Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I think I am entitled to yield time. I am in charge of the time on this side. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think there are 2 minutes left on the discussion of this issue. I hope our colleagues listened to the extraordinary history of the Salazar family. It is the living of the American dream. It is respect for the Spanish language and Spanish tradition, and the reverence that it has for English today. I am disappointed in the Inhofe amendment because the Inhofe amendment doesn't add one nickel, it doesn't add 1 hour for those who want to learn English. To learn English in my home city of Boston, MA, immigrants have to wait 3 years in order to gain admission to a class to learn English. There are long waits in all parts of the country. If we had some effort to try and provide the opportunity for those who do not know English to learn English, I think we would be much better off. Finally, as the Senator from Colorado has pointed out, the great civil rights protections of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive order 13,166 as well as protections dealing with public health and safety that we have found to be so important in terms of ensuring the health and the safety and the security of our people. Providing information needed to protect health and safety depend on communication--communication--and we have developed a process, a way of respecting different traditions in order to be able to do that. The Salazar amendment retains and respects that tradition, and it is the way we should be proceeding and embracing this evening for the reasons he stated so well. Amendment No. 1374 Mr. President, I wish to yield time on the Ensign amendment. I think I have 5 minutes on the Ensign amendment in opposition?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment basically rearranges what we call the merit-based system that has been included in this legislation. This was the subject of a good deal of debate: Do we want to develop a merit-based system that has been developed in some other countries. It has had some success in some areas, some challenges in others. During the debate there was a question about how we would develop a merit-based system to take in the needs of the United States. There are important needs in high skills, but we also understand from the Department of Labor that 8 out of the 10 areas of occupations are basically low skill, what they call low skill. Those may be teachers, they may be managers, or professional people in some areas, but they are basically individuals who have very important skills that are essential to the American economy. We had debate about how we were going to work out that merit system, and in that whole process we worked diligently to find a system that is going to respect the higher skilled but also provides some opportunity for the low skilled as well to be able to gain entry and then to gain what we call the sufficient points to move far forward and able to gain green cards and eventually citizenship. The Ensign amendment absolutely emasculates that amendment and virtually closes out all of the low-skilled possibilities for people who might come on in as temporary workers or may come on in under other provisions of this legislation. Under the Ensign amendment, all of those individuals, the lower skilled, are effectively eliminated and closed out, make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it. Finally, we have provisions in the legislation dealing with the higher skills, called the H-1B provisions. That is directly related to higher skills. We have addressed that issue in other provisions of the legislation. For those reasons, I would hope the Ensign amendment would not be accepted. Amendment No. 1339 Mr. President, on the Vitter amendment, let me add some additional points to this debate. A great deal of time was spent listening to Secretary Chertoff, to making recommendations about what is going to be in the national security interest to preserve our borders. That was one of the most important parts of the development of this legislation. Senator Isakson came forward with a very important suggestion and a proposal with regard to ensuring that we were going to have true national security, protection of our national security before other provisions were going to be set forth. We have had good chances during the period of these past months to work with Homeland Security and to work with all of the Members of this body to ensure we were going to have effective provisions to protect national security. We even accepted a Gregg amendment which we believed added to the provisions that were accepted. It is our belief those provisions are sufficient, the allocations of resources for the border, the utilization of enhanced border patrols, the enhanced border security, which has been outlined time and again during the course of this debate. They are sufficient. So I would hope at the time that amendment is addressed it would not be accepted. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take the time on the Dorgan amendment myself. How much time remains on this?