Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time? When are we going to have the Coburn vote, and when is the cloture vote? How much time are we allocated?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am not sure we will need all of the 17 minutes. I think we had initially planned to vote close to the hour. I think that is very possible. I thank Senator Coburn for raising these issues. These issues which are included in his amendment are not greatly dissimilar from the measures in terms of adding additional what we call ``triggers'' to the legislation. Let me just go back a step and relate why we have real reservations about the Coburn amendment. When we examined the broken immigration system--and we have had scores of hearings in the immigration committee and the Judiciary Committee--what was offered on a number of different occasions said: We can solve our problem just by building a fence in the southwest border or just by having strong security in the southwest border. It is 1,800 miles down there, and we can fence off different areas and then use different kinds of technology, and that is going to solve the challenges we are facing with immigrants coming across the border. As we continued on through the course of the hearings, we say that in and of itself will not work. As Governor Napolitano said, if we just put a fence down along the southwest border, you put a 40-foot fence in, there are going to be 41-foot ladders that are going to come over that. What you need to do, as Governor Napolitano and others testified, including the Secretary of Homeland Security, who said: You need to have a comprehensive measure. You have to have a comprehensive measure if we are going to secure the borders. We need to have a comprehensive measure, which means we have to do all we possibly can to secure the borders by the latest in technology, and I will mention that in a moment. But, also, if we are going to secure those borders, we are going to have to recognize that there is going to be pressure even on those borders. So we have to organize and structure some kind of way for people to come in the front door. Otherwise, they are going to go over the back door, which means they are going to scale the various fences. We say: No, we want to protect American workers. So we worked out an elaborate program to make sure that anyone who is going to come into the United States through the front door is not going to displace an American worker. We worked out a process and a system to make sure there are no American workers who want to take that job, there are only those who want to come in to be able to work in those areas. We have gone through that in the course of the debate. But you need not only that--if you want to make sure you are not going to still have some leakage in there, you are going to have interior enforcement. You are going to have it in the employer situation. You have to have that. Otherwise, we are going to go back to what has been roundly criticized here, and legitimately so--1986. So you have to have important interior enforcement in the workplace. So we had to include those provisions in this legislation as well. Then, if you are really going to have some kind of opportunity to make sure you are going to look out after the national security interests of the United States, you are going to have to know who is here, not that you are just going to have millions of people living in the shadows--we do not know their names, we do not know their addresses, we do not know where they are living--we have to bring them out. To bring them out, we cannot just do that, bring them out automatically, because they have broken the law. So we worked out a system where these individuals pay heavy fines, and effectively they will go to the back of the line. So anybody who has been trying to get in here legally will be able to do so before they will have any kind of opportunity to move ahead toward effectively normalizing their lives and moving on to the opportunity for a green card. So it became very apparent that all of these elements work and work together, and if we accept the Coburn amendment, we are interrupting this whole kind of a process. What we have heard time and time again is that if you interrupt this process, then you have a breakdown in the whole kind of condition and you are going to be inundated with the undocumented aliens. We want to stop the Border Patrol--highly trained, highly committed, highly dedicated individuals--from chasing after landscapers across the border. We want them to be looking after terrorists and the criminal element, right? Right. Therefore, you have to make sure you are going to have the other aspects of the security measures put in place. What does that mean? That means internal security. But the Coburn amendment suspends that program, suspends the interior security in terms of the employers hiring the undocumented aliens. With that, it is a continuation of a broken and a failed system. I would just say finally that this proposal, in terms of our security interests, may not be perfect, but it does provide the 20,000 additional agents, it does provide 200 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, 70 ground-based radars and cameras, four unmanned aerial vehicles, detention rather than catch-and-release programs, and many other kind of features. We have followed what has been recommended by the Department of Homeland Security to get the best security we could. But the idea that we are going to suspend some of those elements which have been intertwined--and as Secretary Chertoff said very eloquently: You need them all. I appreciate the fact that the good Senator from Oklahoma says: Well, let's hold certain parts back until we get everything in place. Our answer is: You better start getting everything in place if you really want to have a secure border. I withhold the remainder of my time and yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would yield on my time, that is the intention of the leadership. What we would like to do is try to work out these groups of amendments with the Republican leadership. We intend to do that as soon as we get to the beginning of the vote. Rather than make that judgment at this particular time, we would ask if the Senator would defer. We will work those out. Obviously, we are going to work them out with the Republican leaders because we have been instructed to cooperate, to work and do as much as we possibly can during the day. I know our leader has given those assurances to the Senator. I am just reluctant to shortchange the process now. But I will certainly work with the Senator during the course of these votes here and do the best we can, and he, obviously, can preserve his rights for later in the morning.

Mr. KENNEDY. And a dinner too. I thank my friend from Mississippi, and I commend him for a constructive and positive attitude. Those of us who know him and respect him know that he is a fierce fighter for his values, but he also is an institutionalist. He understands the responsibilities of this institution in dealing with the Nation's challenges. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are going to be few issues that come before the Senate that are more important than immigration reform. Our immigration system is broken. This is a national security issue. It is an internal kind of security issue. It is basically also a fairness and humane issue about how we are going to treat each other. It involves all of these factors. We are going to have a cloture petition that is going to be filed. There is no sense or expectation that it will be a defining moment because we have heard now that it will not be achieved. But we have every intention of continuing today, Democrats and Republicans, working all day long and into the early evening responding to some of the questions and issues that have to be raised. We will do our very best, as we did until midnight last night, all through yesterday, to give opportunities for Members to introduce amendments and get an expression by the Senate because the country expects us to take action. I am convinced with the goodwill that has been expressed this morning, we have a real opportunity to see the beginning of a light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully, by late afternoon we will have a clear direction about where we are going. I thank the leadership for all it has done. I hope the Senate will reject the Coburn amendment. We will have the cloture rollcall now, and since we can certainly assume it will not be enacted, we will announce a series of votes, and we will continue to move forward on the legislation over the course of the day. I yield back the remainder of my time. Is the vote on the Coburn amendment first?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the nays and yeas.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for those who have been interested in this legislation, as all of us are, and for those who have been wondering about what has been going on through the course of the afternoon, I think they probably have been seeing the intermediate actions which have been taken, the requests that have been made by the majority leader, and the response. Even as the time is moving along, there are efforts to try to sort of find some common ground in consideration of additional Republican amendments, as well as some of the additional Democratic amendments. We made remarkable progress, I thought, yesterday afternoon and last evening. We were very hopeful that we could move, this afternoon, in a similar way to consider both the Republican and Democratic amendments. I know and expect we are going to have a proposal that is going to be made by the majority leader in the near future to see if we can't get back on track. I am very hopeful that will be the case. We have had good debates, good discussions over the last couple of weeks, and I think we have made good progress. We know there are still a number of outstanding issues for our colleagues. We had hoped we would be able to address a number of those during the course of the afternoon but, as we saw when the leader made the requests, there were objections to proceeding in that way. We are not giving up, and the leader is preparing now to make some additional requests. I myself find that his plan is virtually irresistible, but we will have to find out whether our colleagues on the other side feel that way as well. I thought I would take a moment and just review some of the essential aspects.

