Floor Statements

Mr. President, we will soon begin consideration of legislation to educate America's students, with Head Start, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Higher Education Act all slated for reauthorization. One of the most important aspects of No Child Left Behind is its provision for a highly qualified teacher for every child, in every classroom in America.

Expert teachers are the most important educational resource in our schools, and also the most inequitably distributed. In the United States, too many students in high-need schools are taught by inadequately prepared teachers, who are often not ready for the challenges they face, and thus leave the classroom too soon. High- poverty schools lose one-fifth of their teaching staff each year. This constant turnover of inexperienced, inadequately prepared teachers undermines efforts to create stable learning cultures and to sustain school improvement, especially in schools with greatest need.

Many schools are being identified as in need of improvement, and many students are asked to be successful in schools where success is a rare commodity. Rather than being a leader in a competitive world where educational attainment is precious, America has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the industrialized world. Three out of every 10 ninth-grade students will not graduate on time, and about half of all African American and Hispanic ninth graders will not earn a diploma in four years. Less than 2 out of every 10 students who begin high school will receive a postsecondary degree within a reasonable time. Students of color, new immigrants, and children living in poverty are all being left behind. A good education is granted to some, but denied to others, denied not only to children of color in our cities, but also to children living in poverty in our rural areas. We must end this.

We must recruit the best and the brightest Americans to become teachers and we must transform teaching, restoring its luster as a profession, so that when new teachers join it, they are successful, and want to stay. As teachers and principals are increasingly being held individually responsible for student success, it is increasingly important that we adequately prepare teachers to become successful.

Research shows that inexperienced teachers are less effective than teachers with several years of experience, but good preparation programs can make novice teachers effective more rapidly. We must help novice teachers get the training and coaching they need. Teacher preparation seldom provides the opportunity to learn under the supervision of expert teachers working in schools that effectively serve high-need students. Most new teachers lack such support, and so leave the profession before achieving success.

Today I am proud to introduce the Teaching Residency Act, which builds on a successful model of teacher preparation similar to medical residencies. Teaching Residency Programs are school-based teacher preparation programs in which prospective teachers teach alongside a mentor teacher for one academic year, receive master's level coursework in teaching the content area in which they will become certified, and attain certification prior to completion of the program. Once certified, graduates of the program are placed in high-needs schools, and continue to receive strong mentoring and coaching for their first years of teaching. This bill proposes establishing Teaching Residency Programs as a provision of Title II of the Higher Education Act.

I am particularly proud to introduce this legislation today, because it is a model of effective teacher preparation that I have supported since before I was elected to the Senate in 2004. I have seen the power of teacher residencies through the very successful Academy for Urban School Leadership in my home State of Illinois. And I am pleased to be supported in this effort by the introduction of legislation in the House by my good friend, Congressman Rahm Emanuel.

It is critical to develop programs that increase the probability that recruits will succeed and stay in those classrooms where they are most needed. Teaching Residency Programs are based on what we know works best to improve teacher preparation. We know that mentoring is critical to help young teachers develop in the early years of their career and to retain many of new teachers who would otherwise leave the profession in their first years. We cannot afford to lose any more high quality teachers because they do not feel supported or do not feel that they are progressing professionally.

I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. President, this Nation has witnessed dramatic improvements in public health and health care technology and practice over the last century. Diseases that were once life-threatening are now curable; conditions that once devastated are now treatable. Our Federal investment in

medical research has paid off handsomely, with new and more effective tests and treatments and near daily reports of new scientific breakthroughs. Yet still today too many Americans have not and will not derive full benefit from these advances.

We know that minority Americans and other vulnerable populations needlessly continue to experience higher rates of disease and lower rates of survival, and this is simply unacceptable. As we in the Congress work to combat the serious health issues that threaten the well-being of all Americans, we must also remain vigilant and committed in our fight to address the persistent and pervasive health disparities that affect millions of minorities, low-income individuals and other at-risk populations.

Congress has passed legislation before to address the health of minority populations and eliminate health disparities--the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. That bill created the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities, supported the landmark IOM report Unequal Treatment, required annual reporting on health care disparities by AHRQ, and strengthened the research base for many HBCU's, among many other provisions.

Since that bill passed, our knowledge and understanding about the root causes of these disparities has dramatically increased. Efforts to strengthen the research infrastructure needed to investigate health concerns among people of color have been quite effective. Momentum has also accelerated in the medical and public health communities as advocates' voices are heard more and more, with new interventions being implemented and evaluated. All of these positive steps and advances have helped to raise minority health as a national priority. However, despite this activity, much work remains to be done in order to close the gap and eliminate health and health care disparities.

Study after study reveals the stark line of health disparity drawn between minorities and whites. In cancer alone, the numbers are hard to overlook. In 2004, African American men were 2.4 times as likely to die from prostate cancer, as compared to white men. For heart disease, the statistics are equally compelling: 2004 data show that when compared to white men, African American men were 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease, and American Indian adults were 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure.

The underlying factors for health disparities are multi-factorial. Our individual genetic makeup certainly contributes to differences in rates of disease and mortality in diverse populations. However, other factors play an equal if not greater role. We know that minority and low-income Americans are disproportionately less likely to live in communities that promote healthy behaviors and choices through access to wholesome foods and opportunities for physical activity, and that protect from exposure to environmental toxins and violence. In addition, minority Americans are less likely to have health coverage and thus more likely to experience difficulties accessing the health care system, which leads to delayed diagnoses and foregone care. And last but not least, we know that minority Americans are less likely to receive medical care that meets recommended or accepted standards of practice, when compared to White Americans. As an example, the American Journal of Public Health has reported that more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same level of health care as Whites.

For all of these reasons, I am joining my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Cochran in introducing the Minority Health Improvement and Health Disparity Elimination Act of 2007. This critical legislation has a number of important provisions to help us achieve our goal to improve the health status of minority and other underserved populations. First, this bill strengthens education and training in cultural competence and communication, which is the cornerstone of quality health care for all patients. It also reauthorizes the pipeline programs in title VII of the Public Health Service Act, which seek to increase diversity in the health professions. We all know that the door to opportunity is only half open for minority students in the health professions. The percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low--African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians account for one-third of the Nation's population but less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists and only 12 percent of nurses. We can-- and must--do better.

Lack of workforce diversity has serious implications for both access and quality of health care. Minority physicians are significantly more likely to treat low-income patients, and their patients are disproportionately minority. Studies have also shown that minority physicians provide higher quality of care to minority patients, who are more satisfied with their care and more likely to follow the doctor's recommendations.

Second, this bill expands and supports a number of initiatives to increase access to quality care. Specifically, the legislation authorizes demonstration grants to improve access to healthcare, patient navigators, and health literacy education services. Additionally, partnerships modeled after the Health Disparity Collaboratives at the Bureau of Primary Health Care are supported through established grants. The REACH program at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--designed to assist communities in mobilizing and organizing resources to support effective and sustainable programs to reduce health disparities--is established under this bill. And I am pleased that the Health Action Zone Initiative has also been authorized. This new environmental public health program was introduced as part of the Healthy Communities Act of 2007 that I introduced earlier this year, and guides and strengthens community efforts to improve health in comprehensive and sustained fashion.

