A resolution recognizing the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association on its 75th anniversary and its members' vital contributions to the infrastructure of the United States.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

My understanding was that under the unanimous consent agreement that had been entered into by the floor managers, the next hour would be divided equally between the Senator from Georgia in relation to his amendment, as well as the amendment that I would be offering following the Senator from Georgia.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3994 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, as we come back to the floor of the Senate today to take up this issue of national security and the national urgency on workable immigration law, I want to first say that I applaud my colleagues both on the Democratic and the Republican sides who have been working so hard to move forward with a comprehensive immigration reform package.

I also want to say thank you to the President of the United States of America for his statement last night to the Nation, in which he appealed to the best interests of America to come together and develop a comprehensive immigration reform package. I believe it is worthwhile to quote again from what the President said last night.

Tonight I want to speak directly to Members of the House

and the Senate. An immigration reform bill needs to be

comprehensive because all elements of this problem must be

addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all.

The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should

act by the end of this month so that we can work out the

differences between the two bills and Congress can pass a

comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.

Again, he said we need to work on this problem together, on all of its elements, or none of the elements will be solved.

Mr. President, amendment No. 3994 is an amendment that takes a very different approach from the Senator from Georgia, my good friend, Senator Isakson. As chairman Specter noted on the floor yesterday, the proponents of the Isakson amendment take the view that we ought to have all our border-strengthening and security measures in place before we address any aspect of this problem. I don't think that that is an effective approach.

In the past, for the last 20 years, when we have tried to approach immigration issues by only looking at one issue at a time, we have failed. We have continually thrown money at a problem to increase border security through funding. Yet our borders continue to be porous and broken, and the lawlessness that comes with that is something we see across America. I don't believe we should let this crisis fester. I don't believe we should continue to tolerate those being in the shadows of society, the 11 million undocumented workers in this country today. I don't believe we in the Senate should stand in the way of a comprehensive immigration reform that has extensive bipartisan support in this body.

It is very clear to all of us today that the current situation is inadequate and there is a lot of work that needs to be done. I want to move ahead on all fronts and take the comprehensive approach that has been discussed on this floor, and a comprehensive approach which the President himself has endorsed.

National security is at the heart of a workable immigration law, and we should not allow an immigration law to go into effect if it will not address the national security interests of the United States. That is at the heart of my amendment. My amendment is a very simple amendment. As the clerk read that amendment, it was very clear and straightforward, and it simply requires the President of the United States to make a determination that the national security of the United States will be strengthened by the following programs: Title IV, which includes the new guest worker program, and title VI, which includes the provisions relating to the 11 million undocumented workers who are living in the shadows of America today; and it also includes the bipartisan changes to immigration that have been forged in this body by leaders such as Senator Craig and Senator Feinstein on agriculture jobs and the DREAM Act, which is another bipartisan measure. Under our amendment, those provisions of the bill cannot be implemented unless and until the President of the United States finds that it is in the national interest and for national security that those provisions of the legislation be implemented.

Senator Isakson's amendment, on the other hand, is designed to weaken this comprehensive approach. The approach of my friend from Georgia would focus only on border enforcement. When we look at the history of the last 20 years, approaches that have focused on border enforcement only have been approaches that have not succeeded in dealing with the issue of immigration.

I agree with President Bush that we need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner, and I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 3994.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that those of us in this body who recognize the importance of this issue need to understand that the stool has to have three legs for us to develop comprehensive immigration reform.

First, we need to secure our borders. In the legislation we have proposed, there are multiple provisions that deal with the strengthening of our borders, including the doubling of the number of Border Patrol officers, bringing in new technology that would allow us to make sure we know who is coming and going across our borders, and a number

of other provisions that are intended to ensure that our borders become secure.

The second leg of that stool is making sure that we are enforcing our immigration laws within our country. We have not done an adequate job of enforcing our immigration laws in this country. The President acknowledged that reality as well. Our legislation will make sure that we are enforcing our immigration laws within the interior of our country.

The third leg on that stool is to make sure we are addressing the human and economic reality of the 11 million people who currently live in an undocumented status in America today.

Sometimes when we get into these debates on the Senate floor, it is a discussion about policy, but it is also important for us never to forget why we are here, and never to forget that there are, in fact, millions of human beings who are very much affected by the current system of lawlessness on our borders.

