[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14822-14837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado still has, I think, 
1 minute 10 seconds.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry in terms of the 
time available with respect to the Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the remaining 45 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I understand that. Parliamentary inquiry: Since we 
are talking about two amendments, the Salazar amendment and the Inhofe 
amendment, then I would assume there would be another 10 minutes 
equally divided later on this evening if it is the desire of the 
offerors; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If they wanted to use the time, obviously it 
would be respected.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry again: Just to be 
clear, then, on the Salazar amendment No. 1384, there will be 10 
minutes for debate equally divided between the majority and the 
minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SALAZAR. And with respect to the Inhofe amendment, the minority 
time has expired, and there is 43 seconds left on the majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I conclude by urging my colleagues to 
vote no on the Inhofe amendment. At the end of the day, what the Inhofe 
amendment is proposing to do is to undo executive orders that have been 
signed by both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. 
Those executive orders were created in order to be able to have people 
understand what is happening with respect to the courts, with respect 
to domestic violence, and with respect to other issues that our 
government provides services for where they need to be able to 
understand what is happening with respect to the communication they are 
receiving.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1374

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1374.
  Mr. President, this bill does a laudable job in setting up a new 
merit-based system for the future. That is the right thing to do for 
our country, but the bill misses the mark.
  Our country needs an immigration system that recognizes we want to 
attract the best and the brightest from around the world. We have been 
doing that for many years because we recognize that people who are 
smart, who are talented, when they come to this country they actually 
create jobs in this country. They create opportunities for other people 
in this country.
  The current bill unfortunately misses the mark on this merit system. 
The current bill is actually worse than current law. This bill today is 
worse than current law, and that is why the high-tech community across 
the country has come out in opposition to the provisions of the merit-
based system in this bill. I want to tell a small anecdote that will 
illustrate the problems with our current system on attracting talent.
  In my office today, a gentleman by the name of Bill Watkins from 
Seagate Corporation out of California just opened a new branch in 
Singapore and hired U.S. graduates, foreign students who graduated from 
MIT and other universities. The reason he hired them to go to 
Singapore, where he will pay them less money than he would have paid 
them in the United States, the reason he sent those jobs overseas is 
because of our immigration policy that basically will educate you in 
the United States, but then after we educate you, we will send you 
home.
  The amendment I offer today says we are going to actually value 
people who are educated here, especially in the science and mathematics 
and engineering fields--we call those the stem fields--in the health 
sciences fields, we are going to give you even more points than the 
current bill does so that into the future we will attract the best and 
the brightest from around the world. It is the idea of being a brain 
drain to the rest of the world. People from all over the world want to 
come to America. We want the best and the brightest to come to America 
because of this fact--whether it is low-skilled or high-skilled 
workers, 4 percent of the jobs, 4 percent of the people who have jobs 
in the future will create the jobs for the other 96 percent of 
Americans. Those are the talented people we want to attract.
  Over half of the start-ups in Silicon Valley in the last 10 years 
have come from immigrants. Those people, when they start up companies, 
create jobs in America. They create opportunities, some high skilled, 
some low skilled, but they are creating opportunities for people to 
pursue the American dream. So while the current bill is going in the 
right direction, it misses the mark.
  So my amendment says we are going to reward those in the sciences, 
those in the technical fields, those who have a Ph.D. in electrical 
engineering. We are going to give you enough points to virtually 
guarantee entrance into this country. It is a good thing. It is why the 
high-tech community is supporting my amendment.
  We also put in this amendment, if you are an immigrant, if you are 
one of these Z visa holders, we actually want you to be rewarded for 
doing military service. So we are going to offer another amendment to 
make sure they can do military service, and then when they do that, we 
want to reward them to come into this country. To serve in our military 
should be the greatest honor, and we should reward people with legal 
permanent status, the ability to get legal permanent status.
  We have a shortage of nurses in this country. We give more rewards 
for people in the health sciences as well in our amendment.
  I think this is a critical amendment to improve this bill. If we are 
going to do a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we certainly 
shouldn't make it worse than current law, and this bill is worse than 
current law when it comes to high-tech workers coming into this 
country. So I would urge all of our colleagues to support this 
amendment. I know it is a delicate balance that we have between the 
various people who have brought this bill together, but I truly believe 
this is an improvement on not only current law, but it is also a great 
improvement on the current bill.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there anyone who is going to speak 
on the other side on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator could be recognized, and the 
person is free under the agreement to speak later during the course of 
the evening.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in that case, I would like to use 4 
minutes of my time and then reserve the remainder of my time for if 
there is opposition to my amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1415

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1415.
  Mr. President, will the Presiding Officer notify me at 4 minutes so 
that I may reserve the remainder of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise.

[[Page 14823]]


  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, our Social Security system, we all 
know, is in a very precarious position. In fact, we are trying to pass 
Social Security reform that would extend the life of our Social 
Security system. We know we are facing impending insolvency. The trust 
fund has $2.4 trillion and is supporting 46 million beneficiaries. In 
2017, the trust fund will begin paying out more in benefits than it 
receives in revenue. It is expected to be fully exhausted in 2041. If 
we pass the bill before us, we will be adding millions of new 
beneficiaries into the Social Security system, but we will also be 
allowing individuals who were not authorized to work in this country 
the opportunity to qualify from illegal work.
  Under the current bill, Social Security credits for the time prior to 
getting a valid card would not be allowed. That is the good part of the 
bill. However, on a visa overstay or someone who has a card in their 
name, but they are working illegally, they would still be able to get 
quarters credited for that illegal work. My amendment would close that 
loophole.
  According to the GAO, about 22 percent of the whole Social Security 
that an employee would pay over 40 quarters would be approximately 
$193.42 per month. What I meant to say is, if you take the example of 
an hourly worker making $9 an hour, they would, in a 40-hour workweek, 
contribute $193 to the system per month. However, after working 40 
quarters, which is the minimum, the payout would be $405 per month for 
each overstay after the age of 65 and up to the expected life 
expectancy of 78. So 22 percent would be paid in, while 78 percent 
would come out. This means over the lifetime of the Social Security for 
that worker, the payout would be $81,922 but the input would be 
$23,210. So over the lifetime of that person, the deficit would be 
$58,712.
  Now, it is estimated that 40 percent of the illegals in this country 
are visa overstays. So if you multiply the 40 percent, which is about 
4.8 million people according to estimates, you would get $28 billion 
that would be a deficit in the Social Security system. That is if it 
were 1 year of overstay. We don't know how many years people overstay. 
That is impossible to know right now. But if it were 2 years, it would 
be $56 billion, and it goes on.
  We asked for a scoring of this amendment, and we have a letter from 
the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1384

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1384.
  Mr. President, I ask that the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes 
remaining on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pete Domenici be 
added as a cosponsor to this amendment No. 1384.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of my amendment 
No. 1384 and to urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
commonsense legislation that supports English as the common language 
for the United States of America.
  Our amendment is a very simple amendment. It says that the Government 
of the United States--and here I am quoting:

       The Government of the United States shall preserve and 
     enhance the role of English as the language of the United 
     States.

  Again, it is:

       The Government of the United States shall preserve and 
     enhance the role of English as the language of the United 
     States.

  This is a simple and straightforward amendment that recognizes the 
reality of the United States of America, that we are a people who yearn 
to speak English, want to speak English, and have the vast majority of 
our people knowing how to speak English.
  This language I have read is also part of a carefully crafted 
compromise. It is included in the underlying legislation that was 
worked upon by both Republican and Democratic Senators over a long 
period of time. It was agreed that this was the language that made the 
most sense in terms of including a provision relating to the English 
language in the underlying legislation.
  As I said earlier in opposition to Senator Inhofe's amendment, this 
is in fact a States' rights issue. The States of America ought to 
decide whether they are going to call English the official language of 
their State, as they did in Colorado; or they should decide, as they 
did in New Mexico in their constitution in 1912, to recognize English 
and Spanish as part of the language within their State. That was their 
right as New Mexicans. It is their right in Hawaii to be able to 
recognize a language other than English. It is a matter that ought to 
be left to the States. It would be a Washingtonian kind of thing to 
require these mandates upon the States, and it is something that we as 
the Senate should reject. Our language in amendment No. 1384 preserves 
that ability of the States to be able to enact their own legislation 
with respect to the English language.
  Finally, I only say that in my own personal history the native 
language in my home was Spanish. My family had lived along the banks of 
the Rio Grande River in southern Colorado for a period of 407 years. 
During all that time, they preserved their Spanish language, but they 
also honored and preserved the English language. My father and mother, 
who were veterans of World War II, had eight children who became 
college graduates. They understood the importance of English as 
something that would help them live the American dream, as all eight of 
their children have.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I am in order, I will speak in strong 
support of my amendment No. 1339 which will be voted on later tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is so entitled.