A third area of focus is expansion and acceleration of data collection and research across the agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Health, with special emphasis on translational research. The tremendous advances in medical science and health technology, which have benefited millions of Americans, have remained out of reach for too many minorities, and translational research will help to remedy this problem. The National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which has a leadership role in establishing the disparities research strategic plan at the National Institutes of Health, is reauthorized. And a new advisory committee has been established at the Food and Drug Administration to focus on pharmacogenomics and its safe and appropriate use in minority populations, another issue area that I championed as part of my Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006.

Last but not least, I want to highlight that the bill strengthens and clarifies the duties of the Office of Minority Health. This office has been critical in providing the leadership, expertise and guidance for health improvement activities across the agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, and has helped to ensure coordination, collaboration and integration of such efforts as well.

In conclusion, I want emphasize that it is past time to expand and accelerate our work in a of minority health beyond the initial bipartisan effort Congress achieved in 2000. We have got to translate the knowledge we have gained into practical and effective interventions that will improve minority health and eliminate disparities, and this bill will help us do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and passing this critical legislation. Regardless of how you measure it, whether by needless suffering, lost productivity, financial costs, or lives lost, disparities in health and health care are a tremendous problem and a moral imperative for our Nation, and one that is within our power to address right now.

Mr. President, we will soon begin consideration of legislation to educate America's students, with Head Start, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Higher Education Act all slated for reauthorization. One of the most important aspects of No Child Left Behind is its provision for a highly qualified teacher for every child, in every classroom in America.

Expert teachers are the most important educational resource in our schools, and also the most inequitably distributed. In the United States, too many students in high-need schools are taught by inadequately prepared teachers, who are often not ready for the challenges they face, and thus leave the classroom too soon. High- poverty schools lose one-fifth of their teaching staff each year. This constant turnover of inexperienced, inadequately prepared teachers undermines efforts to create stable learning cultures and to sustain school improvement, especially in schools with greatest need.

Many schools are being identified as in need of improvement, and many students are asked to be successful in schools where success is a rare commodity. Rather than being a leader in a competitive world where educational attainment is precious, America has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the industrialized world. Three out of every 10 ninth-grade students will not graduate on time, and about half of all African American and Hispanic ninth graders will not earn a diploma in four years. Less than 2 out of every 10 students who begin high school will receive a postsecondary degree within a reasonable time. Students of color, new immigrants, and children living in poverty are all being left behind. A good education is granted to some, but denied to others, denied not only to children of color in our cities, but also to children living in poverty in our rural areas. We must end this.

We must recruit the best and the brightest Americans to become teachers and we must transform teaching, restoring its luster as a profession, so that when new teachers join it, they are successful, and want to stay. As teachers and principals are increasingly being held individually responsible for student success, it is increasingly important that we adequately prepare teachers to become successful.

Research shows that inexperienced teachers are less effective than teachers with several years of experience, but good preparation programs can make novice teachers effective more rapidly. We must help novice teachers get the training and coaching they need. Teacher preparation seldom provides the opportunity to learn under the supervision of expert teachers working in schools that effectively serve high-need students. Most new teachers lack such support, and so leave the profession before achieving success.

Today I am proud to introduce the Teaching Residency Act, which builds on a successful model of teacher preparation similar to medical residencies. Teaching Residency Programs are school-based teacher preparation programs in which prospective teachers teach alongside a mentor teacher for one academic year, receive master's level coursework in teaching the content area in which they will become certified, and attain certification prior to completion of the program. Once certified, graduates of the program are placed in high-needs schools, and continue to receive strong mentoring and coaching for their first years of teaching. This bill proposes establishing Teaching Residency Programs as a provision of Title II of the Higher Education Act.

I am particularly proud to introduce this legislation today, because it is a model of effective teacher preparation that I have supported since before I was elected to the Senate in 2004. I have seen the power of teacher residencies through the very successful Academy for Urban School Leadership in my home State of Illinois. And I am pleased to be supported in this effort by the introduction of legislation in the House by my good friend, Congressman Rahm Emanuel.

It is critical to develop programs that increase the probability that recruits will succeed and stay in those classrooms where they are most needed. Teaching Residency Programs are based on what we know works best to improve teacher preparation. We know that mentoring is critical to help young teachers develop in the early years of their career and to retain many of new teachers who would otherwise leave the profession in their first years. We cannot afford to lose any more high quality teachers because they do not feel supported or do not feel that they are progressing professionally.

I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. President, this Nation has witnessed dramatic improvements in public health and health care technology and practice over the last century. Diseases that were once life-threatening are now curable; conditions that once devastated are now treatable. Our Federal investment in

medical research has paid off handsomely, with new and more effective tests and treatments and near daily reports of new scientific breakthroughs. Yet still today too many Americans have not and will not derive full benefit from these advances.

We know that minority Americans and other vulnerable populations needlessly continue to experience higher rates of disease and lower rates of survival, and this is simply unacceptable. As we in the Congress work to combat the serious health issues that threaten the well-being of all Americans, we must also remain vigilant and committed in our fight to address the persistent and pervasive health disparities that affect millions of minorities, low-income individuals and other at-risk populations.

Congress has passed legislation before to address the health of minority populations and eliminate health disparities--the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. That bill created the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities, supported the landmark IOM report Unequal Treatment, required annual reporting on health care disparities by AHRQ, and strengthened the research base for many HBCU's, among many other provisions.

Since that bill passed, our knowledge and understanding about the root causes of these disparities has dramatically increased. Efforts to strengthen the research infrastructure needed to investigate health concerns among people of color have been quite effective. Momentum has also accelerated in the medical and public health communities as advocates' voices are heard more and more, with new interventions being implemented and evaluated. All of these positive steps and advances have helped to raise minority health as a national priority. However, despite this activity, much work remains to be done in order to close the gap and eliminate health and health care disparities.

Study after study reveals the stark line of health disparity drawn between minorities and whites. In cancer alone, the numbers are hard to overlook. In 2004, African American men were 2.4 times as likely to die from prostate cancer, as compared to white men. For heart disease, the statistics are equally compelling: 2004 data show that when compared to white men, African American men were 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease, and American Indian adults were 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure.

The underlying factors for health disparities are multi-factorial. Our individual genetic makeup certainly contributes to differences in rates of disease and mortality in diverse populations. However, other factors play an equal if not greater role. We know that minority and low-income Americans are disproportionately less likely to live in communities that promote healthy behaviors and choices through access to wholesome foods and opportunities for physical activity, and that protect from exposure to environmental toxins and violence. In addition, minority Americans are less likely to have health coverage and thus more likely to experience difficulties accessing the health care system, which leads to delayed diagnoses and foregone care. And last but not least, we know that minority Americans are less likely to receive medical care that meets recommended or accepted standards of practice, when compared to White Americans. As an example, the American Journal of Public Health has reported that more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same level of health care as Whites.