Sadly, last year, over 300 people died trying to cross the border. In my own community, over the last several Sundays, I heard a Catholic priest talk about how it is that people were dying of thirst and hunger in the deserts of Arizona and places such as Texas. I heard my colleague, my friend from Arizona, Senator John McCain, speak eloquently and passionately about this issue.

Since 1998, more than 2,000 men, women, and children have lost their lives crossing the border between Mexico and the United States. That is not what we are about in America. Anywhere else in America if we had 2,000 people dying, the people of America would be standing up and saying we must do something to correct this problem and to correct it in a way that is going to work. That is why a comprehensive solution is needed in this situation. That is why my amendment No. 3994 was proposed. It will help us move down the road to developing that comprehensive immigration reform package.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, my friend from Massachusetts is correct. We stand firmly for the proposition that we need to absolutely secure our borders. Indeed, if we fail to address the reality of 11 million people living in the shadows of the United States today, we will have failed to achieve the national security objective.

If one thinks about what happened in the days after 9/11, our Government ought to know who is living in our society. We cannot know that when we have 11 million people living in the shadows. Those people need to be brought out of the shadows, they need to be brought out into the sunlight, they need to be registered, they need to pay a fine, they need to learn English, and they need to do the rest of the things we talk about in this legislation.

The very fundamental principle of an immigration law to provide us with national security in America will be altered if we are not able to move forward with the implementation of those provisions of the law.

The proposal which my good friend from Georgia has proposed, the Isakson amendment, would essentially gut the sense of our comprehensive immigration reform bill because we would not be able to deal with that reality and we would not be able to deal with the guest worker program that the President of the United States is proposing.

Mr. President, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts. In fact, that would happen. We would have 11 million workers who probably would continue to work as they have been working now, for some of them decades in this country, and that the system of illegality in terms of employers hiring undocumented workers is simply a system that is going to continue into the future unabated. That is why it is so essential that we move forward with this issue in a comprehensive approach.

Last night the President was absolutely correct in his statement that we cannot deal with this issue of immigration reform in a piecemeal manner. We have to deal with it in a comprehensive manner that addresses the issue of 11 million undocumented workers who are in this country today.

Mr. President, my friend from Massachusetts is, in fact, correct. We need to deal with the entire set of immigration issues today, including the illegal hiring of people in this country. The provisions we have set forward in this bill will allow us to, in fact, bring those people who are here illegally and who are undocumented out of the shadows so we can address the national security interests.

My amendment requires the President of the United States to basically say that before the guest worker program is implemented, the President has to determine that it is in the interest of national security for us to implement those provisions; that before we move forward with the program that addresses the reality of 11 million undocumented workers, the President of the United States shall acknowledge and make a statement that, in fact, it is in the national security interests of

the United States of America. That is why this amendment is a much better, preferred approach than the amendment which is being offered by my friend from Georgia.

Mr. President, let me reiterate that the approach which was outlined by the President, which the bipartisan coalition of Senators has been working on, is a comprehensive approach. History has shown that when we take only one aspect of immigration reform, we fail. We failed in 1986. We failed at different efforts over the last 20 years. This time, we have to get it right.

The President of the United States is right when he ultimately stated last night that we need comprehensive immigration reform. The proposed amendment by my colleague from the State of Georgia, and my good friend, essentially would take what are the 54 provisions of title I in this piece of legislation we are currently considering, going from section 101 all the way to section 154. It essentially would say that we are only going to be about a border enforcement bill without dealing with the other aspects of the legislation which is proposed. He would leave on the side what we do to bring the 11 million people who are here out of the shadows and get them registered in a system where we can monitor them, make sure if they are criminals they are deported, make sure if they are law-abiding citizens we put them in a kind of guest worker program that will work, and his provision essentially would gut this bill.

The proposal of my good friend from Georgia is no different in most respects from what came out of the House of Representatives. It is a border-enforcement-only bill. It has been said time and time again that if we are going to address the issue of immigration reform, we need to do it in a comprehensive manner. We need to move with border enforcement, and our legislation does that. The President's statement last night that in the meantime we will go ahead and have the National Guard assist us in making sure we are securing our borders needs to be followed.

Second, we need to make sure we are enforcing our immigration laws within the interior of our country. Our legislation proposes to do that.

