No. 1199; further, that the Senate vote in 
relation to the McConnell amendment No. 1170; further, that the Senate 
vote in relation to the Lieberman amendment No. 1191; further, that 
alternative Democratic and Republican amendments be in order in 
relation to each of the above amendments, and that the time for each 
vote be set with the concurrence of both leaders and both floor 
managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object for the very same reason 
I just stated a few moments ago, the majority leader indicated that 
amendments that were germane would be voted on postcloture. Of course, 
that is only if they are pending. One of the problems we have had is 
getting an adequate number of amendments pending. The best way to go 
forward--I remind our colleagues, and certainly my friend the majority 
leader, that it was I on the day I was chosen Republican leader who 
said this Congress ought to do big things, and I mentioned two. One was 
Social Security. It appears to me that we are not getting anywhere on 
that. The other was immigration. I

[[Page 14507]]

commend the majority leader for turning to it, but the minority is not 
going to be shut out.
  This is a big, contentious, complex matter. We had well over 20 
Republican amendments the last time this issue was before the Senate. 
The best way to process this bill is not for the majority to try to 
stuff the majority--that won't happen, I assure you--but, rather, to go 
through the process in an orderly way. And with this kind of rhetorical 
back and forth, it continues to waste time that could be used in 
offering, debating, and voting on the maximum number of amendments, 
which would allow us to get to the point where we can get cloture on 
the bill and to final passage. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the reason here is a little unusual. We have 
12 amendments pending. After these are voted on, other amendments will 
be offered and should be offered. There is no reason to cut off what we 
have talked about here as being the only amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is filed today 
on the substitute amendment, it not ripen until 6 p.m. Thursday, June 
7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, would the majority 
leader restate the consent request?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to do that. I ask unanimous consent that if 
cloture is filed today on the substitute amendment, it not ripen--there 
not be a vote on it--until 6 p.m. Thursday, June 7, rather than 
Thursday morning. That would give us another day.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have tried to set up 20 votes in relation 
to amendments, including Democratic and Republican alternatives. We 
also tried to vitiate the need for a needless second cloture vote on 
the bill itself, if the substitute amendment is ever adopted. Lastly, 
we tried to delay the cloture vote until Thursday evening so Members 
would have more time to debate and dispose of amendments.
  Each effort, I am sad to report, was objected to by our Republican 
colleagues. So as far as I am concerned, they are in no position to 
complain that they did not get votes on amendments prior to cloture. We 
offered them votes.
  First of all, in this part of my presentation, I want to express my 
appreciation to those who have worked so hard on this bill, and I hope 
they will continue to work on this bill. I made a suggestion, and here 
it is. If they can come up with something better, more power to them.
  I have devoted a lot of the Senate's time to this measure, not only 
this year but last year when I was working with Senator Frist. It is an 
important piece of legislation. The immigration system is broken and 
needs to be fixed. We have an obligation to the American people to do 
that. Do I think whatever we come up with will be perfect? No. But we 
have, with the help of the President, the opportunity to take this 
matter to the House, have them work on it, and then again with the 
President's assistance get to conference and come up with something 
that would be better than what we passed out of the Senate.
  I hope my Republican colleagues are not going to use this as an 
excuse that they have not had enough amendments offered. That really is 
not fair, and it is wrong. I say again that I appreciate the work of 
the managers. Senator Kennedy has worked very hard to work his way 
through this bill, as have Senators Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn, and people 
who may not be in support of the bill but at least have tried to 
improve it.
  Mr. President, there is one thing I didn't ask. My staff informed me 
that I did not ask this: I ask unanimous consent that if the substitute 
amendment is agreed to, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate 
vote, without intervening action or debate, on final passage of S. 
1348, as amended.
  I have a premonition that there may be an objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, of 
course, the way to handle this would be to make sure that the germane 
amendments that are pending get votes postcloture. The majority leader 
could agree to a consent that it be in order to call up germane filed 
amendments postcloture, which would be very comforting on this side of 
the aisle. I understand the position he is in. He would like to move 
this bill and, I assume, have his Members exposed to the fewest number 
of votes they don't want to cast. I have a significant number of 
Members over here who feel very strongly that before they would allow 
us to wrap up this bill, these amendments need to be considered.
  At the risk of being redundant, the best way to do that is for the 
managers to keep processing amendments as rapidly as possible, to get 
consent that it be in order to call up germane filed amendments 
postcloture, which would be comforting to Members on this side of the 
aisle. Until we decide to operate in that fashion, I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, one person I did not compliment--and it is 
my negligence--is the Senator from Pennsylvania, the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, who 
has worked very hard on this legislation.
  Mr. President, what we have heard are buzz words for this bill is 
going nowhere. I think that is too bad. As the day progresses, I hope 
people have a change of heart and that we can work on amendments that 
can be voted on. Certainly, we don't need my approval for whatever 
amendments should be voted on.
  We are going to file cloture on the bill today. There are a number of 
exigencies present in the Senate, and we have to move on. The 
Republican leader has been told by some Senators that more amendments 
would help. Most of the people who want more amendments have no 
intention of voting for this bill no matter what we do.
  I have made my statement. The Republican leader has made his 
statement. I hope the managers can figure out a way to move on. Before 
the close of business today, I am filing cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at the risk of unnecessarily delaying 
the discussion, the key to finishing the bill is to have votes on an 
adequate number of amendments. A number of amendments on this side are 
being offered by people who may well vote for an immigration bill. I 
certainly would like to vote for an immigration bill in the Senate. I 
did vote for such a proposal last time we went through this process in 
the previous Congress. I would like to be able to do so again. But we 
are going to insist on fundamental fairness.
  This measure may well be the only significant accomplishment of this 
Congress. Surveys out in the Washington Post today indicate that there 
is a declining support for the new Congress, which is a considerable 
implication that the American people have noticed that we are not doing 
much in this Congress. Let me repeat, it is not my desire for this 
Congress to have a record of virtually no accomplishment, and a good 
significant accomplishment would be to get the right kind of 
immigration bill out of the Senate. It is still my hope that will be 
achieved. This is only Tuesday afternoon--just Tuesday afternoon. There 
is plenty of work time left this week, and I think we ought to get 
about offering, debating, and voting on the essential amendments to 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my counterpart, the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky, said this is a 2-week bill, and we are in the second 
week of this bill.
  I will also state--and I am not as much of a poll watcher as my 
caucus would tell me I should be--that the polls also show the 
Republican Members of Congress are not as well thought of as Democratic 
Members of Congress.

[[Page 14508]]

  As far as success, I think we have done pretty well this past 6 
months. We now have a bill that has been signed by the President where, 
for the first time in 10 years, we give a raise to the people who need 
it worst, the people who rely on the minimum wage. Keep in mind that 60 
percent of those who draw a minimum wage are women. For the vast 
majority of those women, that is the only money they have for 
themselves and their families.
  We have tried for 3 years to get disaster assistance for farmers, and 
we were able to get that. That is now signed into law. The President 
has made many trips to the gulf, but in this supplemental bill, which 
we forced the President to sign, we now have monetary relief for people 
in the gulf affected by Katrina.
  We were able to extend the SCHIP program for children's health care. 
That is a significant accomplishment. That will take care of things 
until October. We were also--in the legislation that the President 
signed, that we forced--able to get more than he gave us in the 
supplemental appropriations bill. We had more money for the troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan--$4 billion more for medicine and veterans' 
benefits.
  We have been trying for years to get money for homeland security. In 
this bill, we got it, a billion dollars for homeland security that has 
long been necessary.
  Within the next week or two, we are going to have a conference report 
that will come forward, sending to the President legislation on stem 
cell research that will give hope to millions.
  I worked, in fact, as late as yesterday with the distinguished 
Republican leader, and I think we are in a position where we can come 
up with a satisfactory conference report on ethics and lobbying reform.
  So I think we should not be denigrating the work of this Congress and 
the things we have been able to accomplish, which has been done on a 
bipartisan basis. We have had to push and pull a little, getting 
motions to proceed on various pieces of legislation that were 
necessary, but we were able to do that. So I don't think it is time to 
denigrate or belittle the Congress based on the polls we have seen.
  I repeat, let us not get into poll watching, because if you look at 
the polls, Democratic Congressmen, Democrats generally, are scored much 
higher than Republicans. But I repeat, I don't follow polls. I think we 
should be doing a lot more by what we feel is right to do than what 
polls show.
  I hope the immigration matter can move along. I think the two leaders 
of the Senate have stated how we feel about this, and now we turn it 
over to the good hands of our experienced managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we probably shouldn't prolong this any 
further, because this is keeping us from handling amendments on this 
bill, which we desperately need to do, but we haven't had a major 
immigration reform bill in 21 years. So far on this bill we have had 
nine rollcall votes. By any objective standard that is not nearly 
enough. Let us proceed to work on the bill, and, hopefully, we can get 
somewhere during the course of the week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I tried to offer an amendment on May 
24, before the week's recess, and I was asked by Senator Kennedy if I 
would withhold and he would make every effort to allow me to have a 
vote on my amendment on Social Security for Z visa holders on the first 
day back, which is today.
  Now, I know there have been intervening circumstances, and I am not 
saying there is any blame here. However, I am asking that we set a time 
for the vote on my amendment No. 1302, which has been filed but which I 
was asked to withhold offering. Now I wish to have a time certain, if 
possible, where we can have a vote on that amendment.
  I have to say I have now seen this body operate. What happens on a 
bill such as this, that is very complicated and long, and especially 
when you are writing the bill on the floor rather than taking it 
through the committee process, there are a lot of amendments which are 
legitimate amendments, yet the distinguished majority leader said he 
was going to file cloture on the bill tonight. That would ripen on 
Thursday.
  I have three amendments. One is on Social Security protection for 
America, from any person who works illegally to get credit on Social 
Security when they are working illegally; another one on the future 
flow of Y visa holders; and then I have an amendment for people to 
return home before they come back and become legal guest workers in our 
country. So those are three amendments I am giving everyone notice I 
believe are very important, they are productive, they are positive, and 
they are an effort to make this a bill that Americans will see is the 
right approach to handling the chaos we have with illegal immigration 
in our country. I don't want to be squeezed out by cloture or by time 
deadlines.
  If we take 4 weeks on this bill and it becomes a better bill that all 
of us can support, those who wish to have comprehensive reform, 4 
weeks, with the effect this is going to have in the next 25 years for 
our country, that is nothing. So I hope I will be able to offer my 
three amendments and get votes on them at some point.
  I want to be able to protect my rights, and I want to ask if I could 
have a time certain to vote on the first Social Security amendment, No. 
1302, if that would be possible.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, one of the things I think the managers 
should do is see if they can get a list of amendments, germane 
amendments, the minority wants. We have a few on our side. It is at 
least worth a try to see if we can come up with a list of germane 
amendments. I ask Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter to see if they 
can come up with a list of germane amendments that Members think they 
want to vote on. We already have, as I said, 12 or so pending, and we 
will take a look at that. I am not even sure the 12 pending are 
germane. We don't know that either.
  Anyway, they can see if they can come up with a list of germane 
amendments, whether that is three, four, five, whatever it is, and we 
will take a look at that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to deal with the amendment 
of the Senator from Texas. We have to figure out the order. This is the 
side of the Republicans now. Senator Cornyn has been waiting, and 
waiting patiently. The Senator from Texas did mention this. We had 
contacted the Finance Committee, since it is dealing with Social 
Security, to see whether they would be able to go, and I hope they will 
do that and dispose of it very rapidly. The other measures are not in 
the Finance Committee and we would be glad to deal with those. But 
dealing with Social Security is the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, 
and they had some views on that.
  I hope we might be able to do the Cornyn amendment. The leader had 
asked me if we could do the DeMint amendment after the Cornyn 
amendment. There may be one on our side dealing with health insurance 
which we would be prepared to do. It is fine with me. I am here and I 
am ready to go with these amendments, so I will make every effort to 
get the Finance Committee, and I will stay here with the Senator from 
Texas until we are able to get this disposed of this evening. I will 
give you that, as far as I am concerned.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me say I am happy for the Finance Committee 
looking at it. I wish this whole bill had gone through committee so we 
would know exactly where we stand. If they are for it, great. If they 
are against it, let us debate it. But let me ask if I could have at 
least a unanimous consent to bring up the amendments that are filed, 
No. 1301 and 1302--those are the two Social Security amendments--and 
then lay them aside, so that at least they are here and I know they 
will be disposed of.

[[Page 14509]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. My third one, the one that requires the return home, 
has not been offered yet but it will be germane. We are still trying to 
work with Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, and all the Senators who are 
involved in this process to try to get a consensus on that return home 
amendment. So it has not been filed.
  If I could ask unanimous consent to bring up amendments Nos. 1301 and 
1302, after which I would be happy to set them aside, to make them 
pending before cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have given assurance to the Senator 
from Texas, but I wish to see if we can have a short time. She will 
retain the right to make that request, but let us see if we can't work 
out the time now with the Finance Committee. Could we try that before 
getting consent? Because there has been some question about others who 
wanted to add a number of amendments on both sides, and we are trying 
to at least dispose of some of those that are on the list. I will give 
the assurance that this legislation, at least if I have anything to do 
with it, is not going to pass or be considered or closed out to the 
Senator from Texas, because, as she has pointed out, she raised these 
and we gave assurance she would get them. We were prepared on that 
Thursday evening, as we were running out of time to do the supplemental 
and to get the Finance Committee over.
  The Senator mentioned, before the majority leader left, that she 
wanted to offer that, and I regret I had not gotten the Finance 
Committee members over here. They were marking up I think the CHIP 
program earlier in the day. That is my only reservation about setting 
aside now, because there has been objection on both sides to adding 
more until we start to dispose of some of the underlying amendments.
  I will certainly try to get the clearance and work with the Senator 
and do it within the next few hours, if the Senator would withhold that 
and give us an opportunity to try to work through that. The Senator is 
quite correct that we have given her those assurances, and I intend to 
keep my word to the Senator.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I will attempt to work with the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the request withdrawn?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will withdraw the request, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked, on behalf of the 
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, to seek unanimous consent to 
move to have a time for amendment No. 1197.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the DeMint 
amendment, No. 1197, to be pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
point out, if I may, that amendment No. 1184, which I filed and called 
up 13 days ago, has yet to receive a vote on this immigration bill. 
This amendment would ban felons on the legalization path set forth in 
the underlying bill. It astounds me this could be in the least bit 
controversial, but I have been denied an opportunity for an up-or-down 
vote on that for the last 13 days.
  Now that I hear the majority leader intends to file cloture, it is 
clear what the pattern is, and that is to try to move this bill through 
without an opportunity for Senators to be given the chance to 
introduce, call up, debate, and then vote on important amendments. So I 
will object.
  I likewise object to the scheduling of any other votes on the bill 
until I am given an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on amendment 
No. 1184. I add that I have offered to my colleagues the possibility we 
could enter into some sort of time agreement to debate and to vote on 
the amendment. I am told there is a side-by-side amendment that is 
being considered. I was told it would be made available to me at 4 
o'clock this afternoon. It would have been the second side-by-side 
amendment that had been proposed. I have yet to see it.
  I have tried to be patient, and indeed I have been patient. I have 
tried to work with my colleagues to let the process move forward, but 
it is clear to me now, since the majority leader says he intends to 
file cloture, there is not going to be an opportunity to fully debate 
and offer amendments to this bill; that the majority leader intends to 
try to force this bill through, denying Senators an opportunity to have 
a chance to offer amendments, to have those amendments debated, and 
have those amendments voted on.
  I must employ whatever tools the Senate rules give me to insist upon 
my rights. I will do that by objecting to this and the schedule of any 
further votes until such time as we are able to enter into some sort of 
agreement for the disposition of amendment No. 1184.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand the point of the Senator 
from Texas, and I agree with him. He has been very patient. Some of the 
rest of us have been patient, too. We are waiting for that side-by-side 
so we can proceed.
  The purpose in the unanimous consent request was not to have a vote 
on DeMint but just to have it pending so that it would be in line for a 
vote postcloture since it is germane, so I renew my request.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right, I just mentioned to 
the Senator from Texas that there has been an objection. I would like 
to go to the Cornyn amendment--we have the side-by-side--get started, 
debate it, and vote on it tonight. That is what I would like to do. If 
necessary, we will do something over here in the meantime, come back, 
and deal with the Senator from Texas. We are ready to go. We have a 
side-by-side. We can get into general descriptions about that, but why 
don't we get started on the Cornyn amendment.
  I was asked earlier whether we would agree to debate and dispose of 
the DeMint amendment, and we said fine. But if we are now going to add 
more and more amendments on this--I agree with those who say let's get 
to work. Let's do the Cornyn amendment at this time. Respectfully, as I 
said, we were ready to deal with the DeMint amendment 10 minutes ago. 
Even now, if we want to debate it and vote on it and dispose of it, we 
are ready to go. But that isn't it, it is now to just be filed. How can 
we do that if we object to the Senator from Texas filing?
  Why don't we go to the Cornyn amendment, I ask Senator Specter. We 
will be helpful and try to get the amendment of Senator DeMint up. We 
are not trying to close him out. We can deal with that later this 
evening. I am glad to do that later this evening. We are set to go. It 
deals with health insurance. I am familiar with the issue. I am ready 
to go on it. We can deal with Cornyn. In the meantime, we can go to the 
Finance Committee and find out what we want to do with the amendment of 
the Senator from Texas, and then the leader asked us to try to dispose 
of DeMint. We were prepared to go ahead with the Sessions amendment 
that deals with the ITC that the Senator from Alabama wanted earlier.
  It is not our problem with this. We are ready to go. We are ready to 
debate and vote. I hope we can go ahead with the Cornyn amendment and 
the Senator will give us a little time to get this worked out about 
whether we are going to add and stack additional amendments up. I 
haven't got anything against the DeMint amendment. I saw it. I think it 
is a legitimate amendment.
  Could we ask consent that we go to the Cornyn amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, although it was a long time ago, I 
believe I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does have the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to reassert that. I didn't want to say 
``regular

