To require the use of objective criteria to determine which undocumented persons have sufficient community ties to be awarded a Z visa and remain in the United States lawfully.

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1348, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

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

Pending:

Reid (for Kennedy/Specter) amendment No. 1150, in the
nature of a substitute.
Dodd/Menendez amendment No. 1199 (to amendment No. 1150),
to increase the number of green cards for parents of U.S.
citizens, to extend the duration of the new parent visitor
visa, and to make penalties imposed on individuals who
overstay such visas applicable only to such individuals.
Sessions amendment No. 1235 (to amendment No. 1150), to
save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years
after passage of this act by preventing the earned-income tax
credit--which is, according to the Congressional Research
Service, the largest antipoverty entitlement program of the
Federal Government--from being claimed by Y temporary workers
or illegal aliens given status by this act until they adjust
to legal permanent resident status.
Whitehouse (for Coburn/DeMint) modified amendment No. 1311
(to amendment No. 1150), to require the enforcement of
existing border security and immigration laws and
Congressional approval before amnesty can be granted.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 1 hour for debate prior to a vote on amendment No. 1311, as
modified, and the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment
No. 1150, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Coburn will be here
shortly and has some time set aside. He indicated he will yield some
time to me. I will take a couple of minutes.
First, there are not any of my colleagues on the floor, but I assume
the objection that was received last night to my request to dispense
with the current business and make pending my amendment No. 1323 will
still be in effect. I renew it, and if any change has been made with
regard to it, I hope they will permit it, but I assume, based on what I
know, that there is still an objection to bringing up that amendment.
I have quite a number of amendments, 10 or more amendments, that have
been filed but cannot be made pending because it requires unanimous
consent to move those amendments to pending status, and that means if
cloture is granted later this morning, those amendments will not be on
the list and cannot be given a vote.
I am not trying to run around and move something through to which I
understand there is an objection, but I want to make the point that a
number of Senators have a number of important amendments that are filed
but cannot be made pending, and they will fall and not get a vote if we
move forward with this premature cloture vote. So I strongly object to
cloture. I believe it denies us the right to amend this bill which is
seriously flawed.

I note that the particular amendment I want to bring up is named for
Charlie Norwood, a Congressman from Georgia, who died recently. He was
a tremendous patriot who shared my

[[Page S7272]]

concern. We worked together in drafting his amendment that was
introduced in the House which was designed to clarify that local law
enforcement officers have an opportunity to participate in enforcement
of Federal immigration laws simply as they go about their normal course
of duties. If they arrest someone for speeding or some offense of that
kind, then they could check their records, and if they are here
illegally, they could detain them for Federal officials.
Actually, in many instances, that is still doable today, but in a
couple of areas it is vague. The lawyers for the departments have
objected to their police officers participating because they think
there might be a problem.
This is a critically important amendment. If it is not adopted, it
indicates to me that the persons pushing this legislation do not want
it to work because there are 600,000 to 800,000 State and local law
enforcement officers and only about 1,200 ICE agents and only a
fraction of them not on the border, 2,000, something of that nature of
ICE agents. They cannot cover this country. They have to rely on State
and local officers, who, by the way, caught individuals during their
crime sprees or plans to attack us on 9/11. They were apprehended in
traffic stops. John Malvo was apprehended. Other terrorists have been
apprehended for speeding but let go because the local officers were not
participating effectively in the system.
One of the weaknesses of this bill is that the professionals who
understand how this system works were not invited and were not in the
room with the people who wrote this political bill. A bunch of
politicians wrote it. They did not understand sufficiently the details
that are critical to a successful report.
I note that Kent Lundgren, former chairman of the National
Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, has said this is a bill
which will not work. ``Based on my experience,'' one individual said,
``it is a disaster.'' Another said that the system will not work as
proposed today, that it represents, according to Mr. Hugh Brien, former
Chief of Border Patrol for the United States from 1986 to 1989--this is
what he said just a couple of days ago: It is a ``sell out.'' It is ``a
complete betrayal of the Nation.'' He said it is ``a slap in the face''
to the millions of Americans who come here legally.
He came here as an immigrant legally. He was former Chief of the
Border Patrol, and he made these strong statements about this bill.
I see my friend, Dr. Coburn, is here. I know he has an amendment. I
am glad to have made my comments beforehand and I, once again, express
concern that amendments are not being accepted, and we should not
invoke cloture.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 1311, as Modified

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand, as agreed upon, I will have
20 minutes to discuss amendment No. 1311, as modified. I call up my
amendment, and in that 20 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Texas be given 1\1/2\ minutes of that time to speak.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The amendment is pending.
Mr. COBURN. The amendment is pending?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from
Texas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to wait until Senator
Coburn is finished, and then I would like to be recognized for 5
minutes following his remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That would exceed the amount of
time allotted.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is allotted to our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Your side has 22 minutes 45
seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me make an inquiry. I wanted to
speak for 1 minute on the Coburn amendment and then for 4 minutes or so
on cloture. Is the time allotted only for the Coburn amendment at this
time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is concurrent debate on the
Coburn amendment and cloture for which 1 hour is divided equally
between the two sides.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, it
is my intention to speak against his amendment and then against
cloture. I don't want to take from his time. That is not fair. So I ask
the Senator from Oklahoma what is the allocation that he wishes to
make?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I was promised 20 minutes last night. I
will be happy to try to finish my remarks in less than 20 minutes and
give the Senator from Texas the remaining time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate that.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the Coburn-DeMint trigger amendment--that
is what this amendment is--is about setting right what has been
promised since 1986. It is about requiring that the existing border
security and immigration laws we have on the books today be enforced
and that the fact they are being enforced be approved by Congress
before the amnesty in this bill can be granted.
The Federal Government has an obligation to secure the U.S. borders
and enforce U.S. laws. The American people expect that their laws will
be upheld. If the U.S. borders are not secure and an estimated 12
million--of which 4.5 million or 5 million have overstayed their visas
and make up part of this 12 million illegal immigrants in our country
today.
The United States faces a history since the 1986 amnesty bill of
being overpromised and undersold on immigration enforcement by their
Government. The Federal Government has failed and has rightfully lost
the trust of the people. How can the people trust that this time things
will be any different than 1986? This is not about having welcoming
arms; this is about the security of this country and the rule of law.
This amendment is the first step to help restore some of the trust
Congress has lost. It says that before this bill can go forward, the
President must demonstrate to Congress, and Congress must agree, that
current laws are being enforced--laws that are on the books.
This amendment is common sense. If the agencies can demonstrate that
U.S. borders are secure and immigration laws are enforced, then the
American people have reason to believe that this time things will be
different. They will demonstrate that compassion, once again, so often
seen in the past.
What will the trigger do? This trigger is the legislative mechanism
for ensuring that the Federal Government meets certain legal
obligations before the process for legalizing illegal immigrants can
begin. It is very simple. It will add to the current trigger
amendment. It takes several provisions of existing law, laws that are
on the books, and requires they be fully implemented before we grant
amnesty or legal status to illegal aliens.

What are they? The Department must achieve and maintain operational
control over the international maritime borders of the United States,
as required by a law passed last year by 80 to 19 in this body--the
Secure Fence Act.
All databases maintained by the Department with information on aliens
shall be fully integrated, as required by section 202 of the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. That is not
accomplished yet.
No. 3. The exit portion of the U.S. visa system is to be fully
implemented, as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is not being
enforced.
That the provision of law that prohibits States and localities from
adopting sanctuary policies is fully enforced by section 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996; that the
Department employ fully operational equipment at each port of entry in
accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border and Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002; aliens with border crossing cards are
prevented from entering unless their biometric card is matched to them,
as required by section 1101(a)6 of Title VIII of United States Code.
How this trigger works. It requires the agencies that are responsible
for

[[Page S7273]]

implementing these laws and the various portions of them to report to
the President when they have been fully implemented, and that the
President review the certifications and either approve or deny them. If
the President denies the agency has fulfilled the requirement,
according to the law, the President must instruct the agency on what to
do and when to bring it up to date. Congress shall then, on an
expedited basis, once the President has certified, review the report
and pass a resolution affirming the laws have been enforced; that they
have been implemented.
We are not ever going to gain back the trust of the American people
on immigration until we do what we have already passed. It is not about
not welcoming people, it is about the rule of law and understanding
that only can they have a future if we maintain the rule of law.
Why is this needed? The Gregg amendment did several good things, but
it didn't go far enough. It lacked two key elements. It did not require
that existing laws be implemented and enforced. Why is it we are
debating that existing laws should be enforced? We are ignoring
existing laws. And the Gregg amendment did not require congressional
approval.
A recent Rasmussen report found two-thirds of Americans believe it
does not make sense to debate new immigration law until we can first
enforce and control our border and enforce existing laws.
The bill is flawed because it allows those here illegally to adjust
to legal status before any of the new or old enforcement provisions are
made. It requires those who are here illegally become legal before we
have control of the border. This is not about not wanting and admiring
and accepting the work ethic of those who come here, but it says we
must secure our border.
Remember Fort Dix, NJ? One out of three of those involved in Fort
Dix, NJ, were terrorists who came in through our southern border.
This amendment requires before any illegal alien is allowed to adjust
their legal status that Congress certify the Department of Homeland
Security has operational control of the border.
The second problem: It creates a new temporary worker problem without
first having a mechanism in place to verify that temporary workers and
visitors leave when their visas expire. We are going to set up a whole
new program and we cannot even tell you now when they have exited under
the current U.S. visa law. It has never been implemented, the visa exit
system. So we have a system that controls who comes into the country
but no control over who goes out. You cannot have a temporary worker
program if you don't know when they come in or go out under the
existing proposed statute under this bill.
The U.S. visa exit component is key to the successful new temporary
program. The system created in the 1996 bill for the U.S. visa program
was supposed to be in place September 30, 1998. The deadline was
changed to October 15 and then to March 30, 2001, except the exit
portion has never been operational. It has never been implemented.
The third problem addressed: The American public does not trust we
will enforce the laws we have; namely, they do not trust the
enforcement provisions in this bill, such as the employer verification
system, will be implemented. Congress continues to pass laws that do
not get enforced and then does nothing to ensure they are enforced.
Part of the purpose of the last amnesty was to enhance our enforcement
so Americans could maintain sovereignty, as President Reagan put it.
Specifically, on November 6, when President Reagan signed into law
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, he stated this
legislation would help meet the challenge to our sovereignty caused by
illegal immigration. He highlighted three provisions of the 1986 bill,
including employer sanctions--nonexistent--to increase enforcement of
our immigration laws, and legalization of those here illegally more
than 4 years later. The amnesty happened, yet significant portions of
employment sanctions and the increased enforcement measures have been
delayed or, in some instances, never implemented.
Americans have a right to question whether things will be different
this time. What this amendment will do is ensure that a employer
verification system, required by the current trigger, is actually
implemented and working properly before we grant legal status to those
who are here illegally. It is not enough to allow Presidential
certification; that will not likely be reviewed. We have that problem
now. Congress must review, discuss, have hearings, and then publicly
vote to certify that the provisions required in this bill, and by prior
laws, are functioning. That is when we will regain the trust of the
American people.
This amendment will provide the transparency and accountability to
the public Americans want. Not only that, if the public views the
enforcement mechanism as inadequate and not in compliance with our
laws, they will be able to hold elected officials accountable at the
voting booth.
The May 30, 2007 Rasmussen report revealed the public does not
support or trust this immigration bill. Seventy-four percent do not
believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate passes this
bill. Forty-one percent believe illegal immigration will increase, as
we heard the group of retired Border Patrol agents state.

Interestingly, if those polled had a chance to improve the
legislation, 75 percent would make changes to increase border security
measures and reduce illegal immigration. Sixty-five percent of
Americans are willing to accept a compromise on illegal status if you
can assure them the rest of the laws are going to be enforced. This
bill does not require that, and what they are going to get is the same
thing they got in 1986.
What this amendment will do is to help improve enforcement at the
borders. It will reduce illegal immigration, it will give the public
confidence, and it will give elected officials the opportunity to vote
on the status of where we are in terms of enforcing the law.
How did we get here? We got here through well-intentioned mistakes.
We got here because we gave amnesty in 1986. We said we were going to
have employer verification, and we told the American people the borders
would be secure. What this amendment does is, it says: Fool me the
first time, shame on you. Fool me the second time, shame on me. What
this amendment does is assures the American people that this time, as
we grant amnesty to those who came here illegally, it is not going to
happen again.
There is no assurance in this bill that this is not a repeat of 1986.
It is not about not being compassionate to those who are here and are
contributing. It is not about saying no. As a matter of fact, 65
percent of the American people want to say yes, if you can prove to
them things are going to be different this time. However, under this
bill, there is nothing that will say things will be different.
I praise the people who worked on this bill, who put together this
compromise. But I think history points us in a direction that says we
have to have proof this time. We have to know if we do this again, with
at least 12 million people, if we grant amnesty--and I know the
President says it is not amnesty, but if you come here illegally and
eventually are legal, that is amnesty--if we are willing to do that,
this time the American people ought to have the assurance we are not
going to do that again; that we are going to have an immigration
enforcement policy, an employer verification system, an entrance and
exit system, and border security that is going to make sure we don't
repeat the mistakes of the past. I believe this bill needs a lot more
work. I believe it has a lot of complications that are unforeseen, and
complications that we are aware of at this time.
I wish to take a moment to thank the majority leader for allowing me
this time, and Senator Kennedy for working with me to allow me this
time to talk about this amendment. I believe we have a critical problem
in our country. The President's ratings are low, but our ratings are
even lower. The trust of the American people in this institution is
less than a third of the people in this country.
How do we build it up? We build it up by passing this amendment. We
build it up by showing them we understand their concerns, we understand
they are

[[Page S7274]]

willing to accept and allow people who came here illegally to live here
as citizens and get on that pathway to citizenship provided we do the
necessary things to not go back to this again. This bill is severely
lacking in demonstrating that proof to the American people.
We have to build their confidence. We have to regain the trust of the
American people that we will, in fact, this time do what is necessary
to secure our borders and control our borders. We are at risk, as the
discovery of the Fort Dix belated plan reflects, in terms of our own
national security. So it is not all about immigration, it is about
national security, and there is nothing in this bill that forces the
President of any party who is in charge or forces the Congress to do
anything different than we have done in the past.
I believe it is highly important we have this trigger mechanism for
the assurance of the American people that we have a secure border; that
we have a visa entrance and exit system that works; that we have
employer verification that works; that those key things are intact
before we grant legal status to those who are here illegally.
I say again I appreciate Senator Kennedy working with me in allowing
me the time to do this, and Senator Reid for his graciousness for this
time.
I yield to the Senator from Texas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 6 minutes 15 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
Let me say first I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for allowing me to
have the rest of his time, and I don't disagree with one thing he said.
I agree with his purpose. However, I have to oppose the amendment for
this reason:
Last year, the House put in the Secure Fence Act specificity about
exactly where the fence would go. There was no requirement that the
local people, private property owners, cities that are right on the Rio
Grande River would have any input whatsoever. I do not think Congress
can say that the priority fencing is 15 miles on either side of the
port of entry of Laredo. It might be 10 miles. We might be spending
billions of dollars that are unnecessary putting in 15 miles. It might
not even be possible to put it in certain places because of the
geography and the topography.
We have an amendment in the underlying bill that does require local
input so that Congress is not mandating, but, instead, the Border
Patrol chiefs, who have been designated by the Department of Homeland
Security, will make these decisions.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.
Mr. COBURN. Would that not negate the direction of the Secure Fence
Act of last year?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It would most certainly--it doesn't negate the
purpose.
Mr. COBURN. No, no. I agree. But it would relieve that problem as you
saw in the Secure Fence Act of last year, of 2006.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would what?
Mr. COBURN. Your underlying language would alleviate that problem in
the 2006 Secure Fence Act?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It doesn't relieve the specificity of miles of fence.
It does relieve the specificity of exactly where it goes.
Mr. COBURN. So that would supersede whatever we had in the Secure
Fence Act in my amendment?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.
Mr. COBURN. So therefore your argument, I believe, is moot, because
if you have that in the underlying bill, then that problem is solved
and you should be able to support this amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Unfortunately, I am afraid the amendment overrules
that minor revision in the Border Fence Act to which, frankly, I have
to say to the Senator from Oklahoma, we had agreement from the
leadership on both sides of the aisle in both Houses that we would take
out that particular part. But the leadership changed, and we were not
able to vote against and hold up the bill because it was the Defense
supplemental bill to which that Border Fence Act was attached. To have
held up the bill would have been to hold up our Defense supplemental,
which of course overrode everything. That is why we waited to try to
fix that minor part in this bill, which we have done and which would be
undercut by the Coburn amendment.
I find myself having to oppose the amendment of the Senator from
Oklahoma, even though in many ways I understand his purpose and agree
with his purpose. Nevertheless, I must protect the rights of my
constituents--cities and private property owners. We have to have the
input from those local people, and the Border Patrol should be the ones
deciding exactly where those fences are needed, not the Congress, most
of whom have not ever visited Laredo, TX.
I do hope we can defeat the Coburn amendment and go forward with the
bill--well, not go forward with the bill as it stands today but
certainly with this part of the bill.
I would like to use the remainder of my time to talk about cloture
because I am most certainly strongly against cloture on the underlying
bill that is before us. Not that there isn't some good in this bill,
but this bill is not ready to be closed out.
The good parts of the bill are the border security parts. Border
security has specific benchmarks that must be met before the trigger is
pulled for the guest worker program to go forward. That is a good part
of this bill.
I added an amendment at midnight last night that shores up the Social
Security protection in this bill. There was a loophole in the
underlying bill that would have allowed people to gain Social Security
credit for hours worked illegally, for days and months and years worked
illegally. That would have hurt our Social Security system. We fixed
that last night. That is a good part of this bill. There are good parts
that need to be worked on to make this a better bill.
However, closing this bill out now would be worse than the present
law today, or the present lack of law today. We have chaos in this
country with the estimated 12 million, maybe even 20 million illegal
people here. We know there are security lapses. We have to fix that. I
respect very much the bipartisan work that has been done on this bill,
but it is not yet ready. The 5-year sunset of the guest worker program
is a killer. We could not possibly say that we are going to fix the
chaos that happened after the 1986 act because there were not laws for
a guest worker program that worked--oh, but it is only going to last 5
years. That would add to the chaos.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I also wish to make sure I have the opportunity to
propose an amendment that would take the amnesty out of this bill. I
could never vote for cloture until we have the opportunity to address
the amnesty issue.
My amendment would require every person who is seeking a Z-1 or Z-A
visa, the people who are going to try to work in our country legally,
to return home to apply from there. I think that would make a huge
difference in this bill. It would take out the amnesty because it would
say, if you are going to work in our country today or tomorrow or 2
years from now or 25 years from now, you will apply from outside the
country to come in legally so we have control of our system.
I hope we can avoid the cloture so we can work on this bill in a
positive, productive way and do what is right for our country today,
tomorrow, and in the long term.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have worked long and hard on this piece
of legislation. It is a very complicated bill, as it should be, because
we have a complicated problem--that is immigration. We have come a long
way since we started the debate on this matter. It is fresh in my mind
what went on last year when we had the debate on an immigration bill
that passed the Senate. Last year we worked long and hard. We had 23
rollcall votes prior to cloture. Seven amendments in addition to that
were done by voice vote last year. Postcloture, we had 3 that went by
voice, there were 11 that were voted on.

[[Page S7275]]

This year we have had 28 rollcall votes on amendments. We have had 14
amendments by voice, a total of 42 amendments. So we are way ahead of
where we were last year.
I understand that people were concerned yesterday about not having
enough amendments. I think everyone had an opportunity to offer
amendments. But it is interesting--we had people who were saying: This
amendment that passed is a deal breaker. On the other side: We had an
amendment that passed that is a deal breaker. So I guess whether a bill
is improved is in the eye of the beholder because there was certainly
disagreement about what improved or didn't improve the bill. I also
think it is interesting people agitated for amendments and then, when
the vote didn't go their way, they were upset.
This is a bill we have pushed down the road a long way. I hope we can
finish it. I spoke last night--I don't know what time it was, it was
4:30 a.m. European time. I called to see if Mr. Bolton, the President's
Chief of Staff, was with the President. He was. I didn't want to
disturb him at that time of day. But I did have a good long
conversation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, Judge Chertoff.
That was 10:30, 11 o'clock last night. I explained to him how this
legislative process works. He asked me to go over it with him again
because he wanted to make sure he understood it.
I told him, as much as any piece of legislation we have had here--
other than the supplemental appropriations bill this past 6 months--
this is the President's bill. He has worked long and hard. He has had
Cabinet officers working with Democrats and Republicans to come up with
a bill, the so-called compromise. Some call it a grand compromise, but
it is at least a compromise. I told him the vast majority of Democrats
want this legislation to move forward. I think someone should get word
to the President that, if this bill goes down with the vast majority of
the Democrats voting for this action to move forward--if the
Republicans vote against it, he and I discussed what the headline is
going to be. The headline is going to be: Democrats Vote To Continue
This Bill, the Republicans Vote Against It--The President Fails Again.
I don't think that is good. I think we need to show we have the
ability to work with the White House.
I know there are some people who would like us to stay on immigration
for the rest of this work period. We have 3 weeks left. It would make
some people as happy as larks to be able to spend the rest of this work
period on immigration. Why? Because some don't want us to go to the
next two matters we are going to have to deal with.
No. 1 is energy. When we went home during the Memorial Day break,
there were two things people wanted to talk to me about. One of them
wasn't immigration. The Iraq war and gas prices, that is what people
wanted to talk about wherever I went. I spent a lot of time in Nevada,
but I traveled to other places in the country. It was the same there:
Iraq, end this war, and do something about these gas prices.
We are going to take up energy. That will be what we do after we do
the immigration bill. So I know some people don't want us to go there.
After we finish that, we have the obligation to do, for our military
and our country, a Defense authorization bill. Again, there will be a
debate on Iraq. I am sure some will want to talk about timelines. I am
sure some will want to talk about readiness. I am sure there will be
people wanting to talk about transitioning the mission. Maybe there
will be some efforts to do away with the original authorization of the
war. I don't know for sure. That is an issue some people would just as
soon we stay away from.
I know people would like us to stay on this forever, but the question
is, When is enough enough?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote be
delayed to occur today at 5 p.m.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object--there is objection on
this side of the aisle to moving the cloture vote to later today. Let
me repeat publicly what I have said earlier, both publicly and
privately, to my good friend the majority leader.
Republicans are going to need more amendments. We have had 12
rollcall votes on our side of the aisle on this bill to date. I think,
at a very minimum, we need to have the same number of Republican
rollcall votes on this bill we had last year. I think we can get there.
We are not going to get there by shutting off additional important and
worthwhile amendments on this side of the aisle. But it is certainly
not my goal to not get this bill to passage, provided we have fair
treatment on this side of the aisle.
I do think we made progress last night. I think we can make a lot of
progress today. But we are not there yet. So I wish to make it clear
that I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture, shortly. But again, having said
that, I think we have a chance to get enough amendments processed to
possibly finish this bill in the near future.
Therefore, Mr. President, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am disappointed because, as I indicated,
last year we had 14 votes postcloture. But I have learned a little bit
about this place, that sometimes you have to do indirectly what you
cannot do directly. It makes so much sense that, if people want more
amendments, it would be wise to agree to our suggestion that we put
over the cloture vote to later this evening. We could process
amendments during that time and have a cloture vote tonight.
I understand there is going to be an objection, but I am going to do
indirectly what I can't do directly. That is, everyone should know, if
cloture is not invoked this morning--if the Republican leader says he
is going to recommend to all his folks that they vote no on cloture, I
am sure cloture will not be invoked. But everyone should know, we are
going to have another cloture vote this early evening. We are going to
process as many amendments, in the meantime, as we can. I hope there
could be some more work done on what other amendments postcloture; that
is, germane amendments. I know of a couple that are germane. I have
told people they can have votes on those. I repeat what I have said on
this floor several times, what I have told the managers of the bill and
I have told individual Senators: We are not going to block, as we can
do, procedurally, votes on the germane amendments that are postcloture.
We are going to go ahead and process as many of those as we can
reasonably do. If we have to spend the 30 hours doing it, we will.
Otherwise, we will get a list of amendments that the Parliamentarian
will determine are germane, and we will set up a period of time to vote
on those and move on.
So I would hope that everyone understands that if cloture is not
invoked, we are going to go ahead, and I will get on the right side of
the issue, as we have to do here procedurally, to have the ability to
bring this up early evening time. During that period of time, I hope
the people who feel they have not had enough amendments are assuaged
and we can go ahead and have a cloture vote and move forward. I had a
member of our caucus explain it this way, Mr. President. She said: It
is like running a marathon. I told her afterward that I was envious
that she had thought of this and I hadn't because I have run a few
marathons. She described it so well. It was Senator Cantwell from
Washington. She said: You know, about the 22nd-mile mark, you are
really tired, and you think, maybe I should have quit earlier. But I
can see the end up here now, and I am going to go ahead and finish the
race.
That is how I feel. There are times during this debate that I feel we
would all be better off having walked away from it. It was hard. All of
these phone calls coming into our offices, people accosting you as you
walk out of the building, lobbying groups for and against this. But we
have withstood that. Now, as Senator Cantwell said, I think we may be
about at the 24-mile mark.
As with a marathon, Mr. President, there are times when you are
running a marathon that you feel euphoric--I feel so strong, I am out
here alone, I am able to travel those miles--and then, just like that,
it can change. Well, the euphoria is gone. The determination is here. I
think we need to complete this marathon. So I am disappointed we are
not going to have cloture today. But everyone should know we will have
cloture again later on in the day.

[[Page S7276]]

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the cloture vote on the
bill be delayed to occur only if the substitute amendment is agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. I know the manager of the bill is here. The two leaders
have used a lot of time. If you would like us to extend the time--OK.
We can go right to the amendments. Thank you for being so patient.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of
debate equally divided before the cloture vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time? When are we going to
have the Coburn vote, and when is the cloture vote? How much time are
we allocated?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 17 minutes remaining to
the Senator from Massachusetts. There will then be a vote on the Coburn
amendment and then the vote on cloture, with 2 minutes prior to
cloture.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am not sure we will need all of the 17
minutes. I think we had initially planned to vote close to the hour. I
think that is very possible.
I thank Senator Coburn for raising these issues. These issues which
are included in his amendment are not greatly dissimilar from the
measures in terms of adding additional what we call ``triggers'' to the
legislation.
Let me just go back a step and relate why we have real reservations
about the Coburn amendment. When we examined the broken immigration
system--and we have had scores of hearings in the immigration committee
and the Judiciary Committee--what was offered on a number of different
occasions said: We can solve our problem just by building a fence in
the southwest border or just by having strong security in the southwest
border. It is 1,800 miles down there, and we can fence off different
areas and then use different kinds of technology, and that is going to
solve the challenges we are facing with immigrants coming across the
border.
As we continued on through the course of the hearings, we say that in
and of itself will not work. As Governor Napolitano said, if we just
put a fence down along the southwest border, you put a 40-foot fence
in, there are going to be 41-foot ladders that are going to come over
that.
What you need to do, as Governor Napolitano and others testified,
including the Secretary of Homeland Security, who said: You need to
have a comprehensive measure. You have to have a comprehensive measure
if we are going to secure the borders. We need to have a comprehensive
measure, which means we have to do all we possibly can to secure the
borders by the latest in technology, and I will mention that in a
moment. But, also, if we are going to secure those borders, we are
going to have to recognize that there is going to be pressure even on
those borders. So we have to organize and structure some kind of way
for people to come in the front door. Otherwise, they are going to go
over the back door, which means they are going to scale the various
fences.
We say: No, we want to protect American workers. So we worked out an
elaborate program to make sure that anyone who is going to come into
the United States through the front door is not going to displace an
American worker. We worked out a process and a system to make sure
there are no American workers who want to take that job, there are only
those who want to come in to be able to work in those areas. We have
gone through that in the course of the debate.
But you need not only that--if you want to make sure you are not
going to still have some leakage in there, you are going to have
interior enforcement. You are going to have it in the employer
situation. You have to have that. Otherwise, we are going to go back to
what has been roundly criticized here, and legitimately so--1986. So
you have to have important interior enforcement in the workplace. So we
had to include those provisions in this legislation as well.
Then, if you are really going to have some kind of opportunity to
make sure you are going to look out after the national security
interests of the United States, you are going to have to know who is
here, not that you are just going to have millions of people living in
the shadows--we do not know their names, we do not know their
addresses, we do not know where they are living--we have to bring them
out. To bring them out, we cannot just do that, bring them out
automatically, because they have broken the law. So we worked out a
system where these individuals pay heavy fines, and effectively they
will go to the back of the line. So anybody who has been trying to get
in here legally will be able to do so before they will have any kind of
opportunity to move ahead toward effectively normalizing their lives
and moving on to the opportunity for a green card.
So it became very apparent that all of these elements work and work
together, and if we accept the Coburn amendment, we are interrupting
this whole kind of a process. What we have heard time and time again is
that if you interrupt this process, then you have a breakdown in the
whole kind of condition and you are going to be inundated with the
undocumented aliens.
We want to stop the Border Patrol--highly trained, highly committed,
highly dedicated individuals--from chasing after landscapers across the
border. We want them to be looking after terrorists and the criminal
element, right? Right. Therefore, you have to make sure you are going
to have the other aspects of the security measures put in place. What
does that mean? That means internal security. But the Coburn amendment
suspends that program, suspends the interior security in terms of the
employers hiring the undocumented aliens. With that, it is a
continuation of a broken and a failed system.
I would just say finally that this proposal, in terms of our security
interests, may not be perfect, but it does provide the 20,000
additional agents, it does provide 200 miles of vehicle barriers, 370
miles of fencing, 70 ground-based radars and cameras, four unmanned
aerial vehicles, detention rather than catch-and-release programs, and
many other kind of features.
We have followed what has been recommended by the Department of
Homeland Security to get the best security we could. But the idea that
we are going to suspend some of those elements which have been
intertwined--and as Secretary Chertoff said very eloquently: You need
them all. I appreciate the fact that the good Senator from Oklahoma
says: Well, let's hold certain parts back until we get everything in
place. Our answer is: You better start getting everything in place if
you really want to have a secure border.
I withhold the remainder of my time and yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, let me yield to the Senator from
South Carolina, who has a unanimous consent request to make. I yield
for that purpose.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am speaking on behalf of Senator
Grassley, who I understand last night got an agreement that he could
bring up 10 of his amendments this morning. I am not here to speak on
them but just to give the numbers and to bring them up, as was agreed
last night.
Mr. Presdient, if I can request from Senator Kennedy that I just read
off those amendment numbers.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would yield on my time, that is the
intention of the leadership. What we would like to do is try to work
out these groups of amendments with the Republican leadership. We
intend to do that as soon as we get to the beginning of the vote.
Rather than make that judgment at this particular time, we would ask if
the Senator would defer. We will work those out. Obviously, we are
going to work them out with the Republican leaders because we have been
instructed to cooperate, to work and do as much as we possibly can
during the day. I know our leader has given those assurances to the
Senator.
I am just reluctant to shortchange the process now. But I will
certainly work with the Senator during the course of these votes here
and do the best we can, and he, obviously, can preserve his rights for
later in the morning.

