Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is the Sessions amendment pending?

Mr. KENNEDY. A minute for and a minute against, is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what we are saying is when immigrants are going to be legal immigrants, they are going to pay income tax, and under the Sessions amendment they are going to say you are going to pay your taxes, but you are not going to be able to take the earned-income tax credit. Your two children may be American citizens, but under the Sessions amendment, you will not be able to take the earned-income tax credit because you have not effectively became a citizen, even though you are legally here and paying taxes. This is a special punitive tax provision that will be unique only to those individuals. It is wrong and it is unfair, and this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. President, last night I offered an amendment dealing with the enforcement of safety provisions to make sure those American workers who work here, and the guest workers, are going to be in safe conditions, that they are going to be safe and secure, that we are going to have the safest workforce possible. And all I heard on the other side is: We can't do this because we haven't had any hearings. This is an important issue, an important question, and vital, but we can't possibly consider this as a measure that is only tangentially relevant to the immigration issue. I suggest what was sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This is a very important issue that deserves consideration. We have 25 minutes on this side to try and deal with this issue. Obviously, that is inadequate. I remember 1964. My first amendment in the Senate was in opposition to the poll tax. I lost that vote, 52 to 48. Eventually, we eliminated the poll tax. But we went through to the 1964-1965 Voting Rights Act, and we eliminated not only the poll tax but the literacy test. Why were those tests put in place? They were put in place to make sure our voting was going to be safe and secure and that we were only going to have people voting who deserved to vote. This is a way to keep our voting clear and to make sure that we are going to preserve the sanctity of the voting box. So we had those measures, but as we know, they were struck down. Why were they struck down? I will not take the time here, but fundamentally and basically they were unconstitutional. Now the Senator suggests: Let's go there and put in a new process. That sounds very good. The poll tax sounded very good when it was initially offered. So did the literacy test. Now we have a new idea that is going to be offered. The first question we have to ask ourselves is, Is there a problem? We have heard anecdotal comments from the Senator from Kentucky--not studies, not reviews, but anecdotal studies--about whether there was real fraud out there. Is this a problem in the United States of America? There has not been any evidence that this is the result of hearings. We have not had any hearings. The study of the 2002 and 2004 Ohio elections found there were 9 million votes cast and 4 were found to be fraudulent according to the League of Women Voters of Ohio; 4 votes found to be fraudulent according to the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the most comprehensive study that has been done recently in terms of elections. The Secretary of State of Georgia stated she was not aware of a single case or complaint of a voter impersonating another voter at the polls in almost a decade. That was sworn testimony of the Secretary of Georgia. She was much more concerned about absentee ballots than the question of fraud. A 12-State study by Demos, a nonprofit organization, not a Democrat or Republican organization, concluded election fraud was very rare. They found no evidence suggesting fraud, other than a minor problem. That is the best information we have. We have not had any hearings. All of the relevant studies indicated that is the situation. So we have a solution where there really isn't a problem. The Senator from Kentucky says he is basically following the recommendations of the Carter-Baker commission of some time ago. That is not exactly the case. In the Carter-Baker proposal they have a number of recommendations on implementation. First of all, they say it should not be implemented until January 2010. This is to be implemented in May of 2008, the middle of the Presidential primaries. Why did the Carter-Baker commission say 2010? They said it because the States are not prepared to deal with it prior to that time. What is the date of the Senator from Kentucky? What date do they select? May 2008, in the middle of the Presidential primaries, for 110 million Americans who vote, to drop this in on the States? This is unworkable. The denial of one of the most sacred rights of an American citizen, the right to vote, is going to be heavily compromised if we accept this. A second proposal of the Carter-Baker commission indicates it has to be free identifications. This is the language in the McConnell amendment: . . . the Election Assistance Commission shall make payments to States to--[what, make them all free? No]-- promote the issuance to registered voters of free. . . . It does not even guarantee the funding. It was guaranteed in the Carter proposal. Finally, it also indicated that, should there be States that refuse or fail to have a process, there is a backup system to ensure the right to vote. That does not exist in this particular proposal. So this does not even meet the bare requirements of the Carter-Baker proposal. It does not even meet those bare requirements. It accelerates the timing, which was deferred, for very good reasons, after a prolonged discussion during the debate. Finally, and most importantly, when the courts recently considered a very similar proposal to the one we have here, which was a similar voter identification proposal, in Common Cause v. Georgia--which is a 2005 case; virtually an identical kind of a proposal to that which is offered by the Senator from Kentucky--it pointed out that it violated the equal protection clause because it unduly burdened the fundamental right to vote for several classes of citizens. Sure, you need a photo identification to get a video because the video shop wants the video back. Sure, you have a photo identification to rent a car because the people who rent the cars want the car back, and for insurance purposes. Sure, you have a video when you buy a gun, for the obvious reasons. But as to the right to vote, we want to encourage people to vote. This is what the circuit court said, with virtually an identical proposal that came before them.