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure.

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought I would just review how we got here with this legislation and basically the highlights of it. I think it is fairly familiar to the Members, but I think it is always useful to have an understanding about the nature of the challenge we are facing, the dramatic challenge we are facing in terms of our borders, in terms of our national security, and to briefly review for our colleagues what we have tried to do with this legislation. So often during the last days, these debates are focused like a laser on a very specific aspect, and we lost the central thrust and the purpose of this legislation and perhaps even the need for urgent action. There is a need for urgent action, and the need is now, the need is today, the need is tonight because of the kinds of conditions that threaten our national security and result in the exploitation of human beings and even deaths out in the desert and leave many millions of undocumented in fear of their future, and the conditions which threaten to undermine agreements that have been made in the AgJOBS area and the lost opportunities that would result for many of those who might be eligible for the DREAM Act. So I thought I would try to put this into some proportion and take a few moments to review again where we are. I think one of the most dramatic statistics we see, as reflected in this chart, is deaths due to unauthorized border crossings. If you look at the period of the last 5 years, you will see these numbers continue to go up, they continue to escalate. The fact is, there are 425 men, women, and children, including infants, who die every single year on the border. That is a dramatic figure under any set of circumstances. The numbers are going to continue if we fail to take any action. Those numbers are going to continue to escalate. They reflect the number of deaths at the border. They don't reflect the several hundred thousand individuals who are able to come across the border. What happens when these undocumented come across the border is that more often than not we find that these individuals, as the rest of the undocumented population, undergo extraordinary exploitation. We have a picture showing a situation that took place in my own State in New Bedford fairly recently, several weeks ago. It is fairly typical. There have been these types of raids on these types of places in other parts of the country. This is replicated in scores of places all over this country. We find these undocumented, now estimated to be 12.5 million, 13 million of them, who suffer the exploitation we saw in New Bedford, MA. This photograph illustrates what is going on in this plant. These workers' rights were trampled on. These individuals were fined for going to the bathroom, denied overtime pay, docked 15 minutes' pay for every minute they were late to work, fired for talking while on the clock, forced to ration toilet paper, which typically ran out before 9 a.m. Then we look at another industry. You can look here at the undocumented workers in the meatpacking industry who are exploited. One in ten workers is injured each year by the sharp hooks and knives. They suffer exhausting assembly-line speeds and painful damage from repetitive motions. That is the old ergonomics issue. Workers are subjected to chlorine mists that lead to bloody noses, vomiting, and headaches. Undocumented workers don't report their injuries because they live in fear that they will lose their jobs and be deported. The life of fear that is taking place is replicated in communities all over this country. We have these several hundred thousand individuals coming across the border. We don't know who they are. We don't know their names. They are living in different places in our country. They are subject to this kind of exploitation, and they pose a national security issue and a national security problem. We have the exploitation of these workers. We have the deaths that take place in the desert, and we also have a national security problem with hundreds of thousands of people coming across. So this issue is a national security issue. It is a national security problem. This gives us some idea of what we have included in this legislation. We have increased the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents, and with the Gregg amendment, it is more than 20,000 now. It has the border barriers, including 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing. It includes radar and camera towers, UAVs. For detention and apprehension, it provides the resources to detain up to 27,000 noncitizens per day rather than arrest and release. This will be for detention and apprehension. We have important workplace enforcement tools and processing applications of Z status. The Department of Homeland Security will process the applications in terms of security. So we are coming to the issue of law enforcement and security--national security, protecting our borders, and law enforcement. We are going to develop a process. This legislation is about respect for the law--law at the border, law in employment, and law for those individuals who are here and are undocumented. They are going to have to live with this law which ensures that they are going to suffer a penalty if they expect to stay here and live here. We have a virtual lawlessness out there on the border which is a threat to our security and a lawlessness in so many areas of employment which is promoting the exploitation of the human condition. We have this extraordinary atmosphere of fear by the 12\1/2\ million individuals who live here; they are in fear because they are illegal. We are trying to legalize the process and get respect for the law and try to ensure our national security. So we do that, as I mentioned, at the border, which is important. As I have mentioned during the course of these discussions, the one thing we have learned following hour after hour after hour of hearings on this matter is that just doing border protection is not enough. If you were able to put 1,800 miles of fencing along the Southwest border, as has been pointed out by Governor Napolitano, who is so familiar with this, along with others who have made their views very well known, you have to not only have a border, but no matter how tall your fence is going to be, the ladder will always be a little taller. You have to have strong law enforcement, but you are going to have to have internal employment enforcement as well, work site enforcement, as well as regularizing those here at the time. So we have the work site employment; employers must verify the identity of work authorization of all employees; there are increases in civil and criminal penalties against employers who hire unauthorized aliens knowingly, or with reckless disregard; and it includes measures to prevent identity theft and fraud. It is dramatically different from the 1986 act. We here on the floor don't want to repeat 1986. That legislation was signed into law by President Reagan and enforced by a Republican administration from 1986 to 1992. I voted against that legislation for many of the reasons I am mentioning now. You had absolutely no workforce enforcement, none at all, virtually no requirements. We see the problems we had. We had abuse of that system. We have in this legislation, as I pointed out previously, addressed those kinds of problems that lent themselves to fraud after 1986. We have tough enforcement in the workplace. We have inspectors, close to a thousand inspectors, who are going to go in and look at these employment sites and make sure the kinds of protections that are guaranteed under this legislation are respected. We are going to insist that with any kind of employment program, they are going to get the protections of the prevailing wage and those are not going to be taken by surveys that are done by the private sector; they will be done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We will have protections under OSHA, and workers compensation, and whistleblower protection is in this legislation for any individuals working in those sites. For the first time, whistleblower protections will be there for those individuals. We are going to have a thousand inspectors who will be inspecting the work sites to make sure that the rights of individuals who are going to come into this country will be preserved. At the present time, we find out the differences. This chart shows how this process and system must work. If they are going to be in the temporary