[[Page S7277]]

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator. Senator Grassley understood that
these could be brought up before the cloture vote. I will certainly
defer to our leadership to work these in, but our commitment to him is
that we bring them up before cloture.
Mr. LOTT. I reclaim my time. I thank the Senator from South Carolina
for doing that and assure him and Senator Grassley that we are going to
protect Senator Grassley's interests and that he will be part of the
discussion.
Let me just talk about where we are. You know, when you have the
legislative process in full bloom in the Senate, it sometimes is bumpy.
Of course, last night we proved once again the absolute rule that if
the Senate is in voting, you know, at midnight or 1 o'clock, we are
going to mess up. It happens every time, and yet leaders continue to do
it. I used to do it. It is one of the dumbest things we do around here.
But, look, this is a part of the process. This is a worthwhile effort.
If anybody in America likes where we are with illegal immigration,
and legal immigration, if they think what we have now is good or
tolerable, fair or responsible, then, fine, let's try to kill this
bill--kill it with amendments, kill it with debate, vote it down. I
don't think that is responsible. This is one of the biggest issues
facing this country, and the question is, Do we have the courage,
tenacity, and the ability to get anything done anymore? If we cannot do
this, we ought to vote to dissolve the Congress and go home and wait
for the next election. Can we do anything anymore?
I don't like a lot of these amendments. I don't like a lot that is in
the bill. I was in and out of the meetings, but I was not one of the
people who worked in the so-called ``grand bargain.'' Some people are
acting now as if it was a sinister operation. I don't believe so.
Everybody knew there was an effort under way. Republicans were
involved, Democrats were involved, the administration was involved,
conservatives, liberals, agriculture--everybody. Now we are going to
pick it to death. I just don't think this is responsible.
I am getting calls. But I would say to my constituents: Do you have
no faith in me after 35 years that I am just going to buy a pig in a
poke here or be for something that is bad?
Last year, I voted against what we came up with because I did not
think it got better; it got worse. But we have an obligation to try,
and we should not get all in a twit because we made one mistake or we
don't get the one we wanted. Look, I voted for amendments that passed
and amendments that failed. Get over all of that. This is a big issue.
This is the U.S. Senate, the great deliberative body. Are we going to
belie that description or are we going to step up to this challenge and
try to get it done right?
We should vote down cloture now. Cloture should not have been filed.
You can't ram the Senate. You can't ram the minority around here. It
just will not work. All it does is make people get madder, and it takes
longer.
So we are going to have a vote on cloture, and we are going to defeat
cloture because more amendments are legitimately pending. But I am
serving notice that I am going to be a part of trying to help to find a
way to get to a conclusion, to a vote. Vote it up. Vote it down. But to
try to kill it with all of those amendments that are being thrown up
here for the purpose of killing it, to me, is not an appropriate way to
proceed.
Our leaders work through difficult times. They are being pulled and
pushed by members on both sides. This is the time where we are going to
see whether we are a Senate anymore.
Are we men or mice? Are we going to slither away from this issue and
hope for some epiphany to happen? No. Let's legislate. Let's vote. I
think the majority leader has a right to expect that at some point we
end it, try to cover as many objections and as many amendments as we
can. But at some point we have to get this done.
Unfortunately, the idea that then we are going to go to a debate on a
nonbinding, irrelevant amendment by Senator Schumer, if we defeat this
legislation, if we fall off into that kind of character debate on a
nonbinding resolution--we are fixing to drop off into a basement we
haven't been in in a long time.
I urge my colleagues, let's step back from the precipice. Let's
legislate. Let's find a way to take up things. Do we need to take up
energy? Yes. We need an energy policy. We need it now. But can we do
it? I want to be a part of a process that gets results for the American
people. I don't know why else you would want to serve in this
institution.
I appreciate the legislative leadership Senator Kennedy has been
providing. I know it is not easy. His own colleagues and those of us
over here have been beating him up. He is a nice poster child, and I
thank him very much for what he does. One thing I have learned the hard
way: when it comes to legislating, when you are dealing with Senator
Kennedy, you better bring your lunch because you are going to get
educated. You are going to learn a lot, and you are going to get a
result. Hopefully, it is going to be a good one. Good luck.
Mr. KENNEDY. And a dinner too. I thank my friend from Mississippi,
and I commend him for a constructive and positive attitude. Those of us
who know him and respect him know that he is a fierce fighter for his
values, but he also is an institutionalist. He understands the
responsibilities of this institution in dealing with the Nation's
challenges.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator has 2 minutes 30
seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are going to be few issues that
come before the Senate that are more important than immigration reform.
Our immigration system is broken. This is a national security issue. It
is an internal kind of security issue. It is basically also a fairness
and humane issue about how we are going to treat each other. It
involves all of these factors. We are going to have a cloture petition
that is going to be filed. There is no sense or expectation that it
will be a defining moment because we have heard now that it will not be
achieved. But we have every intention of continuing today, Democrats
and Republicans, working all day long and into the early evening
responding to some of the questions and issues that have to be raised.
We will do our very best, as we did until midnight last night, all
through yesterday, to give opportunities for Members to introduce
amendments and get an expression by the Senate because the country
expects us to take action.
I am convinced with the goodwill that has been expressed this
morning, we have a real opportunity to see the beginning of a light at
the end of the tunnel. Hopefully, by late afternoon we will have a
clear direction about where we are going.
I thank the leadership for all it has done. I hope the Senate will
reject the Coburn amendment.
We will have the cloture rollcall now, and since we can certainly
assume it will not be enacted, we will announce a series of votes, and
we will continue to move forward on the legislation over the course of
the day.
I yield back the remainder of my time. Is the vote on the Coburn
amendment first?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to Coburn
amendment No. 1311, as modified.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the nays and yeas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

[[Page S7278]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Landrieu
Lott
McCaskill
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter

NAYS--54

Akaka
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Craig
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stevens
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Johnson
Kerry
McCain
The amendment (No. 1311), as modified, was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to
invoke cloture.
Who yields time?
The Republican leader is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I said earlier this week that
Republicans would not allow themselves to be stuffed on this bill. The
Senate isn't a factory. We don't push things down the line. But one has
to wonder whether the Democratic majority has been told otherwise based
on the number of times it has moved to stifle debate on important
legislation over the last 5 months.
Let's look at the last Congress. On this date in the 109th Congress,
Republicans had sought to limit debate only nine times. On this date in
the Congress before that, Republicans had filed for cloture nine times.
On this date in the Congress before that, Republicans had filed for
cloture only two times.
Contrast that with the current regime. To date in this Congress, the
Democratic leadership has sought to cut off debate not two times, not
nine times, but 32 times.
This is what is called a power grab. But the result won't be power,
it will be failure. At this rate, the Democratic leadership will have
achieved at least one impressive thing--just one--in the 110th
Congress: an all-time record for cloture filings because it is well on
pace to shatter the existing record.
There is a saying about courtship: Shoot for two, end up with zero.
So far, this would be a fitting epitaph for a Congress that has sought
to do much but has accomplished little.
Republican patience was wearing thin before we took up this bill, and
we said so, repeatedly. The Democratic leadership knew on a bill of
this magnitude, Republicans would do more than complain about it. We
would insist that minority rights be honored. They weren't. For this
reason I will oppose cloture on the bill and encourage my colleagues to
do the same.
Democrats and Republicans have said from the outset that this bill
would only pass if it was a bipartisan effort. Once it hit the floor,
that meant minority Members would have the chance to be heard through a
fair and full amendment process. That is the way to fix this bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Republican leader
has outlined the problem, the problem that exists with the Republicans
in the Senate.
The reason there weren't a lot of cloture motions filed in the last
Congress is, as the distinguished Republican leader has pointed out, we
believed in legislating, not delaying. Most of the motions that have
been filed regarding cloture have been on motions to proceed to bills--
dilatory tactics by the Republicans--and it is very frustrating to them
that in spite of that--in spite of that--we have been able to
accomplish much, including ethics lobbying reform, minimum wage, 9/11
Commission recommendations. We did the budget. We were able to do the
continuing resolution. We did stem cell research. We have done some
very good work, and we are going to continue to do that.
We have spent a lot of time on the Republicans delaying what the
American people want us to do, and that is legislate. In spite of that,
we were able to move on and do some significant legislating, as we are
going to continue to do.
As I said this morning, we want to finish this legislation in a
positive vein. The minority said they wanted more amendments. They got
more amendments. We don't know if there is a magic number, but we will
work and make sure--I think we are in the process now of lining up four
amendments on each side. We should dispose of those fairly quickly. I
have indicated that we are willing to do whatever is necessary
postcloture to take care of as many of the postcloture germane
amendments as we can. We are happy to do that. This is very important.
I spoke last night to the Secretary of Homeland Security, one of the
people who represented the President in these negotiations. This bill
that is on the Senate floor is not a Democratic bill. It is a bill that
has been worked on by Democrats and Republicans in cooperation with the
President of the United States and his people. My message to Secretary
Chertoff last night was that--it seems a little unusual to me when we
have worked so hard and we have offered opportunities for all of these
amendments, and we are going to offer more. My message to him is, why
in the world would anyone object to delaying the cloture vote? But that
is what has happened.
I think that is unfortunate because I told the Secretary of Homeland
Security, Judge Chertoff, the message in the newspaper is going to be:
Democrats Support Cloture to Continue Debate on Immigration;
Republicans Oppose It--President Bush Fails Again.
Let's have some successes around here. We need to work with the
President. He needs to work with us. Here is a way that it can be done.
I know there are people who want us to stay on this bill for the rest
of this work period, but we have other things we need to do that some
do not want us to work on. When we went home for our Memorial Day
break, what were the issues people talked about more than anything
else? Ending the war in Iraq and gas prices. So when we finish this, we
are going to move on to energy--gas prices. When we finish that, we are
going to move to the Defense authorization and again have a debate on
ending the Iraq war. I know people don't want us to do that, but we
need to do that. That is what the American people want us to do.
So I cannot accomplish directly what I think should be done, and that
is have a cloture vote that is successful right now. But I can do
indirectly what I can't do directly. If the cloture vote doesn't
succeed, I will change my vote so I will be on the winning side, and I
will bring up the cloture vote later today. We are going to continue
working this bill.
As my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Washington said
this morning in a caucus we had, she said: You know, what we have done
here is like a marathon. When you run a marathon, you run 22 miles, you
have 4 miles more to go, and you look back and think of all the times
you wanted to quit, but right now, as tired as you are from running a
marathon, you can see the end.
The race is up there and we need to continue. This is a marathon. We
owe it to the American people to move forward on this legislation to
improve a broken system. That is what we are trying to do. I hope my
Republican colleagues vote for cloture. If they don't, they will have
another opportunity later today and, hopefully, we can process some
amendments in the interim.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the pressing items the
distinguished majority leader failed to mention was he filed cloture on
the motion to proceed to a motion that would allow us to express our
views about the appropriateness of the continued service of the
Attorney General. There are plenty of people around here who have had
something to say about that. There have been hearings about it, calls
for resignation. The distinguished majority leader wants to use up
floor time,

[[Page S7279]]

precious floor time in the Senate so that we can express ourselves on
the Attorney General's service, something each of us could do
individually at any point we want. That is not exactly a pressing item.

If we want to finish this bill, the message is clear. There needs to
be at least as many Republican rollcall votes this time as last year.
The way to do that is not to invoke cloture and try to stuff the
minority, as has been done 32 times already this year. The way to do
that is to process amendments, make it possible for amendments to get
pending, continue to discuss them, finish the bill when we get to an
appropriate level with our amendments that produces a degree of comfort
on this side of the aisle that we have had an adequate opportunity to
express ourselves on probably the most important issue we will deal
with in this entire Congress. This is no small matter. It is a big
issue, a big problem, and it requires broad bipartisan cooperation to
bring a bill such as this to a conclusion. Therefore, I urge a ``no''
vote on cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a lot to say about the failed
Attorney Generalship of Alberto Gonzales, but this is not the time to
do that. I may not have that opportunity because the only issue that
will be before the Senate is a simple vote on a motion to proceed. If
the minority does not wish to proceed to have a vote of confidence on
him, it will not happen. If there were ever an opportunity for a
legislative body to speak about what is going on in the administrative
branch of Government, it is with what is happening in that Justice
Department.
All you need to do is read the newspaper today to find out what is
going on in that Justice Department. Should we have confidence in
Alberto Gonzales? I don't think so.
But we are on immigration. This is a day for getting along. I am
going to do the best I can to get along, and I hope everyone will do
that and continue to work on a bipartisan basis to move forward on
immigration.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on Senate
amendment No. 1150, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 33, nays 63, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

YEAS--33

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Salazar
Schumer
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--63

Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb

NOT VOTING--3

Johnson
Kerry
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 33, the nays are
63. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII the clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S.
1348, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 61, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

YEAS--34

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Salazar
Schumer
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--61

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

NOT VOTING--4

Johnson
Kerry
Levin
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 34, the nays are
61. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote on
which cloture was not invoked.

[[Page S7280]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at any time
today when I return to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. So it doesn't frighten people, the only reason I intend to
do that is because we are working on a unanimous consent agreement now,
and Senator Dodd can speak or Senator Sessions can speak or whoever
wants to talk--they can do that. At least we can get the consent done.
What we are working on now is to have three Republican amendments,
three Democratic amendments. I hope we can get that done very quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments on the
process and the substance of the bill. I will take a few minutes, I
alert my colleagues.
This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that has come
before the Senate. There have been months and months of negotiations. I
was part of those negotiations, at least on the Republican side, trying
to put a bill together with some good, solid principles that would help
fix our immigration problem because I think most people agree that the
immigration system in this country is broken.
We now find ourselves deep into this process--but certainly not all
the way through the process--because of the complexity of the issues we
are dealing with. Yesterday afternoon a bipartisan group of folks sat
down to discuss several of the issues. The more you talk about this
bill, the more you realize that when you fix one problem, it creates
another problem or problems. For example, have you fixed the problems
with the Z visa program and the problems with the temporary worker
program? Have you fixed the problems related to when folks are going to
leave the country? Especially with the temporary worker program, is
there going to be a strong and reliable exit visa system in place so
you know that when temporary workers' visas expire they are actually
going to exit?
That is easy to do, as we found out yesterday, in airports. It is
much more difficult to do when it comes to land based exits. But we do
have to design a system that is strong and effective. Otherwise, this
temporary worker program will result in millions of people staying here
illegally in the future.
What we have been arguing for on this side is to make sure we get
this right. It is too important a piece of legislation to rush it
through the Senate because of other priorities. Right now, I do not
think that the American people believe there is an issue with much
higher priority than fixing our immigration system. The system
literally is broken, and we have to design an immigration system that
is good for America.
In the long run, we want to be a welcoming country, a land of
immigrants, but also a nation of laws, where people respect the rule of
law.
I have several amendments I would like to get offered before debate
is shut down on this bill. What fixes there are in this bill, as far as
whether people who are here illegally get Social Security, but these
fixes do not go far enough. On this topic, I have an amendment that
actually would fix the Social Security problem.
When we began negotiating this bill, at least amongst Republicans, we
said to the American people that if the foreigners who are now here
illegally are going to get a chance to get a green card and eventually
citizenship, they must not be put at the front of the line. I have
heard it argued, that such illegal immigrants are not put at the front
of the line. That is because there was a little sleight of hand done.
They actually got their own separate line. So you have people legally
applying for a green card from outside the country over here. The folks
who are here illegally today, they have their own separate line. They
only compete amongst themselves. But anybody here illegally today, who
can prove they have been here before the first of the year, is
virtually guaranteed a green card, while those waiting outside the
country literally can take years, if not decades to receive the same
status.
Regarding the merit-based system that was put into the bill, I have
another amendment that would say to Z visa holders: You can stay here.
But if you want to get a green card and eventually citizenship, you
would get in line with all of the other merit-based immigrants who seek
that same goal. Not at the front of the line, not at the back of the
line, the Z visa holders would get in line with everybody else who is
applying for a green card. Then whether an applicant received a green
card would be decided based on merit. It is a reward system. Merit is
not just whether you have an advanced degree or not. Merit means you
have had a steady job. Merit means health insurance. Merit means you
have learned English and learned it well, taken an American civics
class and learned what America is about.
We should apply the same standards to the Z visa holders that we are
applying to the rest of the folks who are applying for green cards and
eventually citizenship from outside of the United States.
As we are going through this afternoon, we are trying to figure out
how many amendments would be fair. The bottom line is what is fair is
to get a good bill that will fix the immigration system for the United
States; not to just have a process where we look like we have a certain
number of amendments but actually where we design a bill we can all be
proud of. Right now there are still very serious flaws with this bill.
I will not take up any more of my colleagues' time, but I wished to
say a few words about the process and about how important it is to get
this bill right for the present and the future of the United States.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1199

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my amendment prevents this bill from
dividing millions of families by making it easier for U.S. citizens and
their parents to unite. I offer it with the cosponsorship of my good
friends, Majority Leader Senator Reid and Senator Menendez.
The amendment has also been endorsed by over 25 organizations
including the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of La
Raza, the Episcopal Church, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops.
Under current law, parents are defined as immediate relatives and
exempt from green card caps. Yet this bill arbitrarily and
irresponsibly excludes parents from the nuclear family and subjects
them to excessively low green card caps and a restrictive visitor visa
program as well.
This amendment does three things. First it increases this newly
established cap from 40,000 to 90,000. 90,000 is the average number of
green cards issued to parents each year. Last year, however, 120,000
parents entered the U.S. on green cards. If this bill is really serious
about eliminating backlogs, then it ought to set practical caps. It is
not the place of the Congress to tell American citizens to wait a year
or two or three or more to see their parents.
Second, it extends the newly created temporary parent visitor visa
from 30 to 180 days. To think that a parent can only be with his child
or grandchild for 1 month out of 12 is simply unacceptable. Yet under
this provision, a tourist can be in America six times longer than the
parent of a citizen. That is not the America I know; nor is it an
America that cherishes family values. Parents must be allowed to stay
with their families for longer.
Third, this amendment prevents collective punishment for parent
visitor visa overstays. Under this bill, if the overstay rate exceeds 7
percent for 2 years, either all nationals of countries with high
overstay rates can be barred or the entire program can terminated. This
type of collective punishment is wrong and unjust. We should not punish
law abiding people because of the misdeeds of others.
My amendment does not strike at this bill's core; nor is it a
partisan

[[Page S7281]]

issue. It is one of basic fairness to our fellow citizens. I especially
reject the notion that imposing such excessive restrictions are
necessary to reduce ``chain migration.'' The fact is that once parents
of citizens obtain visas, they usually complete the family unit and are
not likely to sponsor others.
What is at stake here is whether Congress should dictate to U.S.
citizens if and when they can unite with their parents; if and when
their parents can come and be with their grandchildren; if and when
U.S. citizens can care for their sick parents here on American soil.
It is our duty to remove as many obstacles as we can for our fellow
citizens to be with their parents. None of us would stand for anyone
dictating the terms of that union to us. Why should we then apply a
double standard for other citizens of this country? We must craft a law
that is tough yet just.
I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Specter, may raise a question with respect to how
the Dodd-Menendez amendment is currently drafted, arguing that by
upping the subceiling on parent immigrant visas from 40,000 to 90,000
annually, my amendment introduces discretion to the Department of
Homeland Security in deciding what to do on issuing family immigrant
visas among the subceilings as we get close to the annual cap of
567,000 contained in the bill.
I would have preferred to raise the overall 567,000 annual cap
currently in the bill by the additional 50,000--the increase my
amendment provides for the parent immigrant visa subceiling.
But had I done so, I would likely have faced a 60-vote threshold due
to a budget point of order as my colleague Senator Menendez did last
night on his family unification amendment.
There is nothing scientific about the 567,000 annual immigrant visa
cap currently contained in the bill. Am I to believe that this grand
compromise bill will be destroyed if an additional 50,000 parents of
American citizens are granted green cards annually so they can be
closer to their American children and American grandchildren?
The so called discretionary authority granted to the Department of
Homeland Security that Senator Specter may argue is created by this
amendment can easily be fixed in conference by raising the current cap
by 50,000.
I refuse to let the technicalities of the subceilings and overall
ceilings contained in this complex legislation cloud the real issue
Senators will be deciding as they cast their votes on this amendment;
namely, do my colleagues believe that parents and grandparents are
important members of the American nuclear family or do they believe
that they are merely distant relatives--irrelevant to the daily lives
of our families?
I believe the former. I would suspect most of my colleagues do as
well.
And so, I urge my colleagues not to think of this amendment in terms
of numbers and caps, but in terms of its human impact. I urge them to
vote for it in order to remove the obstacles created by this bill which
will prevent American citizens--we are talking about American
citizens--from having their loving parents be with them to share the
joys and challenges of the American family.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the list of organizations supporting this amendment at the end of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. DODD. I will cite a couple of them for my colleagues. The 25 or
30 organizations include the American Jewish Committee, the National
Council of La Raza, the Episcopal Church, the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, among many other organizations; Asian American
organizations, Asian American Justice Center. There is a long list
here. As I say, I will include that as requested in the Record.
But, again, Mr. President, this ought not to be a complicated
proposal for my colleagues. It is one that I think all of us should
endorse and support. I don't see this violating the core agreement. It
is not the deal breaker that we hear about, but it is merely doing what
I think most Americans and most of our colleagues would agree on:
letting U.S. citizens have the opportunity, at least to a larger extent
than this bill would allow, to have their parents be a part of the
family unit, that nuclear family.

Exhibit 1

Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, write to
share with you our support of the Dodd amendment to the
proposed immigration bill. Under current law, parents of U.S.
citizens are defined as immediate relatives, along with
spouses and minor children, and are exempt from visa
limitations.
The proposed legislation removes them from this category,
subjects them to an annual cap of 40,000 green cards, and
creates a new parent visitor visa category that would allow
them to stay in the United States for only 30 days.
Typically, 90,000 visas are issued each year to parents--the
proposal reduces the number of visas available by more than
half. The agreement also penalizes all parents from a
particular country by barring them from entering into the
United States should the rate of overstay of parents from
that country be above 7 percent in two consecutive years.
The debate around this provision goes to the heart of the
value we place on family. Parents are not distant relatives
but absolutely vital members to most families. Often, parents
enable their adult children to work by providing free and
trusted care for their grandchildren. Immigrant parents also
contribute their labor and talents to small, family owned
businesses. The American economy also benefits from having
dollars earned here, be spent here instead of having to be
sent overseas to family members left behind.
Contrary to some arguments, immigrant parents coming
through the family system will not burden taxpayers or the
economy. In fact, as non-citizens, they are generally
ineligible for a majority of federal public benefits unless
they earn them through sufficient work. Moreover, their adult
children must sign affidavits of support and prove that they
have sufficient resources to support their parents.
The Dodd amendment recognizes these close family ties and
the economic and societal benefits that accrue when they are
honored by:
Increasing the green card cap to 90,000. The number 90,000
represents the average annual number of green cards issued to
parents. The proposed bill slashes this number by more than
half to 40,000. This amendment would ensure that sufficient
numbers of green cards are available for parents to come to
the United States.
Extending the parent visa to 180 days, and making it
renewable and valid for three years. These are already
accepted timeframes for other temporary visas, 180 days is
the length of a tourist visa; H-1Bs are valid for three
years. The proposed bill, however, limits parents to an
annual stay of 30 days, and does not specify long-term
validity. This is too short an allotment--particularly for
parents who come to help their children.
Making penalties for parent visa overstays applicable only
to guilty parties. The proposed bill states that if the
overstay rate among visa holders exceeds 7 percent for two
years, all nationals of countries with high overstay rates
can be barred from this visa program or the program can be
terminated. Sponsors of overstays are also barred from
sponsoring other aliens on this visa. This amendment strikes
language that unfairly collectively punishes those who have
not violated the law, allowing law-abiding parents to
continue to unite with their children.
The Dodd amendment unites parents with their families in
the U.S. by increasing the annual cap on green cards for
parents; extending the duration of the parent visa; and
ensuring that penalties imposed on overstays are not unfairly
applied to others. We are asking that you vote for this
amendment.
Respectfully,
American Friends Service Committee
American Immigration Lawyers Association
American Jewish Committee
Asian American Justice Center
Asian & Pacific Islander
American Health Forum
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Dominican American National Roundtable
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
Hmong National Development
League of United Latin American Citizens
Legal Momentum
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Asian Pacific Center on Aging
National Council of La Raza
National Federation of Filipino American Associations
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Organization for Justice & Equality
Service Employees International Union
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
The Episcopal Church
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
U.S. Citizens for United Families
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
World Relief

[[Page S7282]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators
Durbin and Boxer as cosponsors of amendment No. 1392.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to offer strong support for
Senator Dodd's amendment. I appreciate his leadership. I am proud to be
a cosponsor of this amendment in order to protect, again, the right of
U.S. citizens.
Before I get to the heart of what Senator Dodd seeks to do, I think
it is time for a little review of where we are. I do not quite
understand the process of a grand bargain in which there are alleged
core elements of it that are inviolate, that cannot be touched, and
then see amendment after amendment, such as confidentiality, that
undermine the ability of the earned legalization process and others
that ultimately seem to undermine the efforts of what I thought was
that grand bargain, and yet don't seem to disrupt the apple cart. Yet
when amendments such as the family reunification amendment I offered
last night, the one that Senator Dodd is offering now, when they are
raised: Oh, this will be a deal killer. This bill has become more
punitive. It has become more onerous. It has become more impossible to
achieve comprehensive immigration reform with every amendment that has
passed. It has moved increasingly to the right in the process--on
confidentiality, on Social Security, on earned-income tax credit, on
incarceration, on visa revocation. The list goes on and on.
Yet the grand bargainers don't seem to be affected by those. But when
we try to keep families together, it is a calamity.
Under current law, we recognize that parents are integral to the
family structure and that they remain so even after their children have
grown up. That has been our bedrock principle. As such, we correctly
characterize parents as part of an immediate family which exempts them
from the green card caps when applying for legal permanent residency.
Unfortunately, under the grand bargain, it removes these individuals
from the immediate relative category and sets an arbitrary,
insufficient annual cap for green cards for the parents of United
States citizens at 40,000.
This is less than approximately a third of what last year was the
number of visas for parents. It is less than half of the average number
of visas issued in the past 5 years. By saying that parents are no
longer members of the immediate family, I don't know how much more
nuclear this family can continue to get under, particularly, Republican
proposals. I always thought, listening to the debates on family values,
that parents--the matriarch, the patriarch--were core elements of a
family. They take existing law, the right of a United States citizen to
claim their parents as part of an immediate family, and do away with
that right and then supplant it with a limitation where we will give
you a limited right to bring up to, collectively across the country,
40,000. By saying parents are no longer members of the immediate family
and imposing unreasonable caps on the amount allowed to rejoin their
U.S. citizen children, we are not only breaking up families, we are
also effectively creating an entirely new backlog, even as we are
trying to eliminate it with this legislation.
This not only changes the spirit of our immigration policy, it also,
once again, deemphasizes family structure, all without a single hearing
on the issue of family or the value of family in our immigration system
in either the 109th or the 110th Congress.
This is not only about the rights of potential immigrants to enter
the country. Rather, more importantly, this is about the rights of
United States citizens who wish to live with and possibly care for
their parents. As it stands under the legislation, the right of those
American citizens to be reunited with their parents is virtually
totally undermined. From a moral perspective, this undermines the
family values I so often hear my colleagues talk about.
I have heard the words of the late Pope John Paul who, clearly, from
a moral perspective, said:

Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and
their families and to respect for human dignity.

I have heard it from President Bush when he said:

Family values don't end at the Rio Grande.