For all of these reasons, I am joining my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Cochran in introducing the Minority Health Improvement and Health Disparity Elimination Act of 2007. This critical legislation has a number of important provisions to help us achieve our goal to improve the health status of minority and other underserved populations. First, this bill strengthens education and training in cultural competence and communication, which is the cornerstone of quality health care for all patients. It also reauthorizes the pipeline programs in title VII of the Public Health Service Act, which seek to increase diversity in the health professions. We all know that the door to opportunity is only half open for minority students in the health professions. The percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low--African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians account for one-third of the Nation's population but less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists and only 12 percent of nurses. We can-- and must--do better.

Lack of workforce diversity has serious implications for both access and quality of health care. Minority physicians are significantly more likely to treat low-income patients, and their patients are disproportionately minority. Studies have also shown that minority physicians provide higher quality of care to minority patients, who are more satisfied with their care and more likely to follow the doctor's recommendations.

Second, this bill expands and supports a number of initiatives to increase access to quality care. Specifically, the legislation authorizes demonstration grants to improve access to healthcare, patient navigators, and health literacy education services. Additionally, partnerships modeled after the Health Disparity Collaboratives at the Bureau of Primary Health Care are supported through established grants. The REACH program at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--designed to assist communities in mobilizing and organizing resources to support effective and sustainable programs to reduce health disparities--is established under this bill. And I am pleased that the Health Action Zone Initiative has also been authorized. This new environmental public health program was introduced as part of the Healthy Communities Act of 2007 that I introduced earlier this year, and guides and strengthens community efforts to improve health in comprehensive and sustained fashion.

A third area of focus is expansion and acceleration of data collection and research across the agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Health, with special emphasis on translational research. The tremendous advances in medical science and health technology, which have benefited millions of Americans, have remained out of reach for too many minorities, and translational research will help to remedy this problem. The National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which has a leadership role in establishing the disparities research strategic plan at the National Institutes of Health, is reauthorized. And a new advisory committee has been established at the Food and Drug Administration to focus on pharmacogenomics and its safe and appropriate use in minority populations, another issue area that I championed as part of my Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006.

Last but not least, I want to highlight that the bill strengthens and clarifies the duties of the Office of Minority Health. This office has been critical in providing the leadership, expertise and guidance for health improvement activities across the agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, and has helped to ensure coordination, collaboration and integration of such efforts as well.

In conclusion, I want emphasize that it is past time to expand and accelerate our work in a of minority health beyond the initial bipartisan effort Congress achieved in 2000. We have got to translate the knowledge we have gained into practical and effective interventions that will improve minority health and eliminate disparities, and this bill will help us do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and passing this critical legislation. Regardless of how you measure it, whether by needless suffering, lost productivity, financial costs, or lives lost, disparities in health and health care are a tremendous problem and a moral imperative for our Nation, and one that is within our power to address right now.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in favor of the Bingaman-Obama Y-1 guest worker amendment.

The Bingaman-Obama amendment removes the requirement that Y-1 visa holders under the new guest worker program leave the United States for at least 1 year before renewing their visas. Designing a worker program where people are supposed to come to the U.S. for 2 years, leave for a year, return for 2 years, leave for a year, and then return for 2 years is a recipe for creating a new undocumented population.

Our amendment does not modify the overall number of permissible work years, which would still be limited to a total of 6 years, and it doesn't change the term of the visa, which would still be 2 years. In order to renew their visa, applicants would still have to demonstrate that they are eligible to meet the requirements of the program. The amendment maintains the general structure of the program, but revises it in a manner that makes the program more workable.

We need to pass this amendment because the process in the underlying bill

is costly and burdensome on employers, especially small businesses. Requiring employers to rehire and retrain workers every 2 years imposes unnecessary costs and creates instability in the workforce.

The underlying language is also harmful to American workers. The 1- year absence requirement would ensure that guest workers are always at the lowest end of the pay scale, which would depress overall wages. And the system as now designed provides an additional incentive for guest workers to overstay the term of their visas. Rather than returning to their home countries after their 2-year visas expire, many workers will just remain in the United States and become undocumented immigrants.

In short, the temporary worker design in the bill is unworkable and difficult to enforce. It is unlikely that the government will be able to sufficiently track the entry and exit of these workers to ensure that they comply with the 1-year absence requirement. By removing the 1-year requirement to leave the country between renewals we would at least be making the program workable.

Our amendment has the support of a variety of labor, business, immigration, and religious groups. Specifically, the Service Employees Union International, SEIU, the National Association of Homebuilders, NAHB, the Associated Builders and Contractors, ABC, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, AILA, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National Immigration Forum, NIF, have voiced their strong support of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to speak about the new point system created in this bill--a proposal that will radically change the way we judge who is worthy of lawful entry into American society.

For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country. For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued employees. The bill before us changes that policy--a policy that, while imperfect, has worked well, and this bill will now replace it with a new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who look good on paper but who may not have any familial or economic ties to our country.

I have serious concerns about this new experiment in social engineering, not only because of the lack of evidence that it will work but because the bill says the new point system cannot be changed for 14 years. For that reason, I come to the floor today, joined by Senators Menendez and Feingold, to offer amendment No. 1202 to sunset the point system after 5 years.

I am pleased that immigration experts, religious organizations, and immigrant advocacy organizations have all endorsed our amendment.

These groups have endorsed our amendment because the point system in this bill constitutes a radical shift in immigration policy, premised on the view that there is something wrong with family and employer- sponsored immigration. If this program were merely supplementing the current system rather than significantly replacing it, it would not have caused as much concern.

Religious organizations and immigrant advocacy groups have also endorsed my amendment because the decisions about what characteristics are deserving of points--and how points are allocated for those characteristics--were made without a single hearing or public examination.

They support the amendment because the new points system shifts us too far away from the value we place on family ties and moves us toward a class-based immigration system, where some people are welcome only as guest workers but never as full participants in our democracy. Indeed, the practical effect of the points system is to make it more difficult for Americans and legal permanent residents with family living in Latin America to bring them here.

Our current immigration system delivers the lion's share of green cards--about 63 percent--to family members of Americans and legal permanent residents, while roughly 16 percent of visas are allocated to employment-based categories. The bill before us would reduce visas allocated to the family system in order to dramatically increase the proportion of visas distributed based on economic points. Once implemented, these new economic points visas would then account for about 40 percent of all visas, while family visas would account for less than half of all visas, with the remainder going for humanitarian purposes.

Under the new system, just a few of the current family preferences would be retained in any recognizable form. Spouses and children of U.S. citizens would still be able to come, but parents of U.S. citizens would no longer be counted as immediate family. Thus, most parents seeking to join their children and grandchildren in the United States would be denied green cards.

The rest of the current family preferences--siblings, adult children, and many parents--would be eviscerated.