[[Page 14510]]

order'' and interrupt the Senator from Massachusetts.
  I understand there may be an objection. I want to protect Senator 
DeMint's rights and ask unanimous consent that his amendment be 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, without 
unnecessarily repeating myself, I have been waiting 13 days for a vote 
on my amendment. I am afraid if I consent to this unanimous consent 
request, it is going to continue the pattern of avoiding my amendment, 
which would ban felons from getting Z visas under this underlying bill. 
I think that is something with which the American people, and hopefully 
the vast majority of the Senate, would agree. This amendment is well 
taken. It is a good thing. Let's not allow people--those who have had a 
chance, who defied the law, who thumbed their nose at our courts--to 
gain the advantages we are otherwise going to confer on people under 
the Z visa.
  I will object. As I indicated, I am willing to offer an alternative 
unanimous consent request that once I am shown the side-by-side 
amendment that I am told the majority has in mind, that they would like 
to offer as an alternative to my amendment No. 1184, I will be willing 
to enter into a time agreement with 2 hours equally divided to debate 
and then to vote on my amendment tomorrow. I will not enter into a 
unanimous consent agreement to debate an amendment side-by-side which I 
have not seen and which has been 13 days in the making. I think my 
request is a reasonable one. I am trying to work with my colleagues 
here but, frankly, I do not feel as if it has been a two-way street. 
That is my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection was heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could the Chair restate? Is it the request of the 
Senator that we consider the Cornyn amendment? We are making available 
now the side-by-side. It is basically similar to the other one but in 
greater detail. Is it the request of the Senator that we go to his 
amendment now, we have a 2-hour debate on it, and that we vote on the 
side-by-side? Is that the Senator's request?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct with the exception 
that I agree we can have the vote tomorrow. If there is no objection to 
my unanimous consent, I am glad to accommodate Senator DeMint or other 
Senators to allow them in the interim to call up other amendments. I 
would like to have a time locked in for a vote on my amendment--which 
would then have been pending for a full 2 weeks without a vote--
tomorrow morning. I would like to see what the amendment looks like 
before we leave today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I understand the request of the 
Senator, he wants to be able to have 2 hours on the Cornyn amendment to 
be voted on tomorrow morning. Hopefully we can debate this this 
evening. I am more than glad to make the side-by-side available. I 
certainly support the request.
  If we can have it more precise, is it just sometime in the morning? 
Are we going to debate this this evening? I would like to try to get it 
so at least the leadership and Members know. This is a very important 
amendment. We want to make sure they are aware--what is the desire of 
the Senator? That we debate it this evening and we let the leaders set 
the time for the vote tomorrow but we spend at least 2 hours on the 
Cornyn amendment and the side-by-side and at some time designated by 
the leadership we vote on it tomorrow morning at an appropriate time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think, in response to the inquiry, I 
would like to see the amendment before I begin the debate. What I 
propose is to see the amendment tonight and be prepared when we come 
into session tomorrow morning to begin that debate. The chances are we 
will be able to yield some time back, but I am proposing 2 hours, 
evenly divided, and then to schedule the vote sometime before noon 
tomorrow morning at a time agreed upon by the bill managers and the 
leadership.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are making that available. I strongly 
support it and urge it, as I understand the Senator isn't proposing 
that exactly at this moment but intends to do so, pending the 
examination of the amendment. I certainly support that process. We will 
wait. It is not being propounded at this particular time, as I 
understand it, until he has a chance to look at it, but that would be 
the intention about the way to proceed. We will make available to him 
the side-by-side and then hopefully have an opportunity to propose the 
consent agreement sometime in the very near future. We then would maybe 
proceed to consider the DeMint amendment, and we will in the meantime 
get ahold of the Finance Committee to deal with the Senator from Texas, 
to check with our side to see whether we have an intervening amendment. 
That is what I would hope. But I hope very much we are going to 
continue to do the business of the Senate this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think we are making some progress. I 
accept the invitation of the Senator from Massachusetts. Let's talk and 
write this up. Then we can make sure we are all on the same page. The 
fundamental agreement would be a 2-hour time agreement to debate this 
tomorrow morning, with a vote no later than noon tomorrow at a time 
mutually agreed upon by the leadership and the bill managers. I think 
we can come to some agreement on that basis.
  With that, based on that understanding, then, I will be glad to 
remove my objection. I withdraw my objection to proceeding with the 
DeMint amendment, and I withdraw my consent request for the time being.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn. The Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see the Senator on the floor. I was going to try to 
see if we could not get Senator DeMint over to do that in a timely way. 
It is on health insurance. We will do it in a timely way. In the 
meantime, we are working with the Finance Committee to try to be able 
to deal with the Senator from Texas. I would like to try to do that. I 
was going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I will not do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 1174

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also have a germane amendment that I have 
been trying for some time to get called up and get pending. I ask 
unanimous consent that amendment No. 1174 be made pending. I am happy 
to set that aside or discuss it now. I would like at least to get it in 
the queue so at some point it could be voted upon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have the Hutchison amendment. I have 
no intention to try to exclude the Senator. We are making a note at 
this particular time--we have been trying to cooperate. We have been 
trying to get an amendment up for the last hour or so. But there were 
others on our side who wanted to offer theirs, and at least our leaders 
wanted us to try to dispose of the underlying ones before we add one. I 
will reluctantly object to it, but I give personal assurances we will 
do everything we can to get it up in a timely way, but at this time I 
have to object to that consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the amendment I just tried to call up,

[[Page 14511]]

amendment No. 1174, was objected to, and I hope at some point we can 
get agreement to allow it to be put into the pending status that will 
allow it to be voted on at some point. But since we are on the bill, I 
would like to speak to the amendment.
  Amendment No. 1174 is a very straightforward and simple amendment. 
What it does is it removes a loophole in the underlying bill that 
allows noncriminal illegal immigrants to obtain immediate legal status 
before any of the border security measures set out in this bill are 
deployed and inserts language that prohibits probationary benefits from 
being issued to an illegal immigrant before the effective date triggers 
are implemented.
  Despite what the proponents of the bill are saying, the immigration 
proposal before the Senate would give illegal immigrants immediate 
legal status upon enactment by providing legal immigrants with the 
opportunity to apply for a probationary Z visa or, as it is labeled in 
the bill, a ``Probationary Authorization Document.'' Illegal immigrants 
can obtain immediate legal status because of a huge exception set out 
in the very first sentence of this very large bill. This exception 
makes the trigger requirements of beefed-up border security and 
internal security irrelevant, in my view. It is an exception that I 
believe swallows up the rule.
  This exception completely undermines what is supposed to be a key 
principle of the bill, and that is that no legalization of the illegal 
immigrant population in this country can occur until the border 
security and workplace enforcement provisions in the bill are certified 
as funded, in place, and in operation.
  My amendment simply does away with this section by striking it from 
the underlying bill and inserting language that prevents any 
probationary benefit from being issued before the ``effective date 
triggers'' are implemented.
  Not only does this bill provide for immediate legal status for 
illegal immigrants before any of the border security measures in the 
bill are deployed, it also provides that illegal immigrants will be 
able to maintain legal status in this country even if the border 
security measures in this bill are never deployed.
  The very first sentence of the bill says the probationary benefits 
conferred by section 601(h) are exempt from the trigger requirements of 
20,000 Border Patrol officers and 670 miles of vehicle barriers and 
fencing and other enforcement measures.
  Section 601(h) says an illegal immigrant who files an application for 
a Z visa shall be granted probationary benefits in the form of 
employment authorization. The provision also says the illegal immigrant 
may not be detained, nor an unauthorized immigrant.
  Once an illegal immigrant applies for the Z visa; provides evidence 
that they were in the country and employed before January 1, 2007; pays 
up to $1,500 in processing fees and a $500 State impact assistance fee, 
as well as a $1,000 penalty, that individual will receive a 
probationary authorization document if he or she passes all appropriate 
background checks or the end of the next business day, whichever is 
sooner. That means the illegal immigrant will legally be in this 
country before any certification that 20,000 Border Patrol officers 
have been hired and 670 miles of vehicle barriers and fence have been 
constructed.
  Interestingly, illegal immigrants would not even have to pay the 
entire initial $1,000 penalty set out under this bill. They would have 
to immediately pay the $1,500 for a processing fee and a $500 State 
impact assistance fee, but these are merely fees, not penalties.
  Another principle of this legislation is supposed to be that illegal 
immigrants are justly punished for breaking the law before obtaining 
legal status. The bill, in section 608, allows illegal immigrants to 
put 80 percent of the penalty on an installment plan, meaning that an 
illegal immigrant would only have to pay $200 initially in penalties 
when they apply for a probationary Z visa.
  So an illegal immigrant could pay a paltry $200 penalty when they 
apply for a probationary Z visa and have immediate legal status 
conferred upon them by the next business day if nothing turns up in a 
background check. This does not amount to an adequate consequence for 
breaking our laws, nor does it put illegal immigrants at the back of 
the line. To make matters worse, no additional fence or other border 
security measures have to be deployed before this happens.
  Mr. President, what makes matters even worse is that even if the 
triggers are never met, the probationary legal status never expires. As 
the bill states clearly on page 291, line 17, all of these things: The 
immediate legalization, the trigger mechanism being made pointless, and 
the never-ending probationary legal status occur because of this 
loophole in the very first sentence of the bill.
  I would simply argue that loophole needs to be closed, and that is 
what my amendment would do. Those who have broken our laws to come here 
will be given immediate legal status, even before additional security 
fences are constructed or desperately needed Border Patrol officers are 
hired. This does not sit well with most of the people I represent in 
South Dakota from whom I am hearing every day on this issue. They are 
not happy with this bill as written.
  My amendment represents an effort to ensure that the trigger 
requirements in the bill are met before any legalization occurs by 
eliminating the exception for ``probationary benefits'' and ensuring 
that no probationary benefit for illegal immigrants can be issued until 
the trigger mechanisms in this bill are implemented.
  Mr. President, we are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of 
laws. We should be rewarding those people who have followed our laws, 
who have played by the rules, and not putting those who have entered 
the country illegally in front of them. Before any effort is made to 
deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, we first 
must secure the border.
  Despite claims to the contrary, the bill in its current form would 
give illegal immigrants immediate legal status before any further 
border security measure is deployed. My amendment would fix this flaw 
in the bill. I would hope, Mr. President--I would also add that Senator 
Grassley from Iowa is a cosponsor of this amendment.
  I hope we will have an opportunity at some point to debate this, to 
vote on it, because I think this is a fundamental flaw in the bill that 
needs to be corrected. It is a loophole which I think completely 
undermines the whole intention of this bill; that is, to make sure that 
certain conditions are met before the legalization process is allowed 
to move forward. This, as I said, is a very straightforward, simple 
amendment, one that I think is very understandable to people across 
this country. Certainly I think it makes sense to people I represent in 
the State of South Dakota.
  I hope at some point those who are managing this bill will allow this 
amendment to be called up, to be made pending, and ultimately to be 
voted on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1197 to Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1197.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1197 to amendment No. 1150.

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

(Purpose: To require health care coverage for holders of Z nonimmigrant 
                                 visas)

       At the end of subsection (e) of section 601, add the 
     following:
       (9) Health coverage.--The alien shall establish that the 
     alien will maintain a minimum level of health coverage 
     through a