Mr. KENNEDY. We have 25 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I have 7 or 8 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I will be glad to give you 5 minutes of my time, if you want it.

Mr. KENNEDY. If we could do that after my final comments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her vision in the importance and the role that temporary workers can play in our society, but I have to reluctantly oppose her amendment. We are on this issue of temporary workers. The body is being sort of whipsawed. We started out with 400,000; and we have had good debates and discussions, and we have reduced the number of temporary workers to 200,000. And we are going to have further amendments before the end of the evening or on the morrow that will probably be to eliminate all of the temporary worker programs. There is a number of our colleagues who feel that way. I had supported the number with Senator McCain of 400,000 temporary workers, and then we reduced that number to 325,000. And now it has been reduced to 200,000. As I mentioned, we have amendments on the list now that are going to try to, effectively, eliminate the temporary worker program. The Senator from Texas wants to increase it from 200,000. It seems to me we had it right in the earlier time when Senator McCain and I had introduced the legislation. It still was at the 325,000. I am going to advocate that we continue the program at the 200,000, later on in the afternoon or evening, when we are going to have attempts to eliminate it. But this program is a very different program than the one that is in the underlying legislation. I want to talk about that very briefly. First of all, there is a dramatic difference in the recruitment process between what we have in our legislation in the underlying bill and what is in the Hutchison amendment. We have a very extensive recruitment-and-posting program where we post, in a vigorous effort, to try to recruit American workers and indicate also what they are going to get paid. That is very extensive. It is spelled out in some detail in our legislation. I think it is far more extensive than a general designation of a category where there are some jobs available. Secondly, we have much stronger worker protections in terms of the wages and in terms of protecting workers' rights, such as if there is going to be a walkout or a strike, which does not exist in Senator Hutchison's amendment. We have a complaint process and procedure, so if there are violations of the rights or wages or working conditions of these temporary workers, they will have the ability to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, which does not exist in the Hutchison amendment. There is the ability for a temporary worker, if he or she does not get along with their particular employer, to be portable. He or she can go to a different job and different employer so we can free these workers from what has happened historically, and that is exploitation. That is an enormously important protection for workers. That does not exist in the Hutchison amendment. In our particular temporary worker program, it can last for 6 years, which is very desirable both from the workers' point of view and the employers' point of view in terms of the training they give to the workers themselves. But most importantly--most importantly--after the 4-year period, the worker, under our proposal, can actually petition for permanent citizenship--a green card, effectively. Then they have to start the process toward naturalization. It will take them 5 more years, but they can get on the path. They have to work hard over the period of some 4 years. If there is a green card available, they can move toward a green card. If not, they will have to wait, and eventually they will get to the process of citizenship--but not under the Hutchison amendment. After a total of 21 months, they return back home. So there is a very dramatic difference in the concept of the temporary worker program included in the underlying bill than that of the Hutchison amendment. And that underlies the fact we are going to respect these workers. In our underlying bill we are going to profit and learn from the historic past, where there has been the exploitation of workers, where workers have not been able to have portability, where workers have not had a complaint procedure, where workers have not had whistleblower protections, where we have seen workers exploited. It gives them the opportunity, if they work hard, play by the rules, to be able to be law-abiding citizens. That gives them an opportunity, then, to get on a path, with 5 more years, to be part of the American dream. Nine or 10 years it is going to take. They are going to have to demonstrate that hard work, play by the rules, stay out of trouble, and have a good work ethic to be a part of the whole American system. That does not exist. I think that is important because it really is a reflection of the fact that we value this work. It may not be Americans who are prepared to take these jobs, but, nonetheless, we value these individuals. We value these individuals. We have the high-skilled individuals, but we also value those individuals who are going to come here, work hard, play by the rules, and are going to be able to be eventually transitioned into citizenship. So, first of all, we have the overall scope, the fact of the total numbers we have; secondly, we have the protections. In the existing and underlying bill, I believe a careful reading of the legislation will show there are vastly more protections for the temporary workers than in the Hutchison amendment. I am concerned both about the numbers and the failure of the protections for those particular workers. Finally, it is limited to just certain countries. Our temporary worker program can include other nations, Asian countries, countries other than those on the particular list the Senator from Texas has outlined. So it does seem to me we really do not need an additional temporary worker program. I hope we will not accept her amendment. Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I do not know how much time I have available.