                           Amendment No. 1339

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in this 
debate on the immigration bill about enforcement provisions. There has 
been a lot of discussion about triggers in this bill to ensure that 
enforcement actions are taken, are paid for, and are enacted before 
other aspects of the bill, such as the Z visa program and the temporary 
worker program, go into effect.
  My grave concern is that these triggers are wholly inadequate and 
represent thinking that is backward from where it needs to be. If you 
look at the triggers designed in the bill, they were arrived at, again, 
as I would put it, in a backward fashion.
  The question was asked: Well, it is going to take about 18 months to 
be ready to enact the other provisions of the bill, so what enforcement 
are we teed up to do during the next 18 months anyway? We will define 
that as the enforcement trigger for the bill.
  I simply think that is the wrong way to arrive at a trigger. The key 
question has to be: What needs to be done? What is the totality of 
significant measures that needs to be done in order to have real 
enforcement at the border and real enforcement at the workplace? Let's 
make that totality the trigger in the bill. Of course, the triggers are 
far less than that.
  One perfect example is the subject of this amendment. The US-VISIT 
Program has been authorized since 1996, but it is not near operational. 
This is the program that would establish an entry and exit system so we 
know absolutely who comes into the country on visas and when those 
people leave, if they leave on time under their visa, or if they do not 
and are, therefore, overstaying their visa.
  Without such a system, we cannot possibly know who is in the country 
and who is overstaying their visa. This is a very serious part of our 
illegal immigration problem. As of 2006, the illegal population, by 
most estimates, included 4 million to 5.5 million overstays. So visa 
overstays are a big part of the problem. We know from 9/11, that visa 
overstays accounted for many

[[Page 14824]]

of the terrorists at the center of the 9/11 plot.
  So how can we have meaningful enforcement without this US-VISIT 
system, including the exit portion of the system? We cannot. The simple 
answer is that we can't. My amendment No. 1339 would include full 
implementation of this exit system of the US-VISIT Program into the 
trigger of the bill. Therefore, the other significant portions of the 
bill, such as temporary workers, such as Z visas, et cetera, cannot 
take effect until the full trigger is pulled, including full 
implementation of the US-VISIT system.
  If we are serious about enforcement, we have to pass this amendment. 
If we are serious about enforcement, we have to recognize that 4 
million to 5.5 million illegals in this country are visa overstays, and 
we cannot get our hands around that visa overstay problem without full 
implementation of this system, which has been authorized but nowhere 
near implemented since 1996.
  So I urge all my colleagues to come together and build up the trigger 
and enforcement provisions of this bill with the Vitter amendment No. 
1339.
  With that, I yield back my time.
  (Mr. SALAZAR assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1202

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to speak about 
the new point system created in this bill--a proposal that will 
radically change the way we judge who is worthy of lawful entry into 
American society.
  For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have 
been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country. 
For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued 
employees. The bill before us changes that policy--a policy that, while 
imperfect, has worked well, and this bill will now replace it with a 
new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who 
look good on paper but who may not have any familial or economic ties 
to our country.
  I have serious concerns about this new experiment in social 
engineering, not only because of the lack of evidence that it will work 
but because the bill says the new point system cannot be changed for 14 
years. For that reason, I come to the floor today, joined by Senators 
Menendez and Feingold, to offer amendment No. 1202 to sunset the point 
system after 5 years.
  I am pleased that immigration experts, religious organizations, and 
immigrant advocacy organizations have all endorsed our amendment.
  These groups have endorsed our amendment because the point system in 
this bill constitutes a radical shift in immigration policy, premised 
on the view that there is something wrong with family and employer-
sponsored immigration. If this program were merely supplementing the 
current system rather than significantly replacing it, it would not 
have caused as much concern.
  Religious organizations and immigrant advocacy groups have also 
endorsed my amendment because the decisions about what characteristics 
are deserving of points--and how points are allocated for those 
characteristics--were made without a single hearing or public 
examination.
  They support the amendment because the new points system shifts us 
too far away from the value we place on family ties and moves us toward 
a class-based immigration system, where some people are welcome only as 
guest workers but never as full participants in our democracy. Indeed, 
the practical effect of the points system is to make it more difficult 
for Americans and legal permanent residents with family living in Latin 
America to bring them here.
  Our current immigration system delivers the lion's share of green 
cards--about 63 percent--to family members of Americans and legal 
permanent residents, while roughly 16 percent of visas are allocated to 
employment-based categories. The bill before us would reduce visas 
allocated to the family system in order to dramatically increase the 
proportion of visas distributed based on economic points. Once 
implemented, these new economic points visas would then account for 
about 40 percent of all visas, while family visas would account for 
less than half of all visas, with the remainder going for humanitarian 
purposes.
  Under the new system, just a few of the current family preferences 
would be retained in any recognizable form. Spouses and children of 
U.S. citizens would still be able to come, but parents of U.S. citizens 
would no longer be counted as immediate family. Thus, most parents 
seeking to join their children and grandchildren in the United States 
would be denied green cards.
  The rest of the current family preferences--siblings, adult children, 
and many parents--would be eviscerated.
  The new points system would also eliminate employment-based green 
cards altogether, forcing employers recruiting workers abroad to rely 
exclusively on short-term H-1B and Y visas. This proposal takes an 
admittedly problematic employment-based visa system and replaces it 
with a far more problematic temporary worker visa system.
  The design of the points system leaves numerous questions unanswered. 
Beyond pushing workers from Latin America to the back of an endless 
line with no hope of ever reaching the front, the new points system 
leaves unspecified the crucial question of how migrants with sufficient 
points will be prioritized. Government bureaucrats would thus be left 
with unprecedented discretion to determine which immigrants have 
acceptable education, employment history, and work experience to merit 
admission into the country.
  Taken together, the questionable design of this points program and 
the fundamental shift away from family preferences in the allocation of 
visas raises enough flags that we should not simply rubberstamp this 
proposal and allow it to go forward.
  Let me be clear. Senators Menendez, Feingold, and myself are not 
proposing to strike the program from the bill, but this system should 
be revisited after a reasonable amount of time to determine whether it 
is working, how it can be improved, and whether we should return to the 
current family and employer-based system that has worked so well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we live in a global economy, and I do 
believe America will be strengthened if we welcome more immigrants who 
have mastered science and engineering. But we cannot weaken the very 
essence of what America is by turning our back on immigrants who want 
to reunite with their family members, or immigrants who have the 
willingness to work hard but might not have the right graduate degrees. 
That is not who we are as a country. Should those without graduate 
degrees who spoke Italian, Polish, or German instead of English have 
been turned back at Ellis Island, how many of our ancestors would have 
been able to enter the United States under this system?
  Character and work ethic have long defined generations of immigrants 
to America. But these qualities are beyond the scope of this bill's 
points system. It tells us nothing about what people who have been 
without opportunity can achieve once they are here. It tells us nothing 
about the potential of their children to serve and to lead.
  In short, the points system raises some serious concerns for me. I am 
willing to defer to those Senators who negotiated this provision and 
say we should give it a try, but I am not willing to say this untested 
system should be made virtually permanent. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to support to sunset this points system after 5 years so we 
can examine its effectiveness and necessity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page 14825]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think it is very appropriate you be 
occupying the Chair during this moment in this debate. My good friend 
from Illinois says to those who have worked so hard to get this bill to 
the point it is at: Nothing personal, but I can't live with this 
provision.
  Bipartisanship is music to the American people's ears. When you are 
out there on the campaign trail, you are trying to bring us all 
together. You are trying to make America better. Why can't we work 
together? This is why we can't work together because some people, when 
it comes to the tough decisions, back away because when you talk about 
bipartisanship, some Americans on the left and the right consider it 
heresy, and we are giving in if we adopt this amendment.
  The 12 million who have lived in fear for decades, my Republican 
colleagues and a majority have told our base we are not going to put 
them in jail and we are not going to deport them. No matter how much 
you scream, no matter how much you yell, we are going to make them 
right with the law, we are going to punish them, but we are not going 
to play like they don't exist, and we are going to do things 
differently in the future.
  If you care about families under this bill, people are united in 8 
years who would be 30 years getting here. If you care about families 
wanting to wake up one morning and not be afraid, this bill does it.
  This amendment in the name of making the bill better says that 
bipartisanship doesn't have the ``bi'' in it. It means everybody over 
here who has walked the plank and told our base you are wrong, you are 
going to destroy this deal. And that is exactly what it is, a deal--a 
deal to make America more secure, to give people a chance to start 
their lives over again and to have a new system that has a strong 
family component but will make us competitive with the world because 
some people don't want to say to the loud folks: No, you can't have 
your way all the time.
  Let me tell you, this is about as bipartisan as you will get, Mr. 
President. Some of us on the Republican side have been beat up and some 
on the Democratic side have been beat up because we have tried to find 
a way forward on a problem nobody else wants to deal with.
  To my friend, Senator Kennedy, thank you for trying to find a way, as 
much as we are different, to make this country better, more secure, to 
treat 12 million people in a way they have never been treated and, in 
my opinion, deserve to be treated, to have a chance to start over.
  What a sweet idea it is to have a second chance in life. Well, they 
are not going to get it if this is adopted, and America will be all the 
worse for it. What a great opportunity we have as a country not to 
repeat the mistakes of 1986, by having a merit-based immigration system 
that has a strong family component but frees up some green cards so we 
can be competitive.
  So when you are out on the campaign trail, my friend, telling about 
why can't we come together, this is why.
  Mr. OBAMA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time.
  Mr. OBAMA. I understand, but I wish to respond to my colleague from 
South Carolina since it appears to be directed at me.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes of my time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object unless the Senator from South Carolina has 
sufficient time as well.
  Mr. OBAMA. I would like to give additional time. When the Senator 
from South Carolina addresses me directly, I feel it is appropriate for 
me to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the 
opportunity to yield time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think I am entitled to yield time. I am in charge of 
the time on this side. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts yields 2 
minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I have a very simple response to what we 
just heard. I think it is important to consider the actual amendment 
before us as opposed to what appeared to be a broad-based discussion of 
the bill overall.
  What this amendment specifically does is it says we will go forward 
with the proposal that has been advanced by this bipartisan group. It 
simply says we should examine after 5 years whether the program is 
working. The notion that somehow that guts the bill or destroys the 
bill is simply disingenuous and it is engaging in the sort of 
histrionics that is entirely inappropriate for this debate. This is a 
bill that says after 5 years, we will examine a point system in which 
we have had no hearings in the public. Nobody has had an opportunity to 
consider exactly how this was structured. It was structured behind 
closed doors. And the notion that after 5 years we can reexamine it to 
see if it is working properly, as opposed to locking it in for 14 
years, that somehow destroys the bipartisan nature of this bill is 
simply untrue.
  I ask all my colleagues to consider the nature of the actual 
amendment that is on the floor as opposed to the discussion that 
preceded mine.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 1415

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to use the final minute of my 
time on my amendment No. 1415 and say I want to make sure we are doing 
everything to be fair to the people who pay into our Social Security 
system. We know we will be adding more people in this bill, but we want 
to make sure they are people who have worked legally in the system. 
Therefore, I hope we will adopt my amendment No. 1415, cosponsored by 
Senator Grassley.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration 
in which he says the average annual savings in the bill from my 
amendment would be approximately $300 million this year, and over the 
75-year period there will be more savings up front, fewer savings 
toward the end of the 75 years, but the average would be about $300 
million per year. That is into our Social Security trust fund.
  It is a matter of fairness to the people who have paid legally, and I 
hope everyone will support amendment No. 1415.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief 
           Actuary,
                                      Baltimore, MD, June 6, 2007.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: Matthew Acock of your staff and 
     Derek Kan of the Republican Policy Committee have requested 
     that we produce preliminary estimates of the effect of two 
     amendments to S. 1348, as amended with A. 1150, on the 
     financial status of the Social Security program. They 
     emphasized the need for at least preliminary estimates as 
     quickly as possible. We have developed preliminary estimates 
     for these amendments consistent with the analysis provided to 
     Chairman Max Baucus on the current bill S. 1348/1150.


