Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, can I respond? First, on the last point Senator Kennedy makes about fair distribution, I am accepting the distribution that is in the Hagel-Martinez legislation, the distribution that was in the chairman's mark, the distribution that was in the McCain-Kennedy bill. I am not changing that in any respect. I am not proposing to make any change in that. Whatever the distribution was that they thought was appropriate, that is exactly what I accept. My amendment doesn't affect that. Let me make this other point because Senator Kennedy made a point that somehow or other the Hagel-Martinez legislation caused the need for no cap in this area, and for the very large number we are, in my amendment, excluding--we are saying, in calculating this 650,000, we are excluding such visas as are issued to anyone under this 245-B and - C program, which is all of those people who are going to come in under this deferred mandatory departure system, the people who have been here at least 2 years but not a full 5 years, or not more than 5 years. We are saying let's not count those people. Those folks are home free. Anyone who has been here over 2 years is home free. They are on their way to legal permanent status and I have supported that aspect of the bill and I continue to support that aspect of the bill. All I am saying is that once you exclude that group and say, OK, they are home free, then you still have the question: How many new employment-based legal permanent residents are we going to admit each year? Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy said it ought to be 290,000. I am saying let's make it 650,000, but let's put on a cap. Let's not leave it the way the bill now stands, which is totally uncontrolled. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will reserve my time at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to respond. I can't give assurance of that. But I can say they are much more likely to get the green card under my proposal than they were under McCain-Kennedy. McCain-Kennedy contemplated 400,000 guest workers every year coming in and said the total number of green cards we are going to issue to these people is 290,000, including family. What I am saying is, we should increase that to 650,000, including family, since we have half as many guest workers coming in each year under the bill that we have agreed to on the Senate floor. I think my proposal, frankly, is much more generous in giving green cards to people who have come here legally than was McCain-Kennedy. It is more than twice as generous. It is more than four times as generous as current law. But I am saying we ought to have some cap. We should not just leave it uncapped entirely. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the two sides?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me respond to that point which was just made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. There is nothing in my amendment that limits the ability of families to accompany workers. All my amendment does is to say there should be a cap on the total number of workers with accompanying family, just as there is today, just as there was under the McCain-Kennedy proposal. We are saying there should be some limit. It should not be open-ended, as the current bill pending on the Senate floor provides. We are saying this limit should be 650,000. Now, why did we choose that? Because that is what the Congressional Research Service says they estimated would actually be happening under Chairman Specter's proposed mark to the Judiciary Committee when they started. To do something other than what we are proposing in this amendment is to leave it totally unknown as to how many people we are going to have coming in under this employment-based legal permanent residency program, how many green cards we are going to be giving out. It could be 500,000. It could be 1 million. It could be 1.5 million. This is every year I am talking about. That is not an acceptable arrangement. Now, I want to make clear this one point, which I said before; that is, this amendment in no way limits the number of people who can come in and become legal permanent residents under the family preference. That is 480,000. It does not affect the number of people who can have their situation, their status changed under the undocumented earned legalization provisions. That is 11 or 12 million. It is left alone. It does not affect the 1.5 million blue card agricultural workers. It does not affect the shortage occupation groups and other high-skilled workers. It does not affect the 141,000 visas that we are bringing back from the last 5 years. This amendment will improve the bill. It is not an effort to undermine the bill. It is an effort to improve the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions. As drafted amendment would prevent legalized workers and guest workers from receiving the earned-income tax credit even though these same workers are required to pay both income and payroll taxes. I remind my colleagues that, under current law, illegal workers are not entitled to the earned-income tax credit and S. 2611 does not change that. Instead, this amendment denies people who are paying both income and payroll taxes a tax credit that other similarly situated taxpayers receive simply because these people are legalized workers and guest workers and not naturalized citizens. This is distinction that should have no relevance for purposes of receiving the earned-income tax credit. To deny these legalized taxpayers the right to the earned-income tax credit is unjustified and grossly inequitable. It is my understanding that CBO recently estimated that the workers affected by this amendment will be paying more than $62 billion in taxes over the next 10 years. This will result in a net of more than $33 billion in revenue after the costs associated with all refundable credits are taken into