Third, we need to deal with the reality of the bill and the elephant in the

room--the 11 million people who are living here in the United States today. We need to bring them out of the shadows. My friend from Georgia would propose to leave them in the shadows for an indefinite period of time, whether it be 5 years, 20 years, or 30 years, whatever it might be. That will not work. We need to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Isakson amendment and to support the amendment which I have offered.

I yield my time back to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Martinez be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3994, which is my amendment.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It was my understanding that the time of the distinguished Senator from Idaho was not a part of the debate but was to precede our debate, and we were supposed to equally divide the remaining time. Am I incorrect?

So we have how many minutes?

Mr. President, I appreciate the statement of the Senator from Colorado. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, the Presiding Officer. I thank Senator Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for the untiring efforts he made on the bill and the courtesies he has shown to me. I thank leader Harry Reid for accommodating us and allowing us to come to the floor and have a debate. I particularly thank Lindsey Graham and John McCain for seeing to it that all of us who had amendments to offer had a chance to negotiate the time to do that. I especially thank my staff, in particular, Mike Quiello, for the work he has done on this issue over a long period of time.

Mr. President, to set the stage for my remarks on my amendment, let me, first of all, tell you a little bit about myself. I am a product of the legal immigration system of the United States. My grandfather came here in 1903 and went through Ellis Island. There is nobody who has greater respect for the hope and opportunity and the laws of our country than do I. I was in the construction industry, and I know the great contribution the workers made to construction and to tourism and to hospitality services and to agriculture.

I, also, know the issue before us is now the most important issue domestically before the United States. When I ran for the Senate in 2003 and 2004, the most commonly asked question after Iraq was: What are you going to do about illegal immigration? In the first speech on any issue I made as a Senator, I made the statement that I thought illegal immigration was the No. 1 domestic issue in this country.

I rise to tell you my mind has not been changed. I think neither have the minds been changed of the American people because you have seen the intensity of the interest of all Americans in border security and immigration.

My amendment is very simple. It says that before any provision of this Immigration Act could grant legal status to someone who is here illegally is in effect, the Secretary of Homeland Security must certify to the President and the Congress that every provision for border security and enforcement contained in title I and section 233 of title II is in place, funded, and is operational.

There is a simple reason for that. In 1986, this Congress, under President Ronald Reagan, passed a border security and amnesty bill for the 3 million illegal aliens who were in this country. We enforced the border and granted amnesty. And 20 years later, there are 11 million to 13 million illegal aliens who have come because of the promise of this country and its opportunity but also because we have given a wink and a nod to the security of our borders.

I want to emphasize that I am not just talking about something I am thinking about or that I read. I have been to our border. I took a codel with Senator Coleman in February. We went to Fort Huachuca in Arizona and saw the unmanned aerial vehicle working and identifying those coming across the border and sealing a 150-mile stretch. In San Diego, at the border with Juarez, we saw where the barriers at Smugglers' Gulch have effectively stopped the people coming through that gully and immigrating illegally into this country. We went up and down the border and saw the bits and pieces of security that worked. We also saw the over 1,500 miles of the border that are not secure--the 1,500 miles that have allowed people to come here either through smuggling or through their own volition or by paying bribes to get here, to get into our workforce, to overcrowd our schools, to stretch the services in our emergency rooms and put great pressure on our civil justice system.

It is time that we seal the border and secure it so that the promise of legal immigration works and illegally entering this country is not the preferred way to cross on our southern border.

I commend the President for his remarks last night. The President last night said, in order, the five important things we must do. The first thing the President said is to secure the border. With this amendment, with our commitment and with the President's commitment, securing the border will take place. Then we can grant a program to those who are here illegally, with the sincere knowledge that we know no more are coming. If we grant programs and status to those who are here illegally and look the other way, the next time we bring this up in 10 or 15 years, it will not be 12 million, it will be 24 million and, worst of all, we will have lost control.

Last night, the President said we are a nation of laws. And we are a nation of laws. I submit to you that when laws

are enforced, and they are enforced soundly, laws are obeyed and they are respected. We have not enforced our border and, therefore, its security is not respected.

So I call on all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, everybody who is interested in a comprehensive reform of our immigration policy and our immigration system, to think what comes first. And what comes first is securing the border. After that, the American people would be willing to work with us on programs to grant status. But in the absence of securing the border and making that commitment, we are not going to have the cooperation of the American people. We are not going to have comprehensive reform, and a growing problem in this country will grow even greater.

