A concurrent resolution designating the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum.

Madam President, if I may ask a question of the Senator.

Madam President, I thank Senator Talent for his leadership on this important issue. As a person who lives in Mobile, AL, I am proud of Satchel Paige. I assume he will be in the museum.

Satchel Paige was denied the right to fully participate in American baseball until the very end of his career. That was a tragedy. It was really a tragedy. It is something our Nation cannot take pride in and should feel great sadness over. A number of other Negro Leagues players came from Mobile, which is a great bastion of baseball excellence, including Willie McCovey and Hank Aaron, among others, who developed out of that history of excellent baseball.

I thank the Senator from Missouri for his leadership. I think it will be an important addition to our national heritage to have this museum.

Madam President, I thank Senator Salazar. We did indeed have a most important trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey, and were able to delve into some of those matters that are so important to our national security and check on the quality of care our troops are receiving. I enjoyed that very much. He is a fine addition to our Senate. I think we have a lot of agreements on this legislation, and some disagreements. I appreciate the opportunity we have to discuss these issues.

This debate is often centered around whether we are dealing with amnesty here, and I believe this legislation, by all definitions, is amnesty. But first I want to ask the question: Why is this so? Why is it that people care about whether we use a word such as ``amnesty'' to describe what this legislation that is before us today is? Why is that important?

It is important because most of us, when we were out campaigning for election, promised not to do amnesty again. Many people in this body who voted for the 1986 amnesty bill agreed it was amnesty and said they wouldn't do it again. The President of the United States, President Bush, despite all of his intentions to try to enhance legal immigration in our country, has always said he did not favor amnesty. So that is the deal. I think the American people have a right to expect that those they elect to office will honor what a fair interpretation of the meaning of that word is. If you promise not to support amnesty, then you shouldn't support a bill that is amnesty.

You can redefine words to make them mean most anything you want. My definition of an activist judge is a person who redefines the meaning of words to have them say whatever he or she would like them to say so they can

accomplish a result they consider to be desirable. But words do have meaning. We can have some understanding of what these issues are about, and I want to discuss it in some detail.

Senator Kennedy said:

Many have called this adjusted status amnesty. I reject it.

Amnesty means forgiveness, not pardon.

Well, I don't know exactly what that means. He said: This bill is not amnesty.

He goes on to say: ``Amnesty is not a pardon.''

Senator Durbin, the assistant Democratic leader, said: ``Amnesty basically says, We forgive you.''

He goes on to say:

Amnesty, very simply, is if you have been charged and found

guilty of a crime, amnesty says, we forgive you. We are not

going to hold you responsible for your crime.

But only if you have been charged and found guilty, apparently.

Senator Feinstein says: ``Amnesty is instant forgiveness, with no conditions. And there are conditions,'' she says, ``on this'' bill.

Senator Specter said:

Amnesty is a code word to try to smear good-faith

legislation to deal with this problem. It is not amnesty

because the law-breakers have not been unconditionally

forgiven of their transgressions.

And Senator McCain said also:

There is no requirements. There must be no requirement

whatsoever to call this bill amnesty.

He said:

Amnesty is simply declaring people who entered this country

illegally citizens of the United States and imposing no other

requirements on them. That is not what we do, Mr. President.

So in an effort to redefine this situation to mean what they want it to mean, they have said unless there is no condition whatsoever, you can't have amnesty. But people agreed that 1986 was amnesty and placed quite a number of conditions--some more significant than the ones in this bill--on those who were given amnesty.

Those of us who are familiar with the law world--I served as a lawyer the best I could for a number of years, and I know Madam President is a lawyer--we know what Black's Law Dictionary is. It is a dictionary lawyers use to define words in their legal context. Black's Law Dictionary, as part of its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' says this:

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided

amnesty for many undocumented aliens already present in the

country.

Black's Law Dictionary, the final definition of legal words, says the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for people here. It had conditions on it. It had some conditions on it; it just didn't have many conditions on it. So everybody recognizes it as basically amnesty, and that is why they called it that.

Again, I am not trying to use a code word here. What I am saying is there is a systematic effort in this body to redefine the definition of amnesty so they can tell their voters back home that although they opposed amnesty, this bill is not amnesty, and that is why they voted for it. That, unfortunately, I would have to say, is where we are.

What does the Democratic leader in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid, say about what amnesty is? Does he say that 1986 was amnesty and it had quite a few restrictions on the movement to full benefits of citizenship in the United States? This is what the Democratic leader says. This is what he said on September 20, 1993, when making a speech on the floor in the Senate; it is part of the Congressional Record. He said:

In 1986 we granted amnesty, and I voted against that

provision in law. We granted amnesty to 3.2 million illegal

immigrants. After being in this country for 10 years, the

average amnesty recipient had a sixth-grade education, earned

less than $6 an hour, and presently qualifies for the earned-

income tax credit.

The earned income tax credit is if you don't make enough money to pay income taxes and don't pay income taxes, not only do you not have to pay them but they give you money back. The average benefit for a person who qualifies for the earned-income tax credit, I would say parenthetically if anybody is interested, is $2,400 per year.

So that is what Senator Reid had to say about it in 1993, that the 1986 law was amnesty. I don't think anybody disputes that 1986 was amnesty.

He made another speech. We have a chart and I want to refer to it because I want to drive this point home. On March 10 of 1994, the Democratic leader in this body today, Senator Reid, said this:

In 1986, Congress gave amnesty and legal status to 3.1

million individuals not lawfully residing here. . . . Even

after Congress has passed massive legalization programs,

millions of individuals do not lawfully reside in the United

States today.

That was true in 1994, a mere 8 years after the bill passed.

He continues:

And many more continue to cheat the rules and continue to

enter unlawfully.

That is a true statement, I submit, this very day.

So did the Democratic leader have any doubt that 1986 was an amnesty law? I don't think so. In fact, everybody knows it was. That is what we defined it as.

I want to go over some of the provisions in that act and compare it to the provisions in today's act. Let's talk honestly here. There is no mystery here. I would submit, as several of the proponents of this legislation have tried to do, that you only have amnesty if you put no condition whatsoever on the person who is here illegally--and they put some conditions on those persons. Therefore, they say, Oh, no, I know we promised not to pass amnesty, but this isn't amnesty because there are conditions on the people who are here illegally. So there is no way to do this but go over it truthfully and analyze it and see what the facts are.

This was passed in 1986. What did it require, this amnesty of 1986? It required continuous unlawful residence in the United States before January 1, 1982. That is 4 years before the passage of the 1986 act-- more than 4 years, because I am sure it didn't pass January 1. So for more than 4 years you had to be here unlawfully before this act applied to you. That is a restriction, isn't it, on amnesty, under the definition of those who want to say the current act is not amnesty?

But what does the 2006 act say? Physically present and employed in the United States before January 7, 2004--employed in the U.S. since January 7, 2004; continuous employment is not required. So the key date here is that you have to have been in the country before January 7, 2004. So we are requiring under this bill that you have to live in the country illegally for 2 years before you get on this amnesty track.

Under the previous law, they required 4 years. So with regard to 1986, I think it is a tougher standard, I submit, than we have in today's standard. I don't think anybody can dispute that.

Then you have a fee. They say they are paying a fine, a big fine. Well, in the 1986 act, they say there will be a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 for each child, a $420 family cap. Now we have a $1,000 fine, but it does not apply to anybody under 21 years of age; they don't pay anything. They paid $50 per child back in 1986. They don't pay anything. I submit that is about a wash. There is a little difference in money. You had an inflation rate; what difference is $1,000 to $420?

Both of them say you should meet admissibility criteria. That means, I suppose, that you are not a felon. That is one of the main criteria. Both of them said that. Surely we are not going to be taking in felons into the country. In fact, regarding this bill to which Senator Kyl and Cornyn have offered an amendment--which apparently is being blocked by Democratic Leader Reid from ever getting a vote--they are contending that this criminality requirement is not in this bill. In fact, this bill is weaker than the 1986 bill on the question of that issue of whether you have a criminal record.

In 1986, people were worried about welfare claims and so forth, so they put in language that said you are ineligible for most public benefits for 5 years after your application. They said if you are going to come here to be a citizen of the United States, we do not want you come here to claim welfare. We are going to prohibit you from claiming welfare for at least 5 years. After that, if you get in trouble and you need help, we will help you. But you have to come here not with a desire to gain welfare benefits in our country which exceed the annual income of most people in a

lot of areas of the world. So they put that in. There is no such requirement in our bill. None of that. You can immediately go on welfare, presumably, under the legislation that is before us now.

It does require a background check and fingerprinting, but presumably that was done in 1986, also. But it focuses really on the crimes a person may have committed while they were in the United States. I don't think it has a mechanism under this act to actually go back to the country of origin--whether it is Brazil or Canada or Mexico--to see if they have a criminal history there. That is a weakness in the system. But even if it does, those systems are so immature and nonexistent, it would not be very effective, I suggest.

This requires an 18-month residency period. This one authorizes immediately a 6-year stay in the country. So they said you have to stay 18 months before you make your application for adjustment to permanent resident status. In this bill, you have to stay 6 years, so that is tougher. And you have to work. What are people here for if not to work? Spouses and children don't have to work. People are here to work. It is only a minimal work requirement--not continuous employment--and the proof level is very weak. Regardless, presumably the people who are here want to work, and they ought to be able to prove that they have.

Then you adjust to permanent resident status. That is the green card. In 1986, it required English language and civics. So, in 2006, it is English language and civics, a medical exam, payment of taxes--really? Presumably the people are paying their taxes. And Selective Service registration. So you earn your right to stay in this country by coming into the country illegally and paying your taxes. Thanks a lot.

Then the final step is, in 1986, you paid an $80 fee, $240 for a family. In this bill, it is a $1,000 fee and an application fee.

All I am saying is, if you add those up, I don't think a principled case can be made that 2006, in terms of conditions of entry and amnesty in our country, requires any more stringent requirements on them than in 1986, which Senator Reid and everybody else, including ``Black's Law Dictionary,'' have concluded was amnesty.

I say to my colleagues, I would be very dubious of someone who comes up to you and says: Now, Senator, I know you promised in your campaign repeatedly, just as President Bush did, that you would not support amnesty. Don't worry about it. This bill is not amnesty.

I am telling you, the American people are pretty fairminded, and they know perfection is not possible for any of us. But this has not been an issue which has not been discussed. Everybody has talked about the failure of the 1986 bill. As a result, we wanted to do something different. We said we were not going to do that again and we were not going to grant amnesty. I submit this bill does. I wish it were not so.

We can pass legislation that will work. I have repeatedly said we can pass legislation that has good enforcement. We can pass legislation that provides fair treatment to the millions of people who are here. They are not all going to have to be removed from our country and be arrested and prosecuted. That is not so. That is not part of any plan here. But we do need to recognize that we should not give every single benefit to someone who came illegally that we give to those who follow the law and come legally.

Senator Leahy, who says this bill is not amnesty, even admits this is amnesty in 1986. He says:

Opponents of a fair comprehensive approach are quick to

claim that anything but the most punitive provisions are

amnesty.

I am not claiming that.

They are wrong. We had an amnesty bill. President Reagan

signed an amnesty bill in 1986.

I suppose he voted for it.

This is not an amnesty bill. Our bill is more properly

called what it is, a smart, tough bill. The amnesty bill was

signed by President Reagan in 1986, and this is different.

But it is not different. Fundamentally, it is the same thing. I submit that is indisputable, and that is why we have a difficulty here. Some of those masters of the universe, sitting up in those glass towers who write editorials, and the Chamber of Commerce, they don't understand what it is like to campaign for office, look your voters in the eye, and discuss directly with them the issues facing our country, and to make commitments to them about what you are going to do once you get elected. They can redefine the meaning of words and think that is just fine. They can just say whatever they want to and then write their editorials. But they don't have to answer to the people they looked in the eye and directly told they would not support amnesty.

