Floor Statements

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about Craig Thomas. He was a friend of mine and of all of us in the Senate. His death is a shock to this institution and to all of us. I heard the news this morning on the radio, as many of us did, I believe, and I was genuinely shocked to hear that he had died. My last encounter with him was the week before we had our recess where I had the chance to be with him in the Energy Committee, and he was there and very much participating in that committee hearing. He had a great deal to say, as he usually did, and an interest in what was going on.

I think the first thing that comes to my mind about Craig is that he was an example of courage in the face of adversity. I have seen several interviews recently where I was very admiring of Elizabeth Edwards and the tremendous example she is presenting for the entire country about carrying on in the face of adversity after having been diagnosed, as she has been. I think the American people appreciate that, and understandably. I appreciate it, and I am sure everyone who is aware of her circumstance appreciates it greatly.

The same can be said about Craig Thomas. Craig was diagnosed with leukemia shortly before his reelection this last fall, and I think everybody had to know that this was not a minor illness that was easily overcome. Craig took it in stride. He was here working in the Senate. He went through the chemotherapy and he was back, regaining his strength, and all of us admired that. All of us admired the way he faced that adversity, and he did all that he could, all that was humanly possible, to overcome that adversity.

I had the good fortune to serve with Craig on two committees, including the Energy Committee, where he was chair of the National Park Subcommittee. He took a great interest in issues affecting not only national parks but our public lands generally and, of course, our energy issues as well. I also had the good fortune to serve with him on the Finance Committee. The chairman of the Finance Committee this year appointed a new Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resource Tax Issues. I was fortunate to be named chair of that, and Craig was named as the ranking member. So he and I spent a lot of time together, both in the Energy Committee and in the Finance Committee, sitting in hearings and talking about the agenda of the committees and generally interacting.

I had the other great good fortune of taking a trip last year that Senator Warner and Senator Levin sponsored--a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, in April of 2006, with Craig Thomas. Craig and I were both invited to be on that trip. So I spent time with him and interacted with him in Afghanistan and in Turkey, where we made a short stop, and also in London, where we met with some British defense officials.

Three things came through to me that I think are my recollection of Craig Thomas: First, his decency as a human being. When you are with a person for a substantial period of time, you get a sense of their decency as a human being. I have spent a lot of time with Craig Thomas in this Senate and on that trip to which I just alluded. I can vouch for his basic decency. He was always considerate, always civil, always concerned about the feelings of others and the reaction of others.

The second characteristic I would allude to is his ability to ask tough questions. Craig liked to think of himself as a conservative. I would characterize him, as much as anything, as sort of a skeptic. Whenever the experts were telling us what the solution to a problem was, or what their analysis of a problem was, he was one who would stand back and say: Wait a minute, let's question some of that expert advice and expert analysis that you are giving us. That is very much needed by people in public office. You need people who will ask the tough questions, and Craig Thomas asked the tough questions.

Third is the characteristic that others have spoken of here--that he was a straight shooter; he was straightforward in his view of the issues. You didn't have to guess what Craig thought about an issue. He would tell you, and it was a heartfelt view that he was expressing. So this is a very great loss to this Senate, to the people of Wyoming, and to the country. I consider him to have been a superb public

servant. The people of Wyoming were extremely well served by him, the country was well served by him, and this Senate was well served by having him as one of our distinguished members.

I extend my condolences to Susan and the family and, of course, to all of the people who are friends of his in his home State. He will be fondly remembered in this Senate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1267 and note that I have a modification of that amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I wish to briefly describe what this amendment does. I understand there is not a plan to have a vote on this amendment this evening, but I wish to explain briefly what this amendment does.

There are three programs in the underlying bill that are related to so-called temporary workers. One of them is the new guest worker program. That is the program we amended the provision of 2 weeks ago when we reduced the number of people eligible to come into the country under that program each year from a number of 400,000 to 600,000 down to 200,000.

This current amendment, amendment No. 1267, I have called up again deals with that same guest worker program. It tries to make the program more workable. The underlying bill says if a person comes into this country under that program, that person is eligible to get a visa for 2 years to work here, then is required to leave for 1 year, then is eligible to come back again for another 2 years, then is required to leave for another year, then is eligible to come back again for another 2 years, and then is required to leave permanently. So it is what I have come to refer to as the 2-1-2-1-2 structure of this guest worker program.

Frankly, it does not make a lot of sense. It does not make a lot of sense from the point of view of employers or employees--guest worker employees--or American workers who might also want to apply for those jobs or similar jobs.

Let me explain what I have in mind.

As regards an employer, if someone came into my office in the Senate and said: I have a great proposal for you. I would like to work for you for 2 years and then I am going to take off for a year, and then I will come back again

and want my job back for another 2 years, and then I am going to take off for another year, and then I am going to come back and want my job back for another 2 years, I would not hire such a person. It would not make any sense. You need continuity in your workforce. You do not want people coming and leaving for substantial periods of time. So from an employer's perspective, this makes absolutely no sense.

From the employee's perspective, if you are one of the guest workers, what are you supposed to do during the year you are not permitted to stay in this country? You are supposed to go back to your home country. Why would we believe that person would be able to support themself and their family during that year when they are not working here? They have to find a job there. When they leave there, obviously, that employer's employment situation is disrupted. So that does not make sense from the point of view of those guest workers.