[[Page 14512]]

     qualified health care plan (within the meaning of section 
     223(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight one of the most 
important domestic issues this country is facing, and that is rising 
health care costs. I think it is also important to point out that 
nearly 10 million noncitizens are uninsured according to the September 
2006 U.S. Census report on the uninsured.
  Since no hospital can legally deny a person health care because of 
their immigration status or inability to pay, my amendment would help 
prevent that cost from being shifted to the American taxpayers in the 
form of uncompensated care. Since about three-fourths of all 
uncompensated care costs are paid by taxpayers in the form of national 
and State programs, it is imperative the Senate pass my amendment that 
would require Z visa holders to maintain a minimum level of private 
health coverage.
  Under this amendment, minimum health coverage would be defined as a 
high-deductible health care plan. It is my firm belief these visa 
holders should take some responsibility for their own health care and 
avoid burdening American taxpayers when they have medical problems.
  By requiring Z visa holders to have a minimum level of private health 
insurance, it will help keep individuals off public assistance and out 
of the emergency rooms. According to the Economic Research Initiative 
of the Uninsured, immigrants as a group are nearly three times more 
likely to be uninsured than native-born U.S. citizens.
  I am almost certain some of my colleagues will say it is not possible 
for these visa holders to afford a private health insurance plan. In 
fact, there are plenty of high-deductible policies available on the 
individual market that are affordable, with an average cost of about 
$116 a month. Furthermore, these plans have seen only a 2.8-percent 
increase on an annual basis compared to 8 percent for all other types 
of health plans. This low rate of increase is another reason high-
deductible health plans are affordable to those with lower incomes.
  It is also important to point out that by having their own high-
deductible health plans, visa holders will be able to keep their policy 
regardless of their employer. Many employers who want less expensive 
labor will likely help their employees pay for these high-deductible 
policies.
  Mr. President, it is also important to point out that there is a 
precedent for this type of action. In 1993, the Department of State 
issued regulations requiring students entering the United States under 
exchange visas to have health coverage. This amendment would only 
extend this policy to Z visa holders.
  What is most troubling to me is that this legislation before us does 
almost nothing to stem the rising costs of uncompensated care. If we do 
not pass my amendment, the growing cost of uncompensated care currently 
at $41 billion per year will only be exacerbated.
  Supporters of this bill will point to the State Impact Assistant 
Grant Program that is established in the legislation. This grant 
program would be funded through fees paid by the immigrant, and it 
would be administered by the Federal Government to repay States for 
health and education expenses.
  However, even the bill language suggests, through a sense of the 
Congress, that this will not be enough to solve the problem of illegal 
immigrants using our health care services at a cost to the American 
taxpayer.
  Our country is spending $2 trillion per year on health care. While my 
amendment does not address the entire problem, it does address the 
problem of noncitizens using our resources at a cost to the American 
taxpayer. In my opinion, there are many problems with this legislation. 
But I believe this amendment will at least improve upon this extremely 
flawed bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I can have the attention of the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  His amendment will maintain a minimum level of health coverage 
through a qualified health plan in the meaning of 223(C) of the 
Internal Revenue Code. Is that right?
  Mr. DeMINT. Right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is the health savings accounts?
  Mr. DeMINT. Generally, high-deductible plans are accompanied by the 
health savings account.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So if they had other kinds of health coverage at all, 
they still would not be--unless they have this particular coverage, the 
high deductible, they would not be able to make--adjust their status.
  Mr. DeMINT. This is the minimum level as established by the high-
deductible policies. Certainly, more comprehensive plans would fit in 
the context of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator aware now that the undocumented or aliens 
are not eligible for any of the Medicaid proposals at the present time?
  Mr. DeMINT. For the first 5 years, that is correct. But that does not 
mean they cannot access any of our health clinics, emergency room 
services, and a lot of uncompensated care can be directed at the 
current group of illegal immigrants in our country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Why did the Senator select just this particular health 
coverage rather than being able to participate in HMOs or other kinds 
of programs?
  Mr. DeMINT. Well, we are establishing a minimum level, which the 
minimum would be the high-deductible policies, often accompanied by 
health savings accounts. This does not prevent an immigrant from having 
a more comprehensive plan, an HMO. But the point of the amendment is 
not to mandate a comprehensive plan but to establish a minimum level of 
coverage, which is more affordable particularly to low-waged workers.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What is the estimate that the Senator has for this 
coverage? What is the estimate that they would have to pay out for this 
coverage?
  Mr. DeMINT. The average of high-deductible plans is $116 a month. I 
will just say as an aside, I just bought a high-deductible plan for my 
22-year-old daughter at $65 a month. This, obviously, leaves some to be 
paid by the workers themselves. But it avoids the high-risk cost of a 
worker who may have complicated, very expensive problems, for that 
whole bill to land on a hospital, which often happens.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If there are preexisting conditions--how does this 
amendment affect preexisting conditions?
  Mr. DeMINT. Well, we do not specify. It may be something we want to 
cover in an additional amendment. But many States, as you know, now 
have high-risk pools which are available to all workers in the State 
regardless of immigration status.
  This certainly may not cover every possible problem. But if we are 
going to issue Z visas, I think the point is that they become an asset 
to our economic environment in this country, and certainly if they are 
uninsurable that may suggest that they are not a viable worker as well.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, we have 47 million Americans who don't have 
coverage at the present time. But you want to insist that anyone, these 
undocumented are going to be mandated individual coverage in order to 
be able to adjust their status?
  Mr. DeMINT. Obviously, the uninsured are a problem, and many of us 
are working on ways to solve that. It is one thing to ask American 
taxpayers to help take care of their fellow citizens. It is another 
thing to ask Americans to help assist those from all over the world. 
Certainly, our hearts go out to anyone with health problems, but we 
cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize low-wage workers for 
employers who are using them in this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Of course, CBO studies which have been released in the 
last few days show that immigrant workers contribute much more in terms 
of taxes than they use in terms of services by about $24 billion over 
the estimate of the length of this plan.
  Mr. DeMINT. There is obviously a lot of research that refutes that. 
The Heritage Foundation has come out with

[[Page 14513]]

quite an extensive study that suggests the low-wage workers, 
undereducated immigrants in this country today, cost an average of 
$19,000 a year more in taxes than they pay. This group, as a whole, 
over the next three decades will cost $2.4 trillion to the American 
taxpayer. So there is a lot of research that suggests that 
undereducated, low-skilled workers are going to be a net loss to the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have heard studies quoted. Generally, around here we 
use Congressional Budget Office figures for actions in the State. They 
reach a rather dramatically different conclusion than the studies the 
Senator has mentioned.
  Mr. DeMINT. Certainly, the Senator will agree it should not be the 
obligation of the American taxpayer to subsidize low-wage workers for 
employers. Frankly, I believe if we ask these immigrants to pay their 
fair share, employers are more likely to hire American workers in the 
first place rather than lower wage workers who are actually being 
subsidized by the taxpayer. This health plan is one idea to ask these 
immigrants and their employers to carry the fair load and not to dump 
the cost of health care on other workers in this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Of course, the workers themselves have to contribute 
$550 as part of their cost anyway, their contribution to the State. In 
terms of consideration of covering any of the costs, that was sort of 
put into the legislation itself, in terms of the additional fees and 
additional fines as well, that addition to help offset any of the 
expenses that would be carried in the State itself.
  Mr. DeMINT. I think the Senator obviously knows--and the bill 
language suggests--this is a small token of what the real costs are, 
not only for health care but education, daycare, and other services 
that are often used by these immigrants. Again, to ask these immigrants 
or their employers if they would like to assist in paying $100 or a 
little more a month to keep them from becoming a burden to the 
taxpayers is a small thing to ask for someone who is taking advantage 
of the opportunities in this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is important to get health care and health care 
coverage for all who do not have it. The real issue is the best way to 
pursue that. That is something we have to take a look at.
  I see the Senator from West Virginia is here and wishes to address 
the Senate on an important matter about our friend and colleague from 
Wyoming.
  I yield the floor and thank the Senator.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from West Virginia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Amendment No. 1267, As Modified, To Amendment No. 1150

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1267 and note 
that I have a modification of that amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment, as 
modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 1267, as modified, 
     to amendment No. 1150.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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, as modified, is as follows:

       Section 218A(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     added by section 402, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Period of Authorized Admission.--
       ``(1) In general.--Aliens admitted to the United States as 
     Y nonimmigrants shall be granted the following periods of 
     admission:
       ``(A) Y-1 nonimmigrants.--An alien granted admission as a 
     Y-1 nonimmigrant shall be granted an authorized period of 
     admission of 2 years. Such 2-year period of admission may be 
     extended for 2 additional 2-year periods.
       ``(B) Y-2 nonimmigrants.--Aliens granted admission as Y-2 
     nonimmigrants shall be granted an authorized period of 
     admission of 10 months.
       ``(2) Y-1 nonimmigrants with y-3 dependents.--A Y-1 
     nonimmigrant who has accompanying or following-to-join 
     derivative family members in Y-3 nonimmigrant status shall be 
     limited to two 2-year periods of admission. If the family 
     members accompany the Y-1 nonimmigrant during the alien's 
     first period of admission the family members may not 
     accompany or join the Y-1 nonimmigrant during the alien's 
     second period of admission. If the Y-1 nonimmigrant's family 
     members accompany or follow to join the Y-1 nonimmigrant 
     during the alien's second period of admission, but not his 
     first period of admission, then the Y-1 nonimmigrant shall 
     not be granted any additional periods of admission in Y 
     nonimmigrant status. The period of authorized admission of a 
     Y-3 nonimmigrant shall expire on the same date as the period 
     of authorized admission of the principal Y-1 nonimmigrant 
     worker.
       ``(3) Supplementary periods.--Each period of authorized 
     admission described in paragraph (1) shall be supplemented by 
     a period of not more than 1 week before the beginning of the 
     period of employment for the purpose of travel to the 
     worksite and, except where such period of authorized 
     admission has been terminated under subsection (j), a period 
     of 14 days following the period of employment for the purpose 
     of departure or extension based on a subsequent offer of 
     employment, except that--
       ``(A) the alien is not authorized to be employed during 
     such 14-day period except in the employment for which the 
     alien was previously authorized; and
       ``(B) the total period of employment, including such 14-day 
     period, may not exceed the maximum applicable period of 
     admission under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Limitation on Admission.--
       ``(A) Y-2 nonimmigrants.--An alien who has been admitted to 
     the United States in Y-2 nonimmigrant status may not, after 
     expiration of the alien's period of authorized admission, be 
     readmitted to the United States as a Y-2 nonimmigrant after 
     expiration of the alien's period of authorized admission, 
     regardless of whether the alien was employed or present in 
     the United States for all or only a part of such period, 
     unless the alien has resided and been physically present 
     outside the United States for the immediately preceding 2 
     months.
       ``(B) Readmission with new employment.--Nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to prevent a Y nonimmigrant, 
     whose period of authorized admission has not yet expired or 
     been terminated under subsection (j), and who leaves the 
     United States in a timely fashion after completion of the 
     employment described in the petition of the Y nonimmigrant's 
     most recent employer, from reentering the United States as a 
     Y nonimmigrant to work for a new employer, if the alien and 
     the new employer have complied with all applicable 
     requirements of this section and section 218B.
       ``(5) International commuters.--An alien who maintains 
     actual residence and a place of abode outside the United 
     States and commutes, on days the alien is working, into the 
     United States to work as a Y-1 nonimmigrant, shall be granted 
     an authorized period of admission of 3 years. The limitations 
     described in paragraph (3) shall not apply to commuters 
     described in this paragraph.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to briefly describe what this 
amendment does. I understand there is not a plan to have a vote on this 
amendment this evening, but I wish to explain briefly what this 
amendment does.
  There are three programs in the underlying bill that are related to 
so-called temporary workers. One of them is the new guest worker 
program. That is the program we amended the provision of 2 weeks ago 
when we reduced the number of people eligible to come into the country 
under that program each year from a number of 400,000 to 600,000 down 
to 200,000.
  This current amendment, amendment No. 1267, I have called up again 
deals with that same guest worker program. It tries to make the program 
more workable. The underlying bill says if a person comes into this 
country under that program, that person is eligible to get a visa for 2 
years to work here, then is required to leave for 1 year, then is 
eligible to come back again for another 2 years, then is required to 
leave for another year, then is eligible to come back again for another 
2 years, and then is required to leave permanently. So it is what I 
have come to refer to as the 2-1-2-1-2 structure of this guest worker 
program.
  Frankly, it does not make a lot of sense. It does not make a lot of 
sense from the point of view of employers or employees--guest worker 
employees--

[[Page 14514]]

or American workers who might also want to apply for those jobs or 
similar jobs.
  Let me explain what I have in mind.
  As regards an employer, if someone came into my office in the Senate 
and said: I have a great proposal for you. I would like to work for you 
for 2 years and then I am going to take off for a year, and then I will 
come back again and want my job back for another 2 years, and then I am 
going to take off for another year, and then I am going to come back 
and want my job back for another 2 years, I would not hire such a 
person. It would not make any sense. You need continuity in your 
workforce. You do not want people coming and leaving for substantial 
periods of time. So from an employer's perspective, this makes 
absolutely no sense.
  From the employee's perspective, if you are one of the guest workers, 
what are you supposed to do during the year you are not permitted to 
stay in this country? You are supposed to go back to your home country. 
Why would we believe that person would be able to support themself and 
their family during that year when they are not working here? They have 
to find a job there. When they leave there, obviously, that employer's 
employment situation is disrupted. So that does not make sense from the 
point of view of those guest workers.
  It does not make sense from the point of view of American workers who 
might want these jobs. These are generally thought of as construction 
jobs. These are not agricultural jobs we are talking about, and they 
are not seasonable jobs. They are permanent jobs. It is just that by 
the provisions of this bill, we are suggesting let's take a permanent 
job and try to make it temporary by kicking people out of the country 
every 2 years. So that is the only thing temporary about these jobs.
  This does not make sense from the point of view of American workers 
either. American workers who want to work in these construction 
positions will find there is a constant flow of entry-level workers 
coming back into this country every year saying: OK, I know I was here 
before. Now I am back again. I am starting at the bottom of the ladder 
again. Pay me the entry-level wage, and I will take any job you have.
  So the upward pressure on wages in that construction industry is 
eliminated. There is no upward pressure. You have this very large group 
of entry-level workers coming back every year. This does not make good 
sense.
  My amendment simply says, let's do what we did last year. We passed a 
bill last year. We had good bipartisan support for it. Basically, the 
bill, last year, said: Let's do one 3-year visa, and let it be renewed 
for a year. What I am proposing in my amendment is, let's do a 2-year 
visa. Let it be renewed twice. Then the 6 years is up.
  So we are not changing a lot of other aspects of the bill. I know 
there are some in this Senate who think we should change other aspects. 
In fact, I think we should as well. But I am not trying to do that in 
this amendment. I am saying let's at least eliminate this 1-year hiatus 
that is built in between each of these 2-year visas we are providing 
for in this guest worker program.
  To me, this is eminently sensible. It is something we ought to do. 
Governor Napolitano wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times on June 
1 of this year, and she said the following:

       The proposed notion that temporary workers stay here for 
     two years, return home for a year, then repeat that strange 
     cycle two more times makes no sense. No employer can afford 
     this schedule--hiring and training, only to have a worker who 
     soon will leave. It will only encourage employers and workers 
     to find new ways to break the rules.

  What we are doing is setting up a system that will encourage workers 
to overstay their visas. Much of the illegal immigration problem we 
have in this country today is not because people have sneaked across 
the border--although there are many of those--it is because people have 
come here legally and overstayed their visas, and they are now 
illegally living in this country.
  If you ever wanted to have a system that would generate more people 
coming here and illegally overstaying their visas, we have designed it 
in this bill. So my amendment tries to correct that to some extent. It 
says once they come here and go to work, they are given a 2-year visa. 
They can renew that two times and work the full 6 years. So it 
maintains the 6-year limit that the sponsors, the architects of this 
legislation, have intended, but it makes a lot more sense in the way it 
works.
  Let me mention one other aspect which I think is crucial; that is, we 
need a system that is workable. We do not have the capacity today--we, 
the Federal Government--to keep track of people who leave the country. 
We can keep track of the ones who come in, but if you ask the 
Immigration Service how many of those who come in are still here, they 
do not know. We do not have the capacity today to track the people who 
leave.
  So we are setting up a system where we have 200,000 a year coming in. 
Two years later that 200,000 is supposed to leave. The next year 
200,000 more people come. Two years later that group is supposed to 
leave. We have no way of implementing this system and ensuring it is 
being complied with. So the whole thing is assuming a capacity and a 
capability that the Federal Government does not have today.
  It would be much simplified if we were to adopt the amendment I have 
offered. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It would 
improve this bill significantly.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, to give some information to the Members, 
as I understand, Senator Hutchison and the members of the Finance 
Committee are meeting. As a point of information, the Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and staff are meeting with the Finance Committee 
staff to consider those particular proposals. We have given the 
assurance to her that the Senate will address those issues at some 
time, but since it was just dealing with Social Security, although 
there are provisions in here that deal with Social Security, it is 
entirely appropriate that we ought to have the Finance Committee work 
on that.
  The Senator from New Mexico has offered an alternative on the 
temporary worker program that is a serious amendment, and we could, if 
we are--we will have to find out what the pathway is between voting on 
one side and voting on the other, to be able to consider that, but that 
is an important alternative to what is the underlying legislation. I 
know there is going to be some response to that from Members very 
shortly.
  On the amendment of Senator DeMint, he had indicated he was going to 
come to the floor to offer it. We were hopeful we might be able to 
consider that and have a vote on that later on as well.
  At the present time, we are trying to work to see if we cannot find a 
situation where we can get two votes, one from the Democratic side and 
one from the Republican side, on measures that have been included on 
that list that have been talked about earlier, and the Members of the 
staffs on the Republican and Democratic side are working to see if we 
can't refine the list of different amendments to see what might be 
acceptable and then what might be germane and see if we can't refine 
this list. So that, I know for people outside the Senate, doesn't sound 
like much of an explanation about what is going on, but it is important 
and often produces additional motions here in the Senate. So we will 
have more information on this.
  A very brief word on the DeMint amendment. His amendment requires a 
high deductible health insurance for each undocumented; otherwise, they 
would not be able to proceed with their earned legalization program 
which includes payments of the fines, demonstration of the work 
product, the investigations that show they have not had challenges in 
terms of the law, and the series of requirements that are out