program, the employer must advertise before applying for a worker. The employer must hire any qualified American applicants before applying for a temporary worker. Temporary workers are restricted to areas with high unemployment, and employers cannot undercut American wages by paying less to temporary workers. Now we know even for the temporary workers, they are to be treated under the labor laws, with those protections, and they are not now. The borders are broken. If we don't pass this legislation, that is going to continue. That is the alternative--the kind of exploitation that exists now in so many communities, the fear, the exploitation, the harassment, and the driving down of wages, which threatens American wages. All of that exists now. So we are ensuring, again, respect for the law in coming into this country, the law at the border, the law at the work site, and the law in transition. This chart is a good explanation made by Secretary Chertoff: Enforcement alone will not do the job of securing our borders. Enforcement at the border will only be successful in the long term if it is coupled with a more sensible approach to the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens in the country today, and the many more who will attempt to migrate into the United States for economic reasons. That is what we have heard from the Department of Homeland Security time in and time out--that there has to be a comprehensive approach to this issue. We have to bring people out of the shadows. They are going to have to pay a penalty. We insist that they pay a penalty. Then, rather than let them go to the front of the list, they have to go to the end of the list in order to begin a process--if they are able to demonstrate the payment of the penalty, if they demonstrate they can learn and are willing to learn English, if they are able to demonstrate they have long work experience, and if they can demonstrate they are not involved in criminal activity. We know 70,000 permanent resident aliens are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan since these wars started-- 70,000. So we know that so many of these families who are coming here-- why do they come? Basically, what are their values? What are the values we consider positive in the United States? We admire people who work hard. That is an important factor. That is essential in terms of the achievement of the American dream. We admire people who are devoted to family and their children. We find so many of these undocumented, but why do they come here? It is because they want to have a better life for their children. How do we know that? Because there is more than $40 billion returned by these immigrants to the countries of Central and South America every single year. These are individuals who are making a total of $10,000, and $40 billion is returned to their countries. To whom? It is returned to their families and children. They work hard, they are devoted to their children and families and have an extraordinary dedication to their parents and grandparents, caring for them. Those are the positive qualities that all of us admire. On the other hand, they have broken the law, so, therefore, they have to pay a penalty. Why did they break the law? It is because we have the magnet of the American economy drawing them here. That magnet doesn't pay any penalty. These people risk their lives to get in here. They suffer the risk of exploitation. And even through all of that, they return the resources back to their families. So it is the magnet of the American economy, but still we are making them pay--not the employer, the magnet, or the American economy, but they make an extraordinary contribution. Sure, there are some bad apples. But they make an extraordinary contribution--the immigrants--just as all of our parents and grandparents and forebears have made in terms of this country. This is what we have done. We have seen what happened at the border. We have talked about what is happening in terms of the employment situation. We know what is going on, in terms of the kind of distinction between the past and present. Those individuals, the 12\1/ 2\ million people who are here--this is the explanation of what we call the Z visa eligibility: They entered the United States before January 2007. They remained employed and continuously present and not a national security threat. There has to be a review. They have to register--the 18 months--to make sure they are registered and are not any national security threat. There can be no serious criminal record in or out of the United States. We have outlined that. We have gone into detail and explanation in earlier kinds of considerations of amendments. If they have committed serious crimes, they are out; they don't come back. We have explained that and we have gone through that time and time again through the course of this debate. They have to pay the processing fees of $1,500; State impact assistance fee, $500; and a penalty of $1,000. All of that--some $3,000--is not even getting you down the road toward a green card and citizenship. The $500 from 12 million people--$6 billion--goes to States that have the great impact to help them in terms of offsetting any of their additional burdens, in terms of health care and education. That is not an insignificant amount of resources. We went through during yesterday's discussion and debate how, by and large, these individuals are healthier, and we also went into about how they had utilized the health care system, and it shows that is effectively an incidental additional kind of expense. They must comply with the Selective Service Act, submit fingerprints and undergo a background check, and they must get in the back of the line for a green card. That means, for all of those who have been waiting in line, about 4 million people who have relatives here and have petitioned for them to come into the United States many, without this legislation, would have virtually no opportunity to do so. They will have that opportunity to come into the United States over an 8-year period. Then, after that 8-year period, these individuals we have discussed here could begin to move, and depending on their work record and their participation and sense of community, they could get on path toward a green card. Then it takes 5 more years to become a citizen. The earliest is maybe 13 or 14 years before they would be able to have that opportunity for citizenship. It is more distant than that for the majority of the people. All the time they have to behave and follow the law and pay the kinds of penalties that will be included. Mr. President, other colleagues wish to address the Senate, so I will be brief. I give credit to our friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, who reminded us about the opportunities we have in creating an educational pathway for the children of the undocumented. We know the children who come in here are coming in through the action of their parents. We understand that. It is through the actions of the parents. The DREAM Act students are eligible for Z visas and permanent residence if the student came in as a child under age 16 and has good moral character, or attends college or enlists in the military for 2 years. I know, as chairman of the Education Committee, the challenge we have in terms of having those students--Hispanic students and others from other cultures and traditions, in terms of the education experience. Having a good education opportunity for those children in this country is key to our national security, key to the success of our economy, and key to the success of the hopes and dreams of these children. Too often, half of the children from the Hispanic tradition drop out before they are ever able to be successful. But we know that others who complete the educational system and graduate--in my home State of Massachusetts, we have seen so many in Lowell, Lawrence, New Bedford, and other places who have children from undocumented families end up being valedictorians, class presidents, and extraordinary leaders. Then the opportunity comes for continued education and it is virtually closed down because they are denied that opportunity. Under the DREAM Act, this gives them the opportunity for in-State help and assistance. That is what this bill is about, too. It is about hope in terms of the future. It is about hope. It is relieving the kinds of anxiety those 12 million or 13 million undocumented are experiencing this afternoon and will experience tonight when they have a knock on the door and wonder if ICE is coming