I guess when it comes to your parents, it does. But this agreement,
similar to his proposal before, belies those words. Besides the moral
imperative to keep families united, practically speaking, a breakdown
of family structure often leads to a breakdown of social stability.
People living with stable families are more likely to succeed, more
likely to contribute to our Nation, more likely to strengthen our
communities, less likely to be anything but an exemplary citizen. U.S.
citizens want to be together with their family members. That is a
natural human instinct. Yet here we are debating a provision of this
legislation that undermines the very essence of family.
This may be the next-to-last shot the Senate will have on standing up
for some values for families. I will be offering another amendment on
the new point system that will determine future immigration that,
hopefully, will give more points to families as part of an overall new
system, but ultimately the Dodd amendment and my amendment are likely
to be the last opportunities for the Senate to put its votes where its
values are.
In this case, Senator Dodd makes an important point. For those who
argue the chain migration issue--and I won't take out my chain again to
remind people how we dehumanize family members, and we want to make
them an abstract object so we can do away with it--the bottom line is,
if a U.S. citizen is already claiming their parents, they have ended
the chain, if we want to even refer to it in those terms, because that
parent can only come here by virtue of a U.S. citizen claiming them. So
it means it has to be their son and daughter. That basically ends the
chain. This is not a chain migration issue. This is the core of family
reunification, to have parents with their children, with their
grandchildren who, by the way, under U.S. law, that U.S. citizen is
responsible for them financially without question; otherwise, they
don't qualify. They don't get their petition approved. It is not just a
familial relationship that gives you the ability to claim as a U.S.
citizen your parents, you must also show the financial ability to
sustain them when you claim them; otherwise, even that right is
extinguished.
Here we have a foolproof situation--no chain migration, no public
charge, and, ultimately, the opportunity to strengthen family. If the
Senate cannot vote for the Dodd amendment, it simply does not believe
in family values.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Chair.
In a moment, I want to talk about an amendment I will be offering
with Senator Grassley to the immigration reform bill. That is amendment
No. 1332. I should mention this amendment has been endorsed by the AFL-
CIO. It was endorsed by the Programmers Guild and by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Before I speak about the amendment, it is important, as we debate the
immigration bill, to talk about what is happening to the lives of
Americans who live in the middle class and the working families of the
country. I fear that in this long and complicated immigration bill,
sometimes we lose track of the impact of this bill on the lives of
American workers. This bill deals in a reasonable way in terms of
dealing with the very serious problem of illegal immigration. It says
we must strengthen our borders and not allow people to so easily come
into the country. That is long overdue, and it is absolutely right. It
says finally we must begin to hold employers accountable for the
illegal immigrants they are hiring, something the Bush administration
has been very reluctant to do. That is extremely important.
This bill also carves out a path to citizenship which, frankly, is
the right thing to do. But also what this bill does not do is analyze
effectively the impact of various aspects of this legislation--the
guest worker program, H-1B program--on the lives of American workers.
The basic premise under which this bill operates in those areas is a
false one. What it says is there are

[[Page S7283]]

jobs out there, large numbers of jobs, that American workers won't
take. I think that is true to some degree, but this bill grossly
exaggerates that problem. Because the truth is, if employers paid
living wages for jobs, we would be very surprised at the number of
people in this country who would be delighted to hold those jobs. But
if people are going to pay starvation wages and not provide health care
or other benefits, yes, it is true American workers may not gravitate
to those jobs.

The truth is, over the last many years, there has been a war going on
in this country, and that is not the war in Iraq. It is not the war in
Afghanistan. It is the war being waged against the American middle
class, the American standard of living, and, indeed, the American dream
itself. This is an issue, unfortunately, we do not discuss enough on
the floor of the Senate. It is not discussed enough in the corporate
media.
The American public understands that since President George Bush has
been in office, over 5.4 million more Americans have slipped out of the
middle class and into poverty. The American people understand that
nearly 7 million more Americans have lost their health insurance, and
we are now almost at the level of 47 million Americans without health
insurance. The American people understand that for the average American
family, their income has fallen by over $1,200 and 3 million more
Americans have lost their pensions.
What does all of this have to do with the immigration bill? It has
everything to do with the immigration bill, because we have to take a
hard look at what various aspects of this bill do in terms of bringing
workers into this country and what it means to people who are
struggling on $8 or $9 an hour or, in fact, what it means to young
people who someday aspire to hold a professional position. That is an
issue we have not focused enough attention on.
Some people say: Yes, it is true, poverty is increasing. Yes, it is
true, there are millions of people working at the minimum wage or near.
But if you have a college degree, you don't have to worry. There are
plenty of these good professional jobs out there that pay people good
wages. The truth is, even college graduates in today's economy are not
getting ahead. From the years 2000 through 2004, we have seen the wages
of college graduates decline by 5 percent. According to a new study by
researchers at MIT, earnings of the average American worker with an
undergraduate degree have not kept up with gains in productivity over
the last 25 years. In other words, despite an explosion in technology
and worker productivity over the past 30 years, millions of American
workers, including college graduates, are working longer hours for
lower wages. In America today, the personal savings rate is below zero.
People are spending more than is coming in. That has not happened since
the Great Depression. Home foreclosures are at their highest level in
nearly four decades.
What I fear the most is if we keep going in the direction in which we
are moving now economically, what we are going to see is our children
are going to have a lower standard of living than we do. In fact,
according to a recent joint study by the Pew Charitable Trust and
Brookings Institute, men in their thirties earned on average 12 percent
less in 2004 than their fathers did in 1974, after adjusting for
inflation. Incredibly, men today are earning less than their fathers
did despite a huge explosion in technology and worker productivity.
In addition, it is important to note that over the last 6 years, this
country has lost more than 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs.
Why do I raise that within the context of an immigration bill? I
raise that because the argument of all the large corporations that are
supporting this legislation is: My goodness, we have a crisis in
America. It is that wages are going down. It is not that more and more
Americans are losing their health care and their pensions. The crisis
is, supposedly, there are all these jobs out there--jobs in teaching,
psychology, nursing, hotels, restaurants--and we cannot find American
workers to do those jobs.
Let me tell the business community: Raise wages, provide decent
benefits, and you are going to have all kinds of people flocking to
those jobs.
During the debate over NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations
with China--which I participated in as a Member of the House of
Representatives--we were told by all the corporate interests who pushed
that legislation on the Congress not to worry about the blue-collar
jobs we would lose. I remember it distinctly. They said: Well, yes, it
is true. If we open up our markets, yes, it is true we are going to
lose a lot of these factory jobs. They are going to go to China,
Mexico, whatever. But don't worry because if your kid does well in
school, becomes computer proficient, your kid is going to have a great
job out there at good wages. That is the future of America. Don't worry
about the blue-color jobs. You have all these white-color information
technology jobs.
Well, guess what is happening. From January of 2001 to January of
2006, we have lost 644,000 information sector jobs. Alan Blinder, the
former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has told us between 30 and
40 million jobs in this country are in danger of being shipped
overseas.
The middle class of this country is being squeezed 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
When Americans get up in the morning and they take their kids to
daycare, they find the cost of childcare is unaffordable. That is
certainly true in Vermont. It is true all over this country. Working
families cannot afford quality childcare.
When they drive to work, and they stop at the gas station to fill up
their gas tanks, what they are paying in Vermont now is $3.10 a gallon
for gas, and in other parts of the country it is even higher.
ExxonMobil earns record-breaking profits and manages to find $400
million for a retirement settlement for their former CEO.
When workers go to their jobs, they are being squeezed as often as
not by their employer who is cutting back on their health care and
pension benefits. Then, if workers stand up for their jobs, they want
to form a union, they are told that those jobs could go to China: So
take your cutbacks.
When workers come home, they open up their mailbox only to find that
the interest on their mortgage payments and their credit cards in some
cases is doubling or tripling. There are working people in this country
who are paying--if you can believe it--27, 28, 29 percent in interest
rates, while big banks are making record-breaking profits.
When Americans go to the hospital, they are told by their insurance
companies their premiums and copays will be going up or, even worse,
they are not covered for the medical procedures they need.
When they want to send their kids to college, they look at the cost
of tuition, and they find colleges costing $30,000, $35,000, $40,000,
$45,000 a year, and people are making $30,000 a year. We are seeing
kids in this country now--low-income kids--not going to college and
others coming out deeply in debt.
Now, in the midst of all of that, we have this immigration bill, a
bill that would allow employers to hire hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, of workers from other countries in both low-skilled jobs and
high-skilled jobs.
It is important to note--and this point has not been made often
enough, but it is important to note many of the same corporate groups
that supported NAFTA, that supported PNTR with China, and other
disastrous trade agreements, that these same businesses that fought
against an increase in the minimum wage, saying: Hey, $5.15 an hour, we
don't have to go higher than that; these same companies that have
outsourced hundreds of thousands of jobs to China, to Mexico, to
Vietnam, to India, to other low-wage countries, these same companies
are supporting this legislation.
Let's understand that, and let us ask why that is the case. Why are
companies that opposed the minimum wage, that oppose the right of
workers to form unions, that oppose anything that makes sense for the
American middle class supporting this legislation?
Some of those groups are the National Restaurant Association, the
Business Roundtable, the American Hotel & Lodging Association. These
are all groups that opposed raising the minimum wage above $5.15 an
hour, and they are sitting here saying: Well, we think this immigration
bill is a good bill for us.

[[Page S7284]]

High-tech companies that have sent hundreds of thousands of jobs
overseas, they think this legislation is good. Why? Why do they think
it is good legislation? Well, if you listen to them, they will tell you
two things: First, in terms of low-skilled jobs, they say they need
foreign workers to do the jobs Americans will not do. In terms of high-
skilled jobs, they say they cannot find enough Americans who are smart
enough, who are skilled enough, who are well educated enough to be
engineers, to be scientists, to be mathematicians, et cetera.
In other words, corporate America tells us they need a new guest
worker program because they cannot find any Americans for construction
jobs, for manufacturing jobs, hotel jobs, restaurant jobs. Then they
tell us they need more foreign agricultural workers because no American
is willing to break their back working in the fields, picking
strawberries or lettuce for poverty-level wages and no health care.
Then--this is what gets me--they tell us they need more H-1B visas
because Americans are not smart enough to be computer professionals;
engineers; university professors, they cannot find anybody to be a
university professor; accountants--I guess Americans do not add very
well--we cannot do that work; financial analysts; nurses, I guess we do
not have the capability of producing nurses; psychologists, Americans,
I guess, cannot do that; lawyers--lawyers--lawyers--my God, if there is
anything the United States is capable of producing it is lawyers, but I
guess we need more lawyers to come into this country; and elementary
school teachers, I guess the young people who graduate from college in
America are not quite qualified to be school teachers.
Now, if Americans will not take low-skilled jobs that pay poverty-
level wages and, presumably, if they are not smart enough to do high-
skilled jobs, I think the question we have to ask is: What kind of jobs
are going to be available for the American people? Can't do low-skilled
jobs; can't do high-skilled jobs. Hey, what is there for us?
I happen to think the Congress should be spending a lot more time
discussing this issue and making it easier for us to create decent-
paying jobs for American workers instead of allowing corporate
interests to drive wages down by importing more and more people to do
the work Americans should be doing and, conversely, exporting and
outsourcing a lot of decent jobs.
As someone who, as a young man, worked in a hotel and worked in a
restaurant, I can tell you the guest worker provisions, for the most
part, have nothing to do with a shortage of workers but have everything
to do with a concerted effort by corporate America to drive down wages
for our people.
Now, one of the largest corporations that is involved in an
association in support of this legislation is Wal-Mart. I made this
point yesterday, but I think it is worth repeating. Wal-Mart says,
being a part of this association, that apparently there is a shortage
of Americans willing to work at Wal-Marts. Well, let's take a look at
that.
Two years ago, when Wal-Mart announced the opening of a new store in
Oakland, CA, 11,000 people filled out applications for 400 jobs. I
think most Americans know that Wal-Mart is not a great employer. Wages
are low. In many instances, they do not provide 40 hours a week; health
care benefits are not particularly good.
Oakland, CA: For 400 jobs, 11,000 people filled out applications.
More recently, in January of 2006, when Wal-Mart announced the opening
of a store in Evergreen Park outside Chicago, over 24,000 people
applied for 325 jobs at that store. What does that tell us? It tells us
that even in low-paying jobs, such as at Wal-Mart, when given the
opportunity, Americans want those jobs. They want to make a living for
their families.
So the idea Wal-Mart and other similar-type companies would say: Gee,
we can't find workers to do that work, is just plain wrong. What they
want to do is have a surplus of workers coming into this country so
wages do not go up. So instead of having to raise wages and benefits,
in order to attract workers and retain workers, what you do is simply
open the door and you bring in more and more cheap labor. That enables
them to keep wages low.
Then we have the situation with high-skilled jobs, with our
professional jobs. Again, we have associations and organizations made
up of different corporate groups that are strongly supporting this
immigration bill, and they include, among others, companies such as
Motorola, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Boeing, to
name a few. These are corporations with a main argument that we cannot
find Americans to do this work, and we need to go all over the world to
bring in people.
Well, I find it interesting that many of these same companies that
tell us they cannot find workers in the United States are exactly the
same companies that have recently announced major layoffs of thousands
of American workers: We can't find workers. Oh, by the way, you are
fired. We need more workers from abroad. Five hundred workers are gone.
We are laying you off. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
Let me give you a few examples. A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times
reported Dell would be eliminating 10 percent of its workforce,
slashing 8,800 jobs. But Dell, last year, applied for nearly 400 H-1B
visas to bring people into this country--at the same time they lay off
8,800 workers. Maybe they might want to retrain some of those 8,800
workers for these new positions, if possible, rather than simply
bringing in new employees from abroad.
Dell is not alone. The Financial Times, on May 31, reported Motorola
would be cutting 4,000 jobs, on top of an earlier 3,500 job reduction,
designed to generate savings of $400 million. Yet last year, Motorola
received 760 H-1B visas. The list goes on and on. It is IBM. It is
Citigroup--companies bringing in foreign professional workers at the
same time they are laying off American workers.
So we have a situation where, on one hand, these companies say they
cannot find highly skilled American workers while, on the other hand,
they are eliminating thousands of American jobs.
What upsets me is how our young people feel about this situation.
These are kids who go to school--sometimes they borrow a lot of money
to go to college--they work hard, and what they are looking forward to,
whether through a BA or a BS or an MA or a Ph.D., is a good, secure,
challenging, meaningful job with a decent income. What they are seeing
is companies saying: We do not want you. We want somebody from abroad
who will work at lower wages than you. I think that must be very
discouraging for so many of our young people.
Madam President, the amendment I am offering today, along with
Senator Grassley, is a pretty simple amendment. What it would do is it
would prohibit companies that have announced mass layoffs from
receiving new visas of any kind, unless these companies could prove
that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by
these layoffs. In other words, we are calling their bluff, and we are
saying: You can't lay off large numbers of American workers and then
tell us you desperately need workers, professionals from abroad. Those
companies which are truly experiencing labor shortages would not be
impacted by this amendment and could continue to receive increases in
foreign workers, but companies that are reducing their U.S. workforce
by laying off thousands of Americans would be prevented from importing
workers from abroad.

The bottom line is, the companies that are laying off thousands of
Americans shouldn't be allowed to import workers from overseas. Let us
stand up for the American people. Let us stand up for American workers.
Let us support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Amendment No. 1236

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the good Senator from Vermont
for his comments. I appreciate them very much. I think they are on the
mark.
I would like to address amendment No. 1236, the Baucus-Tester
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Akaka, Sununu, Leahy,
and Collins be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that
Senator Akaka be recognized for 10 minutes following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7285]]

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I am proud to offer this amendment 1236
with my colleague, Senator Baucus, as well as the Senators I just
listed as cosponsors. It strikes a portion of the bill that relates to
the REAL ID Act. These REAL ID Act provisions are not central to the
bill. We all want secure documents, but REAL ID is not needed to meet
heightened security requirements. If we leave these provisions in
place, the result of this legislation will be to bully the States into
accepting something they do not want. If we do not pass the Baucus-
Tester amendment, we will expand the REAL ID Act and we will impose
significant new costs on employers, open up prospective employees' most
sensitive personal information to theft, and create new administrative
headaches for workers, employers, and State governments alike.
Do not misunderstand, it is right for employers to have to do their
part to make sure they do not hire illegal immigrants, and if they do
hire illegal immigrants, we need to penalize them. But what we do not
want to do is impose a massive new tax on employers, and that is
exactly what this bill would do in its current form.
This bill requires employers to use REAL ID-compliant documents to
verify prospective employees' immigration status, and that means
employers will have to link into the national database that REAL ID
will create. If, as expected, the Department of Homeland Security
mandates that employers confirm the biometrics of the employee,
employers will need to purchase expensive biometric card-reader
machines and train employees and staff on how to use them. This will
amount to a massive new tax on businesses, and these costs will be on
top of other mandates employers will pay to screen their workers and
get linked into the national ID database created by the proposed
employment eligibility verification system.
Our amendment would also lift a burden off potential employees. This
bill mandates that every potential employee present a REAL ID driver's
license by June 1, 2013, to begin every new job. State government
organizations such as the National Governors Association and the
National Conference of State Legislatures have said these States need
at least until 2018 to implement REAL ID. This means many States will
not even be able to provide their citizens with the documents they
would need under the mandates of this immigration bill by 2013. What
happens then? Are the people in these States not allowed to get work?
That is what will happen if you leave this provision in the bill.
Sixteen States have passed legislation or resolutions opposing REAL
ID or preventing the States from being a part of REAL ID. So unless the
Baucus-Tester amendment is adopted, individuals who live in these
States may not be able to get jobs because they will not have the REAL
ID-compliant documents.
Finally, this provision threatens workers' privacy. REAL ID creates
the first true national ID card system by aggregating every adult's
most sensitive, personally identifiable information in one place
without any protections for the data or limitations on who can access
it. We are going to give to every employer in America access to this
system. This invites identity theft on the part of unscrupulous
employees and government workers with access to this REAL ID database.
So we know that including REAL ID in this bill is a recipe for
disaster. It will be harder to hire folks, it will be more expensive to
hire them, and it may even be impossible to hire many people. It opens
employee personal identification information to identity theft.
We can remove this section from the bill and still have a strong
employment eligibility verification system. We can lift a significant
burden from employers and employees, and we can limit the adverse
effects of this bill on States. The Baucus-Tester amendment will do
exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Baucus-
Tester-Sununu-Leahy-Akaka-Collins amendment to strip the references to
the problematic REAL ID program from the underlying immigration bill.
We may agree or disagree about the merits of the actual REAL ID
program, but as hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far
from being ready for primetime. In fact, the Department of Homeland
Security has not even released final regulations directing the States
on REAL ID implementation. With 260 million drivers in this country, I
do not see how we could have the massive national databases required by
REAL ID and this immigration bill up and running by the 2013 deadline
set in this bill.
In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID
is an unfunded mandate that could cost the States in excess of $23
billion. Opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to the
left. A large number of States have expressed concerns with the
mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions in
opposition. Georgia, Washington, Oklahoma, and Montana have gone so far
as to indicate that they intend to refuse compliance with it. The
National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors
Association have expressed concerns about the costs imposed on the
States. The reaction to the unfunded mandates of the REAL ID Act is a
good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes itself
rather than working to create cooperation and partnership.
On top of that, even though they are not even in production yet, REAL
ID cards are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card--since they
will be needed to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and
now workplaces all across the country. In my opinion, REAL ID raises
multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges could delay final
implementation for years.
For any new immigration measures to be effective, they must be well
designed. Forcing employers, employees, and the States to use this
troublesome national ID card will slow down the hiring process, stifle
commerce, and not serve as an effective strategy. As a result, we
should not jeopardize the future success of the immigration reforms
sought in this legislation by tying REAL ID too closely to it. I do not
see how it is possible for all of the States to have their new license
programs up and running by the 2013 deadline called for in this bill.
Thus, I think that instead of mandating REAL ID in this bill, we should
support the Baucus-Tester amendment to strip REAL ID from this bill and
put together a workable employment verification system that does not
needlessly burden every legal job seeker in this country with the
onerous and problematic requirements of REAL ID.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today in support of an amendment
with my good friend from Montana, Jon Tester. Our amendment would
repeal all references to REAL ID in the immigration bill.
Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once wrote that ``the right to
be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.''
If the right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedom, then
Real ID is a step toward the end.
REAL ID creates the framework for a national ID card and is a big
Federal unfunded mandate. In sum, REAL ID requires two things:
No. 1, Federal agencies can only accept State-issued driver's
licenses in compliance with new Federal regulations. These new
regulations would require all State-issued licenses to include a
cardholder's personal information such as their home address and their
fingerprints.
No. 2, this information would then, by law, be accessible by all
other States on an electronic database.
These requirements may sound harmless to many, but REAL ID has
serious flaws. Three merit special attention.
No. 1, REAL ID puts America on track for a national ID card. This
raises both privacy and practicality concerns.
No. 2, REAL ID represents a large unfunded mandate on the States.
No. 3, REAL ID poses a potential national security risk by dictating
to States where their precious homeland security dollars should be
spent, and it creates a magnet for identity theft.
Let me take a moment to walk through these concerns individually.
The standardized national driver's licenses created by REAL ID could
become a key part of a system of identity

[[Page S7286]]

papers--similar to a national ID. These standards would require State
DMVs to collect extensive personal information from all cardholders.
To issue a driver's license, the DMV will be required to collect
birth certificates, utility bills, and other documents to verify an
individual's residency. These documents would then be stored within the
DMV database and accessible by all 50 States.
The machine-readable technology required by REAL ID will enable
businesses from taverns to airlines to collect personal information
about their clients. They could then sell this personal information to
anyone willing to pay.
In addition, Federal agencies could use this new ID as an ``internal
passport,'' tracking American's movements around the country.
Americans will need a federally approved ID card to travel on an
airplane or open a bank account. Seniors will need a new ID to collect
Social Security payments. Citizens will need a new driver's license to
take advantage of nearly any Government service.
Finally, REAL ID requires that driver's licenses contain American's
actual addresses. No post office boxes are allowed. The legislation
fails to offer exceptions for judges or police. I can't imagine how
such a violation of privacy could make our Nation more secure.
In addition to causing problems for individuals, REAL ID is a
nightmare for the States. REAL ID requires States to remake their
driver's licenses, restructure their computer databases, and create
extensive new document-storage systems.
It is no wonder, therefore, why 15 States have passed legislation
rejecting REAL ID. Another 11 have pushed bills rejecting REAL ID
through one of their legislative chambers.
From Washington State to Maine, Nevada to Georgia, red States and
blue States, coastal States and the bread basket, all agree--they will
not accept the provisions of REAL ID.
In my home State of Montana, REAL ID has caused real headaches. It is
estimated that it would cost $2.6 million for Montana to comply with
REAL ID.
Nationwide, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that the
cost of implementing REAL ID could reach as much as $11 billion--a
gross unfunded mandate from the Federal Government.
My friend, Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer, signed a law in April
that bans Montana's Department of Motor Vehicles from enforcing the
requirements of REAL ID. Republicans and Democrats alike in Montana's
Legislature voted unanimously to reject REAL ID.
I cannot support legislation that requires States to implement costly
new security procedures--including security clearances and employee
training--without providing the funds to implement such changes. I
cannot support an effort to hoist this kind of bureaucracy upon
Montanans, or any American, for that matter.
However, some have argued that REAL ID is essential to protecting
Americans from terrorism.
Opponents of this amendment argue that REAL ID is required to deal
with the influx of people expected to cross the border as a result of
this bill. In short, larger waves of immigrants call for tougher
standards on ID cards.
While I am sympathetic to the concern that IDs should be secure, I
believe that REAL ID does not achieve this goal. In fact, I believe
REAL ID could harm our national security.
In response to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, Congress passed
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This act
provided a number of improvements to our Nation's driver's licenses.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
established a cooperative framework between State and Federal
authorities to make our State driver's licenses more secure.
The REAL ID Act ended that cooperative spirit. Instead of listening
to State authorities, the REAL ID Act dictates to them.
We should have stuck with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. REAL
ID goes a step too far. It makes it impossible for State authorities to
decide for themselves where their scarce funds should go to fight
against terrorism. Handcuffing our States with Federal bureaucracy is
not the way to protect the American people from terrorism.
I will always continue to fight for increased law enforcement
funding, but I will not support a law that ties State officials' hands
with more Government bureaucracy.
I am also concerned that a centralized national database makes it
possible for criminals or terrorists to perform identity theft on an
unprecedented scale. We need to take a closer look at how a national
database would be safeguarded from malicious hackers.
We have already witnessed identity theft scares at Federal agencies
like the Department of Veterans Affairs, where a simple burglary put
nearly 27 million Social Security numbers in jeopardy.
Now, imagine a terrorist having access to the name, height, weight,
social security number, and biometric information for every American,
all by penetrating one single firewall.
REAL ID is a large unfunded mandate that impedes on American's
privacy and could hurt our Nation's security.
Our amendment joins the chorus of Montanans and Americans who say no
to REAL ID.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Hawaii is
recognized.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment
offered by Senator Tester and Senator Baucus to remove the provisions
in the immigration bill relating to REAL ID. I am pleased to cosponsor
this amendment, and I applaud Senators Tester and Baucus for their
efforts.
I have very strong concerns with REAL ID; namely, the burdensome
mandate on State and local governments and the impact REAL ID will have
on Americans' privacy and civil liberties.
I have introduced legislation, S. 717, the Identification Security
Enhancement Act, with Senators Sununu, Leahy, Tester, and Baucus, to
repeal the unworkable REAL ID and replace it with a more realistic
process to secure identification cards and driver's licenses.
As such, I am deeply concerned about the provisions in the
immigration bill that would mandate REAL ID given the fact that 15
States have passed legislation rejecting REAL ID. Under the immigration
bill, every employee in America must present a REAL ID-compliant
driver's license by 2013 to begin a new job. This, of course, is
problematic as it is unfair to employees and States that have rejected
REAL ID. It is also impossible for States to implement REAL ID by the
year 2013.
In testimony before the Senate Oversight of Government Management
Subcommittee in March, the National Governors Association and the
National Conference of State Legislatures, in addition to the mayor of
the city and county of Honolulu, called for a 10-year reenrollment
period. The 5-year period contemplated by the REAL ID proposed
regulations, as well as by the immigration bill before the Senate now,
is part of what is contributing to the $23 billion unfunded mandate in
the States.
Moreover, given the numerous problems with REAL ID, expanding the
official uses of this card to the employment context will only make the
card more attractive for counterfeiting and misuse. With the vast
amount of personally identifiable information to be stored on the REAL
ID card, I fear such action will only ensure that the cards provide
one-stop shopping for identity thieves.
Congress must act to address the fundamental flaws with REAL ID and
provide realistic and workable solutions to ensure that States have the
resources to secure licenses and that such efforts protect our privacy
and civil liberties. I look forward to working with my colleagues to do
so in the near future. However, regardless of one's position on REAL
ID, it is impracticable to tie our immigration reform efforts to a
flawed program that States cannot implement.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to remove provisions
in the immigration bill relating to REAL ID.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the

[[Page S7287]]

following Senators be recognized for the times specified: Senator
Sessions for up to 15 minutes, Senator Webb for up to 10 minutes, and
Senator McCaskill for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the legislation before us deals with one
of the most important subjects any nation should concern itself with,
which is immigration. The American people care about it. Many people
are watching it extremely closely. They are cynical about Congress. In
1986, Congress passed a major bill that was supposed to fix so many
problems, all of those things they are aware of, and the problem has
only gotten worse. They have also discovered that our leadership in
Washington, the executive branch and the Congress, really is not
committed to creating a lawful system. Some people think it can't be
done. Some people think Congress just doesn't want to do it. Some
people think it would interrupt the flow of labor. For whatever reason,
the American people have concluded this Congress is not to be trusted
with this bill. We have had for decades--in the full decade I have been
in the Senate and before--Members asserting they are going to fix these
problems at the border, and nothing gets fixed. We arrested a million
persons last year--a million who were illegally entering the United
States. What kind of broken system is that?
So people are not going to go for--they are not going to bite a
promise in a poke. They are not going to take a pig in a poke. They are
not going to buy into a bill that is not going to work. They expect us
this time to do something that works. I really believe we can. This is
not impossible. The more I have studied it, the more confident I am
that we can make progress and create a bill that would actually end the
unlawfulness and create a flow of workers to meet our real needs,
without having so many workers that the wages of Americans are reduced;
that we tilt, as Canada and Australia and other nations have, to a
system that focuses more on high-skilled workers.
So those are the things that are important. Well, how did we get in
this fix with this bill that, I suggest, is losing steam? Like that
mackerel put out in the sunshine, as the days go by, it begins to have
an odor. Well, it started in an unusual way. Normally, a bill is
introduced--especially a big piece of legislation--and it is assigned
to a committee. The committee brings in expert witnesses and hears
testimony. Depending on the complexity of the bill, it could be the
subject of many weeks of testimony and hearings.
For example, on the asbestos bill in Judiciary Committee, I bet we
had 25 hearings. We had all kinds of meetings outside. We brought in
experts and we talked to them about how to solve this very complex and
important issue of asbestos in America. I think if the American people
were to rate asbestos compared to immigration, they put it on a scale
of 2 or 3 and immigration on a scale of 9 out of 10.
What happened? A group of Senators met, along with special interest
groups and activist groups that want everybody to come to America, and
business groups who want cheap labor. They all met and talked to a
bunch of politicians. They didn't have a Border Patrol professional
there. Mr. Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, was in and out of
the room. They were not involved in the kind of public fact-finding
they should have been. They skipped the committee entirely. Last year's
bill--the one the House refused to even consider--that passed this
Senate, a bill that was fatally flawed and would never have
accomplished what it promised to accomplish, should never have become
law. That bill was introduced on the floor of the Senate. For about a
week, that was the bill. It sort of sat there, but everybody knew there
were secret meetings going on among good Senators, good people, who
were trying to figure out what kind of bill they were going to write.
So Senator Reid pushed them and pushed them and made it come out
before they were ready. They plopped it down in the Senate the Tuesday
before Memorial Day recess week. They said it was 300 pages. But it was
written in small print, and not the legislative format in which
legislation is supposed to be introduced. Had it been printed in the
proper form, it would have been nearly a thousand pages. It is over 300
as it is. They plopped this bill down, and nobody knew what was in it
except those who had been in the room. It is obvious when they
announced it, they didn't even know everything that was in it.
This is a big matter. It is very important. Now we want to rush this
through. We had Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday--Tuesday being the day
the bill or the substitute hit the floor, the week before Memorial Day.
We did nothing on Friday, except a few of us came down to the floor and
talked. The next Monday--Monday of this week--all we did was talk. This
week, we have been on the bill for a couple of days so far, and a few
amendments have been heard.
Mr. President, I had 15 minutes. I see the majority leader here. I
know he is busy and his time is short. I respect him. If he needs to
make an announcement, I will be glad to yield to him for that purpose.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, we have a unanimous consent request we
want the Senator to look at. It lines up a number of Republican votes
and Democratic votes. We need the Senator to sign off on it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Let me wrap up and then I will look at it. I am
concerned that there is a desire to move this bill through quickly.
That is the goal, just to pass something. I am worried if we pass
something that is not right, it will not get any better, especially
after going through conference committee, where the Democratic leader
and the Speaker of the House will appoint the conference committee
majority and they will decide what changes get made in conference. I am
worried about the legislation.
Let me tell you one thing that is causing some of us to get our backs
up a little bit about this. The group that met to decide how to write
this bill and put it together--that group made a pact with one another.
What they said is this represents the final, real agreement between us.
When the bill hits the floor, if anybody offers an amendment that
disagrees with anything significant you and I have agreed to, we will
all get together and oppose it. You have heard them say it publicly on
the floor repeatedly. This goes against the agreement. This goes
against the grand bargain. This is a killer amendment because we all
got to stick together. ``We'' who? We have to stick together and cannot
accept any change.
Let me tell you, this is the Senate. The group that met was not the
full Senate. I have had members of that grand bargain tell me: Jeff,
that is a good amendment, but I cannot vote for it because it is not in
our agreement. I agree with you, Jeff, but I cannot vote for that
because it wasn't part of our agreement.
What kind of legislation is that? So we have that factor going here.
I am getting tired of it. I wasn't in on the grand compromise; neither
were the American people. They weren't in on that deal.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Alabama yield for a question?
Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to.
Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the Senator from Alabama yielding for a
question. I had several in mind.
I have been asked by the majority leader to ask a substitute
question; that is, would the Senator approve the agreement so we can
proceed with the amendments?
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I have been here since 1 o'clock and, all of a
sudden, I start speaking and they want me to look at an agreement. How
many minutes do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 40 seconds.

Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to finish my remarks and then I will look at the
agreement, if that would be all right.
Mr. SPECTER. It would be all right. The Senator yielded for a
question and I wish to ask a question. Did the Senator make any effort
to join the Democrats and Republicans, including this

[[Page S7288]]

Senator, who were working on the legislation?
Mr. SESSIONS. I think most of us knew that discussions were going on
of that nature. We knew the deal. The deal is what all of you have
agreed to. If you reach an accord, you are committed to vote for the
deal on the floor, even if you agree with the amendment that is brought
up. I was not prepared to tie my hands in that fashion. I submitted
ideas because some Members were concerned about it. I don't say
everything was blocked totally, but the final print analysis was not
available to those not participating and who didn't agree to sign on to
whatever was produced between you, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl,
Senator Menendez, and the others who participated in the agreement.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. SESSIONS. I think I probably reserved my independence as a
Senator to maintain my ability to make an independent evaluation of the
legislation that was produced.
Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield for one more question.
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. I can understand that and appreciate why he would not
want to give up his independence and would not want to be bound by an
agreement. But I think the important factor is the Senator from Alabama
wasn't excluded, if he wanted to join under those terms.
The followup question I have for the Senator from Alabama is this:
How would the Senator structure negotiations on a matter of this kind,
as complex as it is, as many views as there are, to try to have a
practical bill that would be presented on the floor of the Senate--
recognizing that this Senator has said on a number of occasions that I
would have preferred the committee process? The Senator from Alabama is
on the Judiciary Committee and was an active participant in the
formulation of the bill in the 109th Congress. But given our situation,
how would the Senator from Alabama have proceeded differently to try to
structure a bill to present to the Senate?
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, when the Senator from Pennsylvania chaired the
Judiciary Committee, the immigration bill did have hearings--a few
hearings--and did have a markup, as the Senator knows. But I will tell
you that last year's hearings and markup were quite insufficient, in my
view, considering the intensity and enormity of the subject.
I will tell you what I believe needs to be done. It is much closer to
what you did, as I mentioned before the Senator came to the floor, with
asbestos. When you led the effort to reform and fix the very big
problem with asbestos--and I was pleased to support you--you traveled
all over the country and had hearings with judges, lawyers, and
interest groups. We had hearing after hearing. We had markup days, and
recess, and more markup days. It went on for months. It was brought up
on the floor and knocked down--and then brought up on the floor again
and it went on for months. We didn't quite get it done, but I supported
the Senator's view of it.
That is what we need. Even though asbestos was exceedingly complex,
this is even more complex and even more significant for the average
citizen. So I think that is where we messed up. I know this was a real
attempt to get something done. People said we needed to do something.
But do what?
Mr. SPECTER. I have one final question for the Senator from Alabama.
I know the Senator from Alabama acknowledges the existence of the
problem. Would the Senator from Alabama consider drafting legislation
which the Senate could consider, perhaps in the nature of a substitute,
as to how we should deal with this problem, which I know the Senator
from Alabama acknowledges?
Mr. SESSIONS. We do have a problem, Mr. President. I say to my
esteemed colleague, one of the most able Members of this Senate, I have
in my mind a framework that I believe would work for immigration
reform. A number of the things I thought were critical I was told might
be in this new bill this year. But the fine print convinced me it was
not there. I believe we have a problem with the American people. They
want to make sure this is done in the open light of day. I am not
prepared to say at this point in time that I could meet and reach an
accord on the overall difficulties with this bill in a matter of hours,
or even days.
I think we need to start over with an open process and maybe
something else can be accomplished. My inclination is to say let's get
it out there and let the American people be involved. They understand
the difficult choices that have to be made. They are also principled
people and want to be sure we do it right.
I thank Senator Specter for his efforts.
My time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would sure like to be able to get this
unanimous consent agreement. We keep changing things around and have
decided we don't need to have an equal number of Democrats with
Republicans. Let's get what we can. We have three Republicans lined up.
They are all important amendments that the Republicans and Democrats
have. I hope we can get this done.
We have a vote at about 3 o'clock. We changed the time to 10 minutes
each, I say to my friend from Alabama, because people have had the
opportunity to speak already, except for Senator Webb.
Mr. WEBB addressed the Chair.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold.
Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry.
Mr. REID. Is it OK that we do this?
Mr. SESSIONS. Please give me a few moments to review this because I
have some concerns.

Amendment 1313

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss
amendment No. 1313 to this bill which is going to be scheduled for a
vote later today. Before I do that, I wish to recognize the incredible
effort that has gone into this bill. I want to be able to support the
bill. I have enormous respect for our distinguished majority leader and
the others who have put so much time into the bill and given us time
today to discuss some of these other amendments.
As I said, I want to be able to support this bill. We have seen some
real divisions in the Senate on different provisions. I feel confident,
I feel strongly that the amendment I am offering, which is cosponsored
by Senator Dorgan, will address what I believe are two crucially needed
improvements in this legislation.
The first relates to what some people are calling amnesty, wherein
the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this country by the
beginning of this year. And the second improvement relates to what I
believe is an unworkable set of procedures applicable to those who are
properly offered legal status. I believe it is very important to the
health and practicality of our system that we attempt to fix these two
flaws in the bill.
My amendment would achieve three critically important goals. It would
create a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have
truly put down roots in America. It protects the legitimate interests
of all working Americans, and it affords honor and dignity to the
concept of true American justice.
If one accepts the premises of these three goals, then I strongly
believe this amendment is the best way forward for us.
As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues the time has come for
fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system. When I say
fairness, I mean a system of laws that is fair to everyone in the
United States and especially to our wage earners.
I strongly support the provisions in this bill that strengthen our
Nation's borders. I also support the sections of the bill that create
tough civil and criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire
illegal immigrants, creating both a second-class population and
undercutting American workers.
As a point of reference, I did not support the bill's creation of a
massive new temporary worker program, and I am pleased to see at least
a portion of that was adjusted by the vote last night.
With those points in mind, I wish to address my amendment which
concerns the other major component of this bill,

[[Page S7289]]

and it is an area that has not really received the kind of examination
that other portions of the bill have, and that is the legalization
program.
My amendment reflects a proposal that I have been discussing with
Virginians ever since I began to campaign for the Senate. I have always
supported tough border security and cracking down on large employers
who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path to
legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax
immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in their
communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for
everyone who have come here as undocumented persons.
Under the provisions of this bill, virtually all undocumented persons
living in the United States would be eligible to legalize their status
and ultimately become citizens. Estimates are that this number totals
12 million to 20 million people. This is legislative overkill. It is
one of the reasons this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary
Americans who have no opposition to reasonable immigration policies but
who see this as an issue that goes against the grain of basic fairness,
which is the very foundation of our society.
By contrast, my amendment would allow a smaller percentage of
undocumented persons to remain in the United States and legalize their
status based on the depth of a person's roots in their community.
Under my proposal, undocumented persons who have lived in the United
States for at least 4 years prior to the enactment of the bill could
apply to legalize their status. I note that this 4-year period is even
more generous than the 5-year threshold that was contained in several
bills in the past few Congresses--bills that were supported by Senators
from both parties and by immigrants rights groups.
After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security
would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine
whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to
get on the path to citizenship.
Among these criteria are work history, payment of Federal or State
income taxes, property ownership, business ownership in the United
States, a knowledge of English, accomplishment in schools in America,
immediate family members in the United States, whether the applicant
has a criminal record, and, importantly, whether the applicant wants to
become a citizen.
These applicants would be given probationary status, as in the
underlying bill, while the DHS considers their Z visa applications, and
could lawfully work during this probationary status period.
I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population and
also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in
1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal
wave of illegal immigration.
My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical. It
strikes the bill's unrealistic touchback requirement. Few immigrants
would have the money or the ability to return to their home countries
on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their jobs, leave
their families in turmoil, and place further strain on our community
services. Basic fairness and common sense dictates that these persons
should be allowed to apply for a green card from here in the United
States.
I believe this amendment sets forth an equitable system that not only
recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also
introduces practical measures that would help us avoid the mistakes
that were made in 1986.
I have heard loudly and clearly from Virginians, and I have talked
with people on all sides of this issue. What I hear over and over is
that Congress should find a fair system that both protects American
workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment represents the
fairest method I know to do so, and to do so realistically.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up for a
vote in the Senate later today.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the issue of
illegal immigration in this country in a very simple way. As a
prosecutor, it is about following the law. As an auditor, it is about
following the money. I state for my colleagues today that so much of
this problem is about following the money.
We have crimes we can deter in this country and we have crimes we
cannot deter. Let me tell my colleagues a crime we can deter. We can
stop the hiring of illegal immigrants in this country if we prosecute
the people who are hiring them because other business owners will stop
hiring illegal immigrants if they see businesses being held
accountable. This administration has not been interested in enforcing
the law against employers.
What is hard to deter is families who are trying to feed their
children. And the wall, yes, I support border enforcement. Of course.
As a former law enforcement official, I support enforcing the law
against anyone who breaks the law. But let's be realistic about this.
As an auditor, I want to be efficient and effective.
Is it going to be efficient and effective to think we are going to
solve this problem at the border? It is not the border that is going to
stop the people coming into our country illegally. It is what is on the
other side of the border. It is the promise of that job and the hungry
mouths they are trying to feed.
So when I look at the raid that occurred in Springfield, MO, a few
weeks ago when over 100 illegal immigrants were arrested, I kept
watching the news for some word about that employer. Silence. With all
the raids that have been occurring recently, I think, because of the
administration's anxiousness to try to get this bill across the line, I
have yet to hear one word about an employer going to jail for hiring
illegal immigrants.
I know, I know, they are going to say the employer down near
Springfield at the chicken processing plant--these people had fake IDs.
They had fake Social Security numbers. If anyone believes that employer
did not know they had illegal immigrants working there, I have a bridge
I want to sell you. Of course, they knew. You give a good prosecutor a
couple of investigators, you send some people in undercover, and you
will gather the evidence in short order that dozens and hundreds and
thousands of employers in this country are not playing by the rules.
Is that fair? No, it is not fair, and I will tell you to whom it is
not fair. Many of my colleagues have said it is not fair to the
American worker. I will tell you to whom it is not fair. It is unfair
to the businesses that are playing by the rules. It is fundamentally
unfair that many businesses in America are requiring the kind of
documentation that assures them they are they are following OSHA
standards, they are withholding for taxes, they are doing all the
things they must do, while other employers are paying cash under the
table to pad the bottom line. Follow the money, Mr. President.
Employers right now under the current law can serve up to 6 months in
prison. If we would do some of those prosecutions in this country, it
would do more to shut the flow of illegal immigrants, frankly, than all
the legislation we could ever pass in this Chamber because it would
send the message to American employers that they are not going to be
rewarded with more profits by breaking the rules.
There are so many people behind this bill who have hearts that are
full of compassion, and I certainly, Mr. President, think of you and
your family as I make difficult decisions on this bill. But I have to
tell you, there are lots of people behind this bill for whom it is all
about the money. It is all about the profit.
If we want to stop illegal immigration in this country, we have to
get serious about the magnet that is drawing it to our country, and
that is we look the other way when people hire illegal immigrants.
Until we stop looking the other way from those businesses that are not
playing by the rules, we will never effectively deal with immigration
in this country.
I have an amendment that would also bar for a minimum of five years
any company that is found to hire illegal immigrants from participating
in Federal contracts. I hope that will become part of this legislation.
Mr. President, I know there have been enforcement measures added to

[[Page S7290]]

this bill that would increase the fines and jail time for employers who
repeatedly, willfully hire illegal immigrants. But, frankly, 6 months
is plenty if this Administration would only enforce current law. If you
put an owner of a business in jail for 6 months in a Federal
penitentiary for hiring illegal immigrants and let that word go out
across America, you will do more to clean up this problem without
spending another dime of the taxpayers' money than anything else we can
do.
If this President is serious about illegal immigration in this
country, I suggest he call his Attorney General and he say to his
Attorney General--we know they have been given instructions; we have
heard about it in the Judiciary Committee--tell this Attorney General
that we want employers who are hiring illegal immigrants by the
hundreds in this country to be prosecuted under the law and to spend
some time in jail. That would get to the bottom of the problem.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been told that the Republicans are
interested in more amendments. We finished the vote approximately 2
hours 15 minutes ago. We have been trying for that period of time to
get up some Republican amendments. We had four and four, and they would
not agree to that request. We had three and three, and they would not
agree with that request. Then three Republican amendments, two
Democratic amendments, and they would not agree to that request.
I repeat, it is time for the President and his folks to get involved
in this matter. This is the President's bill. This isn't a bill we came
up with. Democrats and Republicans working in unison with the
administration came up with a bill. We want to help. No one has worked
harder on the President's bill than Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and
Salazar. I would sure hope we get some help. We can't have Republican
members vote on it if they won't let us call up amendments.

The distinguished Senator from Alabama is interested in this bill. We
know that. He has spoken long and hard about his opposition to this
legislation. But it is just not appropriate that the minority can have
it both ways. They want these amendments but don't allow us to call
them up. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Come the end of the day,
when we have a cloture vote, they will say: You didn't give us any more
amendments. They didn't get more amendments because they wouldn't let
us call up more amendments. And they have control over that.
So, Mr. President, I think we need to have the record reflect that
this bill isn't going anyplace, but it is not our fault. I repeat: This
is a bill which was negotiated in good faith by Democrats and
Republicans, and it is the President's bill. He says he wants this. Why
can't we get this agreement?
Here are my friends. I see on the floor my distinguished friend from
Alabama. I have told him personally, and I will tell him publicly--and
I have said this before--there are times I don't agree with him, but
with Jeff Sessions, you never have to guess where he stands on an
issue, and I appreciate that. We know where he stands on this issue of
immigration. But having said that, can we do this agreement?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was looking for whoever had it. They
disappeared. And also Senator Grassley has to look at it.
Mr. REID. Well, he is part of the deal here.
Mr. SESSIONS. Good. I think the only disagreement we have is perhaps
time, and I can make a suggestion on that. Is there someone authorized
to talk to me about it? I am looking for Mr. Schiappa.
Mr. REID. If I could say, through the Chair, to my distinguished
friend, we did have this set up so we could vote at 3 o'clock. Senator
Dodd has already spoken; Senator Webb has already spoken. He is part of
the agreement. Senators Grassley, Coleman, and Brownback have not
spoken, so we have put 15 minutes in here for those three Senators. It
should be equally divided, but we can make it----
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield for a
question.
Mr. REID. Be happy to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I direct a question to the Senator from
Alabama.
What would you like on the timing?
Mr. SESSIONS. I think about 45 minutes per amendment. Some of these
amendments are very significant. We have not heard opposition to the
amendments. Maybe some have spoken in favor of them, but I don't agree
with some of the amendments. The amendment of Senator Dodd--I think
there are some important reasons that one is not satisfactory.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Alabama asking for 45 minutes
equally divided for each of the amendments?
Mr. SESSIONS. I am saying that I am not going to be able to support a
lot of amendments that are rushed up here to receive votes when
Senators have very little time to review them. I think this is
important. If we are going through a process just to say we have a
bunch of votes, that is one thing, but I think we need an intelligent
discussion about these amendments.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is obvious we are not going to be able to
complete the President's legislation based on the request of my friend
from Alabama. I took math at Searchlight, NV, Elementary School, where
1 teacher taught all 8 grades, but I can still figure out what 5 times
45 is, and it is a long time--hours. It is approximately 4 hours.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the majority leader yield for a moment?
Mr. REID. Be happy to yield for a request of my friend.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending is the regular order of the
amendment by Senator Dodd, which has been pending since before the
Memorial Day break. So any argument that Members haven't had a chance
to take a look at this amendment--they could have taken it home over
the Memorial Day recess and read it almost every day and be ready to
debate it right now.
I don't want to speak for Senator Dodd--no one could--but I think it
might be appropriate for us to consider that amendment in a shorter
time span.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it has been now 2\1/2\ hours. We have tried
every possible way of getting an amendment up to vote on it. We have
tried this. We have tried that. We have tried this. We have tried that.
We have tried everything.
There are individuals who don't like this bill. The Senate being as
it is, they have a right to object to what we do.
And they are objecting; that is for sure. The objections have been
nonpublic to this point, but it is frustrating because the people who
want to move this bill forward, Democrats and Republicans, are being
thwarted in their effort to do so.
As I have said before, we need to make sure the record is clear we
are not trying to impede the offering of amendments. There have been
some who oppose the legislation and are concerned there hasn't been the
ability to call up amendments and have them pending. But until we
disposed of the 14 pending amendments yesterday, it was thought by most
to be inappropriate to call up more amendments and have, instead of 14
pending amendment, 28 pending amendments. I am going to ask unanimous
consent in a minute that we vote on five amendments. Originally, we
started the day with four on each side. Then we had three Republican
and three Democratic. There was objection to both of those. So I said:
Fine, let's have three Republican and two Democratic. There was
objection.
We thought we had it worked out once, and then the time for debating
these was a lot of time, which is another indication there are some
who, no matter what we do, we can't move forward on this legislation.
I know I am being repetitive, but this is not a Democratic bill. The
Democrats have helped get this bill to where it is.

[[Page S7291]]

The main proponents of this legislation on the Democratic side have
been Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Salazar. On the Republican side,
we have had a number of people work very hard: Senator Specter, Senator
Kyl, and others. I appreciate how hard they have worked. This is a bill
that is bipartisan in nature, supported by the President of the United
States. I wish to help the President. I am not always in a position to
do that. I think I am in a position to do that now, and I have done
everything I can with this piece of legislation to do that. So I will
ask consent that we have a series of votes set up. When I finish that
consent, I will call up some amendments and have them set aside.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:15
p.m. today be for debate with respect to the following amendments; that
the time run concurrently and there be whatever the allocated time is
from now until 4:15 of debate with respect to each amendment, equally
divided and controlled in the usual form, with no amendment to be in
order to any of the amendments covered under this agreement prior to a
vote; that at 4:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each
amendment in the order listed here; that once this agreement is
entered, the amendments that are not pending be reported by number; and
that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided
and controlled; and after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining
votes be 10 minutes in duration.
I would also say, to show what we are trying to do in good faith,
when there was a request on the other side to have a large block of
time, on this side we agreed, 30 minutes, 5 minutes. We want to try to
move this along. Thirty minutes for the proponents and 5 minutes for
those opposed. The amendments are Dodd 1199; Brownback 1160; Webb 1313;
Grassley-Baucus 1441; and Coleman 1473.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I believe there is enough frustration to
go around. I appreciate all the managers of the bill, those on both
sides who have worked to come up with a constructive solution. I feel
compelled to object to this process because our side has not been able
to bring up the amendments we want. They have been carefully selected
by the other side, which ones we are going to vote on. It appears this
whole scene has been choreographed. We had a cloture vote a few hours
ago. We are going to have a few more votes.
Then we are going to have another cloture vote, with, I imagine, the
statement that now they have accommodated us on our amendments. I have
colleagues on the floor who have waited a week to bring up an
amendment.
They have not been able to do so. I believe what we should do is to
submit the amendments we want to bring up en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, is there an objection?
Mr. DeMINT. I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up and set aside: Sessions 1323, Thune 1174,
Baucus-Tester 1236, Menendez 1317, and Sanders 1332.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DeMINT. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. I am sorry. I ask my friend, does he object to calling up
these amendments?
Mr. DeMINT. I think it is important that we decide what amendments
are going to be brought up on our side. I certainly know folks on our
side have been working on this. I don't know about this particular
group of amendments, if they have been selected on our side or yours.
Perhaps there is no problem. But at this moment, I am going to object
to those and then confer with our side to see what the big plan is. At
this point, instead of doing this a little at a time, I think it is
important we know before the next cloture vote that we are going to be
able to bring up the amendments we have been waiting on. Until that
time, I am going to object to additional action on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I would only say to my friend, and those within the sound
of my voice, I didn't come up with these amendments or the numbers.
These were done by the Republicans and the floor staff of the
Republicans, indicating the ones Senators had been waiting on for a
while. We are happy to have a number of other pending amendments, and
we will work with the two managers to see if we can get others. We
thought this was a good place to start. But obviously, some do not
believe it is a good place to start. I am sorry we are not able to move
along. I say in the most positive way, there is good faith on both
sides of the aisle to move this legislation. I, of course, was
disappointed in the earlier cloture vote, but I was told before the
cloture vote took place what was going to happen because there was a
genuine need on the other side for more amendments. I understand that.
I accept that. I am not the judge of what is to be enough. We have
tried hard, and I will keep trying, but I do say everything we have
tried doesn't work. There are people in years past who know more about
Senate floor procedures than I, but I know a little bit. I don't know
of anything I have missed to try to bring up other amendments in a
bipartisan way. There is no one at this stage trying to take advantage
of anyone else.
This is an effort by Democrats and Republicans who want to help the
President get a bill he believes in, for which I have publicly said I
appreciate the President doing this. For me to say this, after all the
battles the President and I have had, is good for the President and for
me. I wish to do something to move this along. The American public
needs the cooperation of Democrats and Republicans, with the President
joining in.
I apologize to everyone for whom we have not been able to figure out
a different way to go forward. We are going to continue to try.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

Stem Cell Research

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, a few minutes ago in the Mansfield Room,
which is right off the Senate floor, we had a very moving ceremony, one
that brought home to so many of us just what we ought to be about as
representatives of the people. It was the enrolling ceremony for the
bill, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, that passed the
House of Representatives a couple of hours ago. In the Senator
Mansfield Room off the Senate floor were Senator Reid, our majority
leader, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, along with Congresswoman
DeGette from Colorado, who has been the prime mover of this legislation
in the House, Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, also a prime mover
in the House. It was Representatives Castle and DeGette who worked
together to get this bill through the House both last year and this
year; also, Congresswoman Capps from California and Congressman Jim
Langevin from Rhode Island.
We had this enrolling ceremony to send the bill to the President.
With us in the room at the time were people who in their own personage
represent so many of the illnesses and diseases that stem cell research
holds so much promise for curing, everything from juvenile diabetes to
Parkinson's, Rett Syndrome, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis,
and so many others were there. You see these little kids and you see
their families, and what they have left is hope. They have hope that
scientists, working collaboratively, will unlock some of these
mysteries, will find the interventions and the cures to so many of
these illnesses and diseases.
I saw there a little girl who had Rett Syndrome, with her mother.
There was another young girl with juvenile diabetes, thinking about
what her life is

[[Page S7292]]

going to be like. We know stem cell research holds hope that scientists
can unravel some of these mysteries. Those of us who have been involved
in at least the legislative end of stem cell research, through all the
hearings we have had going clear back to 1998 when the first embryonic
stem cells were derived in Wisconsin, we know the great advances that
have been made. We know how close we are to having some wonderful
breakthroughs.
Yet on August 9, 2001, President Bush, in his first year in office,
spoke to the Nation--I remember it very well--and limited the number of
stem cell lines that could be investigated by Federal researchers or
through the auspices of the National Institutes of Health. They might
not be Federal employees. They could be researchers at the University
of Minnesota, the University of California, or the University of Iowa,
but they would be getting grants from the National Institutes of Health
for biomedical research. On August 9, 2001, the President basically
said we are going to limit the number of stem cell lines.
We thought at the time maybe 75 lines were enough. Then it turned out
there were 20 some lines, then fewer than that. Then we found out later
every single one of these stem cell lines was contaminated because they
had been grown in a medium with mouse cells. So they are contaminated.
None of them will ever be used for any kind of human intervention.
Since that time, we have worked to overcome this Presidential fiat,
if you will, one person, the President of the United States, being able
to limit the expenditures of Federal money for stem cell research. Here
I give my utmost praise and thanks to Senator Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania. He has been stalwart, first in his chairmanship of the
Appropriations Committee that funds biomedical research. He was the
first one to have congressional hearings on embryonic stem cell
research. I believe we have had 20-some hearings since then. I was his
ranking member and, of course, now I am Chair and he is my ranking
member. But we have worked hand in glove all these years to overcome
this Presidential fiat that limits, that put shackles on the scientists
who want to unlock these mysteries, who want to work to help cure
diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal
cord injuries.
I can remember once when my good friend--now he is deceased--
Christopher Reeve, whom we all remember as Superman, the first
Superman, had a severe spinal cord injury and he labored hard all the
time for overcoming the President's order of August 9, 2001. He worked
so hard to try to get a stem cell bill passed.
One time, we had seen a film of a mouse--actually a rat, sorry, a
rat--whose spinal cord had been severely damaged. There were pictures
of this rat that couldn't walk--only with its front feet; its back feet
were totally paralyzed--treated with stem cells, and the rat then
walked. That was when Christopher Reeve uttered his famous line: ``Oh,
to be a rat.'' Or as I said at the time, we are actually about 99
percent rat. I don't mean politicians, I mean humans, genetically, DNA-
wise. And if that could be done there, then there is so much hope that
can be investigated and taken on in trying to cure severe spinal cord
injuries, for example.

It was a very moving ceremony, looking at the faces of the mothers
and the fathers, the children who were there, and thinking that this is
what we ought to be doing. We ought to be giving them the hope that we
are going to employ our best minds, our best science to heal the sick--
to heal the sick. I think and I hope that is one of the primary reasons
for government, for our government--to help alleviate human suffering
wherever we find it. So I am hopeful that the President will change his
mind about his thoughts on vetoing this bill.
As you all know, we passed this bill last year. I might add that this
bill was passed with the House and Senate under Republican control,
sent to the President, and he vetoed it. Well, we did not have the
votes to override the veto. But we said we would be back under a new
Congress, and we did come back. The Senate passed a bill a couple of
months ago, in April.
I might add, if you add up all of the votes--and there were some
people missing, but if you added up all the votes with those who were
for the bill and those against it, basically we had 66 votes in favor
of this bill. That is one vote shy of enough to override. If I am not
mistaken, I believe we had 18 Republican Senators. So this is not a
partisan issue. It is not partisan. The same in the House. One of the
leaders in the House is Mike Castle of Delaware, a Republican, and I
mentioned Senator Arlen Specter, one of our great Republican leaders in
the Senate on biomedical research.
I guess you have to wonder why it would be that just one person, the
President of the United States, has the power to deny so much hope to
so many people. I am hopeful the President will reexamine his thoughts,
listen to the kinder voices of his nature, and listen to those around
him who understand this legislation has strong ethical guidelines. This
bill has stricter ethical guidelines on stem cell research than is
existing in law today.
I might also add that the President has made it clear there was one
moral line he would not cross. He said Federal tax dollars should not
be used to destroy embryos. Well, we expressly crafted this bill, S. 5,
to ensure that it does not lift the existing Federal ban on using
Federal funding to destroy embryos. We have fully addressed the
President's No. 1 concern. As I said, S. 5, the bill that was just
enrolled and sent to the President, imposes stricter ethical
requirements than exist today.
We tried to meet the President halfway. Isn't that what this is
about--the art of compromise? Maybe he is not all right all the time,
maybe we are not, so we try to meet halfway. Last year, when the bill
passed the Senate floor, there was a Specter-Santorum provision that
was not put in the bill. The President said he was in favor of that. So
we put it in the bill. That provision promotes alternative ways of
deriving stem cells. The President last year said he endorsed that.
Here is his chance to sign it and make it a law, along with a bill that
has stricter ethical guidelines than what exist today.
I see no reason, no ethical reason, no logical reason why the
President would once again veto this bill. It is not the same bill he
vetoed last year. It is a different bill. We put in the Specter-
Santorum language. We put in the ethical guidelines. I want to make it
clear this bill we will send to the President has requirements that are
very strict.
First, the only way a stem cell line can be eligible for federally
funded research is, No. 1, if it were derived from an embryo that was
otherwise going to be discarded.
What do I mean by that? Well, there are about 400,000 embryos right
now frozen in in vitro fertilization clinics. The moms and dads have
had all the children they want, they no longer need any more of the
embryos, and so those embryos are going to be discarded. It happens
every day at fertility clinics all over America. All we are saying is,
instead of discarding them, let's allow a couple to donate those, if
they wish, to create stem cell lines that can cure diseases and save
lives. Throw them away or use them to ease suffering. It is the second
choice--use them to ease suffering--that I believe is the truly moral
pathway and truly respectful of human life.
Think about it. Think about a couple who has used in vitro
fertilization to have a family. Over 50,000 children are born every
year to couples who otherwise would be infertile. Let's say the couple
has had the kids they want to have but there are leftover embryos. The
couple's only choice now is to continue to pay the IVF clinic to keep
them frozen in nitrogen for all their lives, and perhaps when they die
they will be thrown away, or to throw them away. Those are the only two
choices. Why not give a couple the choice of saying to the IVF clinic,
you can take the leftover embryos we have and donate them to science
for embryonic stem cell research.