The new points system would also eliminate employment-based green cards altogether, forcing employers recruiting workers abroad to rely exclusively on short-term H-1B and Y visas. This proposal takes an admittedly problematic employment-based visa system and replaces it with a far more problematic temporary worker visa system.

The design of the points system leaves numerous questions unanswered. Beyond pushing workers from Latin America to the back of an endless line with no hope of ever reaching the front, the new points system leaves unspecified the crucial question of how migrants with sufficient points will be prioritized. Government bureaucrats would thus be left with unprecedented discretion to determine which immigrants have acceptable education, employment history, and work experience to merit admission into the country.

Taken together, the questionable design of this points program and the fundamental shift away from family preferences in the allocation of visas raises enough flags that we should not simply rubberstamp this proposal and allow it to go forward.

Let me be clear. Senators Menendez, Feingold, and myself are not proposing to strike the program from the bill, but this system should be revisited after a reasonable amount of time to determine whether it is working, how it can be improved, and whether we should return to the current family and employer-based system that has worked so well.

Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, we live in a global economy, and I do believe America will be strengthened if we welcome more immigrants who have mastered science and engineering. But we cannot weaken the very essence of what America is by turning our back on immigrants who want to reunite with their family members, or immigrants who have the willingness to work hard but might not have the right graduate degrees. That is not who we are as a country. Should those without graduate degrees who spoke Italian, Polish, or German instead of English have been turned back at Ellis Island, how many of our ancestors would have been able to enter the United States under this system?

Character and work ethic have long defined generations of immigrants to America. But these qualities are beyond the scope of this bill's points system. It tells us nothing about what people who have been without opportunity can achieve once they are here. It tells us nothing about the potential of their children to serve and to lead.

In short, the points system raises some serious concerns for me. I am willing to defer to those Senators who negotiated this provision and say we should give it a try, but I am not willing to say this untested system should be made virtually permanent. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support to sunset this points system after 5 years so we can examine its effectiveness and necessity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I understand, but I wish to respond to my colleague from South Carolina since it appears to be directed at me.

I would like to give additional time. When the Senator from South Carolina addresses me directly, I feel it is appropriate for me to respond.

Mr. President, I have a very simple response to what we just heard. I think it is important to consider the actual amendment before us as opposed to what appeared to be a broad-based discussion of the bill overall.

What this amendment specifically does is it says we will go forward with the proposal that has been advanced by this bipartisan group. It simply says we should examine after 5 years whether the program is working. The notion that somehow that guts the bill or destroys the bill is simply disingenuous and it is engaging in the sort of histrionics that is entirely inappropriate for this debate. This is a bill that says after 5 years, we will examine a point system in which we have had no hearings in the public. Nobody has had an opportunity to consider exactly how this was structured. It was structured behind closed doors. And the notion that after 5 years we can reexamine it to see if it is working properly, as opposed to locking it in for 14 years, that somehow destroys the bipartisan nature of this bill is simply untrue.

I ask all my colleagues to consider the nature of the actual amendment that is on the floor as opposed to the discussion that preceded mine.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It sunsets after 5 years the points system that has been structured in this bill. I wish to emphasize that I think the authors of this legislation deserve credit for working diligently and coming up with a carefully balanced bill, but the points system we are transitioning to is a radical departure from the one we have had in the past. The question is, do we, after 5 years, take a look and see whether it is working properly? Is it one that is inhibiting families from unifying in this country? Is it something that is making it easier or harder for employers to operate effectively in a lawful fashion?

What this amendment simply says is that after 5 years, we will reexamine the bill.

I leave it there. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear colleague and a tireless advocate for the people of Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas.

Muhammad Ali once said, ``Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on Earth.'' Senator Thomas paid his rent in full.

No truer to his State could a man be than Craig Thomas was. Born and raised on a ranch outside of Cody, WY, he grew up in the Wyoming public school system, attended the University of Wyoming, served as president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau, general manager of the Wyoming Rural Electric Association. He served in both the House and Senate and returned to his State every weekend, visiting hometowns and parks, never losing sight of his constituents and their needs.

His commitment to this country led him to serve with great distinction in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1955 to 1959. Before being elected to the U.S. Congress, he held office for 5 years in the Wyoming State Legislature, where he got his start in politics. And throughout his distinguished political career, Craig Thomas became known for his leadership on issues so critical to the well-being of Wyoming, issues like rural health care access, fiscal responsibility, and the protection of our Nation's park lands. As cochair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, he urged Congress to continue its support for rural health programs like the Community Health Centers Program, which provides services to over 16 million

people living in underserved areas. This is only one of the many legacies he leaves behind.

I am sorry I could have not served longer with Senator Thomas. My memories of him are as a kind, quiet, and humble man. He commanded enormous respect from us all, and had a clarity of vision that did not go unnoticed. In the face of a life-threatening illness, he returned to work this year with the conviction of a cowboy who knows that if you get thrown from a horse, you have to get up and get back on. His courage throughout this tremendous battle will continue to inspire those of us who follow him.

On this sad occasion of his passing, Michelle and I extend our deepest condolences to the members of his family, especially his wife Susan and his four children, to his staff, and to the people of Wyoming. I join my colleagues and fellow Americans who are praying for them and mourning their loss during this time of grief.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the occasion of National Hunger Awareness Day.

Hunger and poverty are among the great moral challenges confronting our society. Hunger and poverty require us all to respond--because our society can be judged by how we treat our most vulnerable citizens. If there is a child out there who has done everything she has been asked and still has to say no to the college of her dreams, that makes a difference in our lives, even if it is not our child. If there is a senior citizen who has to go bag groceries because some company broke their promise about his pension, that matters to us, even if it is not our grandparent. If there is a veteran who has been wounded in this war, and ends up back here on the streets picking through a dumpster for food, that diminishes the patriotism of every American.

This week the Food Research and Action Center, FRAC, has released its annual study: ``State of the States: 2007.'' This important research highlights levels of hunger, poverty and the use of federal nutrition programs nationally and in each State.

This report and its findings underscore why we must continue the push in Congress to strengthen proven anti-hunger measures such as the Food Stamp Program. We have made progress over the last few decades in combating extreme hunger in our communities. But the work is not over. In Illinois, for example, more than 150,000 households are hungry, and many more families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming hungry. We can do better. That is why I have joined my friend Dick Durbin in pushing to strengthen antihunger measures in this year's farm bill, and I will continue to support vital programs that can reduce hunger in our communities. The Food Stamp Program, for example, helped an average of 26.7 million Americans each month last year, while on average the USDA has estimated that every Food Stamp dollar generates approximately $1.80 in economic activity. And for many families, Food Stamp support is vital during their transition from TANF to employment. This is the kind of nutrition and antipoverty program Congress should be enhancing and investing in.

I am also proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1172, the Hunger Free Communities Act, which was introduced by Senator Durbin and enjoys strong bipartisan support. This measure would improve and strengthen Hunger-Free community grants that aide our frontline antihunger organizations, as well as establishing much needed, hunger-focused research efforts within USDA and setting national goals for reducing hunger.