It does not make sense from the point of view of American workers who might want these jobs. These are generally thought of as construction jobs. These are not agricultural jobs we are talking about, and they are not seasonable jobs. They are permanent jobs. It is just that by the provisions of this bill, we are suggesting let's take a permanent job and try to make it temporary by kicking people out of the country every 2 years. So that is the only thing temporary about these jobs.

This does not make sense from the point of view of American workers either. American workers who want to work in these construction positions will find there is a constant flow of entry-level workers coming back into this country every year saying: OK, I know I was here before. Now I am back again. I am starting at the bottom of the ladder again. Pay me the entry-level wage, and I will take any job you have.

So the upward pressure on wages in that construction industry is eliminated. There is no upward pressure. You have this very large group of entry-level workers coming back every year. This does not make good sense.

My amendment simply says, let's do what we did last year. We passed a bill last year. We had good bipartisan support for it. Basically, the bill, last year, said: Let's do one 3-year visa, and let it be renewed for a year. What I am proposing in my amendment is, let's do a 2-year visa. Let it be renewed twice. Then the 6 years is up.

So we are not changing a lot of other aspects of the bill. I know there are some in this Senate who think we should change other aspects. In fact, I think we should as well. But I am not trying to do that in this amendment. I am saying let's at least eliminate this 1-year hiatus that is built in between each of these 2-year visas we are providing for in this guest worker program.

To me, this is eminently sensible. It is something we ought to do. Governor Napolitano wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times on June 1 of this year, and she said the following:

The proposed notion that temporary workers stay here for

two years, return home for a year, then repeat that strange

cycle two more times makes no sense. No employer can afford

this schedule--hiring and training, only to have a worker who

soon will leave. It will only encourage employers and workers

to find new ways to break the rules.

What we are doing is setting up a system that will encourage workers to overstay their visas. Much of the illegal immigration problem we have in this country today is not because people have sneaked across the border--although there are many of those--it is because people have come here legally and overstayed their visas, and they are now illegally living in this country.

If you ever wanted to have a system that would generate more people coming here and illegally overstaying their visas, we have designed it in this bill. So my amendment tries to correct that to some extent. It says once they come here and go to work, they are given a 2-year visa. They can renew that two times and work the full 6 years. So it maintains the 6-year limit that the sponsors, the architects of this legislation, have intended, but it makes a lot more sense in the way it works.

Let me mention one other aspect which I think is crucial; that is, we need a system that is workable. We do not have the capacity today--we, the Federal Government--to keep track of people who leave the country. We can keep track of the ones who come in, but if you ask the Immigration Service how many of those who come in are still here, they do not know. We do not have the capacity today to track the people who leave.

So we are setting up a system where we have 200,000 a year coming in. Two years later that 200,000 is supposed to leave. The next year 200,000 more people come. Two years later that group is supposed to leave. We have no way of implementing this system and ensuring it is being complied with. So the whole thing is assuming a capacity and a capability that the Federal Government does not have today.

It would be much simplified if we were to adopt the amendment I have offered. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It would improve this bill significantly.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce the National Geothermal Initiative Act of 2007, along with my cosponsors, Senators Reid, Murkowski, Stevens, Salazar, Tester, and Snowe. This bipartisan bill establishes a national goal where at least 20 percent of the total electrical energy production in the United States should be from geothermal resources by 2030. Under the National Geothermal Initiative, the national goal will be accomplished by establishing and carrying out new programs for geothermal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application. This act also extends an ongoing study being conducted by the United States Geological Survey to characterize the complete geothermal resource base for use in future geothermal energy development. Finally, the act will provide international market support for geothermal energy development. It is critical with ever increasing energy demands that new energy solutions are continually developed and explored. With continued research, development, demonstration, and deployment of new technologies, geothermal energy holds great promise as a growing renewable energy source.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection the text was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce the National Geothermal Initiative Act of 2007, along with my cosponsors, Senators Reid, Murkowski, Stevens, Salazar, Tester, and Snowe. This bipartisan bill establishes a national goal where at least 20 percent of the total electrical energy production in the United States should be from geothermal resources by 2030. Under the National Geothermal Initiative, the national goal will be accomplished by establishing and carrying out new programs for geothermal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application. This act also extends an ongoing study being conducted by the United States Geological Survey to characterize the complete geothermal resource base for use in future geothermal energy development. Finally, the act will provide international market support for geothermal energy development. It is critical with ever increasing energy demands that new energy solutions are continually developed and explored. With continued research, development, demonstration, and deployment of new technologies, geothermal energy holds great promise as a growing renewable energy source.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection the text was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his strong words and strong support for the amendments we offered a few weeks ago on the guest worker program. Let me thank my colleague from Alabama for his support particularly for that amendment 2 weeks ago.

I want to take a few minutes in morning business today, before the Senate gets into its busiest period of the week--which we all know begins on Tuesday, usually--to talk about two other amendments I have filed to this bill, and I hope I will have a chance to have the Senate vote on before the bill is completed.

Let me first talk about one of those amendments that is addressing a provision in the immigration bill that I think is impractical and I don't think makes any sense, the provision I am trying to correct.