there to arrest and deport them, separate their families, and send them back--even after they have been here for a number of years. We don't hear much discussion about that. Everything seems to be pretty cut and dried around here. That is a major factor. How many of us have met some of these individuals, the undocumented? I did just 3 or 4 days ago, returning here at the airport. I talked to a person who has been here 28 years, as have his two brothers. The brothers have been able to get green cards, but he had not. He talked about the fear he and his family have at this time of being arrested and deported. In this legislation is another extremely important provision. That is what we call the AgJOBS bill. I see the Senator from California here, Senator Feinstein, who has done an extraordinary job in helping to bring this part of the legislation before the Senate, with Senator Craig, whom I commend for his diligence. They have been the real leaders in this proposal. For many of us, to go back to the time of the Bracero Program--I can remember being a member of our committee in the early 1960s when we had hearings in southern Texas and also in California about the Bracero Program. Few times in our history did we have the kind of exploitation of individuals--slavery certainly; slavery, yes; slavery first--but after that, the Bracero exploitation was one of the darkest sides of American history in the exploitation of individuals. There are a number of blemishes out there. We can talk about those-- American Indians and others--but this was really one of the very worst. We took time to get rid of it, and we did get rid of that. Then we went through a long period of enormous tension between the workers and the growers. We all remember the extraordinary contribution of Cesar Chavez, the dignity he gave to so many of these farm workers. That kind of tension existed for years. Now, finally, in recent years there has been an agreement between these two very strong groups who are committed in their own ways to their own views and philosophies. They have come together and have agreed on a pathway that will ensure success and give these workers the respect and dignity they have been denied. It is called the AgJOBS bill. A great deal of credit goes to our colleague in the House, Howard Berman, who spent years working on this legislation. That legislation has had 65, 66 cosponsors, but we have been unable to get it before the Senate for ratification of that program. It is included in this legislation. If this legislation passes, the message it sends to about 900,000 agricultural workers, who, again, have been exploited, and to their families, is the fact that over the next 8 years, they are going to have to work and continue to work hard. They can work in agriculture. They have some opportunity to work outside agriculture too. They have to play by the rules, demonstrate they are paying their taxes, work hard and pay the fines and penalties, but they have some opportunity to move forward after all these years, get a green card, and then 5 years later move forward. So it is an enormous period of hope for all those individuals. This legislation is about dealing in a tough way with a tough problem at the border. We do that by taking the best advice, the best recommendations, the best suggestions from the best people who know about homeland security. We have done that and worked closely together. I don't think there are any differences on that point. We need to have tough enforcement in the workplace, and we have achieved that. It can be improved further, but it has been achieved, and we have talked about it. We have also provided a pathway for earned legalization after these individuals pay the fines, significant fines, in many ways, fines for an average family who makes about $10,000 to $12,000 a year, that represents years of work with their kinds of salaries. They have to go to the end of the line. They have to demonstrate good work experience. They have to earn, earn, earn, earn, earn the ability to adjust their relationship with our country. We know these families. We have seen them in our churches. We have seen them in our shops. We have seen them in the Armed Forces of the United States of America, and they serve with great pride and dignity and they want to contribute and be a part of the American dream like everyone else. And we are giving them that opportunity. If we vote no on this legislation, we are dampening and canceling that opportunity, and we are returning to the law of the jungle because that is what it is. It is a jungle on that border. Every day we continue without this legislation, we have these well- trained, well-disciplined, highly motivated border guards chasing people across the desert who are landscapers. They ought to be looking for the terrorists, the smugglers, the lawbreakers. That is who they should be looking after. If we don't pass this legislation, they will continue to be looking out after the landscapers instead of the terrorists, instead of the smugglers, and instead of those who threaten the security of the people of this country. That is it. Take your choice. Anyone can flyspeck this legislation. I am not accusing those who differ with me on particular proposals being necessarily flyspeckers, but sometimes we have to make a judgment. Sometimes we have to make a decision. Sometimes there has to be finality. We have debated this issue on the floor of the Senate for 2 weeks. We debated it last year for 2 weeks. We are not just coming at this legislation for the first time. We have debated just about every feature of this program, somewhat different from last year, but the themes are the same, the arguments are the same, the amendments are almost the same. The only question is the will of this body and the will to make a judgment, a decision that we are going to clean up our borders, get a sense of law in terms of those borders and in the employment areas, get a respect for the law from those who have been undocumented; they are going to pay their price, give a sense of hope to the young people who can benefit, and give a sense of dignity and pride to those who work in the fields across this country in AgJOBS. This is going to be an important vote this evening. If we are talking about a vote about America's future, this is it. This is it. This is it tonight. We can all find the excuses. We all can find the reasons to say no. We can all find different aspects of this legislation with which we differ, but underneath, this is a proposal that is deeply rooted in remedy, one of the great national challenges we have--broken borders and a broken immigration system. This legislation is a downpayment that the American people are asking and demanding of the Senate of the United States that we move forward on. Let's not disappoint them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this vote was obviously a disappointment. I think those of us who have worked on this issue are encouraged by what both leaders have stated, that we are not giving up or forgetting this legislation, and we have every intention of ultimately finalizing and getting a bill. Tonight we cannot look away from what is happening on the southern borders that are open to the kind of vandalism that has taken place, the exploitation which has taken place. We cannot look out at our broken immigration system and think we can let that continue. We cannot look away from so many locations across this country where people who are undocumented are being exploited--dangerously exploited-- dehumanized. We cannot look away from those who have worked in the agribusinesses of this country and had real hope we were going to take action in the Senate, where we have worked for years and years and years in order to get legislation through, which 67 Members of this Senate have cosponsored. Their dreams are dashed this evening. We cannot look away from the 12.5 million people out across America who tonight, after finding out what has failed to happen in the Senate, know they are going home to their children, and know tonight their fear is enhanced and increased because we have failed to take action. Sure, they broke the law, but they broke the law because they wanted to work, work, work. They wanted to provide for their families. They wanted to provide for their children. They wanted to work. And 70,000 permanent resident aliens have served in the military in Iraq, in Afghanistan. They wanted to be part of the American dream. Well, I think as both leaders have stated, doing nothing is not an alternative. It is not an alternative. This issue is not going away. And I leave this evening actually encouraged by what both leaders have stated. Most of all, I am encouraged by the spirit which I have seen in the Senate among Republicans as well as a number of our colleagues who believe we have a real responsibility to accept the challenge of both of our leaders and find a way we can secure a fair and just immigration bill. It is in that spirit that I hope those who have been involved in this will continue to work so we are going to have a constructive resolution. No bill at all is not a solution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, serious and unjustified health disparities continue to exist in our Nation today. Forty five million Americans have no health insurance and often don't get the health care they need or get it too late. We know that the uninsured are more likely to delay doctor visits and needed screenings like mammograms and other early detection tests which can help prevent serious illness and death. The Institute of Medicine estimates that at least 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they lack health coverage. Some of the most shameful health disparities involve racial and ethnic minorities. African Americans have a lower life expectancy than Whites. They are much more likely to die from stroke, and their uninsurance rates are much higher than those of their White counterparts. Many Americans want to believe such disparities don't exist, but ignoring them only contributes more to the widening gap between the haves and have-nots. It is a scandal that people of color have greater difficulty obtaining good health care than other Americans. Your health should not depend on the color of your skin, the size of your bank account, or where you live. In a nation as advanced as ours, with its state-of-the- art medical technology for preventing illness and caring for the sick, it is appalling that so many health disparities continue to exist. That is the reason why I am introducing the Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination Act, as part of our effort to reduce or eliminate these unacceptable differences in the health and health care of racial and ethnic minorities. The bill includes grants and demonstration projects that will help communities promote positive health behaviors and improve outreach, participation, and enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in available health care programs. The bill will also establish collaborative partnerships led by community health centers. In particular it will support the Delta Health Initiative Rural Health, Education, and Workforce Infrastructure Demonstration Program to address longstanding, unmet health and health care needs in the Mississippi Delta In addition, the bill codifies the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Program, so that this successful program can continue to assist communities to mobilize and organize resources to support effective and sustainable programs to help close the health and health care gap. It also establishes Health Action Zones to support State, tribal or local initiatives to improve minority health in communities that have been historically burdened by health disparities. Greater diversity in the health care workforce is essential to creating a healthy America. Studies demonstrate that minority health professionals are more likely to care for minority patients, including those who are low-income and uninsured. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans account for only 6 percent of the Nation's doctors and 5 percent of nurses and dentists, even though they are almost one-quarter of the U.S. population. The disparity in the health workforce must be closed, not just to fulfill our commitment to equality and opportunity, but also because of the impact it has on the health of America. The act reauthorizes the title VII health care workforce diversity programs, including the Centers of Excellence at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and institutions that educate Hispanic and Native American students. A diverse health care workforce is essential for a healthy country. Emphasizing workforce diversity does not mean that health care workers should not be prepared to work with diverse patients. We must also make a more serious effort to train culturally competent health care professionals, and to create a health care system that is accessible for the more than 48 million Americans who speak a language other than English at home. The bill creates an Internet clearinghouse to increase cultural competency and improve communication between health care providers and patients. It also supports the development of curricula on cultural competence in health professions schools. Language barriers in health care obviously contribute to reduced access and poorer care for those who have limited English proficiency or low health literacy. The legislation recognizes the importance of this issue for the quality of our health care system and provides funds for activities to improve and encourage services for such patients. The bill reauthorizes the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities that was created as part of the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. It strengthens the center's role in coordinating and planning research that focuses on minority health and health disparities at the National Institutes of Health. The bill also requires the Agency for Health care Research and Quality to establish a grant program to support private research initiatives and a public-private partnership to evaluate and identify the best practices in disease management strategies and interventions. In addition, the bill ensures that research on genetic variation within and between populations includes a focus on racial and ethnic minorities. It also promotes the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials and intensifies efforts throughout the Department of Health and Human Services to increase and apply knowledge about the interaction of racial, genetic, and environmental factors that affect people's health. Finally, the bill reinforces and clarifies the duties of the Office of Minority Health and instructs the office to develop and implement a comprehensive department-wide plan to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities. It also encourages greater cooperation among federal agencies and departments in meeting these serious challenges. We have worked diligently with a wide variety of organizations on this bill that are eager for strong legislation to eliminate health disparities. The following groups have expressed their support: Aetna, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, American Public Health Association, Asian American and Pacific Islander Health Forum, Association for Community Affiliated Plans, Association of Minority Health Professions Schools, California Pan-Ethnic Network, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Families USA, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Meharry Medical College, Morehouse School of Medicine, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, National Coalition for Hispanic Health--Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Puerto Rican Coalition--National Council of La Raza, National Health Law Program, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Medical Association, Network Health, Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, REHDC, and Summit Health Institute for Research and Education. I look forward to working with these dedicated groups as we work towards final passage of this bill. I greatly appreciate the cooperation of Senator Cochran, Senator Obama, Senator Bingaman, Senator Clinton, Senator Brown, and Senator Durbin on this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this much needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, serious and unjustified health disparities continue to exist in our Nation today. Forty five million Americans have no health insurance and often don't get the health care they need or get it too late. We know that the uninsured are more likely to delay doctor visits and needed screenings like mammograms and other early detection tests which can help prevent serious illness and death. The Institute of Medicine estimates that at least 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they lack health coverage. Some of the most shameful health disparities involve racial and ethnic minorities. African Americans have