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield 5 minutes of that time to the Senator from Missouri after the Senator from Texas speaks.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think I have 30 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to speak briefly and then yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, it is important to deal with this document which is from the Congressional Budget Office. This is an authoritative document. We understand that the Congressional Budget Office--the CBO-- document is the document we ought to listen to and we ought to regard. What do they say? On May 16, 2006: CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting this legislation would increase direct spending by $13 billion over the 2007-2011 period and by $54 billion over the 2007-2016 period. Pursuant to section 407 of H. Con. Res 95 (the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2006), CBO estimates that enacting S. 2611 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-year periods between 2016 and 2055. JTC and CBO [The Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO] estimate that the bill would increase total federal revenues by $66 billion over the 2007-2016 period. It would increase revenues by $66 billion. Actually, what CBO has determined is the passage of S. 2611 will actually reduce the deficit by $12 billion over 10 years. Do we understand that? This is CBO. They estimate we are going to reduce the Federal deficit by $12 billion over 10 years. The newly legal immigrants will pay $66 billion into taxes and cost $54 billion. Net gain to the Treasury: $12 billion. What else do they point out? They point out that after 2016, there is going to be, again, an expenditure of over $5 billion. So there goes the budget. That is what those who are complaining and raising a budget point of order are saying--which is true. But what they don't include is what is going to be paid in by the immigrants. Do we hear that? When we look at what is being expended versus what was taken in, we are reducing the deficit by $12 billion. But the CBO did not review after 2016 what will be coming. All they say is there will be more than $5 billion going out. They are giving not even half the story. We ought to look at the statistics and figures in the studies that have been done. The most authoritative study was done by the National Research Council. It is not a Democratic or Republican organization. They are the ones that have been doing the studies. When the National Research Council's report sought to estimate a bottom-line figure for the fiscal impact of immigration, here is what they found: When we simultaneously average across both age and education to get a single summary measure of net fiscal impact based on the characteristic of recent arrivals, under our baseline assumptions, we find an average value of plus $80,000. Mr. President, $80,000 per immigrant is what the NRC says. That is a good deal of money. In a country that absorbs about a million immigrants a year, that means that each year of that pays $80 billion more in taxes over the course of a lifetime, more than it consumes in services. So when we talk about waiving the point of order, we do it from a very sound fiscal point of view. These are based upon the CBO, the National Research Council. It is wise that we waive the point of order. It is absolutely irrefutable that over the next 10 years, we are going to reduce the deficit by the $12 billion.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The CBO has an estimate in there, what is necessary for border security.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I was just trying to accommodate the Senator. I was going to yield the floor, and I thought both Senators wanted time. I say to the Senator, you have been very accommodating in working out the time agreements earlier, so I was glad to yield some of my time to the Senator, who is supporting your position.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for just 2 minutes on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the fact that the Senator from Kentucky has advanced this issue this morning and ensured that the legislation was going to be passed. I wish to pay tribute to my chairman, Senator Enzi. Within hours of the Sago mine disaster, he notified our committee that we would go as a committee down to visit the Sago mine. We spent hours with the families of Sago, came back immediately, had an informal hearing to get early reactions and responses about things that could be done immediately, and then structured a whole series of hearings. We had very extensive markups on those hearings. This legislation has the strong support of the families and the strong support of the mine workers. I think it is a very clear indication that this Senate gives the highest possible priority to the workers and their families and safety and security. We believe strongly that we should be tireless in pursuing new technologies which will provide additional kinds of safety and security to these miners. That process is outlined in the legislation. But this is a very clear message to the families that they are perhaps in the most dangerous undertaking which is absolutely essential in providing energy for our country. These are extraordinarily heroic men and women who work the mines. This Senate has responded, and we will respond to ensure to the extent legislatively we can that they will have safe and secure jobs. I thank the Senator. I am grateful for the leadership of Senator Enzi. Finally, during all of this period, we have been fortunate to have the tireless leadership of Senator Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller. Jay Rockefeller is recovering from a difficult operation, but he has been in constant touch with me and members of the committee and is following this legislation. Senator Byrd appeared before our committee, sat through the hearings, and has been instrumental in terms of developing the legislation and pressing and pushing us forward to make sure it is achieved. I thank the Senator. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. KENNEDY. I am pleased that the Senate has passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act today, and I commend Chairman Enzi, Senator Isakson, and Senator Murray for their dedication in pursuing these safety protections. I also commend Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller, who have been tireless in insisting on improvements in mine safety. This bill is the most significant improvement in mine safety by Congress in a generation. Today's action was clearly necessary. The year began with the shocking tragedies at the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia, where 14 coal miners were killed. Tragedy struck again last weekend in Kentucky, where five coal miners were killed at the Darby mine in Harlan County. We will learn more in the weeks ahead from the ongoing investigations of these disasters. But many lessons are already painfully clear. The miners who died could have survived with adequate oxygen. But, their self-rescue units didn't work, and they had to share precious oxygen with each other. They also had no realistic way to let rescuers outside know where they were. At Sago, they resorted to banging on pipes with sledge hammers, wasting precious energy and oxygen. This should never have happened and we need to be sure that it doesn't happen again. The bill requires every company to have a comprehensive emergency response plan, so that companies and miners will know ahead of time how to respond. The bill sets stronger minimum safety standards for oxygen supplies, communications, tracking, lifelines, and training, and also requires companies to continuously reevaluate the safety of their mines. They must adapt their safety response plans to changes in their mining operations and advances in mine safety technology. Safety must no longer be a topic that companies address only in the wake of a disaster or a government directive. Plans to improve safety must be an enforceable day-to-day obligation of every mining operation. As we saw at Sago and Darby, the time to determine whether a mine's oxygen supply is reliable can't just be after a tragedy. To address the recurring problems with oxygen supplies, the bill requires companies to provide at least two hours of oxygen for every miner, plus additional oxygen along evacuation routes and for trapped miners awaiting rescue. Companies will be required to inspect and replace these units regularly, so that no miner has an oxygen pack that doesn't work. All mines will be required to have back-up telephone lines immediately available, and to adopt two-way wireless communications and electronic tracking systems as soon as possible. They will also have to install fire-resistant lifelines, to show miners to the best way out in an emergency. One of the most moving aspects of the Sago and Alma response was the outpouring of support from other miners around the country. They wanted to do everything they could to rescue their brothers and sisters trapped underground. This bill guarantees that every mine in the country will have a person on staff who knows the mine and is trained in emergency response. It strengthens requirements for training mine rescue teams. The teams will practice in the mines they monitor, so that the first time they go into a mine will not be during an emergency. The bill also reduces the time required for a rescue team to reach a mine to one hour from the current two hours. By providing good Samaritan-type liability protection for mine rescue team members and their regular employers, this bill will encourage more miners to participate in mine rescue teams and more employers to support them. Even if we don't know why the seal at Sago failed, we know that it did. The initial reports from Darby suggest that a seal also failed there. We don't need another tragedy caused by a failed seal to know that the standard for seals must be improved. Our standards for these protective barriers lag far behind other developed nations. That is why this bill requires the Mine Safety and Health Administration to issue a new regulation in 18 months to improve these standards. We also need greater incentives to prevent accidents from happening. Too many mining companies have been paying fines that cost less than parking tickets. Under this bill, companies can no longer treat violations of health and safety laws as a cost of doing business. We impose substantial new minimum penalties on companies that put miners at risk and do not take their obligation seriously to provide a safe workplace. These new penalties escalate when companies continue to ignore their safety obligations. The bill also makes clear that MSHA has the authority to shut down a mine that refuses to pay its fines. Research is an important part of safety. The Navy has technologies to communicate with submarines on the bottom of the ocean. NASA can talk to people on the Moon. It is time to bring mine safety technology into the 21st century too. Our bill creates an interagency task force so that NIOSH will have the benefit of the advances made by other industries and agencies. It also creates two competitive grant programs: one to encourage the development and manufacture of mine safety equipment that the private sector might not otherwise find economically viable, and another to educate and train employers and miners to better identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions. This bill is an important step in strengthening the response to mine emergencies. But there is more to be done. We have seen miners in other countries survive because of requirements that their mines have refuge chambers. Our bill requires MSHA and NIOSH to test refuge chambers to see if they should be used here to protect miners in a fire or explosion. It also addresses safety issues raised by ventilating mines with belt air, particularly the problem of fires on mine conveyor belts. The bill requires the Secretary of Labor to report to us on these problems, and I commend Senator Enzi and Senator Isakson for agreeing to work together and to hold hearings on these critical issues in the future. We can't bring back the brave miners who have died this year. Today, however, we honor their memory by passing this legislation and we will honor them even more by following through to see that it is implemented as effectively as possible to make our mines safer.