To establish the American Competitiveness Scholarship Program.

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, what is the pending business before
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dodd amendment No. 1199.

Amendment No. 1194 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside
in order to call up amendment No. 1194.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself and
Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment
numbered 1194 to amendment No. 1150.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1194

(Purpose: To modify the deadline for the family backlog reduction)

In paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of the quoted matter
under section 501(a), strike ``567,000'' and insert
``677,000''.
In the fourth item contained in the second column of the
row relating to extended family of the table contained in
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of the quoted matter under
section 502(b)(1), strike ``May 1, 2005'' and insert
``January 1, 2007''.
In paragraph (3) of the quoted matter under section
503(c)(3), strike ``May 1, 2005'' and insert ``January 1,
2007''.
In paragraph (3) of the quoted matter under section
503(c)(3), strike ``440,000'' and insert ``550,000''.
In subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter
under section 503(c)(3), strike ``70,400'' and insert
``88,000''.
In subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter
under section 503(c)(3), strike ``110,000'' and insert
``137,500''.
In subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter
under section 503(c)(3), strike ``70,400'' and insert
``88,000''.
In subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of the quoted matter
under section 503(c)(3), strike ``189,200'' and insert
``236,500''.
In paragraph (2) of section 503(e), strike ``May 1, 2005''
each place it appears and insert ``January 1, 2007''.
In paragraph (1) of section 503(f), strike ``May 1, 2005''
and insert ``January 1, 2007,''.
In paragraph (6) of the quoted matter under section 508(b),
strike ``May 1, 2005'' and insert ``January 1, 2007''.
In paragraph (5) of section 602(a), strike ``May 1, 2005''
and insert ``January 1, 2007''.
In subparagraph (A) of section 214A(j)(7) of the quoted
matter under section 622(b), strike ``May 1, 2005'' and
insert ``January 1, 2007''.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Durbin, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Akaka, Lautenberg, and Inouye be added as
cosponsors of this amendment, along with Senator Hagel and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the legislation currently before us
curtails the ability of American citizens, or U.S. permanent residents,
to petition for their families to be reunified here in America. Right
now, if the bill goes untouched, this bill sets two different standards
for groups of people, and it sets it in a way that is fundamentally
unfair. One group is those who have followed the law and obeyed the
rules by having their U.S. citizen relative or U.S. lawful permanent
resident petition to bring them into this country legally, and one more
favorably--it treats the next group much more favorably, one who has
entered or remained in the country without proper documentation. So
those who have obeyed the rules, followed the law, relatives of U.S.
citizens, get treated in an inferior way to those who have not followed
the law, who get treated in a better way. Let me explain how.
The Menendez-Hagel amendment simply states that at a minimum, the two
groups should be treated equally under the bill. Our amendment is about
fundamental fairness. All this amendment does is to make sure both
groups face the same cutoff date.
Right now, those who are in our Nation in an undocumented status are
allowed under the bill to potentially earn permanent residency so long
as they entered this country before January 1, 2007. All our amendment
says is that those who followed the rules who are waiting outside of
the country who are the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens shouldn't
be treated worse because they obeyed the law and followed the rules.
They should at least be treated the same, not worse. Therefore, they
should have the same date: January 1, 2007. All this amendment does is
simply apply the same standard, the same cutoff date to those who
followed the rules so that those who did obey the law and who legally
applied for their green card can potentially earn permanent residency
so long as they apply for their visa before January 1, 2007.
Now, this is a somewhat complicated issue, so let me explain exactly
what the legislation as it is currently drafted does if we don't adopt
this amendment. Right now, there is a family

[[Page S6599]]

backlog of people who have applied for legal permanent residency. These
are the people waiting outside of the country, waiting as they are
claimed and have their petitions by a U.S. citizen or permanent
resident saying: I want to bring my father or my mother here. I want to
bring my child here. I want to bring my brother or sister here. This
legislation, as currently drafted, does away with the rights of U.S.
citizens to make that claim if, in fact, those individuals have not
filed their application before May 1, 2005.
It is important to pay attention to that May 1, 2005 date because it
is nearly 2 years before the cutoff for people who are here in an
undocumented status--those who didn't follow the law, obey the rules,
and those who may obviously have no U.S. citizen to claim them. So it
actually says to a U.S. citizen and a U.S. permanent resident: You have
an inferior right and a right that is now lost because it exists under
the law as it is today. That right is lost, and your right is inferior
to the rights of those individuals who have not followed the rules and
obeyed the law. So as this bill seeks to clear the legal family
backlog, we say: Don't treat a U.S. citizen worse. Don't treat a U.S.
citizen worse. The legislation as currently drafted sets this arbitrary
date of May 1, 2005, yet gives everybody else who didn't follow the law
the date of January 1, 2007. That means a lot of family gets cut off.
The rights of U.S. citizens get cut off as well.
Right now, the legislation also says that if you overstayed a visa or
came to this country without proper documentation before January 1,
2007, you can ultimately become a lawful, permanent resident between
the 9th and 13th year of the process that the bill describes. But if
you applied for a visa outside of the country and you applied by a U.S.
citizen or permanent resident and you followed the rules, there is no--
no--guarantee you will ever be able to be reunified with your family.
Our amendment would remedy this injustice by moving the cutoff date
for those who legally applied for visas to January 1, 2007--the same
cutoff date that is currently set for the legalization of undocumented
immigrants. And we would add the appropriate number of green cards to
ensure we don't create a new backlog or cause the 8-year deadline for
clearing the family backlog to slip by a few years. So we stay within
the framework of the underlying bill; we just bring justice and
fairness to the bill for those who have obeyed the law, followed the
rules, and are the family members of U.S. citizens.
Now, why shouldn't legal applicants be able to keep their place in
line if they applied before January of 2007? Clearly, this legislation,
as it is currently written, is unfair to those who legally applied for
a visa. The legislation unfairly says that those who followed the rules
lose their place in line. The legislation unfairly says that those who
followed the rules will have to wait at least an additional 8 years
before they even become eligible to compete--eligible to compete--for a
new proposed merit-based green card. The legislation unfairly says that
those who followed the rules would have to wait a total of 10 years in
addition to the time they have been waiting--in addition to the time
they have been waiting--before they are eligible to compete under a new
and different system, with a different set of rules, and no guarantee
they will ever be able to be reunited with their family member, that
U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Clearly, at a minimum, we should
allow those who played by the rules to have the same cutoff date of
January 1, 2007.
Now, not only is it unfair to make people who follow the rules wait
longer than those who chose not to, it is also wrong to make people who
applied under our current system have to reapply under a totally
different one. Those who applied on May 1, 2005, or after, applied
under our current immigration system that values family ties and
employment at a premium, unlike under this bill, would now be subject
to a completely different standard that is primarily concerned with
education and skill levels. This is like changing the rules of the game
halfway through it. People who applied after May 2005 would not only
lose credit for the up to 2 years they have been waiting under the
legal process, they would also have to apply under a completely
different system than the one under which they originally applied.
Now, let's think of how fundamentally unfair that is.
In this photo is the late Marine LCpl Jose Antonio Gutierrez, a
permanent resident of the United States--the first American casualty in
the war in Iraq. For people similar to the late Jose Antonio Gutierrez
who served their country, for them, under this bill--he was not only
here legally but was serving his country--oh, no, you apply for your
family by May 1, 2005, or, sorry, we will give those people who don't
follow the rules and obey the law a preference. But you, who served
your country, you who wore the uniform, you who have done everything
right--no, you have an inferior right.
Is that the legacy we leave to people who have served their country,
a legal permanent resident? Sometimes people don't even know we have
legal permanent residents fighting in the service of the United
States--tens of thousands. That is fundamentally unfair.
In this photo is another group of lawful permanent residents, ``first
called to duty.'' They were in different services of the Armed Forces
of the United States, serving their country, in harm's way. Guess what.
Under the bill, you have family abroad, you applied for them, you did
the right thing, and you told them to wait. After May 1, 2005, sorry,
Charlie, your right is gone, just like that. Your value and service
doesn't matter. All these soldiers, sailors, and marines--all different
services--all of them are ultimately serving their country.
Under this bill, we take people such as them, and so many others, and
vitiate their rights. That is fundamentally unfair. These people not
only are serving our country abroad, they are protecting our airports,
our seaports, and our borders. They risk their lives in Afghanistan and
Iraq and around the world to protect us at home. To petition for your
sister to come to live with you in America, you lose that right if you
filed after May 1, 2005. You didn't do the right thing, but you get the
benefit of 2 years more than those who obeyed the laws and followed the
rules--brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers.
It is hard to imagine that one would have that right taken away from
them.
Here is another case for you to consider. You are a U.S. citizen, you
have paid your taxes, you have served your Nation, you attend church,
and you make a good living. You are a good citizen. You petition to
have your adult child come to America, but you did so after the
arbitrary date of May 1, 2005. Under this bill, that U.S. citizen would
lose their right. However, those undocumented in the country after May
1, 2005, get a benefit. It is hard to imagine, but it is true.
Right now, this bill is unfair and nonsensical, capriciously
punishing those who have followed the rules and legally applied for a
green card. What message, then, do we send? I have heard a lot about
the rule of law, a lot about waiting in line, a lot about all those who
should have followed our immigration laws. Yet what message does the
bill send? You followed it, but your rights are vitiated, taken away--
not the rights of the family member waiting abroad to come here, it is
the rights of the U.S. citizen to make the claim for that individual.
That is what bothers me about the underlying legislation. They are
taking my right away and your right away as a U.S. citizen.
We must make sure that people who have played by the rules and
legally applied to immigrate here are not arbitrarily placed at a
disadvantage in respect to those who are in this country in an
undocumented status. As I have said many times before, comprehensive
immigration reform must be tough but must also be practical and fair
and tough on border security. Certainly, we have done that here--this
bill even moved more to the right--by providing a pathway to earned
citizenship.
At the same time, we have to be fair by rewarding those who have
followed the law. I think we have to remain true to those principles.
Let me give you a little sense of this. I have heard a lot about chain
migration. You know, it is interesting, we have seen during history
that when we want to dehumanize something, take out the humanity of
something, when we want to make it an abstract object, we find a word
or a

[[Page S6600]]

phrase for it, such as chain migration. I have heard a lot about what a
``nuclear family'' is and is not.
I will use these paperclips to demonstrate this. I always thought a
mother or father, son or daughter, brother and sister was not a chain;
I thought that was a circle of strength. It is a circle of strength
within our community. It is a sense of what our society is all about,
regardless of what altar you worship at, what creed you believe in. I
thought, when I heard the speeches of family values on the floor, that
this was a circle of strength and dignity and the very essence of what
is essential for our communities to grow and prosper.
What does this bill do? It says that is not a value--a mother,
father, son, daughter, brother, sister. It is not a value. That is what
this bill does. Let me tell you what family values have meant to this
country. Here on the chart are names of Americans who had immigrant
parents. A lot of them probably could not have come to this country
under the bill as proposed. Look at what their offspring have provided
for this country.

A gentleman known as General Petraeus happens to be leading our
efforts in Iraq. He is our big hope to turn it around. He had immigrant
parents.
Thomas Edison, from my home State of New Jersey, Menlo Park, invented
electricity. He may not have been the originator of that in this
country if his parents had not come here.
Martin Sheen, from the show ``West Wing,'' would not have been here
under this bill.
Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine, which was a great achievement.
His parents would have likely not made it here under this bill.
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, former chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff--he is somebody who is admired on both sides of the
aisle--he would not have made it here under this bill.
Antonin Scalia--I may not agree with him all the time, but he is a
distinguished member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Several
of these names you might recognize as Republicans. He would not have
likely made it here under the bill as proposed; Carl Sandburg, a great
poet, who wrote of our humanity as a people; the late Peter Jennings,
who talked to us every night on television.
These are all people who have contributed in so many different ways
to our country because their parents came to America. Family values
have enriched America.
Let me give you another group of citizens. These, unlike those others
who were born in the United States, are naturalized U.S. citizens,
meaning they weren't born in this country. They came here through the
immigration process of our country. I would like to think some of them
have contributed some good things:
The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am not sure he
would have made it into this country; Henry Kissinger, former Secretary
of State; Ted Koppel, who brought us the news on ``Nightline:'' Levi
Strauss, you have probably worn his products; Desi Arnez, one of my
favorites, a Cuban immigrant, who loved Lucy every day on national TV;
Bob Hope was a naturalized U.S. citizen. He brought an enormous amount
of joy to our service men and women across the globe; Patrick Ewing, a
great basketball player; Oscar de la Renta, a great designer; Liz
Claiborne; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Albert
Einstein. His parents never would have made it under this bill; Andrew
Carnegie of the Carnegie Foundation; Joseph Pulitzer, of Pulitzer Prize
fame; Michael J. Fox, who talks to us every day about the necessity for
stem cell research and the incredible challenges of Americans with
Parkinson's. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that under this bill, so
many of those, such as General Petraeus, Colin Powell, Thomas Edison,
and Antonin Scalia, whose parents came to this country and therefore
gave them the opportunity to be born in America, they would not have
made it under this bill. Family values. Those who did not have the good
fortune to be born here, but because their parents immigrated here,
were naturalized U.S. citizens. They have contributed greatly.
So let's not dehumanize this reality. This isn't about ``chain
migration.'' This isn't about some abstract sense of how we try to
change a very important concept--family, family values, reunification,
strengthening communities, and having great Americans who have altered
the course of history and made this country the greatest experiment and
country in the history of the world.
Our amendment simply says to all those who have espoused family
values, it is time to put your vote with your values. It says don't
snuff out the right of a U.S. citizen or a U.S. permanent resident,
these guys in this picture--don't snuff out their right, all permanent
residents of the U.S. originally, don't snuff out their rights to be
able to claim family members. Don't treat those of us who are U.S.
citizens and legal permanent residents worse than those people who
didn't obey the law, follow the rules, and came into the country. Don't
do this. At least treat us equally. At least treat us equally.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from New
Jersey and the passion and value he brings to this debate; it is
tremendous, and we are all better for it. I am grateful to him.
I rise this afternoon to, once again, discuss the dire need we have
in this country and in our communities for comprehensive immigration
reform. I do believe the debate on immigration reform has been the kind
of meaningful, bipartisan approach in the Senate--with Senators Kyl and
Kennedy working together, Senator McConnell and Leader Reid working
together--this is a bipartisan approach and the debate the American
people expect out of the Senate.
I am proud we are moving forward on it because of the immediate need
but also the way we are going about this process.
Despite the Senate's success in producing a bipartisan bill last
year, the issue still has not been resolved. There is still much to be
questioned, and we are working through that.
The majority of my colleagues will agree that our Nation's current
immigration system is badly broken, it is out of date, and it
desperately needs to be fixed. I plan to look for any plan that we can
support that is tough and practical and fair in dealing with this ever-
increasing issue.
Without a doubt, the top priority must be the safety and security of
our country, as well as the economic needs of industry, U.S. citizens,
and immigrants. But most importantly, the security issue is one of our
top priorities.
I am so pleased the underlying bill includes triggers to require that
Border Patrol agents are significantly increased and vehicle barriers
and fencing are installed along the southern border with Mexico before
any of the other provisions can even begin, making sure that we are
taking care of what we know we can do and we can do quickly.
I believe this bill is a work in progress, though, just as any other
bill we bring before the Senate--working hard through the committee
process and through years of debate, but also recognizing that we are
not here to create a work of art but to create a work in progress.
Through these debates and actually through implementation, we learn
what works and what doesn't work, what the current needs of our country
are. But as we move forward with implementation, we learn the future
needs.
If we debate reform in this bill in the coming days and weeks, we
must also address other important issues. As I stated during last
year's debate, my home State of Arkansas had the largest per capita
increase of the Hispanic population of any State in the Nation during
the last census. Arkansas has become what is referred to as an emerging
Hispanic community, with largely first-generation immigrants. These
immigrants have had a dramatic impact on our communities and our
economy.
The majority of immigrants in my State came to the United States
because they wanted an opportunity to work hard and achieve a better
life for themselves and for their families. However, I believe it is to
the detriment, oftentimes, of taxpaying Americans if we don't address
the millions of illegal

