Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, while there are many aspects of this conference report that I cannot support, I am pleased that it will finally allow us to get a minimum wage bill to the President's desk. The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for more than 10 years, but now--finally Americans across the country will get the raise they need and deserve. For the millions of working families who will benefit, this increase may be long overdue, but it is nonetheless something to celebrate. Mr. President, 13 million Americans will see more money in their paychecks for the first time in a decade. They will have a few more dollars to spend on the essentials of life, or maybe they will have a few more hours to spare to spend time with their families; 6 million children will have better food, better health, and better opportunities for the future. I deeply regret that this vital increase was so long in coming. The minimum wage bill passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins in January and February of this year. Had we been able to send that bill to the President's desk right away, the first phase of the raise would already be in effect. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not let that happen. They prevented the minimum wage bill from going to conference until they could make sure it included a big enough tax giveaway for businesses. That is why were here talking about it today. We had to put in on a bill they couldn't block to get it to the President's desk. We have overcome many obstacles--and faced every procedural trick in the book--to get this minimum wage increase across the finish line. Democrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. But we didn't do it alone. The passage of the minimum wage is not merely a legislative victory--it's a victory for the American people. After years of delay and inexcusable inaction by Congress, the American people took this fight into their own hands. They started a grassroots movement that spread across the Nation like wildfire. They pounded the pavements. They prayed in their pews. They refused to take no for an answer. We are here today because of their efforts, and they deserve the gratitude of our Nation. The minimum wage is one of the great achievements of our proud democracy. It is a reflection of our values, and a cornerstone of the American dream. It is about the kind of country we want to be. Americans want to live in a country where everyone has opportunity and the chance to succeed. Where anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can build a better life for their family. Where there is no permanent underclass, and everyone has hope for a brighter future. When the President signs a minimum wage increase into law, we will be one step closer to that noble goal. Certainly, the increase we have passed today is only the first of many steps we must take to address the problems of poverty and inequality in our society. There is no doubt that we need to do much, much more. But it's important to take a moment today to celebrate this victory. Raising the minimum wage will add dignity to the lives of millions of working families. It is one of the proudest achievements of this new Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 3 p.m. for a hearing entitled ``The Road Home? An Examination of the Goals, Costs, Management, and Impediments Facing Louisiana's Road Home Program.''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is on the nomination of Mr. Michael E. Baroody to be Commissioner and Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and for Charles Darwin Snelling to be a Member of the Board of Directors at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will address opportunities and challenges associated with coal gasification, including coal-to-liquids and industrial gasification.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry.''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 2 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Energy Efficiency: Can Tax Incentives Reduce Consumption?''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 24, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at l0 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Federal Real Property: Real Waste in Need of Real Reform''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. I see the Senator from Georgia and I know the Senator from New Jersey wishes to speak on this issue. I will speak briefly. Will the Senator agree to an hour of time on the amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine. We don't expect to vote at that time. I have been informed by the leader we are going to try to do this amendment, then the Bingaman amendment, and then vote on both at 2 o'clock. I won't propose that as a time, but if the Senator would think in those terms, we will go ahead with other Senators and then come back to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I listened with great interest--I hope our colleagues are--to the point the Senator from New Jersey is making. I wish to ask his comment on a situation. Some months ago we had a raid in New Bedford, MA. The people were picked up. They were sent up to Fort Devons and flown out of there, and many of them were transported to El Paso. Then some of them were deported. I have in my hand a May 3 article from the Boston Globe. The headline is ``U.S. Deports Wrong Raid Detainee In Case of Mistaken Identity.'' A man arrested in the March 6 raid of the Michael Bianco leather factory in New Bedford was deported by mistake, Federal officials said yesterday. Juan Sam-Castro, a native of Guatemala, was taken for a man of the same name, said the spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Service. As soon as the Customs Service became aware, we took immediate steps to bring Castro back to the United States. We are trying to locate him. Here is an American citizen who has been deported and they are trying to locate him. Is the Senator not saying that in the situation where last year we deported 187,000 individuals and even in the last few weeks where we have this kind of mistake, at least some opportunity for an expedited kind of a review that effectively is not slowing the process down with this individual, between the time he was arrested and the time he was deported, was very few weeks, let alone the time he had the hearing, does this illustrate at least part of the points the Senator is trying to make with regard to the immigration service and the need for at least permitting the kind of review that currently exists? I do not believe we have had testimony to the contrary that this is an undue burden on the system.