Amendment 1301: Option to Refund Payroll Taxes for Y-visa Guest Workers

       Your amendment number 1301 to S.1348 would provide Y-visa 
     workers who have completed their time in this status and have 
     returned to their home country the option to get a refund of 
     employee payroll taxes from Social Security and Medicare. 
     Exercising the option would preclude obtaining credit for 
     these earnings toward Social Security or Medicare benefits. 
     It would also preclude returning to the United States as a Y-
     visa guest worker in the future.
       We assume that only those Y-visa workers who have no 
     intention of returning to the U.S. would exercise the option. 
     Such workers, without exercising the option, would often have 
     made the payroll tax contributions with no expectation of 
     receiving any benefits in the future because the limit of 6 
     years in Y-visa status is not sufficient to obtain insured 
     status for most Social Security benefits (unless the U.S. and 
     the worker's home country have an in-force totalization 
     agreement). Thus, refunded payroll taxes under the amendment 
     would represent a reduction in revenue for the OASDI program.
       Of the 200,000 Y-visas granted each year we estimate that 
     roughly two thirds would ultimately exercise the option to 
     receive their employee payroll taxes back as a refund.

[[Page 14826]]

     Those not exercising the option would be individuals who 
     either attain legal permanent resident status in the U.S. or 
     overstay the Y-visa and continue residing in the U.S. on an 
     unauthorized basis. We estimate that the reduction in revenue 
     from this amendment, assuming it is enacted along with S. 
     1348/1150, would be a negligible worsening in the long-range 
     OASDI actuarial balance. The average annual cost over the 75-
     year long-range projection period would be about equivalent 
     to $200 million this year.


 Amendment 1302: Withholding of Social Security Earnings Credits for Z-
            Visa Workers When Not Legally Authorized to Work

       S. 1348/1150 provides for legalization of current 
     undocumented immigrants who were working in the United States 
     on January 1, 2007. This amendment would prohibit assigning 
     credit toward OASDI benefits for years in which earnings were 
     received but the worker was not legally authorized to work. 
     The effect of the amendment would restrict the use of such 
     earnings credits for Z-visa holders who obtained a legitimate 
     Social Security number (SSN) before January 1, 2007. S. 1348/
     1150 already includes this restriction for workers who would 
     first obtain a legitimate SSN after 2006.
       We estimate that almost one half of the 6.5 million 
     individuals expected to gain legal status under S. 1348/1150 
     (through Z-visas and agricultural visas) would be affected by 
     this amendment. We estimate that the long-range actuarial 
     balance would be improved by 0.01 percent of taxable payroll.
       We are hopeful that these quick preliminary estimates will 
     be helpful. We will be working on more detailed estimates and 
     must caution that due to the preliminary nature of estimates 
     mentioned here, the more detailed estimates could differ 
     somewhat. We look forward to continuing to work with you on 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Stephen C. Goss.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 1151

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado 
and I have each had 5 minutes on my amendment. I have not had 5 minutes 
in rebuttal of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. Let me tell 
you what is going on. I know a lot people in this Chamber are going to 
think no one is going to figure this out. I am going to say it over and 
over again after this is over if the outcome is as I anticipate it will 
be.
  First, this is probably the first time in 20 years we have had an 
honest effort where we can make English our national language in the 
United States of America. This is something all the polling data shows 
is in the nineties--91 percent, 93 percent of the people in America who 
want to have this amendment adopted.
  In fact, a Zogby poll last month in May showed 76 percent of the 
Hispanics in America want to have English as the national language.
  The Salazar amendment is precisely what the underlying bill is. The 
underlying bill--and I can read it to my colleagues, but I have done it 
three times on the floor already--yes, it does put into law the 
controversial Executive Order 13166. My colleagues have heard a lot 
about this from their constituents.
  It says you are entitled to have your information, if you receive 
Government money, in any language of your choosing--Swahili or any 
other language. That is what is in the underlying bill. That also is in 
the Salazar amendment.
  This is what is going to be happening. My colleagues have a chance to 
change all of this when they vote on the Inhofe amendment, which is I 
believe the third amendment in line tonight. What I don't want my 
colleagues to do is vote for my amendment and then vote for the Salazar 
amendment. All that does is put it right back where the bill is now. In 
other words, it would do away with my amendment and put it back as the 
language is in the underlying bill.
  So there is no reason in the world to do it, unless someone is trying 
to cover up their true position. If my colleagues believe we should 
join the other 50 countries, such as Kenya, Ghana, and other countries 
around the world, that have English as their official language, then 
this is a chance to do it. If my colleagues do not believe it, then 
this is their chance to vote against the Inhofe amendment.
  It is an act of hypocrisy if colleagues vote for the Inhofe amendment 
and then vote for the Salazar amendment to undo the Inhofe amendment. 
That happened a year ago. Democrats and Republicans did that. However, 
this time it will not go unnoticed.
  It is interesting that every President back to and including Teddy 
Roosevelt in 1916 said very emphatically that we should have English as 
our official language, as our national language. It was said by 
President Clinton, it was said by the other President Roosevelt, by 
both President Bushes, and everyone has been for it.
  I have a listing I wish to make part of the Record that shows all of 
the polling data in the last 5 years. It shows that between 85 and 95 
percent of the American people want this amendment adopted. My 
colleagues can turn their backs on them or they can try the old trick 
they do around here all the time: Vote for the Inhofe amendment, and 
then turn around to vote to undo it if they want.
  One thing that was stated by the Senator from Colorado was there are 
a lot of statutes this would negate. I remind my colleagues, if they 
read this bill, it says: Unless specifically provided by statute, no 
person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the 
United States or any of its officials or representatives act, 
communicate, perform, or provide services or provide materials in any 
language other than English.
  I have a list I also want to be made part of the Record that shows 
there are many statutes where they mandate languages other than 
English. A good example is the Court Interpreters Act. That is put in 
there to protect the sixth amendment to the Constitution, so people can 
be advised of their rights.
  Again, my colleagues are going to have the opportunity to vote to 
make English our national language. I hope they will adopt this. They 
will certainly be serving their constituents well if they do. But if 
they do, they shouldn't turn around and undo what they just did because 
that is not going to go unnoticed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the polling information 
and the list of selected Federal laws requiring the use of languages 
other than English be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    National English Amendment Polls

       Polls: All types of pollsters of all groups, liberal and 
     conservative, immigrant and nonimmigrant, with all wordings 
     show consistently high levels of support for making English 
     the official language of the United States:
       1. A Zogby Poll conducted on May 17-20, 2007 showed that 83 
     percent of Americans favor official English legislation, 
     including 76 percent of Hispanics. 94 percent of Republicans, 
     72 percent of Democrats, and 83 percent of Independents are 
     favorable to official English legislation.
       2. An April 2007 McLaughlin & Associates poll showed 80 
     percent of all Americans indicated that they would support a 
     proposal to make English the official language.
       3. A December 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 92 
     percent of Americans believe that preserving English as our 
     common language is vital to maintaining our unity.
       4. A June 2006 Rasmussen Reports poll showed that making 
     English the nation's official language is favored by 85 
     percent of Americans; this figure includes 92 percent of 
     Republicans, 79 percent of Democrats, and 86 percent of those 
     not affiliated with either major political party.
       5. A March 2006 Zogby International Poll showed 84 percent 
     of likely voters support making English the official language 
     of government operations with commonsense exceptions.
       6. A 2004 Zogby poll showed 92 percent of Republicans, 76 
     of Democrats and 76 percent of Independents favor making 
     Englisgh the official language.
       7. In 2000, Public Opinion Strategies showed 84 percent 
     favored English as the official language with only 12 percent 
     oppposed and 4 percent not sure.
       8. A 1996 national survey by Luntz Research asked, ``Do you 
     think English should be made the Official Language of the 
     United States?'' 86 percent of Americans supported making 
     English the official language with only 12 opposed and 2 
     percent not sure.
       Latino immigrants support the concept of Official English:
       1. An April 2007 McLaughlin & Associates poll showed that 
     80 percent of all Americans, including 62 percent of Latinos, 
     would support a proposal to make English the official 
     language.
       2. A March 2006 Zogby poll found that 84 percent, of 
     Americans, including 71 percent of Hispanics, believe English 
     should be the official language of government operations.

[[Page 14827]]


       3. My favorite poll is this one: In 2004 the National 
     Council of LaRaza found that 97 percent strongly (86.4 
     percent or somewhat (10.9 percent) agreed that ``The ability 
     to speak English is important to succeed in this country.''