[[Page S6601]]

immigrants living in our communities. We have to do so in a practical
way, in a realistic way of how we effectively use the tax dollars we
have, along with the rules and regulations and realistic barriers that
we can put into place to rein in the problem that exists today in this
country.
No reform proposal should grant amnesty. Amnesty is total unqualified
forgiveness without restitution, and no policy should provide amnesty.
This policy does not, nor did the one we passed in the last session of
Congress. I don't think it is fair to the citizens of this Nation or to
those immigrants who do play by the rules to come into this great land.
Those who have broken the law, including employers who knowingly hire
illegal immigrants, must face proper recourse.
However, I also don't believe it is practical, wise, or even, quite
frankly, an economic reality to think that we can simply round up and
deport all of the illegal immigrants who are residing in this country
today. That is why I support an approach that includes serious
consequences for those who are in our country illegally and yet want to
remain. We create an earned path to citizenship and tough enforcement
policies for businesses and those who are working toward that
citizenship. We can eliminate the shadow economy that encourages
illegal immigration.
According to the bill being debated, all undocumented immigrants who
arrive in the United States before January 1, 2007, will be required to
pay a hefty fine, a $5,000 fine, go to the end of the line, and wait 8
years before a green card can be issued, putting into place stiff
regulations and expectations of those who have come here against the
rules and yet want to remain, putting them at the back of the line not
at the front.
In addition, a touchback provision has been included that will
require the head of a household to return to his or her country of
origin to apply for a green card before being allowed to return. Many
of us know how absolutely precious citizenship in this great land is.
When I first ran for Congress, I can remember the first thing my father
told me. I was a young single woman out campaigning and pleading with
my fellow Arkansans in east Arkansas, people I had known ever since I
was born, people who had helped raise me, those I had grown up around.
My father said: Never, ever, ever miss an opportunity to ask someone
for their vote. He said: When you have something that precious, you
want to be asked for it.
Citizenship in this great country, just as that vote, is a precious
gift, and we, as Arkansans and Americans, know that anything similar
that precious is worth working for.
That is why these provisions are important because it demonstrates
that citizenship is something that must be earned and is not free.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am sorry, I didn't know I had a
restricted time limit. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for an
additional 2 minutes for the Senator from Arkansas? Without objection,
it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, as I said, citizenship in this country is not free,
and it is something that has to be earned and worked for, and that is
what this bill requires.
I also believe any plan must consider guest workers. Many business
leaders throughout our great State of Arkansas have told me about the
valuable contribution that legal immigrant workers have made to the
economic growth we have seen. It is my belief these workers are vital
to sustained growth and development of many industries and farming
communities throughout our land. However, we must ensure that adequate
safeguards are in place to prevent guest workers from taking jobs from
U.S. workers or driving down wages and benefits for hard-working
Americans. We have seen that in this bill, and we will continue to work
to strengthen it.
I am pleased the immigration reform legislation we are currently
debating contains provisions that will improve our agricultural guest
worker program which will benefit our Nation's farmers.
We stand at a crossroads in this country. Over the last decade and a
half, the immigrant population has expanded in every area of our
country, many of them coming here legally but some not; some coming
illegally, many of them already paying local taxes. Almost half are
paying into Medicare and Social Security with no promise of ever
receiving any benefits.
We are faced with the decision that gets to the heart of what values
we hold near and dear as Americans. We have always said: If you work
hard and play by the rules, there is a place for you in this great land
of America to raise your children and contribute to our great melting
pot.
We now must consider as part of this debate what to do with those who
have broken the rules to come here but have since worked hard to
provide for their families. I hope the Senate will give this difficult
question the reasoned, thorough debate it deserves.
The problems we face today with border security and illegal
immigration did not appear overnight, and they will not be solved
overnight. It is a difficult and complicated issue, and fixing it will
not be easy. But while I am still reviewing the provisions of this
legislation and reserve the right to try to improve it through the
amendment process, as others will, I believe strongly that we can work
to complete an immigration bill this year because we no longer can
wait.
I thank the majority leader and Senator McConnell. I thank Senator
Kennedy and Senator Kyl for their hard work. And I look forward to
continuing our work on this bill and hopefully finding a solution to
this issue and doing so in a timely way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 1186, as Modified

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 1186, that it be modified
with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by
inserting after subparagraph (G), as added by section 503 of
this Act, the following:
``(H) Aliens who are eligible for a visa under paragraph
(1) or (3) of section 203(a) and who have a parent who was
naturalized pursuant to section 405 of the Immigration Act of
1990 (8 U.S.C. 1440 note).''.

Amendment No. 1181

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate and a vote in a
few moments is an amendment by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr.
Dorgan. It will sunset the guest worker program at 5 years. We will
stop at 5 years and take a look at this immigration program and decide
whether it is good for America, whether it is fair and just.
I don't believe that is an unreasonable request. I think it is the
right thing to do, and I will be supporting that amendment.
I wish to speak to that amendment, but first I wish to say a word
about the bill.
Mr. President, 96 years ago, just a few miles from where we are
meeting, on July 18, 1911, a woman came down a gangplank in Baltimore,
MD. She had just arrived on a voyage from Bremen, Germany. She had a 2-
year-old little girl in her arms and two young children, a boy and a
girl, by her side. She stepped foot in America in Baltimore and took a
train to join up with her husband in a place called East St. Louis, IL.
This woman who brought these three children across the Atlantic
didn't speak English. She only knew that her husband was waiting 800
miles away and was making her journey. That woman was my grandmother.
The baby in her arms was my mother. That was 96 years ago. Ninety-six
years later, the son of that little girl stands as a United States
Senator from Illinois. It is a story about America.
This Nation is great because of the immigrants and their sons and
daughters who came here and made it great. I am certain that when my
mother's family announced to their villagers in Jurbarkas, Lithuania,
that they were leaving for America, that they were leaving behind their
home, their garden, their church, their history, their language, and
their culture and heading someplace where they couldn't

[[Page S6602]]

even speak the language, I am sure as their neighbors walked away in
the darkness that evening they all said the same thing: They'll be
back. They'll be back.
They didn't go back. They stayed here. They built America. People
similar to them have been building America since the beginning.
This bill is about immigration. It is about a system of immigration
that has failed us. It has failed us because 800,000 undocumented
illegal people pour across our southern border every year into America.
It has failed us because employers welcome these employees, often
paying them dirt wages under poor conditions and say to them: We will
use you until we don't need you, and then you are on your own.
These immigrants sacrifice for themselves, send their money home, and
dream of someday that they will have security and peace of mind. That
is the story.
Sadly, we have 10 or 12 million now in our country who came that way,
with no legality or documentation.
I salute Senator Kennedy and those who brought this bill to the
floor. They have worked long and hard for years to deal with this issue
honestly. They have to fight the talk show hosts who are on every
afternoon screaming about immigration with not one positive thought of
what we can do about it. Instead, Senator Kennedy and many like him
have stood up and said: We will risk our political reputation by
putting this measure before America. Let's do something and fix this
broken immigration system.
I salute them for that--for border enforcement, for workplace
enforcement, for dealing honestly, fairly, legally, in an American way
with the 12 million people who are here.
The amendment before us addresses one part. It addresses the guest
worker program. As written in this bill, we would allow 400,000 people
a year to come into America and work as temporary workers, and that
number could increase. By action of the Senate yesterday, we reduced
the 400,000 to 200,000.
Do we need 200,000 guest workers every year in America? I don't know
the answer to that. I can tell you today that among college graduates
in America, the unemployment rate is 1.8 percent. The unemployment rate
for high school graduates is 7 percent. It tells me that there is a
pool of untapped talent in America.
Do we need 200,000 people coming from overseas each year to
supplement our workforce? I don't know the answer to that question.
There are those who insist we do and some who say we don't. And that is
why Senator Dorgan's amendment is important. It says we will try the
200,000 a year for 5 years and then stop and assess where we are, what
has happened to wages of American workers, what has happened to
businesses that need additional workers. We can make an honest
assessment at that point. If we see American wages going down, if we
see the unemployment rate of Americans going up, we may want to
calibrate, reconsider.
His is a thoughtful and reasonable approach. Senator Kennedy has
said, and he is right, that we establish standards of treatment for
these guest workers that are dramatically better than what they face
today. There is gross exploitation taking place. We know that.
Many of these undocumented, illegal workers are treated very kindly,
but many are exploited. We know the stories. we hear them, we read
about them. We can change that, and we should. A great nation should
not allow people to be exploited in this way.

It is not inconsistent to say that we will have a limited number of
guest workers, that we will treat them fairly and honestly and in a
decent manner, with decent wages, and then step back in 5 years and
make an assessment of where we are. I think that is a reasonable
approach to take.
There are many positive provisions in this bill, but the one thing
that troubles me is the idea of guest workers being here for 2 years
and leaving, creating a rotating class of people with little investment
in the United States. How will that work? We already know the answer to
that question. That is what European nations are doing today. They are
bringing in people from former colonies and other countries. The Turks
are coming into Germany, Africans coming into France, but they never
become part of those countries. They are always the workforce. They
become angry. They become dispossessed. They riot in the streets
because they have no investment in that country in which they are
working. They are being exploited and used. I don't want to see that
happen in America. I want those who are living here to be vested in
this country and its values and its ideals.
Finally, let me say that when it comes to guest workers and H-1B
visas, where we invite higher skilled workers, our first obligation is
to the workers of America, those who are unemployed and those who have
the American dream but just need an American chance. As we look at each
of these categories of workers, let us make certain that the first
question we ask and answer is, are we dedicated to the workers and the
families across America to make sure they have a fighting chance to
realize the same American dream my mother realized when she came off
the boat.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just as an inquiry, I think we are
scheduled for a vote at 2:15; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I see the Senator from North Dakota.
How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes,
and the Senator from North Dakota has 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes, and the
Chair will let me know when I have \1/2\ minute remaining.
Mr. President, just to summarize where we are, those of us who have
studied this issue--and I respect all the Members of the Senate in
giving this consideration--recognize we have to have a comprehensive
approach. We don't rely on any one part in order to be successful with
this recommendation in terms of immigration reform. We have the strong
border security, but with the border security we do have some
opportunity for people to come in the front door so they are not coming
in the back door illegally. We have tough interior enforcement because
we require that those individuals who are going to come in have a card.
We treat them fairly, we treat them well, and we provide the same kinds
of protections for those individuals that we give to the American
workers. That doesn't exist today. It is an entirely different game.
We have to understand at the outset that the guest worker doesn't get
in here unless there is a refusal of any American to do that job. If
there is any American anyplace that will do the job, they get it. Do we
understand that? This is for jobs Americans will not do. We hear great
stories about people being unemployed here and unemployed there. I
agree with that. But the fact is, there are some jobs in the American
economy which Americans just will not do. I don't think that needs to
be debated. And there are those who will come here and will do those
jobs with the idea that, hopefully, they will have an opportunity to be
part of the American dream. So the advertising goes out for the job
that is out there, and Americans can get the job. If no American wants
it, then the opportunity is there for a guest worker.
We have built in here a review of the guest worker program. The
Senator from North Dakota says: Let's do a 5- year and then end it. We
say: Let's take it to 18 months. I spoke earlier in the debate about
what this commission does. It is made up of businessmen, it is made up
of workers and of economists who will decide how this program is
working. Is there exploitation? Is it functioning? If it is working, is
it fair? It is 18 months, and then they have to give Congress the
information. They do the study, they give the information, and we
modify the program.
Under the existing program, people will go out and work for a period
of 5 years, and they may very well earn points to become part of the
American dream. That doesn't exist in the European system. This is
entirely different. These individuals, in 5 years, up to a million
individuals, earn points to become part of the American dream, but

[[Page S6603]]

then suddenly the Dorgan amendment pulls the strings right out from
under them. Down they go. Down they go. The promise to them is if they
work hard and play by the rules and work in very tough and menial jobs,
they may have an opportunity--not guaranteed, but they may have the
opportunity to be a part of the American dream, but not under the
Dorgan amendment, under our amendment.
This is the way to go. We have in here the review that is essential
and necessary. This can provide the Congress with the information of
whether this program is working. It has been established, and it will
be set up. It will be functioning, and it will give Congress the best
information. We will have continuing oversight, and we will be able to
adjust that program in ways that serve humanity and serve our economy.
I hope the Dorgan amendment will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is very rare that I have such a strong
disagreement with my friend, Ted Kennedy, but I don't understand the
agitation over an amendment that simply says that a program that allows
200,000 foreign workers in here, a generalized program--this isn't
AgJOBS, which is a specific industry program that we know we need
because we know right now half the workers are foreign workers; this is
a generalized, open program, 200,000 foreign workers a year. I think
Senator Dorgan and I and others have shown that American workers are
going to be hurt by this. So why is there so much angst about
sunsetting a program that will allow in now 200,000 people a year? It
was 400,000. Thanks to the Bingaman amendment, it is down. This is a
modest amendment. This is a sensible amendment.
Mr. President, I would ask my friend to yield me 1 more minute, or 30
seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, here is the point: You are doing no harm
to these people. Under this bill, these people have to leave at the end
of 6 years. They are done. So for the Senator to say this somehow hurts
people in the long run, it simply isn't true.
This is a modest amendment. It makes a lot of sense. Who knows, in 5
years, we could be in a massive depression. We don't want that, but we
are certainly not going to want to extend the program in that case.
This is a wise amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 40 seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is no social program in this country
as important as a good job that pays well. That is just a fact. Having
a job that pays well, with some job security, is the way we expand
opportunity in this country and allow someone to be able to take care
of their family.
We are told by those who offer this legislation that there are jobs
Americans won't take, that we don't have enough workers and we should
bring in workers from outside of our country. Well, it is true there
are jobs, for example, at the lower end of the economic scale where
businesses that offer those jobs don't want to pay anything for those
jobs, and so they do not have people rushing to beat down the door to
get those jobs. They do not have to pay a decent wage for those jobs if
they can keep bringing in cheap labor. That is what is at work here in
the guest worker program. I thought supply and demand was something
that was cherished and embraced by the people who most strongly support
this. Supply and demand. So if you are having trouble finding workers
for a job, you raise the price, you raise the wage.
Do my colleagues know what is happening to workers in this country?
Their productivity has gone way up. We have had dramatic gains in
productivity by workers. Has their income gone up? No, not at all,
especially those at the bottom. There is downward pressure on their
income. Why? Because we are told we can have an almost inexhaustible
supply of cheap labor coming into this country.
Even if this bill were not on the floor, we bring in 1.2 million
people per year under the legal process by which people come to this
country. So it is not as if there is not going to be immigration. On
top of that, there will be well over a million people coming in for
agricultural jobs without this bill. But this bill says that is not
enough, that we need additional workers to come in because we need more
of those workers, particularly unskilled workers, at the bottom.
Here is what this group has put together as a plan. It is hard for me
to see how you could come up with a plan such as this, but this is the
plan. It used to be 400,000, but now it is 200,000. In the first year,
we bring in 200,000 people from outside of this country to come in and
take American jobs--200,000 people come on in. They can stay for 2
years, by the way, and bring their family, if they want. Then they go
home for a year, come back for 2, go home for a year, and come back for
2 more years. If they bring their family, they can only come twice,
with a year in between.
So here is the way it works: 200,000 come in the first year. They
stay here for the second year. That is 200,000. Another 200,000 come
in, perhaps their families come in. Let's go through year 10. What you
have, for example, in year 10 is you have 1,200,000 people here in year
10; 11, 1,200,000 people; in year 8, you have 1,200,000 people. We are
not talking about 200,000 people; we are talking about millions of
people, including their families, coming in during this period of time
for the sole and exclusive purpose of taking American jobs--jobs which
we offer in this country and which we are told Americans will not
perform.
That is simply not true, by the way. Americans will perform these
jobs if there are decent wages. But you don't have to pay decent wages
if you can bring in people from elsewhere who are used to working for
50 cents an hour or from Asia where they are used to working for 20
cents an hour and working 7 days a week, 12 and 14 hours per day. If
you dispute that, go to Xianxian, China, and check any of the factories
there and find out the conditions and the wages.
Well, my point is this: We will get these millions of people into
this country on top of the 1.2 million who will already come in
legally. Plus we will say to the 12 million who came in illegally that
you, too, now are deemed to be legal and given a work permit. On top of
that, we want to bring in additional guest or temporary workers. I ask
this question: Of these millions of people--millions of people--how
many of them are going to leave and go back home?
My colleague yesterday said that the Governor of Arizona, who
probably knows as much about this as any other Member of the Senate,
has pointed out that you can build the fence down there--talking about
the southern border--but if it is 49 feet high, they will have a 50-
foot ladder. Talk to the Arizona Governor, he says. It is a matter of
fact that some workers will still come here illegally or legally, but
one way or another, they will come in. So much for the proposition that
the bill brought to the floor of the Senate solves the immigration
problem.
We are told we need a guest worker or temporary worker provision here
because they are going to come anyway. Apparently, we are saying: OK,
they are going to come in illegally anyway because we can't stop them--
we don't have a provision in the bill to stop them--so we will very
cleverly say they are guest workers and give them a permit as they come
in. That is the bottom line here.
My amendment is very simple. I lost the amendment to strip out the
guest worker provision, a provision we don't need and shouldn't need.
It is a provision that is the price paid to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce for their support for this bill even as they export good
American jobs through the front door, mostly to Asia. We don't need and
should not support this provision. I lost my amendment the day before
yesterday to strike this provision. This amendment I offer today says
at least--at least let us sunset this provision in 5 years so we can
take a look at whether any of these promises have made any sense.
I was here in the Congress in 1986. I heard all the promises of the
Simpson-

[[Page S6604]]

Mazzoli Act. None of them were true, and 3 million people got amnesty.
There was no border security to speak of, no employer sanctions to
speak of, and there was no enforcement. Now, all these years later, we
have 12 million people in this country without legal authorization.
What do we do? We bring a new bill to the floor with border security,
with employer sanctions, and a guest worker provision. Nirvana.
The fact is, it is not going to work, regrettably, and this is the
worst possible provision in this bill, in my judgment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve my time.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. I will reserve the 17 seconds unless the Senator from
Massachusetts is ready to yield back, and then I will yield back and we
can vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the time.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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

NAYS--49

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

NOT VOTING--3

Brownback
Johnson
Thomas
The amendment (No. 1181) was rejected.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought the Republican leader, the
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, wanted to speak and introduce an
amendment. Then we are hopeful that we would deal with the Vitter
amendment, and after that we would go with the Feingold amendment, and
perhaps even the Sanders amendment as well. That might be a way we
proceed.
I see the Senator from Kentucky, who is going to talk for a period of
time. Then we would go back to the Republican side, Senator Vitter,
come back over here to Senator Feingold, then perhaps they were looking
on the other side--we had talked to our Republican colleagues--and we
are hopeful to get a vote, potentially go to Senator Sanders after
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.

Amendment No. 1170 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and
I call up amendment No. 1170.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1170.