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, first of all, I commend my friend from New Jersey for an excellent presentation, particularly on this issue of the Grassley amendment, and for also reminding us about the importance of family in the consideration of our immigration bill. I think we are going to have an opportunity during the course of the day to deal with those issues in greater detail, and we will look forward to that. I think we have made some important progress in terms of family issues, but I think we have also seen some changes in the existing law in those issues. And it is important for the American people to understand exactly the areas we have made progress in and the areas that we have altered as we deal with this underlying bill. I wish to take a moment to address the points that are included in the Grassley amendment, which is the pending amendment. Then I understand the Senator from New Mexico will be coming down shortly to offer an amendment that deals with the temporary workers. We will have an opportunity during the noontime to address that issue. Then, according to the leadership, we will have the two votes. If there are side-by-sides, other votes--at 2 o'clock or in the time close to 2 o'clock. I say that for the benefit of our colleagues here. Madam President, on the Grassley amendment, I think it is important to understand that people who come into the United States under visas have to go through extensive background checks before they are granted visas, and again before they are admitted. We are talking about millions of visitors, about hundreds of thousands of scholars and researchers and workers. These are not criminals or terrorists. Anybody who is a terrorist or criminal is not eligible for a visa. I will just mention the various crimes that individuals have committed that have denied them the opportunity to come to the United States to get a visa: crimes of moral turpitude, such as aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon; aggravated DWI, fraud, larceny, forgery; controlled substance offenses, such as the sale, possession, and distribution of drugs, and drug trafficking; theft offenses, including shoplifting; public nuisance; multiple criminal convictions, any alien convicted of two or more offenses regardless of whether the offense arose from a scheme of misconduct; crimes of violence; counterfeiting; bribery; perjury; certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity who have asserted immunity from prosecution; foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom; significant traffickers of persons; money laundering; murder; rape; sexual abuse of a minor; child pornography, as well as attempts or conspiracy to commit most of those offenses. Those, obviously, who are denied on security-related grounds include espionage or sabotage; engaging in terrorist activity, and that is broadly defined; likely to engage in terrorist activity, broadly defined; association with terrorist activity; representative of a terrorist organization; spouse or child of an individual who is inadmissible as a terrorist; activity that is deemed to have adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States; membership in a totalitarian party. All of those ban individuals from coming into the United States. So if a visitor here has his visa revoked, he should be entitled to review. This doesn't create a burden on our courts but simply preserves basic due process. Courts review these cases every day, and we have heard no evidence of any undue burden on the courts. These cases can be handled expeditiously. Immigration judges ordered 220,000 people deported last year. Only 9 percent of these decisions were appealed. We have no abuse in the system at the current time. So providing review to a few more people whose visas are revoked won't flood the courts. Again, we are talking about the mistakes that can be made with the Department of Homeland Security, as a Member of the Senate, I was put on the no-fly list by the Department of Homeland Security and denied the opportunity to even fly out of the Nation's Capital to go back to my home city of Boston. In Boston, I had the temporary approval by the Department there, which had to overrule Homeland Security. Despite the head of the Homeland Security then saying we have cleared that up, it wasn't cleared up for 3 more weeks, and with the airlines, it was 4 more weeks. If that happens to a Senator, what is happening to other individuals? I have given the example of a person in my home State of Massachusetts who was deported. Now the Immigration Service is trying to find that individual down in Guatemala. It was because of similar names. So I think, as the Senator from New Jersey pointed out, the system we have included in the legislation is appropriate. It is not burdensome. We have had no complaints even during this long period of time. We have had no complaints from any of those who have been involved in the system that it is an undue burden, or any complaints from the judicial system. We have found out that we have 23 different incidents reported by my own Boston office of individuals who are very substantial citizens in New England, including a dean of a medical school, who were put on the list by mistake. So mistakes happen. All we have in this is a simple process of review. That process has been outlined and stated by the Senator from New Jersey, and it should be preserved. I look forward to not closing off the time to the Senator from Iowa, but we are trying to move this process along and consider