Before addressing the specific provision, let me once again put this in context. This bill, the underlying legislation, calls for three so- called temporary worker programs. There is an agricultural temporary worker program, and I am not suggesting any change to that program. That is part of the underlying bill. There is a seasonal temporary worker program, where people can come in for up to 10 months and then have to leave the country for 2 months and then come back the next year. That one I do have a second amendment on, which I want to talk about in a minute. Then there is the new temporary worker program that was the subject of my amendment 2 weeks ago.

Let me briefly describe how this third so-called temporary worker program works. It contemplates a new guest worker program. It says guest workers would be permitted to come to this country and work for 2 years. At the end of the 2 years, they have to leave the country for a year. Then that same worker could come back for another 2 years and then leave the country again for another year; then come back and work 2 more years and then have to leave the country permanently. So over a period of, I guess it would be 9 years--during that period the worker could be here up to 6 years, but there would have to be two periods of a year each during which the worker was outside the country.

My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Obama, would remove the requirement that guest workers leave the United States before they renew their visas to work under this program. It would not modify the total period they could stay here, which would still be limited to 6 years. It would not change the terms of their visa. But the amendment I am offering would provide that guest workers would be given a 2-year visa they could then renew twice and do their full 6 years of work and then their visa would no longer permit them to stay.

Requiring these workers to leave the country for a lengthy period of time between each 2-year work period is a problem for several reasons. It is bad for the employers, first. It is also bad for American workers who might also want to have some of these jobs--and these are generally construction type jobs. These are not agricultural jobs. These are not jobs for teenagers in seasonal employment.

Obviously, another problem with this provision is it is extremely difficult and costly to enforce. I doubt seriously if we have the capacity to enforce it at this point. It increases dramatically the likelihood that individuals are going to overstay their visas.

First, let me talk about the employers. It would be very costly and burdensome to require that employers rehire and retrain new workers every 2 years. Employers are not going to give an employee a 1-year vacation. When one of these so-called guest workers leaves the job in order to comply with this provision of law, the employer will have no choice but to find somebody else to bring on. The 1-year leave provision would be especially harmful to small businesses, and it would cause enormous instability in the workforce if they actually depended upon guest workers for some of that work.

Governor Napolitano from Arizona recently wrote a column in the New York Times. Let me quote a couple of sentences from that column.

She says:

The proposed notion that temporary workers stay here for

two years, return home for a year, then repeat that strange

cycle two more times makes no sense. No employer can afford

this schedule, hiring and training, only to have a worker who

soon will leave. It will only encourage employers and workers

to find new ways to break the rules.

Now, that was on June 1 in the New York Times. In my view, Governor Napolitano is absolutely correct. The current bill is also bad for American workers. American workers will be forced to compete with a constant flow of guest workers who would always be at the low end of the salary scale by virtue of the fact that they would have to leave every 2 years.

So if guest workers are kicked out of the country every 2 years, wages cannot increase, there will always be a justification to pay those workers the lowest possible wage. The requirement that these guest workers leave the country every 2 years would also result in an increase in the number of individuals who overstay their visas in order to avoid having to leave the United States for that lengthy period of time. It would also create additional costs in terms of tracking those individuals and ensuring that they, in fact, do leave the country. These costs, of course, would have to be borne by the taxpayer. It also assumes that we even have the administrative capacity to track all these people. Here we are talking about at least 1.2 million so-called guest workers under only this program. I am not talking about the other two so-called temporary guest worker programs. But under this so-called temporary guest worker program, we are talking about 1.2 million workers.

So we are saying that we would then have administrative responsibilities somewhere lodged in the Federal Government to keep track of the comings and goings of these workers every year. I have real doubts about our ability to do that. Obviously, that is an assumption. It is assumed, as part of the underlying bill, that we do have the ability to do that. So if the program is designed in a manner that is bad for employers, it is bad for employees, it is difficult and costly to implement, it will lead to an increase in the number of individuals who overstay their visas, then obviously the question arises: What is the justification for keeping this provision in the bill?

I think, unfortunately, the only justification I have been able to find is that it is being kept in the bill in order to fit this political mantra that we have been hearing now for months about ``temporary means temporary,'' rather than to implement any sound policy.

When you look at these guest worker programs, unlike the other existing guest worker programs, such as the H-2B seasonal program for nonagricultural workers, the H-2A agricultural program, which were designed to fill jobs that, in fact, are of a temporary nature, the new Y-1 program, which we are talking about here, is designed to fill jobs throughout the economy that are permanent jobs. These are jobs in the construction industry, primarily. The 2-1-2 requirement, which is in the underlying bill, artificially tries to turn these workers into temporary workers by kicking them out of the country every 2 years, even though they will be filling jobs that are not temporary, they are permanent jobs.

Last year's immigration bill, S. 2611, allowed new guest workers to stay in the United States for a period of 3 years to renew that visa for a total of 6 years. There was no requirement that the individuals leave the country before they renewed that visa. I think that type of framework is much more sensible.

One of the primary goals of comprehensive immigration reform is to create a new and workable system that would ensure that we are not in the situation we are in now once again 20 years from now. I do not believe the current framework of this so-called temporary worker program advances that goal.

