Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to use 10 minutes. The Senator from California said she wanted to speak against my amendment. I would like to reserve 5 minutes of my time for after her argument, so I can close the discussion on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to do that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in that case, I am going to speak on my amendment----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at some point between 11:30 and the time we vote, I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes after Senator Feinstein.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about probably the most important bill we are going to address maybe in my time in the Senate, certainly in the last 25 years, and in the next 25 years, from a domestic policy standpoint. There are some good features of this bill. I think we have run into many problems, one of which is it didn't go through committee, which I think everybody agrees has caused there to be so many conflicts and rewrites, and when you adopt an amendment, it changes something else. That should have been done in committee. Another is that this issue hits so close to so many people. So we see objections from all different types of groups, Democrats and Republicans, business groups and labor groups. So it is something that I think now is on the radar screen of the American people. It is something that I think is good that we are discussing because I do believe it is Congress's responsibility to fix this problem. It is a problem that was made in a 1986 act of Congress when amnesty was granted and the law was not enforced. There was no guest worker program that was going forward, so we had illegal behavior and there was a blind eye turned. Now it is 20 years later, after 1986, and we find ourselves having to deal with the inability to know who is in our country because we have not enforced the laws and we have not had a workable program to provide the jobs that would grow the economy of our country. So here we are, trying to pass a bill that will fix the problems of the past but also to set a standard that says we are not going to have the going-forward capability for someone to come into our country illegally and stay long enough that they will be able to become legal without applying through the processes from their home country. There are good parts of the bill. I give those who have worked so hard on this bill credit for significant border security increases, for an effort to end chain migration. In most countries in the world, the guest worker green card equivalent ratio is two-thirds workers, one- third family. It is the opposite in America; it is two-thirds family, one-third worker, which is why we have this crisis of needing more workers but not having the capability to bring them in legally in a process that will work. So that effort was made in this bill, and it is one of the important good points of the bill. So I recognize there are good parts of the bill. The problems in the bill must be fixed if we are going to do this right and deal with the people who are here illegally in a responsible and rational and pragmatic way but also set the standard that we start now, and will be set through the future, that you must apply from your home country to come into this country to work legally. If we don't set that standard in the bill, we will have another disaster 20 years from now that a future Congress will be trying to fix. My problem with the bill is the amnesty. Anyone who tries to say it is not amnesty is not being realistic. If you can come to this country, stay, never have to go home and go into the process of legalization and going into our Social Security program, which is allowed in the underlying bill, that is amnesty. So I have an amendment going forward that will try to take the amnesty out of this bill. That is one of the major things I think we can do to make this a bill that could be supported. My amendment would provide that all adult work- eligible illegal people in this country would have the ability to come forward, and they would have 1 year to do it, for a temporary permit while the processing is done on that person's background, and then a temporary card would be given, after which a person would have 2 years to go back to their home country and apply and come in legally to get that Z visa, or that ZA, which is the ag worker visa, legally in our country. It was important. One of the things we did in my amendment that I think is so important is we treat every work-eligible adult the same way. Whether it is an ag worker, restaurant worker or someone working in a hotel, everyone would be treated the same way if they are in the Z-1 category or ZA category--the workers we are trying to regularize would have the same requirements. Now, there will be an amendment later that will say just the heads of households would have to go home. That was my original thought. But then how can I say the working spouse of a head of a household could stay here, but the head of household could not? So we set the 2-year timeframe for the people who are adult, work-eligible people illegally in our country--we set 2 years after they have signed up for their temporary permit for them to go home and get regularized, get that final stamp before they come back, and if they do have a homestead here with children, they would have 2 years so that one spouse at a time could go home. To me, that says we are setting the standard today. It will be the standard that we ask people, if they want to have the privilege of working in our country, to do; and we will ask people who want the privilege 10 years from now and 25 years from now to do the same, so that we send the major message, which was the problem we had that created the crisis, that you cannot come to our country and stay illegally and eventually get regularized without ever having to apply, according to the law from your home country. That is what my amendment does. We do have a modification of the amendment as it applies to agricultural workers because we don't intend to change the sort of different requirements for an ag worker to keep their ag worker visa the same. We have modified our amendment so the basic requirements for agricultural workers, which is somewhat different from the restaurant workers, would stay the same, but the ag workers would have the same requirements that the restaurant worker has, and that is they would have to go home within the 2-year period after they have signed up as illegal and apply from home, or have the ability, if the Secretary designates another consulate as able, to return home to the consulate to take that application that would be done. So we have the SAFE ID, which is going to be the basis of the worker verification system, which will be a tamperproof ID that will have a picture and a biometric signal that can be picked up easily by an employer. It will be an online verification system so the employer can, with ease, determine that the person working is eligible to work. If we can do this and take the amnesty out of the bill, it is so very important that we set the standard now, so that everybody who wishes to have the privilege to work in this great country will know what the rules are and will know that the rules are going to be enforced. That is the purpose of my amendment. I believe if we can pass this amendment, it would add a major component to this piece of legislation that would say not only are we going to have border security measures and this effort to end chain migration, have the merit-based system, take care of the H-1Bs and technical workers we want to come in and to attract into our country, that all these things would be done that are good. But in addition, we are setting the standards today and into the future that if you want to work here, you come in through the system, applying from outside the country. I hope my amendment will be able to be passed. Having the 2 years after the first year would allow the process to work. Anyone who says we cannot do the processing with all of the consulates that are available in the countries, most of whom are going to be in Mexico or Central or South America--and easily accessible--and also Canada, anyone who says we cannot do that over a 3-year period, I think, is raising a red herring. I believe it is possible, if we are committed to doing it and committed to the laws of our country that would be adhered to by everyone who comes in. We must know who is in our country. We must have a guest worker program going forward that will work and accommodate the economy that does need these work jobs that are not being filled. I hope we can come to an agreement on this bill that we can all support and know that it is right for our country today and it will be right for our country 25 years from now and that future Congresses will not look back and say: What were they thinking? Why didn't they do what was right for our country? I hope we can do that, Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of my time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me add for clarification, however, that after 11:30 a.m., I have 5 minutes following Senator Feinstein to discuss as in morning business my amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I object because the agreement was that Senator Feinstein would speak before me, after which I would have 5 minutes to respond. She would have 5 minutes, I would have 5 minutes to respond.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, like my colleague from California, do not remember being on opposite sides on an issue such as this before. But she has brought up a key point that I think it is important for us to address. She says, What immigrant is going to report to deport? What she is asking is, what is the incentive of an illegal immigrant to come forward and say they are illegal and they want to get right with the process to become legal? That is a very important question that many people in our country have asked. Who is going to do that? Here is the incentive. First, the secure ID that is provided in the amendment allows exit and reentry. It is a tamperproof ID already, and it does allow the exit to finalize the Z, or Z-A status, and it allows the reentry. The secure card is issued first. It is temporary until it is finalized because the final point that is required is that you return home to apply. That is the standardization we must achieve if we are going to avoid the amnesty that would say: Our laws mean nothing. If you come here illegally, eventually you will be able to be regularized without ever going home. We want to change that whole impression that anyone might have by saying we are going to start today with a process that will apply to every work-eligible adult, and that is you get your secure ID and you have 1 year to do it. Then you must finalize the process outside the country, as everyone will have to, going into the future. The question is still there: So why wouldn't they stay here and be illegal? Why wouldn't they keep their families and their homes? Here is why. Because when the 3 years is up and the trigger is pulled, because the border security measures have gone into effect--you have the 1 year for people to come forward, say they are illegal, after which they will get their tamperproof card and they must have the ``go home'' provision then stamped outside the country and they have 2 years to do it. You have 3 years there. After that 3 years, there is going to be an employer verification system that is going to work. So these people will not be able to go back to their jobs if they have not completed the process. That is the incentive. That is why they will report. That is why they will become legal in the system, because with the employer verification that is a key part of this bill, they will have to have that tamperproof ID stamped that they have been home to apply from outside the country before they come back in and become regularized and are job eligible. This is going to be the key. The employer verification system will assure that they will not get jobs in this country without that visa that is tamperproof and shows they have been home to do it. It can be done because there is a 3-year period and there will be a constant process to get the people who are illegal working. They will be able to go to the American consulate in their home country. The Secretary can allow exceptions to that for farm workers, if they cannot go home to a faraway place. This is the amendment that will take the amnesty out of this bill and say: Today's standards will be enforced and they will be enforced tomorrow. With this amendment, we can take the amnesty out of this bill and we will have an employer verification system that will assure the incentive is there for people to come forward and know that the law will be enforced. If we do this, you will not be able to hear people say: There is amnesty in this bill. If my amendment is not passed, then the amnesty tag that has been put on this bill will remain. It is the key issue in the bill for the American people. It is the key issue for the regularization of the 12 million people who are here, and then we will have a guest worker program for new people coming in in the future that will also work with the border security that is established in this bill. In my opinion, my amendment will make this bill a fully operational bill, because we will then have border security, a tamperproof ID, we will deal with the 12 million, without amnesty but with a regularization process, and it will strengthen the bill for the American people.