a lower life expectancy than Whites. They are much more likely to die from stroke, and their uninsurance rates are much higher than those of their White counterparts. Many Americans want to believe such disparities don't exist, but ignoring them only contributes more to the widening gap between the haves and have-nots. It is a scandal that people of color have greater difficulty obtaining good health care than other Americans. Your health should not depend on the color of your skin, the size of your bank account, or where you live. In a nation as advanced as ours, with its state-of-the- art medical technology for preventing illness and caring for the sick, it is appalling that so many health disparities continue to exist. That is the reason why I am introducing the Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination Act, as part of our effort to reduce or eliminate these unacceptable differences in the health and health care of racial and ethnic minorities. The bill includes grants and demonstration projects that will help communities promote positive health behaviors and improve outreach, participation, and enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in available health care programs. The bill will also establish collaborative partnerships led by community health centers. In particular it will support the Delta Health Initiative Rural Health, Education, and Workforce Infrastructure Demonstration Program to address longstanding, unmet health and health care needs in the Mississippi Delta In addition, the bill codifies the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Program, so that this successful program can continue to assist communities to mobilize and organize resources to support effective and sustainable programs to help close the health and health care gap. It also establishes Health Action Zones to support State, tribal or local initiatives to improve minority health in communities that have been historically burdened by health disparities. Greater diversity in the health care workforce is essential to creating a healthy America. Studies demonstrate that minority health professionals are more likely to care for minority patients, including those who are low-income and uninsured. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans account for only 6 percent of the Nation's doctors and 5 percent of nurses and dentists, even though they are almost one-quarter of the U.S. population. The disparity in the health workforce must be closed, not just to fulfill our commitment to equality and opportunity, but also because of the impact it has on the health of America. The act reauthorizes the title VII health care workforce diversity programs, including the Centers of Excellence at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and institutions that educate Hispanic and Native American students. A diverse health care workforce is essential for a healthy country. Emphasizing workforce diversity does not mean that health care workers should not be prepared to work with diverse patients. We must also make a more serious effort to train culturally competent health care professionals, and to create a health care system that is accessible for the more than 48 million Americans who speak a language other than English at home. The bill creates an Internet clearinghouse to increase cultural competency and improve communication between health care providers and patients. It also supports the development of curricula on cultural competence in health professions schools. Language barriers in health care obviously contribute to reduced access and poorer care for those who have limited English proficiency or low health literacy. The legislation recognizes the importance of this issue for the quality of our health care system and provides funds for activities to improve and encourage services for such patients. The bill reauthorizes the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities that was created as part of the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. It strengthens the center's role in coordinating and planning research that focuses on minority health and health disparities at the National Institutes of Health. The bill also requires the Agency for Health care Research and Quality to establish a grant program to support private research initiatives and a public-private partnership to evaluate and identify the best practices in disease management strategies and interventions. In addition, the bill ensures that research on genetic variation within and between populations includes a focus on racial and ethnic minorities. It also promotes the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials and intensifies efforts throughout the Department of Health and Human Services to increase and apply knowledge about the interaction of racial, genetic, and environmental factors that affect people's health. Finally, the bill reinforces and clarifies the duties of the Office of Minority Health and instructs the office to develop and implement a comprehensive department-wide plan to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities. It also encourages greater cooperation among federal agencies and departments in meeting these serious challenges. We have worked diligently with a wide variety of organizations on this bill that are eager for strong legislation to eliminate health disparities. The following groups have expressed their support: Aetna, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, American Public Health Association, Asian American and Pacific Islander Health Forum, Association for Community Affiliated Plans, Association of Minority Health Professions Schools, California Pan-Ethnic Network, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Families USA, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Meharry Medical College, Morehouse School of Medicine, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, National Coalition for Hispanic Health--Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Puerto Rican Coalition--National Council of La Raza, National Health Law Program, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Medical Association, Network Health, Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, REHDC, and Summit Health Institute for Research and Education. I look forward to working with these dedicated groups as we work towards final passage of this bill. I greatly appreciate the cooperation of Senator Cochran, Senator Obama, Senator Bingaman, Senator Clinton, Senator Brown, and Senator Durbin on this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this much needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leader, someone who has been interested, along with many others, in the immigration issue, for the leadership he has provided in making sure the Senate was going to take up this issue. He had announced in January of this year that he was going to take a time for the Judiciary Committee to consider this legislation but that he was going to allocate 2 weeks of time, which was basically the time we took on the last bill, but it was a major period of time to consider the people's business regarding this issue. He has been accommodating in terms of working through the Senate's schedule. For all of us who are interested in getting a bill, we thank him for all he has done in terms of encouraging us to reach judgments on these various measures. As he has mentioned, we have made very important and significant progress, and I think there is a strong mood in the Senate, as there is in the country, that this is an extremely important issue. We are increasingly close to trying to at least make a recommendation to the country about what the Senate's judgment will be on this issue. I join with him, as others, to say we are eager to move ahead during the day today and tomorrow and to work with the leadership. I know they have full schedules. I do think we are making significant progress and it is being done in a bipartisan spirit with a desire that those who have differing views about this issue can come together and do the Nation's business. When we achieve that, hopefully by the end of this week, both the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Kentucky will be very much appreciated for their support in helping this legislation move ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the benefit of the Members, we have tried to establish a way of moving along today. We are going to consider the Cornyn amendment, and then there is an amendment that I will place at the desk. We will have a 2-hour time allocation equally divided, though I am not sure we will take all the time, and then we will have an opportunity to vote on that measure. We are trying to set up a series of votes through the morning, through the afternoon, and through the evening. What we are going to try to do is to give Members as much time as possible on these items, rotating back and forth through the course of the day, and we will work with our colleagues to try to accommodate their schedules. We have a rigorous program, and we will announce that. We have talked with the floor managers, Senator Specter, Senator Kyl, and others, on these measures, and we will proceed in that way. So Members need to understand that we will have a busy and full day, and we will start off with the amendment of the Senator from Texas, No. 1184, as I understand.