[[Page 14515]]

there. He would add to this the additional expenditures which would be 
necessary for coverage with a high deductible health insurance.
  There are several points to mention here. First of all, in the 
underlying legislation, we have included a payment, some $500, that 
will be paid by each of the 12.5 million immigrants who are out there, 
many of whom will adjust their status. If they pay that $500, that is 
in excess of $1 billion--$1 billion that will be paid to those high-
impact States, which is not insignificant, to help offset any of the 
kinds of utilization of these individuals in terms of the services 
within these various States. That is not insignificant.
  Secondly, all of us are hopeful of trying to get universal coverage 
for people in this country, but we know we have 47 million who don't, 
and the ones who don't, it isn't that they don't want to have health 
insurance, it is because they cannot afford it. When you look at these 
individuals whom we are talking about, the undocumented and their 
income, we are talking about individuals who are earning $8,000, 
$9,000, $10,000 a year. If they have the adjustment of the status, they 
are going to be part of the whole kind of American system, hopefully, 
and meeting the other kinds of requirements, and therefore their 
enhanced opportunities are going to be there so they will be able to 
afford health care in the future. But making the requirement now will 
only state to those individuals to keep them in the shadows. It is one 
more barrier that is going to prohibit them from being involved.
  A final point--and I ask unanimous consent to have this material 
printed in the record--the utilization of these health care facilities 
as we have seen in the most recent study, particularly in the State of 
Texas, which shows that, by and large, these are individuals who are 
younger, have used these health emergency centers very rarely. We have 
the studies that have been done, particularly the most recent one in 
Texas.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Special Report, December 2006


undocumented immigrants in texas: a financial analysis of the impact to 
                      the state budget and economy

       * * * to develop an estimate of the fiscal impacts to 14 
     Texas border counties. In addition to sheriff's offices, they 
     calculated costs to the following offices for each county:

     District Attorney
     District Court
     District Clerk
     County Attorney
     Court at Law
     Justice of the Peace
     Indigent Defense
     Adult Probation
     Juvenile Services

       They also included an estimated emergency medical care 
     cost, but their estimate included costs for both offenders 
     and non-offenders who are undocumented immigrants. The 
     Comptroller's report includes a separate calculation 
     estimating Texas health care costs for undocumented 
     immigrants, so these costs were subtracted from the U.S./MBCC 
     estimate.
       The U.S./MBCC estimated that the cost to these 14 border 
     counties was approximately $21.5 million. Of that amount, 
     sheriff's offices accounted for approximately 60 percent of 
     expenditures for undocumented immigrants. Applying this ratio 
     to the figure calculated for sheriff's office costs produces 
     an estimate of $81.7 million for costs related for processing 
     and incarcerating undocumented immigrant offenders for the 15 
     highest SCAAP grant recipients. These 15 counties received 88 
     percent of the 2005 SCAAP money awarded to Texas counties; 
     $81.7 million divided by 0.88 produces an estimated total 
     cost of $92.9 million.
       This figure represents a conservative estimate, as the 
     SCAAP grantees represent 95 of Texas' 254 counties and 87 
     percent of the state's population. Some of the remaining 
     counties also may incur criminal justice costs related to the 
     processing and incarceration of undocumented offenders. For 
     example, five of the 14 border counties included in the U.S./
     MBCC study did not submit SCAAP applications in 2005.
       Total estimated costs for education, health care and 
     incarceration are detailed in Exhibit 13.


                         VI. Economic Benefits

       This section analyzes two issues: the economic impact of 
     undocumented immigrants in Texas, including their 
     contributions to state employment, wages and revenues over a 
     20-year period (2005 through 2025); and the contributions of 
     undocumented immigrants on Texas government revenues.


                            Economic Impact

       The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that between 1.4 million 
     and 1.6 million undocumented immigrants resided in Texas in 
     March 2005. To achieve a conservative estimate, this analysis 
     relies on the lower boundary of this range.
       Using 2000 Census data for the number of foreign-born 
     residents in Texas counties, it is possible to estimate how 
     many undocumented immigrants reside in each of Texas' 24 
     Council of Government regions, based on the assumption that 
     immigrants are distributed in the same proportion as the 
     foreign-born. Based on an age profile of foreign-born 
     immigrants into the U.S. from Mexico, it is possible to 
     further disaggregate the estimates into age and gender 
     groups.
       These data then can be put into the Comptroller's Regional 
     Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) model to investigate the impact 
     of undocumented immigrants on the Texas economy. This is 
     accomplished by instructing REMI to act as if these 
     immigrants were to suddenly vanish from Texas and then to 
     examine the degree to which the underlying economic forecast 
     for the state and for each region would be affected. The 
     implicit assumption is 1.4 million undocumented immigrants 
     have employment and spending patterns consistent with 
     Hispanics in Texas with similar age and gender profiles.
       To gauge the economic impact of undocumented immigrants, 
     one additional change must be made in the REMI model. Because 
     REMI is a general equilibrium model, it tries to compensate 
     for changes in a variety of ways. In the case of workers 
     eliminated from a region, the model assumes new workers will 
     be recruited to make up for their loss.
       While this is an expected ``real-world'' result, a true 
     test of the effects of unauthorized immigrants would be seen 
     only if the REMI model were prevented from importing 
     additional workers into the state in compensation.
       The model eliminates the impact of all undocumented 
     immigrants on the Texas economy. Some in-migration was 
     allowed, but drawing in new Hispanic in-migrants in numbers 
     disproportionate to their share of the indigenous population 
     in the U.S. was prohibited. Effectively, this shut off return 
     in-migration from Mexico and other Latin-American countries.
     Model Results
       Probably the easiest way to summarize the contribution of 
     undocumented immigrants to the Texas economy is to consider 
     the percentage changes that might occur in various economic 
     indicators as a result of their removal. (As a yardstick, it 
     should be noted that 1.4 million people account for slightly 
     more than 6 percent of the total Texas population.)
       Exhibit 14 and 15 summarize the changes in key economic 
     indicators, and summarize the economic impact. Without the 
     undocumented immigrant population, Texas' work force would 
     decrease by 6.3 percent. This decline is actually somewhat 
     lower than the percentage of the work force actually 
     accounted for by undocumented immigrants, since REMI assumes 
     some additional immigration would occur to replace the 
     workers lost. The most significant economic impact of losing 
     undocumented workers would be a noticeable tightening in 
     labor markets.
       This tightening would induce increases in wages, as 
     indicated by a rise in average annual compensation rate. Wage 
     rates would rise by 0.6 percent in the first year and stay 
     above the forecast rate throughout the entire 20-year period.
       While pay increases can be viewed as a positive social and 
     economic development, when they rise due to labor shortages 
     they affect economic competitiveness. In this case, it would 
     be expressed as a modest decline in the value of Texas' 
     exports.
       The remaining broad economic measures all point to an 
     initial impact of undocumented immigrants of about 2.5 
     percent in terms of the value of production and wages in the 
     Texas economy. Eliminating 1.4 million immigrants would have 
     resulted in a 2.3 percent decline in employment, a 2.6 
     percent decline in personal income and a 2.8 percent decline 
     in disposable personal income in 2005. This change also would 
     generate a 2.1 percent decline in the gross state product 
     (GSP), the broadest measure of the value of all goods and 
     services produced in Texas.
       While none of these changes are surprising, the one finding 
     that may appear unusual is the persistence of the decline. If 
     no in-migration were possible other than from natives or 
     authorized immigrants, employment would remain 2 percent 
     below the baseline forecast 20 years later. The impact 
     lessens over time, but remains sizable throughout the 20-year 
     forecast period.
       The primary adjustment the model makes to compensate for 
     the loss of these undocumented migrants is initially a rise 
     in the wage rate, which would induce some new in-migration 
     into Texas and some additional participation in the labor 
     force from current residents. Moreover, with wages rising 
     relative to capital, there would be some substitution of 
     capital for employees so the need for additional workers is 
     lessened through productivity increases. But the fact that 
     the Texas economy cannot adjust completely to

[[Page 14516]]

     the loss of this labor through these changes and retain its 
     competitiveness ultimately means that relative to the rest of 
     the world the cost of production in Texas is higher, making 
     our goods less competitive in the international marketplace 
     and decreasing the size of the Texas economy.
     Regional Distribution
       Assuming that the current distribution of unauthorized 
     immigrants is similar to the distribution of the foreign-born 
     population in Texas from Central America and Mexico, as 
     detailed in the 2000 Census, the economic impact of 
     unauthorized immigrants varies substantially across Texas. As 
     detailed in Exhibit 16, the loss of 1.4 million undocumented 
     immigrants from the work force would produce work force 
     declines ranging from 22.7 percent in the South Texas COG 
     region (the Brownsville-McAllen area) to 1.7 percent in 
     Southeast Texas (the Beaumont-Port Arthur area).
       Generally, undocumented immigrants have the highest 
     economic and demographic impact in the Border region, but 
     they are a factor in the state's more urbanized areas as 
     well. In all but one case (the Middle Rio Grande COG), Border 
     COGs would see work force declines in excess of 20 percent 
     (the Rio Grande, Lower Rio Grande and South Texas COGs). Even 
     in the Middle Rio Grande COG (including Laredo), the work 
     force impact of undocumented immigration is more than double 
     that in the Houston-Galveston COG.
       Other measures of economic impact are distributed 
     similarly. Estimated population, employment and GSP declines 
     would be highest along the border but also high in large 
     metropolitan areas elsewhere in the state. The least affected 
     regions in Texas would be those along the Louisiana and 
     Oklahoma borders.
       By 2025, a good portion of the work force and population 
     changes would lessen, but in all regions the employment and 
     gross regional product declines would remain sizable, 
     indicating that the economic impact of undocumented 
     immigrants is unlikely to be replaced by other economic 
     changes (Exhibit 16).
     Revenues
       Estimating state government revenue attributable to 
     undocumented immigrants is a difficult undertaking because 
     any calculations must be based both on limited data and a 
     number of significant assumptions about spending behavior. A 
     review of the literature found several studies on 
     undocumented immigrant impacts, but none that could be used 
     as a model for Texas. Primarily, these studies focused on the 
     impact of all immigrants, regardless of legal status, and the 
     analyses focused on federal or state income tax revenue. 
     Since Texas has no income tax, any estimate of state tax 
     revenue must be based on its mix of consumption and business 
     taxes.
       Texas state government receives revenue from a wide variety 
     of sources, but these generally can be grouped as tax 
     collections, federal funding, licenses and fees and all other 
     sources of revenue. In fiscal 2005, $29.8 billion of the 
     state's total revenues of $65.8 billion came from tax 
     collections. Federal revenue contributed $22.8 billion and 
     licenses, fees, fines and penalties accounted for almost $6.2 
     billion. Other sources, such as interest income and lottery 
     proceeds, generated the rest.
       For the purposes of this analysis, major tax sources were 
     analyzed to determine if a significant portion of collections 
     could be attributed to consumer spending. Similarly, some 
     major sources of revenue from fees and fines were identified 
     as appropriate to the analysis. Sources of revenue excluded 
     from the analysis include federal revenue and all other 
     sources that could not be attributed directly to consumer 
     behavior. While the state generates revenue from literally 
     hundreds of taxes and fees, this estimate is based solely on 
     revenue sources reflecting spending by undocumented 
     immigrants.
       State revenues included in the analysis, can be grouped in 
     five categories: consumption taxes and fees, lottery 
     proceeds, utility taxes, court fees and all other revenue. In 
     addition, local school property tax revenue is estimated. 
     Consumption tax revenue totals are composed primarily of 
     revenue from the sales tax, motor vehicle sales and use tax, 
     gasoline tax, alcoholic beverage taxes, cigarette and tobacco 
     taxes and the hotel tax.
       Estimated revenue for each tax is calculated based on 
     information from two sources. The Pew Hispanic Center 
     produces data on average income and demographic 
     characteristics of undocumented immigrants nationwide (again, 
     no detailed demographic data are available at the state 
     level). The estimate of annual average family income used in 
     this analysis is $27,400. In addition, data from the 
     Comptroller's tax incidence model shows the tax impact for 
     households at the estimated average income level.
       State utility tax revenue mostly comprises the gas, 
     electric, and water utility tax and this estimate uses the 
     same basic data on average income along with the final 
     incidence impact for this tax. Similarly, local school 
     property tax revenue is based on the same data and the 
     incidence specific to the school property tax.
       Estimated lottery revenue is based on a Lottery Commission 
     study of the percent of the population that plays lottery 
     games and the average amount spent by each income level. 
     Court costs and fees were calculated on a per capita basis 
     since they are largely unrelated to income.
       ``All other revenue'' consists of a number of smaller 
     consumer taxes and fees that may well include some amounts 
     paid by undocumented immigrants, but for which no data exist 
     to base an estimate. The largest of these sources is higher 
     education tuition; other sources include state park fees and 
     the fireworks tax. This estimate assumes that undocumented 
     immigrants contribute to the state through these revenues at 
     the same rate as for the major consumption taxes and fees 
     except for higher education tuition and fees. These 
     contributions were calculated in proportion to higher 
     education student enrollment.
       As shown in Exhibit 17, estimated fiscal 2005 revenue to 
     the state from undocumented immigrants in Texas is about $1.0 
     billion, or about 3.6 percent of the $28 billion in state 
     revenue considered in this analysis. In addition, an 
     estimated $582.1 million in school property tax revenue can 
     be attributed to undocumented immigrants, or about 2.9 
     percent of the statewide total. Undocumented immigrants, 
     thus, contributed nearly $1.6 billion in estimated revenue as 
     taxpayers in fiscal 2005.


                            vii. conclusion

       The immigration debate has become more heated in 2006. 
     Congressional hearings were held across the U.S. to discuss 
     the impact of undocumented immigrants on the economy and the 
     culture. At the same time, two distinctly different pieces of 
     legislation were voted out of the U.S. House and Senate.
       The Comptroller's office estimates the absence of the 
     estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in 
     fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our Gross State Product 
     of $17.7 billion. Also, the Comptroller's office estimates 
     that state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants 
     exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference 
     being $424.7 million (Exhibit 18).
       The largest cost factor was education, followed by 
     incarceration and healthcare. Consumption taxes and fees, the 
     largest of which is the sales tax, were the largest revenue 
     generators from undocumented immigrants.
       While not the focus of this report, some local costs and 
     revenues were estimated. State-paid health care costs are a 
     small percentage of total health care spending for 
     undocumented immigrants. The Comptroller estimates cost to 
     hospitals not reimbursed by state funds totaled $1.3 billion 
     in 2004. Similarly, 2005 local costs for incarceration are 
     estimated to be $141.9 million. The Comptroller estimates 
     that undocumented immigrants paid more than $513 million in 
     fiscal 2005 in local taxes, including city, county and 
     special district sales and property taxes. While state 
     revenues exceed state expenditures for undocumented 
     immigrants, local governments and hospitals experience the 
     opposite, with the estimated difference being $928.9 million 
     for 2005.