Other Federal nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, Women, Infants and Children, WIC, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, offer critical support to some of our Nation's neediest citizens. After all, how can we expect our children to be productive and attentive at school when they haven't had breakfast or lunch?

I have learned from my time in Washington that hunger is one of those issues that every politician likes to talk about. What is harder, it seems, is to follow through and take substantive steps to eradicate hunger in our communities. That is why I am grateful for the close support and collaboration of our many friends and outside groups that are at the frontline of combating hunger and raising the profile of this issue every day. They hold us accountable for ensuring our deeds match our words.

I hope that my colleagues will continue to join in this important moral endeavor of addressing the most basic needs of our brothers and sisters--and strengthening our Federal nutrition programs.

William Clifton France, Jr.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate is debating how to reform our Nation's immigration policies, and while this is a contentious debate, there is one point I think all sides agree upon-- U.S. citizenship is a prized possession. The most fundamental right afforded to us as U.S. citizens is the right to vote. I am disturbed that there is an amendment being offered on this bill that seeks to limit citizens' access to that right.

Senator McConnell has offered an amendment that requires U.S. citizens to show identification before they can exercise the most important right afforded them by the U.S. Constitution. Proponents of this bill argue that this identification is necessary to combat voter fraud. In fact, before the last elections in 2006 we heard a great deal about the threat of voter fraud.

This administration staked a lot on that so-called threat. We have learned in recent months that such a threat just did not exist. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch said it best, when, in an April 17, 2007 editorial, the paper called this whole ``voter fraud'' issue a ``snipe hunt'': ``In a snipe hunt, gullible kids are taken out to the woods, handed sticks and gunny sacks and told track down the elusive snipe. Meanwhile, their pals, who know a snipe is a bird of marsh and shore and generally found nowhere near the woods, yuck it up.''

Well, in this snipe hunt, the Senate is supposed to fall prey to the ruse that there are folks out there just lining up on election day to fraudulently cast their vote and we in the Senate and in Congress need to get our sticks and gunny sacks ready, so we can snare some of these fraudulent voters. Well, let me tell you, I am not going to fall for it.

Because the facts say something different. A 5-year study by the Election Assistance Commission shows that voter fraud is almost non- existent. A report from the Missouri Secretary of State shows that no one in the State tried to vote with a fake ID in 2006. The Carter-Baker commission said that in 2002-2004 fraudulent votes made up .000003 percent of the votes cast. That is a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a Federal election.

The Department of Justice, which in 2002 created a voter fraud task force, has admitted that only 86 people were convicted of voter fraud- related crimes in the last 5 years and only 24 convictions during the last 3 years--a rate of 8 per year.

So, because 24 people nationwide in the last years may have voted despite their ineligibility to do so, we here in the Senate are supposed to pass a bill requiring all citizens to show ID when they vote.

That would be a mistake, and you only have to look to the State of Georgia to see why.

Georgia's photo ID requirement was a poll tax for the 21st century. It was a law that required some of the poorest in our country--those who probably don't have access to transportation--to possibly travel great distances and pay up to $35 just for the privilege of making their voice heard.

We have to remember this is a group that is disproportionately poor and without easy access to all the documents necessary for a government-issued ID. So even if this ID card were completely free, how easy would it be for an 85-year-old grandmother to find her birth certificate? Who would drive the destitute all the way to the nearest Federal building to get one of these cards? While the McConnell amendment authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' to pay for these ID cards, it is a frightening proposal to condition the right to vote on the appropriations process.

After Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, our country awakened to the plight of the most vulnerable Americans--the ones who, when the storm hit, couldn't just hop in their SUVs, fill up with $100 worth of gas, put some bottled water in the trunk, drive off with their credit card in hand,

and check into the nearest hotel until the calamity passed. We learned that, when we pass laws and make policy in this country, our government too often forgets these Americans--that we too often ignore their needs.

Now, here is an amendment doing that again. This time, by limiting access to one of our most fundamental and constitutional-protected rights: the right to vote.

I would ask that all my colleagues reject the amendment so we can move on to the important business at hand.

Mr. President, as a college education becomes ever more imperative for economic success, both for individual citizens and for our Nation, a growing number of African-American students enroll in colleges whose mission includes a focus on educating minority students. And, over the years, Congress has acknowledged the important role of similar institutions, recognizing for example, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic Serving Institutions, by establishing grant programs to support their missions. Today, I am introducing legislation to recognize the importance of Predominantly Black Institutions as an essential component of the American system of higher education.

The Predominantly Black Institution designation recognizes urban and rural colleges, many of which are 2-year community or technical colleges, which serve a large proportion of African-American students, most of whom are the first in their families to attend college, and most of whom receive financial aid. These students have already beaten the odds to progress this far, and it is fitting that we offer some support to the institutions they attend, to ensure that the education they receive is worthy of their efforts.

Whereas Predominantly Black Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities both serve African-American students, they differ in ways that necessitate this legislation. Historically Black Colleges and Universities are not required to serve needy students, whereas Predominantly Black Institution must serve at least 50 percent low-income or first-generation college students. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, by definition, were established prior to 1964, whereas PBIs are of more recent origin.

Approximately 75 institutions, and more than a quarter of a million students, would benefit from grants awarded as a result of the Predominantly Black Institution designation. Grants could be used for a variety of purposes, from acquiring laboratory equipment to supporting teacher education to establishing community outreach programs for pre- college students.

Legislation to establish Predominantly Black Institutions was introduced last year by my good friend from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis. I urge my Senate colleagues to consider the needs of these students, to support their colleges and universities, and to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, as a college education becomes ever more imperative for economic success, both for individual citizens and for our Nation, a growing number of African-American students enroll in colleges whose mission includes a focus on educating minority students. And, over the years, Congress has acknowledged the important role of similar institutions, recognizing for example, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic Serving Institutions, by establishing grant programs to support their missions. Today, I am introducing legislation to recognize the importance of Predominantly Black Institutions as an essential component of the American system of higher education.

The Predominantly Black Institution designation recognizes urban and rural colleges, many of which are 2-year community or technical colleges, which serve a large proportion of African-American students, most of whom are the first in their families to attend college, and most of whom receive financial aid. These students have already beaten the odds to progress this far, and it is fitting that we offer some support to the institutions they attend, to ensure that the education they receive is worthy of their efforts.

Whereas Predominantly Black Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities both serve African-American students, they differ in ways that necessitate this legislation. Historically Black Colleges and Universities are not required to serve needy students, whereas Predominantly Black Institution must serve at least 50 percent low-income or first-generation college students. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, by definition, were established prior to 1964, whereas PBIs are of more recent origin.

Approximately 75 institutions, and more than a quarter of a million students, would benefit from grants awarded as a result of the Predominantly Black Institution designation. Grants could be used for a variety of purposes, from acquiring laboratory equipment to supporting teacher education to establishing community outreach programs for pre- college students.