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have opposed the Dorgan amendment each time for very important and basic reasons. We are attempting to secure our borders. We are going to secure our borders. We know, even when we secure our borders, we are going to have pressure on those borders to come through. People are either going to come through the front door or they are going to come through the back door. What do I mean by that? If they are coming through the back door, they are going to be the undocumented and the exploited undocumented workers, such as we have seen in my own city of New Bedford, where they are arrested and exploited and are driving down wages. If they come through the front door, they are going to meet the needs of American industry when we find there are no existing options for American workers. There is going to be the requirement that you have to get American workers first. We have accepted that and restated that with the Durbin amendment. But if they are able to gain entry into the United States, they are going to have the kind of protections that are included in the legislation. I have listened to those who have been opposed to the temporary workers, saying there are no rights and protections for these temporary workers. They ought to read the bill. They ought to read the bill, because any temporary worker who is going to be hired is going to be guaranteed the prevailing wage, they are going to be protected by the OSHA provisions, they are going to be protected by workmen's compensation, and they are going to have the opportunity, we believe, over a period of time, if they have come in, to try to improve themselves, to learn English, to involve themselves in an employment program to begin to go up the ladder in terms of getting a green card. So that is the choice. If we act to eliminate the temporary worker program, we are going to find what we have at the present time, that hundreds of individuals die in the desert; that we are going to have those individuals who are able to gain entry in the United States and are undocumented and they are going to be exploited, as they are exploited today, and they will drive down wages, as happens today. That happens to be the situation. Some like some temporary worker programs better than others, but we have the one we have in this bill and we have every intention to try and make it work. We have set up a careful system in the bill to accommodate the concerns about the size of the temporary worker program. There is, as well, a market-based adjustment that is crucial to the provision in the bill, and I think it would be a great mistake to effectively emasculate the temporary worker program. That is what the Dorgan amendment would do. Mr. President, I believe that I am the only one who has time that is remaining. If that be the case, I would be glad to yield back the remaining time. I ask if the Chair would be good enough to state the amendments, the first amendment that would be before the Senate at this time. We have a series of different votes, and I think we ought to have the opportunity to make sure all of us understand exactly what we are voting on. I believe the hour of 10 o'clock has arrived, and I yield whatever time remains, and I think we expect yeas and nays votes on all of them. Amendment No. 1183

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions in the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the merit-based system that is included in this legislation as it exists at the present time is heavily skewed toward the high skills. I would say 75 to 80 percent of those who are going to qualify in the merit-based system are going to be for the highly skilled. There is the reservation under the skill system, 25 or 30 percent for lower skills because our economy designed high skills, and the Department of Labor says 8 out of 10 occupations that our Nation needs are low skills: teacher's aides, home health aides, and others. That has been worked out. That is the way it is. Under the Ensign amendment you would completely skew it to shortchange all of the low skills, all for the high skills. We are taking care of the high skills with the H-1B program. If we need to do something about that, then let's have amendments to do it. But this way effectively is saying to millions of people who have come here and have been absolutely indispensable to our economy that they are never going to have a chance to be part of the American dream. I hope the amendment will be defeated.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. She has worked with the managers of this legislation. We are prepared to accept this amendment. We thank her for the courtesy, and we hope the membership will support her amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there was no difference among all of us in trying to ensure that we were going to have a secure America. We worked very closely with Secretary Chertoff. In this legislation, we have increased it to 27,000 detention beds, 20,000 border guards, 375 miles of fencing, 275 vehicle barriers, 70 ground-based radars and cameras, sensors, and 4 unmanned aerial vehicles. We accepted the Isakson trigger, saying that the other aspects of this legislation will not go into effect until these are committed. Then we accepted the Gregg additions. We are in the process now of trying to negotiate with the administration to get mandatory spending to make sure all these are done, and done expeditiously. The Secretary of Homeland Security thinks we have met our responsibilities. I hope the amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the third time we have dealt with this issue. As much as I respect the Senator from North Dakota, he doesn't care more about American workers than I do. The fact is, if you have a secure border, workers are either going to come in through the front door or the back door. If they come in through the back door, as they are now doing, they are going to be exploited and humiliated. If they come through the front door, as a result of the fact that there is no American worker prepared to take that job, they are going to get labor protections, the prevailing wage, OSHA protections, workmen's compensation, and they are going to have those kinds of protections which they do not have now. You may not like the temporary worker program, but we have to have predictability for a period of time. In the legislation are correcting mechanisms for this program. Let us at least give it a chance to work. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would have to object. We are in the process of attempting to clear up these. We have had a very full day. I want to thank the Senator from Texas for his cooperation. We will try to address these in an orderly way. We have been trying to process some of these back and forth. I think we have made extraordinary progress today. We are trying to make sure everyone's voice and interests positioned on those issues are going to have an opportunity to be heard. Now I have to object. I will work with the Senator and see if we cannot arrange time for consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 6, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Paying for College: The Role of Private Student Lending.''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet in order to conduct a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The business meeting will consider the following agenda: S. 506, the High Performance Green Buildings Act of 2007; H.R. 1195, SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act; H.R. 798, a bill to direct the Administrator of General Services to install a photovoltaic system for the headquarters building of the Department of Energy; S. 635, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007; S. 1523, the Capitol power plant carbon dioxide emissions reduction demonstration project bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Trade and Globalization: Adjustment for a 21st Century Workforce.''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing entitled ``Patent Reform: The Future of American Innovation'' on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list Panel I: The Honorable Jon W. Dudas, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Alexandria, VA; Panel II: Mr. Bruce G. Bernstein, Chief Intellectual Property and Licensing Officer, InterDigital Communications Corporation, King of Prussia, PA; Ms. Mary Doyle, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Palm, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Mr. John A. Squires, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Goldman, Sachs & Co., New York, NY; Ms. Kathryn L. Biberstein, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, and Chief Compliance Officer, Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts of climate change on water supply and availability in the United States, and related issues from a water use perspective.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the seventh day that we have been on this legislation. We voted on 17 amendments. There are 13 others pending to the bill. We will be voting on those very soon. Over the past week, as the Senate has been in recess for Memorial Day, we witnessed a healthy debate across the country as Americans across the political spectrum have expressed their views on this legislation. Some support our legislation, others oppose it. With all of the editorials and newspaper articles and phone calls from the constituents, one theme occurs loud and strong: Americans know our immigration system is broken and they want us to fix it. This week we have a chance to meet that challenge for the good of the Nation. We have a bipartisan bill before us. It has the support of the President. I believe when we complete the debate in the Senate we will adopt it. It enforces our borders; it cracks down in the workplace by going after employers who hire illegal workers; it brings the 12 million families who are here out of the shadows; it speeds up the reunion of families waiting legally in line who otherwise may never make it here; it sets up an immigration for the future that continues to reunite families, while stressing our Nation's economic needs. That is our program. It is strong, practical, and it is fair. I know the Senator from Illinois is looking to address the Senate. First, I want to speak briefly on the Allard amendment. The Allard amendment seeks to strike a blow at one of the central pillars of comprehensive immigration reform, which is the earned legalization program for undocumented people who are working and contributing in the United States. Virtually every demographic snapshot of the American public supports a practical solution for bringing the undocumented population into the light of day. The tough and practical solution contained in the bill requires undocumented workers to pay hefty fines and penalties, undergo background checks, clear up back taxes, learn English, continue working for a period of years in a probationary status, and go to the back of the line. Only after 8 years, after getting right with the law and proving their commitment to becoming Americans, are these workers provided an opportunity at legal permanent residence. The Allard amendment seeks to nullify that shot at the American dream. It does so by eliminating the separate point schedule included in the bill for Z visa holders