Some people might say, maybe then people will get into the business
of paying couples--paying them to donate embryos, embryo farming and
all of that, which we have heard about. We have covered that in the
bill. We have strict ethical guidelines. No. 1, no money or any other
consideration can be given to a couple for donating embryonic stem
cells. No money or any other consideration. It must be strictly
voluntary. And the donors have to give

[[Page S7293]]

their informed written consent. The last ethical guideline is that
these embryos that are donated can only be used for embryonic stem cell
derivation and nothing else.
As I said, these are stricter guidelines than exist today. So why
wouldn't we allow couples who have had their family, rather than saying
throw them away, why not allow them to be able to donate them for the
kind of research that will ease human suffering and lead to cures?
There is overwhelming support across the country for this
legislation. Some 525 different groups have endorsed this bill--patient
advocacy groups, religious groups, health organizations, scientific
societies, and universities. They know it holds hope, hope for people
with Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries,
heart disease, people with diabetes, and people with cancer.
This is not just us saying that. Don't just take our word for it. In
March of this year, in front of our committee, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the
Director of the National Institutes of Health--keep in mind he is the
head person of all of the Federal biomedical research, Dr. Zerhouni,
head of the NIH--appeared before our committee. I asked him whether
scientists would have a better chance of finding new cures and
treatments if the administration's current restrictions on embryonic
stem cell research were lifted. Dr. Zerhouni said, unequivocally, yes.
Keep in mind, Dr. Zerhouni is the Federal Government's top scientist
in the area of medical research. He was appointed by President Bush to
his present position. So I think it took great courage on Dr.
Zerhouni's part to say in public that his boss had it wrong on stem
cell research. But I know Dr. Zerhouni. He is a preeminent scientist;
the greatest doctor, and I know that he knows--he has so stated it--
that we must move ahead on embryonic stem cell research. Here is what
he said, and let me quote him:

It is clear today that American science would be better
served and the Nation would be better served if we let our
scientists have access to more stem cell lines. It is in the
best interest of our scientists, our science, and our country
that we find ways and the Nation finds a way to allow the
science to go full speed across adult and embryonic stem
cells equally.

Well, Madam President, we must move forward. We must move forward. I
just hope the President will sign this bill. But I can assure you, on
behalf of the hundreds of millions of Americans who suffer from
different kinds of diseases that have the potential--the potential--to
be cured through embryonic stem cell research, if the President vetoes
it, we will be back, and we will back again and again and again. This
issue is not going to go away. We are going to keep hope alive for
people with spinal cord injuries, with Parkinson's disease, and with so
many others.
We don't require astronomers to examine the skies at night with
Galileo's telescope. We don't tell our geologists to study the Earth
with a tape measure. Are we really serious about unlocking the
mysteries of stem cells and all of the things that we have seen happen
with stem cells? We have already seen stem cells that have
differentiated into motor neuron cells, nerve cells, and heart muscle
cells. We have already seen this take place. Now it is just a matter of
more science, getting more of our smartest scientists involved in this
to take the next step and the next step and the next step so that
someone suffering from Parkinson's disease will have a cure. I believe
it is possible. From all the scientists I have talked to, I believe it
is possible, and it could be possible in our lifetimes.
A Nobel prize winner, the discoverer of the double helix of our DNA,
Dr. Jim Watson, said to me not too long ago: With all that we have done
in unraveling the mystery of the human gene--we have mapped and
sequenced the entire human genome--with that and with these new
breakthroughs in finding that embryonic stem cells can differentiate,
we can take them and differentiate them into different tissues--if our
scientists are allowed to really go at this full speed, medicine 50
years from now, as it is practiced, will make it look like what we are
doing today as being in the dark ages. That is the hope and the promise
of embryonic stem cell research. It should not be that one person, the
President of the United States, can stop this from going forward.

With this enrolling ceremony we had today and the focus of the Nation
on this, all I can ask is: President Bush, listen to the better angels
of your nature. Think about all those who are suffering in our society
who need this hope and the scientists who can work together,
collaboratively, to find the interventions and the cures for so many
diseases--think about this before you put pen to paper and veto this
bill. So much rides on this. But as I said, if the President does veto
it, we will be back, again and again. This is not going to stop. We are
going to lift this ban, and we are going to move ahead with embryonic
stem cell research.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Iowa,
Senator Harkin, for his tremendous work and advocacy that has gotten us
to this place today, a very important day that he talked about, where
the House of Representatives voted to pass the embryonic stem cell
research bill, joining the Senate. That bill is now on its way to the
President's desk.
It is because of the work of Senator Harkin over the years and his
advocacy and his not giving up that we are here today. I am very proud
to join him on the floor to urge the President, now, to do the right
thing.
The House of Representatives today, in voting for this bill, offered
hope to millions of Americans in supporting embryonic stem cell
research. There is now one person who can make this decision for
millions of Americans and that is the President of the United States.
He has a choice. He can stand with so many people who are looking for
that desperately needed cure or he will stand against them. I hope,
similar to my colleague from Iowa, the President pauses, thinks about
the lives he holds in his hands and makes the right choice and signs
the bill for embryonic stem cell research.
This is an issue I know personally. I grew up in a family of nine. My
dad was a wonderful, physically active human being. He served our
Nation in World War II; raising his children. He was a strong man. In
my eyes when I was growing up, he was indestructible, but when I turned
15 years old, things changed dramatically in my life and my dad's life.
My dad was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. That is a horrific
disease, for anyone who is not familiar with it. It wasn't long until
he could no longer walk, he was in a wheelchair and required my mother
to take care of him full time.
It was a very difficult time for my family. We had to watch my dad
deteriorate physically. We had to watch as my mom returned to work. She
was on welfare for a while and finally was able to get some schooling
and get a job. But she had to work, take care of my dad, and raise all
seven kids.
We all hoped a cure one day would be found for my dad and people like
him. You never lose hope when something such as this happens to you. It
is essential to dealing with what you have been handed. But we were
also realistic. Scientists didn't have any promising leads, doctors
said there wasn't much they could do, there was no cure on the horizon,
there was nothing to hinge our hope on when I was growing up. But now
we have a chance finally to offer families across this country hope,
opportunity, a chance for a cure.
It is time for President Bush to stop his obstruction and to stop
saying no to cures and to stop saying no to hope for families such as
mine.
Unfortunately, we know since being elected, President Bush has
blocked robust federally funded research on embryonic stem cells.
Originally, he told us there would be 78 stem cell lines available for
study. In truth, there were only 21, far fewer than scientists say are
needed for this research.
Even the Director of the National Institutes of Health, as Senator
Harkin talked about, who was appointed by President Bush, said: ``It is
clear today that American science would be better served, and the
Nation would be better served, if we let our scientists have access to
more cell lines. . . .''
The President refused to heed that advice from the scientific
community

[[Page S7294]]

or his own Director of the National Institutes of Health. He did so--
why? To pacify the ideological views of a few in his political base.
What he did by blocking that was to force millions of Americans who
suffer from many ailments to put their hope on hold and to stand idly
by and watch as a family member's condition worsened.
Besides putting the hopes of millions of people on hold, the
President's action actually pushed stem cell research overseas. Our
country, which has been known as the world leader in medicine and in
scientific research, is now falling behind other countries in this
field.
Reuters recently reported that British scientists, with funding from
an American who was upset with President Bush's actions, were using
embryonic stem cell research to cure some forms of blindness.
Our country must remain at the forefront of innovation. Institutions
such as the University of Washington, in my home State, have to have
the ability to compete with organizations in other countries. This
President has denied that.
The bill that has been sent to the President today is on its way to
his desk. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 allows the
Department of Health and Human Services to finally begin robust
research on embryonic stem cells from frozen embryos, embryos, it is
important to note, that would otherwise be discarded.
That bill also promotes research into funding alternative ways to
derive stem cells from embryos, and it does these things while it
imposes strict ethical guidelines, as all of us have insisted upon. In
fact, the standards in the legislation that is on its way to the
President's desk today are more stringent than even the President's own
policy.
Most important, though, the legislation we want this President to
sign takes hope off hold for millions of Americans. We all know the
President has threatened to once again veto this legislation, as he did
last year. I am here today, and I hope he hears me, to say: Please
don't do that.
There are millions of sick Americans and their families who are
watching and waiting and praying and hoping he signs this bill. If he
vetoes this bill, he will likely claim, as he did last year, the
legislation is unnecessary since researching adult stem cells, which he
supports, is as promising as studying embryonic stem cells.
Similar to last year, he would be wrong. Scientists say embryonic
cells, which can be used to grow any type of human or cell tissue, show
the most promise. They offer the most hope.
I have lived with someone with a serious illness. I have seen the
suffering that happens, personally, to their families, and to everyone
around them. I know how hard it can be. We must not block the discovery
of cures for these people. We must not block their hope. Today, at
least 17 million Americans suffer from diabetes. At least 500,000
Americans suffer from Parkinson's, 250,000 Americans suffer from
multiple sclerosis, and 250,000 have spinal cord injuries, including, I
would add, many veterans of the Iraq war. All these Americans, and many
others who suffer from a variety of conditions, will stand to benefit
from embryonic stem cell research.
Finally, today, in sending this bill to the President, this Congress
is offering a chance to families across the country to have hope, to
have an opportunity, to have a chance for a cure. I hope President Bush
hears their calls, picks up that pen, stops his obstruction, stops
saying no to cures, and signs his name to the legislation. We are all
watching.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, before I say a word on immigration
reform, I would like to add a closing word to the comments of the
Senator from Washington and the Senator from Iowa.
Just as Senator Murray has talked about her own family experiences
with her dad and mom and all, my own mom passed away about 2 years ago.
She had had Alzheimer's disease for a number of years. Her mother had
Alzheimer's, her grandmother had Alzheimer's, and last year my mother's
younger sister, 10 years her junior, was admitted to a residential
facility in Huntington, VA, where she has Alzheimer's disease as well.
This is one that strikes close to the heart for us and our family as it
does for you and literally for millions of families across the country.
Thank you for your great leadership and that of Senator Harkin and Mike
Castle, my own Congressman, who has been a stalwart in these efforts.
I would like to return to an issue we have been focused on in the
Senate in the last couple weeks and that is what we do to secure our
borders, what to do to make sure employers are not knowingly hiring
illegal aliens, at least not without penalty if they do, and what are
we going to do about the 12 million or so people here undocumented,
roughly 60 percent of whom came here illegally. What are we going to do
about all of that?
For a while this afternoon, it looked like we might not do anything.
For a while this afternoon, it looked like we may basically finish up
without taking any kind of definitive action and having debated these
issues for a couple of weeks, as we did last year for several weeks, to
go home without having taken definitive steps. I am told that
negotiations are going on, even as I speak, which would allow us to
come back into session, for our Republican friends to offer 10 more
amendments, for our side to offer 10 more on top of the 45 or so that
already have been offered and voted on. That would take us to 65
amendments. That is a lot of amendments on any piece of legislation. I
realize this is a contentious one, but at some point in time I think it
is fair to say we have had an opportunity for people to say this is
what I think we should do and for people to offer their countervailing
views, but I think it is time to move on.
My view is the worst thing we can do is, frankly, do nothing. I don't
believe the status quo is acceptable, the status quo, which last summer
found as many as 10,000 people coming across our borders illegally
every week, mostly coming for work. Some could have been criminals, who
knows? Maybe there was a terrorist or two in those numbers. But for us
to go home not having dealt definitively with that problem, with that
challenge, is a big mistake.
A country such as ours--any country but especially a country such as
ours--has to be able to secure our borders. I read some information
provided by some folks in Washington, a think tank in Washington, who
looked back at the number of employers who were sanctioned for
knowingly hiring illegal aliens in the last several years. The comment
was made--I don't know if the Presiding Officer saw this--the comment
was made that a person in the last several years had a greater chance
of being eaten by an alligator in this country than, if you were an
employer hiring illegal aliens, being caught.
That may sound like a stretch, but it is not much of a stretch. We
actually saw the number of people prosecuted under the law in the last
6 years dropping by some 30 percent below what it was in the last
decade.
We were not enforcing the laws against employers. We need to do that.
There are sanctions in laws and they need to be applied. Those laws
need to be enforced.
Sort of a question remains: How about all those people who are here
without--who are not here legally? They may have come here legally and
their visas expired and they stayed on. But when you add those to the
folks who came across the borders illegally, it totals some 12 million
people. I can understand the views of some folks in my State, and maybe
in Minnesota and other places around this country--Washington, Iowa--
that we ought to simply put them all on buses and send them home. I can
understand how people would feel that way.
I would say I don't know how realistic that is. But the idea of
providing some way for them to stay here and work, under a condition of
probation, to be able to work over a number of years toward a legal
status--before we countenance doing that, before we go down that path,
I believe it is critical that, No. 1, we enforce and secure our
borders.
Second, that we make sure those folks who are knowingly hiring
illegal aliens, that we prosecute them with every ounce of energy we
have under the law.

[[Page S7295]]

With respect to the enforcement of our borders and the securing of
our borders, let me just mention a couple of things that this
legislation requires us to do and to question whether that makes sense,
whether that is sufficient. We have thousands of Border Patrol
personnel arrayed on the Nation's borders, from the Pacific coast, west
coast, San Diego, all the way across to the gulf coast, a couple-
thousand-mile border.
The legislation that is before us today basically says we are going
to double the number of Border Patrol personnel. They have to be better
trained and better equipped. Today we are supplementing their numbers
with the National Guard. And as an old Governor who once was commander
in chief of our National Guard in Delaware, I am all for continuing to
deploy those assets as well to secure our borders, to supplement our
Border Patrol personnel.
However, those Border Patrol personnel have to be better trained.
They have to be better equipped. We have technology today that,
frankly, we did not have 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago to deploy along the
borders. We have unmanned aircraft that can be flown, aircraft that can
see for miles, aircraft that can see in good weather like today,
aircraft that can see when people are moving on the ground when it is
nighttime, aircraft that can see when it is foggy, aircraft that can
see through the rain. We have that capability today. We did not have it
then.
We have the capability with surveillance cameras to look long
distances, in all kinds of weather conditions, day and night, to detect
the movement of people toward our borders. We have the equipment. This
legislation says we have to deploy it and we have to use it and we have
to fund it. We have the ability to provide ID, identification, for
people applying for jobs in this country, identification that is
largely tamper proof. Ten years ago we may not have had the capability.
We have the capability today. If I were an employer, I would take great
solace in knowing that the identification being presented to me was
genuine, was real, had not been tampered with, and to know that I could
trust the technology. This legislation seeks to make sure that
employers have that confidence.
I believe one of the major problems in this country in recent years
that has led to a greater influx of folks coming here illegally is,
when we catch them at the border, if they happen to be from Mexico,
frequently our Border Patrol personnel take those people back to the
border across into Mexico.
However, if the folks we catch at the border, if they are not from
Mexico--Guatemala, Honduras, other countries to the south, if we
capture those people, we take them to a detention center. We have been
taking them to detention centers for several years. If we have ample
space in the detention center, bed capacity, if you will, the folks are
basically registered, charged, and have the opportunity to argue
whether they are here as refugees, whether they are being politically
persecuted, persecuted for their religious beliefs.
However, for too long when we have captured people not from Mexico
and we take them to detention centers, they do not have enough beds.
They cannot book these folks, hold them, retain them in custody because
they just do not have the capacity. So what do we do? Well, we
basically register them, find out who they are, as best we can, and
then we essentially release them on their own recognizance and say:
Come back in 2 months, 3 months for a hearing. Surprise, surprise. We
never see them again. They just disappear. They melt into the fabric of
the communities across this country.
For the most part they get jobs and go to work, stay out of trouble.
But the idea that people can come in illegally like that, and once
captured not be detained, for us not to find out if they are here as
refugees, that is wrong. It is especially wrong if you happen to be
somebody who is trying to come here legally, not for a couple of months
but for years waiting in line patiently, abiding by the law.
Meanwhile other folks come into this country whom we capture and
essentially release to become workers in this country. That is wrong.
In terms of equity, that is basically unfair. It says to people trying
to play by the rules: You're foolish. You're foolish. It sends
absolutely the wrong message.
That is one of the reasons amnesty is not the answer either. It sends
the same kind of message to people who have been waiting to come here
for a long time. It says: You are foolish for playing by the rules. It
is why amnesty is no good. And the idea of us simply releasing people
on their own recognizance because we do not have bed capacity in these
detention centers makes no sense as well.
With respect to employers knowingly hiring illegal aliens and our not
prosecuting them under the law--unacceptable. When we have employers
who know that the man or woman they are hiring is not here legally,
that the documentation paperwork that is being presented to them is
false, it is unacceptable that that employer is allowed to do that, to
continue to do that, week after week, month after month, year after
year. That think tank which told me recently that the chances of a
person being eaten by an alligator were greater than a person being
prosecuted under the law, whether that is true or not, we know this:
Too few employers have been prosecuted.
One of the best ways to send a chilling message back home to folks
who are thinking about coming here is, one, make sure if they get
caught they go to a detention center. If they are not here as a
refugee, they are going to go home. And the time they serve in the
detention center is not going to be pleasant.
The best way to deter, to put a chilling effect on those who come
across illegally is to make sure that employers know if they hire
folks, they are going to pay a severe price. That sends a strong
message to those who otherwise would take a chance and come here.
The last thing I would mention is what to do about all of those
people here who are undocumented. If there are 12 million, if some 60
percent of them are folks who came across the border illegally, if the
other 40 percent who are people who came here legally stayed beyond the
time they were allowed to stay here, and now they are here illegally,
although they came legally in the first place, what do we do with all
of those people?
The legislation we have before us that we are debating and we have
been amending for the last 2 weeks says: If you came here legally and
stayed beyond your time, or if you came here illegally, we want you to
step out of the shadows. You have to register with the Government. You
have basically one chance to do that. If you do that, take advantage of
this opportunity, and you are willing to meet the conditions--I think,
tough conditions, a multiyear period of what I would call probation--
those people can work their way toward legal status. It might take 8
years, it might take more. But for folks who have been here for a
while, they have worked, they have been good workers, they have paid
taxes, they have stayed out of trouble with the law, under this
legislation if they are willing to continue to work, continue to pay
taxes, pay any back taxes that are owed, pay a very significant fine,
thousands of dollars in fines, learn English, learn about the history
of our country, and so forth, if they are willing to do those things,
they have a chance to work toward a legal status not in 8 weeks, not in
8 months, but in as long as 8 years.

If they are not willing to live by the conditions that are laid out
in this legislation, they are out of luck. They will not have a chance
to ever have the kind of legal status that they otherwise would have.
Let me close, if I can, by saying I do not know if the Presiding
Officer remembers this, but during orientation for new Senators last
November, when I was privileged to spend some time with our newly
elected Senators, I mentioned one of the things we do in my Senate
office back home is we try to do a good job on constituent service.
We actually keep track. I get reports every week on how we are doing
on constituent services. We do a monthly survey for the people we serve
through constituent services. They can evaluate our services:
excellent, good, fair, poor. And I have a great staff. They get, for
the most part, excellent and good marks. About 95 percent of them are
excellent and good. We are very proud of the work they do.
In the weekly reports I have received for weeks now, actually for
months

[[Page S7296]]

now, each weekly report from my head of constituent services starts off
with an update on a person who came to this country legally, I think
from Greece, who was an older woman, I think in her midseventies, who
came here to see, I think, her son, maybe a daughter-in-law, who
apparently has dementia, who ended up being hospitalized, essentially
abandoned by her son, and ended up in a hospital for treatment.
She needed hospitalization and treatment for less than a week for her
condition. Less than a week. Unfortunately, no one was there to take
care of her, to look after her, to be responsible for her. She stayed
in that hospital not for a couple of days, not for a week, more than a
month--actually I think for more than 2 months.
How much did it cost? It cost that hospital about a quarter of a
million dollars because that hospital in Dover, DE, essentially had to
eat the cost of that hospitalization.
The last week or so I understand that the daughter-in-law has stepped
forward. This woman who has her documentation, apparently arrangements
have been made with folks back in Greece to take her back. The hospital
has bought tickets, and I am told they are going to fly this elderly
woman back to Greece. Her daughter-in-law is going to take her.
Hopefully the paperwork is being arranged for the woman to be received
by her own family back in Greece.
I would like to say that is probably the only time that has happened
in this country this year or last year or the year before.
Unfortunately, it is not. And it is unfortunate that a lot of times it
is a failure of us at the Federal level to enforce our borders, to
secure our borders, as in this case, when people stay beyond their
limited period of time, has led to a situation that has cost this
hospital a ton of money. There are probably other hospital facilities
that it has cost a lot of money.
It is being borne by other people in my State who paid for their
health care, and oftentimes State and local governments end up picking
up the tab for what really is a failure at the Federal level. It is not
right. It is unfair. This legislation would begin to address that.
Let me close with this thought. Last year, when we debated for a long
time immigration reform, passed from here a pretty good bill for
immigration reform, I remember when I talked about the legislation, I
always used the words, ``tough,'' ``smart,'' ``comprehensive.'' That is
what I believed and said again and again and again that that is what we
needed to do in terms of our work on immigration reform--tough, smart,
comprehensive.
I still think that applies. I would add to that maybe a couple of
other terms. One of those is ``fair.'' The ``fair'' that I am thinking
of is the ``fair'' to taxpayers in this country. What we pass here
ought to be fair to taxpayers, not just Federal taxpayers but State and
local folks, including hospitals, and people who are running hospitals
and funding hospitals around this country; fair to American workers.
The idea that people are coming here and taking away jobs in some
instances, too many instances, from people who are willing and able to
do the work is not acceptable. The idea of having a large guest worker
program like the President has envisioned, in my view, is not
acceptable.
We obviously are going to have some kind of guest worker program, but
not on the magnitude that this President has sought, but tough, smart,
comprehensive, and fair--fair to taxpayers, fair to American workers.
The last point I would add is practical. As I said earlier in my
comments, as much as I can understand the desire to round up 12 million
people who are here undocumented, put them in planes, buses, whatever,
and send them home, I can understand the rationale, the feeling to do
that, but, my friends, it is just not practical. What we have to do is
find a way for them to come out of the shadows. If they do not abide by
the law, take them home. But if they are willing to work hard, pay
taxes, stay out of trouble, learn English, learn our customs and our
laws, they can have a chance over time, for a long period of time,
multiple periods of years to work toward a documented legal status. I
think that is the right approach. And, hopefully, sometime in the next
hour or two we will reconvene on the Senate floor, and those Senators
who have amendments on the Republican side and the Democratic side will
have the opportunity to offer even more than the 45 that we already
offered and disposed of.
Once we have done that, sometime maybe tonight we will have an
opportunity to vote to begin to draw to an end the debate on this
legislation.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Stem Cell Research

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today this Congress is once again taking
an important step forward toward creating a better future for America.
Earlier today the House of Representatives passed the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act, a bill the Senate passed in April. Along with
the first minimum wage increase in over 10 years and a fiscally
responsible budget, this is yet another accomplishment for the American
people which this Congress has been able to achieve.
This bill will expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell
research, a type of stem cell research that holds great promise for
millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases such as
heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. It has been over
5 years since the Senate began discussing stem cell research, 5 years
of discussion, 5 years of searching for answers and, most importantly,
5 years of hope that one day our country would make a much needed
change in policy for the health of all of its people.
Today we stand at the brink of an historic opportunity to reestablish
our country as a global leader in biomedical science and reaffirm our
dedication to curing some of the greatest sources of human suffering.
We are here with the support of over 500 well-respected organizations,
including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health
Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the March of
Dimes, and Parkinson's Action Network. These organizations represent
scientists, doctors, religious entities and, most importantly, American
patients and their loved ones.
Unfortunately, President Bush has once again publicly stated he
intends to veto this bill. This is a bill both Houses of Congress on a
bipartisan basis have passed for 2 years in a row, a bill that
continues to be supported by a majority of the American people. But it
is also a bill President Bush has already vetoed.
For the President to reject this legislation again is to take another
step backward, away from the possibility of lifesaving medical
breakthroughs and dash the hopes of millions who depend on the untapped
promise of medical research. Time is precious for those who suffer from
debilitating disease and for their loved ones who suffer with them. The
lack of Federal support for embryonic stem cell research may cost many
Americans the chance for a cure, a treatment, and a better life. Our
country is in a position to do the right thing. This President has done
something no other President has done before him; that is, to ban
Federal funding of a certain level of medical research--in this case,
research involving embryonic stem cells--to close off Federal funding
that could open opportunities for cures for diseases.
The argument made by the President is that these embryonic stem cells
should not be used for this type of research. These stem cells are
generated, of course, in the process of in vitro fertilization for
couples who have difficulty conceiving a child they want to love and
rear. They go to a laboratory and spend an enormous amount of money in
the hopes of having that baby that is the object of their dreams. The
day may finally come. But in that process, embryonic stem cells that
are

[[Page S7297]]

generated may be lost, discarded, unused. How can it make any sense for
us, how can this reflect compassion for us to say it is better to throw
away these stem cells and discard them rather than to use them for
research which can bring life and hope and spare people of their
suffering?
Congress has shown the political will, and the passage of S. 5 is the
way to do the right thing. I hope President Bush will not veto this
bill. If he does, listening to a vocal minority, he will be
disregarding the health of our country and the hopes of so many
suffering today. It is time for America to move forward in medical
research, to find the cures that will give us a brighter tomorrow.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1563
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today a piece of legislation is being sent
from this Congress to the President dealing with stem cell research
called the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
On the way to the White House is a piece of legislation called the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Now, I know there are some who say:
Well, what does this mean to our lives? Well, the research in stem
cells is some of the most promising research in medicine we have seen
in our lifetimes. We have a lot of people in this country today who are
suffering. They suffer from dread diseases. They suffer from
Alzheimer's. They suffer from Parkinson's disease, cancer, heart
disease, diabetes--so many ailments and so many difficulties.
Research occurs in this country to try to address these issues and
find cures, to unlock the mystery of these diseases. One of the most
promising areas of research has been stem cell research.
Now, the President has indicated he does not support Federal funding
for certain kinds of research in stem cells. He says he will veto this
legislation. I hope he changes his mind. He has a right to veto the
legislation. We then would try to override the veto. But I think it
will be a significant setback if the President vetoes the legislation.
This legislation deals only with a specific area in stem cell
research. It deals only with stem cells from embryos that were created
for fertility purposes by the in vitro fertilization process. Those
embryos that are created in the in vitro fertilization clinics--they
create more of those embryos than are needed, and then they throw them
away if they are not needed.
We have had about 1 million people walking on this Earth now in the
last 25 years who were conceived, in many cases, in a test tube or a
petri dish in the process of in vitro fertilization--nearly a million
people. It was big news when the first such conception occurred, but
now it is relatively routine for those couples who are unable to
conceive to go through in vitro fertilization and conceive. When doing
that, there are embryos created--a sperm and an egg create an embryo; a
fertilized egg creates an embryo--and there are more embryos created
from the in vitro fertilization process than are used. Some are then
stored frozen. After a period of time, when it is clear they are not
going to be used, they are simply discarded. They are thrown away.
The piece of legislation that goes to the President, saying let us
proceed with additional research, deals only with those embryos that
otherwise would be thrown away. These are the embryos that could be
used instead for this critical area of research. Rather than throwing
the in vitro fertilization embryos in the garbage, it is much more life
affirming, I think, to use them to better understand and to treat some
of the devastating diseases and illnesses--diabetes, heart disease,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's.
I know there is great passion about this issue. Often, the issue is
cast in terms of: When does life begin? But that is not about this
debate on this bill. These are embryos that are about to be discarded
and could instead be used to search for the cure for these diseases and
to enhance life, to extend life.
I am sure there are desks in this Chamber--perhaps every desk--
occupied by someone who knows a friend, a loved one, a neighbor, an
acquaintance who is suffering today from one of these awful diseases.
A former colleague of ours asked a question. I wish to put it up on a
chart because it is such an interesting way to address this issue. One
of our former colleagues, former Senator Jack Danforth, from Missouri,
who is also an ordained Episcopal priest--he was a Senator, yes, but is
an ordained Episcopal priest as well--here is what he said about this
issue. He says:

It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish
are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible
diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only
explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish
to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine
into statutory law.

Senator Danforth is a Republican, an ordained Episcopal priest--
interesting person and legislator. I served with him in the Senate, and
I think he puts it well.
Nancy Reagan says:

Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell
research, which may provide our scientists with answers that
have so long been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we
can turn our backs on this--there are just so many diseases
that can be cured, or at least helped. We have lost so much
time already, and I just really can't bear to lose any more.

Nancy Reagan. We know, of course, her husband, the late Ronald
Reagan, suffered from Alzheimer's disease. In fact, he sent a message
to America in which he announced he was suffering from Alzheimer's
disease. He entered into a long period of darkness from this terrible
disease that is affecting more and more people in our country.
There are about 400,000 embryos frozen in in vitro fertilization
clinics. It is estimated that about 8,000 to 11,000 of these embryos
are going to be discarded, thrown away. This debate is about whether we
should, with the consent of those who own those embryos--or from whom
those embryos were created, with their consent--whether we should use
these embryos that would otherwise be discarded for research that has
the potential to cure diseases and save lives.
There is a young woman in North Dakota. She has recently come to
Washington, DC, with her mother. She is a young woman who suffers from
diabetes--a very significant form of diabetes. She has had a pretty
aggressive time dealing with it. Her name is Camille--Camille Johnson.
This is a picture of Camille, with her clarinet and her two friends who
play in a middle school band. Camille has nearly lost her life on more
than one occasion as a result of having to battle this disease. Her
mother Andi and Camille have told me it is fine to use her picture
because she has worked very aggressively in the juvenile diabetes area
to try to address these issues and say to the Congress: Won't you
please--won't you please--give us the opportunity to proceed with stem
cell research to unlock the mysteries of these terrible diseases?
So there are thousands--there are millions--of Camilles and people
with different names, young and old, who rely on this Congress and rely
on this President to do the right thing.
This is a quote from Dr. Elias Zerhouni, who is the Director of the
National Institutes of Health for this administration. He says:

From my standpoint, it is clear today that American science
will be better served, and our nation better served, if we
let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines.