Let me also take a moment to address concerns that the adoption of this amendment will somehow kill the immigration bill. During debate on the immigration bill, questions keep arising about whether a particular amendment being offered by one Senator or another is consistent with the so-called ``grand bargain'' that has been reached.

I commend the Senators who worked tirelessly to come up with an agreement on this difficult issue. This agreement was reached between a handful of Senators. That should not be considered, in my view, a substitute for deliberation by the full Senate. One of the first amendments I offered was the one the Senator from Alabama referred to, an amendment that reduced the number of guest workers under this program to 200,000 per year--the number of new guest workers, I should say.

Despite the fact that amendment was adopted by or supported by 74 Senators, I have heard repeated questions about whether this was a deal killer. It is interesting to me that a measure which garners the support of three-quarters of the Senate somehow is considered a threat to the prospects of passing the legislation. Frankly, I believe we are focused on the wrong set of issues. We ought to be trying to concentrate on getting a bill that has the broadest bipartisan support in the Senate. I think that each of those amendments, the one I offered 2 weeks ago and this amendment I have been talking about, will help us to achieve that. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the consequences of leaving the existing procedures in place for Y-1 guest workers.

I strongly believe that if we keep this provision in its current form, we are going to create an expensive and unworkable program for employers, a system that harms American workers, and an incentive for guest workers to overstay their visas. For that reason, I hope, when the opportunity comes for a vote, my colleagues will support our amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I would then continue to speak as in morning business for another few minutes to talk about another amendment.

I have also today filed an amendment on another part of the bill. The second amendment is aimed at addressing a different issue related to the Y-2 temporary worker program. Now, the Y-2 program is a temporary worker program, and it revises and incorporates the existing H-2B seasonal nonagricultural program.

As I mentioned earlier, this amendment would address the problem of people whom we bring into the country for up to 10 months, allow them to work here, whether they are working at resorts or working at some kind of seasonal employment, nonagricultural seasonal employment, and then we require them to go home for 2 months. Then they can do that each year.

As Senators have discussed this program, and as it has been discussed in the press, its been stated that the underlying substitute amendment provides for an annual allocation of visas from 100,000 initially to up to 200,000 each year, depending upon the market demand.

I have a chart I can put up that I think will describe what the Y-2 guest worker program--if, in fact, the 15 percent increase is triggered in the years, the first 4 years of the program, and how you get from 100,000 up to 200,000.

Well, that is the description. This chart is a fair description of this program as it has been reported in the

paper. However, before the substitute amendment was filed, the underlying bill--I call it a substitute amendment because that is the technical, correct name for it--a provision was handwritten into the bill that provides that in any year from now on, the returning Y-2 workers who are present in the United States in any of the preceding 3 fiscal years would not count against the cap.

So the whole idea of 200,000 is not right. The yellow represents the 200,000, the increase from 100,000 to 200,000. But the red on the chart represents the potential pool of returning workers. You can see this is taken from an analysis that was done for me by the Congressional Research Service. We asked them to please look at the provision and give us their analysis of what is the size of the group that could come in under this program with this provision in it.

They said: Well, it could be up to about 1.6, 1.7 million people over 10 years; they would be eligible to come in every year. Now, that is not cumulative, that is every year that many people would be able to come in.

The impact of this little-noticed provision is quite profound. Obviously, this is the high end of the approximation because we would not expect that every single worker who came here to work for 10 months during 1 year, or for some period during 1 year, would choose to come back the next year. But I think a reasonably high percentage of them might choose to come back.

Today, we have about 135,000. This year, in 2007, we have about 135,000 workers in the country or connected in this country this year under this seasonal temporary worker program. I have no problem seeing that increased to 200,000. That is what the initial draft of the bill contemplated. I do have a problem when it might increase by well over a million. I think that is not what many Members of the Senate understand is going to happen under this bill. I do not think it is what should happen under this bill. I think it is reasonable to require that the numerical limitation already in the bill actually means something; that is, the 200,000 limit.

The amendment I am offering does not eliminate the returning worker provisions, not by any means. It says: If you want to change the number from the current law, which is 66,000 up to 100,000, fine. If you want to then say it can grow from 100,000 to 200,000 per year, fine. But let's not also say that anyone who has worked here in any of the 3 preceding years can come in on top of that because that is when your numbers get totally out of control.

The amendment is aimed at ensuring the bill does what I believe a majority of Senators believe it does; that is, it would allow the issuance of up to 200,000 Y-2 visas each year for these seasonal workers. I think that is something which I can support as a matter of policy.

Again, my amendment merely brings the underlying language of the bill into line with what I believe most Senators think the bill now provides; that is, keeps it under 200,000.

That is a description of the two amendments I have filed today. I think they are both meritorious amendments. I urge my colleagues to look at them, to consider them. I hope very much that I have an opportunity to get votes on those amendments this week before we conclude action on the bill because I think both amendments would--each of the two amendments would improve the bill and make it much better public policy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the preparedness of Federal land management agencies for the 2007 wildfire season and to consider recent reports on the agencies' efforts to contain the costs of wildfire management activities.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller at 202-224-5488 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on Alternate Energy-Related Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf: Opportunities, Issues and Implementation of Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at 202-224-5451 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on June 6, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts of climate change on water supply and availability in the United States, and related issues from a water use perspective.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk an amendment to the underlying substitute and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment to reduce the number of visas issued each year under the new guest worker program that is in this bill--reduce it to 200,000. This is 200,000 new visas each year which would be permitted if my amendment were to be adopted.