  Mr. KENNEDY. So at the appropriate time, I hope the DeMint amendment 
would not be accepted. We might have more time to consider it, if the 
Senator wants to, when we have more of our colleagues here later, prior 
to the disposal of it. I was sort of hoping we could see a continued 
movement on several of these amendments, but we are being told now we 
have to have this clearance from the leadership on some of these 
measures, but we are hopeful we will announce to our colleagues very 
shortly what the plan is for the rest of the evening.
  We are prepared to stay here, remain here and go through to dispose 
of these amendments. We have made important progress in the past. We 
have some important amendments which are pending. I think Senator 
Specter and I and the others who are interested in this--I see my good 
friend from Colorado, Senator Salazar, and others who are more than 
willing to have a good discussion about these amendments, and we would 
welcome the opportunity to have the Senate express itself with votes. 
That is certainly our desire. We wish to see continued progress on this 
extremely important legislation.
  As one of those with others who has been a part of this process, we 
want to try. We know it is complicated and difficult. We know there are 
strong emotions. But I think all of us, after the period of this 
Memorial Day recess, understand full well the American people are 
expecting us to take action. They know that failure is not an 
alternative. They know it is complex. They know there are great 
emotions. There are a good many who know nothing out there--people who 
distort, misrepresent, misstate the legislation, and then differ with 
it, and that has certainly been done with regard to this legislation. 
We have, at least to date, had

[[Page 14517]]

good debates and discussions on substantive matters, and the Senate has 
reached conclusions on a number of these matters. It is certainly our 
desire to continue that process to work with our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to commend those who have worked on 
the immigration bill. I know their hearts are in the right place and 
they have attempted to come together to solve a very critical issue for 
our country and they are to be commended for their efforts.
  I understand that if we call up an amendment, it will be objected to, 
and I think that is unfortunate. As the country sees, if we are going 
to have an immigration bill, then we need to have a real, full debate 
on all aspects of that bill and each Senator should have opportunities 
to offer amendments.
  I think the bill has a lot of good in it. I think a lot of positive 
things have come through. However, there are two or three critical 
errors I believe that are incorporated in the bill. Quite frankly, one 
of them is the bill's plan, in terms of guest workers and managing the 
load of the Z visa holders. There is not the capability out there right 
now to do that.
  I have an amendment which creates a real trigger, and that is what 
everybody in this country wants.
  The reason there is a stir in the country about immigration today 
comes from the very fact that we have had laws on the books that we 
haven't enforced. When you have a free society and you have laws on the 
books that are not enforced, you get all sorts of untoward expectations 
that come about out of that. The No. 1 expectation that has come out of 
that is the American people don't trust us when it comes to 
immigration. I believe we have to earn back that trust. The way we earn 
back that trust is to secure the border. The way we earn back that 
trust is to enforce employer verification. The way we earn back that 
trust is internal enforcement.
  The goals, as I said, of those who have worked hard in putting this 
bill together are admirable. However, the trigger is anything of a 
trigger, and it is something that would not accomplish its purpose.
  I ask unanimous consent at this time that the pending amendment be 
set aside and amendment No. 1311 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I was in 
consultation. Could the Senator restate his request? I apologize to 
him.
  Mr. COBURN. Amendment No. 1311.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator chooses to call up his amendment.
  Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what we were attempting 
to do is, as we have been moving from one side to the other, Republican 
and Democrat, to have the introduction of amendments on both sides. 
That is what we would like to do. We have had a flurry right now of 
amendments. I hope we get an opportunity--I think, quite frankly, there 
are more amendments on that side than on this side, as a factual 
matter.
  What they have tried to do is match amendment for amendment on both 
sides. That has been what they have tried to do through the day today. 
Whether that will be the way it will be in the future, I don't know. As 
I mentioned, there are more amendments on that side. So, obviously, we 
are going to have to deal with more. At the present time, they are 
trying to match one side with the other side in terms of amendments. So 
I hope that if we have amendments on this side, the Democrats would 
notify us so we can match them up and propose them together.
  I necessarily have to object at the present time. I hope we will not 
have to object when we get our final list. To try to maintain at least 
that balance, which was at least the way we were attempting to proceed, 
I have to do it at the present time. I will do everything in my power 
to make sure that, having done so, his amendment will certainly be 
considered in a timely way so it doesn't work to his disadvantage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. I trust the Senator's integrity. But it is unfortunate 
for the American people, and also for the Senate, that we use a ruse 
that we have to have offsetting amendments be heard, when the fact is 
we are going to bring this amendment up, and we are not going to debate 
it tonight. The fact is it is going to be objected to being called up 
and being in the queue.
  That overshadows the fact that I know the Senator would like to have 
a full and fair debate on this bill, but it seems we cannot get 
together to allow that. I will come back multiple times tomorrow to 
offer this same amendment and try to get it up. It is unfortunate that 
the body has to work this way tonight because we don't want to truly, 
in fact, allow all of the amendments on this bill.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                     National Hunger Awareness Day

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' 
attention and remind them that today, June 5, 2007, is National Hunger 
Awareness Day. As a founder of the Senate hunger caucus and an original 
cosponsor of the legislation, I express my heartfelt belief that this 
cause deserves our full attention.
  We all move very fast in this world on Capitol Hill. We sometimes 
forget that outside the beltway bubble there are a lot of hard-working 
families, as well as other families that may not be quite so blessed, 
in terms of their everyday needs being met.
  The resolution that established National Hunger Awareness Day allows 
for food collection. That is one thing we are doing on Capitol Hill 
today. We are doing a food collection for the needy, where Members and 
their staffs can bring food to my office, as well as the offices of the 
other hunger caucus cochairs, Senator Smith, Senator Dole, as well as 
Senator Durbin. I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to 
participate in such a very important effort.
  Our collection drive has been going on for several weeks, and we will 
soon be providing the food donations to the U.S. Veterans, a charity 
based in Washington, DC, that assists homeless veterans with food and 
housing during their recovery. Certainly, as we recognize the diversity 
in the homeless community and those who suffer from food insecurity, as 
well as poverty, we must not forget, particularly in this time, the 
number of veterans in our great Nation, those who served our country so 
bravely and courageously in a time of need, and what a perfect time 
right now is to be able to recognize that on National Hunger Awareness 
Day.
  I have worked with my Senate colleagues to draw attention to this 
issue because hunger and poverty are not just global issues; they are 
so pervasive that we all have some experience with them in our local 
communities, whether it is work we may do with our own houses of 
worship or whether it is something we do with our community-based 
organizations or community support activities. But we all can find a 
way where we recognize how pervasive poverty, and particularly hunger, 
is in this world.
  Worldwide, 3 billion people--nearly half the world's population--live 
on merely $2 per day. In our Nation alone, almost 38 million Americans 
struggle day in and day out to find adequate nutritional food. More 
than 13 million are children living in households that are food 
insecure.
  That brings it home to me from several different directions: As a 
daughter raised in a seventh generation Arkansas farm family, watching 
my dad take an incredible sense of pride in being able to produce crops 
he knew would feed his fellow man, taking pride in being efficient and 
effective with what he produced, and knowing what he could do would 
help sustain his fellow man. To look out on the crops and those 
farmlands I grew up on, and to think that 13 million children are 
living in households that are food insecure, with all of the plenty and 
the bountiful life we have in this great

[[Page 14518]]

country, breaks my heart. Then I think of myself as a mother of twin 
boys who are about to turn 11 years old, and I look up and think to 
myself how grateful I am to be able to know they will get a nutritious 
meal; to see them when they come home from soccer practice and look up 
at me and say, ``Mom, I'm starving,'' and how blessed I am to be able 
to go to a cupboard and provide a nutritious snack to them; yet to 
think about other mothers across this globe who are not so fortunate, 
who have to look into the eyes of their own children and say there is 
nothing here for you, nothing to eat, nothing to nourish your body or 
your mind or your soul in the form of food.
  We can do better than that. I feel blessed I have never had to 
experience what it is to suffer from hunger. But I have tried to put 
myself in the shoes of those mothers who look into the eyes of their 
children and have to give them that answer.
  Now, in conjunction with National Hunger Awareness Day, I have also 
recently elected to accept the food stamps challenge and live on an 
average food stamp program payment of $1 per meal. I went to the 
grocery store the other day, and I went down those aisles looking at 
what I could find that was economical and nutritious that I could 
prepare and would have the time to prepare, not just for myself, which 
I am the only one in my household doing the challenge, but nonetheless, 
to think of the time that working parents would have to spend to figure 
out how to put together a nutritious meal for them and for their 
children on $1 per person per meal. It is my hope that my participation 
in this event will not only create awareness in myself but also for 
others in highlighting the difficulties that millions of Americans 
living at or near the poverty line face each and every day. In 
addition, I hope to increase my understanding of the limitations of the 
Food Stamp Program and the importance it plays in assisting the food 
insecure and the hungry by experiencing what it is like to live it 
firsthand, to be looking for those foods and what you can afford on $1 
per meal.
  We had a woman--a very courageous woman--who came and testified 
before the Senate Agriculture Committee on the Food Stamp Program. She 
brought with her her son who is 11 years old, similar to my boys, who 
sat there. She said: You know, I don't make it a habit of discussing 
financial issues in front of my young son, but this is so important to 
me, to point out that I work hard at a full-time job, and I still do 
not make enough money to provide for my family. I still am able to 
accept food stamps. She said: But look at what I have to do to manage 
that.
  Then I looked at her testimony and realized that not only was she 
caring for her own son, she was volunteering with the PTA, the Cub 
Scouts, and the local library. She was helping her community also, 
helping raise all those children. Yet she was still subjected to living 
in food insecurity.
  We can do better than that. As a Member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I wish to ensure that we do improve the delivery and 
maintain the integrity of nutrition programs when we consider the farm 
bill later this year. I wish to also make sure we maintain the 
integrity of our ability in this great Nation to produce a safe and 
abundant and affordable food supply. We pay less per capita than other 
countries across the globe. Yet we still see that working families are 
living in food insecurity. Over 60 percent of the farm bill budget pays 
for important initiatives that directly provide food and nutrition 
assistance, such as the Food Stamp Program, the fresh fruits and 
vegetables program for schools; and we are finding now that oftentimes 
for those children that may be the only access they have to fresh 
fruits and vegetables; a farmer's market program for low-income 
seniors, among others, that we are striving so hard to not only 
eliminate food insecurity but to make sure we are working hard to 
provide for all Americans, for the needs that exist.
  We must continue to fund these important programs, and we must look 
for new and innovative ways to ensure that Americans do not go hungry. 
I know that when I worked downtown, there was a man regularly at the 
front door of the office building I would go into. He would sit there, 
usually with a cigarette and a bottle and, you know, I felt so driven, 
both by my faith and simply my human nature, and I knew that in my life 
on this Earth, I should never, ever want to see another human being 
going hungry. That is when I decided to start giving out food coupons--
not giving out dollars but making sure my fellow man--doing all that I 
could do, so he and others would not go hungry if I were there.
  In the coming weeks and months, I encourage my colleagues to become 
more aware, more educated, and more informed about the effect of hunger 
and poverty and to find out what impact you can have in your State and 
in your community. I encourage all Americans to do that. Think about 
the difference it makes--those 13 million children living in food 
insecurity--how much better they could perform in school if they 
weren't hungry; how less likely they would be to get sick if they were 
getting nutrition; how much more confident they would be in who they 
were and who they could become if they knew that their country was 
there to nurture them in the most basic and essential need: food.
  There is no quick solution to this problem. Government alone cannot 
provide all the answers. We know that. As we look across these strong 
communities in our country and we see food banks sponsored by our 
faith-based organizations and the outreach of volunteers that provide 
Meals on Wheels and all kinds of other programs, we know that 
Government cannot do it all. But we also know that, as Americans and as 
an American family, the values we hold dear are values of being a good 
neighbor. That is a critical part of what this is all about. Together, 
we must work to reach out to organizations in our communities that are 
committed to this cause and develop a public-private partnership that 
provides resources and the manpower to combat food insecurity in this 
country.
  Yes, we must teach our children. We must teach our children to become 
engaged in recognizing food insecurity, poverty, and hunger where it 
exists and to recognize that they, too, have a responsibility.
  I noticed my son the other day when he came home, and he said: Mom, I 
am responsible for bringing some lunch meat to school because our 
student government is going to provide sack lunches to the homeless 
shelter out here in our community. The student government got together 
and made the lunches and put them together and then delivered them 
where they could visit the individuals they were actually helping, 
assisting, and giving notice.
  In closing, I would like to leave my colleagues with just a few 
thoughts. I know many of you all read the same Scripture I do. First 
and foremost, I believe my faith calls me, and it calls all of us, 
regardless of faith, to care for those who are less fortunate; to feed 
the poor and the hungry. I can tell you I am proud that our current 
nutrition program works toward that goal, but does it do enough? No. We 
can all do more. We can all do more in reaching that goal.
  Today, on National Hunger Awareness Day, we need to begin by asking 
ourselves what more can we do to eliminate hunger and poverty in our 
community and in our world. It has been said: To those to whom much is 
given, much is required. We live in this great country. Such a blessing 
to each and every one of us. The opportunity to do for our fellow man 
is an incredible responsibility. To us, much has been given, and much 
will be required in giving back.
  I appreciate my colleagues' attention to this issue, and I ask each 
and every one to reflect on what it is that we can do collectively as a 
government that reflects the values of who we are as an American family 
and what each of us has to do individually that reflects the values 
that we hold dear. One of the things we must remember, hunger is 
something that has a cure. There are many diseases and many things we 
debate on the floor of this body for which we don't yet have a cure. We 
don't know how we are going to solve those

[[Page 14519]]

problems. Hunger has a solution and it has a cure and it is our 
responsibility to strive hard each and every day to find that cure for 
our fellow man.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague 
from Arkansas, the senior Senator from Arkansas, for the passion that 
she has shared with us that she has had for some period of time about 
the plight of the hungry.
  Indeed, she is accurate in pointing out that in the ancient 
Scriptures there are over 2,000 references to the poor. And, indeed, 
she quoted very accurately from the Book of Matthew, where one of the 
great admonitions is to do it unto the least of these, my brothers and 
sisters, and one of those admonitions: When I was hungry, you fed Me. 
So I thank her for that.
  Having just come back from Africa, participating in a number of the 
world food programs there, I would note a food program is not only 
necessary there because of the obvious, the starvation and the drought, 
and so forth, but now, with the President's new initiative and 
additional funding on the HIV/AIDS plague, in the administering of the 
antiviral drugs which have had some very positive effect, we find they 
won't work because the patients can't tolerate them if they are hungry. 
So now a program worldwide of joining the two.
  But the Senator from Arkansas has spoken so eloquently about hunger 
at home, hunger among us, and there is no reason in America, in the 
year 2007, that we should stand idly by and turn a blind eye to the 
needs around us among the poor. I thank her for her comments and her 
passion that she brings to this subject.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Hunger 
Awareness Day and to give voice to the difficult reality that exists 
for more than 35 million people in the United States--the experience of 
hunger.
  In a society as civilized as ours, basic sustenance should be a 
guarantee. If children--or adults--are hungry in America, that is a 
problem for all of us.
  Yet hunger continues to affect the lives of millions of families, 
including over 14 million children who live below the poverty line.
  In the past few years, there have been multiple efforts to make 
``hunger'' disappear--not as a troubling reality for millions, but as a 
term in surveys and press releases.
  Every year, the USDA issues a report that measures Americans' access 
to food, and it has consistently used the word ``hunger'' to describe 
those who can least afford to put food on the table.
  But starting in 2006, hunger facts and figures began to disappear and 
were replaced by measures of ``food security,'' a more scientifically 
palatable term.
  Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the proposed 
administration budget cuts to the Survey on Income and Program 
Participation--the only large-scale measure of the impact of Medicaid, 
food stamps, school lunches, unemployment and other safety net programs 
for the poor.
  All these efforts put forth the false notion that nobody's hungry in 
America.
  But despite the fact that we don't use words and we don't use 
numbers, the presence of hunger is ever so clear.
  We can see it in the faces of children at school who have not had a 
decent meal since yesterday's school lunch. We can see it in the 
families at food pantries showing up a day earlier than normal because 
their monthly pay is not stretching as far it once did. We can see it 
in the loving parent giving up their own meal to make sure their child 
has something to eat at night.
  In a land that prides itself as the land of plenty, we cannot hide 
the fact that we need to do a better job at making sure everybody has 
at least enough to eat.
  Each hungry child that we allow suffer chips away at the moral 
strength of our country. This land of opportunity--and the American 
dream--should not allow for 37 million of its people to live in 
poverty, to live hungry.
  Our moral strength, our commitment to our community is a foundation 
of our country. The well-known American journalist, Bill Moyer, just 
last week put it best when he said:

       It's right there in the Constitution--in the Preamble: 
     ``We, the People''--that radical, magnificent, democratic, 
     inspired and exhilarating idea that we are in this together, 
     one for all and all for one.