account. Mr. President, we haven't seen a $33 billion revenue raiser in this Chamber in quite some time. Earlier this month, we passed a tax cut that provides a significant tax cut to the wealthiest in our country. The reconciliation bill was passed in spite of the fact that it provides little to no tax relief to the majority of the families in our country while raising our Nation's debt by roughly $70 billion. The proponents of this legislation were quick to defend this bill even though it employed a series of budget gimmicks that would make Enron proud. Those of us who spoke out in opposition of this bill were repeatedly told that allowing the capital gains and dividends tax cuts to expire amounted to a tax increase--one that would surely cripple our economy if not passed this year even though the provisions didn't expire until the end of 2008. I find it truly astonishing that a few short weeks later, we are debating an amendment that denies hardworking taxpayers a tax break that they so desperately need and are entitled to under current law. Clearly those who argued that allowing the capital gains and dividends tax cuts to expire is essentially the equivalent of raising someone's taxes, have to agree that taking away the earned-income tax credit from a working taxpayer is a tax increase. Unfortunately, the target of this tax increase is on hard working, lower income families--people who truly need this tax break to get by. The eanred-income tax credit is one of the few remaining tax provisions in our code that provide significant tax relief to working families. As my colleagues know, it is one of the greatest tools we have to fight poverty and allow working families to have a roof over their head and food on their table. It is a way to ensure that those earning minimum wage jobs are able to put clothes and shoes on their children so that they can go to school. This is not a hand out. In order to get the earn-income tax credit, you have to work. Pure and simple. To deny this credit to legalized workers and guest workers who pay income and payroll taxes is not what this country is all about. It is certainly not in keeping with the bipartisan way this Chamber has defended the earned-income tax credit and its recipients from misguided attacks. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in defeating this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The United States Direct Investment Act of 2006'' with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar. This legislation is a necessary step towards making our country more competitive in encouraging multinational businesses to expand or open new offices, facilities or plants in the United States instead of in another country. While the United States continues to be the premier place in the world to locate a business, we can no longer rely on our inherent advantages alone. This legislation will refocus the Administrations efforts so that we do a better job of reaching out to businesses around the world and convince them that they should expand their current operations or open new facility in the United States instead of somewhere else overseas. Our legislation creates the United States Direct Investment Administration, USDIA, the Commerce Department to be lead by an Under Secretary. This new administration shall be responsible for collecting and analyzing data related to foreign direct investment flows. They shall create an annual Investment Report and an annual Direct Investment Agenda to be reported and sent to Congress. They will then assume responsibility as the lead agency for advocating and implementing strategic policies to encourage more investment in the United States from abroad. This new administration will manage an investment zone program for communities that have been negatively impacted by trade but want to attract international companies to locate in their area. Finally, this new administration will be empowered to create ten new ``renewal communities'' as currently defined under the Internal Revenue Code. Many countries, particularly those in Europe, have committed significant resources and energy to recruiting foreign direct investment. In many cases, they have offices in the United States where they meet with U.S. companies to encourage them to consider their country for their next expansion. Right now our country does not have any comparable operation. We leave these efforts to our states, region and cities through economic development agencies and offices. Unlike other countries, we don't provide a Federal umbrella organization to help these people recruit more effectively. Because of their limited resources, this means that many of these economic development agencies are unable to effectively target potential businesses that might be an ideal fit for their city or State. In some cases, these areas may be going through an economic downturn due to the closing of a plant or factory making their limited resources even more scarce. This legislation would give these agencies the assistance and guidance they need to be more successful and effective in their recruiting efforts. It is important that we focus not only on how to get businesses to stay in this country, but also on how we encourage overseas businesses to come here. In both cases, the end result is the same--more jobs for U.S. workers. Our first responsibility needs to be encouraging companies to stay in the United States, but we need to be cognizant of the fact that we will not always be successful. If we have a robust effort to encourage overseas companies to move facilities to our country we will be able to neutralize any unavoidable losses. Many of the pieces are already in place. We already collect much of the data and have an effective matrix of State, regional and local economic development entities. What this legislation does is put these pieces together in a way that accomplishes the primary job at hand--creating jobs in the United States. I ask for unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader, I have been requested to object, and I do object.