My last point is there may be some who say you cannot secure the border or it is going to take too long. Listen, this country put a man on the Moon in 9 years, and we responded to the terrorist attacks within 3 weeks. This country can do anything it sets its mind to do. We know how to do it. In incremental places, we do it now. It is time we put in the additional 6,000 border security agents, put the UAVs in the air, put the ground sensors on the ground, put the prosecuting officials along the border in those jurisdictions to see to it that the law is enforced and prosecuted, and it is time that we build the barriers in those areas that are easy smuggling corridors. We must make a commitment to ourselves and the American people.

The Senator from Colorado is going to offer an amendment side by side. I read the amendment. It gives the President the authority to authorize sections 4 and 6, which are the status sections, whenever it is in the best interest of the national security of the United States. That is well and good, but that has nothing to do with security on the border. If we don't adopt the Isakson amendment to secure the border, then we will have given a wink and a nod one more time to those who would come here illegally. We will have said to our local governments, school systems, emergency rooms, and law enforcement officers that we don't care.

Mr. President, I think we do care. I urge support for the Isakson amendment to the immigration bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senators, Mr. Salazar and Mr. Kennedy, who are both Senators and lawyers and understand smoke and mirrors. I think they understand the enforcement of the law. The Isakson amendment calls for us to enforce the laws that have been brought about because of the lack of enforcement, which is why this bill is on the floor of the Senate now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chambliss, Cornyn, Alexander, Domenici, and Santorum be added as original sponsors of the Isakson amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize for 10 minutes the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander.

The Senator is absolutely correct, and the premise is you don't want to create an attraction for more to come until the border is secure and we know we put an end to it.

Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has made the most eloquent statement in favor of this amendment I have ever heard. He put on the record exactly what we raised in title I, section 133, to secure the border. I appreciate his comments.

I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute 30 seconds to the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.

Facts are stubborn figures. Senator Kennedy said we should learn from history. He served in 1986, when we passed a bill that promised border security that did not deliver and granted amnesty that did not deliver, and we ended up quadrupling the number of illegal aliens in the United States.

Facts are also stubborn because every word he said about the Isakson amendment is inaccurate. He did not discuss a single word of the 614 pages, except to say before you grant legal status to people here illegally, we must have border security so we do not repeat the tragedy of 1986.

In Deep South Georgia, we have an old saying: If you want to get the mud out of the spring, you have to get the hog out of the water. The hog in the water in this debate is those who have been trying to obfuscate everything we are trying to say.

Simply, we want the same thing. We want comprehensive reform. That begins with what the President said last night: Border security first. The President said last night that we can do it by 2008. Ask Congress for the money. This is an authorization. I want a commitment.

If we do not commit to the people of the United States of America-- our school systems that are overcrowded, our health care and emergency rooms that are challenged, our civil justice system is challenged--and see to it that we get a border that is secure so we can manage our legal immigration in the future, history will be the teacher that we had in 1986.

Facts are stubborn things. The fact is, the Isakson amendment on this comprehensive reform says what the President said last night, that securing the border first is job one. I submit anything that anyone says that is the opposite means they want to repeat the tragedy of 1986.

I ask my colleagues to sincerely search their heart and soul for their constituents and vote in favor of this amendment. Let's have comprehensive reform that begins with a secure border.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How was that time allocated? Was that morning business?

I see. How much time on each side?

I thank the Chair.

So we have 34 minutes.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question. Is it the Senator's understanding that if we accept the Isakson amendment, we will continue to have this culture of illegality in the United States? If we accept the Isakson amendment, we will still have the hiring by employers of illegal aliens, we will be driving wages down, we will still have a whole culture of illegality, we will have people in the shadows, we will have people whose names we don't know because we are unable to bring people out into the sunlight and understand who is actually here in terms of our national security? Does the Senator from Colorado not believe that this is really--the Senator from Colorado, as I understand it, has been a strong supporter of border security, provisions that are in the underlying bill. He has been a strong supporter to make sure that this is a key element in our total immigration strategy: a strong border and that we deal with the dangers of our border, but to understand that if we are going to be able to deal with the dangers of our border, we are going to also have to deal with enforcement in this country of employers. We are also going to have to deal with the adjustment of the status of those who are here. Is that the position of the Senator from Colorado?