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

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

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

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

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

``Sec. 304. Identification of voters at the polls.''.
(b) Funding for Free Photo Identifications.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15401 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``PART 7--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

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

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

``SEC. 298. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

``PART 7--Photo Identification

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

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Members on both sides have voiced a

[[Page S6605]]

lot of legitimate concerns about the immigration bill that we brought
to the floor earlier this week, which is precisely what we were hoping
for when we decided to move forward with it. We needed to air things
out. Many of our Republican colleagues have rightly focused on border
security and their concern that people who have broken the law can
somehow get away with it under the proposed legislation.
As we have debated this issue on the floor, the American people have
spoken very loudly. Phones have been ringing off the hooks. If we have
settled anything this week, it is that Americans are not shy about
expressing their views on immigration. It is my hope this debate will
move forward until every apprehension will be addressed.
Now I wish to voice a concern of my own. The Constitution says: All
persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, and are
therefore free to vote. As a corollary, we have always maintained that
no one who is not a citizen has a right to vote. But in order to
preserve the meaning of this pledge, we need to make sure the influence
of those who vote legally is not diluted by those who do not; those who
do not abide by the laws are not free to influence our political
process or our policies with the vote.
As we move forward on this immigration bill, we need to make sure we
protect voters, protect the 15th amendment by strengthening protections
against illegal voting. This is the principal concern, but it is also
practical.
The fundamental question we have been debating this week is what to
do about the fact that 12 million people in this country are here
illegally. We would have to go back more than two decades to find a
Presidential election in this country in which 12 million votes would
not have tipped the balance in the other direction.
Only citizens have the right to choose their elected representatives.
Regardless of what we decide to do about these 12 million, those who
are not here legally and are not citizens should not have the ability
to upend the will of the American people in a free and fair election.
This is not fantasy. It was reported last week that hundreds of
noncitizens in and around San Antonio have registered to vote over the
past several years. Most are believed to be here illegally and many are
thought to have cast votes.
We have no reason to believe this practice, if true, is not being
replicated in other cities and towns all across our country. So the
question is: Given the current reality, how do we safeguard the
integrity of the voting system? If these millions were eventually to
become citizens, how do we propose to make sure their vote counts, that
it isn't diluted?
Now the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, founded
after the 2004 election and spearheaded by former President Jimmy
Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, has already addressed
the problem. Here you see President Carter and former Secretary Jim
Baker together addressing this issue as they cochaired the Federal
Election Reform Commission. That report said, quite simply, election
officials need to have a way to make sure the people who show up at the
polls are the ones on the voter lists.
I cannot think of anyone who would disagree with that. The solution
the commission proposed, the Carter-Baker Commission, is the same one I
am proposing today as an amendment to the immigration bill.
In our country, photo IDs are needed to board a plane, to enter a
Federal building, to cash a check, even to join a wholesale shopping
club.
In a nation in which 40 million people change addresses each year, in
which a lot of people don't even know their neighbors, some form of
Government-issued tamperproof photo ID cards should be used in
elections as well. If they are required for buying bulk toothpaste,
they should be required to prove one's identity, to prove that someone
actually has a right to vote and a right to influence the laws and
policies of our country. We need to ensure those who are voting are the
same people on the rolls and that they are legally entitled to vote. ID
cards would do that. They would reduce irregularities dramatically and,
in doing so, they would increase confidence in the system.
We have all been through elections where groups of voters questioned
the results based on rumors of coercion or fraud. Photo IDs would
substantially limit this kind of voter skepticism and loss of faith in
the political process.
Consistent with the purpose and the aim of the 15th amendment, we
don't want anyone who has the right to vote to have any difficulty
acquiring an ID. This amendment addresses this concern by establishing
a grant program for those who cannot afford a photo ID. People who
qualify will be provided one for free, no cost. No less an advocate for
poor Americans than Ambassador Andrew Young has said photo IDs would
have the added benefit of helping those who don't have drivers licenses
or other forms of official ID to navigate an increasingly computerized
culture. Photo IDs would make it easier to cash checks, rent movies, or
gain access to other forms of commerce that are closed to people who
don't have them.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support this attempt to ensure
the integrity of our elections. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll
last year showed 26 percent of respondents strongly favored requiring a
universal tamperproof ID at the polls. Nineteen percent said they
mildly favored the IDs. You can do the math, Mr. President. That is 80
percent of the American people think this is a good idea. On issues in
America, 80/20 is about as good as it gets. Twelve percent were neutral
and didn't have an opinion at all, only 3 percent mildly opposed, and 4
percent opposed. So let's add those together. We are talking about 80
to 7, with the rest of Americans not having a view. Ninety-three
percent of those who were asked for their opinion were either undecided
or in favor of implementing this control. State polls show similar
results. Americans are clearly divided on what to do with illegal
immigrants in our communities, but they seem to agree on the benefit of
an ID.
Members from both sides of the aisle agree we need to address voting
irregularities. The junior Senator from Illinois is sponsoring a bill
that would stiffen penalties for preventing someone from exercising his
or her right to vote. He has already drawn 12 Democratic cosponsors.
The bill is meant to respond to a problem we all recognize and which we
should do something about by requiring photo ID for voters. Two dozen
States already require--that is 24 States--some form of identification
at the polls.
As a result of the Help America Vote Act, photo ID is required for
those who register to vote by mail but who can't produce some other
identifying document. What I would like to do is to provide a Federal
minimum standard that is consistent but which allows States wide
flexibility in determining the kind of ID that is required. It doesn't
have to be a driver's license. It could be a hunting or fishing
license. Either way, we would be ensuring for the first time the same
verification standards from rural Iowa to Dade County, FL. This would
be one of the surest steps we could take to protect the franchise
rights of every American citizen in a fast-changing and increasingly
mobile society.
The promise of America is that every law-abiding citizen has an equal
stake in the political process and should be treated equally under the
law. The most concrete expression of this right is the right to vote.
It is a right that has been at the core of our democracy for more than
a century, and whenever it has been deprived at the local level, we
strengthen it federally. We need to strengthen it again now as part of
our effort to reform America's immigration laws. Stronger borders would
do nothing to prevent noncitizens who are already here from abusing the
system further through illegitimate voting. To protect franchise rights
of all born and naturalized citizens, we need to harden antifraud
protections at the polls. For the sake of the citizen who is already
here and for those who dream of becoming citizens in the future, this
amendment is an important step in the right direction.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 1157

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up Vitter amendment No. 1157.

[[Page S6606]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, Mr.
DeMint, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Inhofe,
proposes an amendment numbered 1157.

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

(Purpose: To strike title VI (related to Nonimmigrants in the United
States Previously in Unlawful Status)

Strike title VI.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is an important amendment that goes
to the heart of our debate. This amendment strikes all of the text of
title VI, the Z visa amnesty section. It takes all of that Z visa out
of this massive immigration bill. I thank several Members for joining
me in this important amendment: Senator DeMint, Senator Thomas, Senator
Bunning, Senator Enzi, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Coburn. They are all
cosponsors of this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues to join in
this fundamental but necessary correction of the bill.
Many folks will say: We can't do this. This goes to the heart of the
bill. It goes to the heart of the compromise. Well, indeed, it does. It
does that because that is where an absolutely fundamental flaw with
this approach resides. The Z visa is amnesty, pure and simple. Amnesty
is at the heart of this bill and is a fundamental problem and flaw with
the bill that we must correct. Make no mistake about it, the American
people know this. It is obvious. Why is it so hard for us to
acknowledge the fact, acknowledge the negative consequences that flow
from it, and correct it?
Considering how badly received last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill
was, I am shocked we are here again, admittedly with a better bill in
some respects but with a bill with Z visa amnesty right at the heart of
it. The American people don't want this. They don't want the Z visa,
because they don't want to reward law breaking and thereby encourage
more of the same. The Z visa amnesty provision absolutely rewards those
who have broken the law and, in doing so, is a slap in the face to
those thousands upon thousands of folks who are honoring the law,
following the law, standing in line, waiting their turn under the
rules.
I ask my fellow Senators, are we going to be a nation that values
that rule of law? These Z visas tell lawbreakers the opposite, that it
is OK to break the law. In doing so, most importantly, most negatively,
that has to encourage more like behavior in the future. Clearly, that
sort of amnesty sends the wrong message, a reward for breaking the law.
Clearly, that encourages the same sort of behavior we absolutely don't
want in the future.
I think the fundamental question in this debate is, is this bill
going to be a repeat of the 1986 immigration reform the Congress passed
at that time or is this bill fundamentally different? Again, that is a
central question that goes to the heart of the Z visa issue and others.
In 1986, Congress took up immigration reform. They passed a
significant bill, not as wide sweeping as we are talking about now but
certainly a significant bill. Arguments were very much the same: We are
going to beef up enforcement. We are going to get serious. We are going
to have real enforcement at the border. We are going to have meaningful
enforcement at the workplace. In that context, we need this amnesty one
time, and it will be done and the problem will be solved.
What is the history since then? The history is clear. A problem that
was then about 3 million illegal aliens has grown at least fourfold--
12, 13 million, or more. So it has mushroomed. The problem has gotten a
lot worse. Why? Because the amnesty provisions of that bill in 1986
absolutely went into force and effect. They were absolutely honored.
But at the same time, the enforcement never happened to an adequate
extent.
So what happens with those two dynamics? It is simple to see what did
happen--inadequate enforcement, real amnesty that sent the message
loudly and clearly: You will eventually be forgiven for breaking the
law to get into this country illegally. The problem mushroomed. The
problem quadrupled from more than 3 million illegal aliens in the
country to 12 or 13 million or more today.
That is an awfully fundamental question we need to ask as we look at
this legislation. I have asked that question. My answer is: This is a
vastly improved bill from last year, but this bill still has that
fundamental flaw. This bill still risks--and I believe will inevitably
repeat--the mistake of 1986, only on a far broader, a far bigger, and
far more dangerous scale. We cannot afford that.
There are colleagues of both parties in this Chamber who make the
argument that we hear about most legislation: The status quo is broken.
This bill is not perfect, but this bill will move it along. This bill
will make it better.
That sort of incrementalist approach is true in a lot of cases. In
this case, I don't think it is true at all. In this case, a flawed bill
gives us the real threat, the real danger of making the problem a lot
worse, not better. That is the history of what happened in 1986. That
is what will happen again with inadequate enforcement plus amnesty.
How do we correct this? One way is to beef up enforcement. I support
a lot of different measures to make the enforcement more certain, to
nail it down absolutely before we go into any of these other areas such
as a temporary worker program, certainly Z visas. The triggers in this
bill are much ballyhooed, but the triggers don't get us to where we
need to be before they trigger the Z visa. All the triggers do is say:
We are going to do what was planned for the next 18 months anyway,
which isn't all of what we need to do, which isn't half of what we need
to do to secure the border and have real workplace enforcement. But
then we are going to trigger the amnesty. We are going to trigger the Z
visa. That is not enough. We need to beef up those enforcement
provisions.
The other way to fix going down the 1986 road again is to get rid of
amnesty, to get rid of the Z visa. That is exactly what this amendment
does.
Certainly many of my colleagues will protest wildly about calling
this amnesty. If you look at the facts, there is no other conclusion to
reach. If you look at history, there is no other conclusion.
For those lawyers in the Chamber, probably the best known legal
reference book is Black's Law Dictionary. Open it. Turn to ``amnesty.''
It is very straightforward. Amnesty is ``a pardon extended by the
government to a group or class of persons.'' Black's Law Dictionary
cites as its first example of what that means the 1986 Immigration
Reform and Control Act. It points to that very act and says it
``provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the
country.'' That is the example it cites in the very definition of the
concept of amnesty.
I ask unanimous consent to print this definition with the example in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)]

amnesty, n. A pardon extended by the government to a group
or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act
of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of
persons who are subject to trial but have not yet been
convicted
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided
amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the
country.
Unlike an ordinary pardon, amnesty is usually addressed to
crimes against state sovereignty--that is, to political
offenses with respect to which forgiveness is deemed more
expedient for the public welfare than prosecution and
punishment.
Amnesty is usually general, addressed to classes or even
communities.--Also termed general pardon. See PARDON. [Cases:
Pardon and Parole 26. C.J.S. Pardon and Parole Sec. Sec. 3,
31.]--amnesty, vb.
``Amnesty . . . derives from the Greek amnestia
(`forgetting'), and has come to be used to describe measures
of a more general nature, directed to offenses whose
criminality is considered better forgotten.'' Leslie Sebba,
``Amnesty and Pardon,'' in 1 Encyclopedia of Crime and
Justice 59, 59 (Sanford H. Kadish ed., 1983).
express amnesty. Amnesty granted in direct terms. Implied
amnesty. Amnesty indirectly resulting from a peace treaty
executed between contending parties.
Mr. VITTER. In that context, one obvious question is: How does that
amnesty provision compare to what is in this 2007 bill?

[[Page S6607]]

I think if you go down the requirements of the 1986 law and the
requirements of this bill before us, you will see they are disturbingly
familiar.
In 1986, how do you gain temporary residence status? Continuous
unlawful residence in the United States since before January 1, 1982.
Fees: a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 fee for each child, a
$420 family cap. You have to meet certain admissibility criteria: 18-
month residency period, English language and civics requirement. Those
are the basic requirements under that 1986 law.
Let's compare it to what is in this bill, which is very similar. The
dollar amount fees are higher, more significant, but in terms of the
nature of the requirements in this bill, they are disturbingly similar:
physically present and employed in the United States since a certain
date--January 1, 2007; $1,000 penalty and a $1,500 processing fee; meet
admissibility criteria; background check; English language basic
requirement, et cetera--the exact same type of requirements under the Z
visa provisions of this bill, as well as the 1986 law, which ``Black's
Law Dictionary'' itself labels amnesty.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this simple side-by-side comparison of the 1986 law and this bill
presently before the Senate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

1986 IRCA

temporary resident status

Continuous unlawful residence in the U.S. since before
January 1, 1982.
$185 fee for principal applicant, $50 for each child ($420
family cap).
Meet admissibility criteria.
Ineligible for most public benefits for five years after
application.
18-month residency period.

Adjustment to Permanent Resident

English language and civics requirement.
$80 fee per applicant ($240 family cap).

2007

z visa status

Physically present and employed in U.S. since January 1,
2007.
$1,000 penalty and $1,500 processing fee.
Meet admissibility criteria.
Background check.

adjustment to permanent resident

Meets merit requirements, file application in home country.
$4,000 penalty.
Mr. VITTER. So, again, let's not repeat the horrible mistakes of the
past. Let's not repeat the fundamental mistake of 1986 that got us to
the situation we are in today, that quadrupled, or more, the problem
then faced in 1986. Let's not repeat it in either side of the ledger:
by having inadequate enforcement--and I am afraid the enforcement
provisions of this bill, the trigger requirements, et cetera, are
inadequate--and let's not repeat it on the other side of the equation
by granting amnesty and creating a magnet for more illegal activity
into this country.
We cannot afford to do that. This amendment goes to the core of that
fundamental problem and corrects it by taking out title VI, the Z visa
amnesty provisions.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment
introduced by the Senator from Louisiana. I am proud to be a cosponsor
of this amendment.
I am disappointed in the way the substitute amendment to S. 1348 was
brought before the Senate. I do not believe Senators have had adequate
opportunity to fully understand all the impacts this legislation will
have on our Nation. Over the next 2 weeks, Senators and staff will
continue to study the language. I hope the Senate leadership will
ensure that all Members have the opportunity to have their amendments
considered by the full Senate. I am pleased an agreement was reached to
vote on the Vitter amendment.
If this was the first time the Senate was considering offering
amnesty to illegal aliens, I think this debate would be under a
different tone. When the 1986 legislation was enacted, Members of the
House and Senate had the best of intentions--to improve our border
situation and decrease illegal immigration by offering permanent status
to those in the United States illegally. Those good intentions,
however, were not without fault. We can see that now, 21 years later,
and we cannot ignore the problems caused by that legislation.
Our goal here is to make an immigration system that works--one that
meets the economic needs of our Nation and allows for legal immigration
and legal workers. We need to make it less complicated to immigrate
legally rather than illegally. The status quo is just the opposite. It
has become so difficult to follow the legal path that many look for the
easier route of crossing our border without paperwork, without filing
fees, and without bureaucratic delays. It has become so difficult for
employers to hire legal temporary workers that many hire illegal
immigrants without legal Social Security numbers, without labor
certifications, and without bureaucratic delays. Our laws should not be
a deterrent to themselves.
Our immigration system is complicated. Our borders remain open.
Border security must be the top priority of the debate. We cannot have
immigration reform without strengthening the security of our borders.
This is why I am pleased that the language the Senate is considering
includes triggers that must be met before certain provisions can be
enacted.
There are some positive ideas in this legislation, but there remain
many problems. The Senate should not pass flawed legislation merely for
the sake of voting on something.
Amnesty is one of the main concerns of my constituents in Wyoming.
Amnesty sends a message to illegal immigrants that if you break our
immigration laws and avoid being detected for several years, the United
States will not only forgive you but reward you with permanent resident
status. Amnesty encouraged illegal immigration. In 1986, 7 million
immigrants were granted amnesty. Today, we are facing an illegal
population of over 12 million. The 1986 legislation did not stop
illegal immigration. We should not repeat this policy without ensuring
that we are not making the same mistake.
I continue to closely examine bill language as new developments
unfold and will make decisions keeping in mind what concerns I have
heard from the people and businesses of Wyoming. We expect to spend the
first week of June continuing to debate and amend the bill. I am
concerned about where we will be in 2 weeks on this legislation. This
issue is too important to refuse to consider amendments for members of
either party.
Again, I state my strong support for Senator Vitter's amendment to
remove the amnesty provisions from this legislation. I hope my
colleagues in the Senate will join me in taking a strong stance against
amnesty.
With that, I yield back the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
proceed as in morning business for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. BIDEN are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. KLOBUCHAR). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside so I might call up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1176 to Amendment No. 1150

(Purpose: To establish commissions to review the facts and
circumstances surrounding injustices suffered by European
Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees
during World War II)

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1176.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered
1176 to amendment No. 1150.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S6608]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, May 23, 2007,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment contains the language
of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bill I have introduced
with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
This amendment would create two fact-finding commissions: one
commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German
Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World
War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's
treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War
II.
I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senator Lieberman
and Senator Inouye, have agreed to cosponsor this amendment. They are
also cosponsors of my bill, and I appreciate their continued support
for this important initiative.
This amendment would help us to learn more about how, during World
War II, recent immigrants and refugees were treated. It is an
appropriate and relevant amendment to this immigration bill.
I would have preferred to have moved this bill on its own. Senator
Grassley and I have introduced the Wartime Treatment Study Act in the
last four Congresses, and the Judiciary Committee has reported it
favorably each time, including just last month. It has been cleared for
adoption by unanimous consent by my Democratic colleagues. But I am
forced to offer this as an amendment because the Wartime Treatment
Study Act has not cleared the Republican side in this Congress or any
of the last three Congresses. It is time for the Senate to pass this
bill.
During World War II, the United States fought a courageous battle
against the spread of Nazism and fascism. Nazi Germany was engaged in
the horrific persecution and genocide of Jews. By the end of the war, 6
million Jews had perished at the hands of Nazi Germany.
The Allied victory in the Second World War was an American triumph, a
triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed
by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of
great pride for all of us. But we should not let that justifiable pride
in our Nation's triumph blind us to the treatment of some Americans by
their own Government.
Sadly, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe
and the Pacific, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of some
of its own people here, at home. While it is, of course, the right of
every Nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government can
and should respect the basic freedoms that so many Americans have given
their lives to defend.
Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the
authority of Executive Order 9066 and the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S.
Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes
and ultimately into relocation and internment camps. Japanese Americans
were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their
communities. They were held behind barbed wire and military guard by
their own Government.
Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 1980, this unfortunate
episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgement
and condemnation it deserved.
Congress and the U.S. Government did the right thing by recognizing
and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World
War II. But our work in this area is not done. That same respect has
not been shown to the many German Americans, Italian Americans, and
European Latin Americans who were taken from their homes, subjected to
curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property,
and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.
Most Americans are probably unaware that during World War II, the
U.S. Government designated more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000
German-born U.S. resident aliens and their families as ``enemy
aliens.'' Approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians,
and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, or other European
Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in
internment camps. Some even remained interned for up to 3 years after
the war ended. Unknown numbers of German Americans, Italian Americans,
and other European Americans had their property confiscated or their
travel restricted, or lived under curfews. This amendment would not--
would not--grant reparations to victims. It would simply create a
commission to review the facts and circumstances of the U.S.
Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and
other European Americans during World War II.