The amendment I am offering is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Obama, Dodd, and Durbin. It is essentially the same amendment I offered when we had the debate on the immigration bill last year when we were fortunate to have the support of 79 Senators for the amendment.

Let me talk a little bit about the context of this before getting into the detail of the amendment. The Kyl-Kennedy or Kennedy-Kyl substitute amendment allocates 400,000 new guest worker visas per year, and it has in it also an increase mechanism that allows the annual allocation to go from 400,000 up to 600,000 per year. After a few years, presumably, we would be at a level of 600,000 per year from then on. Workers are allowed to stay for a total of 6 years under this program. They would work for 2 years--and Senator Dorgan described this very accurately as part of the debate on his amendment yesterday--and they would be allowed to work for 6 years; that is, they work for 2 years, leave the country for 1 year, work for an additional 2 years, leave the country for another year, and work for an additional 2 years, then leave for good. That is the structure of the system as it now stands. I can go into whatever details Members are interested in to explain how the increase mechanism provided for in the law is structured, but before I get into that, let me just talk about the larger context.

This bill, the Kennedy-Kyl substitute, contains really three so- called temporary worker programs which are very distinct, and individuals can come to our country and work in our country under any of these three programs.

One program is what I would refer to as the true temporary worker program, and that is where you bring people in for seasonal work. Clearly, that is something we have done for a long time. I think the limit in the law today is 66,000 are permitted to come in each year for temporary work--to work at resorts or work in some kind of a seasonal job--and then that 66,000 is then allowed to be increased to reflect those who have come the previous year or two. In fact, I think the estimate I have seen is that there are about 135,000 people in our country each year doing that kind of temporary seasonal work.

This bill, this Kennedy-Kyl substitute, would change that 66,000 to 100,000. It would contain an increase mechanism similar to what is in this new guest worker program, and so the 100,000 would eventually go to 200,000 after a few years. As I understand it now, there is also written into the law, written into the substitute, a provision that says the 200,000 number for the seasonal guest workers does not include people who have been here under that same program working in any 1 of the previous 3 years. Obviously, you have the potential for a great many more than 200,000 to come in as seasonal temporary workers under that provision.

Another separate provision of this substitute bill which allows for temporary workers to come in is the agricultural workers program. I point out to my colleagues, that is without limit. There is no cap on that. There is a tremendous opportunity for people to come into this country and work in agriculture. We do not have numerical limits on that, so, to anyone who says we are not going to be allowing people to come into the country to do the work Americans don't want to do, the truth is, if they want to do work that is related to agriculture, we can bring them in, in whatever numbers, without any limits being imposed by this law.

The third opportunity to come in as a so-called temporary worker is this new guest worker program. This is a little bit of a misnomer, when we talk about temporary worker, because these are permanent jobs that we are bringing people in to fill. People need to understand that. These are not temporary jobs, these are permanent jobs. We are bringing people in for a temporary period, or a designated period of 2 years, three different times, to do the work.

But these are not temporary jobs in the same sense that a seasonal job is a temporary job--that you have it for a few months and then the ski resort closes and you no longer have a job. That is not the kind of jobs we are talking about.

As I see it, there are several fundamental problems with this guest worker program as it is currently constructed. The most significant problem is the bill anticipates letting way too many people come into this country in a new, untested program. This is a new program. There is nothing in the current law that is comparable to this new guest worker program that we are talking about. The amendment I and my cosponsors are offering tries to restrict the size of the program until we find out how it is working, until we figure out whether this makes sense. Let's not build into the law automatic increases in a program we have never tested before. Let's not start this program at 400,000 and have it escalate up to 600,000. The amendment I am offering is trying to bring down the size of the program.

Another problem with the program is the structure, and I described that. This idea we are going to bring people in for 2 years, kick them out for 1 year, bring them in for 2 years, kick them out for 1 year, is not good for the employee, obviously. That is not good for the employer, obviously. It is not a realistic expectation. I think anyone would have to recognize that is not a good structure.

The third problem I have with the bill is there is no real avenue for any of these individuals we are talking about to ever gain legal status, so we are creating a group of workers who have come to this country and worked for 2 years or 4 years or 6 years, to whom then we are saying: Your time is up, go home. There is a tremendous likelihood that we are going to have a lot of people staying over and overstaying their visas. I think that is unfortunate.

That is a change from the previous legislation. We passed that bill Senator Kennedy brought to the Senate floor last year and I supported it. There was a much more realistic opportunity for people who came in under the guest worker program to pursue legal status at some time, so the incentive to essentially go underground to try to avoid deportation was not the same in that bill.

I think the most significant thing we can do at this point to try to correct the most significant problem with this guest worker program is to reduce the number. Let me show a couple of charts, for my colleagues to understand what we are talking about.