and the agricultural job applicants. The point schedule for Z visa holders and AgJOB applicants is designed to determine when they can apply for permanent residence, not whether they can apply. Eligibility to apply for permanent residence is earned by complying with tough requirements. I just mentioned them--paying fines, working hard, learning English, going to the back of the current line, and reentering the country legally. The intent of the Allard amendment is to require undocumented immigrants to compete with other future intending immigrants under the new merit-based system. There are two different merit systems, one for the temporary and one for agriculture. The amendment of the Senator from Colorado eliminates the one designed for agricultural workers. But given the merit-based system and the strong preference for the highly educated, this amendment is an attempt to keep the undocumented workers from ever obtaining permanent residence. The educational profile of the undocumented workforce is such that these workers will never, ever be able to compete in a meaningful way for the pool of merit-based green cards. As such, if it were to pass, the amendment would create a permanent underclass of lower skilled workers living here in legal limbo indefinitely without the rights or opportunities afforded to legal permanent residents. Similar situations are played out in other countries, resulting in highly problematic, even disastrous consequences. That is not the American way. I hope people will vote no on the amendment. Mr. President, the aspect of this legislation that deals with the agricultural workers is called the AgJOBS bill. Senators Craig and Feinstein are two of the principal sponsors. I have been a long-time sponsor. We are talking about agribusiness primarily in California but also in other parts of the Nation. We are talking about an agreement that was worked out between the farm workers and the agribusiness. These are two groups of people who have been at each other's throats for years. I was here when we abolished the Bracero Program, basically the exploitation of workers in the United States. It was a shame and a stain on the American workforce ethic. Then we had, over a long period of time, with the leadership of Cesar Chavez, an attempt to get justice for probably about 900,000 agricultural workers, who do some of the toughest work that is done in this country. No question, half of them are undocumented--probably 600,000 or 700,000 is the best estimate we have. They have been able to work out an agreement between agribusiness and these farm workers, which we basically included in this bill. What we were saying, basically, under the earlier provisions is that they would be able to gain the opportunity for getting a green card in 5 years. Under this legislation, it is 8 years they have to wait. They have to demonstrate that they have worked hard in the agricultural sector. They have to demonstrate that they paid their taxes and that they are attempting to learn English, and they have to meet all of the other requirements. At the end of that time, this legislation says to those people who have been a part of our system that they will have some opportunity to get a good deal of credit for working in agriculture in America. The amendment of the Senator from Colorado strikes that provision. So these individuals who will be competing with the other provisions that have been put into this legislation for the more skilled--there are provisions in there for lower skilled, but it is basically for the higher skills. This undermines the core part of this kind of agreement that was made. There are a number of provisions in this legislation we have spelled out. There is border security and the local law enforcement, which are important; and there is AgJOBS, the DREAM Act, which the Senator from Illinois has fought for and made sure was important. There are other very important features in this legislation. What we would basically do with the Allard amendment is say we are going to change the mix, change the system. We have worked out a system saying agricultural workers are important. They have been able to work out their agreement. There were 67 Members of the Senate who signed on, Republicans and Democrats. We basically incorporated that, although we have extended the time for those workers. The effect of the Allard amendment, as I read it, is that we are saying that is not an agreement that we are going to continue to be committed to. We are going to say those undocumented workers are going to have to compete with those who are more highly skilled. This legislation is a balance between the AgJOBS, the DREAM Act, and the fact that we are going to permit those 12\1/2\ million people who are undocumented now to live here without fear of deportation and continue their jobs and give them, if they meet these other requirements after 8 years, in the next 5 years the possibility of getting a green card, and 5 years later be able to get citizenship with a long time in between, with heavy fines. The Allard amendment would undermine this understanding and agreement in a way that will disadvantage in a significant way the agricultural workers and other low-skilled individuals in this whole process. I think in that sense, as the Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, it would be unwise and unfair from a policy point of view. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform saying: We write to urge your opposition to the Allard amendment . . .