Now, a second commission created by this amendment would review the
treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing
Nazi persecution and genocide and trying to come to the United States.
German and Austrian Jews applied for visas, but the United States
severely limited their entry due to strict immigration policies--
policies that many believed were motivated by fear that our enemies
would send spies under the guise of refugees and by the unfortunate
antiforeigner, anti-Semitic attitudes that were sadly all too common at
that time.
It is time for the country to review the facts and determine how our
immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish
refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible
truth that the United States turned away thousands of Jewish refugees,
delivering many to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime we were
fighting.
It is so urgent that we pass this legislation. We cannot wait any
longer. The injustices to European Americans and Jewish refugees
occurred more than 50 years ago. The people who were affected by these
policies are dying.
In fact, one of them died earlier this month. Max Ebel was one of the
thousands of German Americans who were interned during World War II in
the United States. He died on May 3, 2007. His death brings me great
sadness.
Max Ebel was only 17 when he came to America in 1937. He fled Germany
after he was assaulted for refusing to join the Hitler Youth. When he
came to the United States, he lived with his father in Massachusetts.
He learned English. He joined the Boy Scouts. He completed high school.
When the war broke out, he registered for the draft.
Nonetheless, in 1942, this new American was arrested by the FBI and
interned under the Alien Enemies Act because of his German ancestry. He
spent the next 18 months in a series of detention facilities and
internment camps and ultimately was transferred to a camp in Fort
Lincoln, ND, where despite the way he had been treated, he found a way
to help the war effort. He volunteered for a government work detail and
spent a North Dakota winter laying new railroad track on the Northern
Pacific Rail Line. Max Ebel's crew boss saw how hard he worked and
petitioned for his release.
Finally, in April of 1944, the Government let him go home. Despite
everything that had happened, he remained loyal to his new country and
became a citizen in 1953. A few years ago he told a journalist:

I was an American right from the beginning, and I always
will be.

Max Ebel's death is a loss not only to his family and friends but
also to our country.
But losing Max Ebel does more than bring me sadness; it also makes me
a bit angry. It makes me angry because he did not live to see the day
that Congress recognized what he went through: his internment at the
hands of his newfound country.
I have been trying for years to pass this legislation creating a
commission to study what happened to Max Ebel and to other German
Americans and other European Americans and to Jewish refugees during
World War II. I am gravely disappointed that Max Ebel and many others
affected by these policies will not be here to see that legislation
become law.
Americans must learn from these tragedies now, before there is no one
left. We cannot put this off any longer. These people have suffered
long enough without official, independent study of what happened to
them and without knowing this Nation recognizes their

[[Page S6609]]

sacrifice and resolves to learn from the mistakes of the past that
caused them so much pain.
As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board put it, Congress
must move forward with this legislation:

Lest the passage of time deprive more Americans of the
justice that they deserve.

Let me again repeat that this amendment does not call for
reparations. All it does is ensure that the public has a full
accounting of what happened. We should be proud of our victory over
Nazism, as I am. But we should not let that pride cause us to overlook
what happened to some Americans and refugees during World War II. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study
Act that is an amendment to this immigration legislation, and I hope
the managers of the bill can accept it.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are in the process where we will
begin to make comment on the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.
We will address that very shortly. I am finding that the amendment of
the Senator from Wisconsin is enormously compelling. I would have
thought it would be generally accepted. We are in the process of trying
to get a review of that amendment.
But for the notice of our colleagues, we expect that we will probably
have two votes, if we are unable to get clearance, and we will probably
have that somewhere in the relationship of probably about--hopefully
about 4 o'clock. I haven't had the chance to clear this time with
Senator Vitter, but that is generally sort of the plan we are looking
at, at the present time. I am not asking unanimous consent on that, but
that is just in terms of information for our colleagues.
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. DeMINT. Madam 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. 1157 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the Vitter
amendment No. 1157, which strikes title VI of the bill, the title that
authorizes Z visas for illegal immigrants.
Z visas are amnesty, pure and simple. They allow illegal immigrants
to stay here permanently without ever returning home to their
countries. This is the provision that has so many Americans upset.
By removing Z visas from the bill, illegal immigrants will be able to
go home and get right with the law. Once they have returned, they can
apply for legal entry, just like everyone else, but they would not be
allowed to violate our laws.
I know many will say this amendment will be too disruptive to the
illegal workers who would ultimately be forced to return to their home
countries, but I disagree. Last year, 51 million people traveled to and
from the United States from abroad, and 13 million of these travelers
were from Mexico alone. People are very mobile, and moving this number
of people around is relatively easy today. In fact, this bill
acknowledges this very point by requiring them to go home to apply for
citizenship.
I have also heard some say the opposition to amnesty is being driven
by an anti-immigrant bias. This is also untrue. Americans are extremely
pro-immigrant, but they are upset that their Government has lied to
them for 20 years on this issue, and they have lost confidence in our
ability to control our borders.
Let me be clear: I am pro-immigrant. I believe in legal immigration.
I want people to come here, respect our laws, embrace our values, and
become American citizens, but we must reject amnesty if we ever expect
that to happen.
That is why eliminating the amnesty provision in this bill is the
most compassionate and pro-immigrant thing we can do.
By striking the Z visas from this bill, this amendment will allow us
to uphold the rule of law, create fairness for millions of people who
want to come here legally, and allow us to focus on securing our
borders.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are working with our colleagues and
trying to go back and forth, trying to be bipartisan. We have gone to
Senator Vitter, to Feingold, to Hutchison, and then to Sanders. We
expect votes and reasonably short debate. We are trying to get votes on
all of those before the debate starts on the supplemental. I thank the
Senator from Vermont for his patience.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I would appreciate the Senator from
Vermont going first, after which I will offer mine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Amendment No. 1223 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 1223 to amendment number 1150.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish the American Competitiveness Scholarship
Program)

At the end of title VII, insert the following:

Subtitle C--American Competitiveness Scholarship Program

SEC. 711. AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation (referred to in this section as the ``Director'')
shall award scholarships to eligible individuals to enable
such individuals to pursue associate, undergraduate, or
graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, health
care, or computer science.
(b) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a scholarship
under this section, an individual shall--
(A) be a citizen of the United States, a national of the
United States (as defined in section 101(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)), an alien
admitted as a refugee under section 207 of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1157), or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence;
(B) prepare and submit to the Director an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Director may require; and
(C) certify to the Director that the individual intends to
use amounts received under the scholarship to enroll or
continue enrollment at an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) in order to pursue an associate,
undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics,
engineering, computer science, nursing, medicine, or other
clinical medical program, or technology, or science program
designated by the Director.
(2) Ability.--Awards of scholarships under this section
shall be made by the Director solely on the basis of the
ability of the applicant, except that in any case in which 2
or more applicants for scholarships are deemed by the
Director to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and
there are not sufficient scholarships available to grant one
to each of such applicants, the available scholarship or
scholarships shall be awarded to the applicants in a manner
that will tend to result in a geographically wide
distribution throughout the United States of recipients'
places of permanent residence.
(c) Amount of Scholarship; Renewal.--
(1) Amount of scholarship.--The amount of a scholarship
awarded under this section shall be $15,000 per year, except
that no scholarship shall be greater than the annual cost of
tuition and fees at the institution of higher education in
which the scholarship recipient is enrolled or will enroll.
(2) Renewal.--The Director may renew a scholarship under
this section for an eligible individual for not more than 4
years.
(d) Funding.--The Director shall carry out this section
only with funds made available under section 286(x) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by section 712) (8
U.S.C. 1356).
(e) Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act,

[[Page S6610]]

the Director shall publish in the Federal Register a list of
eligible programs of study for a scholarship under this
section.

SEC. 712. SUPPLEMENTAL H-1B NONIMMIGRANT PETITIONER ACCOUNT.

Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1356) (as amended by this Act) is further amended by
inserting after subsection (w) the following:
``(x) Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.--
``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund
of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as
the `Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account'.
Notwithstanding any other section of this Act, there shall be
deposited as offsetting receipts into the account all fees
collected under section 214(c)(15).
``(2) Use of fees for american competitiveness scholarship
program.--The amounts deposited into the Supplemental H-1B
Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall remain available to the
Director of the National Science Foundation until expended
for scholarships described in section 711 of the Secure
Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of
2007 for students enrolled in a program of study leading to a
degree in mathematics, engineering, health care, or computer
science.''.

SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.

Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is
required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11),
the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a
supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee
required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in
the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $8,500,
except that the fee shall be \1/2\ that amount for any
employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees
who are employed in the United States (determined by
including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be
deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section
286(x).''.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I will begin by quoting from an article
today in Congress Daily by Bruce Stokes. He sets up in one paragraph
pretty much what we are going to talk about in this amendment:

The immigration deal under consideration in the Senate
raises the number of H-1B visas, a long-sought boon for the
high-tech industry that will provide Silicon Valley firms
with skilled workers at rock-bottom salaries, who will
bolster company profits.

This amendment I am offering now is supported by the AFL-CIO. I will
read the few paragraphs of the letter they sent today:

Dear Senator Sanders:
On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to offer strong
support for your amendment to the Secure Borders, Economic
Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act.
Your amendment would provide scholarships in math, science,
engineering, and nursing for our domestic workforce by
increasing fees on H-1B employers.
The last paragraph, signed by William Samuel, director of
the Department of Legislation for the AFL-CIO, writes this:
It is completely irresponsible for Congress to increase yet
again the total annual number of available H-1B visas without
addressing the myriad well-documented problems associated
with the H-1B program, or considering long-term solutions
involving access to training and educational opportunities
for domestic workers.

That is William Samuel, director of the Department of Legislation for
the AFL-CIO.
The amendment I am offering today also has the support of the
Teamsters, the Programmers Guild, and the International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers.
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is a long and complicated
bill. It touches on a number of very important issues, and some of
those issues I strongly agree with, no question. The time is long
overdue that we control our borders. No question, the time is long
overdue that we begin to hold employers--those people who are hiring
illegal immigrants--accountable. Those items are long overdue, and we
have to deal with them. This legislation does that. I support that.
In my view, this bill is also responsible in how it deals with the
very contentious and difficult issue of how we respond to the reality
that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country
today. This bill carves out a path which eventually leads to
citizenship, and that is something I also support.
But--and here is the but: There are a number of provisions in this
bill I do not support, that I think are going to be very harmful to the
middle-class and working families of this country.
The amendment I am offering right now concentrates on only one aspect
of this very long bill and of that problem. That point centers on the
state of the economy for working people in our country and the negative
impact this legislation will have for millions of workers--low-income
workers and professional workers as well.
The fact is there is a war going on in America today. I am not
talking about the war in Iraq and I am not talking about the war in
Afghanistan; I am talking about the war against the American middle
class, the American standard of living and, indeed, the American dream
itself.
The American people understand very well that since George W. Bush
has become President, an additional 5.4 million Americans have slipped
into poverty out of the middle class--5.4 million people who are poor.
Nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance. Income for
the average American family has fallen by over $1,200 since President
Bush has been President, and some 3 million Americans have lost their
pensions.
All over this country, from Vermont to California, people get up in
the morning and they are working incredibly long hours. People need two
incomes in a family to try to make ends meet. Yet, at the end of the
day, they are falling further and further behind. There are a lot of
reasons for that, but I think this bill, and what this bill proposes to
do, is part of the problem.
During the debate over NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations
with China, we were told by President Clinton and many others that,
well, yes, globalization and unfettered free trade, such as our trade
relations with China, yes, they will cost us blue-collar factory jobs,
and the result is that because of our trade agreements, we have lost
millions of good-paying blue-collar factory jobs and, in fact, today
there are fewer people working in manufacturing than since President
Kennedy was in office in the early 1960s.
Yes, we have lost millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs, but
what people told us is: Look, don't worry about that. Yes, we are going
to lose blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but not to worry because your
kids are going to become very sophisticated in terms of using
computers, and the future for them is white-collar information
technology jobs. We don't need those factory jobs anymore; we have
white-collar information technology jobs, and those are the kinds of
jobs which are going to be growing. Unfortunately, that has not quite
occurred. From January 2001 to January 2006, we lost over 600,000
information technology jobs.
Alan Blinder, the former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, has told
us that between 30 and 40 million jobs in this country are in danger of
being shipped overseas. In other words, what we are looking at right
now is not just the loss of blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but we are
looking at the loss of significant numbers of white-color information
technology jobs. I know that in my State--and I expect in Senator
Kennedy's State and all over this country--we have seen white-collar
information technology jobs heading off to India and other countries.
There is nothing more painful than to see people in my State--I have
gone through this experience--having to train people to do their jobs
as those people return to India.
Some of the leading CEOs and information technology companies have
told us point blank--this is not a secret--that the new location for
high-tech jobs is going to be India and China; it is not going to be
the United States of America.
John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, has said:

China will become the IT center of the world, and we can
have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or
2040. What we're [in Cisco] trying to do is outline an entire
strategy of becoming a Chinese company.

The founder of Intel predicted in the Wall Street Journal that the
bulk of our information technology jobs will go to China and India over
the next decade. That is the reality. That is what the heads of the
information technology industry are telling us.
Over the last few days, a number of us have expressed the concern
about the impact of bringing low-wage workers into this country and
what that

[[Page S6611]]

would mean to Americans at the lower end of the economic ladder. Today,
I wish to address a concern I have about what language in this bill
could do to the middle class and, indeed, the upper middle class,
people who hold professional jobs and who often earn a very good
income.
The bill we are discussing today substantially increases the number
of well-educated professionals coming into the United States from
overseas. This bill, in fact, would allow 115,000 new professionals to
come into this country each year, and that number could go up to
180,000.
This program which allows well-educated professionals to come into
our country is called the H-1B program. It is currently capped at
65,000 visas a year. Under the language in this bill, the number would
increase at least by 50,000 and by as much as 115,000.
The argument that corporate America is using in supporting this
increase is that there are just not enough highly educated, highly
skilled Americans to fill available job openings in the high-tech
industry and in various science fields. Proponents of the H-1B visa
program also say it allows us to bring in the ``best and the
brightest'' from around the world to help America's competitiveness
position. That sounds good on its face, and it may also have the
benefit of being true in some cases, but there are those in this
Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many
instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American
high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used
to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for
substantially lower wages.
First, we should be clear that H-1B visas are not being used only in
the high-tech and highly specialized technology and science fields.
That is the argument often made, but it is really not true. The reality
is that a whole host of jobs in various categories are going to H-1B
visa holders.
Let's take a look at some of the jobs that corporate America is
telling us that there are just not enough Americans who are smart
enough, who are educated enough to perform. Here they are: information
technology computer professionals--I guess we can't do that kind of
work; university professors--oh, my word, I guess we just don't have
enough people to be university professors; engineers, health care
workers, accountants, financial analysts, management consultants,
lawyers--lawyers, I love that one. Is there anyone in America who
doesn't think we have too many lawyers? I guess we need to bring some
lawyers in as well. Architects, nurses, physicians, surgeons, dentists,
scientists, journalists and editors, foreign law advisers,
psychologists, market research analysts, fashion models--Madam
President, fashion models--teachers in elementary or secondary schools.
In America, we do not have enough people to become teachers in
elementary or secondary school. Does anyone really believe that we
cannot, with proper salary inducements, bring people into secondary and
primary education?
Given that we all know there are many Americans who have college
degrees and advanced degrees in these fields who cannot find work, why
is it that we need to bring in more and more professional workers from
abroad? For those who believe that the law of supply and demand applies
to labor costs, the evidence shows there is no shortage of college-
educated workers in America. What we learn in economics 101 is if you
cannot attract people for certain jobs, you pay them higher wages and
you give them better benefits. Unfortunately, in America today, from
2000 to 2004, we have seen the wages of college graduates decline by 5
percent. So on one hand, corporate America says: Oh, my goodness, we
can't find people as professionals to fill these jobs, but amazingly
enough, wages have gone down for college graduates from 2000 to 2004 by
5 percent. Maybe somebody is not trying hard enough to find American
workers to fill these jobs.