                                STATUTES

Selected Federal Laws Requiring the Use of Languages Other than English

       The following are provisions of the United States Code 
     which expressly require the use of languages other than 
     English:
       1. The Food Stamp Act of 1977--(7 U.S.C. Sec. 2020(e)--
     Under certain circumstances, requires states to provide 
     written and oral assistance in languages other than English.
       2. Immigration and Nationality Act--(8 U.S.C. Sec. 1224)--
     Provides interpreters during examinations of aliens seeking 
     entry to the United States.
       3. Domestic Violence Prevention--(8 U.S.C. Sec. 1375a(a))--
     States that information for nonimmigrants shall be in 
     languages other than English.
       4. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974--(20 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1703(f))--Upheld in Lau v. Nichols, (1974), this 
     Act necessitates some accommodation for students who don't 
     speak English.
       5. Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and 
     Immigrant Students--(20 U.S.C. Sec. 6823)--Requires state 
     plans for educating limited English proficient students. 
     Describes how local schools will be given flexibility to 
     choose the language instructional method to be used, so long 
     as the plan is scientifically-based and demonstrably 
     effective.
       6. Plans for Educating Limited English Proficient Student--
     (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6826)--Calls for plans for educating limited 
     English proficient students, including demonstrations that 
     teachers are multilingual.
       7. Authorizes Grants for Educating Limited English 
     Proficient Students--(20 U.S.C. Sec. 6913)--Authorizes and 
     mandates grants for educating limited English proficient 
     students without limitation on language used.
       8. Education of Limited English Proficient Students--(20 
     U.S.C. Sec. 6932)--Requires research on education of limited 
     English proficient students.
       9. Language Instruction Educational Program Definition--(20 
     U.S.C. Sec. 7011)--Defines ``language instruction educational 
     program'' as one that may include instruction in both English 
     and the child's native language to enable participating 
     children to become proficient both in English and in a second 
     language.
       10. Parental Notification of Identity of Limited English 
     Proficient Students--(20 US.C. Sec. 7012)--Provides for 
     parental notification of identification of a student as 
     limited English proficient, including use of language other 
     than English to notify the parent.
       11. Native American Languages Act--(25 U.S.C. Sec. 2902-
     2906)--Preserves, protects, and promotes the use of Native 
     American languages. States that nothing in the Native 
     American Languages Act shall prevent the use of federal funds 
     to teach English to Native Americans.
       12. The Court Interpreters Act--(28 U.S.C. Sec. 1827(d))--
     Invoking the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, 
     requires the use of interpreters in certain judicial 
     proceedings.
       13. Labor Protection Notices for Migrant Workers--(29 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1821(g), 1831(f))--Migrant and farmworker 
     labor protection notices must be in languages other than 
     English, according to the level of fluency of the workers.
       14. Migrant Health Centers and Alcohol Abuse Programs--(42 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 254b(f), 245c, 4577b)--Federally-funded 
     migrant health centers and alcohol abuse programs that serve 
     a significant non-English-speaking population must have 
     interpreters.
       15. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration 
     Reorganization Act--(42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 290aa(d)(14))--
     Requires some services in languages other than English.
       16. Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act--(42 
     U.S.C. Sec. 300u-6(b)(7))--Requires the Office of Minority 
     Health to provide multilingual services.
       17. Voting Rights Act--(42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1973b(f)(1), 
     1973aa-1a)--Restricts elections and election-related 
     materials published only in English in the bilingual ballots 
     and voting materials sections of the Voting Rights Act.
       18. Older Americans Act--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 3027(a)(20)(A))--
     Requires state planning agencies to use outreach workers who 
     are fluent in languages other than English when there is a 
     substantial number of limited-English proficient older 
     persons in a planning area.
       19. Community Development Grants--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 5304)--
     Requires applicants for community development grants to 
     explain how they will meet the needs of non-English-speaking 
     persons.
       20. Child Development Grants--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 9843)--
     Permits grants for child development (Head Start) programs 
     for limited English proficient children.
       21. Domestic Violence Hotlines--(42 U.S.C. Sec. 10416)--
     Requires a plan to provide domestic violence telephone 
     hotline operators in Spanish.

  Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think there are 2 minutes left on the 
discussion of this issue.
  I hope our colleagues listened to the extraordinary history of the 
Salazar family. It is the living of the American dream. It is respect 
for the Spanish language and Spanish tradition, and the reverence that 
it has for English today.
  I am disappointed in the Inhofe amendment because the Inhofe 
amendment doesn't add one nickel, it doesn't add 1 hour for those who 
want to learn English. To learn English in my home city of Boston, MA, 
immigrants have to wait 3 years in order to gain admission to a class 
to learn English. There are long waits in all parts of the country. If 
we had some effort to try and provide the opportunity for those who do 
not know English to learn English, I think we would be much better off.
  Finally, as the Senator from Colorado has pointed out, the great 
civil rights protections of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 
Executive order 13,166 as well as protections dealing with public 
health and safety that we have found to be so important in terms of 
ensuring the health and the safety and the security of our people. 
Providing information needed to protect health and safety depend on 
communication--communication--and we have developed a process, a way of 
respecting different traditions in order to be able to do that.
  The Salazar amendment retains and respects that tradition, and it is 
the way we should be proceeding and embracing this evening for the 
reasons he stated so well.


                           Amendment No. 1374

  Mr. President, I wish to yield time on the Ensign amendment. I think 
I have 5 minutes on the Ensign amendment in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator has 5 
minutes on the Ensign amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment basically rearranges 
what we call the merit-based system that has been included in this 
legislation. This was the subject of a good deal of debate: Do we want 
to develop a merit-based system that has been developed in some other 
countries. It has had some success in some areas, some challenges in 
others.
  During the debate there was a question about how we would develop a 
merit-based system to take in the needs of the United States. There are 
important needs in high skills, but we also understand from the 
Department of Labor that 8 out of the 10 areas of occupations are 
basically low skill, what they call low skill. Those may be teachers, 
they may be managers, or professional people in some areas, but they 
are basically individuals who have very important skills that are 
essential to the American economy.
  We had debate about how we were going to work out that merit system, 
and in that whole process we worked diligently to find a system that is 
going to respect the higher skilled but also provides some opportunity 
for the low skilled as well to be able to gain entry and then to gain 
what we call the sufficient points to move far forward and able to gain 
green cards and eventually citizenship.
  The Ensign amendment absolutely emasculates that amendment and 
virtually closes out all of the low-skilled possibilities for people 
who might come on in as temporary workers or may come on in under other 
provisions of this legislation. Under the Ensign amendment, all of 
those individuals, the lower skilled, are effectively eliminated and 
closed out, make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it.
  Finally, we have provisions in the legislation dealing with the 
higher skills, called the H-1B provisions. That is directly related to 
higher skills. We have addressed that issue in other provisions of the 
legislation.
  For those reasons, I would hope the Ensign amendment would not be 
accepted.


                           Amendment No. 1339

  Mr. President, on the Vitter amendment, let me add some additional 
points to this debate. A great deal of

[[Page 14828]]

time was spent listening to Secretary Chertoff, to making 
recommendations about what is going to be in the national security 
interest to preserve our borders. That was one of the most important 
parts of the development of this legislation.
  Senator Isakson came forward with a very important suggestion and a 
proposal with regard to ensuring that we were going to have true 
national security, protection of our national security before other 
provisions were going to be set forth. We have had good chances during 
the period of these past months to work with Homeland Security and to 
work with all of the Members of this body to ensure we were going to 
have effective provisions to protect national security. We even 
accepted a Gregg amendment which we believed added to the provisions 
that were accepted.
  It is our belief those provisions are sufficient, the allocations of 
resources for the border, the utilization of enhanced border patrols, 
the enhanced border security, which has been outlined time and again 
during the course of this debate. They are sufficient. So I would hope 
at the time that amendment is addressed it would not be accepted.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1316

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan 
amendment. I was a little surprised to see it in order, but that 
happens quite often around here. This is the same amendment we voted on 
a couple of weeks ago. It was a close vote, I realize, but I didn't 
know we were going to have a practice of second chances on amendments 
after they were defeated.
  It seems to me this is something that is very unnecessary. But if we 
get into the custom here with so many amendments that we vote again and 
again, I don't think that is good for this process. I think the process 
that has taken place so far has been very commendable. Both managers 
have done a great job, but this is another attempt to do away with the 
temporary worker program. It is another attempt to kill this 
legislation. That is what it will do. That is exactly what this 
amendment does.
  We had vigorous debate on it once, with a long period of debate, and 
it was defeated. Now, basically, we are having another vote again. I 
don't think that is appropriate. But more important, one thing that 
hasn't changed, I say to my colleagues, if you pass this, it kills the 
bill. We have made too much progress with too much debate and with too 
much consensus to revisit the same issue over again and have it carry 
this time.
  I am sure the sponsor of the amendment has some reason for bringing 
it up again, but I don't think there is a good reason, and I hope we 
will reject this amendment because it has already been rejected.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take the time on the Dorgan amendment 
myself. How much time remains on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have opposed the Dorgan amendment each 
time for very important and basic reasons. We are attempting to secure 
our borders. We are going to secure our borders. We know, even when we 
secure our borders, we are going to have pressure on those borders to 
come through. People are either going to come through the front door or 
they are going to come through the back door.
  What do I mean by that? If they are coming through the back door, 
they are going to be the undocumented and the exploited undocumented 
workers, such as we have seen in my own city of New Bedford, where they 
are arrested and exploited and are driving down wages. If they come 
through the front door, they are going to meet the needs of American 
industry when we find there are no existing options for American 
workers. There is going to be the requirement that you have to get 
American workers first. We have accepted that and restated that with 
the Durbin amendment. But if they are able to gain entry into the 
United States, they are going to have the kind of protections that are 
included in the legislation.
  I have listened to those who have been opposed to the temporary 
workers, saying there are no rights and protections for these temporary 
workers. They ought to read the bill. They ought to read the bill, 
because any temporary worker who is going to be hired is going to be 
guaranteed the prevailing wage, they are going to be protected by the 
OSHA provisions, they are going to be protected by workmen's 
compensation, and they are going to have the opportunity, we believe, 
over a period of time, if they have come in, to try to improve 
themselves, to learn English, to involve themselves in an employment 
program to begin to go up the ladder in terms of getting a green card. 
So that is the choice.
  If we act to eliminate the temporary worker program, we are going to 
find what we have at the present time, that hundreds of individuals die 
in the desert; that we are going to have those individuals who are able 
to gain entry in the United States and are undocumented and they are 
going to be exploited, as they are exploited today, and they will drive 
down wages, as happens today. That happens to be the situation.
  Some like some temporary worker programs better than others, but we 
have the one we have in this bill and we have every intention to try 
and make it work. We have set up a careful system in the bill to 
accommodate the concerns about the size of the temporary worker 
program. There is, as well, a market-based adjustment that is crucial 
to the provision in the bill, and I think it would be a great mistake 
to effectively emasculate the temporary worker program. That is what 
the Dorgan amendment would do.
  Mr. President, I believe that I am the only one who has time that is 
remaining. If that be the case, I would be glad to yield back the 
remaining time.
  I ask if the Chair would be good enough to state the amendments, the 
first amendment that would be before the Senate at this time. We have a 
series of different votes, and I think we ought to have the opportunity 
to make sure all of us understand exactly what we are voting on.
  I believe the hour of 10 o'clock has arrived, and I yield whatever 
time remains, and I think we expect yeas and nays votes on all of them.


                           Amendment No. 1183

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the Clinton amendment, 
No. 1183.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
Clinton amendment, No. 1183, to S. 1348, violates section 201, the pay-
as-you-go point of order of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution 
on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions 
in the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

[[Page 14829]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 1374

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided on amendment No. 1374, offered by the junior Senator 
from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my amendment goes to the merit-based 
system. We have a serious problem in this country where we are 
graduating incredible engineers from our high-tech universities. When 
they graduate, we say: You must go home.
  I had a company in my office today from Silicon Valley. They are 
opening an office in Singapore, hiring American graduates, foreign-born 
graduates from American universities, opening in Singapore because they 
cannot hire them in this country. There are not enough visas.
  My amendment fixes the merit-based system and says we want to attract 
the best and the brightest from around the world. The high-tech 
community supports my amendment because they think the underlying bill 
is flawed.
  Mr. President, India and China will graduate 600,000 to 700,000 
engineers. We will be graduating 65,000 to 70,000. Half of ours are 
foreign-born. We do not have enough of that brain power coming into 
this country like we have had in the past. Those who came here will 
come here and create opportunities for other people in the United 
States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the merit-based system that is included 
in this legislation as it exists at the present time is heavily skewed 
toward the high skills. I would say 75 to 80 percent of those who are 
going to qualify in the merit-based system are going to be for the 
highly skilled.
  There is the reservation under the skill system, 25 or 30 percent for 
lower skills because our economy designed high skills, and the 
Department of Labor says 8 out of 10 occupations that our Nation needs 
are low skills: teacher's aides, home health aides, and others.
  That has been worked out. That is the way it is. Under the Ensign 
amendment you would completely skew it to shortchange all of the low 
skills, all for the high skills. We are taking care of the high skills 
with the H-1B program. If we need to do something about that, then 
let's have amendments to do it.
  But this way effectively is saying to millions of people who have 
come here and have been absolutely indispensable to our economy that 
they are never going to have a chance to be part of the American dream.
  I hope the amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Craig
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
      
  The amendment (No. 1374) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1384

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1384 offered by the 
Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. Who yields time?
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on Salazar 1384 
and a ``no'' vote on Inhofe 1151, and the 2 minutes under that time I 
will yield to Senator Domenici from New Mexico.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, before the Senator speaks: Is the 
2 minutes equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 2 minutes equally divided. The senior 
Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Parliamentary inquiry: The senior Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized for 2 minutes to speak on both amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are now considering only the Salazar 
amendment. There are 2 minutes to be divided equally.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from New 
Mexico be given 2 minutes to speak on both Salazar 1384 and Inhofe 
1151.
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I yield 1 minute on Salazar 1384 and request a ``yes'' 
vote and yield the time to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I, too, ask for a ``yes'' vote on the 
Salazar-Domenici amendment which everybody should understand says that 
the English language is the common language of the United States. I 
come from a State that is different from most of yours in that we have 
had a long history of trouble regarding what language we speak; this 
has been so from the very time New Mexico started to become a State. 
The legislature of the United States played around with New Mexico in 
an effort to see if there could be enough Anglos so there wouldn't be a 
majority of Spanish speakers at the State's infancy. We were told we 
had to wait for Statehood until there was a majority of English 
speakers in New Mexico, and the U.S. Supreme Court later said the 
Congress

[[Page 14830]]

could not do that to New Mexico. New Mexico could do what they desired. 
We voted in a State constitution that still stands that says English 
and Spanish are common languages and you can speak both languages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is very simple. I hope everyone 
understands and is listening. We are going to have an opportunity in a 
few minutes to vote on another amendment which we will describe at that 
time with 2 minutes equally divided.
  If you are opposed to English as the national language of the United 
States, then vote for the Salazar amendment. That is exactly what it 
does. His amendment says anyone who receives Federal money is 
entitled--this is an entitlement--to have the documentation in any 
language he or she chooses. It could be in Swahili, French, any other 
language.
  So if you are opposed to English as the national language, go ahead 
and vote for this amendment. But keep in mind, when you do, that 91 
percent of Americans are on our side of this issue and want English to 
be the national language, and 76 percent of the Hispanics, as a result 
of a poll that was taken in May of this year--a Zogby poll--are for 
English as the national language.
  I ask you to defeat the Salazar amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to Salazar amendment No. 1384.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1384) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified to be a first-degree amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1151

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided on amendment No. 1151 offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last year, a year and a month ago, we had 
this same vote. Sixty-two people in this Chamber voted in favor of it, 
and I will ask them to do the same again. This, very simply--we talked 
about this many times--makes English the official, the national 
language of the United States as opposed to giving an entitlement to 
anyone, to any other language, which is in, of course, the amendment we 
passed.
  If this amendment passes, it will go to conference, and we will have 
an opportunity to do something in conference to decide whether it is a 
combination of these or one or the other should prevail. So I ask that 
you do what 90 percent of your constituents want you to do and that is 
vote yes on the Inhofe amendment to make English the national language 
of the United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Colorado is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote no on 1151 
for three reasons. First, it is in violation of the very delicate 
compromise, the bipartisan compromise that has been put together by 
both Republicans and Democrats. Second of all, it is an absolute 
transparent attempt to undo the Executive Orders of President Bush and 
President Clinton and the implementation memorandums from both of those 
Presidents. Third, this is a States' rights issue.
  Fourth, for me, I remember having my mouth washed out with soap as a 
young man for speaking the Spanish language, which is my native 
language. I love English and we should encourage people to speak 
English.
  This amendment is nothing but a divisive amendment among the people 
of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Clinton
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Murray
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
      
  The amendment (No. 1151) was agreed to.

[[Page 14831]]




                           Amendment No. 1415

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 1415 offered by 
the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Allard be added as a cosponsor on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the underlying bill does not allow 
Social Security credits for work done with a fraudulent card. However, 
it does allow credit for work done on visa overstays. We all know that 
is estimated to be about 40 percent of the 12 million estimated illegal 
immigrants.
  Mr. President, if we don't pass this amendment, it could jeopardize 
the integrity of the Social Security system for all the hard-working 
people who are going to depend on that for their retirement. It would 
be a loss of about $28 billion per year. I urge adoption of my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. She has 
worked with the managers of this legislation. We are prepared to accept 
this amendment. We thank her for the courtesy, and we hope the 
membership will support her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Texas.
  The amendment (No. 1415) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1339

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 1339 offered by 
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It would add to the enforcement trigger mechanism of 
the bill that the US-VISIT Program be fully operational. This is the 
entry/exit system program that has been authorized since 1996 but has 
never been put into operation.
  As Senator Hutchison just mentioned, we all know a huge part of the 
illegal immigration problem is visa overstays. The latest estimate, in 
2006, is that 4 million to 5.5 million visa overstays are illegal 
immigrants in this country. We cannot get a handle on that problem 
without the US-VISIT system knowing when people are leaving the country 
and, thus, whether they are overstaying their visa. Yet that is not 
part of the enforcement mechanism in the bill at all.
  Let's vote for this amendment and make it part of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there was no difference among all of us 
in trying to ensure that we were going to have a secure America. We 
worked very closely with Secretary Chertoff. In this legislation, we 
have increased it to 27,000 detention beds, 20,000 border guards, 375 
miles of fencing, 275 vehicle barriers, 70 ground-based radars and 
cameras, sensors, and 4 unmanned aerial vehicles. We accepted the 
Isakson trigger, saying that the other aspects of this legislation will 
not go into effect until these are committed. Then we accepted the 
Gregg additions. We are in the process now of trying to negotiate with 
the administration to get mandatory spending to make sure all these are 
done, and done expeditiously.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security thinks we have met our 
responsibilities. I hope the amendment will not be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Specter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1339) was rejected.
  Mr. KYL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1202

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1202 offered by the Senator 
from Illinois, Mr. Obama.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It sunsets 
after 5 years the points system that has been structured in this bill. 
I wish to emphasize that I think the authors of this legislation 
deserve credit for working diligently and coming up with a carefully 
balanced bill, but the points system we are transitioning to is a 
radical departure from the one we have had in the past. The question 
is, do we, after 5 years, take a look and see whether it is working 
properly? Is it one that is inhibiting families from unifying in this 
country? Is it something that is making it easier or harder for 
employers to operate effectively in a lawful fashion?
  What this amendment simply says is that after 5 years, we will 
reexamine the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. OBAMA. I leave it there. I ask my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues who worked to put 
this bill together, they know what this does. The deal is that in 8 
years people will be reunited as families who never would have seen 
each other for maybe 30 years. We have united families in 8 years. The 
Z visa people have a chance to start over, but only after the backlog 
is cleared.
  The merit-based system is the vehicle to be used after 8 years so 
they can come into our system and maybe one day be a citizen and get a 
green card. If we sunset the merit-based system at 5 years, there is no 
vehicle left, and to us over here, what would my colleagues say if we 
sunsetted the Z program in 5 years? My colleagues would walk, and they 
should.
  This is not right. This does not help us as a country.
  This destroys the vehicle to solve a problem that has been neglected 
for 20-something years.
  I ask my colleagues to vote no for the sake of the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page 14832]]

  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1202.
  Mr. OBAMA. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 1202) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1316