That is from the President's own adviser on these issues. Yet the
President says he is going to veto this legislation.
I care deeply about this issue for a lot of reasons. I lost a
beautiful 23-year-old daughter to heart disease, and I decided, not
just for her sake but for the sake of others in my family who are gone
as a result of devastating diseases, that we must do everything--
everything--possible to find a way to cure these terrible diseases that
take so many lives. Some say: Well, you

[[Page S7298]]

don't have to use these embryos. There are other things much more
promising, such as adult stem cells. There are adult stem cells you can
use. The fact is, we have been working on adult stem cell research for
decades--for decades. Yet, while I support that, it doesn't show nearly
the promise that embryonic stem cells show in the ability to respond to
some of these diseases.

Let me go through just a couple of them. One day, I was on an
airplane, and I was talking to a man who is called the father of the
Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins. He told me of some
fascinating research that is going on. They induced heart attacks in
mice, severe heart attacks in mice, and I believe, as I recall, there
were a dozen and a half or two dozen mice in which they induced severe
heart attacks. Then they extracted stem cells and invested those stem
cells back into the heart muscle of those very same mice, and in a
matter of weeks, a good number of those mice--in fact, I think the
majority of those mice--had no evidence of a damaged heart. These were
hearts which had been severely damaged, and in a matter of weeks, the
investment of stem cells that could build new heart muscle, and those
hearts showed no evidence of damage.
At Johns Hopkins University, paralyzed rats partially regained the
use of previously immobile hind legs in studies where they injected the
rodents with stem cells from mouse embryos. At the University of
Wisconsin, they have turned stem cells into nerve cells carrying the
messages between body and brain offering the possibilities for
repairing damage caused by ALS, by spinal cord injury, and other nerve-
related disorders. At UCLA, at the AIDS Institute, they were able to
coax human embryonic stem cells into becoming maturity immune T cells.
This discovery might suggest new ways to fight immune disorders such as
HIV and AIDS.
Until now, it is impossible to study the complete progress of
Alzheimer's disease, which robs both memory and life. We don't know how
or even when it exactly begins. With human embryonic stem cells, we
might be able to isolate the disease and observe its progress from
inception to death on human tissue--excuse me, on human tissue cells--
not necessarily on the human beings themselves, and find a cure for
this terrible disease.
The ability for embryonic stem cells to transform into any cell type
gives them the potential that adult stem cells simply do not have. We
just have not had the capability with adult stem cells that we have
with embryonic stem cells.
So those patients in this country who are struggling and are
suffering today with these terrible diseases, looking to the Congress,
looking to science, say: Don't lock in areas that prevent research from
continuing, but expand opportunities for research; yes, with ethical
guidelines; yes, with a sensitive understanding that there are issues
you have to resolve, but proceed. Don't stop them. Proceed ahead to
conduct this research and give us hope.
There are so many patient groups and scientific organizations and
foundations and others that support this Federal research. I know they,
too, believe what Congress has done here is a breath of fresh air. It
is the right thing to do. I know they hope the President will not keep
his promise to veto this legislation. That is one promise he should not
keep. It is exactly the wrong thing for the President to do. By a wide
majority, the American people believe that, rather than discard those
embryos, rather than simply throw them away, they ought to be used for
life-affirming research, with the consent of those from whom they were
created. That is what this bill does. That is why this bill is so
important.
As I end, let me say again, this is about giving life, affirming
life, saving life. My hope is that the action today by which we move
this legislation from Congress to the White House will be seen as great
hope for a different approach and a more aggressive approach on this
stem cell research, and my hope is the President will take another look
at this and decide what we have done is the right thing for us and
especially, most especially, for those in this country who have waited
so long for this kind of approach taken by the United States on stem
cell research.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for those who have been interested in
this legislation, as all of us are, and for those who have been
wondering about what has been going on through the course of the
afternoon, I think they probably have been seeing the intermediate
actions which have been taken, the requests that have been made by the
majority leader, and the response. Even as the time is moving along,
there are efforts to try to sort of find some common ground in
consideration of additional Republican amendments, as well as some of
the additional Democratic amendments. We made remarkable progress, I
thought, yesterday afternoon and last evening. We were very hopeful
that we could move, this afternoon, in a similar way to consider both
the Republican and Democratic amendments. I know and expect we are
going to have a proposal that is going to be made by the majority
leader in the near future to see if we can't get back on track. I am
very hopeful that will be the case.
We have had good debates, good discussions over the last couple of
weeks, and I think we have made good progress. We know there are still
a number of outstanding issues for our colleagues. We had hoped we
would be able to address a number of those during the course of the
afternoon but, as we saw when the leader made the requests, there were
objections to proceeding in that way. We are not giving up, and the
leader is preparing now to make some additional requests. I myself find
that his plan is virtually irresistible, but we will have to find out
whether our colleagues on the other side feel that way as well.
I thought I would take a moment and just review some of the essential
aspects.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Sure.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator allow me to ask unanimous consent to be
recognized at the conclusion of his remarks?
Mr. KENNEDY. Sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought I would just review how we got
here with this legislation and basically the highlights of it. I think
it is fairly familiar to the Members, but I think it is always useful
to have an understanding about the nature of the challenge we are
facing, the dramatic challenge we are facing in terms of our borders,
in terms of our national security, and to briefly review for our
colleagues what we have tried to do with this legislation.
So often during the last days, these debates are focused like a laser
on a very specific aspect, and we lost the central thrust and the
purpose of this legislation and perhaps even the need for urgent
action.
There is a need for urgent action, and the need is now, the need is
today, the need is tonight because of the kinds of conditions that
threaten our national security and result in the exploitation of human
beings and even deaths out in the desert and leave many millions of
undocumented in fear of their future, and the conditions which threaten
to undermine agreements that have been made in the AgJOBS area and the
lost opportunities that would result for many of those who might be
eligible for the DREAM Act. So I thought I would try to put this into
some proportion and take a few moments to review again where we are.
I think one of the most dramatic statistics we see, as reflected in
this chart, is deaths due to unauthorized border crossings. If you look
at the period of the last 5 years, you will see these numbers continue
to go up, they continue to escalate. The fact is, there are 425 men,
women, and children, including infants, who die every single year on
the border. That is a dramatic figure under any set of circumstances.
The numbers are going to continue if we fail to take any action. Those
numbers are going to continue to escalate. They reflect the number of
deaths at the border. They don't reflect the several hundred thousand
individuals who are able to come across the border.
What happens when these undocumented come across the border is that
more often than not we find that these individuals, as the rest of the
undocumented population, undergo extraordinary exploitation.

[[Page S7299]]

We have a picture showing a situation that took place in my own State
in New Bedford fairly recently, several weeks ago. It is fairly
typical. There have been these types of raids on these types of places
in other parts of the country. This is replicated in scores of places
all over this country. We find these undocumented, now estimated to be
12.5 million, 13 million of them, who suffer the exploitation we saw in
New Bedford, MA. This photograph illustrates what is going on in this
plant. These workers' rights were trampled on. These individuals were
fined for going to the bathroom, denied overtime pay, docked 15
minutes' pay for every minute they were late to work, fired for talking
while on the clock, forced to ration toilet paper, which typically ran
out before 9 a.m.
Then we look at another industry. You can look here at the
undocumented workers in the meatpacking industry who are exploited. One
in ten workers is injured each year by the sharp hooks and knives. They
suffer exhausting assembly-line speeds and painful damage from
repetitive motions. That is the old ergonomics issue. Workers are
subjected to chlorine mists that lead to bloody noses, vomiting, and
headaches. Undocumented workers don't report their injuries because
they live in fear that they will lose their jobs and be deported.
The life of fear that is taking place is replicated in communities
all over this country. We have these several hundred thousand
individuals coming across the border. We don't know who they are. We
don't know their names. They are living in different places in our
country. They are subject to this kind of exploitation, and they pose a
national security issue and a national security problem. We have the
exploitation of these workers. We have the deaths that take place in
the desert, and we also have a national security problem with hundreds
of thousands of people coming across. So this issue is a national
security issue. It is a national security problem.
This gives us some idea of what we have included in this legislation.
We have increased the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents, and with the
Gregg amendment, it is more than 20,000 now. It has the border
barriers, including 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of
fencing. It includes radar and camera towers, UAVs. For detention and
apprehension, it provides the resources to detain up to 27,000
noncitizens per day rather than arrest and release. This will be for
detention and apprehension. We have important workplace enforcement
tools and processing applications of Z status. The Department of
Homeland Security will process the applications in terms of security.
So we are coming to the issue of law enforcement and security--national
security, protecting our borders, and law enforcement. We are going to
develop a process.
This legislation is about respect for the law--law at the border, law
in employment, and law for those individuals who are here and are
undocumented. They are going to have to live with this law which
ensures that they are going to suffer a penalty if they expect to stay
here and live here.
We have a virtual lawlessness out there on the border which is a
threat to our security and a lawlessness in so many areas of employment
which is promoting the exploitation of the human condition.
We have this extraordinary atmosphere of fear by the 12\1/2\ million
individuals who live here; they are in fear because they are illegal.
We are trying to legalize the process and get respect for the law and
try to ensure our national security. So we do that, as I mentioned, at
the border, which is important.
As I have mentioned during the course of these discussions, the one
thing we have learned following hour after hour after hour of hearings
on this matter is that just doing border protection is not enough. If
you were able to put 1,800 miles of fencing along the Southwest border,
as has been pointed out by Governor Napolitano, who is so familiar with
this, along with others who have made their views very well known, you
have to not only have a border, but no matter how tall your fence is
going to be, the ladder will always be a little taller. You have to
have strong law enforcement, but you are going to have to have internal
employment enforcement as well, work site enforcement, as well as
regularizing those here at the time. So we have the work site
employment; employers must verify the identity of work authorization of
all employees; there are increases in civil and criminal penalties
against employers who hire unauthorized aliens knowingly, or with
reckless disregard; and it includes measures to prevent identity theft
and fraud.
It is dramatically different from the 1986 act. We here on the floor
don't want to repeat 1986. That legislation was signed into law by
President Reagan and enforced by a Republican administration from 1986
to 1992. I voted against that legislation for many of the reasons I am
mentioning now. You had absolutely no workforce enforcement, none at
all, virtually no requirements. We see the problems we had. We had
abuse of that system.
We have in this legislation, as I pointed out previously, addressed
those kinds of problems that lent themselves to fraud after 1986. We
have tough enforcement in the workplace. We have inspectors, close to a
thousand inspectors, who are going to go in and look at these
employment sites and make sure the kinds of protections that are
guaranteed under this legislation are respected. We are going to insist
that with any kind of employment program, they are going to get the
protections of the prevailing wage and those are not going to be taken
by surveys that are done by the private sector; they will be done by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
We will have protections under OSHA, and workers compensation, and
whistleblower protection is in this legislation for any individuals
working in those sites. For the first time, whistleblower protections
will be there for those individuals. We are going to have a thousand
inspectors who will be inspecting the work sites to make sure that the
rights of individuals who are going to come into this country will be
preserved.
At the present time, we find out the differences. This chart shows
how this process and system must work. If they are going to be in the
temporary program, the employer must advertise before applying for a
worker. The employer must hire any qualified American applicants before
applying for a temporary worker. Temporary workers are restricted to
areas with high unemployment, and employers cannot undercut American
wages by paying less to temporary workers.
Now we know even for the temporary workers, they are to be treated
under the labor laws, with those protections, and they are not now. The
borders are broken. If we don't pass this legislation, that is going to
continue. That is the alternative--the kind of exploitation that exists
now in so many communities, the fear, the exploitation, the harassment,
and the driving down of wages, which threatens American wages. All of
that exists now.
So we are ensuring, again, respect for the law in coming into this
country, the law at the border, the law at the work site, and the law
in transition. This chart is a good explanation made by Secretary
Chertoff:

Enforcement alone will not do the job of securing our
borders. Enforcement at the border will only be successful in
the long term if it is coupled with a more sensible approach
to the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens in the country today,
and the many more who will attempt to migrate into the United
States for economic reasons.

That is what we have heard from the Department of Homeland Security
time in and time out--that there has to be a comprehensive approach to
this issue. We have to bring people out of the shadows. They are going
to have to pay a penalty. We insist that they pay a penalty. Then,
rather than let them go to the front of the list, they have to go to
the end of the list in order to begin a process--if they are able to
demonstrate the payment of the penalty, if they demonstrate they can
learn and are willing to learn English, if they are able to demonstrate
they have long work experience, and if they can demonstrate they are
not involved in criminal activity. We know 70,000 permanent resident
aliens are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan since these wars started--
70,000. So we know that so many of these families who are coming here--
why do they come? Basically, what are their values? What are the values
we consider positive in the United States? We admire people who work
hard. That is an important factor. That is essential in terms of the

[[Page S7300]]

achievement of the American dream. We admire people who are devoted to
family and their children.
We find so many of these undocumented, but why do they come here? It
is because they want to have a better life for their children. How do
we know that? Because there is more than $40 billion returned by these
immigrants to the countries of Central and South America every single
year. These are individuals who are making a total of $10,000, and $40
billion is returned to their countries. To whom? It is returned to
their families and children. They work hard, they are devoted to their
children and families and have an extraordinary dedication to their
parents and grandparents, caring for them. Those are the positive
qualities that all of us admire.
On the other hand, they have broken the law, so, therefore, they have
to pay a penalty. Why did they break the law? It is because we have the
magnet of the American economy drawing them here. That magnet doesn't
pay any penalty. These people risk their lives to get in here. They
suffer the risk of exploitation. And even through all of that, they
return the resources back to their families. So it is the magnet of the
American economy, but still we are making them pay--not the employer,
the magnet, or the American economy, but they make an extraordinary
contribution. Sure, there are some bad apples. But they make an
extraordinary contribution--the immigrants--just as all of our parents
and grandparents and forebears have made in terms of this country. This
is what we have done. We have seen what happened at the border.

We have talked about what is happening in terms of the employment
situation. We know what is going on, in terms of the kind of
distinction between the past and present. Those individuals, the 12\1/
2\ million people who are here--this is the explanation of what we call
the Z visa eligibility: They entered the United States before January
2007. They remained employed and continuously present and not a
national security threat. There has to be a review. They have to
register--the 18 months--to make sure they are registered and are not
any national security threat. There can be no serious criminal record
in or out of the United States. We have outlined that. We have gone
into detail and explanation in earlier kinds of considerations of
amendments. If they have committed serious crimes, they are out; they
don't come back. We have explained that and we have gone through that
time and time again through the course of this debate.
They have to pay the processing fees of $1,500; State impact
assistance fee, $500; and a penalty of $1,000. All of that--some
$3,000--is not even getting you down the road toward a green card and
citizenship. The $500 from 12 million people--$6 billion--goes to
States that have the great impact to help them in terms of offsetting
any of their additional burdens, in terms of health care and education.
That is not an insignificant amount of resources. We went through
during yesterday's discussion and debate how, by and large, these
individuals are healthier, and we also went into about how they had
utilized the health care system, and it shows that is effectively an
incidental additional kind of expense. They must comply with the
Selective Service Act, submit fingerprints and undergo a background
check, and they must get in the back of the line for a green card. That
means, for all of those who have been waiting in line, about 4 million
people who have relatives here and have petitioned for them to come
into the United States many, without this legislation, would have
virtually no opportunity to do so.
They will have that opportunity to come into the United States over
an 8-year period. Then, after that 8-year period, these individuals we
have discussed here could begin to move, and depending on their work
record and their participation and sense of community, they could get
on path toward a green card. Then it takes 5 more years to become a
citizen. The earliest is maybe 13 or 14 years before they would be able
to have that opportunity for citizenship. It is more distant than that
for the majority of the people. All the time they have to behave and
follow the law and pay the kinds of penalties that will be included.
Mr. President, other colleagues wish to address the Senate, so I will
be brief. I give credit to our friend and colleague from Illinois,
Senator Durbin, who reminded us about the opportunities we have in
creating an educational pathway for the children of the undocumented.
We know the children who come in here are coming in through the action
of their parents. We understand that. It is through the actions of the
parents. The DREAM Act students are eligible for Z visas and permanent
residence if the student came in as a child under age 16 and has good
moral character, or attends college or enlists in the military for 2
years. I know, as chairman of the Education Committee, the challenge we
have in terms of having those students--Hispanic students and others
from other cultures and traditions, in terms of the education
experience. Having a good education opportunity for those children in
this country is key to our national security, key to the success of our
economy, and key to the success of the hopes and dreams of these
children.
Too often, half of the children from the Hispanic tradition drop out
before they are ever able to be successful. But we know that others who
complete the educational system and graduate--in my home State of
Massachusetts, we have seen so many in Lowell, Lawrence, New Bedford,
and other places who have children from undocumented families end up
being valedictorians, class presidents, and extraordinary leaders. Then
the opportunity comes for continued education and it is virtually
closed down because they are denied that opportunity.
Under the DREAM Act, this gives them the opportunity for in-State
help and assistance. That is what this bill is about, too. It is about
hope in terms of the future. It is about hope. It is relieving the
kinds of anxiety those 12 million or 13 million undocumented are
experiencing this afternoon and will experience tonight when they have
a knock on the door and wonder if ICE is coming there to arrest and
deport them, separate their families, and send them back--even after
they have been here for a number of years.
We don't hear much discussion about that. Everything seems to be
pretty cut and dried around here. That is a major factor. How many of
us have met some of these individuals, the undocumented? I did just 3
or 4 days ago, returning here at the airport. I talked to a person who
has been here 28 years, as have his two brothers. The brothers have
been able to get green cards, but he had not. He talked about the fear
he and his family have at this time of being arrested and deported.
In this legislation is another extremely important provision. That is
what we call the AgJOBS bill. I see the Senator from California here,
Senator Feinstein, who has done an extraordinary job in helping to
bring this part of the legislation before the Senate, with Senator
Craig, whom I commend for his diligence. They have been the real
leaders in this proposal.

For many of us, to go back to the time of the Bracero Program--I can
remember being a member of our committee in the early 1960s when we had
hearings in southern Texas and also in California about the Bracero
Program. Few times in our history did we have the kind of exploitation
of individuals--slavery certainly; slavery, yes; slavery first--but
after that, the Bracero exploitation was one of the darkest sides of
American history in the exploitation of individuals.
There are a number of blemishes out there. We can talk about those--
American Indians and others--but this was really one of the very worst.
We took time to get rid of it, and we did get rid of that. Then we went
through a long period of enormous tension between the workers and the
growers. We all remember the extraordinary contribution of Cesar
Chavez, the dignity he gave to so many of these farm workers. That kind
of tension existed for years.
Now, finally, in recent years there has been an agreement between
these two very strong groups who are committed in their own ways to
their own views and philosophies. They have come together and have
agreed on a pathway that will ensure success and give these workers the
respect and dignity they have been denied. It is called the AgJOBS
bill.
A great deal of credit goes to our colleague in the House, Howard
Berman, who spent years working on this legislation. That legislation
has had 65, 66

[[Page S7301]]

cosponsors, but we have been unable to get it before the Senate for
ratification of that program. It is included in this legislation.
If this legislation passes, the message it sends to about 900,000
agricultural workers, who, again, have been exploited, and to their
families, is the fact that over the next 8 years, they are going to
have to work and continue to work hard. They can work in agriculture.
They have some opportunity to work outside agriculture too. They have
to play by the rules, demonstrate they are paying their taxes, work
hard and pay the fines and penalties, but they have some opportunity to
move forward after all these years, get a green card, and then 5 years
later move forward. So it is an enormous period of hope for all those
individuals.
This legislation is about dealing in a tough way with a tough problem
at the border. We do that by taking the best advice, the best
recommendations, the best suggestions from the best people who know
about homeland security. We have done that and worked closely together.
I don't think there are any differences on that point.
We need to have tough enforcement in the workplace, and we have
achieved that. It can be improved further, but it has been achieved,
and we have talked about it.
We have also provided a pathway for earned legalization after these
individuals pay the fines, significant fines, in many ways, fines for
an average family who makes about $10,000 to $12,000 a year, that
represents years of work with their kinds of salaries. They have to go
to the end of the line. They have to demonstrate good work experience.
They have to earn, earn, earn, earn, earn the ability to adjust their
relationship with our country.
We know these families. We have seen them in our churches. We have
seen them in our shops. We have seen them in the Armed Forces of the
United States of America, and they serve with great pride and dignity
and they want to contribute and be a part of the American dream like
everyone else. And we are giving them that opportunity.
If we vote no on this legislation, we are dampening and canceling
that opportunity, and we are returning to the law of the jungle because
that is what it is. It is a jungle on that border.
Every day we continue without this legislation, we have these well-
trained, well-disciplined, highly motivated border guards chasing
people across the desert who are landscapers. They ought to be looking
for the terrorists, the smugglers, the lawbreakers. That is who they
should be looking after. If we don't pass this legislation, they will
continue to be looking out after the landscapers instead of the
terrorists, instead of the smugglers, and instead of those who threaten
the security of the people of this country.
That is it. Take your choice. Anyone can flyspeck this legislation. I
am not accusing those who differ with me on particular proposals being
necessarily flyspeckers, but sometimes we have to make a judgment.
Sometimes we have to make a decision. Sometimes there has to be
finality. We have debated this issue on the floor of the Senate for 2
weeks. We debated it last year for 2 weeks. We are not just coming at
this legislation for the first time. We have debated just about every
feature of this program, somewhat different from last year, but the
themes are the same, the arguments are the same, the amendments are
almost the same.
The only question is the will of this body and the will to make a
judgment, a decision that we are going to clean up our borders, get a
sense of law in terms of those borders and in the employment areas, get
a respect for the law from those who have been undocumented; they are
going to pay their price, give a sense of hope to the young people who
can benefit, and give a sense of dignity and pride to those who work in
the fields across this country in AgJOBS.
This is going to be an important vote this evening. If we are talking
about a vote about America's future, this is it. This is it. This is it
tonight. We can all find the excuses. We all can find the reasons to
say no. We can all find different aspects of this legislation with
which we differ, but underneath, this is a proposal that is deeply
rooted in remedy, one of the great national challenges we have--broken
borders and a broken immigration system.
This legislation is a downpayment that the American people are asking
and demanding of the Senate of the United States that we move forward
on. Let's not disappoint them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield
for a unanimous consent request as to order of speakers following him?
Mr. GREGG. Of course.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
Senator from New Hampshire, I be recognized for up to 6 minutes, and
then the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, be recognized for up
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to the
presentation of the Senator from Massachusetts which, as always, was
extraordinary. He is one of the people I admire around here the most
because he has been such an extraordinary force. Even though I disagree
with him so often, I still admire him immensely. How he has maintained
the energy and commitment to his causes over such a long period of time
is beyond me. I certainly could not do it. One just has to respect that
ability. He is clearly one of the great legislators in the history of
this body. In fact, I wish he were not quite so great on many
occasions.
In any event, much of what he says makes sense on this issue. His
commitment to it is obviously intense and thorough, and I admire it.
The point he makes, which is that we now have a dysfunctional system
and there is basically chaos within the immigration system in this
country relative to illegal immigrants being in this country and the
borders remaining regrettably reasonably porous--although they have
tightened up over the last few years--is very legitimate. This bill is
an attempt to genuinely address those issues in a number of areas.
I have made the point throughout the discussion of this bill that
from my standpoint, a good piece of immigration legislation has to
accomplish essentially four things.
First, it has to make the borders secure. There is no reason we
cannot secure the southern border. The northern border is a bigger
problem because of its length and its topography, but the southern
border can be secured.
As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations
and prior to that as chairman of the Commerce-State-Justice
Subcommittee, I tried to commit major new resources in this effort.
There was a consensus to do that and a bipartisan effort to do that,
and we have dramatically expanded the number of agents on the border,
the technology on the border, and the detention bed capability. But we
still have a ways to go.
Actually, the first or second amendment adopted--it seems like an ion
ago, but it was only a week ago--was an amendment I offered to this
bill which would bring the commitment in numbers in this bill in the
area of Border Patrol agents, in the area of detention beds, in the
area of electronic fencing and regular fencing along the border up to
what was the consensus position as to what was needed to secure the
border. So this bill now has in it the necessary language.
The question is, do we have the capacity to put that in place. But
that goes back to the trigger which is in this bill, and the trigger in
the bill says, until that is in place, none of the other language can
go into force which deals with guest worker and illegal immigrants and
how we regularize their status in this country.
So I believe that issue has been effectively addressed in this bill,
and with the amendment I offered and put in the proper position--
although more can be done in the area of how one defines ``trigger,''
and certainly there are proposals going around here which will be voted
on which I will support that will deal with the funding--it makes sure
funding cannot dry up as a result of the annual discretionary process.
That has been addressed.
The second issue is we have to have an effective guest worker
program, and to have an effective guest worker program, we have to
address the third

[[Page S7302]]

issue. And the third issue is that we have enforcement at the employee-
employer meeting place, so the employer is hiring people effectively in
this country legally and not able to hire illegal aliens, people who
come into this country illegally.
Those two issues are intertwined, and the bill does address the issue
of employment through strict enforcement and the requirement of
identification cards, which is going to be very difficult to
accomplish, but again it is a trigger. Nothing in this bill goes
forward, as I understand it, until that trigger is met.
Second is the guest worker program. There is no way we can have an
effective immigration process unless we take some of the pressure off
of the fact we have an economy that demands people to work in this
economy above and beyond what we have as a citizenry in our country
today. There simply is a demand in our Nation for people to come here
and work, and it should be done under a guest worker program so that
those folks who come here, work, and go back know they are coming here
to participate in the worker program, not to be here permanently. That
will relieve the pressure at the border significantly if we have that.
It is a big part of border security and, of course, is important not
only from a standpoint of controlling who comes into the country, but
it is critically important from the standpoint of dealing with the
threats we face as a country from terrorism. An effective guest worker
program is critical.
Fortunately, as this bill was originally drafted, it did have such a
program. It had a guest worker with a significant number of guest
workers, 400,000 every year. It had a guest worker program that was
properly structured. Unfortunately, as a result of the amendment
process around here, that guest worker program has been fundamentally
undermined, and in its present structure, as was pointed out last night
when the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota was adopted, that
was, somebody called it a killer amendment, a fatal amendment to this
bill. If it stays in place, it makes the guest worker program
essentially useless.
All we are going to be able to do is bring guest workers in for
agricultural activity, and they will be limited in that area; and guest
workers needed in other functions of the economy, whether it is the
resort industry or simply in the day-to-day activities functioning as a
nation, there is going to be pressure for them to come here illegally
again, and that undermines the purpose of the bill. So unfortunately
that was done. The Bingaman amendment prior to that purely did a lot of
damage to the guest worker program. So that didn't work out as well as
it should, but hopefully it can be corrected.

The fourth element I have talked about is how you deal with this
pathway, how you deal with the issue of who are here illegally. We are
not going to, as a practical matter, take 12 million people, or maybe
even 15 million, who are here illegally, assuming we could even find
them, and deport them. That is simply not going to happen in our
culture. We wouldn't tolerate it. As a practical matter, we couldn't do
it. So what we need to do is figure out some way to get those people
out from behind the shadows so they are publicly identified as being
here, not only from the standpoint of dealing with them but from the
standpoint of a national need of knowing who is here for reasons of
national security. So this bill attempts to do that.
The bill has some flaws in that area, but it also has some strengths
in that area, and they have been previously outlined. The discussion on
that has been extensive, so I will not get into the specifics. But
those four items, for me, were the test of how this bill goes forward.
As a corollary to those four items, however, is the theme behind
immigration, which I think is critical, and which there is specific
language in this bill which needs to be dealt with. One of the themes
behind immigration, besides having a secure border and a guest worker
program that works and making sure we take the pressure off having
people coming into this country illegally, is the need to go around the
world and take the best and the brightest who want to come to America
and let them in to participate in our economy and make our economy more
vibrant.
We have had hearings on this issue, and there is a certain
obviousness to this issue. I mean, if somebody is in India or China--
and those are the examples most often used, but it could be
Czechoslovakia or Poland--if somebody has an advanced degree of some
nature or is highly educated and has the capacity to contribute to our
economy--and who wants to come here--why would we want to leave that
person in those countries as a competitor, when we can bring them here
and have them actually be a job creator?
We hear a lot about outsourcing in these debates that we have had
over the last election cycle, where we are sending jobs overseas. If
you bring a person who has unique talents that our Nation needs and
that is an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, people who are
already here, that creates jobs. That person is a job center.
In fact, it was interesting. We had Bill Gates testify before our
committee, and this is exactly what he said. Here is a guy who has
probably done more to make the American economy vibrant over the last
20 or 25 years than any other person alive. I mean, he is an individual
who essentially transformed our economy and made us the leader in the
world in what was the leading issue in the world, which is technology.
He comes before the committee and he comes before the country in
general and he says: Listen, we need to bring these people here because
they are being developed in these other countries; and if we don't
bring them here--if they want to come here--and take advantage of their
abilities, then they are going to do it somewhere else.
I don't want the next Bill Gates to be in China or in India. I want
the next Bill Gates to be right here in the United States creating
jobs. The point is, when you bring these folks in, they create jobs
here. So one of the programs where we have to do this is the H-1B
program. This is a program where we say specifically, if there are
companies in this country or businesses in this country or colleges in
this country or educational facilities in this country that need
talented people, and they can't get them here in this country--because
we don't have the pool necessary--then they can bring people in from
outside the country who have the talent to do those jobs.
Most of this is in computer science. Most of the H-1B visas, 45
percent of the applications, are computer science people; with the next
biggest group, about 11 percent, being teachers. So industries,
businesses, entrepreneurs, colleges, and schools that need these folks
to make their businesses work and to give them the opportunity to
create jobs, whether it is in New Hampshire or Washington State or
across this country, need to be able to attract these people into the
country.
But the H-1B program, for some reason, has opposition. It doesn't
make any sense to me. I look across the aisle and I say: This should be
a logical thing for both sides of the aisle to be supportive of. The
concept of bringing in, insourcing jobs, as opposed to outsourcing
jobs, should be very attractive to the other side of the aisle. The
concept of bringing intelligent people here to create opportunities
should be attractive to both sides of the aisle, but there seems to be
some undercurrent that they are taking away American jobs. They aren't.
In fact, they are adding to American jobs.
As a matter of fact, the National Science Foundation has pointed out
we need these types of people; that we are woefully short of the people
in the math, science, and technology areas and are not producing the
kinds of numbers we need to be out of our own university systems. So
why not go overseas to see if we can find these people to come here and
participate?
In fact, there is such a demand for these people that, under the
present law, they are allowed 65,000 of these applications every year,
plus the 20,000 add-on for highly talented people. The first day the
applicant process opened, on April 2, 140,000 applications came in to
fill the 65,000 available slots.
My own view is we should have taken all 140,000, if they were
legitimate, and brought them here. I mean that probably multiplies 10
times. Probably a million and a half jobs could have been created with
bringing those folks in here. But under the present law, we are
limited.