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the tax part of this energy bill. I think it is common sense that if you tax something, the price will probably go up because the higher business costs are passed on to the consumer at some point. This is a tax bill that is $29 billion of new taxes. How could anything make less sense when we are trying to pass an energy bill that will do two things: make America less dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs, and bring the price of gasoline down at the pump. This bill, with the tax part, is not going to do either of those things. In the past 2\1/2\ years, the average price of a gallon of gas has risen about 68 percent due to increased demand in America and around the world. The price increase has harmed American families, and businesses, especially small businesses, and higher taxes are going to mean a higher price at the pump. Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum for just one moment.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we must address the tax issue. There are some good parts in this energy package. This energy package could increase conservation. It could increase the supply of renewable energy sources. I have an amendment that I think is very positive which would provide for more research into new sources of energy, and there are all kinds of renewable, environmentally safe energy possibilities. Yet we have now put a tax bill in this bill which has just gone through committee. It came out yesterday, and we are going to, I am afraid, make the mistake that Congress has made before. In 1980, Congress passed a windfall profits tax. The consequences to the domestic oil industry, to consumers, and to our national security were devastating. In the 6 years that followed that action, domestic oil production dropped by 1.26 billion barrels, and imports of foreign oil rose 13 percent. Today, 60 percent of our oil comes from foreign countries. The collapse of the domestic oil and gas industry had a ripple effect on other sectors of the economy, especially banking and real estate. The windfall profits tax was terrible for this country, and it was repealed. Now we have a tax bill that will have the same effect, with $29 billion in taxes on energy production. Let's go through those. A repeal of the manufacturer's deduction for refineries: everyone who has looked at the energy crisis knows it is the lack of refinery capacity that has driven up the demand while we have not driven up the supply. We are making it harder to invest in refineries. No one is doing it, and we need more refineries. So taking away any deductions for refineries is counterintuitive. We would establish an excise tax of 13 percent on crude oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico. That is the biggest source of oil and natural gas production in our country that we are able to produce and explore. ANWR would be larger, but we have not been able to tap into ANWR. So the Gulf of Mexico is our best source. Other States are now looking at exploring and then possibly drilling off their shores because there is now an opportunity for States to get revenue, and it can be done environmentally safely. So now we are talking about increasing the tax, which is going to have the effect of lessening the exploration and drilling and will also go back on a contract that was made earlier to induce people to drill in the Gulf of Mexico because it is more expensive--the deep drilling is much more expensive. The bill would also impose a tax on finished gasoline--$824 million over 10 years. It would seem that is going to increase the price of gasoline at the pump. It would eliminate tax credits for foreign oil production, exposing them to double taxation. So what do you think that is going to do? We are in a situation already where we are seeing more and more new formations of public companies going overseas because of Sarbanes-Oxley, with CEOs saying it is the instability of our regulatory process and the taxes and the litigation in our country that has caused more and more companies to decide to move their corporate headquarters to London or other exchanges. Furthermore, the jobs are going with them. So here we are trying to address this issue in a responsible way, and what are we doing to our oil companies? Why wouldn't they just go and register on the London stock exchange and make that their headquarters? That is what many American companies are doing now. If we decide we are going to double-tax this segment of industry in our country, we are just saying we don't want American oil companies. I can see why they would not only incorporate overseas but move more and more of their production overseas as well. I hope we will not pass this tax bill. A recent review by the Heritage Foundation estimated this tax package, combined with other policies in this bill, could increase the price of regular unleaded gas to $6.40 by the year 2016. That is ridiculous. Why would we pass an energy plan that would have the potential effect of doing that? No, what we should be doing is encouraging more refineries, encouraging nuclear power plants that are environmentally safe, encouraging drilling and exploration of our own natural resources, and we should be looking for renewable sources of energy--cellulosic ethanol, corn-based ethanol biodiesel, wind, solar. We have so many sources. My amendment would also create the ability to start research on wave and current energy resources, which they are doing in a limited way in Europe right now, using the Gulf of Mexico and our oceans for their energy potential. There is so much we can do that would be positive that we could agree on in a bipartisan way. This tax bill is a poison pill. The tax portion is unnecessary, it is counterintuitive, it will have the effect of increasing gasoline prices at the pump, it will ship jobs that are in America overseas, and I think we are going to lose major corporate business. That is unnecessary and I hope my colleagues will not pass this tax package, and I certainly hope we can take this part out of the equation, work on the bill that is before us--which has some very good points--and then we will be doing something to try to help with the rising cost of gasoline at the pump in our country. I hope we can help relieve the high price of corn which has resulted from our emphasis on ethanol. That is causing a rise in livestock prices, because the feedstock for livestock that is being raised has increased the cost. So all the meat we eat in this country is going to be at a higher price because ethanol is taking from the corn market and the feedstock market is suffering. We need to address these things. I certainly hope we will, in a responsible way, bring the costs of energy down and not have side effects such as the increased costs to livestock producers. I urge a ``no'' vote on this tax portion so we can get down to the business of doing what the purpose of this energy bill was, and that is to increase supply so we can be less dependent on foreign sources and lower the price of energy in our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak against this motion as well. I agree totally with the Senator from Mississippi in saying: What are we doing spending this whole day talking about a resolution which everyone knows will have no effect whatsoever, except probably on the nightly news, which I assume was the purpose of introducing it in the first place. We have talked about the judgment of the Attorney General in handling the U.S. attorney personnel issues. There is clearly a division. There has been a lot of discussion. A number of people have said what they think of the handling of that situation. But stating your opinion is very different from having the Senate address this matter. The President relieved almost all of his Cabinet when he changed into his second term. Why wouldn't he be able to replace U.S. attorneys who also serve at his pleasure in the same way he decided to change leadership in the Cabinet? That is the right of the President. The Senate has the right to confirm Cabinet officers and U.S. attorneys, and we have exercised that right. What the Senate should not be doing is passing meaningless resolutions that could only serve a political purpose. With the issues we have facing this country, how could we be spending a whole day, and possibly more if cloture is invoked, on a resolution that will have no impact? Why wouldn't we be talking about immigration, which we discussed last week and the week before that when we were in session? We were making headway. Immigration is a very important issue for our country. The Energy bill which is before us is a very legitimate, major issue for our country. We all want to bring gasoline prices down. But all of a sudden, thrust in the middle of the energy debate is a meaningless resolution of no confidence in the Attorney General. There has been no allegation that he has done something criminal or illegal, just that people disagree with his judgment. There were people who disagreed with the Attorney General serving in the previous administration--Janet Reno--when the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, TX was charged and people died. Many felt the Attorney General jumped the gun and took too drastic an action, when talking would have been better. Or the Elian Gonzalez issue. There was much disagreement about the handling of that issue. I didn't see Republicans running to the floor of the Senate seeking a resolution of no confidence in the Attorney General. I think, frankly, the majority is jumping the gun in doing something such as that here. I hope we will put this away by not invoking cloture on the motion to proceed. Frankly, I hope we will restore the reputation of this body by taking up the issues that affect our country, debating them, and having votes. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to wait until Senator Coburn is finished, and then I would like to be recognized for 5 minutes following his remarks.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is allotted to our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me make an inquiry. I wanted to speak for 1 minute on the Coburn amendment and then for 4 minutes or so on cloture. Is the time allotted only for the Coburn amendment at this time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, it is my intention to speak against his amendment and then against cloture. I don't want to take from his time. That is not fair. So I ask the Senator from Oklahoma what is the allocation that he wishes to make?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. Let me say first I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for allowing me to have the rest of his time, and I don't disagree with one thing he said. I agree with his purpose. However, I have to oppose the amendment for this reason: Last year, the House put in the Secure Fence Act specificity about exactly where the fence would go. There was no requirement that the local people, private property owners, cities that are right on the Rio Grande River would have any input whatsoever. I do not think Congress can say that the priority fencing is 15 miles on either side of the port of entry of Laredo. It might be 10 miles. We might be spending billions of dollars that are unnecessary putting in 15 miles. It might not even be possible to put it in certain places because of the geography and the topography. We have an amendment in the underlying bill that does require local input so that Congress is not mandating, but, instead, the Border Patrol chiefs, who have been designated by the Department of Homeland Security, will make these decisions.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It would most certainly--it doesn't negate the purpose.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would what?