  And he was right, this is the ``heart of democracy'' and more 
importantly, it is the heart of humanity. As Bill says, the prayers we 
say are prayers for all of us: ``Give us this day our daily bread.'' 
And his is the most important message that should inspire us today: 
``We're all in this together; one person's hunger is another's duty''.
  Hunger is a problem for all of us. I hope that we all work together 
to fulfill our duty to end hunger in our Nation and the world.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the 
occasion of National Hunger Awareness Day.
  Hunger and poverty are among the great moral challenges confronting 
our society. Hunger and poverty require us all to respond--because our 
society can be judged by how we treat our most vulnerable citizens. If 
there is a child out there who has done everything she has been asked 
and still has to say no to the college of her dreams, that makes a 
difference in our lives, even if it is not our child. If there is a 
senior citizen who has to go bag groceries because some company broke 
their promise about his pension, that matters to us, even if it is not 
our grandparent. If there is a veteran who has been wounded in this 
war, and ends up back here on the streets picking through a dumpster 
for food, that diminishes the patriotism of every American.
  This week the Food Research and Action Center, FRAC, has released its 
annual study: ``State of the States: 2007.'' This important research 
highlights levels of hunger, poverty and the use of federal nutrition 
programs nationally and in each State.
  This report and its findings underscore why we must continue the push 
in Congress to strengthen proven anti-hunger measures such as the Food 
Stamp Program. We have made progress over the last few decades in 
combating extreme hunger in our communities. But the work is not over. 
In Illinois, for example, more than 150,000 households are hungry, and 
many more families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming 
hungry. We can do better. That is why I have joined my friend Dick 
Durbin in pushing to strengthen antihunger measures in this year's farm 
bill, and I will continue to support vital programs that can reduce 
hunger in our communities. The Food Stamp Program, for example, helped 
an average of 26.7 million Americans each month last year, while on 
average the USDA has estimated that every Food Stamp dollar generates 
approximately $1.80 in economic activity. And for many families, Food 
Stamp support is vital during their transition from TANF to employment. 
This is the kind of nutrition and antipoverty program Congress should 
be enhancing and investing in.
  I am also proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1172, the Hunger Free 
Communities Act, which was introduced by Senator Durbin and enjoys 
strong bipartisan support. This measure would improve and strengthen 
Hunger-Free community grants that aide our frontline antihunger 
organizations, as well as establishing much needed, hunger-focused 
research efforts within USDA and setting national goals for reducing 
hunger.
  Other Federal nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch 
Program, Women, Infants and Children, WIC, and the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, offer critical support to some of our 
Nation's neediest citizens. After all, how can we expect our children 
to be productive and attentive at school when they haven't had 
breakfast or lunch?
  I have learned from my time in Washington that hunger is one of those 
issues that every politician likes to talk about. What is harder, it 
seems, is to follow through and take substantive

[[Page 14520]]

steps to eradicate hunger in our communities. That is why I am grateful 
for the close support and collaboration of our many friends and outside 
groups that are at the frontline of combating hunger and raising the 
profile of this issue every day. They hold us accountable for ensuring 
our deeds match our words.
  I hope that my colleagues will continue to join in this important 
moral endeavor of addressing the most basic needs of our brothers and 
sisters--and strengthening our Federal nutrition programs.


                      William Clifton France, Jr.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have been mourning the loss 
of our colleague today, and I have had the opportunity earlier this 
morning of sharing with the Senate my comments concerning the life of 
Senator Thomas. Indeed, America is mourning another one of her great 
sons, and that is the past president of NASCAR, the one who built 
NASCAR into what it is today, the No. 1 motor sport--one of the 
greatest of all sports now, with 75 million followers--and that is Bill 
France, Jr., who died just a few days ago.
  Bill France is one of those great American success stories. He 
learned from his father, way back in the old days when he was tending 
to a gasoline station in Daytona Beach, FL, where he got the idea of 
starting to race stock cars. The first races were rather rudimentary 
because they went on that beautiful hard-packed sand of Daytona Beach. 
They would go down the beach for quite a distance, turn, come up on a 
road that is today called Highway A1A--and back then it was a dirt 
road--go down that a distance, turn back on to the beach, and continue 
the circular drive using the beautiful Daytona Beach. Of course, that 
graduated into the building of the Daytona Speedway, until we now have 
this NASCAR being America's No. 1 form of motor sports for 75 million 
fans.
  Bill France, in building this sport, not only started to improve the 
Daytona International Speedway, but his International Speedway 
Corporation oversaw other raceways, such as Darlington, Talladega, and 
others. Bill France followed in the footsteps of his dad, Bill Sr. He 
was a big man, 6 feet 5 inches. Bill Sr. was the founder and the first 
president of NASCAR. The France family lost Bill Sr. some number of 
years ago. I had the privilege of knowing Mr. France, Sr., and then see 
his son bring this sport into the prominent position that it is among 
all sports in the entire world.
  William Clifton France. The France family mourns his loss. The 
Senate's condolences go out to Betty Jane and his daughter, Lisa France 
Kennedy; to his son, Brian France; and to the entire France family. 
America has lost one of her great citizens, but America is the better 
for the great things that Bill France has built.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a number of things continue to be 
revealed as we analyze this monumental piece of legislation which 
purports to comprehensively reform immigration law in America and, 
indeed, any comprehensive reform bill would be extensive because it is 
an incredibly complex subject with many moving parts, many legal 
niceties and complexities, all of which, if we are going to have a 
system that works, need to come into place.
  It has been stated repeatedly by those who have proposed and promoted 
the legislation which is before us today that this legislation will 
secure the border and we will have a lawful system of immigration in 
the future. Those claims have been made repeatedly. The proponents have 
said they are going to have additional Border Patrol agents, and so 
forth. Indeed, the PowerPoint that the White House used to make their 
presentations early on promised to ``secure U.S. borders'' and ``not to 
repeat the 1986 failure.''
  Others are saying the same thing. One of the Senators who is involved 
in the process said, ``I am delighted we are going to secure the 
border.'' Another Senator said, ``This legislation will finally 
accomplish the extraordinary goal of securing our borders.'' Another 
said, ``The agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we 
have to secure our borders. In this legislation we are doubling the 
border patrol; we are increasing detention space.'' Another Senator 
said, ``This will restore the rule of law. Without the legislation, we 
will have anarchy.'' Another one said, ``We started out with 18,000 
additional border patrol officers. We will increase the detention 
capacity.'' And so on and so forth. Even our former Governor Jeb Bush 
and Ken Mehlman wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and said, 
``It will make sure our borders become secure.''
  ``We have had broke borders in this country for 20 years.'' That is 
the truth. ``It is time we get them fixed.'' That is the truth.
  Then they add, ``And this bill will do just that.''
  Okay. There are many more I could quote along that line. But I hope, 
therefore, that every member of our body who understands the 
Congressional Budget Office and the work that organization does, how it 
is designed to analyze statutory language in our legislation to give us 
a budget score and other analysis of what that legislation is all 
about, they made a tremendously significant announcement yesterday, one 
that is quite frightening and all of us should pay attention to.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new Senate bill 
will only reduce net annual illegal immigration by 25 percent. It will 
add 550,000 visa overstays to the illegal population by 2017, and up to 
1 million visa overstays by 2027.
  In the section titled ``Effects on the United States Population,'' 
the CBO states, and I quote their article, their report:

       CBO estimates that implementing those requirements 
     [enforcement and verification requirements] would reduce the 
     net annual flow of illegal immigrants by one-quarter.

  Twenty-five percent. Then they go on to note the problem with visa 
overstays, in addition, saying this:

       Other aspects of the legislation are likely to increase the 
     number of illegal immigrants, in particular, through people 
     overstaying their visas from the guest worker and H-1B 
     programs.
       CBO estimates that another 1.1 million people would be 
     added by 2017 as a result of the guest worker program, about 
     half of them authorized workers and dependents, the remainder 
     the result of unauthorized overstays. That figure would grow 
     to 2 million by 2027.

  What I want to say to my colleagues is--and those people who have 
worked hard on the bill to try to create a piece of legislation that 
politically they think can be passed, and they worked together with 
special interest groups and everybody but the U.S. Border Patrol, and 
everybody but the American people who had an interest in immigration, 
they all plotted on how to write this thing up so they can eliminate 
political problems and split babies in half--all of that is supposed to 
create a system that first and foremost would create a lawful system of 
immigration, would eliminate the illegality and create border security.
  Now we have the Congressional Budget Office telling us that at best 
it is only going reduce illegal immigration 25 percent. As a price for 
that, we are supposed to grant amnesty to 12 million people who are 
here, provide options for chain migration to continue for 8 years, 
denying during that time highly competitive people from all over the 
world who want to come here an opportunity to come here, and delay some 
of the things in the bill that I think are positive and ought to become 
law.
  I want to tell my colleagues once more, think about this as you 
consider whether you can justify supporting the legislation. Because if 
it is going to reduce the illegal flow into this country by 25 percent, 
and actually through the guest worker program is going to allow

[[Page 14521]]

more people to overstay, then we have got a problem. You see, visa 
overstays are already nearly 40 percent of the illegal population. 
Those are people who come into the country legally, they stay here 
through their allotted time; they just do not leave when the time is 
up. They stay, they overstay.
  Under the plan we have here that has a temporary guest worker 
program, that would have after the first year some 400,000 temporary 
workers here at a given time, their parents could come to visit them, 
their spouses could come to visit them. Even spouses could come to 
visit if the spouse does not certify they intend to return and stay in 
their home country; a real tipoff that they intend to stay illegally in 
the United States if they are not entitled to stay; they want to stay 
illegally. So I think those are matters that are important to us.
  I also note there is a glaring omission in the trigger language of 
the legislation, and that omission is the U.S. exit visa, the U.S. visa 
exit portion. In other words, when you come into the country with a 
biometric card, you are approved to work as a temporary worker at some 
place, and you do your duty, you are supposed to stay 1 year, a season, 
you are supposed to stay 2 years, and then return. What happens when 
you return or do not return?
  Ten years ago we required that by 2005, we have a recording system 
that records your exit from the country, like you may have when you go 
to work and you record your time clock out when you leave work. 
Therefore, we know if the person who came left when they were supposed 
to leave, and you know if they did not.
  That is not in the bill. That is not required as a part of the 
requirement before the amnesty takes place. I wanted to share that with 
my colleagues. I think it should cause a great deal of uneasiness for 
all of us. It makes you wonder how committed the drafters of this 
legislation--and frankly, a lot of lawyers and people with experience 
in immigration and some of them not even Senators, were deeply involved 
in all of this in writing the legislation. I am not sure everybody 
caught all of these things. We are just now hearing what is in the 
bill, frankly.
  So however they drafted it, whoever wrote this in, time and again you 
see provisions in the bill--and I have listed 20; we will soon have 25 
loopholes of this kind and nature that I think indicate the drafters 
were not as committed to enforcement as they have suggested. 
Oftentimes, as I noted, drafters are not the Senators who did not do 
all of the fine-printing themselves.
  I want to note one thing in the CBO report. It has been stated more 
than once.
  Mr. President, I see the majority leader here. I can delay other 
activity. I wanted to raise this issue. I would be glad to yield to 
him. I will wrap up and say one more thing.
  It was repeatedly noted that the score by the Congressional Budget 
Office indicated the bill had minimal cost to the taxpayer over the 
first 10 years. Now we knew without dispute that in the second 10 and 
even in the decades that go beyond that, the cost surges. But even in 
the first 10, they said there would be little, if any, cost. But if you 
read their latest report in detail, you will note that is only true if 
you consider Social Security taxes paid by those people who are 
legalized under this bill.
  But, you see, that should not be counted and will not be counted in a 
budget situation, because the money paid to Social Security is set 
aside for that person's retirement. If they pay into Social Security 
now, they are going to draw it in retirement later. That is an off-
budget matter. That is a Social Security matter. That income should not 
be counted. When you eliminate that money for Social Security, you come 
out with a $33 billion cost in the first 10 years of this legislation, 
according to our own Congressional Budget Office. Those numbers will 
surge in the decades to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez.) The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Members, we are very 
close, we hope, to having two votes. It should be momentarily, in the 
next 10 minutes. It might be better.
  We are trying to work out something on the McConnell amendment and 
the Feingold amendment. We have been very close to that for some time 
now. I am told we are very close to it now. We also have staff, both 
majority and minority staff, working on setting up about a dozen votes 
for tomorrow on amendments that are pending.
  As everyone knows, I offered earlier today to have the staffs work to 
find out what votes the minority has that they feel would be germane 
postcloture, so maybe we can come up with a finite list of those. We 
are willing to be reasonable, but we do have to move this along.
  I have had a number of Members say to me: Well, let us take another 
week or two on this bill; it is worth it. I know how people feel about 
this bill. We are not spending another week or two on this bill. It is 
Tuesday. We still have Wednesday, Thursday, Friday to finish this bill, 
could work into the weekend if necessary. This is an important bill, 
but we need to finish it. We need to finish this. That is why cloture 
will be filed tonight. I have offered a unanimous consent request so we 
would not even have to vote on it Thursday morning; we could vote on it 
Thursday night. I have also suggested if people are serious about 
moving this bill, we only need the one cloture vote on a substitute. 
That is the way it normally works, anyway; you don't have to turn 
around and vote on the bill itself. Rarely does that happen. That would 
only be if someone is trying to stall this matter.
  I hope we can dispose of a lot of amendments. I hope tomorrow or the 
next day we could vitiate the request for cloture and have final 
passage on the bill. We want to be reasonable. That is why the staffs 
have been instructed to try to work on a way to get from here to there.
  But this stage has been very difficult, because a lot of people who 
want to offer most of the amendments are people who have no intention 
of ever voting for this bill, no matter what happens. We are still 
going to process their amendments. They have a right to their 
amendments as does anyone else, even though their definition of 
improving the bill is, I guess, relative.
  Mr. President, we still do not have anything here yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as I understand the procedure the leader 
has been exercising, it is only one or two amendments are allowed to be 
placed in the pending category, and if one attempts to bring up an 
amendment, leadership objects.
  I tried to bring up an amendment Friday, and there was an objection 
to make it pending. I tried to bring up an amendment Monday. There was 
an objection on a very--we are sort of being slow walked. I would ask 
the leader, would he allow us to bring up a substantial number of 
amendments and get them pending, so if he files for cloture and got it, 
you would have a chance to get those amendments voted on? If they are 
not pending, we will not get to vote on them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama, he has two amendments that are pending now.
  We have found in weeks past, months past, it is important to dispose 
of amendments that are pending; otherwise, you wind up that the person 
who offered the last amendment controls what goes on here on the floor. 
There have been a number of additional amendments that have been filed 
today. As I indicated, staff is now working on a procedure to dispose 
of all of the pending amendments, have votes on those tomorrow.
  As I have said earlier today, in fact a few minutes ago again, often 
here in the Senate, when we come to situations such as this, we say: 
Okay, let's get a list of finite amendments. How many amendments do you 
want to offer? Then we try to work that out. It is a little difficult 
to do, because any

[[Page 14522]]

one Senator can stop that. But we are trying to come up with a finite 
list of amendments. The two managers, Senators Kennedy and Specter, 
have worked on this, and their staffs are working on this, along with 
mine. Right now there is an effort to move this forward. I hope we can 
do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 1170

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is an amendment that has been filed 
and may be considered this evening, which I think is extremely 
important. I wish to speak to it. It is the McConnell amendment, 
offered by the Republican leader, amendment 1170, to the immigration 
bill.
  This amendment has very little to do with this immigration bill, but 
it is one of the most important issues any Congress could ever 
consider. It is about Americans' right to vote.
  The right to vote is the most fundamental right in a free and 
Democratic society. In fact, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court 
called it ``preservative of other basic civil and political rights.''
  I think that is fair warning to all of us that when we consider the 
McConnell amendment, we should understand this is not just another 
amendment. This amendment goes to the heart of our franchise as 
Americans. It goes to the heart of our democracy. We have come a long 
way in our country on the issue of voting rights. Last year, we 
reauthorized the historic Voting Rights Act, the landmark act passed in 
1965 safeguarding the right to vote for millions of Americans who had 
been denied that fundamental right for generations. The amendment 
offered by Senator McConnell to this immigration bill will undermine 
the Voting Rights Act. It will restrict voting rights in America. It 
will diminish the voting rights of our American citizens, particularly 
minorities, the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. That is a historic 
decision. This is not another commonplace amendment; it is an amendment 
of great moment.
  I might add, the McConnell amendment is opposed by nearly every major 
civil rights group in America today. The McConnell amendment, simply 
stated, would require that all Americans bring a government-issued, 
current, valid photo ID with them when they vote. The idea may sound 
reasonable on its face until you look closely.
  The fact is, many Americans don't have a photo ID. Twelve percent of 
Americans don't have a driver's license. Who are those 12 percent? By 
and large, they are minorities, the poor, the elderly, and the 
disabled. A 2005 University of Wisconsin study showed that over 50 
percent of African-American and Hispanic adults in Milwaukee don't have 
a valid driver's license. The McConnell amendment will have a 
disproportionately negative impact on these groups. It will diminish 
their right to vote.
  Second, the McConnell amendment may be on its face unconstitutional. 
The State of Georgia passed a photo ID law in 2005, and it was struck 
down by the courts. A Federal district court judge said it constituted 
a modern-day ``poll tax'' and was presumptively unconstitutional. An 
appellate panel of three judges, including two Republican appointees, 
agreed. What gave rise to the Georgia photo ID law? Was there a history 
of election fraud in that State? No. The Georgia secretary of state 
said she was unaware of a single documented case in recent years of 
fraud through impersonation of a voter at the polls.
  Cries of voter fraud are heard over and over again. It is one of Karl 
Rove's inspired strategies to keep raising this issue. But these are 
phantom cries. Look at the numbers. Since 2002, 196 million votes have 
been cast in Federal elections. Do you know how many voter fraud 
convictions there have been from those 196 million votes? Fifty-two out 
of 196 million. Most of these were for vote-buying and voter 
registration fraud, neither of which would be stopped by a photo ID.
  Sadly, and cynically, photo ID laws are being pushed by some for 
partisan reasons.
  Seventh Circuit Judge Terrence Evans wrote, while dissenting in a 
recent Federal case that upheld a photo ID law in Indiana:

       Let's not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID 
     is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day 
     turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic. We 
     should subject this law to strict scrutiny . . . and strike 
     it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.

  We have recently learned about the troubling role played by partisan 
political appointees at Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department in 
clearing the Georgia photo ID law. According to press reports, the 
career staff at the Justice Department made a recommendation to object 
to the Georgia photo ID law because they believed it would have a 
discriminatory impact on minority voters. But the career employees at 
the Department of Justice were overruled by the political appointees of 
the President and Alberto Gonzales.
  One of these political appointees, Bradley Schlozman, was rewarded by 
receiving a U.S. attorney appointment in Kansas City, MO--job well done 
for Mr. Schlozman. He went to Kansas City and decided he would continue 
to pursue the Karl Rove strategy of voter fraud. By any objective 
measure, Mr. Schlozman was unqualified to be a U.S. attorney. As he 
testified earlier today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. 
Schlozman had never worked as a prosecutor and never even tried a case. 
But by embracing this phantom voter strategy of Karl Rove in Georgia, 
Mr. Schlozman earned his stripes and was promoted. In the eyes of Karl 
Rove, Kyle Sampson, and Monica Goodling, he was a ``loyal Bushie.''
  I was proud to cosponsor a resolution in 2005 by my colleague, 
Senator Obama. The resolution condemned the Justice Department's 
approval of the Georgia photo ID law and expressed the sense of 
Congress that requiring a photo ID in order to vote places a 
discriminatory burden on voting rights. The McConnell amendment is an 
attempt to impose the Georgia photo ID law on America. This measure was 
debated and defeated in 2002 when we enacted the Help America Vote Act. 
It should be defeated again now.
  I realize the photo ID requirement was proposed a few years ago by a 
bipartisan commission. But since that commission report was issued, new 
research conducted for the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission 
has shown that photo ID requirements reduced turnout in the 2004 
election by 3 percent. It showed that with voter ID requirements, 
Hispanics were 10 percent less likely to vote and African Americans 6 
percent less likely. Is that what we should do in Congress--create 
barriers for minorities to vote?
  The McConnell amendment is unfair and unconstitutional. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
7:20 this evening be for debate to run concurrently with respect to the 
McConnell amendment No. 1170 and the Feingold amendment No. 1176, with 
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators McConnell, 
Feingold, or their designees; that no amendment be in order to either 
amendment prior to the vote; that each amendment must receive 60 
affirmative votes to be agreed to; that if they do not receive 60 
affirmative votes, then the amendment be withdrawn; that the amendments 
be voted in the order listed in this agreement; and that there be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to the second vote and that the second 
vote be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
consideration of S. 1348 tomorrow, June 6, there be 2 hours of debate 
equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy and Cornyn or 
their designees, with the time to run concurrently on the Cornyn 
amendment No. 1184, as modified, and a Kennedy amendment relating to 
the same subject, with no amendments in order to either amendment prior 
to the vote; that upon the use or yielding back of

[[Page 14523]]

the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Kennedy 
amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Cornyn 
amendment, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the second 
vote, and with the above occurring without further intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I would hope this would set the process in order that we 
can work through all these amendments. The staffs have been working, 
lining up other amendments, for votes on those. This is the third time 
now I have asked for a list of finite amendments. We hope they will be 
germane amendments but finite amendments. We will see if we can have a 
period of time that we ask for those. When that time arrives, those 
would be all the amendments that would be available on this bill. We 
have done that on many previous occasions. I hope it works.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a group of Senators who constructed this 
bill have been meeting and are trying to follow the plan that the 
majority leader has just articulated. We would ask the cooperation of 
all those who have amendments to be in a position to move promptly 
tomorrow with time agreements to see if we can't show sufficient 
progress tomorrow to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           amendment no. 1176

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support 
amendment No. 1176. This amendment contains the language of S. 621, the 
Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bipartisan bill I have introduced with 
my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
  This amendment would create two fact-finding commissions: one 
commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German 
Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World 
War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's 
treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War 
II. This amendment would help us to learn more about how recent 
immigrants and refugees were treated during World War II.
  The United States fought a courageous battle against the spread of 
Nazism and fascism. But we should not let justifiable pride in our 
Nation's triumph in World War II blind us to the treatment of some 
Americans by their own government.
  Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the 
authority of Executive Order 9066 and the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. 
Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes 
and into relocation and internment camps. Through the work of the 
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians created by 
Congress in 1980, this unfortunate episode in our history finally 
received the official acknowledgment and condemnation it deserved.
  But that same respect has not been shown to the many German 
Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans who were 
taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, 
deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in 
internment camps. This amendment would simply create a commission to 
review the facts and circumstances of the U.S. Government's treatment 
of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans 
during World War II. It is time for a full accounting of that sad 
chapter in our history.
  A second commission created by this amendment would review the 
treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing 
Nazi persecution and genocide and tried to come to the United States. 
German and Austrian Jews applied for visas, but the United States 
severely limited their entry due to strict immigration policies, 
policies that many believe were motivated by fear that our enemies 
would send spies under the guise of refugees and by the unfortunate 
antiforeigner and anti-Semitic attitudes that were, sadly, all too 
common at that time.
  It is time for the country to review the facts and determine how our 
immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish 
refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany.
  It is urgent that we pass this legislation. We cannot wait any 
longer. The injustices to European Americans and Jewish refugees 
occurred more than 50 years ago. Many of those who were harmed are no 
longer with us, the rest are very elderly.
  Americans must learn from these tragedies now, before there is no one 
left. These people have suffered long enough without the comfort of an 
official, independent study of what happened to them, and without 
knowing that this Nation recognizes their sacrifice and resolves to 
learn from the mistakes of the past.
  This amendment does not call for reparations. All it does is ensure 
that the public has a full accounting of what happened. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the bipartisan Wartime Treatment 
Study Act as an amendment to this immigration legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Republican leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1170

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as we move forward on this immigration 
bill, we need to make sure we protect voters and the 15th amendment by 
protecting against illegal voting. The Constitution maintains that 
voting is a privilege reserved for U.S. citizens. Noncitizens do not 
have this right. Those who don't abide by our laws are not free to 
influence our political process or our policies with a vote.
  The bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform 
proposed requiring photo ID cards to ensure those who are voting are 
the same people as those on the rolls and that they are legally 
entitled to vote.
  Photo IDs are needed in this country to board a plane, to enter a 
Federal building, to cash a check, even to join a wholesale shopping 
club. If they are required for buying bulk toothpaste, they should be 
required to prove that somebody actually has a right to vote.
  Some have said this legislation penalizes those who are unable to 
afford a photo ID. In fact, it establishes a grant program to provide 
no-cost photo IDs to those who cannot afford them.
  ID cards would reduce irregularities dramatically. In doing so, they 
would increase confidence in the system. An overwhelming majority of 
Americans support this attempt to ensure the integrity of our 
elections.
  An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, last year, showed that 62 
percent of respondents strongly--that is strongly--favor requiring a 
universal, tamperproof ID at the polls. Nineteen percent said they 
mildly favor IDs. Twelve percent were neutral.
  Add that up, and you have over 80 percent who think this is a good 
idea. America is very accustomed to showing a photo ID to do virtually 
anything.
  Ninety-three percent of those who were asked for their opinion were 
either undecided or in favor of implementing the control, as I 
indicated.
  Two dozen States already require some form of ID at the polls. That 
is 24 of our States. Almost half of them already have this requirement.
  My amendment simply establishes a Federal minimum standard that is 
consistent and allows States wide flexibility in determining the kind 
of ID required.
  We need to harden antifraud protections at the polls to protect the 
rights of all voters. Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, and 
we must preserve its integrity.
  I yield the floor.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is debating 
how to reform our Nation's immigration policies, and while this is a 
contentious debate, there is one point I think all sides agree upon--
U.S. citizenship is a prized possession. The most fundamental right 
afforded to us as U.S. citizens is the right to vote. I am disturbed 
that

[[Page 14524]]

there is an amendment being offered on this bill that seeks to limit 
citizens' access to that right.
  Senator McConnell has offered an amendment that requires U.S. 
citizens to show identification before they can exercise the most 
important right afforded them by the U.S. Constitution. Proponents of 
this bill argue that this identification is necessary to combat voter 
fraud. In fact, before the last elections in 2006 we heard a great deal 
about the threat of voter fraud.
  This administration staked a lot on that so-called threat. We have 
learned in recent months that such a threat just did not exist. The St. 
Louis Post-Dispatch said it best, when, in an April 17, 2007 editorial, 
the paper called this whole ``voter fraud'' issue a ``snipe hunt'': 
``In a snipe hunt, gullible kids are taken out to the woods, handed 
sticks and gunny sacks and told track down the elusive snipe. 
Meanwhile, their pals, who know a snipe is a bird of marsh and shore 
and generally found nowhere near the woods, yuck it up.''
  Well, in this snipe hunt, the Senate is supposed to fall prey to the 
ruse that there are folks out there just lining up on election day to 
fraudulently cast their vote and we in the Senate and in Congress need 
to get our sticks and gunny sacks ready, so we can snare some of these 
fraudulent voters. Well, let me tell you, I am not going to fall for 
it.
  Because the facts say something different. A 5-year study by the 
Election Assistance Commission shows that voter fraud is almost non-
existent. A report from the Missouri Secretary of State shows that no 
one in the State tried to vote with a fake ID in 2006. The Carter-Baker 
commission said that in 2002-2004 fraudulent votes made up .000003 
percent of the votes cast. That is a lot of zeros. Let me say it a 
different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during 
these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you 
are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a 
fraudulent vote in a Federal election.
  The Department of Justice, which in 2002 created a voter fraud task 
force, has admitted that only 86 people were convicted of voter fraud-
related crimes in the last 5 years and only 24 convictions during the 
last 3 years--a rate of 8 per year.
  So, because 24 people nationwide in the last years may have voted 
despite their ineligibility to do so, we here in the Senate are 
supposed to pass a bill requiring all citizens to show ID when they 
vote.
  That would be a mistake, and you only have to look to the State of 
Georgia to see why.
  Georgia's photo ID requirement was a poll tax for the 21st century. 
It was a law that required some of the poorest in our country--those 
who probably don't have access to transportation--to possibly travel 
great distances and pay up to $35 just for the privilege of making 
their voice heard.
  We have to remember this is a group that is disproportionately poor 
and without easy access to all the documents necessary for a 
government-issued ID. So even if this ID card were completely free, how 
easy would it be for an 85-year-old grandmother to find her birth 
certificate? Who would drive the destitute all the way to the nearest 
Federal building to get one of these cards? While the McConnell 
amendment authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' to pay for these 
ID cards, it is a frightening proposal to condition the right to vote 
on the appropriations process.
  After Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, our country awakened 
to the plight of the most vulnerable Americans--the ones who, when the 
storm hit, couldn't just hop in their SUVs, fill up with $100 worth of 
gas, put some bottled water in the trunk, drive off with their credit 
card in hand, and check into the nearest hotel until the calamity 
passed. We learned that, when we pass laws and make policy in this 
country, our government too often forgets these Americans--that we too 
often ignore their needs.
  Now, here is an amendment doing that again. This time, by limiting 
access to one of our most fundamental and constitutional-protected 
rights: the right to vote.
  I would ask that all my colleagues reject the amendment so we can 
move on to the important business at hand.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator 
from Kentucky. The McConnell amendment would limit the ability of many 
American citizens to exercise the fundamental right to vote. It is 
nothing more than a 21st century poll tax.
  The 24th amendment states that ``The right of citizens of the United 
States to vote . . . shall not be denied or abridged by the United 
States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other 
tax.''
  This amendment would force all citizens to obtain a government-issued 
photo ID in order to vote. Many citizens who have voted for years don't 
own the government-issued photo identification needed to meet the 
requirement. They would have to pay for the ID or at least for the 
underlying documents needed to get one.
  Among the persons who will be hardest hit are the elderly, 
minorities, and persons with disabilities. That is who this amendment 
is targeting.
  Many seniors don't have photo ID because they don't need a driver's 
license. But they should still have the right to vote.
  Many Americans who are blind or have other disabilities also don't 
have a photo ID because they don't have driver's licenses either. But 
they should still have the right to vote.
  Some religious minorities, such as the Amish, want to vote, but their 
faith does not allow them to have their pictures taken. We should never 
require citizens to violate their religious beliefs or to pay to cast a 
vote.
  Many African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans also lack photo 
ID. Under this amendment, these citizens would lose the right to vote 
if they don't get a government-issued photo ID.
  Some citizens in this country were never issued a birth certificate, 
particularly African-American seniors born in the South or rural areas 
and Native Americans. If we pass this amendment, we turn our backs on 
them.
  Many voters had their lives devastated by Hurricane Katrina. What 
about them? What about the elderly grandmother displaced by Hurricane 
Katrina who lost all of her possessions in the hurricane and now lives 
hundreds of miles from her birthplace and home? If she doesn't drive, 
how is she going to get the documents she needs to vote under this 
amendment? If she is retired or lost her job because of the storm, she 
may not be able to afford the documents. Separated from her family and 
neighbors, she may not have anyone to help her fill out the forms and 
get to the right government agencies to obtain the documents she needs.
  This country failed the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Are we going to 
disenfranchise them as well?
  Supporters of the amendment say, ``Don't worry. Under this amendment, 
States will give out free identification cards to those who can't 
afford them.'' That sounds good in theory, but what about in practice? 
Citizens will still have to deal with State and local bureaucracies to 
prove who they are.
  Poll taxes have a dark and notorious history in this country. When we 
considered a poll tax ban in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, poll taxes 
were a tried-and-true tactic to prevent African Americans and poor 
whites from voting. I introduced an amendment to the 1965 act to ban 
poll taxes in all elections--Federal, State, and local. We had days and 
days of debate on the Senate floor about poll taxes. Not everyone 
agreed on how to fix the problem. The final amendment made clear that 
poll taxes infringe the right to vote and directed the Attorney General 
to challenge them in court.
  A year later, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme 
Court held that poll taxes are unconstitutional. The Court declared 
that ``the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so 
burdened or conditioned'' on the ability to pay.
  We thought that poll taxes and other blatant barriers to the right to 
vote