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1316 offered by the 
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will this be the last vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This will be the last vote; that is correct.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a sunset of the temporary worker 
program in 5 years. It is a new bill, a new program, with more 
questions than answers. It seems to me that we ought to ask some 
questions at the end of 5 years.
  In the fifth year, we will have 600,000 jobs assumed by temporary 
workers coming in; in the fourth year, 400,000 jobs, and on and on. So 
the question is, How many of them are going to leave? What if they do 
not leave? Are we going to come back to the floor with a new 
immigration bill, talking about illegal immigration? Why don't we 
sunset after 5 years to see if this has worked?
  Let me make a final point as we vote. We have had a lot of discussion 
about immigration, but no one on the floor of the Senate is talking 
about the impact on American workers. All of these jobs the temporary 
workers will assume are going to compete with people at the bottom of 
the economic ladder in this country. They are called American workers 
as well.
  Let us sunset this and evaluate what we are doing, what kind of 
contribution to illegal immigration this will amount to, and what 
impact it has on American workers. Let us sunset this at the end of 5 
years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the third time we have dealt with 
this issue. As much as I respect the Senator from North Dakota, he 
doesn't care more about American workers than I do.
  The fact is, if you have a secure border, workers are either going to 
come in through the front door or the back door. If they come in 
through the back door, as they are now doing, they are going to be 
exploited and humiliated. If they come through the front door, as a 
result of the fact that there is no American worker prepared to take 
that job, they are going to get labor protections, the prevailing wage, 
OSHA protections, workmen's compensation, and they are going to have 
those kinds of protections which they do not have now.
  You may not like the temporary worker program, but we have to have 
predictability for a period of time. In the legislation are correcting 
mechanisms for this program. Let us at least give it a chance to work.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient 
second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1316.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corker
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Johnson
      
  The amendment (No. 1316) was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the hour is late and we have had a 
long day. I think it has been a very productive day. Due to the delay 
in getting amendments actually voted on, of course, the amendment I had 
voted on this morning had been pending for a full 2 weeks before we 
were able to secure an agreement to vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to call up some of my pending amendments so 
we can get them pending. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
1400, which is at the desk, be called up for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would have to object. We are in the 
process of attempting to clear up these. We have had a very full day. I 
want to thank the Senator from Texas for his cooperation. We will try 
to address these in an orderly way. We have been trying to process some 
of these back and forth. I think we have made extraordinary progress 
today. We are trying to make sure everyone's voice and interests 
positioned on those issues are going to have an opportunity to be 
heard. Now I have to object. I will work with the Senator and see if we 
cannot arrange time for consideration.

[[Page 14833]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know it has been a long day. But the 
majority leader has filed a cloture motion which will be voted on 
tomorrow. There is concern that there are many amendments that have 
been filed which have not been allowed to be called up and be made 
pending.
  While I think there have been some recent indications that there is 
more of a willingness to allow amendments to be considered, I am very 
concerned, because of the procedural posture we will find ourselves in 
very soon, that some of these amendments will not be allowed to be 
considered.
  I am concerned as well that may very well affect how many of us are 
required to vote on cloture. I think there has been a recent spirit of 
cooperation which I hope continues. But if there is going to be an 
insistence on a vote on cloture, and at the same time a denial of the 
opportunity of many of us to call up amendments and actually have them 
considered and voted on, I do not think we will have any alternative 
but to vote against cloture.
  I regret the reluctance to allow us to call up amendments continues 
at this time. If permitted, I want to call up at least four of my 
amendments: 1400, 1208, 1337, and 1399. But I understand there has been 
objection lodged. There likely will be objection lodged to additional 
unanimous consent requests.
  I would note for the record here that there are a lot of other 
amendments that have not been allowed to be considered, and we have got 
a lot of work to do before we can consider that everybody has had the 
opportunity to call up amendments and have them voted on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would state for the record that last 
year before cloture was successfully invoked on immigration, the Senate 
disposed of 30 amendments with 23 rollcall votes. This year, after 
votes just completed, the Senate has disposed of 41 amendments, with 27 
rollcall votes, 11 amendments more than when we last considered this 
bill under the other party's control. Not counting side-by-side 
alternative amendments, there have been 18 Democratic amendments 
offered, compared to 21 Republican amendments. Counting side by sides, 
it is 21 Democrats, 22 Republicans. So I would say to my friend from 
Texas, by standards of the last debate on the immigration bill, we have 
considered 11 more amendments, we have had more rollcall votes, there 
have been more side by sides and other votes offered from the 
Republican side than the Democratic side.
  So I say at this point this has been a fair and complete process. It 
is now 12:20 in the morning. We have worked a long day; probably have 2 
long days ahead of us. But to argue that Members have not had their 
chance to express themselves through the amendment process is not 
reflected in the actual vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I do not dispute the numbers. They are 
what they are. But I would point out that this bill did not go through 
the Judiciary Committee. Last year when the McCain-Kennedy amendment 
and the bill considered in the Judiciary Committee, I believe there 
were 62 amendments filed. I think there were a lot more filed than 
that, but actually 62 amendments. So there was a process at the 
Judiciary Committee level last year which gave people an opportunity to 
have their positions heard. That has not been the case this year. I 
would point that out as an obvious point of distinction. I hope there 
is not going to be any attempt to try to force this bill through before 
Senators are ready to consider all or at least a reasonable number of 
amendments, because I do not think we will have any alternative but to 
vote against cloture, to allow debate to continue and allow additional 
amendments to be heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the interests of allowing Senator 
Cornyn and other Senators to offer amendments, I make a unanimous 
consent request that cloture votes be postponed tomorrow until 4 p.m. 
so Senator Cornyn and others who wish to can offer amendments before 
the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe a 
demonstration of willingness to allow us to call up amendments and have 
them debated and actually voted on would have been reflected in the 
last 2 weeks. As I have pointed out, I was denied for a full 2 weeks an 
opportunity to have the very first amendment I called up actually 
scheduled for a vote. I know the distinguished deputy majority leader 
is acting in good faith. But I think we need to have a vote on that 
cloture motion at the time it is currently scheduled. So I would 
respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have offered amendments on a number of 
occasions and had asked those amendments be made pending, and set aside 
the pending business to make certain amendments pending. I have had 
objection.
  At this time I once again ask that amendment No. 1323, which we 
referred to as the Charlie Norwood amendment, that deals with 
empowering State and local law enforcement officers to participate 
through the normal process, if they choose, be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is pretty clear what has been 
occurring is very few amendments have had the opportunity to get a real 
debate. This is an important amendment. It deals with whether local law 
enforcement can actually participate in any meaningful way in the 
enforcement of Federal immigration laws. I will tell you what the facts 
are, with the help from my fine staff chief counsel, Cindy Hayden.
  We wrote a law review article for Stanford University Law School that 
dealt with this issue, and it is a very important issue. It is one 
well-understood by the legal professionals who have been behind the 
scenes crafting this legislation.
  The ninth circuit has held that visa overstays, which make up 40, 
maybe 45 percent, and in the future, if this bill becomes law, maybe 
more than 50 percent of the people illegally in the country, would be 
visa overstays.
  Those persons, if involved in some traffic accident, like many of the 
terrorists were before 9/11--they were stopped for traffic violations 
by local police officers, but because that is not a normal criminal 
violation, as is the case for people who have come across the border, 
they are not detainable under the ninth circuit ruling by local police 
officers.
  So it is a weird thing. Several other circuits seem to have held 
differently. But the ninth circuit case was most on point. Lawyers for 
police departments all over America are telling their police 
departments: You may not have authority to hold anybody, so even if you 
apprehend someone you are concerned about who could even be a 
terrorist, like those people involved in 9/11, or like John Malvo, who 
was involved in those murders, was stopped for traffic violations, we 
do not have a system in place to even allow local police to detain them 
for even a short period of time until they are turned over to the 
Federal authorities.
  That is the way the system ought to work. There are 600,000 to 
800,000 State and local law enforcement officers in America. We are not 
trying to mandate that they do anything. But in the course of their 
business, their normal duties, if they come upon people in violation of 
the law, they ought to be able to hold them and turn them over to the 
Federal authorities.
  I am disappointed we are not getting to move forward on that 
amendment, very disappointed. We had this matter sort of fixed in 
Judiciary Committee last year. Then an amendment came up--somebody 
figured out the significance of it, and that amendment took it out. 
Ever since, any effort to get that to be made a part of this fix has 
been undermined and blocked.

[[Page 14834]]

  I say to my colleagues, I do not believe anybody can say they have a 
commitment to having an enforceable immigration system if they throw 
roadblocks up that undermine the ability of State and local law 
enforcement to participate in their normal course of their duties by 
detaining people they come upon who are here illegally. You would think 
that would be an easy thing to get done. I have said before, it seems 
when it comes to immigration, many things can be accepted, many things 
people approve of. But if you come up with something that actually is 
very effective, that is what gets objected to. This is something that 
is critical. It is a testament and a test of our will and our 
seriousness as a body.
  If we are not prepared to pass legislation like the Norwood 
amendment, named after former House Member Charlie Norwood from 
Georgia, who died recently, if we are not prepared to do that, we are 
not serious about this.
  I will say one more thing. Time and time and time again, I have heard 
Members of this body say: Oh, we cannot vote for this amendment, or you 
must vote against that amendment. Why? Because we have an agreement. A 
compromise. It violates our compromise. Well, who was in on that 
compromise? I am frankly getting tired of that. That is not 
satisfactory to me.
  The question really should be, is this amendment good or not good for 
the legitimate interests of the Nation? No one small group of people 
have a right to meet in secret with special interest groups and write 
an immigration bill and ram it down the throat of this Senate. I oppose 
it. It is not right. You can agree or disagree on these amendments, but 
do so on the merits, whether or not it actually makes sense, not on 
some deal made by some advocacy group or some business interest. That 
is not what this Senate is all about.
  I hope today the people will begin to see that a small group of 
Senators who meet in secret and plot out a bill, that if printed in 
actual bill language would be 1,000 pages, don't have the power to say 
we can't have amendments and we can't change it, and if you do get an 
amendment up, we are all going to stick together and vote it down 
because it doesn't comply with our little compromise.
  The masters of the universe are playing a tough game here. I have 
called them that affectionately. I respect the Members who have 
attempted to do what maybe they thought was right. But when you look at 
the bill, it is a product of a political compromise. A group of 
politicians met in secret and wrote a bill that is exceedingly 
technical, exceedingly important.
  Let me tell you who was not there in this meeting. The American 
people were not there. Who was advocating for the American people?
  I will tell you another group who was not there. That is the law 
enforcement agencies that are charged with enforcing our laws at the 
border. They weren't there. As a matter of fact, they had a press 
conference a couple of days ago. They were at the national press club 
and made a presentation. These are senior retired officials who had 
many decades of experience in enforcing our laws at the border. They 
uniformly condemn this legislation, as do the Border Patrol Agents 
Association. They condemn it roundly. Hugh Brien, himself an immigrant, 
became chief of the Border Patrol from 1986 to 1989. I started making 
notes on C-SPAN the night before last. I just happened to turn it on. 
He said this bill is a ``sell out, a complete betrayal of the nation, a 
slap in the face to millions coming here legally.''
  He referred to the people in 1986 who passed the 1986 act and 
promised it would do things as our masters and our mandarins, who said 
the bill was going to work and it never worked. He said:

       Based on my experience, it's a disaster.

  Kurt Lundgren, national chairman of the Association of Former Border 
Patrol Agents said this:

       There are no meaningful criminal or terrorist checks in the 
     bill.

  He said:

       Screening will not happen.

  He said:

       Congress is lying about it.

  With regard to the proposal that record checks would be performed 
within 24 hours, he said:

       There's no way records can be done in 24 hours. As to the 
     proposal that Senator Cornyn tried to fix that allows gang 
     members, MS-13 international gang organization groups to get 
     amnesty by simply saying they renounce their allegiance to 
     the gang, he said:
       What planet are they from?

  Jim Dorcy, an agent for 30 years and inspector general with the 
Department of Justice that handled investigations into all these areas 
involving the Border Patrol, internal investigations, he said:

       The 24-hour check is a recipe for disaster.

  Referring to the bill, Mr. Dorcy, 30 years with the Border Patrol 
said:

       I call it the al-Qaida dream bill.

  Roger Brandemuehl, chief of the Border Patrol from 1980 to 1986, 
second one I am calling on here that was chief of it, said:

       We have fallen into a quagmire.

  He said:

       The so-called comprehensive reform is neither comprehensive 
     nor reform.

  He said:

       It's flawed.

  He set forth some principles that he thought would actually work. 
When asked had he been consulted by the masters of the universe who 
cobbled this bill together, a bunch of politicians who have never 
arrested anybody in their lives, they joked about it. They never have 
been consulted. Nobody wanted to know what they knew or cared about.
  I will just wrap up and say I am not comfortable with the way this 
bill is going. I think we have been slow-walked in the way the majority 
leader and the group that is trying to move this bill forward is doing 
this. They are objecting to having amendments pending. So when cloture 
is filed, if an amendment is not pending, it fails. It can't be voted 
on postcloture. So this way they have been able to maintain control 
over the amendment process and will be able to maintain it, even if 
cloture is obtained tomorrow. I don't know what will happen tomorrow, 
but I know this: There are a lot of good amendments. I have seen some 
of the amendments Senator Cornyn has that are important. I know some of 
the amendments I have are important to having a good, lawful 
immigration system. There remain major flaws in this legislation. We 
should not pass it in its present form.
  In rebuttal to the constant refrain that somehow this bill is going 
to end the lawlessness and create a lawful system, I point out that the 
Congressional Budget Office, just 2 years ago, issued their analysis of 
the bill and concluded there would only be a 25-percent reduction in 
the number of people coming into our country illegally. We have gone 
through all this, and we are only going to get a 25-percent reduction 
in the number of people who come here illegally, when we arrested last 
year over a million people. What kind of system is this?
  I wish the principles and goals contained in the talking points that 
were bandied about early on in this process could have been achieved. I 
had hoped they would and said some good things about it because I 
thought some of the principles involved in this year's process were a 
bit better than last year, but the truth is, when you read the fine 
print, very little progress was made in those directions, and the major 
flaws continue. I just wish it weren't so. But that is my opinion of 
it. I don't think we are on the road to improving the bill. I don't 
think we are proceeding effectively to allow full debate and amendment.
  I yield the floor.


         Amendment No. 1311, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1150

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Good morning, Mr. President.
  On behalf of Senator Coburn, I call up amendment No. 1311 and ask 
that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk and then be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 14835]]

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse], for Mr. 
     Coburn and Mr. DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 1311, 
     as modified.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the enforcement of existing border security and 
   immigration laws and Congressional approval before amnesty can be 
                                granted)

       Strike section 1 and all that follows through page 4, line 
     11 and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE TRIGGERS.

       The provisions of subtitle C of title IV, and the admission 
     of aliens under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)), as amended 
     by title IV, the programs established by title IV, and the 
     programs established by title VI that grant legal status to 
     any individual or that adjust the current status of any 
     individual who is unlawfully present in the United States to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, 
     shall become effective on the date that the Secretary submits 
     a written certification to the President and the Congress, 
     based on analysis by and in consultation with the Comptroller 
     General, that each of the following border security and other 
     measures are established, funded, and operational:
       (1) Operational control of the international border with 
     mexico.--The Secretary of Homeland Security has established 
     and demonstrated operational control of 100 percent of the 
     international land border between the United States and 
     Mexico, including the ability to monitor such border through 
     available methods and technology.
       (2) Staff enhancements for border patrol.--The United 
     States Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol has hired, 
     trained, and reporting for duty 20,000 full-time agents as of 
     the date of the certification under this subsection.
       (3) Strong border barriers.--There has been--
       (A) installed along the international land border between 
     the United States and Mexico as of the date of the 
     certification under this subsection, at least--
       (i) 300 miles of vehicle barriers;
       (ii) 370 miles of fencing; and
       (iii) 105 ground-based radar and camera towers; and
       (B) deployed for use along the along the international land 
     border between the United States and Mexico, as of the date 
     of the certification under this subsection, 4 unmanned aerial 
     vehicles, and the supporting systems for such vehicles.
       (4) Catch and return.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     is detaining all removable aliens apprehended crossing the 
     international land border between the United States and 
     Mexico in violation of Federal or State law, except as 
     specifically mandated by Federal or State law or humanitarian 
     circumstances, and United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement has the resources to maintain this practice, 
     including the resources necessary to detain up to 31,500 
     aliens per day on an annual basis.
       (5) Workplace enforcement tools.--In compliance with the 
     requirements of title III of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security has established, and is using, secure and 
     effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized 
     workers from obtaining employment in the United States. Such 
     identification tools shall include establishing--
       (A) strict standards for identification documents that are 
     required to be presented by the alien to an employer in the 
     hiring process, including the use of secure documentation 
     that--
       (i) contains--

       (I) a photograph of the alien; and
       (II) biometric data identifying the alien; or

       (ii) complies with the requirements for such documentation 
     under the REAL ID Act (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 231); and
       (B) an electronic employment eligibility verification 
     system that is capable of querying Federal and State 
     databases in order to restrict fraud, identity theft, and use 
     of false social security numbers in the hiring of aliens by 
     an employer by electronically providing a digitized version 
     of the photograph on the alien's original Federal or State 
     issued document or documents for verification of that alien's 
     identity and work eligibility.
       (6) Processing applications of aliens.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security has received, and is processing and 
     adjudicating in a timely manner, applications for Z 
     nonimmigrant status under title VI of this Act, including 
     conducting all necessary background and security checks 
     required under that title.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the border security and other measures described in 
     subsection (a) shall be completed as soon as practicable, 
     subject to the necessary appropriations.
       (c) Presidential Progress Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter until the 
     requirements under subsection (a) are met, the President 
     shall submit a report to Congress detailing the progress made 
     in funding, meeting, or otherwise satisfying each of the 
     requirements described under paragraphs (1) through (6) of 
     subsection (a), including detailing any contractual 
     agreements reached to carry out such measures.
       (2) Progress not sufficient.--If the President determines 
     that sufficient progress is not being made, the President 
     shall include in the report required under paragraph (1) 
     specific funding recommendations, authorization needed, or 
     other actions that are or should be undertaken by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (d) GAO Report.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     certification is submitted under subsection (a), the 
     Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress on the 
     accuracy of such certification.

       (e) Certification of Implementation of Existing Provisions 
     of Law.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to the requirements under 
     subsection (a), at such time as any of the provisions 
     described in paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the Secretary 
     of the department or agency responsible for implementing the 
     requirements shall certify to the President that the 
     provisions of paragraph (2) have been satisfied.
       (2) Existing law.--The following provisions of existing law 
     shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the 
     Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph 
     (1):
       (A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational 
     control over the entire international land and maritime 
     borders of the United States as required under the Secure 
     Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)
       (B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have 
     been constructed.
       (C) All databases maintained by the Department which 
     contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as 
     required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and 
     Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).
       (D) The Department shall have implemented a system to 
     record the departure of every alien departing the United 
     States and of matching records of departure with the records 
     of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program 
     as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 
     note).
       (E) The provision of law that prevents States and 
     localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that 
     prevents State and local employees from communicating with 
     the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642 
     of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).
       (F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at 
     each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that 
     allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas, 
     travel documents, passports, and other documents 
     authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced 
     Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 
     1732).
       (G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from 
     entering the United States until the biometric identifier on 
     the border crossing card is matched against the alien as 
     required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).
       (H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is 
     denied entry into the United States pursuant to section 
     212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(4)).
       (f) Presidential Review of Certifications.--
       (1) Presidential review.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the President 
     has received a certification, the President may approve or 
     disapprove the certification. Any Presidential disapproval of 
     a certification shall be made if the President believes that 
     the requirements set forth have not been met.
       (B) Disapproval.--In the event the President disapproves of 
     a certification, the President shall deliver a notice of 
     disapproval to the Secretary of the department or agency 
     which made such certification. Such notice shall contain 
     information that describes the manner in which the 
     immigration enforcement measure was deficient, and the 
     Secretary of the department or agency responsible for 
     implementing said immigration enforcement measure shall 
     continue to work to implement such measure.
       (C) Continuation of implementation.--The Secretary of the 
     department or agency responsible for implementing an 
     immigration enforcement measure shall consider such measure 
     approved, unless the Secretary receives the notice set forth 
     in subparagraph (B). In instances where an immigration 
     enforcement measure is deemed approved, the Secretary shall 
     continue to ensure that the immigration enforcement measure 
     continues to be fully implemented as directed by the 
     Congress.
       (g) Presidential Certification of Immigration 
     Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the final 
     certification has been approved by the President, the 
     President shall submit to the Congress a notice of 
     Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement.
       (2) Report.--The certification required under paragraph (1) 
     shall be submitted with