In truth, what many of us have come to understand is that these H-1B
visas are not being used to supplement the American workforce where we
have shortages but, rather, H-1B visas are being used to replace
American workers with lower cost foreign workers.
There are studies which conclude that H-1B workers earn less than
what U.S. workers make in similar jobs at similar locations. According
to the Center for Immigration Studies, wages for H-1B workers average
$12,000 a year below the median wage for U.S. workers in computer
fields. Another study by Programmers Guild found that foreign tech
workers who came to the United States with H-1B visas are paid about
$25,000 a year less than American workers with the same skill.
According to the GAO:

Some employers said that they hired H-1B workers in part
because these workers would often accept lower salaries than
similarly qualified U.S. workers.

What is very important to mention here is that some in corporate
America are giving the impression that most of the jobs within the H-1B
program are for highly specialized technical work which just can't be
found in the United States. The truth is that most of the H-1B visas go
to people who do not have a Ph.D., who do not have a master's degree,
but only have a bachelor's degree, a plain old college degree.
In today's Congress Daily, there is a very insightful article on H-1B
visas which is relevant to this debate:

As Ron Hira, a professor at Rochester Institute of
Technology, points out . . . the Labor Department
acknowledges that ``H-1B workers may be hired even when a
qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be
displaced from the job in favor of a foreign worker.''

The article goes on to state:

The median wage for new H-1B computing professionals was
$50,000 in 2005, far below the median for U.S. computing
professionals, according to the annual report of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services.

These findings are extremely troubling given the promises made to the
American people that the future for our economy was with high-skilled,
high-paying, high-tech jobs. What we have found is that in the last 4
years, wages for college graduates are going down, and we are finding
that people from abroad are coming in and doing jobs American
professionals can do and they are doing them for lower wages.
To bolster their argument for increased H-1B visas, proponents point
to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics about the jobs of the
future. That is what it is entitled, ``Jobs of the Future.'' According
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the next decade, 2 million jobs
will be created in mathematics, engineering, computer science, and
physical science. That equates to about 200,000 jobs a year times 10--2
million jobs. Under this legislation, the number of H-1B visas would
increase to as many as 180,000 a year. That means virtually every job--
about 90 percent--that will be created in the high-tech sector over the
next 10 years could conceivably be taken by a H-1B visa holder. What
sense does that make? What are we telling our young people? We are
saying: Go to college, get the best education you can, and we have all
kinds of jobs available to you, except those jobs in a significant way
are going to be taken by people from another country.
We would hope that companies in the United States would have just
enough patriotism, maybe just a little bit of patriotism so they would
work to hire qualified American workers. But if you look at the
statements and conduct of some of these companies, you realize that
patriotism, love of country is becoming a dated concept for those who
are pushing extreme globalization.

Let me take one case study, and that is Microsoft. In 2003,
Microsoft's vice president for Windows engineering was quoted in
Business Week as saying:

It is definitely a cultural change to use foreign workers.
But if I can save a dollar, hallelujah.

The CEO of Microsoft, Steven Anthony Ballmer, has said, and this is
an interesting quote, very relevant to today's discussion:

Lower the pay of U.S. professionals to $50,000, and it
won't make sense for employers to put up with the hassle of
doing business in developing countries.

In other words, if we lower wages for professionals in this country,
maybe our companies won't outsource and go to India or China.
The economic benefit of H-1B visas, though, is not limited to
American companies. The truth is, as my colleagues, Senator Durbin and
Senator Grassley, have pointed out, the top companies applying for H-1B
visas are actually outsourcing firms from India, known in the industry
as ``body shops.'' According to a February 7, 2007, article in
BusinessWeek:

[[Page S6612]]

Data for the fiscal year 2006, which ended last September,
showed that 7 of the top 10 applicants for H-1B visas are
Indian companies. Giants Infosys Technologies and Wipro took
the top two spots, with 22,600 and 19,400 applications
respectively.

In fact, 30 percent of the H-1B visas approved last year went to nine
Indian outsourcing firms. In other words, the very same companies that
are involved in the H-1B program of supplying American companies with
cheap foreign labor are exactly the same corporations that are involved
in outsourcing, providing cheap labor to these very same companies when
they move to India. Two sides of the same coin.
In my view, the H-1B system is working against the best interests of
the American middle class. It is displacing skilled American workers,
it is lowering our wages, and it is part of the process by which the
middle class of this country continues to shrink. Meanwhile, it is
creating huge profits for foreign companies that traffic in H-1B visas.
I do wish to commend Senators Durbin and Grassley for their work to
reform the H-1B program and their efforts to include in the substitute
some provisions that strengthen protection for American workers. But as
important as these strengthened protections are, the H-1B program,
which will be increased from 65,000 slots to 115,000 slots, and
potentially even 180,000 slots, continues to pose a threat to American
jobs and American wages.
The question is: Where do we go from here? What is our response to
this problem? I could certainly offer an amendment to remove the
increase in H-1B visas or even to restrict them below the current
65,000 level. But that amendment would be defeated. So where do we go?
What is the sensible thing to do? How do we bring people together
around this issue?
I think the author of the Congress Daily article I referred to
earlier said it quite well when he wrote:

More importantly for the American taxpayer, the current
allocation system for H-1B visas conveys a valuable
resource--access to talented workers who add value to a
company's bottom line--at almost no cost. This is a subsidy
in violation of market principles for firms that are too
quick to appeal to market forces when they are fighting
Washington over export controls or other issues.

The amendment I am offering has two goals. First, raising the H-1B
visa fee from $1,500 to $10,000 will go a long way in telling corporate
America they are not going to be able to save money by bringing foreign
professionals into this country, and they may want to look at the
United States of America to find the workers that they need. If they
have to pay $10,000, that will cut back on their margin.
Secondly, to the degree it is true that the United States does not
have a significant number of skilled workers in certain categories--and
in certain categories that may well be true--this new revenue will be
dedicated toward providing scholarships to students who are studying in
areas where we currently lack professionals.
Specifically, my amendment would create a new American Competitive
Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation that would
provide merit-based scholarships of up to $15,000 a year, and which are
renewable for up to 4 years, to students pursuing degrees in math,
science, engineering, medicine, nursing, other health care fields, and
other extremely important fields vital to the competitiveness of this
Nation. These new scholarships would create the incentive for the best
and the brightest of American students to enter these fields where
there is reputedly a shortage.

In other words, we have the absurd situation today where we are
bringing people from all over the world into this country to do this
job, yet we have large numbers of middle-class, working-class families
who can't afford to send their kids to college or to graduate school.
Well, maybe we ought to pay attention to American workers and American
families first.
How will this program be paid for? Under current law, companies
applying for H-1B visas pay a $1,500 fee. That fee is split up in a
number of ways, with some of it going to scholarships and retraining
programs. Unfortunately, it is too small to effectively create a
scholarship program of the scale needed to address the claimed shortage
in math, science, and technology specialists. This amendment imposes an
$8,500 surcharge on those companies seeking H-1B visas. This fee would
only apply to those who are required to pay the current $1,500 fee.
Therefore, universities and schools would be exempt, as they are under
current law. Companies with less than 25 employees would pay only half
the fee.
I am sure corporate America will tell us this $8,500 fee is too
expensive; that they can't afford it. After all, many of these people
are the same exact people who opposed raising the minimum wage above
$5.15 an hour. However, this fee represents a very small amount
compared to the incredible economic benefits that companies realize
from bringing in foreign H-1B visa workers.
H-1B visas are valid for 3 years. So the $8,500 surcharge on an
annual basis is only $2,800. Compared to the median $50,000 wage of a
new H-1B computing professional, it is only about 5.5 percent of that
wage. For this small fee, what would be the benefit to American
students and our families? If there are 115,000 H-1B visas issued for
which fees are paid, we could provide over 65,000 scholarships each
year to our students--65,000. If the number of H-1B visas goes to
180,000, we could provide scholarships to over 100,000 American
students.
If the Members of this body believe we need H-1B visas to compensate
for a shortage of skilled American professionals, this amendment will
attract tens of thousands of America's best and brightest to those
fields.
One of the reasons I am offering this amendment, which will provide
much needed scholarships for the American middle class, is I was very
interested in reading an article that appeared in BusinessWeek on April
19, 2004. In that article, BusinessWeek reported that:

To win favor in China, Microsoft has pledged to spend more
than $750 million on cooperative research, technology for
schools, and other investments.

If Microsoft and other corporations have billions of dollars to
invest in technology for schools, research, and other needs in China
and other countries, these same companies should have enough money to
provide scholarships for middle-class kids in the United States of
America.
Another major supporter of the H-1B program is IBM. Last year, IBM
made $9.5 billion in profits. Meanwhile, IBM has announced it will be
investing $6 billion in India by 2009 and--get this--IBM has also
signed deals to train 100,000 software specialists. Where? In
Massachusetts? In Vermont? In California? No, in China, according to an
August 4, 2003, article in BusinessWeek.
Other major supporters of increasing H-1B workers include Intel,
which made $5 billion in profits last year; Bank of America,
Caterpillar, General Electric, Boeing, and Lehman Brothers. All of
these companies, making billions and billions of dollars in profit,
can't afford to pay American workers the wages they need. Well, if they
can't do that, at least let them contribute to an important scholarship
program.
Let me conclude by saying a vote for this amendment is a vote for
preserving American competitiveness in the 21st century, it is a vote
for giving our children a brighter future, and it is a vote--
unfortunately all too rare--to help middle-income families in this
country who are struggling so hard to make sure their kids can have the
education they need.
Madam President, I am not quite sure of the proper legislative
approach, but on this amendment, I will be calling for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. We had intended, Madam President, to vote on the
amendment. We are working out the sequence at the present time.
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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1184, As Modified

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, by way of housekeeping, I wish to submit
a modification of my amendment that is pending, amendment No. 1184.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object----

[[Page S6613]]

Mr. CORNYN. If I may explain to my colleagues, there is a problem
with the pagination in the original draft of the bill. I noticed the
original amendment appears to be off. This is to reconcile the problem
with the handwritten note on page 224, which was added on the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Would my colleague from Texas yield for a moment?
Mr. CORNYN. Surely.
Mr. DURBIN. If he would be kind enough to share with us a copy of the
modification, if it is routine, there will be no problem. I object at
this moment until he does. I will be glad to work with him and the
chairman once we have seen a copy.
Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely. I am glad to do that and withhold until that
time. I do have some other comments I wish to make.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, could I ask my colleague, and also
the Senator from Massachusetts, when the Senator from Texas is finished
with his remarks, I wish to be recognized for 5 minutes--just to speak,
not to offer my amendments, but I wanted to speak on the bill. I ask
unanimous consent to do that, after he speaks. Then we will talk about
my amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a minute, for a point of
information?
Mr. CORNYN. Certainly. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will make a unanimous consent request in a few moments
to vote at 5 o'clock on the Vitter amendment, and then the amendment of
Senator Sanders. Then, at that time, we have been told, those who want
to address the supplemental will begin that debate--a discussion on the
Senate floor.
I thank the Senator from Texas. She has an amendment on Social
Security. She has been kind enough, as always, to cooperate with us,
and indicated a willingness to work out an appropriate time. It is a
substantive amendment. We will look forward to considering it. I want
to give her every assurance we will consider this and will deal with
it. If not today, we will do the best we can to deal with it on the
Tuesday we get back. There are members on the Finance Committee, since
it is dealing with Social Security, who wanted to at least have an
impact. This in no way will delay the consideration of this amendment.
We want to give her those assurances.
I know the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, is on his way
over. He wants to be able to enter an amendment as well. We certainly
will look forward to that. We had hoped we might have been able to get
an earlier consideration. He has been over in the Armed Services
Committee.
Members have been extremely cooperative, incredibly helpful. We have
made good progress here today. We want to make some brief comments at
an appropriate time, when the Senator finishes, on the Vitter
amendment. Then, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to vote on
these amendments. Then those who are dealing with the supplemental will
have a chance to address the Senate.
I thank the Senator. We look forward to his comments.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, could I also have 5 minutes
following Senator Cornyn?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered; 5 minutes following the junior
Senator from Texas.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand now, talking to the
majority whip, there is no objection to the modification of my
amendment, No. 1184.
As I was explaining, we checked with the legislative counsel last
night and this morning we were told the problem was with the
handwritten page, No. 224, that was added on the floor. So it is a
matter of pagination. I appreciate the accommodation of my colleagues
to allow that modification to go forward. Also, legislative counsel
corrected a technical error in the text which this modification
corrects.
I have two things I want to speak on, briefly. First, on my original
amendment, No. 1184, as you recall, this is composed of two parts. The
first part is what I would assume to be technical errors in the
underlying bill. In the haste of writing the bill, I think there were
some errors made that we pointed out in the amendment, errors that need
to be corrected. I do not expect there will be a lot of controversy
about that.
What is more controversial, what I want to address, is the second
part. That has to do with excluding from the benefits under this bill
individuals who have already come into our country in violation of our
immigration laws, who have been detained, who have had due process, a
trial, who have had their day in court and then, once they were ordered
deported, rather than agree to show up and be deported, they simply
went on the lam and went underground and melted into the great American
landscape. A second category is people who have had their day in court,
who have been deported but then who have reentered illegally. Under
section 234 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, both of those
actions would constitute felonies. I think it would be a grave error
for this bill to reward individuals who have committed that sort of
open defiance of our laws. For, whatever you can say about other
people who have entered the country in violation of our immigration
laws, certainly those who have had a day in court, who have been
ordered by court to exit the country but who have gone on the lam, or
those who have reentered after they were deported, represent a
different type of lawbreaker. I do not believe we should reward those
by conferring upon them a Z visa, outlined in the underlying bill.

The Senator from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, argued my amendment
would amount to an unconstitutional ex post facto rule because of its
retroactive application. This is a misreading of the bill. In order for
any immigration provisions to have immediate effect, it is imperative
that they apply to conduct and convictions that actually occurred
before enactment. If prior conduct and convictions were not covered,
you would have an immigration regime that essentially welcomes the
following people--this is not how the U.S. immigration should operate.
Consider an immigration regime where a known criminal gang member could
not be removed unless the Department of Homeland Security can show he
was a member after the statute was enacted, even if the DHS had
videotaped evidence, or even a confession from last month, showing the
alien involved in gang activities. Surely that could not be construed
as unconstitutionally retroactive or ex post facto.
Another example would be an undisputed terrorist fundraiser who would
not, unless we agree to this amendment, be barred from naturalization
on terrorism grounds. Not only would the citizenship application of
someone who has been engaged in terrorist activity not be barred for
that reason, unless the terrorist activity occurred after the date of
enactment, but this effective date could also be used to call into
question the use by the Department of Homeland Security of existing
discretionary authority to determine a terrorist did not possess good
moral character. To create a regime that turns a blind eye to these
known facts would be foolish and would not be in our country's national
interest.
To avoid such perverse and unintended consequences, Congress has on
many occasions enacted grounds of deportability and inadmissibility
that are based on past conduct and criminal convictions. For example,
section 5502 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
made aliens who committed acts of torture or extra judicial killings
abroad a ground of inadmissibility and a ground of deportability. That
provision applies to offenses committed before, on, or after the date
of enactment.
The Holtzman amendment, enacted in 1978, rendered Nazi criminals
excludable and deportable. It applied to individuals who ordered,
advocated, assisted, or otherwise participated in persecution on behalf
of Nazi Germany or its allies at least 33 years earlier, between the
years of 1933 and 1945.
It is clear from past experience, as well as common sense, that the
only actions we would be taking in this legislation would be to say to
those who have had their day in court, who literally thumb their nose
at our legal system and at our court system, you