Legislation to establish Predominantly Black Institutions was introduced last year by my good friend from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis. I urge my Senate colleagues to consider the needs of these students, to support their colleges and universities, and to join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 p.m. today, there be 4 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1169, with the time divided as follows: 2 minutes under the control of Senator Bingaman, and 1 minute each under the control of Senators Kennedy and Specter or their designees; that without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I wish also to speak to the bill.

Mr. President, last year, I spoke at one of the marches in Chicago for comprehensive immigration reform. I looked out across the faces in the crowd. I saw mothers and fathers, citizens and noncitizens, people of Polish and Mexican descent, working Americans, and children. What I know is these are people we should embrace, not fear. We can and should be able to see ourselves in them.

I do not say that to diminish the complexity of the task. I say it because I believe that attitude must guide our discourse. We can and should be able to fix our broken immigration system and do so in a way that is reflective of American values and ideals and the tradition we have of accepting immigrants to our shores.

I think the bill that has come to the floor is a fine first step, but I strongly believe it requires some changes. I am working with others to improve it.

In approaching immigration reform, I believe that we must enact tough, practical reforms that ensure and promote the legal and orderly entry of immigrants into our country. Just as important, we must respect the humanity of the carpenters and bricklayers who help build America; the humanity of garment workers and farmworkers who come to America to join their families; the humanity of the students like my father who come to America in search of the dream. We are a Nation of immigrants, and we must respect that shared history as this debate moves forward.

To fix the system in a way that does not require us to revisit the same problem in twenty years, I continue to believe that we need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace. And that means a workable mandatory system that employers must use to verify the legality of their workers.

But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America and what pushes them out of their home countries. Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should. And these goals are not mutually exclusive. We should not say that Spanish speaking or working class immigrants are only good enough to be temporary workers and cannot earn the right to be part of the American family.

With regard to the most pressing part of the immigration challenge-- the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.--we must create an earned path to citizenship. Now, no one condones unauthorized entry into the United States. And by supporting an earned path to citizenship, I am not saying that illegal entry should go unpunished. The path to permanent residence and eventual citizenship must be tough enough to make it clear that unauthorized entry was wrong.

But these immigrants are our neighbors. They go to our churches, and their kids go to our schools. They provide the hard labor that supports many of the industries in our country. We should bring them out of hiding, make them pay the appropriate fines for their mistakes, and then help them become tax paying, law-abiding, productive members of society.

I am heartened by the agreement that we have to put all 12 million undocumented immigrants on a path to earned citizenship. I applaud those who worked on this compromise. But there are other parts of the compromise deal before us that cause me serious concern. Let me briefly address some of those concerns.

In order to stem the demand for illegal workers, we need a mandatory employment verification system that is actually mandatory. It needs to allow employers to check with the Department of Homeland Security to see that their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. This is something I worked on last year. But this year's version of the employment eligibility verification system would give DHS too much power to force the screening of everyone working in America without appropriate safeguards. I will be working with others to offer an amendment to make this provision closer to what we proposed last year.

As for the guestworker program in the bill, it proposes to create a new 400,000 person annual temporary worker program that could grow to 600,000 without Congressional approval. And it expands the existing seasonal guestworker programs from 66,000 up to 100,000 in the first year and 200,000 after that. At the end of their temporary status, almost all of these workers would have to go home. That means at the end of the first three years, we would have at least 1.2 million of these new guestworkers in the country with only 30,000 of those having any real hope of getting to stay. I believe we are setting ourselves up for failure, and that will just create a new undocumented immigrant population.

As we have learned with misguided immigration policies in the past, it is naive to think that people who do not have a way to stay legally will just abide by the system and leave. They won't. This new group of second-class workers will replace the current group of undocumented immigrants, placing downward pressure on American wages and working conditions. And when their time is up, they will go into the shadows where our current system exploits the undocumented today.

I will support amendments aimed at fixing the temporary worker program that Senator Bingaman and others will be offering. And if we're going to have a new temporary worker program, those workers should have an opportunity to stay if they prove themselves capable and willing to participate in this country.

But the most disturbing aspect of this bill is the point system for future immigrants. As currently drafted, it does not reflect how much Americans value the family ties that bind people to their brothers and sisters or to their parents.

As I understand it, a similar point system is used in Australia and Canada and is intended to attract immigrants who can help produce more goods. But we need to consider more than economics; we also need to consider our Nation's unique history and values and what family-based preferences are designed to accomplish. As currently

structured, the points system gives no preference to an immigrant with a brother or sister or even a parent who is a United States citizen unless the immigrant meets some minimum and arbitrary threshold on education and skills.

That's wrong and fails to recognize the fundamental morality of uniting Americans with their family members. It also places a person's job skills over his character and work ethic. How many of our forefathers would have measured up under this point system? How many would have been turned back at Ellis Island?

I have cosponsored an amendment with Senator Menendez to remove that arbitrary minimum threshold of points before family starts to count and to bump up the points for family ties.

And at the appropriate time, I will be offering another amendment with Senator Menendez, to sunset the points system in the bill. The proposed point system constitutes, at a minimum, a radical experiment in social engineering and a departure from our tradition of having family and employers invite immigrants to come. If we are going to allow this to go forward, then Congress should revisit the point system in five years to give us time to examine the concept in depth and determine whether its intended or unintended consequences are worth the cost of continuing the experiment or whether we should return to the existing system that allows immigrants to be sponsored through family and employers.

In closing, we must construct a final product that has broad bipartisan support and will work. I agree with Senator Brownback that the time to fix our broken immigration system is now. If we do not fix it this year, I fear that divisions over the issue will only deepen and the challenge will grow.

I also believe that we have to get it right. I think it is critical that as we embark on this enormous venture to update our immigration system, it is fully reflective of the powerful tradition of immigration in this country and fully reflective of our values and ideals.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the visit of Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi to Washington. This visit comes at an important time for the U.S.-China relationship and highlights the enormous stakes involved.

As I have said in the past, China's rise offers great opportunity but also poses serious challenges. It is critical the U.S. do all it can to ensure that China's rise is peaceful and its trade practices fair, and under those conditions, the United States should welcome China's continuing emergence and prosperity.

At the same time, we must remain prepared to respond should China's rise take a problematic turn. This means maintaining our military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthening our alliances, and making clear to both Beijing and Taipei that a unilateral change in the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is unacceptable. Also, though today China's military spending is one-tenth of ours, we must monitor closely China's strategic capabilities while also pushing for greater transparency of its defense activities.

Although we must remain vigilant in monitoring these potential developments, our two nations also should strive to build a relationship that broadens areas of cooperation where we share mutual interests, as we have done to respond to the nonproliferation challenge posed by North Korea. And we should strengthen our ability to manage our differences effectively. While we must never hesitate to be clear and consistent with China where we disagree--whether on protection of intellectual property rights, the manipulation of its currency, human rights, or the right stance on Sudan and Iran--these differences, as a general rule, should not prevent progress in areas where our interests intersect.