[[Page 14525]]

were vestiges of a bygone era. But today, Republican-controlled State 
legislatures around the country are attempting to enact photo 
identification laws.
  Federal and State courts have already struck down State laws similar 
to the McConnell amendment. In Georgia, a Federal court has stopped two 
different attempts to impose a photo identification requirement. Judge 
Murphy ruled the first an unconstitutional poll tax because of the cost 
that hundreds of thousands of Georgians without photo identification 
would have to pay to obtain them.
  The State's second attempt made the IDs free, just as this amendment 
supposedly does, but it was still struck down as unconstitutional. The 
court held that Georgia's interest in combating nonexistent vote fraud 
didn't justify the ``severe burden'' on voters without photo 
identification who would have to get through several layers of 
bureaucracy to obtain the documents required. A State court also ruled 
that the Georgia law violated the State constitution because it 
disenfranchised citizens who were otherwise qualified to vote.
  A similar proposal recently was struck down in Missouri. The judge 
spelled out the problem loud and clear. For some, he said, the burden 
of a photo ID requirement may not seem great. But ``for the elderly, 
the poor, the undereducated, or otherwise disadvantaged, the burden can 
be great if not insurmountable, and it is those very people . . . who 
are the least equipped to bear the costs or navigate the many 
bureaucracies necessary to obtain the required documentation.''
  Supporters of this modern-day poll tax claim it is just common sense. 
``What's the big deal?'' they ask. After all, if you need a photo ID to 
get on a plane or rent a movie or drive a car, it is only reasonable to 
require such an ID to vote.
  But voting is a right in this country and not simply a privilege. We 
need to restrict who can get on a plane or drive a car, but we should 
never restrict the precious right to vote. As Judge Callahan put it in 
the Missouri case, ``While a license to drive may be just that--a 
license and not a right, the right to vote is also just that--a right 
and not a license.''
  When proponents of this amendment stand up to explain why America 
needs this legislation, listen carefully. During the floor debate on a 
similar proposal in the House, the amendment's Republican supporters 
strained to convince us that we have a major problem because 
noncitizens and others are posing as eligible voters. But they couldn't 
give us any evidence.
  The fact is, voter fraud simply isn't a major problem. It certainly 
isn't a serious enough problem to justify disenfranchising Americans on 
a massive scale--which is exactly what this proposal would do.
  Proponents of this 21st century poll tax have no evidence that it is 
needed because all the facts show it is not needed. Here is what the 
hard evidence tells us about voter impersonation in this country:
  A recent article in the New York Times found that voter fraud is 
exceedingly rare. It found that, over a 5-year-period, the Justice 
Department, despite focusing its effort on prosecuting individuals for 
voter fraud, a top priority of Karl Rove, ``turned up virtually no 
evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections'' through 
fraudulent voting. There have been only 86 convictions nationwide. That 
is less than 90 instances of anyone voting who wasn't supposed to vote 
in the entire country in 5 years. In addition, according to the 
article, many of these people, voted or registered to vote by mistake, 
without knowing they were not eligible.
  Statewide surveys in Ohio after the 2002 and 2004 elections found 
only four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to 
vote--four out of over 9 million votes cast during those elections. 
That is a rate of 0.00004 percent.
  In Georgia, where state legislators cited voting fraud as the need 
for a photo ID law, secretary of state Cathy Cox could recall only one 
case of voter fraud involving the impersonation of a registered voter 
during her 10 years of service.
  Out of nearly 200 million votes cast since 2002, only 86 individuals 
nationwide have been convicted of election fraud. And many of those 
offenses involved conduct that would not be remedied by a photo 
identification requirement.
  The evidence also makes very clear that this proposal would 
disenfranchise millions of citizens who are eligible to vote.
  A University of Wisconsin study found that in Milwaukee nearly 50 
percent of African-American and Latino men did not have government-
issued photo identification.
  According to AARP, 36 percent of voters in Georgia over the age of 75 
don't have government-issued photo identification.
  Georgia Secretary of State Cox found that nearly 700,000, or 1 in 7, 
registered voters in Georgia do not have a driver's license or State-
issued non-driver's license, which this amendment would require in 
order to vote.
  According to the Department of Transportation, 6 to 12 percent of 
eligible voters do not currently have the identification the amendment 
would require.
  The American Association of People with Disabilities estimates that 
nearly 4 million Americans with disabilities would be disenfranchised 
if this proposal takes effect.
  Native Americans living on tribal lands, often without street 
addresses and with traditions that don't permit the taking of their 
picture, would also be disenfranchised by this law.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 11 million 
U.S.-born citizens do not have a birth certificate or passport readily 
available to them and therefore could be disenfranchised under this 
amendment. The burden falls unequally on some geographic regions as 
well as on our most vulnerable populations:
  It hurts the elderly--some 2.3 million elderly Americans lack the 
required documents.
  It hurts rural residents, since approximately 4.5 million rural 
Americans lack the documents necessary to establish their citizenship.
  It hurts citizens living in the South and Midwest--8.4 million 
residents of Southern and Midwestern States don't have the documents 
this amendment would require to vote.
  It hurts the poor--nearly 3 million citizens making less than $25,000 
a year lack a passport and birth certificate.
  It hurts African Americans--2 million African Americans lack a 
passport and birth certificate. Many elderly African Americans have no 
birth certificate because they were born at home at a time when 
hospitals were closed to African Americans because of racial 
discrimination. One study estimates that a fifth of all African 
Americans born in 1939 and 1940 were never issued birth certificates.
  Under the Bush administration we are running historic deficits and 
our debt is mounting. We can't afford the cost of a program designed to 
fight a nonexistent problem.
  At a time when Americans have serious concerns about the proper 
functioning and integrity of voting machines, the Republican Party 
responds with a solution in search of a problem. They want to pass a 
law that threatens to disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. To 
those who were disenfranchised in the 2000 and 2004 elections by 
wrongful purges, erroneous registration lists, poll worker errors, 
uncounted provisional ballots, of long lines, this is our answer?
  If the Senator from Kentucky is serious about election reform, we 
stand ready to work together. But it is cynical to take such a serious 
and important issue, so fundamental to democracy, and use it for 
partisan politics.
  Last July, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with broad 
bipartisan support. The reauthorization passed overwhelmingly in the 
House and by a unanimous vote in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats 
came together to tear down barriers to the ballot box.
  Now some on the other side of the aisle want to erect new barriers to 
voting by telling Americans they need a

[[Page 14526]]

passport to vote. If we adopt this amendment, we undermine the Voting 
Rights Act's important protections. This amendment would disenfranchise 
many of the same voters we tried to protect with that historic 
legislation last year.
  Mr. President, that is unfair, undemocratic, and unconstitutional. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin has 1 minute 37 seconds. The Republican 
leader has 2 minutes 7 seconds.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I assume we will not have the time 
before the vote, then. This is the remaining time we have, correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, my amendment, again, contains the language of S. 621, 
the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bill I have introduced with my 
friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. It is not controversial.
  It would simply create two fact-finding commissions: one commission 
to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian 
Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II and another 
commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees 
fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II.
  These commissions would complete the work of the Commission on 
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 
1980 to study the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans 
during World War II. Thanks to that commission, this unfortunate 
episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgement 
and condemnation it deserved.
  My amendment would simply allow that work to be completed. It is time 
to pass this legislation, now, before all the individuals affected by 
these policies are gone. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  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 yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The time for the Senator from Wisconsin has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is the time up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 41 seconds left of the 
Republican leader's time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the 
vote now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1170

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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 question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1170.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Allard
     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
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     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--6

     Biden
     Brownback
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
52. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1176

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to the vote with respect to the Feingold amendment.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment contains the language of S. 
621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, which is a bill I have introduced 
with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. It is noncontroversial.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct. 
Will the Senate please be in order. Will Senators and staff take their 
conversations out of the Chamber so the Senator can be heard.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator is about to speak. Other 
Senators should listen. So I will stand right here until we get order. 
May we have order in the Senate?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Look at the people up there. There are people up there. 
They ought not be in that well when there are votes going on. Read your 
rule book. Come on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore is correct.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  This bill would simply create two fact-finding commissions: one 
commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German 
Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World 
War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's 
treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War 
II.
  These commissions would complete the work of the Commission on 
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 
1980 to study the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans 
during World War II. Thanks to that commission, this unfortunate 
episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgment and 
condemnation it deserved. My amendment would simply allow that work to 
be completed. It is time to pass this legislation now before all of the 
individuals affected by these policies are gone. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there are two problems with the 
legislation, as detailed in a 5- or 6-page memorandum from the 
Department of Justice, Richard Hertling, the principal

[[Page 14527]]

Deputy Assistant Attorney General who opposes this legislation. First, 
it falsely asserts in the findings matters that slander America 
incorrectly. It finds that thousands of individuals were subjected to 
devastating violations of civil rights through arrest, internment, 
property confiscation, deportation, and detrimental effects still being 
experienced; whereas, the Department of Justice asked the senior 
historian at the U.S. Holocaust Museum about this language and he found 
that language was outrageously exaggerated and was inaccurate.
  That is in the legislation. When asked would Senator Feingold accept 
an amendment that prohibited reparations--and reparations have been 
done in some of these cases--that language was not accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     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
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Brownback
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are 
26. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are working in good faith to move this 
bill forward. We had seven rollcall votes before the recess and six 
additional amendments adopted by voice vote. That is 13. Yesterday, we 
adopted four more amendments by voice vote. Today, we had four rollcall 
votes. Tomorrow morning, we will vote on the Cornyn-Kennedy amendment, 
eligibility for legalization program, and then we are prepared to enter 
a unanimous consent agreement for the 10 remaining amendments that are 
pending. We have done quite well. We will have done 23 rollcall votes 
when we finish these 3 tomorrow, and we adopted 10 by voice vote. I 
know the staff has been working on this for some time now. I hope we 
can work out an arrangement to get rid of the pending amendments and 
move on to other amendments people talked about all day they want to 
offer. I think that is appropriate.
  Tonight, we are going to, because we agreed to lay down a Domenici 
amendment and one I am going to offer dealing with earned-income tax 
credit--those will be the two amendments we are going to lay down 
tonight. Anyway, somebody else is going to do it. There are two 
amendments we are going to lay down tonight, so we will have two more 
that will be pending tomorrow, and I hope we can arrange votes on those 
amendments. Once we finish those amendments, I hope other Senators will 
offer amendments. I hope they will consider some germane amendments.
  In addition to the amendments that are pending, we have a number of 
amendments that are at the desk, I understand, and we have taken a look 
at those, and maybe we can work something out on those amendments.
  This is a difficult bill, we understand that. I hope the offers I 
made today are considered serious. I repeat, I am not going to go 
through the litany of amendments, the unanimous consent requests. One 
is we would vote cloture--rather than Thursday morning, do it Thursday 
night. That is certainly something we could consider. Anyway, there are 
all kinds of alternatives we can do to move this bill forward if people 
want to do that.
  As I said, there is no need to run through the unanimous consent 
requests I did previously. We will call it quits for the night. There 
is no more business on this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask, so the managers don't have to stay around--I 
wonder if we can move to a period for morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. That way, the Senator from Alabama can speak, and I would 
certainly consent to, when we take up the bill tomorrow, his remarks 
appearing as though we are working on the pending legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry, I did not hear the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I asked unanimous consent that there be a period for 
morning business. I know the Senator from Alabama wishes to speak. I 
assume it is on matters dealing with immigration.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to that, I have amendments I 
offered last Thursday and Friday and Monday that were not accepted. I 
was going to ask if those amendments could be made pending in addition 
to the nine amendments which were filed this week which I would like to 
make pending so we can have votes on them.
  Mr. REID. I withdraw my consent for morning business, Mr. President. 
I think we have a couple of amendments that are part of the 10 we are 
going to try to get rid of tomorrow.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for clarification, two amendments are 
basically the same amendment. We would only vote on one pending that I 
offered last week. In addition, last week, I filed two more amendments, 
and an objection was made to making them pending. So I renew my offer 
to at least make those two amendments pending. I filed them this 
morning.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alabama, I think we have made a 
suggestion, and it is appropriate to move forward, that with regard to 
the 10 or 12 amendments now pending, we will set up times to vote on 
these, either by motions to table or if we can work out side-by-sides, 
whatever it takes, and then move to other amendments.
  Certainly, the Senator from Alabama has been patient. We understand 
he has other amendments he wants to offer. But I object at this time 
until we get some plan for tomorrow to dispose of these amendments we 
have.
  I have indicated a number of different alternatives, and others may 
come up with better suggestions. One is, let's get a list of finite 
amendments from the minority. We will add ours in with those, and we 
have done that on a number of occasions here. It will have to be done 
by unanimous consent, but it is worth a try. We can have a list of how 
many amendments people think are appropriate on this bill. Let's see if 
we can get that done by tomorrow morning.
  We know the Senator from Alabama has a number he wishes to make part

[[Page 14528]]

of that list, and other Senators have amendments they want to make part 
of that list. I have seen Senator Thune, Senator DeMint, and Senator 
Coburn here. There are other people who want to offer amendments, I 
understand, but let's get a finite list of who wants to offer 
amendments and what the amendments are.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take that as an objection to my 
request.
  Mr. REID. Yes, I did object. I am sorry I didn't make it clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Would the majority----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader controls the time.
  Mr. REID. We are on the bill still; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we are.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 1150 to Calendar No. 144, S. 1348, 
     comprehensive immigration legislation.
         Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, 
           Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Mark Pryor, Joe Biden, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Daniel K. Inouye, Herb Kohl, H.R. Clinton, 
           Evan Bayh, Ken Salazar, Debbie Stabenow, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Calendar No. 
     144, S. 1348, Comprehensive Immigration legislation.
         Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, 
           Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Mark Pryor, Joe Biden, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Daniel K. Inouye, Herb Kohl, H.R. Clinton, 
           Evan Bayh, Ken Salazar, Debbie Stabenow, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman.

                          ____________________