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for raising that issue. I think our language makes it extremely clear. I think there is a real question. We are looking through the language of the Senator from Texas about whether that would necessarily define that individual as an aggravated felon and therefore would deny the judge the opportunity to make a humanitarian finding on it, but we can come back to that. Amendment No. 1333, as Modified Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1333, as modified.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will make a comment. I see my friend from Rhode Island. I would like to make a brief comment on the amendment of Senator Cornyn and a brief comment on our amendment. Then I hope the Senator from Rhode Island will speak to it. It is always interesting to listen, when we are talking about the immigration bill, to those who go back to the 1986 bill. I remember it very clearly. I voted against it. That was an amnesty. That was a real amnesty. We hear a great deal in the public about what is amnesty, what is not amnesty. That was amnesty. This legislation is not amnesty. That effectively said those people who were undocumented, who came here, were forgiven. They followed the basic recommendations of a report by the distinguished president of Notre Dame, the Hessberg Report. I remember it clearly. There were enforcement provisions in there. They were completely inadequate. I might remind my friend from Texas, from 1986 to 1992, we had a Republican administration, a Republican President, and they didn't enforce it, as they have not enforced the recent legislation. They have had three investigations in terms of investigating undocumented aliens--three. They are the great defenders of the American border? Great defenders about immigration reform? Please. We always have to go through the little dance about the 1986 bill and the enforcement. I wish, during that period of time--1986, 1987, 1988, 1989--I wish all during those years we had the enforcement. But we did not. So we are where we are today. The real question is, is this legislation that we have now the downpayment on national security, on security internally? Does it provide the opportunity for those who are here to pay the fine, go to the back of the line, demonstrate a good working relationship and be able to emerge out of the shadows--the AgJOBS bill, the DREAM Act, and other provisions of the temporary worker program? With regards to the Cornyn amendment, we have an immigration program in this legislation that is strong, practical, and fair. One of the essential elements is to bring the 12 million men, women, and children--hard-working families--out of the shadows into the sunlight of America. We know we are not going to conduct massive roundups and deport 12 million people. We don't have the means to do it. It would disrupt our economy, inflict untold hardships on millions of hard- working people. It is estimated it would cost more than $250 billion. We would have buses all the way from Los Angeles to New York and back to trying to do this, if it were even possible. But the Cornyn amendment would make vast numbers of these families ineligible for our program. We are trying to deal with a key element of the program and that deals with the families who are here. It would keep them in the shadows, where employers abuse and underpay them. That hurts the immigrants, but it hurts American workers, too, by depressing wages. That is what we see that is out there now, with undocumented--the 12 million with a work record which is even better, in terms of percentages, than native born Americans, people who are willing to work and want to work hard. But there is exploitation of those individuals because every one of them knows all the boss has to do is go down and call the immigration service. Work 80 hours a week. Well, I don't want to. Well, I'm going to call the immigration service and you're deported. They do that. That individuals are exploited in this country is well understood. We are trying to free ourselves from that kind of a condition. But the Cornyn amendment would still make vast numbers of these families ineligible for our programs, keep them in the shadows where employers abuse and underpay them, which hurts the immigrants but it hurts American workers, too, by depressing their wages. The Cornyn amendment does this by classifying an array of common garden variety immigration offenses as crimes that would make them ineligible for the program. For example, the Cornyn amendment says that if you come here, have been ordered out of the country by immigration authorities, but if you fail to leave or you come back, you are ineligible. That is exactly what has been going on with our broken immigration system; people have come to work, employers want them to come, and they have benefitted our economy. Immigration officers may find them and order them home, but our employers beg them to come back. Our broken borders make that possible. Cornyn says: If you have used false identification, you may be found inadmissible and may be deported. But in our broken system, the people who have wanted to work have been forced to use the false identification. That is the reality of where we are today. Cornyn says he wants to be tough on gang members, sex offenders, individuals convicted of domestic violence. So do we. We have addressed any provisions not covered by the current law. Our amendment goes even further than the bipartisan compromise bill. He wants to exclude gang members. Our amendment does that too. Nobody who has engaged in illegal activity as part of a criminal gang will be allowed to enter or stay in this country. He says we should bar sex offenders from coming here. Our amendment does that. Any convicted sex offender who fails to register will not be allowed back in the country; if already here, then those offenders will face deportation. Cornyn says immigrants who commit acts of domestic violence or endanger their families should be punished. Our amendment does that. He says drunk drivers should be deported. Our amendment does that. Any immigrant with one felony conviction for drunk driving will not be allowed to enter this country. If convicted here, then the drunk driver will be deported. He says there should be consequences for individuals engaging in fraud. Our amendment does that. Our amendment punishes anyone who commits perjury or makes false statements when seeking immigration benefits. If any person lies on their application, then this individual will be prosecuted and subject to criminal penalties. He says we should go after immigrants convicted of firearms offenses. Our amendment does that, too. Who are the people we want to apply under our program? Who are the people the Cornyn amendment would condemn to the shadows of abuse? We know that the vast majority of the families who have come over here are hard-working people who care for their children, go to church, and contribute to their communities. In America, we respect hard work. Hard work built America. So our program says: If your only offense is that you came here to work, you came here to provide for your family, we will proceed in a way that you can atone for that offense and earn the right to stay and work legally. If you are a criminal, then we will arrest you. If you are a threat to our national security, a terrorist, then we will lock you up. If you try to cheat your way into the program through fraud, we will deport you. But if you came here to work and build a life, then you can stay. But first you have to meet the tough requirements: You have to pay the $5,000 fine, show a steady work history, learn English, get to the back of the line