In fact, the President, despite his drive to fix immigration and to enhance the flow of immigration into our country, has said a direct path to citizenship--by Scott McClellan, just less than 2 weeks ago. Scott McClellan said a direct path to citizenship and amnesty are two things they don't favor.

Why is this important? After 1986, we ended up with a big problem. Things were not working well in our country. So 6 years after this happened, in 1992, we did an evaluation by an independent commission of that part of the act which dealt with agricultural workers as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. That was the name of it, the ``Immigration Reform and Control Act.'' We told American voters--or those in the Congress at that time did--that we are going to control the immigration system.

The congressionally created Commission on Agricultural Workers issued a report to Congress that studied the effects of the 1986 agricultural amnesty on the agricultural industry. They did a study on it because Congress wanted to find out what had really happened with regard to that legislation they had passed. One of the first things the Commission acknowledged was that the number of workers given amnesty under the bill had been severely underestimated. They said this:

The SAW program legalized many more farm workers than

expected. It appears that the number of undocumented workers

who had worked in seasonal agricultural services prior to the

Immigration Reform and Control Act was generally

underestimated.

That is page 1 and 2 of their report, the executive summary.

What else did the Commission find? Did it tell us that the 1986 amnesty of 3 million farm workers solved our agricultural labor problems? Was that the fix that people thought it would be? How did it work?

No, their answer was this:

Six years after the IRCA was signed into law, the problems

within the system of agricultural labor continue to exist. In

most areas, an increasing number of newly arriving,

unauthorized [illegal] workers compete for available jobs,

reducing the number of work hours available to all harvest

workers and contributing to lower annual earnings.

That is page 1 of the Report of the Commission of Agricultural Workers, executive summary.

What did the Commission recommend that Congress do? What did they recommend, this independent, bipartisan Commission? Did the Commission recommend that we pass a second legalization program such as the one for agricultural jobs that has been made a part of this bill, offered in committee and is now part of the committee bill that is on the floor? Did they recommend that as a second program to solve the illegal alien agricultural workforce dilemma that was still in existence in 1992, 6 years after the amnesty that was supposed to end all amnesties occurred?

No, the Commission concluded just the opposite. They found:

The worker-specific and industry-specific legalization

programs as contained in the Immigration Reform and Control

Act should not be the basis for future immigration policy.

That is page 6 of their report.

What did the Commission suggest that Congress should do? They concluded that the only way to have a structured and stable agricultural market was to increase enforcement of our immigration laws, including employer sanctions, and to reduce illegal immigration.

You talk to anybody on the street, and they will tell you the same thing. You talk to Americans. Overwhelmingly, 80 percent believe we are not enforcing the laws effectively on our borders, and any legalization today without an effective enforcement program in the future will bring us back to an amnesty situation just like we face now, just like they faced in 1986.

The Commission said this:

Illegal immigration must be curtailed. This should be

accomplished with more effective border controls, better

internal apprehension mechanisms, and enhanced enforcement of

employer sanctions. The U.S. Government should also develop a

better employment eligibility and identification system.

This was 1993, 13 years ago. What has been done about it? Let me repeat that. We need to establish a:

. . . better employment eligibility and identification

system, including a fraud-proof work authorization document

for all persons legally authorized to work in the United

States so that employer sanctions can more effectively deter

the employment of unauthorized workers.

What a commonsense statement that is. Wasn't that what they promised back in 1986 when we were going to have an amnesty to end all amnesties? Remember that they said this would be a one-time amnesty and we were going to fix the enforcement system and therefore the American people would go with us on that. We are going to do this one-time fix and be generous to those who violated our laws. But trust us, we are going to fix the enforcement system in the future. That is what happened.

We have known that for 14 years--that the key to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration includes more border enforcement, more interior enforcement, and a foolproof worksite verification system. Still, we are not prepared to do that. We are told we should do the same thing we did in 1986 on a much larger scale.

I note that in 1986, we estimated there were 1 million people here who would claim amnesty. That is what people were told when the bill passed. After the bill passed, how many showed up? Three-point-one million people, three times as many.

I don't know where they are saying 12 million people, and that is how many will be given amnesty now, not 1 million. They are saying there will be 11 million and that those would all be given a direct path to citizenship.

Let me point this out. When you adjust to permanent resident status, you get a green card. You are able to stay here permanently, as long as you live here, and after a period of time--5 years--you can make application and you become a citizen. If you haven't been convicted of a felony in the meantime, presumably if you don't pay your taxes and don't get caught for it or don't get convicted of it, you can still do so. Presumably you are drawing welfare or Medicare benefits and those things, you can still make application.

We added up the years. Maybe about 11 years in this process, 10 years, maybe, in the 1986 act, and about 11 years in process. They are saying it takes 11 years for you to become a citizen. That is what it took for anyone who came here in the first amnesty and became a permanent resident. They didn't get to become a citizen the next day; they had to go through the same process as this amnesty requires.

Let me explain why 1986 was a failure and why we can have every expectation that 2006 will be a failure. I am going to be frank with our Members. I don't believe this is an extreme statement. I am prepared to defend it. I believe everyone here who is honest about it will admit it.

In 1986, we passed amnesty, and it became law as soon as that bill was signed. Those people were eligible to be made legal immediately in our country and placed on a track to citizenship that day--the day the bill was signed. What did we have about enforcement? We had a promise that we were going to enforce the law in the future. We are going to fix this border, and we are going to have workplace enforcement.

That was a mere promise. It never happened because I don't think any President wanted it to happen. We went back to the problem when President Carter was here, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, and this President Bush. None of them have demonstrated that they actually intend to enforce our border laws.

I used to be a Federal prosecutor. I used to deal with law enforcement issues. I actually prosecuted one day--I think when I was an assistant U.S. attorney--an immigration case, a stowaway on a ship. A bunch of them stowed away on a ship. I know a little bit about it.

But those actions which are necessary to make the legal system work were never taken by our Chief Executives. We in Congress can study the problem at the border, we can see what those problems are, and then we can pass a law to try to fix it. We can say we want more border patrol, we want more fencing, we want more UAVs, a virtual fence. We can pass those things, but unless the executive branch really wants it to succeed, then--even then, we may not get the thing to work.

The truth is, they should be coming to us. President Bush comes to us and says what he needs to win the war in Iraq, and we give it to him. If he came to this Congress--I hate to say it because I think he is a great President and a great person, and I support him on so many things. But he has never come to our Congress and said: Congress, this border is out of control; I need A, B, C, and D, and I will get it under control. So now he wants us to grant blanket amnesty to 11 million people, and after you do that: Trust me, I will get the border under control. That is a sad fact. Securing the border is the President's responsibility.

What about Congress? We were in committee and we were debating the bill. I offered an amendment to add 10,000 detention beds for the Border Patrol. I do not know how many they need. I think that is not enough. We are at 1.1 people coming into our country illegally every year. The number of people other than Mexicans who really need to be detained, sometimes for an extended period of time, has surged. We need the detention spaces to make the system work. Do you know what they all said, Democrats and Republicans? Fine. We accept that amendment. Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment to speed up the hiring of new Border Patrol agents. They accepted that. Then it hit me. All who have been in this body for some time know the difference between authorization and spending the money, appropriations. In this body, people authorize all the time.

I just left one of the finest groups of people you would every want to meet outside--national forensic science leaders from around the country. They came to see me because I supported a bill, and we passed it, the Paul Coverdell forensic sciences bill. It was to add $100 million to help jump-start forensic sciences in America. Do you think that $100 million was ever appropriated? Certainly not. I think we may have gotten to $20 million one year. Because you authorize money to be spent for forensic sciences or for immigration enforcement does not mean that it is ever going to get spent. It has to go through the appropriations process. Maybe they want to spend it on a project back home. Maybe they decided we need more money for Katrina, health issues, education, whatever. At the end of the day, you don't get the money. So we have at least two major problems: One, will it ever be appropriated and two, if the money is appropriated, will the President actually use it effectively?

I admit that this Congress authorized a budget that set forth a projected expenditure for immigration enforcement that is larger than the President requested, but it remains to be seen if it will ever be funded.

Those are the things which cause us great concern. So I would challenge quite directly the people who support this bill and say this is going to be different than 1986 to come down on the floor of this Senate, look at their colleagues and people who may be watching back home directly in the eye, and assure them that we are going to have the money and we are going to have the will to enforce this legislation.

I was on a radio talk show earlier today. I was asked about enforcement actions that were taken against certain big businesses recently. They all called their Congressmen and complained, and the enforcement sort of went away. You have heard those stories. Do we have the will to actually make this happen? I think we could. I am not hopeless about this. I think we could, but I don't get the sense that we are there yet.

I have compared it to leaping across a 10-foot chasm but leaping only 8 feet, and like the Coyote and the Roadrunner, you fall to the bottom of the pit. That is where we are. We have some things in this bill which make enforcement much more likely to occur, but it does not all get there yet. We need to do a number of things.

For example, employment: The workplace law and provisions in the bill are

not effective and do not cover all employees of an employer. It is a critical step. You have heard it said that this bill has fencing in it. It is the most minimal amount of fencing; it is nothing like a legitimate fencing.

I wish to say this: Good fences make good neighbors. There is nothing wrong with a fence. There is nothing in the Scripture that says you can't build a fence. You have thousands of people coming across the border in a given area, and you have just a few Border Patrol officers, and they are trying to do their duty every day. And you say it is somehow offensive or improper or against the Lord's will to build a fence to try to contain it so you can maximize the capabilities of the limited number of Border Patrol agents who are out there putting their lives at risk this very day to try to enforce these laws? They arrest 1.1 million a year. What possible objection could we have to legitimate fencing?

They built one in San Diego; it was an unqualified success. They said it could be breached. I am told the one in San Diego has never been breached. What happened on both sides of the fence, where lawlessness, crime, gangs, and drugs were disrupting entire neighborhoods? Those neighborhoods have been restored. They have come back strong. They are prospering. The property values are up as a result of bringing some lawfulness to a lawless area.

Let me say this. Why is it that there has been such an aversion to fences? I will tell you why. Because those who want to have open borders, who have no desire to see the laws enforced, know, first of all, that it will work; and second of all, they have used it to twist the argument and to say that anybody who favors a fence wants no immigration, they want to stop all immigration, they just want to build a fence around America--totally mischaracterizing the need for a barrier on our borders. That is not fair. That is wrong.

The amendment I offered would have increased substantially the number of border-crossing points, so lawful people could come back and forth far easier and at less expense with a biometric card. They could enter and exit the country with it. This could work. We can make this work. We need more legal exit and entry points, and we need to block the illegal entry points. If we do that and we send a message throughout the world that the border is now closed and no longer open to those who want to come illegally, I think we will have a lot less people wandering off in the desert, being abused by those who transport them, and putting their lives at risk and many of them dying.

That is what you need to do. I am prepared to support any legislation that would increase legal immigration. When we end illegal immigration, we are going to need to increase the opportunity for people in numbers to come here lawfully, and we need to increase the exit and entry points.

Another thing. I mentioned this biometric card and entering and exiting the country. Let me tell you why some of us are concerned about promises in the future.

We passed, 10 years ago, the US-VISIT program. It is supposed to do just what I said. A person comes to this country legally, comes with a card. It is a computer-read card, and the person is then approved for entry. They need a biometric identifier, a fingerprint, and it can read that. You are allowed to come in. It also calculates when you leave, so people who do not leave can be identified and removed because they didn't comply with the law.

Well, 10 years after passing that bill, we still don't have that system up and running. They tell us that this summer, we will have some pilot program which can actually identify those when they exit in certain border places, which, of course, means it is no system at all.

