Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take another 2 minutes. That is what the circuit court said in response to a similar proposal which became before them. The amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause because it unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote for several classes of people. The court in the Georgia case found the voter identification requirement ``most likely to prevent Georgia's elderly, poor, and African-American voters from voting.'' The amendment violates the 24th amendment because it amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax. The Supreme Court found that the 24th amendment not only bars poll taxes, but also bars their ``equivalent[s]'' and found this kind of identification was an equivalent. The McConnell amendment requires that the Election Assistance Commission make funds available only ``to promote the issuance of free photo identification,'' but does not mandate and provide that. This is an unwise amendment on an immigration bill. Mr. President, I see our friend from Connecticut, who was the floor manager of the earlier legislation, and my colleague from Illinois, who also wishes to speak. The most sacred right guaranteed in our democracy is the right to vote. We want to promote people voting. We want our elections safe and secure. But this issue deserves more than 45 minutes on the floor of the U.S. Senate on an immigration bill. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do we have 11 minutes? Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. So 6 and 5 is 11. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes and yield the last 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut. This is an extraordinarily important amendment. It deserves the full consideration of this body because, as has been pointed out, it reaches the essence of our democracy, which is the right to vote. If we are going to take action on an immigration bill that is going to have an impact on 120 million Americans in the 2008 Presidential campaign, we should not be doing that in the 50 minutes before a cloture vote on the immigration bill. I have pointed to recent courts of appeals decisions on measures that are virtually identical to this where they have struck it down because they believed that it was going to effectively discriminate against large groups of Americans, primarily the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The court of appeals made that judgment in the Georgia ID case, not those on this side of the aisle. It was the court's decision. It seems to me, having so clear a judicial determination on this measure and such a wide separation between what this measure is and what was recommended by the Carter-Baker commission, it is not wise for the Senate to adopt what would be a major rewriting of our national election laws in the 50 minutes prior to a cloture vote on an immigration bill. It is unwise for the Senate. If we are not successful in defeating it, this potentially could have a most dramatic adverse impact in terms of American voting in the next national election. I don't think that is what this legislation is really about. I don't think we should take that step. If we are going to debate this issue, we ought to have the opportunity to have hearings and a review to make a judgment. Now is not the time, and this is not the legislation. I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate at the present time?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky is not germane under rule XXII.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Madam President, in accordance with the agreement that was entered into yesterday, the Senator from West Virginia is prepared to address the Senate on mine safety and then to debate his amendment. I look forward to that discussion.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I regret that I was necessarily absent for a good part of the Senator's presentation. I am familiar with the issue. I applaud his concern about whether there are going to be adequate resources to deal with issues of enforcement, detention, and legal enforcement. These are all worthwhile undertakings. The real issue is, in the compromise legislation we are going to raise $18 billion. The Cornyn amendment adds between $5 and $6 billion. As I understand it, the Byrd amendment is $3 billion on top of that. And we have raised fees on immigrants quite significantly so that there will be a considerable additional burden. About 35 percent of those who will be adjusting their status are overstays, and so they had nothing really to do with border security, although border security is enormously important. We can't reallocate the resources, the fines or fees, on people that had come across the border. It seems to me that these fees are enormously costly. Under the Cornyn amendment, it is going to be an additional payment for every child. We reach a point where we are talking about people of extremely modest means, reaching a ceiling. I think we crossed it even with the Cornyn amendment. I reluctantly oppose the amendment. But I want to give assurance to the Senator from West Virginia that we will monitor this very closely. He is on our side the leader on the Appropriations Committee. We have talked over his general concerns on a wide range of issues relating to immigrants. We remember the border security issue of a couple years ago, and he was very involved in wanting to make sure of the integrity of the system. He was very involved in the debate on those questions. This subject matter is not a new matter for him. It is a matter of enormous importance. I hope we will be able to handle it under the existing provisions and we would not need the additional resources that are included in his amendment. We want to give him assurance that we will keep in close contact with him to let him know what the current situation is, and we will always have an opportunity in the future to revisit it. I join with the Senator from Pennsylvania and hope that it will not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we would be glad to accommodate the Senator from Washington. As we know, we have a general order that we are going to vote on a number of these amendments at a certain time, but we will give the assurance--I will--that we will let her have her time prior to the vote. We can work that out.