The current bill calls for 400,000. The first year this law is in effect, 400,000 are permitted to come in under this guest worker program. Then there is a complicated process if that total is reached. If there is a demand to bring in 400,000 during the first half of the year, then there is an automatic increase of 15 percent. So you bring in an additional 15 percent at that point, which is 60,000, so you are at 460,000. You start the next year at 460,000, but you add another 15 percent to that immediately, and if there is another demand, using up all of those, you can go up another 15 percent.

In any event, it rachets up pretty rapidly. It says if the 400,000 is not used up until the second half of the year, then there is only a 10- percent increase each year from then on.

What we have done on this chart--and I think people need to try to understand this--is we have tried to show with this graph how many so- called guest workers under this program--not under the other two, not under the ag workers program, not under the seasonal workers program but under this program--how many people we would actually have in the country as the bill is currently written. You would have 400,000 the first year; the second year you would have 840,000 because you would have the first 400,000, plus the second 400,000, plus the increase, 10 percent. You would have 924,000 the third year, you would have 1.4 million the fourth year, you would have 1,958,000 the fifth year, and this keeps going up so, by the eighth year, you would have 3,158,000 people in the country legally working under this program.

There is a very important assumption built into this chart. The assumption is that everybody who comes in under this program goes home when their visa says they ought to go home; nobody overstays his or her visa. If, in fact, that assumption is false and people get to the end of their 6 years and say: Wait a minute, I am not ready to leave the United States, I am staying, and they stay here on an undocumented basis at that point and overstay their visa, then they go on top of these numbers.

So you have a tremendous number of new people. This is a brandnew program. We have never had this program before. I think that is too large.

Let me show what the amendment I am offering does. I did not support Senator Dorgan's proposal to eliminate the guest worker program entirely. I think there is a legitimate argument that some number of guest workers is appropriate to bring into the country to do some of the work. But as I say, this is a brandnew program and we ought to do this in a judicious way and feel our way along. In this proposal that I have put forward, it says let's bring in 200,000 the first year and 200,000 each year after that and see how this goes. We can make judgments and we can alter this in future years. Congress meets every year, so we can alter this if we decide that is not the appropriate number. But let's start with a number that we think makes sense.

Even at that very substantial reduction, we would wind up in the eighth year with 1.2 million people in the country under this program, legally working as guest workers. It is not that there are going to be 200,000 people working here each year, there are going to be 1.2 million people working here each year. Again, the assumption is there will only be 1.2 million, assuming everyone goes home when their visa says they ought to go home, which I think is a fairly questionable assumption.

That is what the amendment does. I think it is a far better way for us to proceed than what the underlying bill calls for. I know there are some who are coming forward and arguing that this is terrible, that we are not going to have enough people to keep the economy running, that there are going to be all kinds of jobs going unfilled. I point out again that there are other ways people can come to our country and obtain employment. They can do so under the seasonal workers program, which is being increased very substantially under the bill. They can do so under the ag workers program, which has no limits on it at all. Of course, there are other ways that people can immigrate into our country that are provided for in the legislation as well.

This is an amendment that I think makes all the sense in the world. I was very pleased we had such strong support for it when we offered it in the previous debate that we had on immigration last year. I hope we can adopt it again this year. By doing so, I think we begin to bring a little more judiciousness to this process if we are going to start a brandnew program.

Let me also point out there is provision in this legislation for a commission to be established to review how this new program is working and to make recommendations back to the Congress. I think that is entirely appropriate. To me, that is another reason why we should not be building in automatic escalators in the size of this program. We should not be starting with a program that is so large as 400,000 and going up to 600,000. We should start at 200,000 and keep it right there until we get those recommendations and find out what we think at that point about whether to increase the size of the program or terminate the program or whatever steps we might take at that point.

That is the basic gist of my argument. I hope colleagues will support the amendment. I think it is a meritorious amendment. I think it will improve the legislation substantially.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me speak very briefly, and then I will reserve the last minute to try to close this debate.

This amendment will reduce the number of people who can come into the country under this new guest worker program. The underlying bill calls for 400,000, up to 600,000 per year coming in under this new guest worker program. The amendment I am offering would reduce that to 200,000 per year, maximum. I think that is plenty.

This is an unproven, untested, brandnew program. We need to see how it is working. We need to see the impact it is having on other wage rates in the country.

I urge my colleagues to support that amendment. I will reserve the remainder of my time in case there is someone speaking against the amendment. Then I will conclude.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and congratulate him on his leadership in getting us to this point in the debate. I do hope Members will support this amendment. We had 79 Senators support this amendment when it was offered last year. I hope we get a strong vote again this year. I think this is the prudent thing to do. It does not destroy the bill. It does allow for a guest worker program but a much more prudent one than would otherwise be the case.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly in opposition to the amendment. I have great respect for my colleague from South Carolina, but I think this is very misguided.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was speaking in 1994 to a luncheon of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and he said the following:

Mandatory minimums are frequently the result of floor

amendments to demonstrate emphatically that legislators want

to ``get tough on crime.'' Just as frequently they do not

involve any careful consideration of the effect they might

have on the sentencing guidelines as a whole. Indeed, it

seems to me that one of the best arguments against any more

mandatory minimums, and perhaps against some of those we

already have, is that they frustrate the careful calibration

of sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other,

which the sentencing guidelines were intended to accomplish.