[[Page S6614]]

will not be rewarded with the benefits under this act; that you will be
excluded. You have had your chance, you have blown it, you have defied
the American legal system and, in fact, this is not the kind of acts
from somebody we would expect to be a law-abiding citizen in the
future.
I also want to speak briefly on an amendment Senator Menendez has
offered. Ironically, I find myself in opposition to him on amendment
No. 1184, the amendment I have offered, but I find there is a lot to
like in his amendment. I want to explain why. This is what I would call
the line-jumping amendment Senator Menendez has offered. I have heard
the proponents explain that the underlying bill is not an amnesty
because it does not allow anyone to jump in line. This is a
fundamentally important concept. It is a matter of fundamental fairness
and crucial to the integrity, not only of our immigration system, but
to our entire legal system. It would be extremely unfair to allow
someone who has not respected our laws to be able to obtain a green
card as a legal permanent resident before someone who has respected our
laws and waited in line for a chance to legally enter this country.
Please understand, I am not just talking about the fact that those
who wait in line legally have to do so in their home country while
someone who has entered our country in violation of our immigration
laws and obtains Z status can wait in our country. That certainly is an
issue, that those here are getting the advantage over those who are
observing our laws.
I point to a story in today's USA Today, where the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, admits there is
``a fundamental unfairness'' in allowing undocumented immigrants to
stay in the country while those who have respected our laws wait
patiently outside the country. Should we make what even Secretary
Chertoff admits is ``a fundamental unfairness'' that much more unfair?
To the proponents' credit, they have attempted to craft a proposal
that would not allow anyone who came here illegally obtain their green
card until everyone who chose to follow the law gets their green card.
But the problem with the bill is this: The compromise bill arbitrarily
sets the cutoff date for being in line legally at May 1, 2005, while
setting the date for the end of the line for those illegally here at
January 1, 2007. I understand the reason why that was done. It was so
there would not have to be added a huge number of additional green
cards in order to clear the backlog of people who have been waiting
patiently, legally, in line to clear before Z visa holders would get
the benefits under the law.
But the problem is this: What this means is someone who chose to
respect the law, chose not to enter illegally, and filed the proper
immigration paperwork on, for example, June 1, 2005, is not considered
to be ``in line'' under the terms of the bill, while someone who
decided not to respect the laws and entered illegally on the very same
date can obtain Z status and ultimately obtain citizenship.
Family groups such as Interfaith Immigration Coalition, Jewish
Council for Public Affairs, the U.S. Conference of Bishops, and MALDEF,
have written to my office to explain that those people who played by
the rules and applied after May 1, 2005 will not be cleared as part of
the family backlog pursuant to the terms of this bill and will lose
their chance to immigrate under the current rules and be placed in line
behind the Z visa applicants. Some of these family groups reported that
more than 800,000 people who will have patiently waited in line will,
in essence, be kicked out of the line.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters I just referred to from
these organizations, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Interfaith
Immigration Coalition, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and MALDEF,
be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With respect to the earlier modification of
the Senator's amendment, is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1184), as modified, is as follows:

amendment no. 1184, as modified

(Purpose: Establishing a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists,
and other criminals)

On page 47, line 25, insert ``, even if the length of the
term of imprisonment for the offense is based on recidivist
or other enhancements,'' after ``15 years''.
On page 47, beginning with line 34, strike all through page
48, line 10, and insert:
(3) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``paragraph (1)(A) or
(2) of'';
(4) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``section 275(a) or
276 committed by an alien who was previously deported on the
basis of a conviction for an offense described in another
subparagraph of this paragraph'' and inserting ``section 275
or 276 for which the term of imprisonment is at least 1
year'';
(5) by striking the undesignated matter following
subparagraph (U);
(6) in subparagraph (E)--
(A) in clause (ii), by inserting ``,(c),'' after ``924(b)''
and by striking ``or'' at the end, and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
``(iv) section 2250 of title 18, United States Code
(relating to failure to register as a sex offender); or
``(v) section 521(d) of title 18, United States Code (
relating to penalties for offenses committed by criminal
street gangs);''; and
(7) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
``(F) either--
``(i) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of
title 18, United States Code, but not including a purely
political offense), or
``(ii) a third conviction for driving while intoxicated (
including a third conviction for driving while under the
influence or impaired by alcohol or drugs), without regard to
whether the conviction is classified as a misdemeanor or
felony under State law,
for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall--
(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
and
(2) apply to any act that occurred before, on, or after
such date of enactment.
In title II, insert after section 203 the following:

SEC. 204. TERRORIST BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.

(a) Definition of Good Moral Character.--Section 101(f) (8
U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (1)
the following:
``(2) one who the Secretary of Homeland Security or the
Attorney General determines, in the unreviewable discretion
of the Secretary or the Attorney General, to have been at any
time an alien described in section 212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4),
which determination--
``(A) may be based upon any relevant information or
evidence, including classified, sensitive, or national
security information; and
``(B) shall be binding upon any court regardless of the
applicable standard of review;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to--
(1) any act that occurred before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and
(2) any application for naturalization or any other benefit
or relief, or any other case or matter under the immigration
laws, pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 204A. PRECLUDING ADMISSIBILITY OF ALIENS CONVICTED OF
AGGRAVATED FELONIES OR OTHER SERIOUS OFFENSES.

(a) Inadmissibility On Criminal and Related Grounds;
Waivers.--Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(2) the following
new subparagraphs:
``(J) Certain firearm offenses.--Any alien who at any time
has been convicted under any law of, or who admits having
committed or admits committing acts which constitute the
essential elements of, purchasing, selling, offering for
sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or
of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for
sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon,
part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device
(as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code) in violation of any law is inadmissible.
``(K) Aggravated felons.--Any alien who has been convicted
of an aggravated felony at any time is inadmissible.
``(L) Crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or violation
of protection orders; crimes against children.--
``(i) Domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse.--Any
alien who at any time is convicted of, or who admits having
committed or admits committing acts which constitute the
essential elements of, a crime of domestic violence, a crime
of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or
child abandonment is inadmissible. For purposes of this
clause, the term `crime of domestic violence' means any crime
of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United
States Code) against a person committed by a current or
former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom the
person shares a child in common, by an individual who is
cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person

[[Page S6615]]

as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a spouse
of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of
the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other
individual against a person who is protected from that
individual's acts under the domestic or family violence laws
of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government,
or unit of local or foreign government.
``(ii) Violators of protection orders.--Any alien who at
any time is enjoined under a protection order issued by a
court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct
that violates the portion of a protection order that involves
protection against credible threats of violence, repeated
harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for
whom the protection order was issued is inadmissible. For
purposes of this clause, the term `protection order' means
any injunction issued for the purpose of preventing violent
or threatening acts of domestic violence, including temporary
or final orders issued by civil or criminal courts (other
than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether
obtained by filing an independent action or as a independent
order in another proceeding.''; and
(2) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking ``The Attorney General may, in his
discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I),
(B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``The
Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security may,
in his discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs
(A)(i)(I), (III), (B), (D), (E), (J), and (L) of subsection
(a)(2)'';
(B) by striking ``if either since the date of such
admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated
felony or the alien'' in the next to last sentence and
inserting ``if since the date of such admission the alien'';
and
(C) by inserting ``or Secretary of Homeland Security''
after ``the Attorney General'' each place it appears.
(b) Deportability for Criminal Offenses Involving
Identification.--Section 237(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is
amended by adding after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) Criminal offenses involving identification.--An alien
shall be considered to be deportable if the alien has been
convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to
violate) an offense described in section 208 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to social security
account numbers or social security cards) or section 1028 of
title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and related
activity in connection with identification).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to--
(1) any act that occurred before, on, or after the date of
enactment, and
(2) to all aliens who are required to establish
admissibility on or after the date of enactment of this
section, and in all removal, deportation, or exclusion
proceedings that are filed, pending, or reopened, on or after
such date.
(d) Construction.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall not be construed to create eligibility for relief from
removal under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act if such eligibility did not exist before the
amendments became effective.
On page 48, line 36, insert ``including a violation of
section 924 (c) or (h) of title 18, United States Code,''
after ``explosives''.
On page 49, lines 7 and 8, strike ``, which is punishable
by a sentence of imprisonment of five years or more''.
On page 49, beginning with line 44, through page 50, line
2, strike ``Unless the Secretary of Homeland Security or the
Attorney General waives the application of this subparagraph,
any'' and insert ``Any''.
On page 50, lines 20 through 22, strike ``The Secretary of
Homeland Security or the Attorney General may in his
discretion waive this subparagraph.''.
On page 283, strike lines 32 through 38, and insert:
(A) is inadmissible to the United States under section
212(a) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)), except as provided in
paragraph (2);
On page 285, strike lines 1 through 7, and insert:
(I) is an alien who is described in or subject to section
237(a)(2)(A)(iii), (iv) or (v) of the Act (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (iv) or (v)), except if the alien has
been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President
of the United States of the Governor of any of the several
States, as provided in section 237(a)(2)(A)(vi) of the Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi);
(J) is an alien who is described in or subject to section
237(a)(4) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4); and
(K) is an alien who is described in or subject to section
237(a)(3)(C) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(C)), except if
the alien is approved for a waiver as authorized under
section 237 (a)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(3)(C)(ii)).
On page 285, line 21, strike ``(9)(C)(i)(I),''.
On page 285, line 41, strike ``section
212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II)'' and insert ``section 212(a)(9)(C)''.
On page 286, between lines 2 and 3, insert:

(VII) section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(6)(E)), except if the alien is approved for a waiver
as authorized under section 212(d)(11) of the Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(11)); or
(VIII) section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(9)(A)).

On page 287, between lines 10 and 11, insert:
(5) Good moral character.--The alien must establish that he
or she is a person of good moral character ( within the
meaning of section 101(f) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(f))
during the past three years and continue to be a person of
such good moral character.
Now, Madam President, I wanted to express the concerns I have just
expressed and say that I am still studying the amendment from Senator
Menendez. I know it adds new green cards on top of all the green cards
this compromise has already provided. I will listen carefully to the
arguments of Senators Menendez and Hagel, the main cosponsors of that
amendment, as well as arguments of the opponents of the amendment
before deciding finally how to vote. But I am troubled by those this
bill disadvantages simply because they chose to abide by our laws as
opposed to those who chose not to abide by our laws.
I, too, have an amendment, but my amendment does not increase the
number of green cards. The effect of my amendment will be to cause the
8-year time period to clear family backlogs to slip a few years. But my
amendment speaks to an important principle, one I have been speaking to
here for the last few minutes, which is, no one who came here illegally
should be placed ahead in the citizenship path in front of someone who
has played by the rules.
Finally, let me just say that I anticipate there may be an argument
that Citizenship and Immigration Services discontinued taking
applications in May of 2005. However, we are told that the State
Department has currently approved petitions dated after May 2005 for
family members who are just waiting for an immigrant visa.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Senate Support for Family Reunification
Amendments to S. 1348

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly urges
senators to vote ``For'' the following family reunification
amendments to S. 1348, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
of 2007:
Menendez/Hagel Backlog Reduction Amendment. The Menendez/
Hagel amendment would bring equity to the backlog reduction
contained in the substitute amendment to S. 1348 by
establishing the same cut-off date for backlog reduction
visas as is contained in the substitute for legalizing
undocumented aliens. Unless amended by Menendez/Hagel, the
substitute amendment would kick all relatives of U.S.
citizens and permanent resident aliens who filed petitions
after May of 2005 for family reunification visas out of line,
thus providing better treatment to undocumented aliens than
would be given to persons who have followed the law.
Dodd Parents of U.S. Citizens Amendment. The Dodd amendment
would mitigate the damage done to parents of U.S. citizens by
the substitute amendment. It would do this by increasing from
40,000 to 90,000 the number of such parents who can be
admitted to the United States each year as permanent
residents. Under current law, there are an unlimited number
of such parents who can immigrate to the United States each
year.
Clinton/Hagel Spouses and Unmarried Children Amendment. The
Clinton/Hagel amendment would categorize spouses and
unmarried children (under the age of 21) of legal permanent
resident aliens as ``immediate relatives.'' This would ensure
that longterm residents in the United States have the
opportunity to reunite with their immediate family members.
Menendez/Obama Sunset Amendment. The Menendez/Obama sunset
amendment would sunset the new, untested and little-
considered point system provision in the substitute amendment
to S. 1348 after 5 years in order to enable lawmakers to
assess whether the consequences of the experimental program
are unacceptable and warrant a return to the existing family-
and employment-sponsored preference systems.
____

Dear Sir: The Interfaith Immigration Coalition is a
coalition of faith-based organizations committed to enacting
comprehensive immigration reform that reflects our mandate to
welcome the stranger and treat all human beings with dignity
and respect. Through this coalition, over 450 local and
national faith-based organizations and faith leaders have
called on Congress and the Administration to enact fair and
humane reform. Members of the coalition are extremely
concerned about the provisions of S. 1348 that would
undermine family reunification, and therefore urge Senators
to VOTE YES on the following amendments that will reaffirm
the United States' longstanding commitment to family values
and fairness.
Vote ``Yes!'' Menendez Amendment on Family Backlog Cut Off
Date. Currently, the compromise legislation will clear the
backlog under our existing family and employer based system,
but only for those who submitted their applications before
May 1, 2005. As a result, an estimated 833,000 people who
have played by the rules and applied after that date will not
be cleared as part of the

[[Page S6616]]

family backlog and will lose their chance to immigrate under
current rules. The Menendez amendment would change the ``cut-
off'' date for legal immigrant applicants who would otherwise
be handled under the backlog reduction part of the bill from
May 1, 2005 to January 1, 2007, which is the same cut-off
date that is currently set for the legalization of the
undocumented immigrants. It would also add 110,000 green
cards a year to ensure that we don't start creating a new
backlog or cause the 8 year deadline for clearing the family
backlog to slip by a few years.
Vote ``Yes!'' Clinton Amendment to Include Minor Children
and Spouses of Lawful Permanent Residents in ``Immediate
Relative'' Category. Current immigration law limits the
number of green cards available to spouses and minor children
of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to 87,900 per year. For
these spouses and minor children, quota backlogs are
approximately 4 years and 9 months long. The inequitable
treatment of minor children and spouses who are dependent on
the status of their U.S. sponsor has devastated thousands of
legal immigrant families. The Clinton amendment will re-
categorize spouses and children of LPRs as ``immediate
relatives,'' thereby lifting the cap on the number of visas
available to these close family members, allowing permanent
residents of the U.S. to reunite with their loved ones in a
timely fashion.
Vote ``Yes!'' Dodd Amendment Related to Foreign-Born
Parents of U.S. Citizens. Currently, the compromise
legislation would set an annual cap for green cards for
parents of U.S. citizens at 40,000 (less than half the
current annual average number of green cards issued to these
parents). It would also create a new parent visitor visa
program that only allows parents to visit for 100 days per
year and includes overly harsh collective penalties. The Dodd
amendment would increase the annual cap of green cards from
40,000 to 90,000, extend the duration of the parent visitor
visa from 100 days to 365 days in order to make it easier for
families to remain together for a longer period; and make
penalties levied on individuals who overstay their S-visa
only applicable to that individual and not collectively
applied to their fellow citizens. This amendment is essential
to making sure that our permanent legal immigration system is
fair to US citizens and their parents, and facilitates family
reunification.
____

May 22, 2007.
Dear Senator Cornyn: The Jewish Council for Public Affairs
(JCPA) applauds the Senate's commitment to finding a workable
compromise on Comprehensive Immigration Reform and supports
S.1348 as a starting point for the debate. The introduction
of a comprehensive framework that secures our borders, clears
much of the current family backlog, and provides a path to
citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented workers
in the United States is a step in the right direction toward
fixing our broken immigration system.
As the umbrella body for policy in the Jewish community,
representing 13 national agencies and 125 local community
relations councils in 44 states, the JCPA has long been
active in supporting comprehensive immigration reform that is
workable, fair and humane.
However, JCPA holds serious reservations about other
aspects of the bill, particularly those that address family-
based immigration.
For example, the JCPA believes that several aspects of
Title V of the Senate compromise are unworkable and unjust.
Cutting entire categories of family-based immigration and
restructuring our current immigration system to favor
employment-based ties over family ties not only undermines
the family values that our central to our national identity,
it is also detrimental to our economy.
Immigrant families bring an entrepreneurial spirit to our
country. Family-based immigration allows newcomers to pull
their resources together, start businesses, integrate more
easily into their communities and be more productive workers.
In addition, using education, English proficiency and job
skills as the basis for obtaining a green card does not
necessarily meet the economic need, as the U.S. Department of
Labor predicts that the U.S. economy has a higher demand for
low-skilled workers.
Therefore, the JCPA urges you to:
Vote ``Yes'' on the Clinton/Hagel Amendment to Include
Minor Children and Spouses of Lawful Permanent Residents in
the immediate Relative'' Category, thereby lifting the cap on
the number of visas available to these close family members.
Vote ``Yes'' on the Dodd/Hatch Amendment related to
Foreign-Born Parents of U.S. Citizens, which would increase
the annual cap of green cards for parents from 40,000 to
90,000, extend the duration of the parent visitor visa from
100 days to 365 days, and not impose collective punishment on
families when one member overstays their visa.
The JCPA is also concerned about the Title V provision that
arbitrarily sets the date of May 1st, 2005 as a cut-off for
clearing the backlog of applicants who have gone through
legal channels to try to reunite with their families in the
United States. Excluding individuals who have filed family-
based applications and paid fees after May 2005 sends the
wrong message that playing by the rules is not rewarded.
Unless this provision is fixed, the 800,000 applicants that
applied after the May 2005 cut-off will be re-directed to the
new application process, where they will have to compete
in an untested point system that is stacked against them,
in order to reunite with their family members.
Therefore, the JCPA urges you to:
Vote ``Yes'' on the Menendez/Hagel Amendment on Family
Backlog Cut-off Date, which would change the May 1, 2005 cut-
off date to January 1, 2007, the same cut-off date set for
the legalization for undocumented immigrants. The Menendez
amendment would also add 110,000 green cards a year to avoid
creation of a new backlog or cause families who went through
legal channels to wait longer than 8 years to reunite with
their loved ones in the United States.
The JCPA applauds the Senate's commitment to passing a
comprehensive immigration reform package this year. The
alternative is the status quo, which has proven to produce
suffering, exploitation, family separation and chaos.
However, the JCPA maintains serious reservations due to the
concerns outlined above. We therefore urge you to support the
above amendments to the agreement that reflect family values,
workability and fairness.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at
[email protected]
or 202-789-2222 X10l.
Sincerely,

Hadar Susskind,

Washington Director,
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
____

MALDEF--Promoting Latino Civil Rights Since 1968

IMMIGRATION DEBATE STARTS IN THE U.S. SENATE--Positive and negative
details emerge; first votes being taken