We authorized 10 years ago a perfectly logical, sensible system to monitor the legal entry of people into our country, monitor their exit. What we have learned, particularly after September 11, is that many of the terrorists were overstays. They came lawfully, but they did not exit on time.

We need additional bed space. This is so basic. Not an unlimited number of beds, but we need more. What is happening is, people come across the border, and particularly those other-than-Mexicans cannot be readily taken back across the border and dumped if they are from Brazil, Russia, or China. What do we do with these people? They need to be held and they need to be transported back. We are doing that, to some degree.

But what happens when we do not have the bed space? This is what happens. I read a newspaper article in the committee a couple of months ago on this very subject. People come in from foreign countries. They come into the border, enter illegally, head off across the desert, they see a border patrol officer and they are told to go up to the border patrol officer and turn themselves in.

Why would they do that? The border patrol officer puts them in the van or his vehicle and he takes them another 100 miles inside the border to the Customs and Border Protection Office and they are taken before an administrative officer. What does the administrative officer do? He does not have any beds or place to put them, so he says we will have a hearing on whether you are legally here. We will have a hearing and we will set it in 30 days. I will release you on bail; come back in 30 days.

How many do you think come back? The newspaper reporter said at the place he examined, 95 percent did not show up. So all we have done is send the border patrol agents out to pick them up and transport people into the country illegally. That does not make sense. We have to have a certain amount of detention space.

We have an insufficient number of Border Patrol agents. There are just not enough. We need to get to that tipping point where people realize it is not going to work if they try to enter illegally. We added some Border Patrol agents in committee, but they say it takes years to hire them. That is why we passed, 5 years ago, legislation to add increased numbers of Border Patrol agents. Senator Kyl got that through. Being on the Arizona border, he knew the problem. What happened? They still have just now been hired 5 years later. They say it is hard to hire enough people.

I was reading recently a book on World War I. When World War I started, we had 130,000 people in our Army, and 18 months later we had 4 million people in uniform, 2 million of them in France. To say we cannot add 10,000 trained Border Patrol agents and get them trained in a prompt period of time is not credible. There has been a lack of will to see this occur. Who is to say if we pass this legislation we will have a renewed will in the future? The American people have a right.

We had a hearing on Monday in the Judiciary Committee. It dealt with the problem of the appeals being filed by people who object to being returned to their country. Since 2001, 4 years, we have had a 600- percent increase in appeals to the Federal court, court of appeals. You can legitimately appeal a determination you are in the country illegally, but a sixfold increase in 4 years? What has that resulted in? It has resulted in a 27-month delay before your case is heard.

What does this tell an immigration lawyer who is meeting with a person who has been apprehended and who has an appeal pending about being deported and the guy or the woman does not want to leave the country and says, if you appeal, even if it is frivolous, it will be 27 months before anyone ever reads it or makes a decision. That is why we are having this surge. That system is broken.

Senator Specter, Judiciary Committee chairman, had legislation in his bill in the Judiciary Committee to help fix it--not completely, I didn't think--that made a substantial step toward fixing this broken system. They offered an amendment in committee to strip that language and it passed. So not only did we not improve the bill and have not improved the bill with regard to fixing the broken system, but we stripped language that would have made a good step forward in fixing.

What does that say about the intent of the Members of this Congress to actually see the immigration law be enforced?

I repeat once again, our nation is a nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration. We have been enriched by immigration. But our Nation is a sovereign nation and it has a right to decide how many people come and what kind of skill sets they bring. Once it makes that decision, it should create a

legal system that will make sure that occurs. We have not done that.

As a result, in 1986 we provided amnesty, which no one disputes. Not Senator Leahy, not Senator Reid. We gave amnesty in 1986, thinking we could fix it once and for all. And 20 years later we end up with not 3 million people here illegally but at least 11 million people here illegally and no enforcement mechanism close to being in place that would actually work. I encourage my colleagues to think carefully. We can fix our border enforcement. We can increase the number of people who come here illegally. We can tighten up the workforce workplace very easily. We can make this system work.

As we tighten up the border, we eliminate the magnet of the workplace, we can reach that magic tipping point where all of a sudden the message is going out around the world that if you want to come to America, the border is closed. You better wait in line and file your application and come lawfully because if you come unlawfully, it won't work. Then we will have a massive flip. We will not see so many bed spaces. We may not even need as many Border Patrol agents as we have today. But that message is not out there. In fact, the opposite is out there. If we pass this bill, it will be business as usual. We should not do it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am seeking recognition, standing on the floor.

Mr. President, I asked my staff how many amendments have been filed to this bill. The number is 228 amendments; 228 amendments have been filed to this bill. If you follow the proceedings of the Senate, you know there is no way on Earth we can consider 228 amendments and actually vote on this bill by the end of this week or even by the end of next week. It is physically impossible. Decisions will have to be made, as they are made on every single piece of legislation, on which amendments will be cut, which amendments will be considered.

I have had amendments that I thought were extremely important that didn't make the cut. That is the nature of this Chamber. Sometimes we have to step back and say at some point we will have to vote on a bill if we want a bill passed.

Our concern on this side of the aisle is that if we get mired down in the amendment process, we have a fundamental problem. What we are witnessing here you cannot analogize to a baseball game because in a baseball game, there is no clock. In the Senate, there is a clock, not just by day but by week. And at the end of this week, we are scheduled to go on recess.

For that reason, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, filed a cloture motion yesterday. Under the Senate rules, that means that tomorrow morning at about 10 o'clock, we will vote as to whether we want to close off debate, close off the amendment number at 228, or let more amendments pile on.

What is the likelihood that we would consider and pass this bill this week if we allow all amendments to be filed that each Member wishes? There is no chance whatsoever.

What Senator Reid believes and I share is that we have a historic opportunity. We may never get this chance again. The last time we had any serious debate about immigration reform was more than a decade ago. Honestly, the situation has gotten worse in this country ever since. Now we have a chance. We have a chance because on a bipartisan basis, the Senate Judiciary Committee produced a bill. It is not perfect, but it is a good bill, strongly supported by Senator Kennedy on our side and Senator McCain on the other side, supported by Republicans and Democrats who brought it out of the committee 12 to 6.

Our fear is that if we allow this process to mire down with hundreds of amendments, the clock will run out; we will have missed our chance.

It pains me to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say there is no way we can vote for cloture, there is no way we can vote to close down the amendments that are going to be filed here. We have to stand together as a party. I think there is more at stake. I think this bill, this bipartisan bill, is evidence that both parties can come together and must come together if we are going to solve an intractable problem, such as the problem of immigration reform.

America is not going to remember whether we considered 1 amendment, 5 amendments, 10 amendments or 20 amendments. America will not remember whether Senator Kyl's amendment was called first or fifth in order. But America will remember with this vote tomorrow who was on the right side of history, who was on that side of history that said we have to move forward to reconcile a serious challenge in this Nation.

The Senator from Kansas talks about security. I am happy to report to him that every bill under consideration dealing with immigration has strong security provisions. There is a provision offered by Senator Frist to make our borders stronger. Virtually the same provision is being offered on the Democratic side of the aisle in a bipartisan bill. There is no argument about enforcement, strengthening our borders, knowing who is here, where they work, where they live, and what they do. If we are going to be a secure nation, that is essential.

There is no argument about employer enforcement. It has to be part of an enforcement system.

Where we do have differences of opinion, of course, is what to do with 11 or 12 million people already here. We think we have struck the right balance, giving people an opportunity over an 11-year period of time to earn their way to citizenship. If they work hard, if they have a job, if they pay their taxes, if they have had a criminal background check, if they are learning English, if they know about our Nation's history and its civics, if the people who are asking for this clearly are good citizens, people of good moral virtue, those are the ones we want as part of our Nation.

I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say unless we can call one amendment or five amendments before 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, we would as soon see this process stop. That would be unfortunate. Voting for cloture doesn't mean there is an end to amendments. It means there is a limited time for those amendments pending, some 30 hours. We still have time to debate and amend this bill, and we will. But Senator Reid and I share in the belief that we need a process that brings this to a conclusion. There is no way we can deal with 228 amendments and have this bill completed this week. That is why we moved forward on this effort to try to file cloture on a bipartisan basis and move this bill to final passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his leadership on this issue. I do not know if he saw the program ``Frontline'' recently, but it talked about the methamphetamine scourge that is affecting the United States and the fact that now more of this illicit drug is coming in from Mexico. It is a serious, serious problem. I congratulate him for addressing this problem.

I hope he understands that when we offered to call his amendment, asked for unanimous consent to call his amendment and adopt his amendment, there was objection on his side of the aisle. We stand ready at this moment to call your amendment for a vote and to adopt it immediately. I think it is a very important amendment, and it is one of those that was on the agreed list and, unfortunately, a Member on your side objected to it. So I hope we can get to it soon. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this amendment.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question or comment.

I will just say that we believe the underlying bill, the Specter substitute bill, has very strong language to make it clear we do not want anyone in the United States associated with terrorism. We certainly do not want anyone in the United States associated with terrorism to reach legal status. That is reprehensible.

So I am prepared to offer to work with the Senator from Colorado on his amendment to make sure we have included that category with which he is most concerned. I thank him for his leadership.

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

Mr. President, over the last hour or two on the floor of the Senate there has been a procedural move by some Senators on the other side of the aisle which reduces the likelihood of a compromise on the immigration bill. I sincerely hope it doesn't end this effort because I think there are people of good faith on both sides of the aisle still trying to find a way to pass this important piece of legislation.

I want to give special credit on the Republican side of the aisle to Senator Martinez, who I believe is working as hard as any person can to find the right language that preserves the basic principles of the Specter substitute, the bipartisan bill which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. I hope he is successful. But there is a deadline looming and that deadline is a vote tomorrow morning on a motion for cloture.

Cloture is a procedure in the Senate which closes down debate and says we will limit the number of amendments that may be considered in the 30 hours after cloture is voted favorably. I am hoping that before tomorrow morning people of good will, trying to find a way to break this deadlock, will be able to do so. But the procedural effort by Senator Kyl a few minutes ago is going to make that a little more difficult. I still think we can achieve that goal.

I also want to address a couple of comments made by the junior Senator from Arizona on the floor concerning the history of this bill and the process that led to this day. This last Sunday I was on a talk show, ``Face The Nation,'' with Chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the chairman of

the House Judiciary Committee. He is the author of the House immigration bill which passed in December. That bill includes very serious criminal penalties for those who are living in the United States undocumented, who may number as many as 11 or 12 million people. It also includes very serious criminal penalties for those who would help them reside in the United States if they are undocumented.

The charge under the Sensenbrenner bill is aggravated felony. It is the same charge leveled at someone accused of being a rapist. It is an extremely serious criminal charge, and the Sensenbrenner bill which passed the House includes this aggravated felony charge.

Most people across America believe the House bill has gone way too far in charging so many people who are in the United States with such a serious crime. On the floor it has been said by the Senator from Arizona that there was an effort to reduce that penalty to a misdemeanor on the floor of the House and that unfortunately the Democrats did not support that effort. It is true that 190 Democrats did not support that effort because they do not favor a criminal penalty for those who are here in an undocumented status. So ultimately the majority party in the House, the Republican Party, prevailed and the bill came to us with an aggravated felony as a charge against those who are here undocumented and those who help them.

What it means in the real world is that people of faith who are volunteers at soup kitchens or shelters for homeless people and those who are victims of domestic violence, volunteers who help children of the undocumented, tutoring them for classes, helping them in their lives, coaching their teams, nurses who provide volunteer assistance at clinics that treat the undocumented in the city of Chicago and around the United States, would be subject to a felony charge under the Sensenbrenner bill.

Senator Specter came to the Senate Judiciary Committee and offered an alternative. His alternative reduced the criminal charge to a misdemeanor. We brought that up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and I am glad that on a bipartisan basis we removed the criminal penalty that was in the original bill. I think that was a positive step forward.

The Senator from Arizona, who has raised this question, did not support our efforts to remove criminalization from the Specter bill, but the bill as it comes to the floor, thankfully, does not include criminalization. I hope that is the end of that issue as to whether we are going to charge Good Samaritans with a misdemeanor or a felony for helping needy people across America. I hope it is not revived as one of the concepts in this immigration reform.

The junior Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, also raised questions about whether people who were guilty of a crime should be allowed to become legal in America or citizens in America. We tried to be very express in our statement in the bill, the Specter substitute, which was drafted originally by Senators McCain and Kennedy on a bipartisan basis, that if you are guilty of a crime we don't want you as an American. We understand you have done something in your life which disqualifies you from what we are going to offer you, a long and serious opportunity to find a pathway to legalization and citizenship.

Under the Judiciary Committee bill, the Specter bill as reported, the following is a partial list of crimes that make an individual ineligible for legalization. I read this list because there have been suggestions on the floor by the Senator from Arizona that we are not serious about this. Let me tell you expressly the crimes that would disqualify you from ever becoming a legal resident of America or a citizen under this bill: Crimes of moral turpitude such as aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated DUI, fraud, larceny, forgery; controlled substances offenses--sale, possession, distribution of drugs and drug trafficking; theft offenses, including shoplifting; public nuisances; multiple criminal convictions. Any alien convicted of two or more offenses, regardless of whether the offense arose from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to confinement were 5 years or more, 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, possession of explosives, child pornography, attempts or conspiracies to commit most of these offenses--and there are some security-related crimes that make a person ineligible as well, espionage or sabotage--engaging in terrorist activity.

The reason I make special note of that is there have been references several times on the floor by the Senator from Arizona to Mohamed Atta, the fact he was a terrorist, a man who was responsible in large part for the tragedy of 9/11. Make no mistake, that bill would not give him an opportunity to become a citizen of the United States. Why in the world would we ever consider that? I am sure the Senators from both sides of the aisle who supported the bill would never, ever consider that possibility.

Those who were associated with terrorist activities, representatives 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, and those who are members in a totalitarian party.

We have cast the net far and wide to disqualify people from even being considered for legal status in this country if they have been guilty of this type of conduct.

So though the Senator from Arizona and I may disagree on some other aspects of the bill, when it comes to criminal activity I think we are in agreement. Criminal activity is going to disqualify you from being considered for legalization in the United States. That is a tough standard, but it is the right standard and I hope we can make it clear during the course of this debate that we believe it is important to maintain in the bill and that the amendment of Senator Kyl does not add anything, really, remarkably, to this criminal disqualification.

The bill which passed out of committee, of course, sets up several things. First, it sets up an enforcement mechanism which is substantial, much like the amendment offered by Senator Sessions of Alabama in the committee. It adds 12,000 new agents to our Border Patrol, adds 1,000 investigators a year for the next 5 years--that was Senator Specter's amendment; new security perimeter, under Senator Specter, virtual fence, tightened controls, exit/entry security system at all land borders and airports, construction of barriers for vehicles and mandating new roads where needed, fences, checkpoints, ports of entry, increased resources for transporting aliens, new criminal penalties for tunnels--that was a recommendation of Senators Feinstein and Kyl--new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers, by Senator Sessions--all of these amendments accepted, included in the bill in the enforcement section--new criminal penalties for money laundering offered by Senator Sessions, accepted as part of this bipartisan bill.

There is an amendment on a comprehensive surveillance plan by Senator Specter; and also, I should say, expanded smuggling efforts, improved interagency cooperation on alien smuggling; increased document fraud detection; biometric identifiers; expanded detention authority; and increased detention facilities and beds.

We require the Department of Homeland Security to acquire 20 new detention facilities to accommodate at least 10,000 detainees, a suggestion by Senator Sessions which is part of this bill; expanded terrorist removal grounds; expanded aggravated felony definition; increased Federal penalties for gangs; removal of those who have failed to depart; increased criminal sentences for repeat illegal entrants; new removal grounds; passport fraud and fraud offenses as a ground for removal; removal of criminals prior to release; new authority for State and local police to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer aliens to Federal custody; immigration status in the NCIC database now becomes an element that we require; we prohibit time limits on background collection; impose criminal penalties for aid for the

undocumented; assistance to States to help prosecute and imprison undocumented criminal aliens; stronger employment verification procedures; penalties for employers who hire undocumented aliens are increased; additional worksite enforcement and fraud detection agents.

We add 10,000 new worksite enforcement agents, 2,000 every year for the next 5 years, and 5,000 new fraud detection agents, 1,000 each year for the next 5 years.

I read this lengthy list so the Record would be clear that we have made serious efforts on a bipartisan basis to accept amendments even from those Senators who oppose the underlying bill so there is no question that we will have strong enforcement standards to secure our Nation's borders, and to also say those employers who ignore the law will be penalized and will be investigated so that they understand we are serious.

The reason, of course, I bring this up is the suggestion earlier that this bill would not strengthen our borders. I think it does. I think it makes a genuine effort on a bipartisan basis to deal with our broken borders.

It also says, however, that once in the United States, for the undocumented status we will give you a chance, a chance to work your way to citizenship. It is a long journey. It has many serious requirements as you move toward that goal, and many people won't make it. Some will fail in the effort. But if you want to become legal in the United States of America, you need a clean criminal record. And I spelled out here the crimes that would clearly disqualify you.

You must show you have been employed here since January of 2004. You must remain continuously employed, pay approximately $2,000 in fines and fees, pass a security background check, pass a medical exam, learn English, learn U.S. history, pay all your U.S. back taxes, and then if you have met all nine requirements, you go to the back of the line. It is your turn after all of those who have applied through the legal processes which are currently available.

So those who argue this bill is amnesty and it is automatic, that it is a free ticket to citizenship overlook the obvious. These are stringent requirements. Many people will never meet them. Some will give up. But those who are determined to become American citizens and a part of our country, determined to be legal in their residency, who work hard and achieve it, if they keep their eye on the goal--and the goal is after 11 years--will finally see that day when they can be sworn in as a citizen of the United States.

Tomorrow morning we are facing a very serious vote on cloture. There have been a lot of arguments made on the floor as to whether the right amendments have been called. We tried to bring additional amendments to the floor in the last couple of days, unsuccessfully. There have been disagreements about which amendments should be called and in what order.

I don't think history is going to long note or remember what order the amendments were that were called before this bill is up for cloture. If the cloture vote fails tomorrow, if 60 Senators don't step forward to vote for it, sadly that could be the end of immigration reform for the entire year.

It is a very busy calendar we have in the Senate. It deals with things that are of great urgency. When we return after the Easter recess, we will have a supplemental appropriations bill for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very high priority. The Defense authorization bill will follow; then a string of appropriations bills that need to be enacted before we take our 4th of July break.

There is a lot to be done. I am hoping we can get it all done. But the thought that we can carve out another week or two to return to immigration at a later date may be fanciful. I am not sure we can achieve that. This is the moment.

Tomorrow many Senators will come to the floor and decide whether they will be part of history, whether they will cast a vote for cloture which brings to the floor a definite deadline and timetable for debating this comprehensive immigration reform.

It has been decades since we took this up seriously. We have spent a lot of time. We have a strong bipartisan bill. We have a bill that is supported by business and labor groups across America, including many religious groups that have come forward and encouraged us to do this in the name of humanity and of American values.

Tomorrow, with this cloture vote we will have a chance to be on the Record for time immemorial as to where we stand on this issue.

Some have already decided to oppose this bill. They are going to, postcloture. I understand that. But for those who think they can vote against cloture and argue they were for this bill, they may have a tough time describing that to the people back home.

I think about those I met this last week. I mentioned it earlier on the floor. The students in the Catholic high school in Chicago are following this debate every single day. They know their future is at stake. These are children who came to the United States at an early age because their parents decided to come here. They have lived here their entire lives. They have gone to school here, lived in the neighborhoods of America, and some have been extraordinary successes against great odds. Their life's dream is the same dream those children have, to be a part of America's future and do something good in their lives. They will be denied that opportunity if the DREAM Act, which is part of this bill, does not pass. They will be illegal and undocumented. If the legal system catches up with them, it will tell them to return to a country they cannot even remember. If it doesn't catch up to them, they will continue to reside in the United States in undocumented and illegal status, unable to get a driver's license in many States, unable to be approved to be teachers and licensed to contribute to America, unable to secure the important jobs that can make a difference in our future. Their fate is tied to this bill.

Those who vote against cloture tomorrow have basically said we don't need them; that we don't need to pass the DREAM Act; that these children and their fate and their future is none of our business. I think it is.

I think these young people, some of whom I was with this last Saturday, are amazing. They have overcome the odds. They want to contribute, have the chance every kid in America wants, to prove themselves and have an opportunity to show they are worthy of American citizenship. Why do we turn them down? Wouldn't we want to make certain they have that chance? A vote for cloture tomorrow is going to give them that chance. A vote against cloture will not.

There are many who will argue that they are against this bill. I hope other amendments will be offered.

Senator Kennedy came to the floor earlier and said if you don't like this bill, vote for cloture. Close down the amendments that can be offered, limit the amount of debate and then vote against the bill, if that is your wish. But give us a chance.

Tomorrow morning we will be asking for that chance from 60 Members of the Senate which is necessary for that cloture motion to prevail.

Senator Kyl suggested that the only way to move forward to a vote on this comprehensive package and the amendments is if his amendment is voted on first. Senator Kyl was in discussion with me this morning and acknowledged that we need to sit down and make some important changes to the amendment which is presently before us. There are some parts that are vague and uncertain. Lives hang in the balance.

I tried to make it clear to Senator Kyl there are ways he can use his own language that he used in previous bills and tighten up the language in his bill so there is no uncertainty and less vagueness. I am prepared to sit down with him and the staff. I tried to reach him during the course of the day. I know he is very busy. If he wants to work to bring the language together on this amendment, I want to work with him and hope we can find a way to strike some good language that might be supported on both sides of the aisle.

I see the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor. I will not miss this opportunity to say while I have the floor that I respect him very much for what he has done in the committee, the hard work in committee which I am proud to be part of. I thank him for his hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. We have had a rocky

period of time during the amendment phase--not nearly as many amendments as I would have liked to have seen called. But I hope after the cloture vote tomorrow we can roll up our sleeves in the remaining period of time and do the right thing, pass the Specter substitute with some key amendments and show that this Senate is dedicated to true, comprehensive immigration reform.

I yield the floor.

We have adopted three.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a historic event that occurred on Monday. The National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown elected 17 pre-Negro Leagues and Negro Leagues baseball players and executives to the National Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2006.

Many of baseball's most noted stars of the past century got their beginnings in the Negro Leagues. Greats such as Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Willie Mays, Satchel Paige, and, of course, Jackie Robinson brought their fast-paced and highly competitive brand of Negro Leagues baseball eventually to the Major Leagues. In fact, there are a lot of people who think that much of the fast-paced style of baseball today is owing to the influence of the Negro League's brand of baseball.

Before these greats of the game were given the opportunity to showcase their skills at the Major League level, many African-American ballplayers with equal skill were never allowed to share the same field as their White counterparts. Instead, such players played from the 1920s to the 1960s in over 30 communities located throughout the United States on teams in one of six Negro Baseball Leagues, including Kansas City and St. Louis in my home State of Missouri.

The history of this is interesting. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, African Americans began to play on military baseball teams, college teams, company teams. The teams were integrated in those days. Many African Americans eventually found their way onto professional teams with White players. But racism and Jim Crow laws drove the African-American players from their integrated teams in the early 1900s, forcing them to form their own ``barnstorming'' teams which would travel around the country playing anyone willing to challenge them.

But then, in 1920, the Negro National League, which was the first of the Negro Baseball Leagues, was formed under the guidance of Andrew ``Rube'' Foster--a former player, manager, and owner of the Chicago American Giants--and was formed at a meeting held at the Paseo YMCA in Kansas City, MO. Soon after the Negro National League was formed, rival leagues formed in Eastern and Southern States and brought the thrills and the innovative play of the Negro Leagues to major urban centers and rural countrysides throughout the United States, Canada, and Latin America.

For more than 40 years, the Negro Leagues maintained a high level of professional skill and became centerpieces for economic development in their communities. The Negro Leagues constituted the third biggest Black owned and run business in the country in those days. They brought jobs and economic activity to many of the cities around the United States. They played in front of crowds of 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000, and 50,000 people. And those crowds were integrated. White and Black fans came to watch the Negro Leagues, and they sat together.

In 1945, Major League Baseball's Brooklyn Dodgers recruited Jackie Robinson from the Kansas City Monarchs, which, of course, made Jackie the first African American in the modern era to play on a Major League roster. That historic event led to the integration of the Major Leagues and ironically prompted the decline of the Negro Leagues because, of course, Major League teams began to recruit and sign the best African- American ballplayers.

On Monday of this week, the National Baseball Hall of Fame took a first step in righting a historic wrong when it recognized the distinguished careers of 17 pre-Negro League ballplayers and executives, people who were never given the opportunity to compete in Major League Baseball with their White counterparts. Oh, they often played them, and very often, in barnstorming games or exhibition-type matches, the Negro League players and teams would play the best players of the Major Leagues, and those must have been great baseball games to see.

But the Hall of Fame elected those 17 players and executives to the National Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2006. The players elected on Monday were Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Biz Mackey, Effa Manley--the first woman

elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, and more on that in just a minute--Joe Mandez, Alex Popez Cum Posey, Louis Santop, Mule Suttles, Ben Taylor, Cristobal Torriente, Sol White, J.L. Wilkinson, and Jud Wilkinson. These legends, not just of the Negro Leagues but of our national pastime, will now join the less than 1 percent of all professional baseball players who have been honored with induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and they will be inducted on July 30, 2006.

One of the more historic moments of Monday's selection was the selection of Effa Manley, who was the co-owner of the Newark Eagles. She became the first woman ever elected to the Hall of Fame. In addition to her efforts in baseball, she played an active role in the civil rights movement and promoted such causes as Anti-Lynching Day at Ruppert Stadium, which was the home of the Newark Eagles.

Among those elected, several have ties to my home State of Missouri, and it will surprise no one in the Senate that I decided to feature them in my remarks.

Willard Brown was an outfielder with the Kansas City Monarchs who often led the Negro American League in home runs and batting average. He was considered by many to be the Negro American League's version of the great Josh Gibson.

Andy Cooper was a pitcher with the Detroit Stars and Kansas City Monarchs who had a knack for changing the speed of his pitches. He is among the top ten leaders in career wins, strikeouts, shutouts, and winning percentage in Negro Leagues history. Later in his career he became the manager of the Kansas City Monarchs, leading them to three pennants.

Jose Mendez was a right handed pitcher for the Cuban Stars, All Nations, and Kansas City Monarchs who had a career winning percentage just under .700 in the Negro National League. He managed the Kansas City Monarchs to successive pennants from 1923-1925.

Mule Suttles was a first baseman and outfielder for the St. Louis Stars, Chicago American Giants, Birmingham Black Barons and the Newark Eagles. He was one of the most powerful home run hitters in the Negro Leagues, ranking third all-time among Negro Leaguers in home runs and RBIs.

Cristobal Torriente was a five-tool outfielder with a lifetime batting average over .330 primarily with the Cuban Stars and Chicago American Giants. For those who don't know what a five-tool outfielder is it means he could hit for average, hit for power, run with speed, field with above average skill and display enough arm strength to throw out the fastest players at home plate. He is one of the all-time offensive leaders in Negro Leagues history, ranking in the top 20 all- time in home runs, RBIs and total bases. The record books would have been different had these players been allowed to play in Major League baseball.

J.L. Wilkinson was the owner of the Kansas City Monarchs, the All Nations club and one of the first professional women's teams in the United States. He was a pioneer of night baseball, various ballpark promotions, and was the Negro National League's only white owner when it was chartered in 1920. His Kansas City Monarchs were the longest running franchise in Negro National League history and they won an unprecedented 17 pennants, and two World Series.

I congratulate all 17 players and executives elected this week, as well as their families and friends. This is an honor long overdue and is sure to lead to a great celebration this summer in Cooperstown. It will be a dramatic moment when these figures are inducted in the Hall of Fame. However, it saddens me that this summer's historic induction ceremony did not take place during the lifetime of these baseball greats. I can only wish that they were still alive today to witness baseball's long overdue recognition of their contributions on and off the field.

There is another aspect of this selection process which is disappointing and bittersweet for many of us because one of the legends of Negro Leagues did not receive the necessary votes to be elected to the Hall of Fame. That legend is John Jordan ``Buck'' O'Neil. Buck's illustrious baseball career spans seven decades and has made him a foremost authority of the game and one of its greatest ambassadors. Buck is in his 90s now, and still active, still a leader in baseball and a leader in remembering the Negro Leagues and establishing the Negro League's Baseball museum.

I would like to tell you a little about Buck O'Neil the man and Buck O'Neil the player. I had intended to introduce this Resolution earlier this week, but was so disappointed by the exclusion of Buck from those selected that I began to have second thoughts about the process for selecting this class of inductees. I had a conversation with Buck yesterday and he told me that going forward with this Resolution was important not only to recognize this historic event--I mean important in a practical way to the Negro League's baseball museum and the remberance of the Negro Leagues, and to recognize the achievement of these 17 players and executives--but because it was the right thing to do. Buck O'Neil has always been about doing the right thing. No matter what door has been slammed in his face he always picks himself up and does what is right and what is most important to him. In this case what is most important to him is his true love for the Negro Leagues, the Negro Leagues players and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, which he helped to found and which he has been so active in promoting in Kansas City.

In yesterday's Kansas City Star, columnist Joe Posnanski had this to say about the injustice that occurred to Buck O'Neil on Monday:

All his life, Buck O'Neil has had doors slammed in his

face. He played baseball when the major leagues did not allow

black players. He was a gifted manager at a time when major

league owners would not even think of having an African

American lead their teams. For more than 30 years, he told

stories about Negro Leagues players and nobody wanted to

listen. Now, after everything, he was being told that the

life he had spent in baseball was not worthy of the Hall of

Fame. It was enough to make those around him cry. But Buck

laughed. ``I'm still Buck,'' he said. ``Look at me. I've

lived a good life. I'm still living a good life. Nothing has

changed for me.''

I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of Mr. Posnanski's article printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I thought I would take a few moments of the Senate's time to talk a little bit about Buck's record. I think the Senate would agree with me it would have fully justified his induction.

Buck O'Neil the player was a first baseman and Manager for the Kansas City Monarchs from 1937 through 1955. Buck's achievements as a player include leading his team to a Negro American league title and a date with the Homestead Grays in the 1942 Negro World Series. In the series Buck hit .353 and led the Monarchs to a four game sweep of the powerhouse Homestead Grays. Buck sport a career batting average of .288, including four .300-plus seasons. He won batting titles in 1940 and 1946, hitting .345 and .353 respectively. He was named to the East- West All-Star Classic in 1942, 1943 and 1949 and barnstormed with the Satchel Paige All-Stars during the 1930s and 1940s playing countless games against the likes of the Bob Feller All-Stars. I would have given a lot to have seen one of those games.

In 1948, Buck succeeded Frank Duncan, as manager of the Monarchs, and continued to manage them until 1955. As the manager of the Monarchs, he sent more Negro league veterans to the Majors than any other manager in baseball history including Ernie Banks, Elston Howard, Connie Johnson, Satchel Paige and Sweet Lou Johnson. He lead the Monarchs to league titles in 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1953 and managed the West squad in the East-West All-Star game in 1950, 1952, 1954 and 1955. By the way, the West won all four of these contests.

In 1956, Buck was hired by the Chicago Cubs as a scout. Six years later he became the first African American to coach in the Major Leagues with the Cubs. As a scout he discovered such superstars as Lou Brock, one of my all-time favorite Cardinals, and Joe Carter. Lou called him on Monday by the way, expecting Buck would have been inducted, while everybody was waiting to see the results of the vote. In 1988, after more than 30 years with the Cubs, he returned home to Kansas City to scout for the Kansas City Royals.

Today Buck serves as chairman of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum he helped found in 1990. The work of Buck O'Neil and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum led the Hall of Fame to hold this special election of Negro Leagues and Pre-Negro Leagues players.

In fact, his work after he had retired from the game as a coach may be even more significant to the history of baseball than his exploits as a player and a manager. Nobody has done more to build that museum and to call the rest of us to remember the significance of the Negro baseball league.

It was significant on so many different levels: A triumph of the human spirit, tremendous sportsmanship, tremendously high quality of play, vitally important to the Black community of the time, and it led directly to the integration of the Major Leagues, which was the first in a series of mjor civil rights landmarks in the modern era that has led to the progress we have achieved today.

I believe there is no one who meets the criteria for induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame more than Buck. The combination of his statistics on the field as a player, his years as a scout discovering some of the best players of their generation, his years as a manager and coach, including breaking the color barrier as the first African-American coach in the Major Leagues, and his years of tireless advocacy on behalf of the Negro Leagues and its players equals a resume built for election to Cooperstown. I hope that the Baseball Hall of Fame will take appropriate action to correct this oversight.

Finally, I would like to congratulate everyone at the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, who worked so very hard for so many years to make this special election a reality. Their tireless advocacy on behalf of these baseball legends is another reason why the Senate should pass legislation that would give a national designation to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, the only public museum in the Nation that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the experiences of the players in the Negro Leagues.

I highly recommend a visit to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum for anybody who is in Kansas City. Whether you are a baseball fan or not, you will be moved by what you see there. You will be encouraged and inspired in every way by seeing how those players confronted the injustices of their times, and with great spirit and energy and joy even overcame those obstacles.

In closing, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for his assistance and his support of both the resolution which we introduced today in honor of those athletes who were elected on Monday and also S. Con. Res. 60, which is the national designation resolution. I hope the Senate will swiftly pass our resolution to honor these future Hall of Famers--I guess they are Hall of Famers designees now--for their contributions on the field and for their courage, sacrifice and triumph in the face of segregation.

Exhibit 1

Injustice, and then a gutless committee clams up

(By Joe Posnanski)

The living voice of the Negro Leagues did not even blink

when the door was slammed in his face one more time. Buck

O'Neil just nodded and smiled a little when he was told that

he did not get enough votes to be elected into the Baseball

Hall of Fame.

``All right,'' he said. ``That's the way the cookie

crumbles.''

That's the way baseball crumbles. Monday, an 11-member

committee of academics and authors (a 12th member, author

Robert Peterson, died two weeks ago) gathered in a room in

Tampa and voted 17 deceased Negro Leagues players and

executives into the Hall of Fame. Seventeen. To give you an

idea of how overwhelming that number is . . . only 18 Negro

Leaguers are actually in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

It took 30 years of work--most of that Buck O'Neil's hard

work--to get those 18 players inducted.

But even while doubling the Negro Leagues' Hall of Fame

population, the committee could not muster the necessary nine

votes for Buck O'Neil, who is 94 and has done more in his

life for Negro Leagues baseball than anyone else. One

committee member said O'Neil likely fell one vote short. The

balloting was secret.

When the voting was finished, no one had the guts to

explain why Buck O'Neil was kept out. He was an All-Star

player in the Negro Leagues. He was a successful manager for

the Kansas City Monarchs. He sent more Negro Leagues players

to the major leagues than anyone. He was the first black

coach in the major leagues. For the past 50 years, he has

been--as author Jules Tygiel calls him in Shades of Glory,

the Negro Leagues book commissioned by the Hall of Fame--

``the primary spokesperson for the legacy of the Negro

Leagues.''

In fact, two sources said months ago that the Hall of Fame

would have a special Negro Leagues vote with the intention of

getting Buck O'Neil in. One hall official said, ``I don't

think the Hall of Fame is complete without him.''

Thus, for the first time ever, the hall handed over the

voting to a panel of baseball historians and scholars with no

affiliation to the major leagues or the hall. This was an

extraordinary move for the Hall of Fame. They usually protect

the hall the way tigers protect their cubs. There was not one

former player on the committee and not one person who

actually observed the Negro Leagues. The committee was given

no boundaries--they were told to vote for as many people as

they saw fit.

They certainly voted free. By dumping 17 persons into the

Hall of Fame, they matched the number of persons inducted

into the hall the past seven years. But when it came to why

Buck was left out, no one was talking.

``I don't think the individuals are going to be willing to

discuss their individual votes,'' said Fay Vincent, who

served as a nonvoting chairman of the committee. ``We agreed

we would not do that.''

In other words, they decided to hide. After this travesty,

you could not blame them. On Monday, when it appeared that

O'Neil was short the votes he needed, Vincent apparently made

a frantic plea to the committee to consider O'Neil's lifetime

achievements and not just his playing days. According to the

committee member, he sounded almost desperate.

His words held no sway with this committee. They left him

out without a word of explanation. They did, however, vote in

Andy Cooper, who was (see if this sounds familiar) a fine

player and manager for the Kansas City Monarchs. He died in

1941. The book Shades of Glory is 422 pages long, including

acknowledgements. Cooper is mentioned exactly zero times.

The committee also voted in Effa Manley, the first woman

inductee into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Her credentials? She

co-owned the Newark Eagles with her husband, Abe, for 14

seasons. The team won one championship. Also, she was

outspoken. Also, her biographer, Jim Overmyer, was on the

committee.

And so on. The injustice of Monday's vote left a trail of

disbelief and anger throughout the baseball community, but

especially in Kansas City. It had no visible effect on Buck

O'Neil, though. He began his Monday morning with a 5:30 a.m.

call from a radio show. He came to the Negro Leagues Baseball

Museum at 10 a.m. and by then he had received more than a

dozen congratulatory calls.

Everyone seemed sure he was going to get voted in.

Buck himself was not so sure. ``I've been on committees

like this,'' he said. ``I know that anything can happen.''

Still, he spent much of Monday morning calling friends in his

hometown of Sarasota, Fla., telling them that he would visit

if the vote went his way. A camera crew filmed his every

move. A half-dozen reporters followed him around.

O'Neil had been told he would hear something by 11 a.m.,

but the phone would not ring. Rumors swirled that things were

not going well in Tampa, but no one wanted to believe it.

While Buck O'Neil waited, Hall of Fame player Lou Brock--whom

O'Neil had scouted and signed--called and said he was

excited. Soon it was 11:30 and then noon, and the call from

the hall had not come.

``You know something?'' Buck said all of a sudden. ``I

could play. I was no Josh Gibson. But I could play.'' It was

his only sign of cracking. One of the few criticisms of

O'Neil's Hall of Fame case leading into the vote had been

that, while he was a good player, he was not a Hall of Fame-

caliber player. The criticism did not take in account his

countless other contributions to baseball, but you could see

that Buck was hurting a little.

At 12:30, there was no word, and a pall had fallen over the

museum. Buck seemed to sense that the vote was going against

him. He said, ``I'll be fine either way.''

At 12:34, Bob Kendrick, the marketing director of the Negro

Leagues Museum, asked everyone to leave the room, and he

said, ``Buck, we didn't get enough votes.''

All his life, Buck O'Neil has had doors slammed in his

face. He played baseball at a time when the major leagues did

not allow black players. He was a gifted manager at a time

when major league owners would not even think of having an

African-American lead their teams. For more than 30 years, he

told stories about Negro Leagues players and nobody wanted to

listen.

Now, after everything, he was being told that the life he

had spent in baseball was not worthy of the Hall of Fame. It

was enough to make those around him cry. But Buck laughed.

``I'm still Buck,'' he said. ``Look at me. I've lived a good

life. I'm still living a good life. Nothing has changed for

me.''

A few minutes later, when he was told that 17 persons had

made it, he shouted: ``Wonderful.''

That's Buck O'Neil. Who else would respond that way to such

a shameful vote? No one. I don't know what the July day will

be like when 17 persons long dead--10 of the 17 have been

gone for more than 50 years--get

inducted into the Hall of Fame. It's hard to believe it will

be much of a celebration. Who will speak for the dead?

``I don't know,'' Buck O'Neil said. ``I wonder if they'll

ask me to speak.''

Would he really speak at the Hall of Fame after he wasn't

voted in?

``Of course,'' Buck said. ``If they asked me.''

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I listened with some interest to my colleague. I have to observe, though, he said that now we are going to see the blame game, and he tells us where the fault lies. Well, that is the first chapter of the blame game. I have not been out here with respect to amendments. I have been chairing a hearing for a couple of hours. But I say this to those who are talking about these amendments: Those of us on this side of the aisle have certainly had a great deal of experience with having our amendments not considered by the Senate. Most recently, we had an amendment to a bill that would have dealt with this issue of the Dubai company taking over American ports. The United Arab Emirates' wholly-owned company, Dubai Ports World, was going to take over the management of American shipping ports. We attempted to offer an amendment, but it shut the Senate down because the majority party didn't want an amendment such as that offered.

I have been trying for a couple of years to offer an amendment on the reimportation of prescription drugs to drive down prescription drug prices in this country. We have been thwarted on that. I could go on at some great length. To the extent there is a complaint that some have not been able to offer amendments, we understand that pretty well. We have been in that position for a couple of years now, including my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who offered an amendment that would have effectively prohibited our country from engaging in torture with respect to those whom we have apprehended during wartime. That amendment on the prohibition of torture shut down the consideration of the Defense authorization bill last year month after month because the majority didn't want to vote on the McCain amendment on torture. So there is plenty of practice that has existed in this Chamber for prohibiting amendments.

Again, I don't know what the approach has been this morning on the floor because I have not been here. When I listen to discussions about why can we not offer amendments, that is a cry that has been echoing in this Chamber for a couple of years, much to the regret of those of us who have had amendments to offer. It is a cry that has not been heard by the majority party, which now jumps to the front of the line to complain today.

I want to talk about this issue of the underlying bill, the immigration bill and guest workers. I should also start by saying I don't have any particular claim to understanding or expertise in this area. I don't serve on the Judiciary Committee. I was not someone who helped write the underlying bill. So I don't come to the floor to claim to be an expert on the legislation. But I have spent a great deal of time in the last year or so doing research in a range of areas for a writing project dealing with American jobs and American workers, so I claim to know something about that.

I claim to know, for example, that we have lost somewhere around 3 million-plus jobs in this country, most of them having moved to China or Indonesia or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka--but most perhaps to China. We have lost millions of jobs in this country in the last 3\1/2\ to 4 years. American workers, middle-income workers, and particularly workers at the bottom of the economic ladder, have been devastated by what has happened with this race toward globalization and the race by the largest American corporations to produce where it is cheap, and then sell their products in our marketplace. All of that is going on in a very accelerated way.

Now we see, with the bill brought to the floor of the Senate, not only do we have a strategy in this country of allowing the export of good American jobs, now we will have a strategy of importing additional low-wage jobs.

I will review some numbers, if I might. We have somewhere around 11 million to 12 million people who have come into this country illegally and have stayed here. Some have been here a long while, and some recently arrived.

Is it surprising that we have a lot of people who have come into this country and stayed in violation of the law? No, it is not surprising to me. We live in a big world, and a lot of people in this world don't have the opportunities we have in this country. We have built something very special in the United States. This is a country that provides basic rights for people. It took us some while to perfect all that, but having struggled through the issues of civil rights, workers' rights, and women's rights, we have created an extraordinary country in which workers can band together to collectively bargain and negotiate. We have made decisions about the workplace and the right of a worker to work in a safe workplace, child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental protection, so you cannot produce a product and emit poisonous chemicals into the air and water.

At the same time, we have created circumstances where businesses can earn a profit, and a good one. This is an economy in which we have a vast consumer base, with the most affluent consumers in the world. All of that coming together created a country that is unparalleled on the face of this planet. So if you go anywhere in the world, and particularly impoverished areas in less developed countries, you will find, in discussing this with those people, that many would say they want to come to the United States of America. If you ask the question ``why,'' they will say it is because there is opportunity there, jobs there, better income, better pay. That is what you find. I have found that in many parts of the world, particularly in less developed countries.

Think for a moment what would be the case if tomorrow the United States said: Look, what we have built here is quite wonderful. We understand it is unique and we want to share it with everyone. We have no immigration quotas and anybody who wishes to come here can come. Tomorrow, you are all welcome. Come and stay as long as you want.

What would be the consequences of that? We all know the consequences of that. Those who are living in impoverished conditions from other parts of the world will find their way to this country. We will be importing poverty and we will have a massive number of people migrating to the United States of America, because they would see this as an opportunity. So we don't have a circumstance where we say that anybody who wants to come tomorrow, come on, this is wide open, and stay as long as you want. No. We have a series of quotas for immigrants. We have immigration quotas by country, by category, and then we allow people in based on these quotas.

I will describe exactly what we now face. We have 11 million to 12 million people who are here illegally. Last year, according to data I have seen, 1.1 million additional people tried to cross the border from Mexico into this country, but they were denied access. So 1.1 million were kept out who wanted to come in. And 400,000 to 700,000 who wanted in illegally got in illegally and are here. They came last year. Another roughly 150,000 people--according to estimates I have seen--are here on a temporary basis, H-2A or H-2B. Another 175,000 people came in last year legally, as family members and quotas, just from Mexico. That is what we face.

Now, at the same time we face these pressures of people wanting to come into our country, particularly in most cases low-skilled and low- wage workers, we face the largest trade deficits in the history of the world. We face the wholesale movement of American jobs overseas. So we see the two elements of the worst marriage of public policy; those are the export of good American jobs to China and elsewhere, and the import of low-wage workers to take the jobs of those in this country who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. That is about corporations, big companies, about their strategy, which has been embraced and given a bear hug by this President and the Congress, controlled by the President's party, standing for corporations and their interests. Export American jobs, do another trade deal, cause more American jobs to leave this country. Import cheap labor.

Why? They say: We want to import more cheap labor because we cannot

find Americans to do the work. So not only does the bill on the floor of the Senate describe that we will create a legal status for 11 million to 12 million people who are here because, practically speaking, nobody is going to round them up, or arrest them, or detain them, or export them--we will create a status for those folks--but in addition to that, it says let's also create a new guest worker program of 400,000 people per year each year, with an escalator of being able to increase that by 20 percent each year, which over 6 years could amount to 4.7 million more people coming into this country who now live outside of this country.

And so the bill provides a guest worker program saying we not only want to deal with the legalization of those who are here illegally-- millions and millions and millions of them--we also want to add potentially another 4.7 million. And, by the way, there is more than that, but that is just the piece about which I am talking. On top of that would be the provisions dealing with the new agricultural workers, which was an amendment offered in the committee.

So where do these 4.7 million people go--the ones who are now living outside of our country who come into our country legally--under this legislation? They go to find jobs in competition with American workers.

Let's talk about low-skilled, low-wage American workers.

This Congress, as stingy as it has been for low-wage, low-skilled workers, has decided for 8 years it will not increase the minimum wage. Boy, it is Katy bar the door if it comes to helping somebody at the top--tax breaks, unbelievable tax breaks for people at the top.

One of the world's richest people told me the other day when I was talking with him that he pays a lower income tax rate than the receptionist in his office. Why? Because the priority in this Chamber, the priority in this Congress, the priority of the President, is to drive down income tax rates for people who have capital gains. Who has capital gains? The wealthy. They have most of the capital gains. The wealthiest Americans are now paying the lowest tax rates, and this Congress can't be quick enough to see if they can't offer another gift to those at the top of the income scale.

I have nothing at all against those at the top of the income ladder. God bless them, that is what America is about; it is about success. But that does not justify saying that those who are the most successful shall pay the lowest income tax rates in our country, and that is what is happening. At the same time, Congress can't move quickly enough to provide the lowest tax rates to those with the highest incomes. It says to the people with the lowest incomes: We don't have any interest in increasing the minimum wage. Sit there for 8 years, let inflation work against your purchasing power; doesn't matter to us, we don't intend to increase it. I think that is a terrible mistake, but that is the way people at the bottom of the economic ladder have been treated in this country now for many years.

Now they will be treated again to the prospect of saying: Let's have some more people come in; let's not just deal with this 11 to 12 million, let's have more people come in on top of that because we can't find Americans to do that work.

Why can't we find Americans to do that work? Let me read something from Robert Samuelson, a Washington Post editorial. I fully agree with this. He talks about:

It's a myth that the U.S. economy ``needs'' more poor

immigrants.

He is speaking especially of the guest worker provisions.

The illegal immigrants already here represent only about

4.9 percent of the current labor force, reports the Pew

Hispanic Center. In no major occupation are they a major-

ity. . . .

Hardly anyone thinks that most existing illegal immigrants

will leave--

Or be rounded up, arrested, or deported. I understand that. I think all of us probably understand that. I think there should be some enforcement of employer sanctions which we created but have not enforced, which would make a big difference with respect to illegal immigration. Here is what Samuelson said:

In 2004, the median hourly wage in Mexico was $1.86

compared to $9 for Mexicans working in the United States,

says Rakesh Kochhar of Pew. With high labor turnover in the

jobs they take, most new illegal immigrants can get work by

accepting wages slightly below prevailing levels. . . .

But what would happen if new illegal immigration stopped

and wasn't replaced by these guest workers?

That is an assumption. First, I don't buy the assumption that even if this bill is passed with legalizing 11 to 12 million immigrants and then allowing up to 4.7 million new people to come in who are now living outside our country, I don't buy the notion that we have plugged the border. I don't think we in any way inhibit illegal immigrants from coming across the border. I know my colleagues are talking about tightening the border and employer sanctions, and I will talk about that in a minute. Employer sanctions was the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. That was a miserable failure, and I will explain why.

Again quoting Samuelson:

But what would happen if new illegal immigration stopped

and wasn't replaced by guest workers?

At some point higher wages would be going to American workers.

President Bush says that his guest worker program would

``match willing foreign workers with willing American

employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.''

But at some higher wage, there would be willing Americans.

As long as you can bring illegal immigrants, which is what has been happening, into the country and they can work in the shadows and employers can employ them for subminimum wage, I understand why employers would not be employing American workers because they have a steady stream of workers they can employ below the minimum wage.

Business organizations understandably support guest worker

programs. They like cheap labor and ignore the social

consequences.

That is what is at work here. What is at work here is the same corporate interests who are exporting good American jobs are supporting this bill because they cannot only export good American jobs on the production side, but for those jobs you can't export, you can import cheap labor. And that is what this is about: Export good jobs and import cheap labor.

Let me talk for a moment about the debate over the Simpson-Mazzoli bill two decades ago at a time when we were told we had a significant immigration problem. That was a bill about border enforcement, strengthening enforcement at the border, and also creating employer sanctions.

The purpose of that bill was to say to employers: Don't you dare hire illegal immigrants; if you are hiring workers who are illegal, you are going to be in trouble, you are going to be slapped with a fine and subject to enforcement actions. So I went back and read the 1985 and 1986 debate about Simpson-Mazzoli. I won't embarrass anybody by reading it on the floor of the Senate. It was fascinating debate in the House and the Senate. This was nirvana. This was the entire solution. It was going to work like a charm because if you say to employers you dare not hire people who are not here legally, you shut down the job, you shut down the magnet, you shut down illegal immigration, end of story.

The fact is it didn't work at all. We have people in my State, the State of North Dakota, today--in fact, I think there is a story in today's paper about illegal immigrants working on some energy plants in the middle of North Dakota, found to be illegal. The question is: Is anybody going to take action against the employer? That would be a Minnesota employer, by the way.

Most of our troubles come from Minnesota. We joke about that.

If a Minnesota employer hires illegal workers, and he is caught, are there any problems for the Minnesota employer? No, no, not even a slap on the wrist; just a pat on the back. Nobody is going to prosecute. Nobody is going to fine them. Nobody is going to take enforcement action. It is exactly why we are in the situation we are in today. There are no sanctions for employers who hire illegal aliens.

I want to say very clearly that I don't in any way, because I oppose this guest worker program that will bring 4.7 million people in to compete with American workers at the bottom of the economic ladder, I don't in any way want to diminish the dignity and self-

worth of immigrants. I don't mean that at all. I know in most cases these are hard-working people, good families. Most of us have come from immigrant families at some point in our lineage. Because someone would come out and say, as I do today, that I don't support this proposal offered by the President and offered on the floor of the Senate, saying not only are we going to legalize or give legal status to 11 or 12 million people who came here illegally, but in addition to that, we are going to allow 400,000 people a year with a 20-percent escalation clause for the 4.7 million additional people potentially in 6 years to come into this country, I am not going to support that. That is a strategy for corporations to provide a ladder of cheap labor coming into this country, displacing American workers.

We have a serious crisis in this country with respect to the plight of America's workers. A lot of people who worked hard all their lives, worked for companies and were proud of it are now discovering their jobs are not safe, their jobs are not secure. In many cases, their jobs are gone--gone to China, gone to Indonesia. Yes, they can find another job. The statistics show they find another job at 20 percent less income. In most cases, they have lost their pensions; they have lost their health care. These are middle-income American workers, and the low-income workers, the people at the bottom of the ladder, the people who are high school dropouts, they work hard, they struggle, and now what they have confronted in recent years is a corporate strategy of being able to hire illegal immigrants at subpar wages, so the jobs are not there for them.

We have a lot of people come to this floor and want to offer amendments. They say they speak for this immigration bill, and they say they speak for immigrants. Again, let me emphasize, I don't want to diminish their concern for immigrant families. I don't want to do that. That is not what I am about. But I want to come to this floor to say a word on behalf of American workers because nobody is coming to this floor to talk about American workers, American jobs, and what it means to our country's future to have good jobs that pay well with retirement benefits and health benefits.

The current strategy we are employing in this country today, a strategy embraced by this President and this Congress, a corporate strategy that says let us export good jobs and import cheap labor, that is a strategy that undermines our economy.

I am interested in the long-term economic health of this country. We have a lot of kids who will grow up in this country, American kids, who want opportunity. Every single set of parents wants to leave a country that is better for their children. They want to leave a country that provides more opportunities for their children, and that is simply not the case these days, regrettably. It is because we have an economic strategy that is off track, and we need to put it on track. I have ideas about how to do that. Others do as well. But one of those ideas would not include suggesting that we ought to displace American workers with 4.7 million additional immigrant workers who now live outside of our country but who will come into our country to assume low-wage jobs and displace jobs for low-wage American workers. That would not be included in my suggestion of how to fix what is wrong in our country.

There is so much to say about this subject. I know there is great passion. I have heard it from all of the groups. I have used a lot of statistics. This is not, after all, about statistics or data. It is about hopes and dreams and aspirations. It is about human misery. It is about living in the shadows. It is about all of those things. So I understand the passion that exists on the floor of this Senate about this matter. But I also, as one Member of this body, lament that there seems to be so little effort and so little activity on this floor about the passions and the hopes and the dreams and the inspiration American workers have about their future.

I have indicated previously, I know we have this global economy and I know part of that global economy plays a role in this immigration debate. People say you are a hopeless xenophobe who doesn't get it. We all see over the horizon, and you somehow are nearsighted. My sense is that we as a country will have our better days ahead of us if we adopt public policy which is thoughtful and, yes, which has as a self- interest the long-term economic well-being of our country.

But this global economy has marched and now galloped forward without adequate rules with respect to jobs and income and opportunity in this country, and too few people seem to care about the diminished circumstances facing most American families and most American workers. That, too, should play a central role in this discussion. That, too, should be a part of the consideration here in the Senate. Regrettably, it has not been. My hope is that perhaps in the next 48 hours it will be, finally.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his good work in producing a bill that has become the subject of debate in the Senate dealing with a very important issue to our Nation, something that people are extremely engaged in, one that has generated a lot of debate and a lot of controversy around the country but clearly one that needs to be addressed.

I have listened and observed as the debate has gone forward and listened to the content of that debate over the past several days and come to somewhat of an objective point of view because I come from a State that is not a border State. We do not have to deal with the issues on a daily basis affecting many of our States on the northern or southern border.

Having said that, it is an issue which has captured the discussion being held across this country even in States such as mine, the State of South Dakota. The reason for that is very simple: People see day in and day out some of the images broadcast across the television screen and the people who come to the United States illegally. They deal with the burden and cost associated with some of the public services associated with illegal immigration in this country. So they view it very much as taxpayers. They view it as an issue that, frankly, needs to be addressed. They want to see the Senate act in an appropriate and a timely way.

I have to say, too, I have heard a lot of people in the Senate reference their ancestry. Various Members of the Senate have described in detail how their ancestors came to this country, the personal perspective they have on the issue, and the experiences that have helped shed light and inform their opinions about it. I, too, am not the exception to that. I have roots that go back, with a grandfather that came here from Norway, back in 1906, along with my great-uncle Matt, when they came through Ellis Island. The name that I now have, the Thune name, was not their name. Their name was Gjelsvik. They came through Ellis Island and the immigration officials asked them to change their name because they thought it would be difficult for people in these United States both to spell and pronounce. They did not speak a word of English. I should say, almost no English. My understanding is that when they boarded the train that took them to South Dakota, the only English they knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee.'' So they had a lot of apple pie and coffee between Ellis Island and South Dakota.

They came to this country for the same reason that people all over the world come to this country. I am very sympathetic to those who want to come to the United States for everything that we stand for: for opportunity, for freedom, to live the American dream.

My grandfather and my great-uncle came here and worked on the railroads when they were building the Transcontinental Railroad into South Dakota. They put their money together to start a merchandising company that later became Thune Hardware. So they were small business people in this country, something that so many people aspire to all over the world. They want to come to the United States for the miracle and for the dream that is America.

I am sympathetic to the history and the culture and the tradition we have as a nation of being a welcoming country, a country that says to bring your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I approach the debate on immigration from that perspective, that context of having a grandfather, one generation removed from me, who came to this country for all the various reasons that people today continue to want to flock to America.

As I have listened to the debate, I have tried to give consideration to all the different perspectives that are presented. It seems to me, at least as I try to make decisions about this, formed by my constituents in South Dakota and formed by my experience, background, and my history, to come to conclusions in the best interests of our Nation, in the best interests of continuing that tradition of treating those who come here fairly, but also the importance of American principles.