I think Justice Rehnquist was right, that this is--this, as I understand it, is an amendment that has not been brought up for hearing. These proposed changes in the law have not been brought up for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. I am not a member of that committee. My colleague Senator Kennedy is, of course, as is Senator Graham. But my impression is this is not the result of a careful deliberation by the committee of jurisdiction here in the Senate. Instead, this is one of these floor amendments that is intended to demonstrate that legislators want to ``get tough on crime'' and particularly want to get tough on crime if it involves immigrants. So that is what is going on here.

I think the strongest argument I know, and I am sure this is what the Senator from Massachusetts was mentioning, is the cost that is involved in actually going ahead with this amendment. We are talking about taking people, and instead of kicking them out of the country, we are requiring those individuals be incarcerated in this country at very substantial expense to the U.S. taxpayer for a very long period of

time. I don't know that it makes good sense for us to be doing this.

One of the purposes of this immigration legislation that is before the Senate right now is to reduce the burden on U.S. taxpayers of all of the immigrants coming into the country. This amendment does the exact opposite. This amendment puts an enormous additional expense on the taxpayers of the United States by saying: If you come into this country illegally, we are going to lock you up and we are going to be sure you stay locked up for a long time. Well, that is fine, as long as you want to pay--what is it--$30,000, $40,000 per year to keep one of these individuals incarcerated. We are paying a lot more to keep an individual in one of these Federal prisons, I can tell you that, than we pay to keep people in some of our best universities.

I don't think it is a good use of our resources. I think this is one of these feel-good amendments which says we are not being tough enough on immigrants, let's tighten this thing up, let's be real tough on them.

The statistics I have--and these are statistics from the 2006 Source Book of Federal Sentencing Statistics, put out by the United States Sentencing Commission. They have a chart on page 13 where they talk about the distribution of offenders in each primary offense category. It shows that 24.5 percent of the offenders we are incarcerating today are being incarcerated for immigration-related offenses. The only other category that is larger is drugs, where 35.5 percent are being incarcerated for drug-related offenses. So 24.5 percent of our prisoners today are there because of immigration-related offenses. That number is going to go up dramatically if we actually adopt and put into law these mandatory minimum sentences that are contained in this amendment.

I wish also to point out that the penalties, the sentences these people are being given and the actual period of incarceration, the number of months of incarceration for these immigration offenses, is fairly significant. It ranges from 22.8 months up to over 25 months. So we are talking about putting people in prison for a significant period of time. As I say, they are all for immigration-related offenses.

I think it is foolhardy for the United States to be passing immigration reform legislation to reduce the financial burden on U.S. taxpayers for all of the illegal immigration coming into the country and at the same time adopt an amendment that loads an enormous additional cost on to the taxpayer so we can keep these people in prison for a long time and thereby demonstrate we are getting tough on crime.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a staff member in my office, Lauren Weeth, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of this bill.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the men and women throughout my home State of New Mexico who provide lifesaving emergency medical services, EMS, and to commemorate EMS Week.

During my time in the Senate, I have come to understand the necessity of a highly trained EMS team. Such teams provide lifesaving care to those who are in need, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

An important example of such care is provided to the people of Northern Rio Arriba County by the highly dedicated members of La Clinica EMS, which consists of:

Joseph Baca, Paramedic; Phyllis Richards, Paramedic; Wenona Garcia, EMT-1; Rose Rash, EMT-1; Sarah Johnson, EMT-1; Paul Lisco, EMT-1; J.R. Gallegos, EMT-B; James Holiday, EMT-B; Tomas Casados, EMT-B; Stella Martinez, EMT-B; Kathy Morrison, EMT-B; Dave Morrison, EMT-B; Laurel Baker, EMT-B; Ramona Hays, EMT-B; Michael Hays, EMT-B; Emery Baca, EMT- B; B.J. Samora, FR; Josie Maestas, FR; and Marty Madrid, FR.

I am proud to join the citizens of New Mexico in expressing my sincere gratitude to EMS professionals and their unwavering dedication to the community.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The hearing will address opportunities and challenges associated with coal gasification, including coal-to-liquids and industrial gasification.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Michael Carr or Rachel Pasternack.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 645, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project goals; S. 838, a bill to authorize funding joint ventures between United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons; S. 1089, a bill to amend the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act to follow the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation projects to hire employees more efficiently, and for other purposes; S. 1203, a bill to enhance the management of electricity programs at

the Department of Energy; H.R. 85, a bill to provide for the establishment of centers to encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies; and H.R. 1126, a bill to reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-4971 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, designed to address the growing burden faced by this Nation's health care safety net institutions in being able to provide adequate pharmaceutical care to the most vulnerable patient populations.

Communities across the country rely on public and nonprofit hospitals to serve as the health care ``safety net'' for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured patients. With the ever-increasing cost of pharmaceuticals, these institutions are struggling more and more to provide basic pharmaceutical care to those least able to afford it.

Fortunately, many safety net hospitals are currently able to participate in the Federal 340B Drug Discount Program, which enables them to purchase outpatient drugs for their patients at discounted prices. These hospitals, known as ``covered entities'' under the 340B statute, include high-Medicaid disproportionate share hospitals, DSH, large and small urban hospitals, and certain rural hospitals.