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly this afternoon about two amendments that I intend to offer, and I hope can be favorably considered by the Senate before this bill is completed. The first will just take a moment. It relates to forestry workers. This is amendment No. 4055. It would make H-2B guest workers who are invited here to work in our forestry sector eligible for limited legal aid. I believe this amendment should be noncontroversial. Under current law, agricultural guest workers are eligible for legal aid with respect to employment rights provided for in their H-2A contract. This amendment would provide H-2B forestry workers with the same eligibility for legal aid. We have had hearings in our Energy Committee on the issue. We had a recent hearing where we heard that making H-2B forestry workers eligible for legal aid is the single most effective thing Congress could do to address the problem of exploitation of forestry workers. These guest workers have been asked to come to the United States because of a labor shortage that was certified by our Government. They are here legally. They pay U.S. taxes. Currently, the law prohibits legal-services-funded organizations from providing them with any legal aid to enforce their rights under their guest worker contract. The amendment would correct this issue, and I hope that this amendment can be adopted when it is appropriate to take action on it. Mr. President, I also want to talk about another amendment which goes to the issue of the number of employment-based immigrant visas admitted each year--the number of employment-based immigrants that we admit each year under the current version of this immigration bill as it stands in the Senate today. Let me first describe the big picture as I see it, as far as people becoming legal permanent residents under our laws. First, let me preface this entire discussion by saying that none of what I am talking about relates to the people who are here on an undocumented basis today. There are other provisions of the law that apply to them and that give them rights under this proposed legislation to adjust their status and become legal permanent residents at some stage down the road. So that is separate. I am not in any way talking about that. I know that has been a subject of great controversy in the Senate and in the Congress in general, but that is not the purpose of my proposed amendment. When you talk about people who are not here illegally today, there are basically two major ways that a person can become a legal permanent resident under our immigration laws. The two ways are through the family-based visa program or through the employment-based visa program. This chart shows the numbers that have been admitted into the country up until the end of 2004 through the family-based and employment-based programs combined, under both of those. You can see that those two together--it comes out to somewhere around 800,000. That is a total annual figure I am talking about for people coming and getting legal permanent residency through both of those major avenues. Now, this legislation we are talking about would, according to the Congressional Research Service, substantially increase those numbers. You can see that their projection--and this is an estimate because, in fact, we are eliminating some caps that have been in the law previously, and I will discuss that in a minute. But these estimates from the Congressional Research Service are that we will get closer to 2 million legal permanent residents that we are accepting each year under this legislation. So that is the overall picture. The amendment I am talking about does not try to deal with this entire picture. It just looks at the employment-based legal permanent resident visas. Let me go to a different chart in order to describe the concern I have. Current law says there is a cap of 140,000 persons, or 140,000 visas, that can be issued under the employment-based LPR categories of our laws. That has been the case now for some time--140,000 per year. This includes family. These are people who come here and seek legal permanent status in order to take work. But it also includes their families. Each member of the family, of course, uses a visa as well. So the total number of employees under this system, and family, spouse, and children, does not exceed 140,000. That is what the law currently provides. Now, when Senators McCain and Kennedy--this is my understanding of the history, and I am sorry that neither Senators McCain or Kennedy are here so they could correct me in case I misstated anything, but my understanding is that they concluded that we needed to reform the law, and part of the reform that we should adopt was to clear out the backlog and make more room for additional immigration under this employment-based LPR system. I agree with that. Clearly, that is one of the purposes of this legislation and one of the effects of this legislation. They set out to do this in several different ways. Let me mention the three main ways that they set out to do it. First of all, they said let's clear out the backlog. By that, it is meant in the legislation that any visa that was available to be issued in the last 5 years that was not issued because the immigration service could not get the processing done--that any of those visas would be once again made available. And the estimate we have from the Congressional Research Service is that there are about 140,000 of those. So we are going back for the last 5 years and saying: OK, are there visas that should have been or could have been issued? Let's bring those forward and issue them and make them available again. Clearly, I support doing that. They also said: OK, in order to help clear out the backlog, we need to encourage some groups to come here and exempt them from any of this cap. This idea that we only allow 140,000 people to come should not apply to people we are particularly interested in bringing to this country, for whatever reason. One idea is to allow students who come here to be exempted from the cap so they can remain here and become legal permanent residents--scientists, technicians, engineers, people with careers in mathematics. We need those people to create a strong economy. Let's allow them to come. They said also let's eliminate some of these schedule A groups; that is, people who have specialty occupations we need to bring here. So let's take them out from under the cap. Again, I have no problem with that approach. The one other thing they said, which is a major change in the law-- this was the bill they introduced last May, the McCain-Kennedy legislation--is that we should raise the cap, that we have outgrown that. Let's raise it to 290,000, so the total number of people who are being allowed to come each year--employees and their spouses and children--will be 290,000, in addition to the ones permitted to come because of our bringing these visas forward from previous years and in addition to the people who come not subject to any cap at all. That is how the McCain-Kennedy legislation was introduced. Frankly, my own reaction was that it sounded like a fairly reasonable approach. Then the Judiciary Committee decided to proceed with legislation, and the Judiciary Committee began to mark up the chairman's bill--Senator Specter's bill--and as I understand what occurred there, and in reading the record of those hearings, the Specter bill agreed with the effort to clear out the backlog that I have described, agreed with the effort to exempt certain groups from the 290,000-person cap. It agreed to keep the number 290,000, but they changed the definition of what the 290,000 applied to. Under McCain-Kennedy, it had been a cap on the number of workers, along with their accompanying family members. Under the Specter legislation, it was defined as a cap on the workers themselves, and there was to be no cap on the spouses and family members. If you look at this chart, you can see the progression. Current law is the first column. The second column is S. 1033, which takes it up to 290,000. Then the third column is the one that is the chairman's mark that was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee, and that is the one that keeps the 290,000 but says: OK, on top of that we are going to allow spouses and family members. On this chart, you see an estimated 638,000. The reason I put that in is because the Congressional Research Service was asked how many spouses and family members they expect to come along with these people? They said, looking back at past history, they estimate perhaps at least 1.2 people per employee. So you would be talking about 638,000, roughly, under that legislation. But that is an estimate. This is the first time we have not had a cap. We have an estimate instead of a cap. So the obvious question we have to deal with is whether that is the right level. As we all know, the legislation that came through the Judiciary Committee was changed once it got to the floor, and we then began to work on what is called the Hagel-Martinez legislation. That is the legislation pending today. That is the legislation about which we are having a great deal of discussion. Let me recount what the Hagel-Martinez legislation does. That is the fourth of these columns. The Hagel-Martinez legislation says that we agree with the proposal to clear out the backlog, just as McCain- Kennedy did. They are saying they agree with the proposal to exempt certain categories from the cap. That was also in the McCain-Kennedy proposal. And they agree with the Specter proposal that the definition of who should be covered should not include spouses and family members. But they also believed the 290,000 was too low a figure, and they raised it to 450,000. What we have now is 450,000 workers permitted to come and no limit on the number of spouses and family members who can accompany them. That is the legislation pending before us. That continues under the bill, as it is before us, for a 10-year period, through 2016. After 2016, for the period from then on, it drops back to 290,000, plus their spouses and family members, rather than the 450,000. Why did Hagel-Martinez insist upon going to this 450,000 instead of 290,000? That is the obvious question. They did it for a very logical reason. They did it because they were providing that a certain group of those who are currently in the country--that is, people who have been here at least 2 years and fewer than 5 years--that group of individuals would have to go through this same system, so they had to increase the amount of that cap as they saw it. What I am suggesting we ought to do first and what my amendment will propose, once I have the opportunity to offer my amendment, is we should put a cap on the total number of people we are allowing into the country under this employment-based legal permanent residency visa program. We have always had a cap on the number of immigrants coming into this country on an employment-based system. We have done that now for well over half a century. I think we have done it for over a century. I think it would be a fairly radical change for us to say we are giving up on having any cap on this group and instead we are going to an open- ended system, and we will work on estimates. Part of the debate we have had in the Senate, frankly, is the result of the fact that we don't have a hard cap for how many people will actually be admitted each year. I believe that is not good public policy. It is not fair to the Immigration Service, which has to plan for the number of employees they will need and the number of applications they will receive each year. We are much better off having a cap. I also believe we should make it clear that whatever cap we have on this group excludes those aliens who are adjusting their status because they have been here from 2 to 5 years. If they are in that category, they should not be counted in the numbers we calculate. My amendment would try to exclude that group and would basically otherwise take the numbers that are estimated by the Congressional Research Service and say: OK, let's go ahead and put a cap, and let's make it a 650,000-person cap each year. That is slightly more than the Congressional Research Service estimated would be required or would be expected to apply. It is a substantial increase over current law, more than four times, nearly five times the current level. It is substantially more than twice what Senators McCain and Kennedy proposed in their legislation. I think, frankly, it would be a major liberalization of our laws. I know there are those who will argue that we shouldn't have any cap at all, but I think that is not a wise course. This legislation will be improved if we can assure our constituents that we have a cap on the number of people who are coming in under this employment-based system. That is what the amendment will do. I hope to be able to explain it further when we get closer to actually offering the amendment. I am told we cannot offer an amendment today. This would be a very useful change and improvement in the pending legislation. I hope my colleagues will take the time to look at this issue and will educate themselves on what the effect of the current proposed legislation would be and the reasons we should put some cap on that number. I believe it would be a wise course to follow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kennedy. I have been trying to figure out what is, in my mind, objectionable to the Inhofe amendment. I think it comes down to a very basic point; that is, the Inhofe amendment, the language, the operative language of the Inhofe amendment, is: . . . no person has a right, entitlement or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. That is the operative provision. And then it says there are ``exceptions.'' The exceptions are where we have specifically written laws which allow that or which provide for the providing of information or communication in a language other than English. Why is that objectionable? It is objectionable to me because it is directly contrary to the constitution of my State, the thrust of the constitution of my State. When New Mexico came into the Union in 1912, we had many more people in my State speaking Spanish than we had speaking English. People were very concerned that the right of individuals in the State to speak either language would be preserved and that no one be discriminated against by virtue of their inability to speak English. We wrote a provision in our constitution which says that the right of any citizen of the State to vote, to hold office, or to sit upon juries shall never be restricted, abridged, or impaired on account of religion, race, language, color, inability to speak, read, or write the English or the Spanish language except as may otherwise be provided in the constitution. So the presumption is directly opposite to the Inhofe amendment. The general rule in my State and in my State's constitution is that people shall not in any way be discriminated against in their dealings with the Government by virtue of their inability to speak English. And the Inhofe amendment says that the general rule is people have no right to speak any language or communicate with their Government in any language other than English unless we write a law saying they can. I think that is an unfortunate change in emphasis and change in the law, which I cannot support. Obviously, we have many court cases. And, I gather, under one of the exceptions to the general rule that the Inhofe amendment contains, this might be covered. But it has been well recognized, I believe, in our courts for a very long time that it is a denial of due process to non- English-speaking persons if they are denied services and communication and interpretation in their own language when they are in criminal proceedings. We have a provision, again, in my own State constitution which I think is pretty close on this issue. It says: In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend himself in person, and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have the charges and testimony interpreted to him, and in a language that he understands. Now, I know there is a Federal law that says the same kind of thing today. So it falls under one of the exceptions that is provided for in the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Right.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time and indicate I said that very thing. I am not disagreeing with the Senator from Oklahoma. He has pointed out there are legal provisions that make an exception to his general rule, and the exception in this case is that you are entitled to have the Government provide interpretation when you are accused of a crime and you are trying to defend yourself in court. All I am saying is, why are we writing into law a general rule that you are not entitled to communicate with your Government or have your Government communicate with you in any language other than English, except where we provide for it? I think that is a mistake. It is directly contrary to what my own State constitution does. It is directly contrary to the sentiment behind my State constitution. We have the Native American Languages Act where Congress specifically found that there is convincing evidence that student achievement and performance and community and school pride and educational opportunity are tied to respect for the first language of the child or the student. And we talk there about that Native American languages shall not be restricted in any public proceeding. Well, you can say: OK, now, we have already written a law that protects the rights of Native American languages to be used in public proceedings. So that is not a problem. I do not know that I want to have to have this Congress write a law to cover every circumstance that might arise where an American wants to communicate with his or her Government in some language other than English. I think it is a bad precedent for us. I think it is contrary to the history of my State. It is certainly contrary to that. I hope very much we will resist this amendment. I think this is a nonproblem. I do not know why we are spending most of the day debating an issue of this type, except to say to people who do not speak English: You are not going to be entitled to the full rights that other citizens are entitled to. Clearly, that is true economically. We all know that. We all know you cannot succeed economically in this country in a full way unless you can speak English, and probably speak English with adequate proficiency. But I do not think as a legal matter we need to be writing statutes into the Federal law that say if you are not speaking English, you are entitled to fewer rights, you are entitled to fewer legal rights than other citizens are, and we want to remind you of it. In fact, as to this amendment, it is very interesting, because it says: Look, even if you fall under one of these exceptions--this interpreter's exception or the Native American exception; the language where we have written a specific law--it says, if exceptions are made, that does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language or any language other than English. So we are saying: Look, the general rule is, you have to speak to your Government and communicate with your Government in English. We acknowledge there are exceptions where we will allow you to use other languages, or the Government will agree to communicate with you in other languages, but we are going to be specific about what those are. But let's also remind you--this last sentence says--by making an exception and allowing you to have an interpretation into a language you can understand, we are not giving you a legal entitlement. We are not, in any way, committing ourselves to do anything more. I do not know that is a very welcoming message to all these immigrants we are welcoming into our country as part of this legislation. I think my State is a State that has a great tradition of cooperation between the Native American community, the Hispanic community, and the Anglo community. And we have been able to maintain that sense of cooperation by respecting each other's languages, by respecting the right of each person, each group, to use his or her language in whatever way they feel is appropriate. I believe this amendment by Senator Inhofe would change that dynamic substantially. So I hope my colleagues will agree with me, will oppose this amendment, will support the Salazar amendment, and then I hope we can get on with more substantive matters. There are a great many substantive matters involved with this immigration bill. This is an enormous, complex piece of legislation which we ought to be trying to understand and deal with separate from this discussion about English as the national language. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2006. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our nation's southwestern border. The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents. The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and 4 States in the United States and six States in Mexico. Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon, and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican Government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems. In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lowest per capita income as a region in the Nation. In a report earlier this year by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it would rank second with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to access to health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis, third with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes. The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005 for the three-year average of 2002 to 2004, the states of Texas and New Mexico rank first and second as the states with the highest uninsured rates in the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent, respectively. California and Arizona are not much better and had uninsured rates of 18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively. However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four states overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE, the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4 percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than twice the United States rate of 14.2 percent. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.'' The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its Health Border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent. However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. We would certainly expect those grants would be used for the purpose of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the Health Border 2010 initiative. In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure, preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.- Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. Mr. President, on October 15, 2001, just one month after the September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The Commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of communities along the border and targets funding to those communities specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness. Our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States's second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet the region is often neglected. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead senator in getting funding for the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for working with us on this important legislation and for their constant support over the years for the work of the Commission. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress and ask for unanimous consent for a summary and the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2006. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our nation's southwestern border. The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents. The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and 4 States in the United States and six States in Mexico. Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon, and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican Government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems. In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lowest per capita income as a region in the Nation. In a report earlier this year by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it would rank second with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to access to health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis, third with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes. The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005 for the three-year average of 2002 to 2004, the states of Texas and New Mexico rank first and second as the states with the highest uninsured rates in the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent, respectively. California and Arizona are not much better and had uninsured rates of 18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively. However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four states overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE, the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4 percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than twice the United States rate of 14.2 percent. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.'' The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its Health Border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent. However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Feinstein, and Boxer would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. We would certainly expect those grants would be used for the purpose of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the Health Border 2010 initiative. In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure, preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.- Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. Mr. President, on October 15, 2001, just one month after the September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The Commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of communities along the border and targets funding to those communities specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness. Our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States's second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet the region is often neglected. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead senator in getting funding for the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for working with us on this important legislation and for their constant support over the years for the work of the Commission. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress and ask for unanimous consent for a summary and the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman, for yielding to me. I ask consent to bring up Senate amendment 3981.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as we all know, the immigration bill creates a new temporary guest worker program aimed at providing an equal and orderly process for individuals to come to this country and to work in sectors of our economy where there is a shortage of available workers. We had good debate in connection with the Dorgan amendment with regard to that guest worker program. Everyone who listened to that debate understands this is a new program which is being added to our immigration laws, one which is not available today for anyone to use. Specifically, the bill pending before the Senate allocates 325,000 temporary visas for the first fiscal year, and in each subsequent year the numerical limit is flexible. If the cap is reached--that is, the full 325,000--the number of available visas would increase. It could increase by 10 percent, it could increase by 15 percent, it could increase by 20 percent in the next fiscal year, depending upon how quickly those visas were used or taken. In essence, what the bill provides--the bill pending before us--is for an open-ended automatic-increase mechanism that has the potential to significantly increase the number of visas we are making available. When I say an automatic-increase mechanism, we have all heard about compound interest. Everyone who has a checking account knows the power of compounding interest. What we have here is not compounding interest, it is compounding immigration, because the 20-percent increase over the previous year's level continues indefinitely into the future. You start with 325,000, plus 20 percent; then you take the new figure, plus 20 percent; then you take the new figure, plus 20 percent; and it goes on and on. My amendment, which Senator Feinstein is cosponsoring, would simply put in place, instead of that, a hard cap of 200,000 on the number of visas available each year under this program. Of course, in addition to this program, we all understand there are many other programs that people can use to gain legal access into our country. Let me show a chart. This chart: guest worker visas issued under S. 2611. Now, the olive-colored wedge down at the bottom represents the number of visas that would be issued over the next 6 years under my amendment. That is 200,000 per year, each year, for 6 years, or a total of 1.2 million visas under the guest worker program. If the Senate were to defeat the amendment I am offering and just go with the bill as it currently pends before the Senate, then it could take any of a number