One of those American principles is the rule of law. We are a nation of laws, and that entails that we have to be able to enforce those laws. If we cannot enforce those laws, if we are not going to apply and adhere to those laws, those laws end up being pretty meaningless and irrelevant in the long run. I come to this debate with some principles in mind, not having drawn any hard conclusions on any specific piece of legislation but wanting to see the Senate do its work, wanting to see the Senate do what the people in this country expect us to do, and that is to confront the big issues, to deal with the challenging issues, to vote on the big issues, to bring resolution and clarity to the problems and the challenges that face this country.

What is perplexing about what is happening in the Senate right now is we have a base bill that has been reported out by the Judiciary Committee. Granted, it may not be the perfect bill. Frankly, there are many who would like to see that particular piece of legislation amended. Many of us would like to vote on some of those types of amendments that could be offered. Regrettably, the minority has decided they are not going to allow votes on amendments, allegedly because they are votes they do not want to put their Members in precarious political situations, having to make votes on amendments they would rather not vote on.

As a consequence, we are not having votes on amendments. We are just basically blocking the whole substance of this debate from going forward and the Senate from doing the work that the American people expect us to do and, frankly, what the tradition and history of the Senate would suggest that we ought to be doing; that is, amending this base bill, having this debate, this discussion, allowing people with different ideas and different perspectives and different points of view to come in and offer their amendments, to have those amendments debated, to have

people listen to that debate, and then come and vote on those amendments so that eventually we can produce a product that is the composite view of the Senate, reflective of a majority of the Senators.

What has happened in the Senate is the minority has decided, one, we are not going to vote on amendments. If we do have any votes on amendments, they will dictate what those amendments are that we will vote on. So far as tomorrow, insisting on a cloture vote on the underlying bill without having allowed any of the debate on any of the amendments so that we have an opportunity for people to be heard, people to offer their amendments, and people to improve, in their view, in their particular point of view, the legislation before it is ultimately passed out of the Senate and goes to conference with the House and enacted into law.

The fundamental problem with the way the Senate is functioning in this debate is that if we fail to allow individual Members to follow what is the protocol of the Senate, what is the tradition of the Senate, and that is the institution that allows for open debate, the institution that allows for amendments to be offered to legislation, for individual Senators to come over and to have their point of view heard in that debate and offer amendments that are more reflective of their particular idea about how this problem ought to be addressed or this challenge ought to be met, we are undermining the basic foundation of what this Senate and this institution is all about. But, more importantly, we are keeping the people's business from being done.

We are, if we have this cloture vote tomorrow--and I suspect the minority will insist on this cloture vote because they want to have a vote on this bill without having any debate on any of the amendments that our side wants to have votes on and report a bill out. You have the minority of the Senate dictating the terms and conditions under which we will have this debate, the amendments that will be voted on, and, ultimately, the shape of the bill that will come out of here.

This side of the aisle, the majority, 55 Members of the Senate, want to be heard on this issue, as well. What we need to understand is, yes, there are rules that allow the Senate to slow things down, to allow for extended debate on subjects, but ultimately we need to move the process forward. That means voting on legislation.

We had a big debate in the last couple of years about inaction in the Senate due to obstruction, due to blockage, due to dilatory tactics employed by the minority. People have rejected that. People in this country want action. They want action on this specific issue. This is an issue that generates strong emotions all across the country.

Frankly, I believe the American people expect and they deserve better than what they are getting from the minority in the Senate who have insisted, again, that we not vote on amendments that the majority wants to offer. Basically, we report the bill out, they dictate the bill that passes the Senate.

That is not right. We have heard people get up on both sides today, both Democrats and Republicans, and speak to this issue. We heard earlier today the Democrats get up and say: We are not really trying to block this. We are willing to vote on amendments--our amendments, just not your amendments, not amendments that are offered by the majority side in the Senate.

That is not to say they do not have some good ideas, but the truth is, there is not a monopoly on good ideas on either the Republican or Democrat side, and this Senate ought to be allowed to work in the way it was intended to work. Republicans and Democrats can both offer their amendments and they can both be voted on and we can shape the legislation in a way that is reflective of the majority view in the Senate.

Tomorrow we will have a cloture vote. It will fail because the minority is going to insist we have a cloture vote. But no one on this side is going to allow the minority to dictate the terms of this debate or the amendments that ought to be considered or to block having votes on amendments that the Republicans in the Senate would like to have votes on.

As I said before, I tried to approach this debate in a very objective way and, frankly, as I look at it, there are some very critical components that need to be in a bill. First and foremost, border security. As I said earlier, one of the reasons that America stands unique in all the world is we are a nation of laws. We respect the rule of law. It means something in America.

There are other places in the world where the rule of law does not mean much, and tyrants and dictators come up with their own version of what the laws are. Here in the United States, we have a Constitution. We are a constitutional Republic. We have laws. We abide by those laws. We need to enforce those laws.

We have not been doing the job we need to be doing of enforcing our laws with respect to the borders, controlling the borders in this country. That has all kinds of implications. This should not be lost on the American people. One of the reasons people in South Dakota care about this issue, even though we are not a border State is, they understand, as I do, that controlling and protecting and securing our borders is a matter of national security. Irrespective of where you come from in the world, if you come to the United States--as I said earlier, I have Norwegian ancestry, but if you have Hispanic ancestry, European ancestry, Asian ancestry, whatever--when the terrorists come across the border like they did on September 11 to destroy and kill Americans, they do not discriminate about where that individual comes from in the world. They want to kill Americans, pure and simple. I don't care what your race or national origin, ethnicity is, flatly, very simply, this is a matter of national security. And securing our borders has to be the fundamental component around which we build this debate.

That is one of the principles I come to the debate with. Again, I have no previous position as we enter this debate about individual pieces of legislation. I am listening to it. I will have the opportunity, I hope, at some point, if the Democrats will allow us to, to vote on amendments. But the reality is right now we are not having that opportunity. Again, I simply say that as a matter of principle, ultimately we need to report a bill out of here that does secure the borders of the United States so that people in this country can know with confidence and can trust that we are serious about keeping our borders secure if for no other reason than as a matter of national security.

Secondly, I would say, as a fundamental principle, we have to enforce our laws. There has been a big debate about: What do you do about people who are already here illegally? I think that is a very important question in this debate. There are somewhere between 11 and 12 million people, we are told, who have come to this country who are now here illegally, and we have to figure out, from the standpoint of status, how we deal with those people in this country.

But, again, a fundamental underlying principle ought to be that we cannot reward illegal behavior. We want to reward legal behavior. We want to reward people who came here and who followed the rules. I heard lots of people get up and talk on the floor about their ancestry and how they came to this country, but I suspect most of them, like my grandfather and great-uncle, came here by the rules that were put in place. They followed the law.

We want to encourage and provide incentives for that kind of behavior. For people who want to come to America, we have a process by which they can come here, but it is consistent with a set of rules and laws we have in place. We have to make sure we are encouraging legal behavior, that we are discouraging illegal behavior, that we are not putting incentives in place for illegal behavior and, furthermore, condoning or conferring benefits on people who systematically decide to break the law.

So I happen to be of a view that I believe in a guest, temporary worker program, perhaps some form of permanent resident status. But I think, again, when you start talking about conferring the benefits of citizenship on people in this country who are here illegally without some sort of penalty for that--in other words, if we just wave our magic wand and say anybody who is here can stay, and so be it, we have done a disservice to our history and our traditions as a nation of laws.

I think it is important we understand there needs to be consequences to illegal behavior. We have talked about amnesty. It has been thrown around a lot here. Essentially, what that means is there is no consequence to behavior that is illegal. I think it is important we make it fundamentally clear to people who do want to come to this country that we are a nation, yes, of immigrants, we welcome people, but we want people to come here according to the laws.

I would say that at the end of day, when this is all said and done, again, we need to have votes because this is an issue that around the country is generating tremendous heat, tremendous emotion, and has been percolating for some time. As people look at the images on their television of people who come here illegally, they are worried about national security, they are worried about the economic consequences, the consequences to the taxpayer of providing services to people who are here illegally.

People want action. They want action by the U.S. Senate. I think we have a responsibility, in this body, after everything is said and done--and usually what happens in the Senate is more gets said than done--but when everything is said and done, to come together on legislation that would accomplish the goal; that is, to address the issue of immigration in a way that is fair and in a way that is consistent with our culture and our history and our tradition as a welcoming country but is also consistent with our tradition as a nation of laws. I believe we can come to that kind of a resolution here in the Senate if--if--our colleagues on the other side will allow us to vote on amendments.

Now, the Senator from Georgia, who is currently the Presiding Officer in the Senate, has an amendment I would like to vote on. It is called the trigger amendment. Basically, it says that until it is certified that the borders are secure, then all these other issues we are talking about with respect to this debate are just conversation; that, first and foremost, we have to secure the borders, and it has to be certified we have made the efforts, that we are serious about doing that. I think it is a good approach. At least it ought to be an approach that is voted on.

Now, our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, do not want a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Georgia because they do not think that would be a good political vote for them. What it suggests to me is we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are a lot more concerned about having an issue, a political issue, than they are about having a solution to this problem. What we need in the Senate are more people on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, who will confront this issue for what it is.

That is probably the most difficult, challenging issue that is facing the country, on a domestic level at least, currently or for some time. We are fighting a war on terror in Iraq. It has demanded a lot of attention and a tremendous amount of resources. But when it comes to domestic issues--and there are many. I am very interested in this body working on issues. As we move forward throughout the year, we have votes scheduled on health care reform because health care costs are critical. We have to get that under control in this country.

We are going to have votes on extending some of the tax relief that will allow the economy to continue to grow and to create jobs and to make sure the economic engines are keeping this country moving forward. We are going to have votes on those types of issues as we go forward. And, of course, we are going to deal with the annual appropriations and budget process, and a whole range of other issues before the year is out.

They are important issues. They are all important to the American public. But I would submit to you that right now there is no more urgent issue, no issue that demands an answer, that demands a solution, that demands action by the Senate than the issue of immigration.

And what is the Senate going to do? Are we going to move forward? Are we going to, consistent with the tradition and the history of the Senate, allow for debate and allow for votes on amendments or are the Democrats, the minority in the Senate, going to continue to insist on blocking amendments, votes on amendments, simply because they do not want to vote on certain amendments because those amendments might be tough political votes for them?

Well, we all make tough political votes. There are amendments they are going to offer that I will not want to vote on. In fact, there may be some amendments offered by colleagues on my side of the aisle that I really do not want to vote on. But we are here to vote. That is what people send us here to do. It is to do the people's business.

It is important we have the opportunity to deal with what is the most important singular issue I think the American public is focused on today and that they want us to deal with. It is the responsibility of the Senate to debate--allow for extended debate--to consider amendments, but ultimately to vote. That means voting on amendments that are offered both by my colleagues on the Democratic side as well as my colleagues on the Republican side, even if they are amendments that I may not want to vote on.

I have to say again, there are amendments I probably would rather not vote on, if I was thinking purely about the political consequences of some of these votes. But the fact is, we are here to vote. We are here to do the people's business. It is high time we did it.

I encourage and I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to join with my colleagues on the Republican side in putting aside the politics, putting aside the delaying tactics, putting aside the obstruction and the blocking of the agenda, and allow us to move forward to vote on amendments and to report out of the Senate a bill-- and it may not be everything we want but allow this institution to act in the manner in which the people of this country expect us to act, and, frankly, in a way the American people deserve.

So I hope tomorrow will be the day we will break the logjam, that we will be able to get a bill we can report that the Senate can take a final vote on but that is reflective of the majority views in the Senate, including an opportunity to vote on individual amendments and to move this debate and this process forward so we can get into conference with the House and shape a bill we can put on the President's desk that will send a loud, clear message to the American people we are serious about border security, we are serious about our Nation's history as a nation, a welcoming culture, a nation of immigrants, but we are serious about enforcing the rule of law in America.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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