the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico and then see if we cannot continue to consider the follow-on amendments. The Senator from South Carolina has an amendment as well. We will be looking forward to having debate on his amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to congratulate the House for moving on the issue of Iraqi translators. I am talking about translators who have worked for the American Armed Forces in Iraq. They have to follow a very detailed procedure, and then they get certified. Most of them have to work on it for more than a year. These people have been particularly targeted by the terrorists. Their names are printed in mosques and other places of worship, and if they are found, they are executed. We have a limitation, I believe, of 50, and we have taken in 18. Many of these individuals have risked their lives for American service men and women and this legislation will be a very small downpayment in terms of their safety and their security. It is important, and I am hopeful we will be able to address this issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my friend from New Mexico for his thoughtful presentation on this issue. As he mentioned, he offered this amendment last year and it passed overwhelmingly. I expect there will be a similar result today. I appreciated the fact in our earlier debate he understood we need this temporary worker program. All of us want to have a strong border, but we do understand there will be pressure on the border, and we will either have a front door or a back door, the back door being for those who are going to try to penetrate that border, or the front door so they can come in and have a temporary worker program. The real issue is the size of this program. The Senator has mentioned the other provisions that are included in the legislation. We have the longstanding temporary worker, the H-2B, which is about 100,000 workers. Those are the seasonal workers, for the most part, who work in many of the resorts during the summer or wintertime and are truly temporary workers. They are entitled to bring their families. They do not. That program has been very modestly expanded over this program. You have the H-1B, which is sort of high tech, which is 150,000--it will go up to 180,000; and the ag jobs, which is 40,000 to 60,000. The reason the 400,000 was reached is that is the general estimate, although there are some a good deal higher, of individuals who penetrate now. I think it is safe to say it is probably closer to 500,000 undocumented who come across the border and are able to gain employment here. So the 400,000 represented an evaluation, an estimate from results of hearings. That is how we built that in. Then, in the legislation, there is the possibility it can either go up or go down. The Council of Economic Advisers thinks we need probably close to a million new jobs every year. I think what we, in our considerations, were thinking about establishing is some panel that would be made up of workers as well as members of the business community and people who could help give an assessment, and make a recommendation of what that number would be. I think that is probably the best way to go in the future. But that is not where we are today. Where we are today in the bill is 400,000 and the possibility of an escalator to go up or an escalator to go down. The Senator says: Let's start off in this area, we are not sure how this program is going to work. Let's start off with just 200,000, watch it very carefully, find out if the kind of mix we have with this and with the point system we have been able to develop is going to function and work, whether after 2 years people will really go back or they will not go back. I think he makes a strong case. I did not support this last year. I feel sort of compelled--under the agreements we have made earlier in terms of the totality, I feel the same restraint this time. But I commend him for the thoughtful presentation. It was thoughtful last year, and it is thoughtful this year. He makes his points very effectively. It ought to be considered by the Members. I do not, as I mentioned, tend to support it, but I certainly would ask our colleagues to look at it very closely because it is a thoughtful presentation. He raises some very important and worthwhile points. I thank him also for coming over here and offering this amendment. I think the time has been set for voting at 2 o'clock. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez.) The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from New Mexico for his presentation on this issue. He has spoken to those of us who have been working on immigration about his concerns on the numbers. He made this presentation the last time the Senate considered the immigration bill and was successful, and I expect he will be this afternoon. It was very difficult for us to make an exact judgment about the total numbers. Those numbers were set at about 400,000 because that was a somewhat lower estimate of people who were coming in here who were undocumented, and it was also recommended by the Council of Economic Advisers in terms of the needs of the economy. That is where it is from. But he makes a legitimate point--we do not have a real definite idea about what these numbers ought to be. We looked at the idea that we establish this program and then try to establish a commission that would make a recommendation to Congress in terms of the numbers on into the future. I think that is probably the best way to proceed in the future. I will reluctantly oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, but I thank him for the thought he has given to this issue. We will be willing to work with him regardless of how this comes out.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are prepared to yield whatever time we have--except for the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask consent--I think I yielded the time back before I knew the Senator from Pennsylvania, who is a cosponsor, desired to speak. It will only be half a minute. I ask unanimous consent that he be able to speak prior to the time of the vote.