to get your green card, behind all those who have been waiting legally to get theirs. The Cornyn amendment creates harmful barriers for refugees fleeing persecution. In America, we have had a long and proud tradition of providing refuge to people who have faced persecution and oppression in their lands, whose lives are at risk because they stood up for their beliefs. We took in refugees from Cuba and from Vietnam as they fled communism. We have helped people from Somalia and Bosnia and other areas of conflict and oppression. Now we are beginning to help people whose lives are at risk because they helped our troops in Iraq. But often these persecuted refugees have no choice but to cooperate with their oppressors in order to save their families' lives and enable their escape. The Cornyn amendment says: If you do that, if you provide what is called material support to these oppressors and terrorist groups, then we are not going to rescue you from the hands of your oppressors. You have to take your chances and hope your oppressors do not persecute you or even kill you or your family. Consider the case of Helene from Sierra Leone, Revolutionary United Front rebels attacked her home, hacked one of her family members to death with a machete; they set her son on fire, leaving him near dead with severe burns. They held her family captive, raping her and her daughter and forcing them to cook, forcing her to cook and wash their clothes. The Cornyn amendment would bar legitimate refugees who were forced to assist their oppressors under duress. Under the Cornyn amendment, Helene would be ineligible to come to America as a refugee because she cooked for the rebels and washed their clothes. Under the Cornyn amendment, she and her family are ineligible because they provided material support for a terrorist group. If that is not bad enough, the Cornyn amendment says she can be excluded based on secret evidence, evidence that neither she nor anyone else outside the Government can see. She may never know why she was excluded. The Cornyn amendment even bars her from going to court to explain her situation and appeal the denial of her case. The decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General is final. Helene would never get her day in court to explain the tragic circumstances of her case. The door to freedom in America would be closed shut, end of the discussion, you go back into the hands of your persecutors. Madam President, surely by now, we have learned that closed proceedings conducted by executive branch officials based on secret evidence without any possibility of court review are inconsistent with American traditions and inconsistent with the search for justice; let's not go down that road again. The amendment makes all of its changes retroactive. They apply to the past and future conduct. The Cornyn amendment would change the rules in midstream. That is frowned on in American jurisprudence; it is unconstitutional in criminal law and disfavored elsewhere. People whose conduct would not have affected their immigration status at a time it was committed, will suddenly suffer severe consequence. The retroactivity provisions simply bring home the punitive nature of this amendment. It is not designed to contribute to creation of a tough but fair and practical system of immigration, it is designed to be harshly punitive. This amendment would exclude hundreds of thousands from benefits of this bill and undermine the bipartisan compromise that members of this body worked so long and so hard to produce. We will have an opportunity to vote for an alternative, the amendment I have offered. The amendment expands the already tough criminal gang provisions contained in the bill. If you are associated with a gang, and that gang is known to be engaged in violent crimes, drug crimes, crimes involving firearms or explosives, alien smuggling or trafficking, you are not going to qualify for benefits. If you are associated with a gang and the gang has been engaged in crimes of violence, including murder, arson, possession, kidnapping, bank robbery, sexual exploitation, abuse of children, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, burglary, racketeering, among other crimes, you are not going to be entitled to receive lawful status in this country, and you are not going to qualify for benefits. This amendment expands the already tough grounds of inadmissibility and the criminal penalties in the current immigration law. We target essentially the same provisions as Senator Cornyn but in many instances go further. This amendment bars the admission of sex offenders who don't register as required and makes them subject to deportation as well. It ensures that wife beaters, child abusers, stalkers, and others who prey on the vulnerable are inadmissible to the United States. It ensures that a drunk driver who is sentenced to 1 year of prison cannot be admitted to the United States and can be removed as well. Our drunk driving provisions, which require only one felony conviction, are even more restrictive than Senator Cornyn's, which requires three convictions before a drunk driver becomes inadmissible. We increase the penalties for illegal entry. We ensure that immigration fraud is subject to perjury charges. We toughen the penalties for firearm offenses. We are tough, but we are practical too. That is where this side by side differs from Senator Cornyn. His provisions are bright- line rules. He turns many of these criminal offenses into aggravated felonies. That is ``immigration speak'' for: You will never, ever be forgiven. For many offenses, such as murder, that is more than a reasonable consequence. Murderers should not become U.S. citizens. Under the current law, they can never become a citizen. But most immigrants are not murderers, they are people who have entered the United States illegally. Under the Cornyn amendment, they could be aggravated felons too. As a practical matter, Senator Cornyn does not want us to distinguish between murder and illegal entry; but that is not practical, nor does it reflect our criminal justice system. So it is true that we build in some small but important waivers that in extraordinary circumstances would give someone a second chance, not murderers but someone who had long ago made a mistake. This week, I received a letter about a young man named Adrian, a former gang member in Massachusetts who has turned his life around. Adrian went from a life of juvenile delinquency to that of a dedicated student; one who works full time now in hopes of going to college. Adrian's principal and his teachers praise him for his hard work, his commitment to family, his newfound motivation to go to college. They want him to have a chance to stay in this country. The author of the letter then says: ``It is a very, very hard thing to leave the gang life behind. There are other Adrians out there as well who have made the same decision regardless of difficulty. Is the message this country wants to send them, that what they have done is unforgivable regardless of whatever changes they may have courageously made? Wouldn't the country gain by having an incentive in law that might attract young people to leave gang life and move their lives forward a very different way? Wouldn't it be helpful to the country to have a waiver that a person could apply for if they can prove they have left a gang and provided evidence on how they have moved on?'' Every change in our immigration law represents a statement about whom we are as a country. Are we a country that takes individual circumstances into account or are we a country that punishes with no regard for individual circumstances? We can be tough on crime and yet retain a level of discretion in our immigration laws? This is the crux of the difference between what I am suggesting to the Senate and what Senator Cornyn has proposed. That a measure of discretion is every bit as much a tool of law enforcement as the strictest ban. I see my friend who has been waiting here. I yield time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Texas.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I would like to follow that. The good Senator was here even before I was this morning. Is that agreeable?

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have tried to work out an orderly process as we have proceeded. We are going to have plenty of time to deal with a range of different amendments, as we did with the Vitter amendment previously. I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the Senator from Rhode Island 12 minutes.