Mr. KENNEDY. Whatever time remains on that side, as I understand, would be hers and we will accommodate her.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, the diversity program is a small but vital part of our immigration system, and I urge my colleagues to preserve the program by voting against the Gregg amendment. This amendment would all but destroy the diversity visa program, which has served our country well and continues to do so. Yet it would have no meaningful effect on skill-based immigration, which is already favored by our immigration laws and is already being addressed elsewhere in the bill. That is why civil rights groups and ethnic groups are united with business groups in opposition to this amendment. I understand the thinking behind the Gregg amendment, and there are a few people in the Chamber who have been more consistent supporters of high-skilled immigration than have I. I continue to support high- skilled migration, and the original McCain-Kennedy bill doubled the numerical limits on high-skilled, employment-based migration. I also supported additional changes in the Judiciary Committee to increase H- 1B visa limits and to make it easier for H-1B immigrants to adjust to permanent status. But the diversity visa program serves a wholly different purpose. The purpose of the diversity visa is not just to advance narrow economic interests but, rather, to preserve our very heritage as a nation of immigrants, a true melting pot. Unlike other visa categories, the diversity visa is not about whom you know or to whom you are related. It is a totally unique program because anyone with a high school diploma or 2 years of meaningful work experience can apply. Without the diversity visa program, our family- and employment-based immigration system would ensure that virtually all immigrants to the United States would come from just a small handful of countries. The diversity program ensures that America continues to be a beacon to the entire world and not just to a dozen or so countries with high numbers of immigrants already living here. This chart here behind me shows, right here on the left, that of the groups coming in now, 36.8 percent are Asian, 46 percent are Latin American; that is 85 percent coming from the Caribbean countries or from Asia. We have 10 percent from Europe, 3 percent from Canada, Oceania, and 3 percent from Africa. That is currently the mix that is coming here. When we passed the 1965 act, we tried to provide 10,000 to 15,000 to each country so that we would have a flexible and diverse system. When we found out that for a variety of reasons we were getting this kind of a focus, what we did was develop a very modest diversity program so that other countries which were not participating, either with the very special skills or family relatives, would have an opportunity to come here. They had to demonstrate that they had a competency so that they were able to have skills which would make them active participants in our society. But it is limited to 42,000 as compared to 847,000, and look how it is distributed. It is an entirely different group. You have some from Africa, still have some from Latin America and Asia, but still a good many from Europe--essentially and effectively a different scene. That is what we are attempting to do. Now, we have been reminded by others of the fact that, well, we need to get to the special skills. But I would mention to our friends who are concerned about that, this is 50,000. Now look at what we are doing in terms of the special skills. We have close to 750,000 to 800,000-- 800,000 in this legislation, but the diversity is only 42,000. No one could suggest that we haven't been sensitive to understand the importance of people with high skills and what they can do in terms of our economy, but they are effectively wiping out this diversity program. Now, as you can see, the diversity visa is especially important when it comes to African immigration. Fewer than 4 percent of our family- and employment-based immigrants come from Africa, but almost 40 percent of the diversity visas are used for Africans. And even though only 1 in 20 green cards is a diversity visa, 1 in 3 green cards issued to an African is authorized through the program. One sure effect of the Gregg amendment is that it would substantially reduce African migration to this country. There is just no other visa out there that would replace these flows. That is one reason the groups are opposed to the Gregg amendment, including the NAACP, the Coalition on Human Rights, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, the Illinois Coalition for Migrant and Refugee Rights, and a number of other groups. What does the Gregg amendment hope to accomplish in exchange for giving up this program? While the diversity visa program has unchecked symbolic importance and is an important mechanism to protect balance and equality in migration flows, it is tiny in comparison to the existing high-skill program because the rules already favor the skilled immigrants. Three different classes of employment-based visas are reserved for the skilled immigrants and five different temporary worker programs: the H-1B, the L visas, the P visas, the O visas, the TN visas. These visas are already set aside for skilled workers. These are offices of various international companies that come in here; a variety of different kinds of visas. Some on the H-1B are virtually effectively almost automatic to be able to go to a university site, to be able to teach. They are not counted within the H-1B. So all but one of the programs already admit more immigrants than the Gregg amendment would generate through this change. Business groups oppose the Gregg amendment. I have letters from the Chamber of Commerce, the American Council on International Personnel, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable--all major business associations which support high-skilled immigration and all opposing the Gregg amendment. So here is what the Gregg amendment would do. It would change the diversity program from a tiny slice of the pie to a minuscule slice. These are the two, the diversity visas being at the top. It is now a small group, which is gray in this setting, and you can look over here and it is still gray, but it is a fraction of what it is in terms of the diversity flows. The flows are already one-twentieth, just one- twentieth of high-skilled flows, and under the Gregg amendment, they would be cut to less than 2 percent. These charts actually understate what is going on by a wide margin because the underlying bill already roughly triples numerical limits on high-skilled immigrants. Is the benefit to high-skilled employers of an extra 37,000 visas really worth the price of eviscerating this successful program? Are we willing to give up so much to gain so little? Another reason to oppose the Gregg amendment is that for millions of people around the world, the diversity visa has come to symbolize the American dream. Eight million people applied for this. Eight million people look to the United States and say: Maybe I will have a chance. I have to complete my high school or the equivalent of 2 years of college, so I have to meet those kinds of standards. I have to meet all the other national security standards. You have to demonstrate that you are not going to be a burden, an economic burden. But 8 million people in countries all over the world--all over the world--who look to the United States as being the country of hope and liberty have a crack at getting into the United States. Not much of one--42,000--but they have to come from the areas where we don't have large flows of immigrants coming in. That was the purpose, for the United States to be a diverse society, to be the true melting pot at the time. This is just a very small kind of a program. We are going to sacrifice that aspect for 8 million people all over the world who think they may be the ones who have a shot at getting into the United States, and we will say: Oh, no, it is just going to be the highly skilled, when we have 800,000 of those already coming in here, three times as many as we have now. How many is enough? How many is enough? So the diversity visa program symbolizes what makes America great because with a little luck and hard work, anyone can succeed here. We are the only country that can say that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have how much time? Half an hour?

Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield myself another 3 minutes. An advanced degree is an income test in most of the world. The diversity program symbolizes what makes America great because, with a little luck and hard work, anyone can succeed here. We are the only country that can say that. By shifting most of the diversity visas to the world's privileged elite, the Gregg amendment will dash the hopes of those who dream of a better life. It would also shift the visas away from Africa and the developing world and toward wealthier European and Asian states. This would overturn the whole point of the program. Accepting the Gregg amendment would send a terrible message about what America is all about; not a land of opportunity but, rather, an exclusive club. I believe our diversity is one of the greatest resources of our strength and one of the truly unique things about this country. In an earlier time our laws discriminated against those coming from major areas of the world. We eliminated the national origin quota system which discriminated against many of those who came from the Mediterranean basin. We eliminated the Asian Pacific triangle. In 1964 we had 127 individuals who came from Asia or from India or from Pakistan and those areas--127. We eliminated what we called the Asian Pacific triangle, which was the remnant of what this country faced in terms of the ``Yellow Peril'' part of our history in the early 1900s. What we have been trying to do is at least say to the world, if you have immediate family, we put a high priority on families. But also, if you have some special skills, fine. It means further employment. But as we were looking at the further employment, I thought we were also trying to educate and train Americans to be able to fill those jobs. That is what I thought we were trying to do: Have this as a program so, right now, we have not got the Americans who can fill the very highly technical kind of jobs that are demanded because we have not given the training or the education. In the earlier H-1B we said we were going to have a training fee, we were going to put that fee in to train Americans to be able to take those jobs. Oh, no, the other side says. Let's just drain the Third World of their smart people to come here. After we have gotten 800,000 special skills, let's drain them as well. It seems to me at some time we ought to say, How about those jobs for Americans? But it seems the mood and atmosphere is, Let's have as many of those bright people who come in here, and it doesn't make much difference. There is not much talk out here in the Senate about training and educational opportunities, investing in Americans. How quick it is, when it is just get more visas out there in the high tech area. Let's go ahead and do that. This is wrong for a lot of reasons. I hope it will not be accepted. I believe diversity is one of our greatest sources of strength, one of the truly unique things about this country. In earlier times, as I mentioned, we discriminated against major areas in the world. In 1965 we reformed our immigration laws to get rid of those discriminatory quotas. In 1990 we acted again to ensure greater equality of immigration by creating the diversity visa program. The Gregg amendment would be a major step backward, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. President, how much time do I have? I believe the Senator from Illinois is on his way.

Mr. KENNEDY. I intend to yield a major part of that to the Senator from Illinois and then maybe retain a couple of minutes for response to the Senator from Washington when she addresses the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was wondering, I support the Senator's amendment. I think it is a good amendment, as does the Senator from Pennsylvania. We would like to, if it is agreeable, temporarily set the amendment aside. I think under our agreement it would be set aside in any event because we have a sequence of votes coming up. It would be our intention, unless someone comes down here, to go ahead and voice-vote it through. But the manager thinks we ought to give at least another 15 or 20 minutes for an opportunity--and we can use the time now for the Senator from Texas. If someone does come down, we will try to get the Senator a few more minutes since she has been very accommodating to try to respond to another Senator. If they do not, our intention would be to voice-vote it.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, we welcome having his participation. I wanted to be able to respond briefly. I don't know if Senator Hutchison will talk until 2:45.

Mr. KENNEDY. And did Senator Bond want something?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 7 minutes. I was not going to make a further comment on this amendment. The Senator from Alabama indicated he had a few questions on this amendment, so I am glad to yield my time to the Senator. Then the Senator will make her concluding remarks. And then I understand we are going to go ahead with the point of order of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. KENNEDY. For pieces of legislation that are going through the body, they have the request for the CBO requirements. The Congressional Budget Office conforms to those particular requests. That is the process which we are involved and engaged in, not some ancillary kinds of expenditures but to use the tried and tested evaluation the Budget Act requires. CBO has conformed with the Budget Act request. What I have just related relates to what is necessary for the CBO to provide in response to the Budget Committee. When you do that, you find out the surplus. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield in behalf of the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a couple minutes, and then I am prepared to yield back the time. This budget point of order does not mean that S. 2611 would result in a significant net cost to the Federal Government over time. In fact, the revenues that will be produced when the undocumented immigrants become legal residents and start paying income taxes will far exceed the cost of any services they receive. CBO has determined that passage of S. 2611 will actually reduce the deficit by $12.1 billion over 10 years, and the newly legal immigrants will pay $66 billion in Federal taxes. The cost during the same period will be $54 billion. Thus, there will be a net gain to the Federal Treasury of $12 billion. There is a reason to believe this same pattern--revenues coming in from immigrants in taxes exceeding the cost of services--will continue in subsequent years. The problem with the budget point of order is that it only looks at new spending in the outyears and does not consider the new tax revenue offsetting the cost of that spending. It does not look at the full picture. Raising this budget point of order at the end of the Senate's long deliberations on this important legislation is an unfortunate diversion from the real question before us. This legislation will not cost the Federal Government money. It will actually raise revenue and reduce the deficit. But, more importantly, this legislation will address the serious problem of illegal immigration, both by increasing border security and by creating a path to earned citizenship for millions of undocumented workers. It will enhance our security, strengthen our economy, and reaffirm America's fundamental values of justice and inclusion. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time. I do not know what the desire of those on the other side would be.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just so the membership knows, under the existing bill, we are collecting $18 billion in fees. With the Cornyn amendment, there is $5 billion to $6 billion in addition. That is $2,750 for every worker who is going to make their adjustment and try to become a citizen. These are the poorest of the poor. If they have a child, it is going to cost them $100 for every extra child. This amendment is adding another $500. It seems to me that we have addressed the underlying issue in terms of cost, and this is going to be a major burden for people who work hard and are making the minimum wage. It is a big burden on them. We have adjusted for it. With the Cornyn amendment, I think we have met the responsibilities. If we need to have more, we can come back for more. But I think this is adding an additional burden, and we are doing it for low-income workers who will be covered by this legislation. I hope it will not be accepted.