of courses. If there is a 10-percent increase, because of the speed with which people apply for these visas, it would go up to 2.725 million visas by the end of 6 years. If it is a 15- percent increase, it gets you to 3.222 million visas by the end of 6 years. And if, in fact, there are enough applicants for these visas to get you a full 20-percent increase, then you get to 3.8 million immigrant visas issued over this 6 years. Now, why did I stop this chart at 6 years? The truth is, this legislation has no sunset. This legislation continues indefinitely until Congress changes the law again. So this chart could just as easily have been for 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. And if you really want to see the power of compound immigration, just like the power of compound interest, we should have developed a chart that takes us out 10 or 15 or 20 years. So the chart exemplifies how the number of guest workers may increase over this 6-year period under these different scenarios. The chart could have been made for a longer period. If the 325,000-person cap is reached within the first 3 months of the fiscal year, we will have added almost 4 million guest workers over this 6-year period. If the cap is reached in the second quarter of the fiscal year, we will have added just over 3 million. And if the cap is hit in the third quarter of the year, we will have added a little under 3 million workers under this particular program. In addition, it is important to note that although these visas are issued only for up to 6 years, these workers have the right to petition to become legal permanent residents within 1 year if the employer files for them or within 4 years if they self-petition. Frankly, I believe we need to be a little more judicious with respect to the number of visas we are allocating under this program. This is a brandnew program. Under my amendment, which sets the numerical limit for such visas at 200,000, there would be no more than 1.2 million guest workers admitted over these first 6 years. We need to recognize that guest worker programs, if they are not properly implemented, can impact on American workers. Senator Dorgan made the case, I believe very eloquently, that many economists have spoken about the downward pressure on wages that results when you increase the labor supply. We need to recognize that our success with regard to the temporary worker program we have now, such as with regard to agricultural workers, has been mixed. We should not make a mistake here by erring on the side of extravagance in allocating these visas or authorizing the issuance of these visas until we know how this program is going to impact American workers. I did not vote for Senator Dorgan's amendment to eliminate the guest worker program, but I do believe we need to be judicious about the extent of the guest worker program that we authorize. We definitely should not be signing on to some kind of automatic compounding of the number of workers eligible for legal entry into this country under that program. There are a variety of jobs that may be filled by these guest workers--from construction jobs to hotel service jobs--but we should not be placing American workers in these sectors of our economy in the position of competing with virtually an unlimited number of guest workers, which is what I fear we are putting in the law if we leave the law the way it now pends in this pending legislation. The underlying bill does create a temporary guest worker task force. This task force is charged with assessing the impact of the guest worker program on wages and on labor conditions and the employment of American workers and with then making recommendations about whether the numerical cap should be lowered or raised. But then you go on with the legislation, and the increase mechanism is not in any way tied to the recommendations of the task force. The overall number of visas could significantly increase automatically, regardless of whether the program is determined, by this temporary guest worker task force, to be hurting American workers. So if Congress wants to raise the caps, we have the authority to do that every year. We meet here every year. We can raise the cap. But we should not provide for an automatic increase in the number of temporary visas irrespective of how that increase is affecting American workers. Just to be clear, reducing the number of guest worker visas to 200,000 a year is not a drastic measure that undercuts the bill's goal of providing a more realistic framework for immigrants to legally come into this country. According to the Congressional Research Service, under this overall bill, we will at least be doubling--here is a chart that shows what is going to happen to the projections for employment- based legal permanent residents coming into this country under this legislation. We will at least be doubling the flow of legal permanent immigration under the bill in the first year. We increase family- and employment-based numerical limits, and we exempt categories of individuals from these caps. Overall, the bill does provide for many legal avenues for individuals to legally come into the United States and to work. For example, as this chart shows--this is a chart based on the Congressional Research Service report--we are significantly increasing the number of employment-based legal permanent residents under the bill. I strongly believe the amendment I am offering with Senator Feinstein is a reasonable approach. It ensures that an unlimited number of guest workers are not admitted under this program. I hope my colleagues will agree with me that this is a good change. This amendment would improve the legislation, would allow us to maintain a guest worker program, which the President has strongly endorsed maintaining, but would improve the program by limiting it to a level we can understand and manage in these first few years. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?