Mr. President, I want to understand clearly, he is not taking a second step to anyone, is he, in having a strong border enforcement; am I right?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, therefore, the Senator from Colorado, with his amendment, believes that he offers a path that is going to protect our national security in the most effective way because we will gain information, we will gain knowledge, we will understand the people who are here and will know their names, will know their addresses, will know where they live, and they will be part of our society.

Secondly, I understand that he believes that without his amendment, we are still going to have this culture of illegality where we have employers hiring undocumented workers. The Isakson amendment doesn't do anything about that, as I understand. If we adopt the Isakson amendment, we will still have the exploitations of undocumented workers, and we will also have the conditions where we are driving wages down, which drives wages down for Americans. Does the Senator not believe that will continue to be the result unless we do a comprehensive approach?

I yield 4 more minutes, Mr. President.

Mr. President, as I understand the Senator from Colorado, his position, quite frankly, is much more consistent with what the President talked about last night, am I correct, where the President talked about a comprehensive approach to deal with the challenges of illegality. And his position is that we ought to look at it in a comprehensive way, and the best way to deal with illegality on the border is to also deal with illegality in employment and deal with legality and illegality in adjusting the status in terms of earning the right to remain here; am I correct?

Mr. President, finally, I have my differences with the President, but I agree with the Senator from Colorado. We support that judgment and that decision and his ability to make that judgment and decision. That is what the Senator from Colorado supports, and I do, too.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Michigan has a special request. We know it is not completely consistent with the subject matter at hand, but we are willing to yield time, Senator Salazar and I, out of our time, so we are not going to delay the proceedings of the Senate. This is an important matter.

I yield 4 minutes, if that is sufficient time.

I yield 4 minutes to myself, 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, and 4 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

I ask the Chair, when I have 30 seconds left, to be informed.

Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Georgia does nothing with regard to the National Guard. I have listened to the debate and discussion about the National Guard. Frankly, the way the President described it last night, the Guard would be very limited. They have mainly a supportive kind of proposal. I have real concerns because in my State the Guard is very busy today with the flooding we have in part of Massachusetts. But we are open, at least I am open, on this issue. This amendment has nothing to do with that.

The fact is that those of us who oppose the amendment of the Senator and support Senator Salazar's amendment believe in strong border security. But we also read history. We know the record on the border. Twenty years ago, we had 40,000 people who were coming in here illegally; 10 years ago, it was 400,000. Do you know what we did? We spent $20 billion over the last 10 years, we have increased border guards by 300 percent, and guess what: We have doubled the numbers to 800,000 today--to 800,000.

What is the answer to that? The answer to that is we need tough border security, but we need tough law enforcement here in the United States, and we have to deal with the legality or adjustment of status for those who are here, prepared to pay a penalty, work hard, play by the rules, participate in the armed services of our country, and then join the end of the line for those people waiting to come into the United States--at the end of the line, and 11 years from now be able to achieve citizenship.

The fact remains, if you only do one of the proposals--and this the President of the United States understands and spoke to very clearly. I have my differences with the President, but he is absolutely right. He understands history. He is a border State Governor, and he knows you can't do this by itself, only at the border. The fact is, in the bill that we support, we increased by 12,000 the border patrol. We create a virtual fence.

If the Senator from Georgia has additional national security matters that they think can be added, we are glad to consider them. But we are dealing with the recognition that you have to have a comprehensive approach if you are going to gain control of the borders. History teaches us that. We have had hours and days of hearings about that. All you have to do is look at what has happened to the border in the last years.

Mr. President, as has been pointed out, it is a three- legged stool: tough border security, tough legal enforcement here in the United States, and a recognition of our humanity and decency and our immigration background. If people are prepared to pay a penalty, play by the rules, work hard, and stay free from any trouble with law enforcement, at the end of the line they can earn American citizenship. That is the way to go, and the Isakson amendment short circuits that process.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I will take the last minute 20 seconds.

We ought to learn from history. What we learn from history, from the studies on the border and listening to those hearings, is that just trying to build up the border and add the fence down there is not going to solve the problem. If you read from history, as has been pointed out by Republicans and Democrats, if you just grant amnesty, it doesn't solve the problem.

We have crafted a balanced program which will have strong national security, strong border protection, and also have strong enforcement in terms of employers and recognize that those individuals who are here working hard, playing by the rules, and paying the fines, we will have the ability to adjust their status.