I am introducing legislation today, the 340B Program Improvement and Integrity Act of 2007, which would extend discounted drug prices currently mandated only for outpatient drugs to inpatient drugs purchased by covered entities under the 340B program. Although the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, of 2003 permitted pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B drug discounts to covered entities, this legislation did not include a mandate. Without a mandate we have seen very little willingness on the part of manufactures to offer 340B drug discounts for inpatient drugs. As the prices of pharmaceutical drugs continue to increase sharply, the need for these inpatient discounts grows more and more acute.

My legislation would also expand participation in the program to a subset of rural hospitals that, for a variety of reasons, cannot currently access 340B discounts. These newly eligible rural hospitals include critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, and rural referral centers. In proposing this modest expansion to the program, we have struck an important balance between ensuring a close nexus with low-income and indigent care, ensured that a significant portion of savings is passed on to the Medicaid Program, and strengthened the integrity of the program.

Specifically, newly eligible rural hospitals would have to meet appropriate standards demonstrating their ``safety net'' status, as do all hospitals that currently participate in the program. For example, sole community hospitals and rural referral centers, all of which are paid under the prospective payment system, would be required under this legislation to serve a significant percentage of low-income and indigent patients, have public or nonprofit status, and, if privately owned and operated, to have a contract with State or local government to provide a significant level of indigent care. All standards are designed to reinforce the obligation of these covered entities to continue serving low-income and uninsured patients.

This legislation would also generate savings for the Medicaid Program by requiring participating hospitals to credit to their Medicaid agencies a significant percentage of their savings on inpatient drugs. It would address the overall efficiency and integrity of the 340B program through improved enforcement and compliance measures with respect to manufacturers and covered entities. This is designed to improve program administration and to prevent and remedy instances of program abuse.

In the end, this legislation would accomplish several important goals. It would help safety net providers stretch their already limited resources through increased access to discounted pharmaceuticals; it would enhance 340B program integrity by making sure participants are complying with program rules; and it would help to improve the care provided to this Nation's most vulnerable populations.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, designed to address the growing burden faced by this Nation's health care safety net institutions in being able to provide adequate pharmaceutical care to the most vulnerable patient populations.

Communities across the country rely on public and nonprofit hospitals to serve as the health care ``safety net'' for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured patients. With the ever-increasing cost of pharmaceuticals, these institutions are struggling more and more to provide basic pharmaceutical care to those least able to afford it.

Fortunately, many safety net hospitals are currently able to participate in the Federal 340B Drug Discount Program, which enables them to purchase outpatient drugs for their patients at discounted prices. These hospitals, known as ``covered entities'' under the 340B statute, include high-Medicaid disproportionate share hospitals, DSH, large and small urban hospitals, and certain rural hospitals.

I am introducing legislation today, the 340B Program Improvement and Integrity Act of 2007, which would extend discounted drug prices currently mandated only for outpatient drugs to inpatient drugs purchased by covered entities under the 340B program. Although the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, of 2003 permitted pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B drug discounts to covered entities, this legislation did not include a mandate. Without a mandate we have seen very little willingness on the part of manufactures to offer 340B drug discounts for inpatient drugs. As the prices of pharmaceutical drugs continue to increase sharply, the need for these inpatient discounts grows more and more acute.

My legislation would also expand participation in the program to a subset of rural hospitals that, for a variety of reasons, cannot currently access 340B discounts. These newly eligible rural hospitals include critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, and rural referral centers. In proposing this modest expansion to the program, we have struck an important balance between ensuring a close nexus with low-income and indigent care, ensured that a significant portion of savings is passed on to the Medicaid Program, and strengthened the integrity of the program.

Specifically, newly eligible rural hospitals would have to meet appropriate standards demonstrating their ``safety net'' status, as do all hospitals that currently participate in the program. For example, sole community hospitals and rural referral centers, all of which are paid under the prospective payment system, would be required under this legislation to serve a significant percentage of low-income and indigent patients, have public or nonprofit status, and, if privately owned and operated, to have a contract with State or local government to provide a significant level of indigent care. All standards are designed to reinforce the obligation of these covered entities to continue serving low-income and uninsured patients.

This legislation would also generate savings for the Medicaid Program by requiring participating hospitals to credit to their Medicaid agencies a significant percentage of their savings on inpatient drugs. It would address the overall efficiency and integrity of the 340B program through improved enforcement and compliance measures with respect to manufacturers and covered entities. This is designed to improve program administration and to prevent and remedy instances of program abuse.

In the end, this legislation would accomplish several important goals. It would help safety net providers stretch their already limited resources through increased access to discounted pharmaceuticals; it would enhance 340B program integrity by making sure participants are complying with program rules; and it would help to improve the care provided to this Nation's most vulnerable populations.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the short-term energy outlook for the summer of 2007 for oil and gasoline.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-7571 or Rachel Paternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 30, at 12 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chambers at 411 West 8th Street in Medford, Oregon.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts of the Chinese hardwood plywood trade on the National Forest System and other public lands, and the communities that depend on them.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller at (202) 224- 5488 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.