May 22, 2007.--On Monday, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 69-
23, voted to begin debate on comprehensive immigration
reform. Contrary to the original plan to complete action by
Memorial Day, Senate leaders acknowledged that deliberations
will continue into June after the Memorial Day recess. MALDEF
will work with local organizations and leaders to organize
meetings and events while Senators are in their home states
to highlight the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
We encourage you also to work with local coalitions in your
area.
MALDEF is working to restore family reunification, support
realistic employment verification systems, and remove
unnecessary obstacles to legalizing the immigration status of
otherwise law-abiding people already in the United States. In
addition to drastically limiting the ability of U.S. citizens
to be reunited in the U.S. with their brothers, sisters, and
parents, the Senate bill arbitrarily terminates family
reunification petitions filed after May 1, 2005. Urge your
Senator to support Senator Menendez's effort to restore the
hope for reunification for families whose applications were
filed after May 1, 2005. Over 800,000 legal immigrants
currently waiting in line will be harmed if this provision is
not improved.
A key provision in the Senate bill requires all employers
to use a new government database to verify the employment
eligibility of every new hire within 18 months and every
existing employee, U.S. citizen or not, within three years.
Based on our experience with employer sanctions, we expect
significant discrimination to result against Latino workers.
The bill would bypass the existing Department of Justice
Civil Rights office and require discrimination victims to
complain to the Department of Homeland Security. The bill
also shields the implementing rules from class action
challenges and bars a court from awarding attorney fees to
those, like MALDEF, that would challenge the regulations.
These features must be changed.
The legalization program makes unauthorized immigrants
eligible for a new ``Z'' visa if they entered the United
States as late as December 31, 2006. The program would start
six months after the bill is enacted and individuals (and
heads of households on behalf of their spouse and minor
children) would have up to a year and potentially two years
to apply. If they are eligible, unauthorized immigrants would
have an immediate interim stay of removal even before they
applied. These are the most positive features of the
compromise. MALDEF is working to strengthen other features
such as the costs, timing and eligibility restrictions.
One of the first amendments expected, as early as today,
may be offered by Senators Feinstein (CA) and Bingaman (NM).
It would reduce the number of future ``temporary workers'' by
50% and permit 200,000 instead of 400,000 to enter per year.
This amendment does not address our key objections to the
temporary worker provision, namely, that it would be costly
to the workers and complicated for employers; it would allow
the families of only higher income workers to join them in
the United States; and it would require workers to leave
after two years and remain outside the U.S. for a year before
returning. The United States needs more workers than are
currently available in the domestic workforce. The flaws in
the program relate not to the number of workers but to the
conditions upon their entry and in their work environment.
While the U.S. Senate is in session debating the
immigration bill, you will be receiving a special daily
edition of The MALDEFian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I had originally come to the floor
to

[[Page S6617]]

offer two amendments on Social Security. However, I have yielded to the
request from Senator Kennedy to withhold, and he has told me that I
will be able to offer those amendments on the first day we return and
take this bill up on the floor again.
Madam President, I did wish to speak, however, on what I hope to do
with this bill. I think there are some very good features of this bill.
It has been negotiated really for years. The good features are the
border security and we do have benchmarks that are required to be done
before any temporary worker program or dealing with the backlog of
people who are in our country illegally begins.
We will have benchmarks that are finite for border security. That is
a good feature of this bill. It also has a temporary worker program
going forward. I think it is essential, if we are going to have border
security in the future in this country, that we have a temporary worker
program that works. If we do not have a temporary worker program that
works, we will not have border security. Many people are not putting
that together, but it is essential that you put it together because if
we do not have a way for people to come into this country and fill the
jobs that are being unfilled because we do not have enough workers who
will do those jobs, then we will never be able to control our borders.
I am supportive of those parts of the bill. What I cannot support in
this bill and what I am going to try to make a positive effort to
change are basically two areas. First is the amnesty portion of the Z
visa. It would allow people to come to this country illegally, stay
here, and if they do not wish to have a green card, they would never
have to return. And that visa would be able to be renewed as long as
the person wanted to stay here and work. I will offer an amendment at
the appropriate time that will take the amnesty out of the bill and
require that before a person can work in this country legally, if they
are here illegally, they would have to go home and apply from outside
the country. We will have a time that will allow that to happen in an
orderly way, probably 2 years after the person gets their temporary
card when they register to say they are in our country illegally, which
they will be required to do. Then they would have 2 years from the time
they get that first temporary card to go home and register at home to
come in our country legally.
I think taking out the amnesty part of this bill would be a major
step in the right direction, to say, for people who are here illegally
today, they can get right with the law by applying from home, just as
all future workers will have to do. So there would not be an amnesty
for people who would be able to work here, stay here, and never go
home. That would be my amendment which I would like to offer at the
appropriate time.
The second area I think must be fixed is in the Social Security area.
We all know our Social Security system is on the brink of failure. We
know that in the year 2017, the system will start to pay out more than
it receives. By 2041, the trust fund will be exhausted.
Now, in 2017, under the present law, we will have to make adjustments
that will either increase Social Security taxes or decrease payments to
Social Security recipients. If we put more people into our system who
have gotten credits illegally working in this country, it is going to
bring forward the year in which we have to start either lowering the
payments or raising the taxes. I don't think that is right. I do not
think we should give Social Security credits to people who will be Z
visa holders in this country for the time they have worked illegally.
In the underlying bill, they do address the issue of fraudulent
cards. I commend them for putting that in the bill. If you have paid
Social Security with a fraudulent number or a card that is not yours,
you will not be able to get credit for Social Security. To be very fair
and honest, that is a good part of this bill, but it does not deal with
the people who have a card in their own name, but they have worked
illegally.
That is what one of my amendments will attempt to address, that we
will also not give credit to people who have a card in their name, but
they either obtained it illegally or they have overstayed a visa. So I
hope we can also not give credit for that illegal time they have worked
even if the card is in their name, but it was not their legal right to
work. If we can do that and then start a person, when they are on the
proper visa, toward getting credit, I think the American people will
feel that is a fairer system.
The second area I hope to address is the new future flow of temporary
workers. Now, under the bill, the temporary workers who will be coming
in after the backlog of the illegal workers is dealt with, those people
should not ever go into the Social Security system because, according
to this bill, they will be limited to a 6-year period. It is very
important that in dealing with those temporary workers, that they will
not ever be eligible for Social Security, nor should they be, because
they will not have the requisite number of quarters.
What my second amendment does is allow them to take what they have
actually put into the Social Security system through the employee
deduction. It will allow them to take that home when they leave the
system. We think--I think that is a fair approach for both the person
working and also the Social Security system itself, that they would get
back what they put in, but they would not be eligible for our Social
Security system, which would be much more costly down the road.
In addition, the Medicare deduction which is taken from the employee
would also go into a fund which is already a fund in place that now
allows compensation for uncompensated health care to a county hospital
or to a health care provider that delivers a baby of an illegal
immigrant who cannot pay or does any emergency service for an illegal
immigrant today.

We know many hospitals--I know that in my home State of Texas, my
hospitals in my major cities always talk about how much they are having
to raise taxes on the taxpayers who live in their districts because
there is so much use of the health care facilities by illegal
immigrants who cannot pay. So the Medicare deduction would go into a
fund that would compensate health care providers for service to foreign
workers who would not be able to pay.
Those are the two amendments which I think would assure that the
taxpayers of our country and the contributors to the Social Security
system who have earned the right to have that safety net would not be
unfairly taxed for people who have not been legally in the system or
people who do not have the quarters that would be requisite. I hope we
can take these amendments up. I hope they will be acceptable. If we can
take the amnesty out of this bill by assuring that everyone who is here
illegally will have to apply outside of our country to be able to come
in legally to work, then we have set the precedent of the rule of law
which we have always prided ourselves on in this country. If we can
assure that the Social Security system is not also unduly burdened with
quarters given for illegal work, then I think the American people will
accept that we have to address this issue in a responsible way.
I have heard the outcry of people about this bill, and I think some
of that outcry is justified. But I think we can fix the parts that are
not in tune with the American people and also do what is right for our
country going forward because there is one thing on which I think we
can all agree; that is, we have a system that is broken when you have
10 to 12 million people--and that is an estimate because we do not know
for sure--who are working in our country illegally. They are not being
treated fairly, nor are the American people who do live by the rule of
law being treated fairly. It is a system that is broken, and it is a
very complicated and hard problem to fix, but that is our
responsibility.
I respect those who have tried, in a bipartisan way, to put forward a
bill. As a person who has written a book, as a person who has written
legal briefs, I know that the person who puts out the first draft is
always going to be the one who is under attack. But someone has to do
it, and the people who have worked on this bill did step out and say:
Here is the starting point.
Congressman Mike Pence and I, last year, when the House and Senate
broke down in negotiations over this issue, did the same thing. We came
out with

[[Page S6618]]

what we thought was a starting point that would be the right approach,
and the principles we laid down were that we would have a guest worker
program which would not include amnesty but would be a fair and
workable guest worker program. It would have private sector
involvement. It would have border security as our No. 1 goal. It would
also preserve the integrity of our Social Security system. Congressman
Pence and I tried to do that last year. Many of the elements in the
Hutchison-Pence plan are in the bill before us.
If we can perfect this bill and take the amnesty out by requiring
everyone to apply outside our country--and it can be done in a
responsible way mechanically because you would have some amount of
time--1 or 2 years--to do it so that it would not be a glut on the
system. I regret the argument that you cannot do it. I think we can. I
also think we need to make a responsible effort, and that is exactly
what I am going to try to do.
I hope all our colleagues will work in a positive way to try to fix
the parts that we think are bad, to admit that there are some good
parts. The border security and the temporary worker program are very
good, and the part about the Social Security protection for fraudulent
cards is good. Let's try to make it better. Let's try to make it a bill
that everyone will accept as fair for America, fair for foreign
workers, helps our economy, and keeps our borders secure. That is what
we owe the people. I hope to make a contribution in that effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see my friend from Vermont on his
feet. I know from conversation that he wants to modify his amendment. I
hope the Chair will recognize him for that purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Amendment No. 1223, as Modified

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I have a modification of my amendment
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end of title VII, insert the following:

Subtitle C--American Competitiveness Scholarship Program

SEC. 711. AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation (referred to in this section as the ``Director'')
shall award scholarships to eligible individuals to enable
such individuals to pursue associate, undergraduate, or
graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, health
care, or computer science.
(b) Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a scholarship
under this section, an individual shall--
(A) be a citizen of the United States, a national of the
United States (as defined in section 101(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)), an alien
admitted as a refugee under section 207 of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1157), or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence;
(B) prepare and submit to the Director an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Director may require; and
(C) certify to the Director that the individual intends to
use amounts received under the scholarship to enroll or
continue enrollment at an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a)) in order to pursue an associate,
undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics,
engineering, computer science, nursing, medicine, or other
clinical medical program, or technology, or science program
designated by the Director.
(2) Ability.--Awards of scholarships under this section
shall be made by the Director solely on the basis of the
ability of the applicant, except that in any case in which 2
or more applicants for scholarships are deemed by the
Director to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and
there are not sufficient scholarships available to grant one
to each of such applicants, the available scholarship or
scholarships shall be awarded to the applicants in a manner
that will tend to result in a geographically wide
distribution throughout the United States of recipients'
places of permanent residence.
(c) Amount of Scholarship; Renewal.--
(1) Amount of scholarship.--The amount of a scholarship
awarded under this section shall be $15,000 per year, except
that no scholarship shall be greater than the annual cost of
tuition and fees at the institution of higher education in
which the scholarship recipient is enrolled or will enroll.
(2) Renewal.--The Director may renew a scholarship under
this section for an eligible individual for not more than 4
years.
(d) Funding.--The Director shall carry out this section
only with funds made available under section 286(x) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by section 712) (8
U.S.C. 1356).
(e) Federal Register.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall publish in
the Federal Register a list of eligible programs of study for
a scholarship under this section.

SEC. 712. SUPPLEMENTAL H-1B NONIMMIGRANT PETITIONER ACCOUNT.

Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1356) (as amended by this Act) is further amended by
inserting after subsection (w) the following:
``(x) Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account.--
``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund
of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as
the `Supplemental H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account'.
Notwithstanding any other section of this Act, there shall be
deposited as offsetting receipts into the account all fees
collected under section 214(c)(15).
``(2) Use of fees for american competitiveness scholarship
program.--The amounts deposited into the Supplemental H-1B
Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account shall remain available to the
Director of the National Science Foundation until expended
for scholarships described in section 711 of the Secure
Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of
2007 for students enrolled in a program of study leading to a
degree in mathematics, engineering, health care, or computer
science.''.

SEC. 713. SUPPLEMENTAL FEES.

Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(15)(A) In each instance where the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of State is
required to impose a fee pursuant to paragraph (9) or (11),
the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or
the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall impose a
supplemental fee on the employer in addition to any other fee
required by such paragraph or any other provision of law, in
the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount of the supplemental fee shall be $3,500,
except that the fee shall be \1/2\ that amount for any
employer with not more than 25 full-time equivalent employees
who are employed in the United States (determined by
including any affiliate or subsidiary of such employer).
``(C) Fees collected under this paragraph shall be
deposited in the Treasury in accordance with section
286(x).''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see my friend and colleague from
Illinois here, as well as my colleague from Alabama. I did wish to
address the Vitter amendment briefly. We are very hopeful we may be
able to accept the Senator's amendment. We will know that momentarily.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Amendment No. 1231 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to first describe what I am going
to try to do at this moment so all Senators will know. I am going to
ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending Sanders amendment
for the purpose of offering an amendment which I am going to offer and
then, after a brief comment of 3 to 5 minutes, I will ask unanimous
consent to return to the Sanders amendment as the pending business
before the Senate. I don't wish to mislead anybody about what I am
doing. This should be a total of about 5 minutes, and we will be back
where we started. My amendment will be at the desk for later
consideration.
I make that unanimous consent request to set aside the pending
Sanders amendment for the purpose of offering my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I had understood there
would be an opportunity for me to speak after Senator Sanders and
Senator Durbin. Are we going to be in a situation where I may not be
allowed to offer an amendment?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Alabama through the Chair, I
will be completed in 3 to 5 minutes, and we will be in exactly the same
place we started. The Sanders amendment will be pending with no other
requirements under the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, and
Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1231 to
amendment No. 1150.

[[Page S6619]]

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

(Purpose: To ensure that employers make efforts to recruit American
workers)

In section 218B(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
as added by section 403(a), strike ``Except where the
Secretary of Labor has determined that there is a shortage of
United States workers in the occupation and area of intended
employment to which the Y nonimmigrant is sought, each'' and
insert ``Each''.

In section 218B(c)(1)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as added by section 403(a), strike ``Except where the
Secretary of Labor has determined that there is a shortage of
United States workers in the occupation and area of intended
employment for which the Y nonimmigrant is sought--'' and
insert ``That--''.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator Grassley. The new Y guest worker program included in
the immigration bill would require employers to recruit Americans
before hiring a guest worker. That is our first obligation. If there is
a job opening in America, an American should have the first chance to
get it. That is the intent of the bill, but there is one loophole. The
loophole allows the Secretary of Labor to declare a labor shortage and
then waive the requirement of offering the job to an American. We don't
define what a labor shortage is. This amendment removes that right of
the Secretary of Labor.
What it means is, as there are job openings, they will always be
offered first to Americans. Shouldn't that be our starting point,
always offer the job first to an American, to see if an unemployed
person or someone else wants to take it? Then if the job is not filled,
we can consider other options. We know when it comes to H-1B visas,
which are visas offered to skilled workers to come into this country to
fill in gaps for engineers and architects and professionals, there have
been abuses. When we had the openings for the H-1B visas, opportunities
for people to come into this country, it turned out that 7 out of the
10 firms that won the right to offer H-1B visas were not American
companies trying to fill spots where they couldn't find Americans. They
turned out to be foreign companies that were outsourcing workers to the
United States, exactly the opposite of what we had hoped for. We don't
want that to happen with the temporary guest worker program. This
amendment would eliminate this jobs shortage exception. It would
require that in temporary guest worker positions, the first job
offering always be to an American. It is simple. Senator Grassley and I
offer it. It is supported by the AFL-CIO and the building trades
unions, the laborers and Teamsters, many other organizations. I urge my
colleagues, when we return after our Memorial Day recess, to consider
this amendment. It is a very important amendment to stand faithful to
our first obligation, our people in America who are looking for jobs.
I ask unanimous consent to set my amendment aside and return to the
Sanders amendment as the pending amendment before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think we are in a position to accept
the amendment of the Senator from Vermont as modified. What I propose
to do is to speak very briefly on the Vitter amendment, and then it
would be my expectation that we would move to Senator Sessions to have
an opportunity for him to offer his amendment. He has been on the floor
a great deal today trying to be recognized. He has been at a markup on
Armed Services so he couldn't be here earlier.
I have been informed there are some objections to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Vermont. We will have to process them and
see what we will do. It is not unusual that the information given to us
is that we can accept and then others come forward. But we will try to
work it out.