[[Page S7303]]

This bill represents that it increases that number from 65,000 to
115,000. But here is the problem. It knocks out the 20,000 specialists.
So actually the increase is rather marginal compared to what we need in
this country to take care of the concerns we have. Plus, unfortunately,
this bill creates layer after layer of bureaucracy, in addition to the
bureaucracy which already exists. It costs on top of the costs that
already exist as a result of a number of amendments on this floor,
which makes it more difficult to get these folks into the country.
In addition, the bill creates a new standard which makes absolutely
no sense--absolutely no sense--which says that the skill of the
individual relative to talent--let us say a physicist, an
astrophysicist--has to match up exactly with the job that is available.
We have an incredibly fungible economy, and the requirement that the
applicant who has an advanced degree, that his degree match identically
with the job, is a new requirement and a hurdle that is unnecessary and
is counterproductive to getting talent into this country. I don't
understand why it is in here, and it should be taken out before it goes
much further.
Clearly, in our society, there is tremendous mobility within the
disciplines. If you are trained as a physicist, an astrophysicist, you
are going to be able to do a lot of things in our society and move
within the job areas. Under the rules of the H-1B application, you have
to be able to move in a way that you are not displacing Americans.
That is just a very difficult issue, if we keep that in here. In
addition, there have been attacks on the H-1B program to claim that
there is ``warehousing'' of these types of folks. I guess that is
probably a pejorative, but that is the term which is used, involving
Indian companies that basically collect together a large number of
people with these degrees and then basically get all the applications
for H-1B and use them in that manner. This bill corrects that, but we
continue to hear that complaint from folks on the other side of the
aisle, not necessarily because they are on the other side of the aisle
but because they oppose the H-1B program, because really that is a red
herring. This bill corrects that issue. That should not be raised
against this.
We know for a fact we need these types of individuals in our country,
and it is a huge advantage for us to draw them into this country. I
hope before this bill goes much further that we correct the problems
that are in this bill relative to the H-1B program and make it a much
more expansive program and make it a much more flexible program and one
that will allow us to bring these talented people here so they can
create jobs and make this economy stronger along the lines of what Bill
Gates suggested is necessary and which I strongly endorse.
I know the junior Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has an
amendment in this area. I have an amendment in this area. I have been
going on the assumption that Senator Cantwell's, which is a little
broader amendment than mine, would be the one that will go forward. I
understand it is being held up on the other side. If that continues, it
will be a problem for me. We at least deserve a vote on it, at the
minimum, and I certainly hope that will occur.
As a corollary to this discussion, I wish to highlight quickly a
concern I have for the merit system. I think the merit system is
exactly the approach we should take and the point system is exactly the
approach we should take, but I still don't understand why somebody who
has worked as an agricultural worker for 5 years gets the same number
of points as somebody who has a physics degree--even more points,
actually, than someone who has a physics degree. It seems to me, if you
are going to weigh this properly in a merit system--we are not talking
about a guest worker program here; we are talking about a merit system
proposal. We are not talking about the AgJOBS proposals; we are talking
about the merit system.
In a merit system, what we should be looking for is talent and people
whose abilities are unique and those which we need in this country.
That is why there should not be this strange allocation of points which
makes no sense at all in the context of the purpose of the merit
system. I hope that will also be changed.
On balance, of the things that concern me about this bill, two of
them are moving in the right direction, which are border security and
the issue of pathway. But the things that really concern me continue to
be the guest worker program and how we are going to handle the H-1B
issue.
So the jury is still out, to put it quite simply, on this bill. There
needs to be a lot more time spent on the amendment process so we can
find out how we are going to end up working this bill through the
process. This is a complex bill. It deserves significant time on the
floor, and it deserves to have proper discussion with amendments that
are put forward by people who did not happen to be in negotiations for
the grand compromise. Those guys did a good job negotiating, but they
didn't necessarily touch all the bases that are of concern to many of
us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. First of all, Mr. President, let me tell everyone within
the sound of my voice, no tricks. What I am doing is trying to protect
those people who feel it would be to the advantage of the country and
the Senate if we got a bill. This doesn't change any of the things I
have said privately to Senators or publicly. Basically, what I am going
to do is send a couple of amendments to the desk so there is some
control over amendments that are offered. This will allow those of us
who feel there should be a bill some control over the next amendment
that is offered.
Again, no tricks. I have alerted everyone the best that I can what I
was going to do, and I hope this works out well. I am confident we are
doing the right thing.

Amendment No. 1492 to Amendment No. 1235

Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1492 to amendment No. 1235.

Mr. REID. 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 require the use of objective criteria to determine which
undocumented persons have sufficient community ties to be awarded a Z
visa and remain in the United States lawfully)

At the end of the amendment add the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act the
following shall take effect for the Z Nonimmigration
Category:
(b) Establishment of Z Nonimmigrant Category.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)),
as amended by section 401(a), is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(Z) subject to title VI of the Secure Borders, Economic
Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, an alien
who--
``(i)(I) has maintained a continuous physical presence in
the United States since the date that is 4 years before the
date of the enactment of the Secure Borders, Economic
Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007;
``(II) is employed, and seeks to continue performing labor,
services, or education; and
``(III) the Secretary of Homeland Security determines has
sufficient ties to a community in the United States, based
on--

``(aa) whether the applicant has immediate relatives (as
defined in section 201(b)(2)(A)) residing in the United
States;
``(bb) the amount of cumulative time the applicant has
lived in the United States;
``(cc) whether the applicant owns property in the United
States;
``(dd) whether the applicant owns a business in the United
States;
``(ee) the extent to which the applicant knows the English
language;
``(ff) the applicant's work history in the United States;
``(gg) whether the applicant attended school (either
primary, secondary, college, post-graduate) in the United
States;
``(hh) the extent to which the applicant has a history of
paying Federal and State income taxes;
``(ii) whether the applicant has been convicted of criminal
activity in the United States; and
``(jj) whether the applicant has certifies his or her
intention to ultimately become a United States citizen;

``(ii)(I) is the spouse or parent (65 years of age or
older) of an alien described in clause (i);
``(II) was, during the 2-year period ending on the date on
which the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was introduced in the Senate,
the spouse of an alien who was subsequently classified as a Z
nonimmigrant

[[Page S7304]]

under this section, or is eligible for such classification,
if--

``(aa) the termination of the relationship with such spouse
was connected to domestic violence; and
``(bb) the spouse has been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty by the spouse or parent who is a Z nonimmigrant; or

``(III) is under 18 years of age at the time of application
for nonimmigrant status under this subparagraph and was born
to, or legally adopted by, a parent described in clause
(i).''.
(2) Rulemaking.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
sections 555, 556, and 557 of title 5, United States Code,
which establish the precise system that the Secretary will
use to make a determination under section 101(a)(15)(Z)(ii)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by paragraph
(1).

Amendment No. 1199

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to
the Dodd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.

Amendment No. 1493 to Amendment No. 1199

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up the amendment that is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1493 to amendment No. 1199.

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

(Purpose: To require employers seeking to hire aliens to certify that
they have not, and do not intend to, provide a notice of a mass layoff)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

(a) In General.--A petition by an employer for any visa
authorizing employment in the United States may not be
approved until the employer has provided written
certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of
Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period
immediately preceding the date on which the alien is to be
hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a
mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(b) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a
notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act after a visa
described in subsection (a) has been approved, such visa
shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on
which such notice is provided.
(c) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the
requirements under this section if the employer provides
written certification, under penalty of perjury, that the
total number of the employer's employees in the United States
will not be reduced as a result of a mass layoff.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be seated in a brief period of time,
but I wished to let everyone know we have people working in different
rooms in this building trying to come up with some way for us to move
forward. We have tried on a number of occasions this afternoon to have
amendments. We started at noon--6\1/2\ hours ago. We have been thwarted
at every attempt. So we are arriving at a point now where I hope there
can be agreement as to how we proceed. If not, we will proceed anyway
in a manner I hope will be in keeping with the intent of the Democrats
and the Republicans and the White House.
I do say in this interim this afternoon that I have had some
interesting calls from people who care a great deal about this bill.
One of the choice experiences of my life was a year ago, in my office,
right back here, on a Saturday. We were debating immigration. I had the
good fortune to meet for the first time Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal
Mahony, and they were very interested in doing something that would
help the immigration problems they see on a daily basis.
I had the good fortune to speak to those good men during the past
hour or two. The reason I mention the meeting of that Saturday is that
some people know I am not a member of the Catholic faith. I have the
greatest respect in the world for Catholics. The best friend I ever had
in my life was a devout Catholic. He went to church every day. He was
Governor of the State of Nevada and I was Lieutenant Governor. He
taught me how to fight. He was my best friend. He taught me in high
school. He died in church. He went to church every day, and he went to
church one morning, put his head on his shoulder, and died.
For someone who set such a great example for Christianity and
goodness, there couldn't be a better way for this good man, Michael
Callahan, to die. But the reason I mention that is that as the meeting
was breaking up, and there was some staff there, I said, I have the
good fortune of being able to meet with prominent people on occasion,
but this is a special meeting for me. I would like to be able to tell
my children and grandchildren about this meeting. So before we go out
to the press, could we say a prayer together?
We gathered there in my conference room and Cardinal Mahony said a
prayer for our country. When he finished, Cardinal McCarrick said a
prayer for me. That was one of the highlights of my life. When it was
over, Cardinal McCarrick said: Well, I am not going to be able to tell
my children and grandchildren about this, but I can tell my nieces and
grand nieces about this.
So during the 6\1/2\ hours we have been away from the floor, there
have been a lot of good people working on a way to finalize this
legislation, and I hope that everyone understands the efforts I have
made now. It is not an effort to trick anybody or deceive anyone. It is
an effort to try to move this legislation forward.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Stem Cell Research

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, earlier today the other body passed S. 5,
the embryonic stem cell research bill, by a vote of 247 to 176. This
legislation offers hope to literally 100 million people in our own
country.
I think of the individual names. Mr. President, I had a friend in law
school, Larry Katz, who died of ALS. If you have ever seen someone who
suffered from that disease, you know how cruel it can be. So today I
think of Larry Katz and I think of those individuals who are suffering
from diseases in which embryonic stem cell research holds out hope of a
cure, of a way of dealing with these diseases. I think of Josh Basil.
Josh was a young person who was on the beaches in Delaware. A wave hit
him, picked him up, turned him upside down, and fractured his spine. He
is a quadriplegic today. He has hope that he will walk again. He
exercises and works out every day to keep his muscles in great shape.
But he wants us to meet him halfway. He wants us to give the tools to
the scientists so they can look at ways in which we can regenerate the
damaged parts of his body.
Embryonic stem cell research holds out tremendous hope. It allows, we
hope, for the regeneration of damaged cells. This is incredible work
which is being done at research institutions in this country. I am
proud of the work being done at Johns Hopkins University in my own
State and the University of Maryland Medical Center and NIH looking at
ALS, looking at spinal cord injuries, looking at Alzheimer's, heart
disease, Parkinson's, diabetes, and looking at embryonic stem cell
research as perhaps finding the answer to these diseases.
Dr. John Gearhart and Dr. Douglas Kerr at Johns Hopkins have helped
me to understand what embryonic stem cell research could mean. They
have taken paralyzed mice and have been able to get movement by
injecting embryonic stem cells into mice.
The United States has been the leader in the world on research. We
have seen incredible discoveries in this country. Yet, today, we are
seeing researchers leave the United States because of the restrictions
on embryonic stem cell research. They are going to other countries
where those restrictions do not apply, robbing this Nation and robbing
the world of the collaborative research that could be taking place. The
reason, frankly, dates back to August 9, 2001, when President Bush
issued his Executive order.
We have a lot more information today than we did in 2001. In 2001, we
thought there were 60 to 78 stem cell lines available that researchers
could use. We were wrong. There were only about 22 lines available.
Most are contaminated. We don't have the diversity we need in order
that scientists can really look at embryonic stem cell research and get
the best potential out of

[[Page S7305]]

that type of research. We know that today. If we knew then what we know
now, we would have realized those restrictions are not workable.
S. 5 is a bipartisan bill. It deals with embryos that are currently
in existence. It sets up the ethical framework to do the proper
research. You cannot create an embryo for the purpose of sale for
research. It has to be in existence today. It has to have the consent
of the donor. You can't get financial incentives for doing it. They
have to be embryos which were going to be used for in vitro
fertilization which now are going to be destroyed. It allows those
embryos to be used for legitimate medical research. It is the right
thing to do for this country. It is the right thing to do, to give hope
to 100 million people in this country. Now it has passed this body, it
has passed the other body. We have a bill that provides the right
balance for us to move forward as the world leader in medical research.
Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of NIH, said:

From my standpoint, it is clear today that American science
will be better served and the Nation will be better served if
we let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines.

Dr. Zerhouni is our leader on this issue in this country.
We are now at another crossroads where we can take a choice and move
forward so America can continue to lead the world in appropriate
research to try to end the misery of suffering for those who have ALS
or spinal cord injuries or Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's--so
many different types of diseases in which embryonic stem cell research
holds out such promise.
I urge the President of the United States, don't let your veto stand
in the way. Don't do it. Move forward with a bill that is bipartisan, a
bill that has been vetted properly among all communities.
This is a bill which, we understand, provides the right framework for
research in this country. We have that opportunity if only the
President will sign this bill and allow our scientists to do the
appropriate work to help the people of this Nation and literally help
the people of the world. I urge the President of the United States to
sign S. 5, which will shortly be presented to him.
At this point, I have been informed that the Senator from California
does not intend to use her time.
I yield the floor.
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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. I was not intending to speak at this moment, but I
listened to several of my colleagues talk about the immigration bill.
We apparently will cast another cloture vote this evening and perhaps
votes beyond that, depending on how that cloture vote turns out. But
because of a number of statements by colleagues this evening, I wanted
to make a couple of comments.
There is a suggestion by a number of our colleagues who brought a
plan to the floor, what is called a grand bargain or the grand
compromise. This is a group of people--self-appointed, I guess--who
spent a lot of time in rooms together, with the White House
accompanying them, and produced a plan they brought to the floor of the
Senate and said: Here is our immigration plan. And by the way, if you
try to change it, you will destroy it.
Most Members of the Senate were not part of these meetings and not
part of this grand compromise. A number of us have offered amendments.
A number of our colleagues have tried to offer amendments. I am
thinking of Senator Webb, who has waited for 2 weeks to offer an
amendment. It is problematic whether he will be given an opportunity to
offer an amendment. He wasn't part of the group, wasn't part of the
grand compromise, but thinks he could improve the legislation. But,
because those who have brought the bill to the floor have done so with
arms locked together, believing that anyone who could try to improve on
their work would be destroying their compromise, we have people who are
not able to offer these amendments.
There is also some implied suggestion here that those who do not
support this grand compromise are not sensitive to the issue of
immigration, are not willing to look and understand that there is a
real, serious problem here which needs to be addressed. Nothing could
be further from the truth. In fact, while I have substantial difficulty
with the plan that is brought to the floor of the Senate--I think it is
a flawed plan--I happen to think immigration is a very serious problem
in this country.
The first and obvious answer to our immigration problem is to try to
provide some real border security. We have about 12 million--perhaps
more--people who have come into this country without legal
authorization. Why? Most of them wanted to come to the United States of
America to work. Most of them wanted to come here because they believe
there is hope and opportunity here. They want a job here.
It would be wonderful if our country, having over a century lifted
the middle class up with good wages and good jobs and benefits--it
would be wonderful if we could say: We have created on this planet
something very special here called the United States, and we would like
to share it with everyone right now. We, of course, cannot do that. We
would be overrun. We have immigration quotas. We allow 1.5 million
people in our country every year legally. There is a legal process by
which we do that.
But we are on a planet here that circles the Sun, and we have 6.4
billion neighbors. One-half of them live on less than $2 a day, one-
half of them have never made a telephone call, and one-half of them do
not have access on a regular basis to clean, potable water. It is a
challenging planet. We have a lot of neighbors who live in great
difficulty.
In this little spot on this planet which is labeled ``the United
States of America,'' we have created something pretty special. I have
described it at great length, how we did it and why we did it over the
last century, lifting America up, providing good jobs that pay well. It
is not surprising to me that on a little planet on which we all travel,
where, if you are in India, the average hourly wage is 11 cents an
hour--in China, it is 33 cents an hour; if you live in Honduras, the
average hourly wage is 33 cents an hour; it is not surprising to me
that people who are living in poverty in other countries, making a
pittance for a long day's work, would like to come to the United States
and find a job and improve their life and make a better life for them
and their family. That is not surprising to me.

I would like it if we could say to them: You know what. Come on, join
us. Just think for a moment if we decided we have a new immigration law
in this country, that new immigration says: You know what, this country
is wide open. You want to come join us from anywhere, anytime,
anyplace? Come on. Come and live with us. Come and work with us. Come
and be part of our country right now. No restrictions. Come and stay.
Come and work.
We would be overrun. Millions and millions and millions of people
would try to find their way to this wonderful country of ours because
we have created an economy that lifted the standard and broadened the
middle class.
We cannot do that. We instead have a process of legal immigration
that allows about a million and a half people a year to come into this
country. They apply. They are part of the quota from their country.
They wait. They wait a year, they wait 5 years, they wait 10 years. If
they are lucky, they reach the top of that list and they are able to
come to this country through this legal system of immigration quotas.
Now, my colleagues have brought to the floor the ``grand
compromise.'' And what they have said is this: Well, we do not have
much border security. We have got a lot of people coming into this
country illegally now, without legal authorization. So I will tell you
what. They say: We will pass a piece of legislation that says anyone
who came to this country by at least December 31 of last year--that
includes, we think, 12 million--anyone who came here by December 31 of
last year, you are going to be legal. We are going to decide that you
are here legally and you get a work permit. You are no longer illegal;
you are legal.
Now, we have people overseas in their home country who thought this
was all

[[Page S7306]]

on the level. They applied to come to the country as part of the quota.
They have waited 6, 7, 8 years. They discover they made a mistake. They
should have come here last December 20 or December 31 and snuck across
the border someplace because then they would be described by this bill,
by the folks who created this grand compromise, then they would be
described as legal citizens, not citizens as having legal status, I
should say. Well, is that fair? No. No, it is not fair. Is it right?
No.
But more than the issue of dealing with those 12 million, this
legislation also says we should have more people who do not live in
this country come into this country to assume jobs with something
called temporary workers or guest workers. Now, I happen to be
sensitive to this issue of those who have come here without legal
authorization. Some have come here decades ago. There are people, I am
sure, who have been here 20 years without legal authorization to be
here.
They have probably raised a family. They have worked. They have been
model citizens. They have been neighbors. They have been good people.
Should we round them all up at this point and deport them? Of course
not. But should we, on the other hand, decide: If you snuck across the
border on December 31, good for you. You are now declared legal? I
don't think so.
My colleague, Senator Webb, has an amendment that I think would move
a long way toward addressing some of these issues in terms of the time
that you have been here to try to be sensitive about those things which
I support. But this legislation says: If you showed up last December
31, you are given legal status.
But the issue I raised last evening, and the amendment that I offered
that prevailed by one vote was on the guest worker provision, temporary
worker provision. My colleagues have said, the Senator from Arizona and
the Senator from Massachusetts have said, you know, we need to have a
temporary worker provision because if we don't have a temporary worker
provision to bring in people who are not now here to assume jobs in
this country, they are going to come anyway. They are coming across
anyway.
They will come in as illegal immigrants. Well, I said: I don't
understand that. You say that this bill would strengthen our border,
provide border security, and stop illegal immigration. Now you are
saying that in order to stop illegal immigration you have to have a
guest worker provision because, if we do not have a guest worker
provision, they are going to come anyway. Maybe you are misrepresenting
this issue of border security, are you not?
So the Congressional Budget Office comes out with a report. Guess
what they said. This bill, the grand compromise, means those who come
across the border illegally, 75 percent will keep coming under this
bill; 75 percent will keep coming under this bill. Yet the proponents
of the bill are out here with big banners and trumpeting that this is a
big border security bill. It is not. It is not that.
I have raised the question about American workers because there is no
discussion of American workers. You know they have a role in this
debate. We are told, in fact, my colleague from New Hampshire said
there are not enough workers in this country, so we need to bring in
workers. There are not enough workers to assume the jobs that are
available.
Well, that is a line that I understand. I don't agree with it, I
understand it. I understand where it is coming from. We have got a lot
of businesses in this country that have decided that workers are like
wrenches. They are like wrenches. You just use them up and throw them
away. Don't worry too much about them. Make sure you hire them for as
little as possible. By the way, keep downward pressure on that income
because workers are disposable.
If you wonder about that, by the way, just go back and read the paper
from a few weeks ago when a company called Circuit City decided they
were going to layoff 3,400 of their workers. Why? Were they bad
workers? No. It was not that at all.
This is a company with a chief executive officer who made $10 million
a year, and his workers made an average of, I believe, $11 an hour.
They wanted to have a workforce that was paid lower than that. So they
said to 3,400 of them: We are going to get rid of you because we want
to rehire people at a lower rate.
So if you wonder about this wrench analogy, just check the newspaper
one of these days. But we have a lot of people in this country who work
at the bottom of the economic scale, bottom of the ladder.

I told a story yesterday about a company from Georgia. The story was
from the Wall Street Journal. This was a poultry company. I believe
they had roughly 700 workers. Three-fourths of them were illegal
immigrants working in that company. They were paying them a pittance. I
don't remember the exact wage, but they were paying them a small amount
of money. Then they were raided by the immigration folks. It was
discovered they had all of those illegal immigrant workers, so they had
to get rid of them.
So then they had to hire other workers. Well, guess what. They went
to the newspaper and put a help wanted ad in the newspaper. They said:
We are now paying higher wages. Immediately they got a lot of
applicants because they were paying better wages. So they filled those
jobs.
A few years later they began, that same company, to contract with one
of those temporary worker groups that was able to bring together
illegal workers and package them and sell them to companies. They
started doing the same thing one more time. Why? So they could push
down wages.
Now, my point today and yesterday was, I think this is an interesting
discussion about a serious problem, immigration. But I think there is a
party that is not at the table, and that is the American workers.
Nobody wants to talk about that. We are talking about 12 million
people. What about 140 million people? What about the people,
especially that part of our workforce who, this morning, got up with
great hope, got dressed, went to work, worked hard, got paid the
minimum wage, and then finished after 8 hours of back-breaking work and
went to the second job and did another 6 or 8 hours at the minimum
wage, and then went home exhausted because they are trying to make do
with two jobs at the minimum wage for their family.
Increasingly, by the way, those workers are women. What about those
workers? Do they matter? Does it matter when you bring in people
through the back door who are willing to work for lower wages, that you
then begin pressing down and pushing down wages in this country? Does
that matter?
I have spoken at great length on this floor about the larger economic
interests who want to export American jobs to China, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh, and Singapore and various parts of the world in order to
search for lower wages.
I have spoken at length on the specific companies who left our
country, why they left, where the jobs are. I have spoken at great
length about Huffy bikes. Huffy bikes fired their workers, moved their
production to China. I know where they make Huffy bikes. Yes, I know
where they make them now. They don't make them in Ohio. They used to.
All of those folks got fired. They make them in Shenzhen, China. They
are made by people who make 30 cents an hour. They work 12 to 14 hours
a day 7 days a week.
Why do I say that? Because exactly the same economic interests that
are searching the globe for low wages, to move jobs to where they can
find the lowest wage, are some of the same economic interests that want
to bring cheap labor through the back door for the jobs that are left
to put downward pressure on American wages.
Now, the American worker has been more productive. Productivity has
increased substantially in the recent period. Yet their wages have not
kept pace. The reason is obvious. There are all kinds of ways to put
downward pressure on the wages of American workers.
Alan Blinder is no radical economist. He is a mainstream economist.
He used to be Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. They all wear
gray suits all the time. Alan Blinder is a guy who I am sure supports
free trade--supports what is called free trade. That is kind of the
mantra these days. But he wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs. Here is
what he said, the former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He
said

[[Page S7307]]

that there are over forty million American jobs that are tradeable,
which means subject to being moved offshore in search of lower wages.
He said not all of them will go. They won't. But even those that remain
here are going to have downward pressure on their wages because they
are competing with others in other parts of the world who are willing
to work for less.
My point is simple. This immigration issue and guest worker issue is
the reverse side of the same coin; the outmigration of American jobs
and the inmigration of cheap labor. This is about money. It is about
profits for big economic interests. It is sold as something else on the
floor of the Senate. We are hearing about compassion. Boy, I don't lack
compassion for anybody who is mistreated in the workplace. I know they
are.
But for a moment, instead of just talking about the immigrant worker
who came here without legal authorization, let me talk about the worker
who is here. Let me talk about a woman who lives in a used trailer
house with no running water, with an outdoor toilet, trying to raise
four kids and walking to work for the minimum wage.
Do you know how they heat that trailer house? A wood stove with a
pipe sticking out the window of the living room of a used trailer
house. A wood stove, mind you.
You want to talk about deplorable conditions. There are plenty of
them in this country for people at the bottom of the ladder struggling,
just trying to get ahead, trying to get a better way, to be lifted up
providing for their family. There is no discussion of that at all. This
entire discussion is about another group, a group of immigrations who
have came here without legal authorization.
Let me tell you, my ancestry came here from somewhere else. I am a
product of immigrant ancestors. We all have these stories. I am very
sensitive to them. I want people to be able to do well and to
participate in this American dream of ours.
Let me describe one side of my ancestry who was a woman named
Caroline who came from Norway. She came with her husband to the new
country. She ended up homesteading 160 acres of land. What happened was
they landed in Minneapolis-St. Paul as immigrants, and her husband died
of a heart attack.
This Norwegian woman got on a train with six children, they went out
to the prairies of North Dakota with six children, pitched a tent and
homesteaded 160 acres and raised a family and ran a farm.
One can only think what must be in the inner strength of someone to
do that alone in a new country. All of us have those stories. They are
wonderful stories about immigrants. This is not pro- or anti-immigrant.
This country is refreshed as a result of immigration. It has always
been. That is why we have a process of legal immigration. A million and
a half people come here every year, plus more for agricultural work.
That is what this process is about.
The dilemma is this: When I described this spot on the planet called
the United States, this spot on the planet is different. It is
different because we created something very different. Starting about
100 years ago, we began to lift up this country, expand the middle
class, provide worth to the workers of this country, understanding they
were part of the productive capability that could lift this country's
economy and provide opportunity for more Americans.
We did that in a remarkable way, and it was not easy. I have spoken
on the floor about James Fyler. James Fyler, I said, died of lead
poisoning. Well, actually, you know, he was shot 54 times. That is
probably lead poisoning. It is also being killed by 54 bullets.
You know why James Fyler was killed almost a century ago? He believed
people who went underground in this country to mine for coal--hard
work, dangerous work--he believed people who did that work--underground
mining for coal--ought to be paid a decent wage, ought to be working in
a safe coal mine. For that he gave his life, was shot 54 times.
Well, from James Fyler on forward, decade after decade after decade
we made progress, demanded progress, safe workplaces, child labor laws,
fair wages. We demanded progress--the right of workers to organize.
We lifted this country up because we expanded the middle class. More
and more Americans had opportunity. From that opportunity came
prosperity. That is a subject that has largely been ignored in the
Senate in the last couple of weeks.
What is the impact of all of this? I asked the question yesterday
about the American worker: Where is the American worker in this
discussion? What is their interest? Who represents their interest? The
answer is, the American worker is not a part of this discussion at all.
The American worker is left behind. I described them the other day as
those workers who understand seconds. They understand second mortgage,
second shift, second job. They understand second place, all of them,
struggling to make ends meet. Yet they are not a part of this
discussion. But this discussion does impact this country in many ways,
about working standards, standards of employment, wages, opportunities
to continue to expand the middle class.
I think there are claims on the floor of the Senate that if you don't
support this grand compromise, you just don't understand it, because it
is a wonderful piece of work. It provides border security. It provides
employment sanctions. It provides temporary workers to fill jobs for
which there are no Americans available, we are told. Let's look at
that.
Border security doesn't need new legislation. In 1986, the last
reform bill passed on immigration said: We will have border security.
They stood up and said: This is going to provide for border security.
We are going to stop illegal immigration. The problem is, the mask is
off the myth here as of yesterday, when the Congressional Budget Office
says the bill they brought to the floor of the Senate is a bill that
will allow 75 percent of the illegal immigration that now occurs to
continue. What kind of security is that? Apparently not much.
How about employer sanctions? We have already done that as well. That
is already the law. We don't need a new law for that. We have employer
sanctions. In 2004, the Bush administration took action against four
companies in the entire United States for hiring illegal workers. What
does that tell you? That tells you they said: We surrender. We have no
intention of administering this law. We have no intention of enforcing
the law. We surrender.
We don't need a new law to do that. All we need is some determination
that we are going to enforce employer sanctions.
With respect to temporary workers, that is the biggest ruse of all.
The temporary worker provision in this legislation is simply a request
for big business from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce saying: We will
support this bill if you give us the opportunity to bring some cheap
labor through the backdoor. That is what this is about. Don't take it
from me. Go to some of the newspaper columns that describe this grand
bargain and why the big economic interests have said: We will support
this if you allow us to bring in some immigrant labor legally under the
position of temporary workers. Apparently those who are part of the
grand compromise said: We will do that. That is a fair thing.
How do they do it? In the worst possible way. Even if you were
inclined to do it, you wouldn't do it this way. I am not inclined to
believe we ought to do it. Most of the folks who are trumpeting this
proposal are people who would talk about supply and demand. Let the
marketplace govern. The marketplace; right? I used to teach a little
economics. I know about the supply/demand curve. Except the marketplace
doesn't work very well, does it, when in fact if you can't find a
worker for a job, you might have to advertise that job at a little
extra price, a little higher wage. People who are carrying the bedpans
in the hospitals on the midnight shift, people making the beds in the
motel early the next morning, people across the counter at the
convenience store, maybe if you can't get them for the minimum wage,
maybe you will have to pay an extra 50 cents an hour. That is the
supply-and-demand relationship. But if you can bring someone else in
who says, I am sorry, I will take that job, you don't have to pay
anybody more, I will take that job for the very minimum, you can keep
downward pressure on wages. And that is

[[Page S7308]]

the strategy here. That is what this is about. Apparently supply/demand
is a good theory, but it doesn't work in a circumstance where the big
economic interests want you to keep putting downward pressure on wages.
So you say: OK, let's bring in some temporary workers. Here is the
way they did it. Follow this for a moment. They wanted 400,000 a year.
Senator Bingaman reduced that to 200,000 a year. Here is the way it
would work. You can bring in 200,000 the first year. They can stay for
2 years. They can bring their family, if they choose. Then they have to
go home for a year and their family has to go with them. They can come
back for a third year, stay for a fourth. They have to go home for a
fifth. If they never brought their family at all, they can come back
for a sixth and then a seventh year. And each year below that you can
get another group of 200,000 coming. If you didn't understand that, you
are not alone. No one understands that. That defies any kind of logic
at all. Yet that is exactly what was stuck in this legislation.
I offered an amendment last evening that passed by a vote of 49 to
48. There are people here having an apoplectic seizure about that. They
have spent most of their day gnashing their teeth and wiping their
brow, trying to figure out how to deal with it. It was simple enough,
it was a sunset after 5 years of the temporary worker program. We say
after 5 years, let's take a look. It is a new a program, a new
approach. Let's take a look and see what the impact is. What if we find
out it has a tremendous depressing impact on wages, which it very
likely will? What if we find out that 75 percent of those who were
brought in under the temporary worker program refuse to go home and
have stayed here illegally? Would you maybe want to make some
adjustments? Why not sunset it in 5 years so you are required to
evaluate that it doesn't work?
We are told: If you do that, you will be killing this legislation.
This is a poison pill. We have locked arms on this grand compromise.
You are going to kill this bill.
As I said yesterday, it is like the cheap sweater. Pull a thread, the
arm falls off. God forbid, it is going to destroy everything we have
done.
It is unbelievable. It is as if nobody else has an idea around here
except those who were in a room someplace in the Capitol called the
grand bargainers.
I have been here long enough to see many of these grand bargains.
Sometimes there are two of them. Usually not two, because that wouldn't
be called grand. But maybe six, sometimes 10, sometimes they call them
a gang. It is a gang of 12 or a gang of whatever. Every time it
happens, what you find as a result is terrible legislation. I guarantee
you, you get a gang or a group or a gaggle or whatever it is who go
into a room someplace and close the door and start developing this
sense of self-importance pumped up by a little more helium or hydrogen,
and all of a sudden, they get out here and they say: Here is the
answer. And you may not change it. Because if you do, you destroy this
carefully balanced work of ours.
So here we are--it is 7 o'clock at night--having to work 2 weeks on a
piece of legislation that, A, won't secure our borders, unfortunately.
I wish it would. I think we should. In fact, that is what we should be
doing. What we ought to do is have a bill that deals with border
security. Once we have done that, we come back, after we have border
security, and say: Now the next step, which is as important but you do
it next, is to provide for the status of those who are here without
legal authorization. We should do that. I wouldn't do it by saying the
people who came across December 31 of last year are given legal status
and a work card. That is not how I would do it, but I would be
sensitive to a lot of people who have contributed to this country for a
long time, even without legal authorization to come here. But that is
not the way this works. It is not what was brought to the floor of the
Senate.