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Illinois. I will take a moment, if we have time, to go through this excellent letter that expresses reservations and opposition to the Allard amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand I have 8 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair will notify me when I have 3\1/2\ minutes, I would appreciate it. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois. I think it makes a needed change in the legislation, one that will help provide additional protection for American workers, and I thank him for calling the issue to our attention. The amendment is very simple. It would require every employer who wants to bring guest workers into the country to advertise for and recruit American workers first. This is a general principle that has been agreed to, certainly by me and my colleagues, and one that I am sure most Members of the Senate would support. Senator Durbin's language ensures this principle is implemented fairly and effectively with respect to all employers who are looking for more workers. Specifically, it eliminates an exception in those areas where the Department of Labor has determined there is a shortage of U.S. workers in the occupation and area of intended employment. The shortage occupation idea relies on an exception in existing law which applies to green cards but not in the temporary worker context. So I agree with Senator Durbin that in the context of ensuring that temporary workers do not unfairly compete with Americans, we do need an exception to this rule. This legislation is based upon the principle that guest workers should only be brought in if Americans cannot be found to fill these jobs, and what better way to ensure this is the case than to require all employers advertise these positions broadly. I know there are some Members who might say that since this exception only applies when the Department of Labor says there is a shortage of workers to fill these jobs, that we shouldn't require employers to advertise. I would argue the opposite: Because we know employers are seeking more American workers, they should easily be able to meet the requirements under these laws. I mean, the fact remains you might have a shortage in a particular area or region designated by the Department of Labor, but there may be hospitals in those areas that have more than they need; with other hospitals having less. If those other health facilities are looking, they are probably investing in trying to find additional workers and are probably advertising in any event. This makes sure they are going to give the first opportunity--and there are other requirements in the legislation that give the first opportunity to Americans to be protected. It doesn't seem to me this would be onerous or more costly. It may be, for example, that elsewhere in the country there are Americans who are willing to fill these jobs. Maybe there are groups of Americans who have traditionally been overlooked or discriminated against who will want to know of these opportunities so that they can have a fair chance. For all these reasons, I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I think it makes a good deal of sense, and I would hope that it would be accepted. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his graciousness in yielding a minute and a half. I am opposed to the Allard amendment. We have in this legislation very important commitments to, one, the AgJOB workers, and we have also said for the 12 million: If you pay the fines, you go to the back of the line, you work hard, you demonstrate you are going to be good citizens for the 8 years until all of the line is cleared up, and we have a way for dealing with these individuals to permit them at least to get on the path for a green card and eventually citizenship. The Allard amendment changes all of that framework. Under the Allard amendment, we were basically saying to those who are working in agriculture, because as his amendment shows, they get a big chunk of points on this kind of thing, that that would be eliminated, and that agricultural worker who has been playing by the rules, who is a part of the AgJOB's bill, will lose out in any kind of competition in terms of green cards and the opportunity to move on into citizenship, because the other one will have the skills, will have the points, and those agriculture workers and the other lower skilled workers will not have the opportunity to do so. It will change the framework of the bill in a very important way. I know he is looking for equity in terms of all workers here to be able to start a new day. We have worked long and hard in terms of the ag workers in terms of how we are going to treat the undocumented, how we are going to treat newer workers. We have worked that out. It seems to me that is the fairer way. We can look to the future with the new merit system, but we ought to be able to meet our commitments, which this bill does, to those who have been a part of this system and are playing by the rules, and to whom we have made a commitment. I hope his amendment would not be accepted. I think the time has about expired, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to deal with the amendment of the Senator from Texas. We have to figure out the order. This is the side of the Republicans now. Senator Cornyn has been waiting, and waiting patiently. The Senator from Texas did mention this. We had contacted the Finance Committee, since it is dealing with Social Security, to see whether they would be able to go, and I hope they will do that and dispose of it very rapidly. The other measures are not in the Finance Committee and we would be glad to deal with those. But dealing with Social Security is the Finance Committee's jurisdiction, and they had some views on that. I hope we might be able to do the Cornyn amendment. The leader had asked me if we could do the DeMint amendment after the Cornyn amendment. There may be one on our side dealing with health insurance which we would be prepared to do. It is fine with me. I am here and I am ready to go with these amendments, so I will make every effort to get the Finance Committee, and I will stay here with the Senator from Texas until we are able to get this disposed of this evening. I will give you that, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely.