A bill to provide for the establishment of a commission to conduct a study concerning the overtime regulations of the Department of Labor.

Mr. President, September 11, 2001, was a day of infamy that will rank down with the very worst, most cowardly and vile actions ever taken against this Nation or any other nation on this planet, a sneak attack, murdering thousands--innocent children, women, and men-- with no provocation, no forewarning, with no justification or rational reason, just the demented ravings and rantings of a fanatic who has perverted the principal teachings of his professed faith, of its greatest prophet, Mohammad. He twisted Mohammad's words into support for wars, with himself to play God and decide who deserved mercy and who did not.

Innocent civilians died in the United States as a result of that fanaticism. His soldiers died on September 11. And he is off somewhere hiding in a cave.

Ten Minnesotans or Minnesota natives lost their lives in the attacks that terrible day: Gordon Aamoth, Jr., whose parents are good friends of my parents, an investment banker with offices on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center; as did Ann Nelson, a bond trader. Others were killed at work at the Pentagon: Captain Charles Burlingame, III, was the pilot of the hijacked American airlines plane which struck the World Trade Center. Tom Burnet was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 93, and one who led the counterattack against the hijackers on that plane. Tom and the other American heroes could not save themselves, but they may have saved us, as that plane's target was reportedly this very Capitol in which I stand with you today--alive, all of us, thanks, possibly, to Tom Burnet and the other American heroes.

These were good, hard-working Minnesotans, good, hard-working American citizens, who had the terrible misfortune to be living their lives in the wrong places on that day, September 11, 2001. They have been forever taken away from their families and friends, from their lives. So to those families and friends I express my very deepest condolences.

I remember leaving the Russell Senate Office Building that morning, going over to a hotel just a couple of blocks away from the Capitol where I was residing at the time, and I was asked by the general manager if I wanted to go up on the roof of the hotel, which I did, about 10:30 in the morning. The sky was totally clear except for a dark plume of cloud coming up from the Pentagon. There was no air traffic in the sky, no planes going in and out of National Airport, no helicopters, as is usually the case, going across the river.

All was quiet there until suddenly this one F-16 fighter plane came streaking down The Mall, seemingly just a few hundred feet right over the top of the Capitol. I thought to myself, I just never imagined in my worst nightmares I would ever see a day where a U.S. fighter jet was flying over our Capitol to defend it from whatever foreign enemy was attacking us. I pray to God I will never, ever see it again--never again.

George W. Bush became our President that week. He hadn't been elected our President, not in the traditional way of a democracy, by getting the most votes in the election, but that week he became our President. He rose magnificently to the enormous challenges and burdens which a President of the United States must bear, and must often bear alone, for all the rest of us. President Bush did that and he did it well, very well. He gained the good will of our entire Nation, and our Nation gained the good will of almost the entire world.

What priceless silver linings there were for all of us who survived those dark, terrible, black clouds which engulfed us on that terrible day. What opportunities those 10 Minnesotans and

their fellow citizens gave to their country, at the terrible cost of their own lives. We gained the support, the good will, and the alliance of practically the entire world.

The President said, just 4 months later in his State of the Union Address to Congress and the American people, on January 29, 2002:

As we gather tonight, our Nation is at war, our economy is

in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented

dangers. Yet the State of our Union has never been stronger.

I recall all of us rising up in the House Chamber where we were witnessing that speech, and being stirred--shivers down my spine--by those words: ``Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger.''

Today, 2 years later, the U.S. Government, the same Bush administration, does not have the support nor the trust nor the respect of the nations of the world--not their governments and not the majority of their citizens. That is not surprising. For most of the past year, the administration has scorned most of the rest of the world. It has denounced the United Nations, derided allies of ours who disagreed with us, has berated others in order to try to compel their support. And it has proclaimed repeatedly the right of the United States, and the intention of the Bush administration, to take whatever military action it deems necessary--whenever, against whomever, who threatened or might at some time in the future threaten our national security.

No one in this country who cares about this country could question our right to protect our Nation's or our citizens' safety, not before September 11, 2001, and not after September 11, 2001. No one in the world who wishes us well would question our doing so. In fact, the vast majority of the world's governments and people supported our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and against al-Qaida, and our stated intention to attack terrorists and terrorist organizations and their bases of operation wherever they were throughout the world.

But instead, the administration chose to go to war against Iraq. That action most of the rest of the world did not support. Other governments and the United Nations were skeptical about the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which U.N. inspectors could not find last fall and this year. They didn't believe they constituted an imminent threat to our National Security.

The Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, called the evidence the U.S. gave him about Iran's weapons of mass destruction ``pretty pathetic.'' The rest of the world was skeptical, and the rest of the world would be proven right to be skeptical. There were no weapons of mass destruction used, thank God, against U.S. troops when they invaded Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were found unused on battlefields or command posts or stored in caches anywhere in that country. Not even biological, chemical, or nuclear materials that could have been used to make those weapons have been found. Not even top level Iraqi scientists or former government officials, some of whom have been incarcerated for months now, denied any legal representation, denied chances to visit with their families--in some cases the families don't even know where they are or even if they are alive--not even interrogations under those conditions have produced information leading to weapons of mass destruction or supplies of weapons of mass destruction materials of the kinds and in the amounts that were claimed by the President and Vice President and Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser.

The rest of the world didn't believe our fears, but the American people did. The American people trusted our leaders. They believed them. They supported their decisions. They sent their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and neighbors halfway around the world to fight for, and some to die for, that stated threat, that urgent threat that was asserted again and again by our leaders.

On August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney said in a speech:

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of

mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them

to use against our friends, against our allies, and against

us.

One month later, on September 26, 2002, President Bush stated after meeting with Members of Congress:

All of us are united in our determination to confront an

urgent threat to America. The danger to our country is grave.

The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime

possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime

could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as

minutes after the order were given.

Ten days later, just before Congress voted on his desire for a resolution, the President added that ``Iraq is exploring ways of using UVAs--unmanned aerial vehicles--for missions targeting the United States''.

Later, the administration officials admitted those vehicles had a maximum range of only about 300 miles and couldn't have been used against the United States.

During the same speech, the President asserted Saddam Hussein could have ``a nuclear weapon in less than a year''.

Supposedly the evidence cited and leaked to the press before that speech was that Saddam Hussein was secretly buying aluminum tubes for use in producing nuclear fissile materials. But when our own Department of Energy concluded they were the wrong tubes to use for such a purpose, the State Department's intelligence bureau concluded and pointed out they weren't even secret buys and that the purchase orders were posted on the Internet. The question was not made known to Congress nor made known to the American people.

In two reports to the Secretary of State, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluded there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program at all.

That was, in fact, what Saddam Hussein's own son-in-law had told the United States and United Nations officials when he defected in 1995.

As the Washington Post reported on August 10 of this year, a year previously--on August 7, 2002--the Vice President volunteered in a question-and-answer session at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, speaking of Hussein, that ``left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future, he will acquire nuclear weapons.''

On August 26, the Vice President described Hussein as a ``sworn enemy of our country'' who constituted a ``mortal threat'' to the United States. He foresaw a time in which Hussein could ``subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.''

Continuing to quote:

We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire

nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from

firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own

son-in-law.

But as the Washington Post goes on to say, the son-in-law's testimony was the reverse of the Vice President's description; the opposite of what the American people, were told and what Congress was told. But those contradictions were never disclosed to the American people nor to Congress. In fact, the President and the Vice President continued to insist right up until the invasion that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear threat that was an imminent and urgent danger to the United States.

The Vice President said on a network show on March 16 of 2003 that ``We believe he--Saddam Hussein--has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.''

The President, in his address to the Nation on March 17, 2003, cited intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves ``no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.''

If the Vice President of the United States asserts there is no doubt, and if the President of the United States asserts there is no doubt, then what is there to doubt? If you can't trust your own President and Vice President to tell you the truth about matters of life and death, such as nuclear threats, wars, and the future of this Nation, then what can you trust?

Another thing the American public believes is that Saddam Hussein is directly linked to al-Qaida and to the terrible events of September 11, 2001. According to the national surveys, over two-thirds of the American public believes that. Why? Because that assertion has been made repeatedly by this administration.

In fact, in the President's speech to the Nation last Sunday, he mentions

the word ``terrorists'' or ``terrorist organizations'' 27 times--27 times. He cited the weapons of mass destruction once, in a rhetorical reference.

The fundamental basis on which we went into Iraq as proclaimed before the war began was only cited one time in that entire address to the Nation. But ``terrorism,'' or the connection of terrorists to Iraq, al- Qaida, and the West dominated the President's remarks, and his continued assertions to the American people of what the real situation is in that country for which Americans are still giving their blood, bodies, and lives.

On the other hand, as reported in the Washington Post recently, key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was involved in the 2001 attacks. ``I am not now sure that Iraq had something to do with it,'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on August 1.

The CIA's report--the administration's main source of information about these connections or lack of them--to the President and the administration, as reported in the New York Times on February 2 of 2002, found ``no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida or related terrorist groups.''

Maybe former Marine General Anthony Zinni, who has been on missions representing the administration and the President in the Middle East, has the best analysis of this changing rationale for our actions. He said:

Initially, there was at least an implication that Iraq was

linked to terrorism. When that link couldn't be made, it was

possession of weapons of mass destruction. When that link

couldn't be made, it was lack of cooperation. Right now it is

about ``we will not let you talk to our scientists,'' and it

is the reason we will go to war. We know what the Iraqis

have, and we can't tell you. I just think it is too

confusing.

What is not confusing is the casualties mount. The number of Americans being wounded or killed in action in Iraq last month exceeded the previous month by over a third. Director Tenent told us this week that they are averaging 15 attacks a day on United States forces after the victory we won so courageously and magnificently in 3 weeks over 4 months ago. But we in the Senate owe the American people and those soldiers over there our continued search for and insistence that the truth be told to us and to the American people about the circumstances that got us into this war, the circumstances that exist in this war, and how we are going to get out of this war preserving the victory which was won but also bringing our men and women home. They have performed and continue to perform with patriotism that goes beyond anything I can imagine. But they want to come home. Their families want them home. They deserve to come home.

In his Gettysburg address, recognizing and paying tribute to other American heroes who lost their lives, President Lincoln concluded that ``we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a government that tells the truth to its citizens. If it doesn't, it is not a government of them, not by them, and certainly not for them. It is imperative.

Today, in commemoration of those who did not die in vain 2 years ago, there should be once again a rebirth of our freedom and our assertion to this Government or any Government of the United States of America to tell us the truth.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the terrorist attacks of 2 years ago, and to remember those who lost their lives or their loved ones on that tragic day. We also pause to honor the heroes who came to the rescue that day: our firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers.

Two years ago, a brilliant late-summer Tuesday morning turned without warning into a horror of fire, smoke and chaos. Just another workday suddenly became a day of unimaginable loss, courage and sacrifice. What happened in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania 2 years ago ensured that September 11 would be forever a solemn anniversary we will observe with reverence and reflection. It is a date we will keep in our places of worship, in our streets and public parks, certainly in our hearts.

This second anniversary also is an appropriate time for assessment. While the terrorist attacks told us much about the strength of our people, they also revealed many weaknesses--in planning, cohesiveness and cooperation--in our government. The question we in government must answer today is whether our planning is more comprehensive, preparedness more effective, and the interactions among the various agencies of government more cohesive and cooperative.

Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has worked to forge a new relationship with State and local governments. During the past 2 years, Congress has provided $11 billion to States and localities to help equip and train their police, fire, and emergency personnel. Federal experts have trained more than 450,000 State and local first responders and conducted nearly 450 training exercises throughout the country. These efforts have better equipped our communities and first responders to respond to a terrorist attack.

But we must do more to help first responders become first preventers--to help them apprehend terrorists and thwart attacks before they happen. Our communities requires more than decontamination equipment to treat those affected by a dirty bomb--we need to give our law enforcement agencies innovative monitoring technologies to thwart terrorists before they strike.

As the Portland Press Herald reported just last week, ``While [Maine] is better equipped to respond to a chemical strike or ``dirty'' radioactive bomb, little has been spent to prevent such an attack.'' The legislation I am introducing today is aimed squarely at prevention.

The Homeland Security Act established a framework to research and develop new advanced counter-terrorism technologies. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill passed by the Senate just a few months ago will provide the millions needed to fund this effort. Many other agencies, both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security, are developing technologies that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks.

I am pleased to introduce legislation with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, which would help the Department quickly identify and transfer cutting edge counter-terrorism technologies and equipment to the front lines. Under our legislation, the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, working with State and local law enforcement officials, the Science and Technology Directorate, and other Federal agencies will identify counter-terrorism technologies with the potential to significantly assist the law enforcement community.

Once these technologies have been identified, State and local law enforcement agencies can apply to receive these technologies and equipment directly from the Department of Homeland Security. For example, those law enforcement agencies protecting borders, cargo ports, and other freight transportation links will be able to secure advanced detection and monitoring equipment that may not be purchased using other Office for Domestic Preparedness funds. This program, then, will fill in the technology gaps between traditional homeland security assistance programs.

This is not another open-ended grant program. Rather, the counter- terrorism technologies and equipment themselves will be available from a catalog of items proven to work. Transferring the technology, instead of providing a monetary grant, will enable ODP to provide the appropriate training to law enforcement officials.

Our legislation is modeled after a program that works--the successful Technology Transfer Program within the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Since 1998, this program has provided nearly five thousand pieces of equipment to roughly twenty percent of the Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies. It has also operated efficiently: administrative costs run less than 10 percent of the total funding per year.

I commend Secretary Ridge for his outstanding efforts on the monumental challenge of incorporating nearly two-dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security. But just as it is our first responders who are on the front lines when terrorism strikes, it is our law enforcement community, our ``first preventers,'' who can best thwart terrorism before it occurs. We must build on Secretary Ridge's efforts by helping to ensure that our state and local law enforcement agencies have the equipment and training they need.

I am pleased to have the support from police chiefs and sheriffs across America. In fact, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major City Policy Chiefs have already voiced their support for this legislation.

A few weeks ago, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released transcripts of the 911 tapes from that awful day, more than 1,800 tragic pages that tell an inspiring story of everyday people responding as extraordinary heroes. We in government must not forget that story as we proceed with the difficult task we have undertaken, one that may never be finished but that must progress. Let every September 11, then, be both a day of remembrance and a day when we commit ourselves to better protect the citizens of this great Nation.

Mr. President, I sought recognition to introduce legislation to create a commission on overtime pay.

Yesterday, the Senate passed an amendment to preclude Federal funding for the regulation issued by the Department of Labor on overtime pay, and it is uncertain what will happen as the bill goes to conference. There has been a representation that the President will veto the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education if this regulation is not in the bill.

It seems to me we ought to be taking another step, and that is to create a commission to deal with this issue so we are prepared in any eventuality. There is no doubt that the 1945 regulations on the Fair Labor Standards Act, that those regulations are vastly out of date and they ought to be revised. There are many lawsuits, some class actions, to determine what the definitions are for those who are or who are not covered by overtime pay that ought to be clarified. Clarification can be achieved without having the massive disruption on the change on overtime pay for so many in the workforce.

A change in the overtime pay for those in the workforce would be especially problematic given the economic situation at hand, that it is a difficult time and there ought not to be that kind of disruption which would be occasioned by this bill, by the regulations going into effect.

Even though the Department of Labor's propose legislation stated that the Department could not exactly clarify which workers would be exempt or not exempt based on the current and the proposed rules, the commission which I am proposing would have representatives from business, the public sector, the labor groups, with widespread approval from congressional leaders, and is a preferable course so we can achieve both objectives; that is, to have clarification on the outdated regulations to avoid the litigation and know who is exempt and who is not exempt while doing it without massive disruption of the overtime pay at a very difficult time for the workers.

To reiterate, today I am introducing legislation to establish a commission to conduct a thorough study of issues relating to modernization of the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions. These provisions have remained substantially unchanged since 1975, despite changes in the modern work place.

On March 31, 2003, the Labor Department issued proposed regulations to update the exemptions from overtime pay for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees. More than 70,000 comments were received by the June 30, 2003 deadline. Due to the controversy generated by the proposed regulations, I held a hearing on July 31, 2003 to explore this

complex question. We heard testimony from the Labor Department, as well as organized labor and business representatives. It was evident that while there was general agreement that greater clarity of definitions concerning overtime pay eligibility would be beneficial to both employees and workers there was disagreement about the impact of the proposed regulations, and no consensus about how to achieve greater clarity and compliance to avoid costly lawsuits. Even the Labor Department's proposed regulations stated that the Department could not exactly clarify which workers are exempt and nonexempt based on the current and proposed rules.

The commission I am proposing will bring together experts to study these ambiguities and other issues deemed appropriate, and report to the Secretary of Labor and Congress by July 30, 2004. The legislation also specifies that the proposed overtime regulation will not become effective until 60 days after the date the commission report is submitted.

The commission will be composed of 11 members representing organized labor, the business community, the general public and Federal officials. The commission members will be appointed on a bipartisan, bicameral basis and shall be appointed by the Secretary of Labor, and the House and Senate appropriations and authorizing committees.

The primary duties of the commission will be to conduct a thorough study of, and develop recommendations on, issues relating to the modernization of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Specifically the commission will:

(1) Review categories and numbers of workers not eligible for overtime pay under current regulations and identify how many workers and employers might be affected by proposed changes to the current regulation;

(2) Determine if the proposed regulation relating to overtime is sufficiently clear to be easily understood by employers and workers;

(3) Assess the paperwork burden that employers would have in order to assure that each individual worker, claimed to be exempt from such overtime requirements, actually is exempt under such regulation;

(4) Assess the extent to which it will be clear to the individual worker as to his or her overtime pay protection under the proposed regulation; and

(5) Determine the impact of the regulation on nurses, pharmacists, and police, firefighters and paramedics.

Given the extreme controversy over the proposed overtime regulation, I believe that the legislation that I am proposing will provide an opportunity for all sides to air the concerns and work with the Secretary of Labor to craft a regulation that will benefit employers, employees and the general public.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I sought recognition to introduce legislation to create a commission on overtime pay.

Yesterday, the Senate passed an amendment to preclude Federal funding for the regulation issued by the Department of Labor on overtime pay, and it is uncertain what will happen as the bill goes to conference. There has been a representation that the President will veto the appropriations bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education if this regulation is not in the bill.

It seems to me we ought to be taking another step, and that is to create a commission to deal with this issue so we are prepared in any eventuality. There is no doubt that the 1945 regulations on the Fair Labor Standards Act, that those regulations are vastly out of date and they ought to be revised. There are many lawsuits, some class actions, to determine what the definitions are for those who are or who are not covered by overtime pay that ought to be clarified. Clarification can be achieved without having the massive disruption on the change on overtime pay for so many in the workforce.

A change in the overtime pay for those in the workforce would be especially problematic given the economic situation at hand, that it is a difficult time and there ought not to be that kind of disruption which would be occasioned by this bill, by the regulations going into effect.

Even though the Department of Labor's propose legislation stated that the Department could not exactly clarify which workers would be exempt or not exempt based on the current and the proposed rules, the commission which I am proposing would have representatives from business, the public sector, the labor groups, with widespread approval from congressional leaders, and is a preferable course so we can achieve both objectives; that is, to have clarification on the outdated regulations to avoid the litigation and know who is exempt and who is not exempt while doing it without massive disruption of the overtime pay at a very difficult time for the workers.