You have to have the three legs of the stool. History teaches us that. The Isakson amendment will take two of those important legs away. It doesn't make sense if we are interested in national security, and it doesn't make sense if we want to have real immigration reform. The President understands it. I hope the Senate will.

The President understands it. I hope the Senate will.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

And I ask for the yeas and nays on the following amendment, on the Salazar amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I believe when we return at 2:1 p.m., we will go to Senator Dorgan's amendment, followed, hopefully, shortly thereafter by the Bingaman amendment, depending on the outcome, for the notification of the Members.

I thank all of our colleagues for their cooperation for a good morning's debate and discussion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my resolution, S. Res. 63, calls for an international investigation into Monday's assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon. The resolution also urges the President to take steps to pressure Syria to leave Lebanon.

I am pleased that Senators Lugar, Reid, Levin, Dodd, Corzine, Allen, and Chafee have joined in co-sponsoring this resolution.

The despicable murder of Rafiq Hariri has deprived Lebanon of a dedicated and effective leader.

It also is an attempt at intimidating the Lebanese people and pushing the country backward toward chaos. It must not succeed.

In Lebanon and beyond, many suspect that Syria is responsible. That's understandable--Syria has an extensive intelligence and military presence in Lebanon, its opposition to Hariri is well known, and it continues to play a destabilizing role in Lebanese affairs.

Syria must get out of Lebanon--now.

Prime Minister Hariri's emergence as an opponent to Syrian meddling in Lebanon was seen as a serious threat in Damascus. The fact that he was a Muslim holding such opinions was even more problematic, as this reflects the spread of anti-Syrian sentiment in recent years beyond the Maronite Christian community.

Cooperation across confessional lines in Lebanon complicates the ability of Syria to maintain its grip over Lebanese affairs.

That is why Syria forced Prime Minister Hariri to resign last October. And that is why Syria, through its Lebanese allies, had been trying to dilute Hariri's influence by redrawing electoral districts ahead of parliamentary elections due later this Spring.

The resolution I have introduced condemns the assassination, extends condolences to Mr. Hariri's family and the Lebanese people; it demands that Syria immediately withdraw its troops and intelligence personnel from Lebanon; it urges the President ask the United Nations Security Council to go beyond Tuesday's statement condemning the assassination by passing a resolution establishing an independent investigation.

I would add parenthetically that many in Lebanon are skeptical of an investigation that would be carried out by a government they perceive as taking its orders from Syria.

The resolution urges the President to consider imposing additional sanctions under the Syria Accountability Act.

Finally, it supports the call of the Lebanese people for an end to Syria's presence in Lebanon, and for free and fair elections for parliament this Spring monitored by international observers.

Mr. President, I'd like to add a word about what this resolution does not do. It does not in any way, shape, or form even hint at supporting the use of force against Syria.

I think it is important to state that clearly, given the mistrust of many in Congress over the administration's intentions after the mishandling of Iraq.

The intent of this resolution is to encourage the President to work with the international community to investigate the assassination and to use diplomatic pressure for Syria to leave Lebanon.

In fact, this tragic incident offers an opportunity to work closely with France. It was French-U.S. cooperation which resulted in the passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution last September calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. And just yesterday President Chirac made a personal visit to Lebanon to console Hariri's family. I commend him for this important gesture.

I urge President Bush to use his meeting with President Chirac on Monday to coordinate the next diplomatic steps.

If France were to recall its Ambassador to Syria, the rest of Europe would follow France's lead. If France and the United States together called for a United Nations Security Council resolution to establish an independent investigation, I believe such a resolution would pass. Such cooperation would send a signal more powerful to the Syrians than any unilateral U.S. moves.

Given the lingering mistrust between Europe and the U.S. over Iraq, France may at first be hesitant. That is why I believe President Bush should engage personally with President Chirac to develop a joint diplomatic strategy and to dispel any apprehensions about our intentions.

Mr. President, Rafiq Hariri's assassination was about more than the murder of one leader. It was an attempt to kill the hopes and aspirations for freedom in Lebanon.

There are those who argue that we have no national interest in the independence of Lebanon. Given our bitter experiences in Lebanon, I can understand their apprehensions. But I disagree that we have no interest in Lebanese independence.