[[Page 14836]]

     an accompanying report that details such information as is 
     necessary for the Congress to make an independent 
     determination that each of the immigration enforcement 
     measures has been fully and properly implemented.
       (3) Contents.--The Presidential Certification required 
     under paragraph (1) shall be submitted--
       (A) in the Senate, to the Majority Leader, the Minority 
     Leader, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Government Affairs; and the Committee on Finance; and
       (B) in the House of Representatives, to the Speaker, the 
     Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and the chairman and 
     ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security; and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
       (h) Congressional Review of Presidential Certification.--
       (1) In general.--If a Presidential Certification of 
     Immigration Enforcement is made by the President under this 
     section, subtitle A of title IV, title V, and subtitles A 
     through C of title VI of this Act shall not be implemented 
     unless, during the first 90-calendar day period of continuous 
     session of the Congress after the date of the receipt by the 
     Congress of such notice of Presidential Certification of 
     Immigration Enforcement, the Congress passes a Resolution of 
     Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement in 
     accordance with this subsection, and such resolution is 
     enacted into law.
       (2) Procedures applicable to the senate.--
       (A) Rulemaking authority.--The provisions under this 
     paragraph are enacted by Congress--
       (i) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, 
     and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of the 
     Senate, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to 
     be followed in the Senate in the case of a Resolution of 
     Immigration Enforcement, and such provisions supersede other 
     rules of the Senate only to the extent that they are 
     inconsistent with such other rules; and
       (ii) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the Senate to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of the Senate) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the 
     Senate.
       (B) Introduction; referral.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than the first day on which the 
     Senate is in session following the day on which any notice of 
     Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement is 
     received by the Congress, a Resolution of Presidential 
     Certification of Immigration Enforcement shall be introduced 
     (by request) in the Senate by either the Majority Leader or 
     Minority Leader. If such resolution is not introduced as 
     provided in the preceding sentence, any Senator may introduce 
     such resolution on the third day on which the Senate is in 
     session after the date or receipt of the Presidential 
     Certification of Immigration Enforcement.
       (ii) Referral.--Upon introduction, a Resolution of 
     Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement shall 
     be referred jointly to each of the committees having 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter referenced in the 
     Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement by the 
     President of the Senate. Upon the expiration of 60 days of 
     continuous session after the introduction of the Resolution 
     of Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement, 
     each committee to which such resolution was referred shall 
     make its recommendations to the Senate.
       (iii) Discharge.--If any committee to which is referred a 
     resolution introduced under paragraph (2)(A) has not reported 
     such resolution at the end of 60 days of continuous session 
     of the Congress after introduction of such resolution, such 
     committee shall be discharged from further consideration of 
     such resolution, and such resolution shall be placed on the 
     legislative calendar of the Senate.
       (C) Consideration.--
       (i) In general.--When each committee to which a resolution 
     has been referred has reported, or has been discharged from 
     further consideration of, a resolution described in paragraph 
     (2)(C), it shall at any time thereafter be in order (even 
     though a previous motion to the same effect has been 
     disagreed to) for any Member of the Senate to move to proceed 
     to the consideration of such resolution. Such motion shall 
     not be debatable. If a motion to proceed to the consideration 
     of such resolution is agreed to, such resolution shall remain 
     the unfinished business of the Senate until the disposition 
     of such resolution.
       (ii) Debate.--Debate on a resolution, and on all debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection with such resolution, shall 
     be limited to not more than 30 hours, which shall be divided 
     equally between Members favoring and Members opposing such 
     resolution. A motion to further limit debate shall be in 
     order and shall not be debatable. The resolution shall not be 
     subject to amendment, to a motion to postpone, or to a motion 
     to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion 
     to recommit such resolution shall not be in order.
       (iii) Final vote.--Immediately following the conclusion of 
     the debate on a resolution of approval, and a single quorum 
     call at the conclusion of such debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the Senate, the vote on such 
     resolution shall occur.
       (iv) Appeals.--Appeals from the decisions of the Chair 
     relating to the application of the rules of the Senate to the 
     procedure relating to a resolution of approval shall be 
     limited to 1 hour of debate.
       (D) Receipt of a resolution from the house.--If the Senate 
     receives from the House of Representatives a Resolution of 
     Presidential Certification of Immigration Enforcement, the 
     following procedures shall apply:
       (i) The resolution of the House of Representatives shall 
     not be referred to a committee and shall be placed on the 
     Senate calendar, except that it shall not be in order to 
     consider such resolution on the calendar received by the 
     House of Representatives until such time as the Committee 
     reports such resolution or is discharged from further 
     consideration of a resolution, pursuant to this title.
       (ii) With respect to the disposition by the Senate with 
     respect to such resolution, on any vote on final passage of a 
     resolution of the Senate with respect to such approval, a 
     resolution from the House of Representatives with respect to 
     such measures shall be automatically substituted for the 
     resolution of the Senate.
       (3) Procedures applicable to the house of 
     representatives.--
       (A) Rulemaking authority.--The provisions of this paragraph 
     are enacted by Congress--
       (i) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives, and as such they are deemed a part of the 
     rules of the House of Representatives, but applicable only 
     with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House of 
     Representatives in the case of Resolutions of Certification 
     Immigration Enforcement, and such provisions supersede other 
     rules of the House of Representatives only to the extent that 
     they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
       (ii) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House of Representatives to change the rules (so far as 
     relating to the procedure of the House of Representatives) at 
     any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in 
     the case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.
       (B) Introduction; referral.--Resolutions of certification 
     shall upon introduction, be immediately referred by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives to the appropriate 
     committee or committees of the House of Representatives. Any 
     such resolution received from the Senate shall be held at the 
     Speaker's table.
       (C) Discharge.--Upon the expiration of 60 days of 
     continuous session after the introduction of the first 
     resolution of certification with respect to any measure, each 
     committee to which such resolution was referred shall be 
     discharged from further consideration of such resolution, and 
     such resolution shall be referred to the appropriate 
     calendar, unless such resolution or an identical resolution 
     was previously reported by each committee to which it was 
     referred.
       (D) Consideration.--It shall be in order for the Speaker to 
     recognize a Member favoring a resolution to call up a 
     resolution of certification after it has been on the 
     appropriate calendar for 5 legislative days. When any such 
     resolution is called up, the House of Representatives shall 
     proceed to its immediate consideration and the Speaker shall 
     recognize the Member calling up such resolution and a Member 
     opposed to such resolution for 10 hours of debate in the 
     House of Representatives, to be equally divided and 
     controlled by such Members. When such time has expired, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to adoption without intervening motion. No 
     amendment to any such resolution shall be in order, nor shall 
     it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which such 
     resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.
       (E) Receipt of resolution from senate.--If the House of 
     Representatives receives from the Senate a Resolution of 
     Certification Immigration Enforcement, the following 
     procedures shall apply:
       (i) Such resolution shall not be referred to a committee.
       (ii) With respect to the disposition of the House of 
     Representatives with respect to such resolution--

       (I) the procedure with respect to that or other resolutions 
     of the House of Representatives shall be the same as if no 
     resolution from the Senate with respect to such resolution 
     had been received; but
       (II) on any vote on final passage of a resolution of the 
     House of Representatives with respect to such measures, a 
     resolution from the Senate with respect to such resolution if 
     the text is identical shall be automatically substituted for 
     the resolution of the House of Representatives.

       (i) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Presidential certification of immigration 
     enforcement.--The term ``Presidential Certification of 
     Immigration Enforcement'' means the certification required 
     under this section, which is signed by the President, and 
     reads as follows:

[[Page 14837]]

     ``Pursuant to the provisions set forth in section 1 of the 
     Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform 
     Act of 2007 (the `Act'), I do hereby transmit the 
     Certification of Immigration Enforcement, certify that the 
     borders of the United States are substantially secure, and 
     certify that the following provisions of the Act have been 
     fully satisfied, the measures set forth below are fully 
     implemented, and the border security measures set forth in 
     this section are fully operational.''.
       (2) Certification.--The term ``certification'' means any of 
     the certifications required under subsection (a).
       (3) Immigration enforcement measure.--The term 
     ``immigration enforcement measure'' means any of the measures 
     required to be certified pursuant to subsection (a).
       (4) Resolution of presidential certification of immigration 
     enforcement.--The term ``Resolution of Presidential 
     Certification of Immigration Enforcement'' means a joint 
     resolution of the Congress, the matter after the resolving 
     clause of which is as follows:
     ``That Congress approves the certification of the President 
     of the United States submitted to Congress on ____ that the 
     national borders of the United States have been secured and, 
     in accordance with the provisions of the Secure Borders, 
     Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.'',

                      TITLE I--BORDER ENFORCEMENT

       Subtitle A--Assets for Controlling United States Borders.

     SEC. 101. ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) Additional Personnel--
       (1) U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS--In each of 
     the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Secretary shall, 
     subject to the availability of appropriations, increase by 
     not less than 501 the number of positions for full-time 
     active duty CBP officers and provide appropriate training, 
     equipment, and support to such additional CBP officers.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise to clarify the record of my vote on 
Bingaman amendment No. 1267. I intended to vote against the amendment. 
I do not support the amendment and I wish to explain why.
  The Bingaman amendment No. 1267 would have allowed certain future 
legal temporary workers to renew their work visas from the United 
States, rather than being required to leave the country for a period of 
time to reapply. In order to have a true temporary worker program, 
workers must only come to the U.S. for a season and then return to 
their home country. If workers are instead permitted to stay in the 
U.S., they will likely establish economic and familial roots, and will 
not want to leave when their legal visa has expired. People who want to 
take part in our society should seek legal citizenship, rather than 
extending upon an agreement that was intended to be temporary. I 
encourage those who have respected our laws and want to live in our 
country to apply for a green card and become a U.S. citizen.

                          ____________________