To reiterate, today I am introducing legislation to establish a commission to conduct a thorough study of issues relating to modernization of the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions. These provisions have remained substantially unchanged since 1975, despite changes in the modern work place.

On March 31, 2003, the Labor Department issued proposed regulations to update the exemptions from overtime pay for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees. More than 70,000 comments were received by the June 30, 2003 deadline. Due to the controversy generated by the proposed regulations, I held a hearing on July 31, 2003 to explore this

complex question. We heard testimony from the Labor Department, as well as organized labor and business representatives. It was evident that while there was general agreement that greater clarity of definitions concerning overtime pay eligibility would be beneficial to both employees and workers there was disagreement about the impact of the proposed regulations, and no consensus about how to achieve greater clarity and compliance to avoid costly lawsuits. Even the Labor Department's proposed regulations stated that the Department could not exactly clarify which workers are exempt and nonexempt based on the current and proposed rules.

The commission I am proposing will bring together experts to study these ambiguities and other issues deemed appropriate, and report to the Secretary of Labor and Congress by July 30, 2004. The legislation also specifies that the proposed overtime regulation will not become effective until 60 days after the date the commission report is submitted.

The commission will be composed of 11 members representing organized labor, the business community, the general public and Federal officials. The commission members will be appointed on a bipartisan, bicameral basis and shall be appointed by the Secretary of Labor, and the House and Senate appropriations and authorizing committees.

The primary duties of the commission will be to conduct a thorough study of, and develop recommendations on, issues relating to the modernization of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Specifically the commission will:

(1) Review categories and numbers of workers not eligible for overtime pay under current regulations and identify how many workers and employers might be affected by proposed changes to the current regulation;

(2) Determine if the proposed regulation relating to overtime is sufficiently clear to be easily understood by employers and workers;

(3) Assess the paperwork burden that employers would have in order to assure that each individual worker, claimed to be exempt from such overtime requirements, actually is exempt under such regulation;

(4) Assess the extent to which it will be clear to the individual worker as to his or her overtime pay protection under the proposed regulation; and

(5) Determine the impact of the regulation on nurses, pharmacists, and police, firefighters and paramedics.

Given the extreme controversy over the proposed overtime regulation, I believe that the legislation that I am proposing will provide an opportunity for all sides to air the concerns and work with the Secretary of Labor to craft a regulation that will benefit employers, employees and the general public.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parental Responsibility Obligations Met Through Immigration System Enforcement Act, or PROMISE Act. Sadly, there are many in our society who do not honor their child support obligations, and ultimately, it is the children who are hurt by such irresponsibility. Shockingly, many foreign nationals are able to benefit from our immigration laws notwithstanding their failure to live up to their child support obligations. As a matter of sound policy, our immigration laws should require those who wish to come into or remain in our country to comply with our moral and ethical standards. Let us be clear in our message. If you do not live up to your financial obligations to your own children, then you are not welcome in the United States.

I am introducing this legislation now because it is time to do something to protect many children who are economically disadvantaged or neglected. These children need clothes, food, and shelter--basic necessities of life. Moreover, when the deadbeat parents fail to meet their obligations to their own children, it is our society and our taxpayers who must pick up the cost. Of course, we will do what we have to for the children in our country, but we need to hold the parents responsible and impress upon them we will no

longer tolerate their irresponsible attitude toward their own children.

Specifically, this legislation amends the current Immigration and Nationality Act, section 212(a), to include failure to pay child support as a ground of inadmissibility. It will also amend section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act so that one who fails to pay child support is statutorily without good moral character. The legislation will cover not only orders from a court in the United States but also foreign courts with which our Federal or State governments have reciprocity agreements. As such, deadbeat parents cannot use the United States as a haven from child support enforcement by other governments.

In conclusion, we must be mindful that permission to enter the United States is a privilege and not a right. We will not grant this privilege to individuals who do not respect the law of our Nation, the laws of their home country, or their moral duty to provide for their children.

I ask for your support of the PROMISE Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.