Trade and economic issues, the subject of the upcoming Strategic Economic Dialogue, are one crucial example of the significant opportunities and challenges China's rise presents.

China is now the third largest economy in the world and is an increasingly formidable commercial competitor. But China also is our fastest growing overseas market, fueling over $50 billion in U.S. exports that help support thousands of export-related jobs. Many Americans also benefit from inexpensive Chinese products that keep down our cost of living, and China is an important link in the global supply chain that benefits U.S. commercial interests.

But none of that constitutes a reason to turn a blind eye to those ares of the economic relationship that are troubling. China ran a trade surplus with the United States of over $200 billion last year--the largest ever between any two countries--accounting for nearly a third of our total global trade deficit. Neither America nor the world can accept such imbalances, and if they remain, it is inevitable that there will be demands for protection in America and elsewhere.

I believe that the answer to the Chinese economic challenge is not to build walls of protection but to knock down barriers, demand fair treatment for our products and services, and increase our own competitiveness.

Much of the hard work to be done lies at home. We must implement policies to reduce our budget deficits and increase national savings-- in order to reduce our dependence on borrowing to finance our deficits. We must ensure that our companies and workers have the tools they need to compete in the global economy. Among other things, this means stepping up our investments in education, training, and science and technology. We must make sure those Americans whose livelihoods are threatened by our changing economic relationship with China have access to the resources and support they need.

But China must bear a substantial share of the responsibility for restoring greater balance in its economic relations with the United States and the rest of the world. Just as the United States cannot unilaterally restore balance to China's economic relations, the United States alone cannot mute protectionist demands. China must itself act to bring greater balance in its global trade, so that all countries benefit from its growth.

I commend Treasury Secretary Paulson for pursuing a strategic economic dialogue with China, but it must produce meaningful and lasting results. Even as we develop a better understanding of how Chinese leaders view their own economic priorities, we need to confirm that these same leaders understand how the policies they pursue affect the United States and the global economy.

As a principal beneficiary of globalization, China needs to support and strengthen the international economic system as well. For example, it can and should take steps to increase consumption--drawing in more imports and reducing dependence on exports for growth. China needs a modem financial system to achieve this. American companies can help develop such a system but not if the playing field is unfairly tilted toward Chinese companies.

China can and should contribute to bolstering the world's economic system by allowing its currency, the renminbi, to be determined by market forces. Today, Beijing amasses as much as $20 billion a month in foreign currency, with the effects of keeping the renminbi substantially undervalued and giving China an undue advantage in trade. The recent move to widen the currency trading band is useful, but China must move more quickly toward a market-based currency.

China can and should contribute to the success of globalization by providing stronger protection of intellectual property rights. The fact that 80 percent of the pirated goods seized by U.S. Customs come from China is unacceptable. It suggests just how much work needs to be done in this area.

China can and should contribute to the world's economic health by altering its energy policies--addressing the needs of its people at home while not exacerbating problems abroad. Domestically, China's priority should be to increase energy efficiency. A system

that requires twice as much energy as the United States to produce each dollar of economic growth is problematic.

At the same time, China needs to find cleaner sources of energy. Sixteen of the twenty cities with the worst air in the world are in China, and China is poised to overtake the United States in greenhouse gas emissions in 2 to 3 years. Just this week, a new report found that worldwide carbon dioxide levels have accelerated rapidly since 2000, in part because of China's reliance on coal.

China should rely on international energy markets to provide its oil and gas imports and work with the United States and others to develop common approaches to energy supplies and security. To continue seeking privileged arrangements with countries such as Sudan and Iran--states that commit gross human rights violations and that threaten to develop weapons of mass destruction--is to dramatically complicate efforts of the international community to address these questions and, in effect, to ratify these deeply troubling practices.

I hope Treasury Secretary Paulson can persuade the Chinese to change their practices. We will all be better off with a China whose emergence strengthens the international system rather than disrupts it.

China's economic growth is a good thing for China's 1.3 billion people, and can be a good thing for the United States. China is increasingly a constructive participant in the international system, and that trend should be supported and encouraged. But China cannot expect the United States and its overseas partners to tolerate unfair practices and glaring imbalances triggered by its rise. China needs to take steps that not only benefit its people but sustain the international system from which China itself benefits so greatly.

Mr. President, unfortunately, I had to miss today's vote on the Dorgan amendment to strike the new Y visa worker program in the bill. As currently designed, the temporary worker program in this bill is designed to fail.

The program in the bill proposes to create a new 400,000 person annual temporary worker program that could grow to 600,000 without congressional approval. It expands the existing seasonal guestworker programs from 66,000 up to 100,000 in the first year and 200,000 after that. At the end of their temporary status, almost all of these workers would have to go home. That means at the end of the first 3 years, we would have at least 1.2 million of these new guestworkers in the country with only 30,000 having any real hope of getting to stay.

As we have learned with misguided immigration policies in the past, it is naive to think that people who do not have a way to stay legally will just abide by the system and leave. They won't. The current group of undocumented immigrants will be replaced by a new group of second- class workers who will place downward pressure on American wages and working conditions. And when their time is up, they will go into the shadows where our current system exploits the undocumented today.

Mr. President, the struggle to protect the civil rights of all Americans remains an unfinished project, but we have come a long way. I am proud of our country's progress, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Commemorative Coin Act, which marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most significant civil rights victories in American history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided affirmation to Americans who knew this country could do better. This legislation outlawed discrimination based on sex, national origin, color, race, and religion. Access to offices, schools, housing, the voting booth, and public spaces would no longer depend on the color of one's skin or the country of one's birth. Heeding President Kennedy's call for ``the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves,'' this historic legislation affirmed that all Americans were equal under before law. Years passed before the Civil Rights Act was enforced fully, but its passage represented a necessary step in the advancement of civil rights.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act was possible because of the persistent, nonviolent efforts of countless Americans. Heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and John Lewis inspired a generation, and the marches, sit-ins, freedom rides, and individual acts of civil disobedience reminded our country's leaders that the time to act had arrived. All Americans are indebted to these patriots for their courage and success, and we honor them with this legislation.

In addition to marking the Civil Rights Act in word, this bill also commemorates the act in deed. Proceeds from the sale of these coins will go to the United Negro College Fund, UNCF, an organization that embodies the spirit of the Civil Rights Act. The United Negro College Fund works to uproot the core causes of discrimination by providing minorities with opportunities that discrimination stole from them. Education provides students the opportunity to fulfill their potential and overcome stereotypes and, indeed, discrimination. Frederick Douglass described education as ``the pathway from slavery to freedom.'' The days of slavery have passed, but education still enables young people to take advantage of their faculties and their freedom.

The United Negro College Fund achieves this aim by providing support to more minority students and higher institutions than any other organization in the country. Since its founding in 1944, UNCF has helped hundreds of thousands of students attend college. It includes in its alumni some of the foremost leaders in American history, including Dr. King and Congressman Lewis. Today, the United Negro College Fund raises money for operating funds for member colleges and universities, provides access to new technology to historically Black colleges and universities, and provides assistance to young people who hope to further their careers and their lives by going to college.