Amendment No. 1157

Briefly, Madam President, I oppose the Vitter amendment. The core of
the legislation is to provide for border security, employer
verification, a guest worker program, and a way to handle the 12
million undocumented immigrants. The Vitter amendment strikes title VI,
which provides for the way of handling the 12 million undocumented
immigrants, which is, if not the heart of this bill, a vital organ of
the bill. Without this provision, the bill doesn't have the import
which is necessary to deal with the immigration problem.
The 12 million undocumented immigrants are going to be in the United
States whether we deal with them in a systematic, appropriate way or
not. The only question is whether we eliminate the anarchy, having
them, as the expression is often used, living in the shadows, living in
fear. If we systematize the approach, they come out of the shadows.
They register. We will have an opportunity to identify the criminal
element, deport a reasonable number when we identify those who can be,
should be deported, and then deal with the balance as the bill provides
with the Z visas.
Stated briefly, if you were to accept the Vitter amendment, there
would be nothing left but a shell of this bill. The whole bill is an
accommodation of border security, employer verification for what we do
in the guest worker program, and the 12 million undocumented
immigrants. For those reasons, I vigorously oppose the Vitter
amendment.
I believe we are now ready for the Senator from Alabama to offer his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, at the request of the leaders, we were
in the process of trying to get some votes this afternoon. We were
moving along as well because the Appropriations Committee had asked us
if we would be finished by 5 o'clock. I see my friend from Alabama who
has been extremely patient. He has been in the Armed Services
Committee, where I should have been earlier in the afternoon. He was
diligent there and arrived over here. He has important amendments on
the earned-income tax credit and others. The Senator from Vermont has
been here all afternoon. He has a good amendment. We had initially, at
2:15, said we would do the Vitter amendment. We were going to come back
and do the Feingold amendment, but then we were told we couldn't vote
on that.
We were told we couldn't vote on Vitter because there were some
members of his own party who chose not to do so. But we wanted to vote
on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. Hopefully, he was going
to be accepted, but that is not the case.
I hope we would have the opportunity to vote on that; then after
that, to recognize the Senator from Alabama for whatever time he might
need for the purpose of debate, rather than for voting. The request of
the leadership is to do the supplemental. We give assurance to the
Senator from Alabama that we will consider his amendment at the
earliest possible time after we return.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator
from Pennsylvania to consider the following--if we could enter into a
unanimous consent request that would allow the Senator from Alabama to
lay down his amendments, to speak, and then withdraw the amendments,
returning to the Sanders amendment, and have unanimous consent at a
time certain that we would have a vote on the Sanders amendment; would
that be agreeable?
I would like to make that unanimous consent request, if the Senator
from Alabama can tell us how much time he would need.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would prefer to have a vote on my
amendment tonight, if we could do so. I would be reluctant to have
another vote if we can't have a vote on the amendment I will offer.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Vermont has been here
all day waiting for this opportunity and has patiently waited as
several suggested rollcalls have passed by. In fact, one was to be at 5
o'clock. Without prejudicing the Senator from Alabama, I have a pending
amendment, too, or had one earlier, which I am willing to wait until
after the recess to consider. I think it might be a gesture of fairness
to allow the Senator from Vermont to have his vote this evening,
whether the Senator and I get our chance or not. We will be back after
Memorial Day.

[[Page S6620]]

Mr. SESSIONS. It is a tough life in the pit here. If I desire to have
a vote tonight myself, what would be the difficulty with that? We could
do that at the same time as the vote on the Sanders amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I think we have had a good debate and discussion on the
Sanders amendment. It was the request of the leadership that we have
the supplemental, which has been extremely important. There is going to
be action on that later this evening. They had initially asked us if we
could conclude at 4 o'clock. We have been trying to conclude so that
Members who want to address the supplemental would be able to address
the supplemental. That is basically the reason for that. We have been
here, as the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, ready to do business
since 9:30 this morning. We were glad to. I had hoped--and I apologize
to the Senator from Vermont because we were all set to have a rollcall
on that. Then it appeared it might have been accepted. I was asked,
requested by Senators to hold for a few moments to see whether it could
not have been cleared. I could ask unanimous consent that the
amendments of the Senator from Alabama be considered on Tuesday at a
time agreeable to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there will be a number of amendments I
would like to have considered and a number of others that need to be
considered after we come back.
I would just reluctantly state that if we have a vote, I would need
and request that my vote be also tonight; otherwise, I would object to
the unanimous consent request.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I have been
informed by staff that his amendment has not been filed, and we have
not seen a copy of it. Senator Feingold, who earlier had an amendment,
stepped aside so Senator Sanders would have his chance. I say to the
Senator from Alabama, it appears some who have been waiting all day are
looking for a chance for a vote, and the Senator from Alabama is asking
for consideration of an amendment that has not been filed and we have
not seen.
Madam President, I say to the Senator, could I ask unanimous consent
that the Senator from Alabama be recognized to offer an amendment and
that he then be recognized for up to 15 minutes; that following his
remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the Sanders amendment and
there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Sanders
amendment, with no second-degree amendment in order to the Sanders
amendment prior to the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, if I would be allowed to make my two
amendments pending and to speak for 15 minutes, I would forgo a request
for a vote tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, did the Senator say two amendments?
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have two amendments. They are both
on the same subject. I would rather offer both. I am not sure which
one--I would never ask the Senate to vote on both, but I would like to
offer both.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I will renew my unanimous consent
request and see if the Senator from Alabama will find it acceptable.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions be recognized to offer
two amendments and be given up to 15 minutes to speak to those
amendments; that following his remarks, the Senate resume consideration
of the Sanders amendment and there be 2 minutes of debate prior a vote
in relation to that amendment, equally divided, with no second-degree
amendments in order to the Sanders amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WHITEHOUSE). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Illinois for
his expertise in extracting that agreement from this confusion.

Amendment No. 1234 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and I
send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 1234 to amendment No. 1150.

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

(Purpose: To save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years
after passage of this Act, by preventing the earned income tax credit,
which is, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest
anti-poverty entitlement program of the Federal Government, from being
claimed by Y temporary workers or illegal alients given status by this
Act until they adjust to legal permanent resident status)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON CLAIMING EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

Any alien who is unlawfully present in the United States,
receives adjustment of status under section 601 of this Act
(relating to aliens who were illegally present in the United
States prior to January 1, 2007), or enters the United States
to work on a Y visa under section 402 of this Act, shall not
be eligible for the tax credit provided under section 32 of
the Internal Revenue Code (relating to earned income) until
such alien has his or her status adjusted to legal permanent
resident status.

Amendment No. 1235 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 1235 to amendment No. 1150.

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

(Purpose: To save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years
after passage of this Act, by preventing the earned income tax credit,
which is, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest
anti-poverty entitlement program of the Federal Government, from being
claimed by Y temporary workers or illegal aliens given status by this
Act until they adjust to legal permanent resident status)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. 5-YEAR LIMITATION ON CLAIMING EARNED INCOME TAX
CREDIT.

Section 403(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613) is
amended by inserting ``, including the tax credit provided
under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to
earned income),'' after ``means-tested public benefit''.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the more significant
ramifications of the immigration bill that is on the floor today is
that it will confer immediately on persons in our country illegally the
benefit of the earned-income tax credit. This is not a little bitty
matter. The earned-income tax credit is the largest aid program for
low-wage workers in America. Last year, the earned-income tax credit
benefitted over 22 million people who. The average recipient who
receives a benefit under the earned-income tax credit receives over
$1,700 per year--a very generous event. Last year, we spent $41.2
billion on the Earned Income Tax Credit.
What this bill would do, for the people who are here illegally, is
confer on them a Z status, a legal status, and under the impact of the
legislation, these individuals would immediately become eligible for
the earned-income tax credit.
Let me tell you why this is not good policy, it is not required by
morality, and it certainly is not required of Congress as a matter of
law or policy. The earned-income tax credit was created in 1975 to
provide extra income to the working poor. Before welfare reform
particularly, there was a widespread understanding that many people
could not work, could stay at home, draw a panoply of welfare benefits,
and end up making more money not working than working. It was creating
a disincentive to work.
Back when President Nixon was President, Republicans--and I guess

[[Page S6621]]

Democrats--moved forward with the earned-income tax credit. It has
grown and become a major factor for low-wage working Americans. The
whole concept behind the earned-income tax credit was to encourage
Americans to work, to affirm their work, to provide aid and assistance
to them, unlike welfare. It is tied to their work. Now, I have to tell
you, I have looked at it, and I do not think it is achieving quite what
we want it to do. In fact, I would like to change that and have
suggested it over the years but, regardless, that is the deal.
So how is it, then, that we would think we have an obligation to
provide, as a reward to someone who came to our country illegally, a
benefit they are not now receiving, did not expect to receive when they
came to the country, legally or illegally, and then, just as an
additional benefit and reward to their legalization, we provide a
$1,700-per-year benefit? It does not make good sense to me. I think it
is bad policy, and it has a huge impact on our bottom line in the
budget we have to deal with.
I also note that in 1996, when we passed the Welfare Reform Act,
after much effort and work--President Clinton vetoed it twice but
finally signed it--an effort was made to ensure that persons who
obtained a green card did not receive means-tested benefits until at
least they had a green card for 5 years. In other words, if you were
coming to our country as an immigrant, we wanted to be sure you were
not coming for welfare benefits, but to work, and that you would not
receive means-tested benefits until you had a green card for at least 5
years.
So what happened was, when they wrote that, it did not touch the
earned-income tax credit. I guess that is a Finance Committee matter.
It is a tax committee matter. It was not considered a normal welfare-
type payment, and that was not included in the list of things a person
was not allowed to get. But, in my own mind, I say to my colleagues, it
is perfectly consistent in philosophy and in principle with that
because the earned-income tax credit is a payment from the Federal
Government to working Americans. You file a tax return and obtain the
Earned Income Tax Credit after a year's work. When your work shows your
income level was below a certain level in America, you reach a
qualifying level, and you get a tax refund of $1,700, $1,000, $2,400,
depending on the circumstances of yourself and your family. So that is
what happens today for working Americans. The individuals who are in
our country illegally at this moment have not been expecting to get
that, have not been getting it unless they are filing fraudulently, and
they should not get it. They should not get it as an additional benefit
to receiving a Z visa, which allows them permanent residence in the
United States and a pathway to citizenship.
That Z visa would also allow them to obtain quite a number of other
benefits, such as food stamps--which would not be affected by my
amendment--health care for children, and, of course, anyone who goes
into a hospital who has an emergency need will be treated whether they
have insurance or legal status or not. So their children would be
educated in our school systems. All those things would occur. Nothing
would impact those things. But it is not correct as a matter of law, as
a matter of principle, and certainly it is not a matter of fiscal
responsibility for this Congress to pass an immigration reform bill
that confers another $18 billion to $20 billion in earned-income tax
credit on people whom we just rewarded with permanent residence in our
country. That is not required. There is no requirement of that.
The Congressional Research Service describes the EITC in this way:

The earned income tax credit began in 1975 as a temporary
program--

Typical of Washington, isn't it, that we start something that is
temporary, and it is $40 billion a year now--

to return a portion of the Social Security taxes paid by
lower-income taxpayers and was made permanent in 1978. In the
1990s the program was transformed into a major component of
Federal efforts to reduce poverty and is now the largest
antipoverty entitlement program.

I bet most Americans did not know that the EITC is the largest
entitlement program on the books.
Now, I have had a fairly positive view of the earned-income tax
credit. I think in many ways it is a good philosophy to help Americans
get out, get moving, make some work. They often start out at lower wage
jobs, and it sounds bad sometimes for them, and they are not making
enough to get by. This earned-income tax credit can really be a benefit
to them, and if they stay at that job, if they work at it, if they are
responsible and they come to work on time and do their duty
effectively, most people in America get promoted. Their wages go up,
and they do better and better. So I do not think it is a bad program,
but it is a very expensive program, and for a number of reasons it
could be operated better.
I will again say to my colleagues, I am not of the belief that it is
required of us that we should confer on persons who came into our
country illegally every single benefit we confer on those who wait in
line and come to our country legally. I just do not think that is
required. One of the things in particular I would suggest not to be
conferred--should not be conferred--upon them is the extensive benefits
of the earned-income tax credit.
In other words, we do not want to attract people to America on things
other than their wages and salary. We have enough people who need help
in America. We have a lot of people out there working who, frankly,
maybe did not have a good home life. They have not been as reliable as
they should have been. Maybe they have gotten in trouble a time or two.
We need our American businesses to take a chance on those people. We
need to help them get their lives together and establish a good work
history and start making some money. The earned-income tax credit comes
in as a refundable tax credit on top of that as a real bonus to them,
and that is good. But it should not be an attraction to draw people
into our country because most of the persons who come into America as
an illegal immigrant, at least in the first years, tend to make the
salary levels that qualify for the earned-income tax credit. So there
will be a disproportionately high number of persons who will qualify
for that.

I see my time is about up. I will reluctantly accept having a vote,
as Senator Kennedy suggested we can do early in the next week when we
come back, if that will help move us along tonight. But I want to tell
my colleagues to think about this amendment--really think about it.
This is not a harsh amendment. This is not an amendment to hurt
anybody. It is an amendment that says: OK, if you are in our country,
just like the 1996 Welfare Reform Act said, and you qualify for the Z
visa under this amnesty program, or whatever you would like to call
what we have in this bill, you are not automatically eligible for the
earned-income tax credit. We absolutely should not allow that to
happen. It is not necessary. It is not right to do so. It is a raid on
the Treasury of the United States. It draws money from people who have
paid taxes for years.
I would have to note, under the bill that is on the Senate floor, the
immigration bill before us, are individuals who have been here
illegally, some of whom may have made nice incomes and are absolved
from paying a portion of their back taxes. So they don't even pay all
back taxes. Then we are going to give them, immediately, the next year,
an earned-income tax credit that could be a very substantial amount of
money, and that comes right out of the taxpayers' pockets, a billion
here and a billion there and a billion here and a billion there. It
does add up, and it is significant.
So I would urge my colleagues to consider this and hope that they
will.
I also wanted to express my support for Senator Hutchison for the
analysis on Social Security of persons who come here to work and who
violate their stays and overstay, that they should not receive the full
benefit of Social Security. One of the things you have to have if you
are going to have an effective immigration policy is you must have a
situation in which you don't reward people for bad behavior, for
heaven's sake. We certainly are not very good at apprehending people
who violate the law, who either came in illegally or overstayed and
removed them from the country, but surely we ought to set up a system
that says if you violate the law, the way you come or stay here, you
don't get Federal taxpayer benefits and a reward as a result of

[[Page S6622]]

that illegal behavior. If we are not able to make those distinctions
and stand with clarity on those kinds of questions, I suggest we are
not able to take a stand on most any principle of law. So that worries
me.
Senator Cornyn, who spoke earlier and very effectively, asked me to
make this note for the record; that his modification corrected--he
stated in his remarks that he made a modification to his amendment to
correct the page number. He also wanted to make clear that he did also
include a technical correction beyond that, and he didn't want to
mislead anyone. He asked that I clarify that for him so that there
would be no dispute about that.
Also, some people have suggested that the Cornyn amendment would
amount to an unconstitutional ex post facto rule because of its
retroactive application. Now, that is a pretty harsh thing to say about
Judge Cornyn. Senator Cornyn served on the Supreme Court of the State
of Texas and he would just suggest this: In order for any immigration
provision to have immediate effect, it is imperative that they apply to
the conduct and convictions that occurred before enactment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 15 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more
minute, and I will wrap up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. So, also, I would note on behalf of Senator Cornyn's
amendment that if prior conduct and convictions were not covered, you
would have an immigration regime that essentially welcomes the
following people, and this is not how the immigration system should
operate. For example, as recently as 2005--I see my time is up, and I
won't go into that. I will just note that Senator Cornyn's amendment as
he offered it will meet constitutional muster, and it is not subject to
the criticism some have suggested, and please do support it.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
proceed for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of the men and women who would become
legal residents of the United States under the terms of this
legislation are required to pay income tax like every other worker in
America. What the Sessions amendment would do is really quite
extraordinary and grossly unfair. It would arbitrarily deny those
immigrants who have become legal residents one of the tax benefits
available to every taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code. That
provision is the earned-income tax credit, a provision designed to
reduce the I tax burden on low income families with children.
It is fundamentally wrong to subject immigrant workers to a
different, harsher Tax Code than the one that applies to everyone else
in the country. An immigrant worker should pay exactly the same income
tax that every other worker earning the same pay and supporting the
same size family pays--no less and no more. We should not be designing
a special punitive Tax Code for immigrants that makes them more than
everyone else. Yet that is exactly what the Sessions amendment seeks to
do.
The Session amendment would result in highly inconsistent treatment
of legal immigrant residents, and would drastically increase the amount
of tax that many of these families had to pay. They would be subject to
income and payroll taxes in the same manner as other workers but would
be denied the use of a key element of the Tax Code that is intended to
offset the relatively heavy tax burdens that low-income working
families, especially those with children, otherwise would face.
Most of the EITC is simply a tax credit for the payment of other
taxes, especially regressive payroll taxes. The EITC was specifically
designed to offset the payroll tax burden on low-income working
parents. The Treasury Department has estimated that a large majority of
the EITC merely compensates for a portion of the federal income,
payroll, and excise taxes paid by the low-income tax filers who qualify
to receive it.
A significant share of families that receive the EITC owe federal
income tax before the EITC is applied, in addition to paying payroll
taxes. Low-income working immigrant families in this category who would
be denied the EITC under the Sessions Amendment would consequently face
a dramatic increase in their income tax bill, requiring them to pay
much higher taxes than other taxpayers with similar earnings.
Other families with even less income would not receive a refund to
offset the disproportionately large payroll taxes they paid, unlike
other workers with comparable wages and dependents.
To qualify for the EITC, under current law, a taxpayer must satisfy
the following criteria: 1., Be a US citizen or legal resident; 2., have
a valid Social Security number for both the worker and any qualifying
children; 3., have earned income from employment or self-employment;
4., have total income that falls below a certain level, and; 5., file
an income tax return.
Current law already clearly prohibits illegal immigrants from
receiving the EITC. No immigrant can receive the earned income tax
credit unless he or she is a legal resident who is a low wage worker
paying payroll taxes and filing an income tax return. These are men and
women who are conscientiously fulfilling their responsibilities to
their adopted country and they deserve to be treated like all other
workers in America.
This amendment would hurt children. The United States has more
children living in poverty than any other industrialized country. We
need to help children, not hurt them. And they should not have to pay
for the sins of their parents.

____________________