The Syrian presence in Lebanon enables the terrorist group Hezbollah to continue to operate as the only significant armed militia 14 years after the end of the Lebanese civil war. Hezbollah enables Syrian and Iranian hardliners to try and derail renewed hopes for Israeli- Palestinian peace. Based on my recent meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, it is clear that Hezbollah, through its support for Palestinian terrorist groups, is seen as a significant threat to a fragile peace process.

That is why I believe we do have an important interest in diminishing Syria's involvement in Lebanon.

At this moment, it is essential that the forces of terror hear a unified voice from the civilized world. They must not be seen as succeeding, lest they are emboldened to take even more aggressive action in other arenas. Instead, Monday's attack must be seen as a decisive setback for Syria and its allies.

I urge the President and the Secretary of State to act quickly on the recommendations offered in this resolution.

Rafiq Hariri's death must not be in vain, and the Lebanese people whom he served deserve answers--and action.

Let us hope that this barbarous murder marks the beginning of the end of Syria's presence and interference in Lebanon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is no doubt that trying to fix our broken immigration system is a complex issue. Frankly, part of what we have been trying to do is to find solutions that thread the needle and shrink the gap between the approach of the House of Representatives, which is primarily an enforcement-only bill, and comprehensive immigration reform that I believe is supported by most of us in the Senate, including myself.

I differ with the sponsors of the bill in the Senate, and I intend to offer amendments that will, I believe, improve it, while retaining its comprehensive nature. I believe it is simply surreal to suggest that what the amendment of the Senator from Georgia does somehow retreats to the House position and is an enforcement-only approach.

Indeed, I think the Senator from Georgia has struck upon an ingenious way to thread the needle by saying, yes, we believe that border security is important; yes, we believe that we ought to produce the computer systems, hire and train the people, create the databases which will actually make this reform work, rather than put the cart before the horse and say, with the stroke of a pen, that 12 million people who are living out of legal status are suddenly legal; and, yes, we are going to have 325,000 new people each year come into the country, regardless of whether our economy is in a boom or a bust and possibly compete with Americans for those jobs.

What the Senator from Georgia has done is say let's put the horse in front of the cart, not the cart in front of the horse. Let's do first things first. Let's make sure this will actually work.

Last night the President talked about sending 6,000 National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol secure the border, recognizing that it takes time to train Border Patrol agents. We now train them at the rate of 1,500 a year, and we can't all of a sudden secure the border because we can't all of a sudden train enough Border Patrol agents. We can't all of a sudden, with the wave of a magic wand, build the infrastructure that is necessary. We can't, with the wave of a magic wand, issue the request for proposals to actually let the contracts that will allow the construction of the computer systems and the databases that will actually make this work. We can't, with the wave of a magic wand, say we are going to create a secure identification card which will allow employers to verify the eligibility of prospective employees. It is going to take a little bit of time.

But that is not the same thing as saying, as the Senator from Colorado has said, that somehow we are going with an enforcement-only approach.

I support a comprehensive immigration reform plan that is built on a foundation of border security, that says we need to have worksite verification, that we need to have a secure identification card so that employers can determine whether in fact a person is eligible to work. I believe we ought to have sanctions against employers who cheat. I believe we ought to have a temporary worker program, not like the proposed guest worker program in this underlying bill, and that will be the subject for future amendments.

The message we need to send the American people is that we are actually serious about making this proposed comprehensive immigration reform system work. If we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Colorado, it will send a message that we are not serious about making sure we have the infrastructure and the people and the systems and the cards in place that will actually make this comprehensive reform work.

The American people have already been burned once very badly when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform. In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty, the tradeoff was supposed to be worksite verification and employer sanctions for employers who cheat. But the Federal Government never did what it was supposed to do by providing the means for employers to actually make that determination in a way that had some integrity. Now I believe the American people are looking at us skeptically, wondering whether we are going to try to pull the rug out from under them again.

The American people can be amazingly tolerant, they can be amazingly forgiving, but they won't be mocked, and they will not believe us unless we build some confidence into the system by saying we are going to take care of helping to secure the border, we are going to provide the means to enforce this system, before we are going to implement a 12-million person amnesty which will put a tremendous load on the men and women who are supposed to administer this system. Can you imagine how long it will take to make this happen? All this does is say let's do first things first, rather than put the cart before the horse.