This legislation commemorates historic sacrifices and victories and reminds us that we must continue to work for a more equal America.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the conference agreement on the budget resolution that was just passed by the House of Representatives this afternoon.

This budget makes an important departure from the irresponsible budgets of the recent past and begins to restore balance. Instead of gutting programs that help our most vulnerable citizens and communities, this budget enables these programs--like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Medicare, COPS and others--to keep serving those who rely on the commitments our Nation has made to help all its citizens. Instead of gimmicks and passing the buck to others, this budget brings greater transparency and responsibility back to Washington.

I am supporting this agreement as an important step in getting America's budget back on track. A large part of getting back on track is reinstating the pay-go rule in the Senate. Under pay-go, Congress will not be able simply to pass along the debt to future generations for the choices we make today. We will have to be accountable for paying our own bills and collecting our own revenue. Pay-go by itself will not bring our budget back to balance, but it will help those of us committed to fiscal responsibility to keep budget deficits from getting worse.

When I talk to families in Illinois and across the country, I hear the same sets of concerns and aspirations. The people I meet want affordable health care for themselves and their children. They want a quality education for their children. They are concerned about our national security and our domestic security. They want to retire with dignity. They are concerned about the costs of this war in the thousands of sacrificed lives and the hundreds of billions of dollars borrowed from abroad. They are concerned about their own credit card debts and our rising national debt.

The failure of our nation to guarantee access to affordable health care for children is shameful. This budget rejects the President's proposed cuts to the State Children's Health Insurance Program and makes children's healthcare a priority for Congress.

The security of our Nation is a critical priority, and honoring our veterans is our moral obligation. This budget fully funds our Defense and Homeland Security funding needs and makes it possible to provide the quality health care and services that our veterans deserve.

This budget calls for strong new measures to close the tax gap, shut down tax scams, and address offshore tax havens. I am particularly pleased to see the strong support for improved mandatory reporting by brokerage firms of the adjusted cost basis of their clients' stock, bond, and mutual fund investments.

During the Senate debate on the Budget Resolution, two of my amendments were adopted to increase summer-term education funding and to promote carbon sequestration technology. I am pleased that the conference agreement has laid the foundation to accommodate legislation that I have introduced in these important fields.

This budget fully funds the President's request for defense spending while prioritizing improvements in veterans health care, children's health coverage, and education. It eliminates the deficit by 2012 and reduces spending as a share of GDP. And it does this without raising taxes or requiring deep cuts to critical government services.

This budget demonstrates that we can rise above ideology and gimmicks and begin tackling the serious challenges we face as a nation. I commend the outstanding leadership of Chairman Conrad and the good work of the House and Senate conferees.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this conference agreement.

I rise today, along with Senator Brownback, to introduce the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007. Before proceeding, I want to commend Chairman Frank for introducing similar legislation on the House side--he is a major force behind this legislation and should be recognized for his work on this issue.

This bill will enable citizens, institutional investors, and State and local governments to ensure that their money is not being used by companies that help develop Iran's oil and gas industry. This would place additional economic pressure on the Iranian regime with the goal of changing Iranian policies.

The Obama-Brownback legislation does this in three ways:

First, this legislation requires the U.S. government, every 6 months, to publish a list of companies that are investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. This sunshine provision accomplishes two important objectives. It provides investors with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about the consequences of their investments. And, since it is already illegal for U.S. companies to make such investments, it provides a powerful incentive for foreign companies to discontinue investments in Iran.

Second, this legislation authorizes State and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list. Several states, such as Florida and Missouri, have already taken actions to achieve these ends. But the States' authority to undertake these measures is unclear, so an explicit authorization from Congress, contained in this bill, will resolve this issue.

Third, this legislation seeks to give fund managers safe harbor and also provide investors with more choices. For fund managers who divest from companies on this list, the Obama-Brownback bill helps protect these managers from lawsuits brought by unhappy investors. The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the government's own 401(k) fund, the Thrift Savings Plan, should create a ``terror-free'' and ``genocide-free'' investment options for government employees.

We need this bill, as Iranian actions have been well-documented. Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program, and its unwillingness to allow comprehensive international oversight, pose unacceptable risks to the United States and our allies. The international community has voiced its opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions. For example, the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions last December, and again in March of this year, increasing sanctions on Iran for its failure to suspend uranium enrichment.

The Iranian regime has been actively sowing the seeds of instability and violence in Iraq, with deadly consequences for American soldiers. Beyond Iraq's borders, Iranian leaders are exporting militancy, sectarianism, and rejectionism throughout the Middle East. Fueled by the billions of dollars it earns from oil and gas exports, Iran has been pumping money into radical Islamist terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Every bit as worrying is the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly calling to ``wipe Israel off the map.''

It is quite a list. But in the midst of all of this, there are signs that some Iranians understand the impact their regime's behavior is having on Iran's national interests. Conservatives in Iran look where the radicals are trying to take the country--more confrontation and more radicalism, and they are worried.

We should send a message that, if Iran wishes to benefit from the international system, it must play by international rules. If it chooses to flout those rules, then the world will turn its back on Iran. Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is an important piece of that process, and we should allow pension funds to do so.

For all of its bluster, Iran is not a strong country. Its oil infrastructure is weak and badly in need of investment. The economy lurches under the weight of quasi-state run industries, and billions of dollars in Iranian cash sit offshore because Iranians have so little faith in their government's management of the economy. This is precisely why we need legislation along the lines of what I am introducing here today.

In general, we need to think carefully about allowing divestment, which is a tool that can be misused. However, I believe that Iran is a special case. And, in this case, divestment legislation can dissuade foreign companies from investing in energy operations whose profits will be used to threaten us. It is not a magic bullet--there is none in this situation--but is one of a menu of actions, each of which can help us to deter Iranian aggression.

We are currently involved in one ruinous war, and we need to avoid indiscriminate saber-rattling which could involve us in another. This administration's failure in Iraq has emboldened and empowered Iran, and the forces allied with it, including Hamas and Hezbollah. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to deal with Iran. It is incumbent upon us to find and implement ways to pressure Iran short of war, ways that demonstrate our deep concern about Iran's behavior, and ways that will help us to exert leadership on this issue. This bill is one of those ways.

I have called for direct engagement with Iran over its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But, direct dialogue, as we conducted with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, should be part of a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to head off this unacceptable threat. So should the legislation Senator Brownback and I are introducing today.

I hope my colleagues will cosponsor the Obama-Brownback legislation. On the House side, I hope my colleagues in that Chamber sign on to the Frank bill. I look forward to working with others to get this bill signed into law.

In closing, I want to thank Daniel McGlinchey and James Segel of Chairman Frank's staff for their work on this bill. They were extraordinarily helpful in putting together this legislation, and I would be remiss I did not recognize their efforts.