So now we will have a second cloture vote tonight. I don't know how
that will work. Whatever the Senate will decide tonight on a second
cloture vote, if cloture is invoked, then we have 30 hours postcloture.
We will see. There are a good many amendments that have been prevented
from being offered. I mentioned Senator Webb has one. Senator Webb has
a very important amendment. He has been prevented from offering that
amendment. I know Senator Tester has one. If we are in a postcloture
period, my hope is we will relent and decide there are ideas in the
Senate that exist at every desk, not just a couple of desks. If we
believe that, maybe we will get the best of what each has to offer
rather than the worst of what most have to offer.
I wanted to make a couple comments because I heard a substantial
amount of discussion that we don't have enough Americans for the jobs
here, so we need to bring people in, all these interesting, in some
cases very convoluted, approaches to supporting legislation that is not
just imperfect but falls far short of that which is necessary to
address a very serious problem.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders) The Senator from Florida.

Darfur

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am going to take this
opportunity, while we are waiting for the next proceeding that will
come somewhere around 7:30 on this immigration bill, to report to the
Senate, having just returned from the recess from Africa, on the very
serious situation in two respects that this Senator from Florida has
tried to get his arms around. The first is, of course, the crisis in
Darfur.
Since the Government of Sudan would not give this Senator a visa to
go into Sudan to go into Darfur, there is another way to do it, and
that is to go to the backdoor by going into the neighboring country of
Chad which I did. And the Sudanese Government would not even give us
overflight rights leaving from Addis Ababa going to N'djamena, the
capital of Chad, and having to fly completely around the country of
Sudan to get to the capital of Chad which is located to the west of the
Sudan, then from the capital city of Sudan, then to take a series of
flights to get close to the eastern border where all of the Sudanese
refugees are, the Sudanese refugees who have fled the slaughter allowed
by the Sudanese Government, the slaughter of innocent people often
perpetrated by a terrorist group called the jingaweit that have been
instruments aided and abetted by the Sudanese Government, even to the
point of the Sudanese Government sending in Sudanese aircraft,
government aircraft that they sometimes paint white so as to mask as if
it is a humanitarian airplane such as the United Nations, aircraft that
bombed them, helicopters that are painted the same way that come in and
strafe them.
This has only been going on for 4 years. Look what the world
community has done to be so slow in response to this humanitarian
crisis, this genocide, this slaughter. I visited one of those refugee
camps. This particular one had about 16,000 people.
Indeed, part of their life is better off because they do not have
violence unless, by the way, the women go outside to collect firewood,
which, interestingly, is the woman's job. As a result, the food aid
relief workers there do not let the women go outside the camp to get
beat up and the young ones to get raped. They are providing them
firewood. And oh, by the way, they are providing them a stove for the
firewood that saves 80 percent of the firewood and produces the same
amount of heat. So that is progress.
It is progress in the rudimentary health care they have. That is
health care they did not get back in the Sudan, in Darfur. It is
progress those children whom I talked to in the school--the very
rudimentary school with extraordinary teachers--do not get back in
Sudan.
But what they have is a very Spartan existence. One of the mothers we
were talking to said she wanted to go back. I said: Why? She said: I
want my native food. I want meat. I want vegetables. Of course, what
they are being provided--that the World Food Program is providing so
they would not starve--is a basic diet of porridge and grains, and that
is it--and an attempt to giving them some potable water, which is a
huge problem all over Africa.
Well, that is one problem I tried to get my arms around because it is
important those of us who care about

[[Page S7309]]

these things get as educated as we can so we can speak out on them.
But there is another problem--and this was an intelligence mission
for me; I am a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee--and that is
the rise of al-Qaida in Africa. Various terrorist organizations have
morphed into an organization called al-Qaida's Committee in the
Islamic--and I do not know the African word, but it starts with an
``M.'' AQIM is the acronym. This is on the rise. That is of
considerable concern to the free world, to the industrialized world,
and especially to the United States.
After Chad, I went to Nigeria. Now, the Niger River Delta in the
country of Nigeria produces about 3 million barrels of oil a day. Mr.
President, 600,000 of that production is siphoned off or destroyed.
Often it is siphoned off simply through graft and corruption and all
kinds of banditry that is going on.
Simultaneously, while we were there, over the course of 2 days in
Nigeria, a group of 11 people--I think they were Russians--were
kidnapped. No, it was some other nationality. It was women and
children. That was the first group kidnapped. We do not know the
result. Another group of about six Russians was kidnapped. By the time
I left the country, a third group of another nationality--all there
because of being oil workers--was kidnapped. That is the kind of
lawlessness that is going on there.
But what is even a greater threat--and it would be nice if the
country of Nigeria did not allow that 600,000 barrels, so they are
only, net, producing 2.4 million barrels a day, but there is a greater
problem. There is virtually no protection for the production of that
oil, whether it be in the Niger Delta itself or it be offshore in the
waters off the West Coast of Africa. There are huge reserves for future
production virtually unprotected. It is an accident waiting to happen.
And oh, by the way, the United States gets between 12 and 14 percent
of its daily consumption of oil from Nigeria. So what do you think is
the target? That is the bad news.
Let me tell you the good news. The good news is that despite the
graft and corruption among governments throughout, despite the optimism
of new governmental leaders in various countries, including the new
President of Nigeria--who had been in office 5 days when I met with
him--despite the inability of their infrastructure to produce what they
need, let me tell you, they understand that the one partner they can
rely on is the United States.
How? Their intelligence services work with us. For that, I am
profoundly grateful and not only in those countries, those four--and
the fourth I visited was Algeria; I met the President of Algeria and
shared the same thing with him--but in other countries throughout the
region we have a good cooperation in sharing intelligence.
Ultimately, it is that intelligence that is going to prevent that
attempt by a terrorist group, such as AQIM, from destroying
activities--such as oil production--that are so important to the United
States.
Now, it is another subject for another day, that of energy
independence and start weaning ourselves from that dependence on
foreign oil. From just Nigeria--there is an example--12 to 14 percent
of our daily consumption of oil comes from that country. That is at
threat.
Another 12 to 14 percent of our daily consumption comes from
Venezuela. By the way, have you heard of a fellow named Hugo Chavez,
who keeps pounding his fist and says he is threatening to cut off the
oil to the United States?
It is another whole discussion for another day that one of the most
important agenda items of this country is weaning ourselves from that
foreign oil by going to alternative sources. But it is what it is.
That is why I was in Africa last week. To encourage that cooperation
with our intelligence services, to protect our mutual interests, to
encourage the reform of those governments so they can provide some
protection for themselves and modernize their political systems and
their economies to be of a greater benefit to their people who have so
often been put down and to realize that their future, with a richness
of natural resources, is going to become increasingly important to the
whole world.
So it is with mixed feelings that I give this report to the Senate. I
will continue to give a series of reports next week on various
terrorist activities and how they affect our interest in that part of
the world. But I wanted to give this first installment while we are at
this late hour of the day awaiting some of the first test votes we are
going to have now on this immigration bill.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Georgia be allowed to speak for up to 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments
I have filed to the pending immigration legislation.
I was at home over the Memorial Day recess and had an opportunity to
talk about the pending bill with a number of constituents. For many of
the folks I spoke with, their top concern was border security. There
was a deep feeling of skepticism about the ability of the U.S.
Government to deliver effective control of our borders. Their concerns
certainly have merit, and that is why it is so important that we prove
we are serious about border security by securing our borders before any
proposed immigration reforms are put into place.
The issue before us is critical to the future of our country in terms
of national security, economic prosperity, and the fabric of our
Nation. I hope we will proceed with a thoughtful and thorough debate in
the Senate, because the proposals we are going to be asked to consider
are enormous in scope and have far-reaching implications.
I have filed some amendments, and I know a number of my colleagues
have filed amendments, to try to improve this legislation. It is my
hope we will have an opportunity to continue to work through this
process in a manner that recognizes the importance of this issue,
rather than adhering to an arbitrary timeline for completion. We must
ensure that not only the Senators, but also the American people, have
ample opportunity to fully comprehend the consequences of any action we
take.
America needs secure borders. Right now, we do not have them. As a
nation of immigrants which honors the rule of law, we must secure our
borders to make America safe so we can fix our country's immigration
system. A nation that cannot secure its borders cannot secure its
destiny or administer its laws.
The current proposal contains the first border security trigger
envisioned by my fellow Senator from Georgia, Johnny Isakson. It says
no temporary worker program or transition to Z visa status for those
currently illegally in the country can begin until the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security certifies to the President and to the
Congress that the specific key border security measures are funded, in
place, and operational. These triggers include constructing 370 miles
of fencing that was previously authorized, 200 miles of vehicle
barriers at the border, and finishing the goal of doubling the size of
the Border Patrol since this President took office.
The trigger also includes a provision that detention facilities must
have a total capacity of 27,500 beds to end the practice of catch and
release on our southern border. It is absolutely vital that the Senate
act to put the resources and mechanisms in place to allow the
Department of Homeland Security to gain operational control of our
borders and to have stronger and more meaningful enforcement of our
immigration laws in the interior of the United States.
With enhanced enforcement, we have already seen a positive change at
the border. The number of people apprehended for illegally crossing our
southern border is down by nearly 27 percent

[[Page S7310]]

in 2007 from this point in time in 2006. You might say, the numbers of
apprehensions are down; that does not sound as though the agents are
doing a very good job, and more people are getting in. The fact is the
numbers are down because our Border Patrol agents are doing an
outstanding job and because illegal entrants are deterred from even
trying to cross as news of our increased security has made its way
south. So starting with border security and ensuring we get our borders
secure through certain mechanisms is my top priority, and this bill
does that.
While I have been supportive of getting us to this point and
supportive of the framework of this approach, there are certain issues
I believe can be improved upon. Some of my colleagues have amendments
to do that, and I wish to discuss briefly a couple of amendments I have
filed.
My first amendment, No. 1318, deals with protecting the Social
Security trust fund for the future retirees of this Nation. I ask
unanimous consent that Senators Inhofe, Isakson, Enzi, and Murkowski be
made cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. In 2004, the Commissioner of Social Security signed a
totalization agreement with the Director General of the Mexican Social
Security Institute. While the President has not yet submitted the
United States-Mexico totalization agreement to Congress, I am concerned
the agreement could threaten the retirement benefits of Americans.
Totalization agreements allow workers who divide their careers between
two countries to combine work credits from both countries to qualify
for Social Security benefits. It also prevents workers from paying
Social Security taxes in both countries. While this seems like a good
idea that ensures fairness, the proposed totalization agreement with
Mexico leaves many questions unanswered in terms of its cost to
American taxpayers. I am concerned the proposed totalization agreement
with Mexico and possible future totalization agreements will impose
significant costs on the already overburdened U.S. Social Security
system.
The problem is current law doesn't require Congress to affirmatively
review a totalization agreement and determine if it is in the best
interests of American taxpayers. Under current law, a totalization
agreement automatically goes into effect unless either the House of
Representatives or the Senate adopts a resolution of disapproval within
60 legislative days of the President submitting it to Congress. If no
action occurs during this timeframe, Congress is deemed to support the
totalization agreement and it automatically goes into effect.
My first amendment will change this current practice so that Congress
has its proper constitutional role in determining whether totalization
agreements are in the best interests of our country by ensuring that
totalization agreements only go into effect after explicit approval
from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The amendment
will also require the Social Security Administration to provide regular
reports to Congress that examine both the projected costs and the
actual costs of all totalization agreements. In short, this amendment
will ensure that proper debate and analysis take place prior to the
approval of an agreement that can impact our Social Security trust
fund.
The second amendment I wish to address tonight is No. 1319. This
amendment deals with the fine structure for Z-A workers, which is a
part of the agriculture piece of this legislation. I worked very
closely with my colleagues, Senator Craig and Senator Feinstein, to
make some changes to the agriculture portion of this bill which was
initially drafted, but one area that was left unresolved in our
discussion was the amount of fines agricultural workers would be
required to pay under the Z-A visa program. Under the substitute bill
we are debating, an agricultural worker's fine to obtain a Z-A visa is
$100, as compared to the $1,000 that regular Z applicants must pay.
Then, for those Z-A workers who wish to depart the country and make
application for a green card, the fine in the underlying substitute is
$400 as compared to the $4,000 for regular Z visa holders.
This amendment is very simple. This brings into parity the fine
structures for Z visa workers and Z-A visa workers. However, the
amendment also recognizes that annual earnings from agricultural
employment are generally lower than in other sectors of the economy due
to the often seasonal nature of agricultural work.
The amendment requires agricultural workers to pay a $1,000 fine at
the time they make application for a Z-A visa, just as workers in other
sectors of the economy must pay a $1,000 fine when they make
application for a Z visa. Further, the amendment requires Z-A visa
workers to pay a $4,000 fine at the time they make application for a
green card, just as Z visa workers must pay a $4,000 fine. However, Z-A
workers would be allowed to discount $1,000 from the $4,000 fine for
each year they worked in agriculture under the terms of the bill, with
a maximum deduction of $3,000. So the total fine amount a
Z-A worker will be mandated to pay is $2,000, as compared to the $5,000
the Z visa workers are mandated to pay, provided those workers stay in
the field of agriculture, which is one of the ideas behind the base
bill, as well as this provision. I think this fine structure is much
more equitable than the current total of $500 that Z-A workers are
expected to pay.
It also recognizes some of the unique aspects of agricultural work.
Regardless of the sector of the economy in which the Z visa applicants
work, we need to ensure that the fines, which are penalties, are
meaningful and difficult to achieve.
These are two commonsense, straightforward amendments. I hope the
Senate will have an opportunity to consider them soon.
With that, 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Change of Vote

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 194, I was present
and voted no. The official record has me listed as absent; therefore, I
ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to
accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the amnesty provisions included in
this bill.
Nevertheless, I voted against the Coburn amendment, because it would
have codified expedited procedures in the Senate for considering the
Presidential certifications required by the amendment. Exempting
legislation from debate and amendment in the Senate is a dangerous
practice, and contrary to the constitutional purpose of this unique
institution. One need only look to the legislative line-item veto or
budget reconciliation process to understand how such procedures could
be abused.
Had those expedited procedures not been included in the Coburn
amendment, I would have supported it.
Mr. President, I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. Waiving our
immigration laws, instead of enforcing them, is amnesty--no matter what
the level of fines and penalties assessed. It encourages others to
flout our laws knowing that they could be similarly rewarded.
Amnesties undermine the great American principle that the law should
apply equally and fairly to everyone. This bill would create a separate
set of rules--one for those who obey the law and one for those who do
not. It is a special set of laws for those who chose not to follow the
regular process that everybody else had to go through. It is a
congressional pardon for lawbreakers--both for illegal aliens and the
unscrupulous employers who exploit them.
Many employers are anxious to take advantage of the cheap labor that
this bill would provide, but the responsibility would fall on the
Nation as a whole to make the public investments necessary to absorb
these workers into the economy. It is a false promise, to immigrants
and U.S. citizens alike, when the infrastructure of our Nation--our
schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy

[[Page S7311]]

networks--are increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the
population.
I speak from experience when I say that this amnesty will not work.
President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the
time, I supported amnesty based on the very same promises we hear
today--that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement
would stem the flow of illegal immigration. The 1986 amnesty did not
work. After 1986, illegal immigrant population more than quadrupled
from 2.7 million aliens, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens
today. In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after
amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers.
I will not vote to make the same mistake twice.
Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing
problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, and in its processing of
immigration applications. It only took nineteen temporary visa holders
to slip through the system to unleash the horror of September 11. The
pending proposal would shove tens of millions of legal and illegal
aliens--many of whom have never gone through a background check--
through our border security system over the next decade, in effect
swamping a bureaucracy that is already struggling to keep its head
above water. Terrorists and criminal aliens have exploited these kinds
of amnesties before, and they will do so again.
The United States cannot guarantee the security of its borders, and
simultaneously waive the law for those who circumvent that security.
The Congress must choose between law enforcement and amnesty. I choose
law enforcement. The Congress must choose between border security and
amnesty. I choose border security.
I will oppose this measure, in the hope that the amnesty provisions
are removed, and that the Senate quickly passes a clean border security
bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, late last night we voted on amendment
No. 1151 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. The
disposition of this amendment can be seen in the Record under rollcall
vote No. 198. I was allowed to speak for 1 minute prior to this
rollcall vote; however, I wish to extend my remarks in order to fully
explain my stance on this important issue.
Let me begin by stating emphatically that I fully support English as
the official language of the United States. However, I cannot vote in
favor of an amendment that would eliminate rights that currently are
reserved for my constituents under the New Mexico Constitution. We must
be cautious before we act and it is the devil in the details of the
amendment that was placed before the Senate, which would chill and
infringe on the constitutional rights of our diverse citizenship and
would stand in direct contradiction to the constitution of my home
State of New Mexico that makes this amendment overreaching.
Most people do not know that Congress delayed New Mexico's admission
to statehood until speakers of English became the majority of the
State. To underline the point, the New Mexico Enabling Act required
that the public schools be conducted in English and that ``ability to
read, write, speak and understand English without an interpreter . . .
be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the
state legislature.'' However, in 1911 the U.S. Supreme Court found that
Congress could not place such conditions on newly admitted States and
removed the English language restriction from the New Mexico Enabling
Act.
Thereafter, New Mexico adopted its State Constitution which contains
important guarantees of the rights of Spanish speakers, including the
right to vote, hold office, and sit on juries. Specifically, the New
Mexico Constitution states ``[t]he right of any citizen of the state to
vote, hold office or sit upon juries, shall never be restricted,
abridged or impaired on account of religion, race, language or color,
or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages
except as may be otherwise provided in this constitution . . .''
Moreover, the New Mexico Constitution requires public school teachers
to be trained in both English and Spanish to ensure that Spanish-
speaking students are properly taught the English language. Coupled
with this constitutional provision is another constitutional right that
ensures children of Spanish descent are entitled to a public education.
This amendment would not amend the New Mexico Constitution. I
mentioned this only to point out another New Mexico constitutional
provision that requires all ballots that would amend the New Mexico
Constitution be printed in both English and Spanish. The Spanish
influence in my home State dates so far back that for the first 20
years of New Mexico's statehood, all laws passed by the State
legislature were required to be printed in both English and Spanish.
I am always interested to hear others discuss their family histories,
some of which date back at least 200 years in this country. However, I
think that there is a misconception that the adoption of an official
language is strictly in response to illegal immigrants. That is not
true. The declaration of an official language directly impacts the
history, customs, and traditions of our American families. The family
histories that can be heard throughout New Mexico date back over 400
years. These are not illegal immigrants; these are the first
inhabitants of the land that is now called New Mexico.
Mr. President, while I fully support English as the official language
of the United States, I will not support a proposal that would cast in
doubt the laws and rights afforded to all of the citizens of New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to discuss why I voted against
cloture this morning on S. 1348, the border security and immigration
reform bill currently being debated by the Senate.
As a border State Senator, I know first hand the need to secure our
international borders because every day I hear from constituents who
must deal with illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on
our borders and the status quo is not acceptable. I support many of the
provisions in S. 1348 because we must address this border crisis.
However, I was forced to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on S.
1348 because Democrats are refusing to allow votes on amendments to the
legislation on the Senate floor.
More than 300 amendments have been filed to this bill. Only about 10
percent of those amendments have been dealt with. Clearly the Senate,
which is known for its deliberative nature, has not had an adequate
opportunity to improve upon this bill on the floor. What's more, this
bill did not go through the committee process and so there was no
opportunity to improve the bill there.
I was here in 1977 and 1978 when the Senate debated the Natural Gas
Policy Act. That debate went on for weeks and hundreds of amendments
were considered. There is no reason to avoid that process in this
situation. The issues of border security and immigration are some of
the most important issues facing America today, and those issues
deserve full and fair debate.
The Democrats' refusal to allow votes on amendments means that my
amendments, which are very important to New Mexico, the southwest
border, and the Nation, cannot be considered. Those amendments would
have provided two more Federal judges in New Mexico to deal with
immigration cases, ensured that small businesses have access to
temporary workers they need, provided more personnel for Federal land
agencies that must help secure Federal land on the international
border, allowed New Mexico to reap the economic benefits of Mexican
nationals coming legally to the United States for a short period of
time for tourism and travel, called for Mexico's cooperation on border
security and border crime, addressed the lack of law enforcement radio
coverage on remote parts of the international border, strengthened and
improved the Border Patrol Academy at Artesia, NM, and called for
coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Defense on aerial surveillance efforts along the border.
My amendments are based on needs that are imperative to border
security, and many of them were suggested specifically by New Mexicans
to help New Mexico. I would like to discuss a few of those amendments
in more detail.
First, I have heard from many Federal judges from the District of New

[[Page S7312]]

Mexico and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals about the crisis New
Mexico faces from an overloaded immigration docket. Seventy-one percent
of Federal criminal cases filed in New Mexico are immigration cases.
This is the highest percentage of immigration cases anywhere in the
United States, and New Mexico needs more judges to handle that
caseload. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to address this crisis by
offering an amendment to S. 1348 that would have provided New Mexico
with two new Federal judges.
Second, I have heard from New Mexico small businesses about their
need for temporary workers in the food processing, construction, oil
and gas, and restaurant industries. These small businesses were
concerned that they would not have access to the temporary workers they
need under S. 1348 as it is written, so I offered an amendment to set
aside a number of temporary worker visas to only be used by small
businesses. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to address New Mexico
small businesses' needs.
Third, some of the land on New Mexico's international border is
Federal land. The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Park
Service are working with the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to
secure these lands, but these Federal land agencies need more personnel
to work on these issues. I offered an amendment to provide this
personnel, but that amendment has not been considered.
Fourth, remote parts of the New Mexico/Mexico border do not have
radio coverage, which prevents DHS and law enforcement from
communicating. I have filed an amendment that would enhance radio
communications capabilities in these areas, but this amendment has not
been considered.
Fifth, New Mexico is at an economic disadvantage over neighboring
border states because there are no border towns in New Mexico that
Mexican nationals can access when they legally enter the U.S. on a
laser visa. This is because such nationals can only travel 25 miles
into New Mexico. I have filed an amendment to expand the limit laser
visa holders can travel into New Mexico so that laser visa holders can
legally visit Las Cruces and other towns near the New Mexico/Mexico
border. Unfortunately, this amendment, which would bring economic
benefits to southern New Mexico, has not been considered.
The refusal of Democrats to allow consideration of these and my other
amendments is nothing short of irresponsible behavior towards the
security of America and the needs of New Mexico, and I cannot support
cloture on S. 1348 without assurances that these measures will be
considered.
Additionally, many of the provisions that I have supported in S. 1348
have been amended to the point that the bill no longer has its initial
impact. For example, the temporary worker program that is critical to
so many industries in my State does not meet those industries' needs.
Further, the bill as amended calls into question some laws and customs
of my home State.
Because of Democrats' refusal to consider important amendments to
this bill, we will not see any of the comprehensive border security
improvements that New Mexico and other border States desperately need,
and I could not be more disappointed.
I support efforts to address border security and immigration reform
legislation, and I applaud Senators Kyl, Kennedy, Specter, Salazar,
Martinez, Graham, and others who have worked long and hard on this
bill. However, I cannot support cloture on the bill at this time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our country today faces serious issues
with our immigration policy. I appreciate the opportunity that we have
before us to engage in this important debate and to work the will of
the Senate on this complex matter.
The legislation we have before us, the compromise reached by a number
of our colleagues, has provided us with a starting point for reform of
a broken immigration system and to strengthen our border security.
Recognizing, however, that there are ways that we can improve upon
the work of the ``grand compromise,'' as it has come to be known, I
have joined with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor of an amendment that
would increase the amount of funding made available to State and local
governments to mitigate the costs of public education and health care
created by the inadequacy of our current immigration system.
I understand from my conversations with Virginians around the State
that unauthorized immigration has caused a fiscal burden on State and
local governments, one which must be addressed by this Congress. The
provisions of the legislation before us include a crucial State impact
assistance account that would provide reimbursement for state and local
entities for the vital services that they provide.
The amendment that I am pleased to cosponsor adds additional funding
to this account without adding a burden to taxpayers. By increasing,
for immigrants in both the Y- and Z-visa categories, the fee that these
applicants must pay at the time of their application, this amendment
makes a positive step toward alleviating the burdens faced by health
providers, educational agencies, and others eligible for funding
through the State impact assistance account.
Under this amendment, the fee on applicants for these categories
would be set at $750, and an additional fee of $100 would be set for
each additional dependent. For the primary applicants in both the Y-
and Z-visa categories, this represents an increase of only $250 above
the legislation in its current form. I note that this amount $750 is
also the same fee agreed upon under legislation passed by the Senate
with a majority of support last year.
In my view, any legislative approach to provide overall immigration
reform must rest on the foundation that an outright amnesty is
unacceptable and that securing our borders is imperative. Then, in a
sound, workable, and realistic way, this Congress must address the
issue of the millions of undocumented workers who are already in our
country. All of these components are absolutely essential to ensuring
our security as a nation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

[Quorum No. 3 Leg.]

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to
request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Enzi), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner).

[[Page S7313]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 13, not voting--14, as
follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

YEAS--72

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--13

Allard
Bennett
Collins
DeMint
Grassley
Gregg
Hutchison
Inhofe
Lott
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter

NOT VOTING--14

Biden
Brownback
Coburn
Cornyn
Enzi
Graham
Hagel
Johnson
Kerry
Lincoln
McCain
Rockefeller
Specter
Warner
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to move briefly to proceed to a
motion to reconsider, but I wanted to tell all Members that this vote
is not going to be a 20-minute vote. There are people coming from all
over the country, both Democrats and Republicans. I don't think it
matters. This is going to be the last vote of the night, anyway, but
this vote will go a little longer.
I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the failed cloture vote on the substitute be agreed to, the
motion to reconsider be agreed to, and the Senate proceed to vote on
the motion to invoke cloture on the Kennedy-Specter substitute
amendment No. 1150.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1150, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by Mr. Reid of Nevada, to S. 1348, to provide for comprehensive
immigration reform and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Voinovich
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Pryor
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Warner
Webb

NOT VOTING--4

Brownback
Coburn
Enzi
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 45 the nays are 50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.

____________________