Social Security Card Fortification Act

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I have sent a second-degree amendment to the desk to the Landrieu amendment. My second degree will not strike her amendment. As a matter of fact, it will add at the end of her amendment the provisions of an amendment I had offered on Defense authorization. I am to chair the Democratic Policy Committee luncheon in a few minutes so I am not able to speak at length about this amendment. I intend to do that at some later point.

I wish to mention what Senator Landrieu has described in her first- degree amendment, the interest in having as our major policy goal here with respect to the fight against terrorism, the destruction of and elimination of the leadership of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden. My amendment is one I had offered, as I said, to the Defense authorization bill, previously. It is an amendment that requires a quarterly classified report to be offered to the Congress that would tell us what is being done to bring to justice the leadership of al-Qaida.

The reason for offering that is quite simple. A week ago, we had a new National Intelligence Estimate, an NIE, given to the Congress in classified and unclassified form; an NIE that was reported to the American people. The reports were not particularly surprising but in some ways stunning. The report says the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland, in this country--the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland is al-Qaida and its leadership. It also says al-Qaida and its leadership is in a secure hideaway or safe harbor.

I ask the question for which there is no answer: Why, nearly 6 years after 9/11/2001, in which Osama bin Laden boasted about engineering the murder of thousands of innocent Americans--why, after 6 years, is there a safe harbor or secure hideaway anywhere on this planet for the leadership of al-Qaida and for Osama bin Laden? That, in my judgment, is a failure.

We have a lot of briefings in this Congress; some of them classified, top secret briefings. There are no briefings

that I am aware of on what is being done or what has not been done to bring to justice, to apprehend, and eliminate the leadership of al- Qaida. Those briefings do not exist. One of the reasons that perhaps we have not seen progress in bringing to justice and eliminating the leadership of al-Qaida is the President himself said: I don't think much about that. I don't think much, don't care much about Osama bin Laden.

If you believe the intelligence estimates, they are today planning additional attacks against this country. Yesterday, we woke up to the news that there are apparently dry runs, they think--our intelligence people think there are dry runs being made in our airports with various things packed in luggage by terrorists who want to do potential attacks later. We hear all these reports and the question remains: Why is it the leadership of the organization that poses the greatest terrorist threat to this country has a secure hideaway somewhere or a safe haven somewhere? There ought not be a square inch of ground on this planet that is safe for those who murdered Americans on 9/11, for those who pose the greatest threat to this country. That is intolerable.

The Defense authorization bill will come back to the floor of the Senate, I guess. This amendment I have offered is in that piece of legislation. But to make certain this amendment becomes law and gets to the desk of the President for signature, I have offered it to this appropriations bill. I understand it fits better on Defense authorization. My hope is that is where it will wind up on the President's desk.

It seems to me we went through agonizing debates and passionate debates on the floor of the Senate about the war in Iraq. I respect everybody's opinion on those issues. But while we have soldiers who got up this morning and strapped on body armor and got in humvees and then went and knocked door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, where Shias are killing Sunnis and Sunnis are killing Shias and Shias and Sunnis are both killing Americans--while that happened this morning in the middle of a civil war, we have the greatest terrorist threat to this country apparently in a safe harbor or secure hideaway. That ought not exist. First things first. Let's fight the terrorists first and defeat the terrorists first. That ought to be the first and most important priority and responsibility. If they are the greatest threat to this country, let's eliminate that threat. That ought to be the goal of this country. That is why I offer this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment has two parts to it. No. 1, it increases the reward for the elimination of the al-Qaida leadership and Osama bin Laden, and, No. 2, it required a quarterly classified report to be made to the Congress, every quarter, from this administration and from any administration, to say what they are doing, to tell us what they have been doing to try to apprehend and bring to justice and eliminate the leadership of the greatest terrorist threat to this country.

Is it too much to ask that we ought to be informed?

We ought to understand what is being done or what is not being done. I think the American people have a reason to ask the question: Why, nearly 6 years later, do we now read--and I have read it on a number of occasions in unclassified versions of classified reports that say--there is a secure hideaway for Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida?

There is a secure hideaway. There is safe haven. Now, why should any place on this Earth be secure or safe for those who would attack this country?

Well, the intelligence reports indicate that somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in the tribal-controlled mountainous regions, there is some sort of safe hideaway or secure hideaway or safe haven, as they call it. I have flown over this region. I have looked down, and I know there is no border. You cannot tell what country you are in. I have flown over the region that they call tribal-controlled between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no evidence of a country boundary. It is a tough country, tough region, I understand that.

But if we now have al-Qaida reconstituting and rebuilding training camps, which they are doing--they are recruiting new recruits, they are building training camps, they are planning attacks against the West, planning attacks against the United States of America, and doing so in a secure hideaway or safe haven--then I say that is wrong. It ought to be job No. 1 for this country to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida that represents the greatest threat to our country.

That is the purpose of this amendment, to say we want that to be the overriding and overarching goal, and we want reports, classified reports every single quarter of what has been done or what has not been done because I do not believe, frankly, this has been a significant priority.

It certainly should have been. If it has not been in the past, at least let's make it so in the future.

I want to say that Senator Conrad joins me in this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor as well.

As I said, I have to chair the Democratic policy committee luncheon in just a moment. I wanted to make a comment on the amendments that have been offered, and perhaps after the policy committee luncheon, if these issues are still pending, I will be able to comment.

Senator Vitter has offered an amendment dealing with prescription drugs. Senator Cochran has second-degreed that amendment, as I understand it. I believe we ought to have access to lower priced prescription drugs, FDA-approved prescription drugs.

Lower priced prescription drugs exist in virtually every other country of the world. Why should the American consumer not have the capability to acquire them under our current rules? I would say that we already have a circumstance where we are allowed about a 90-day supply of drugs, if someone walks across the border or drives across and comes back with a personal use, 90-day supply. Very few Americans live close enough to the border to be able to do that. But we have an amendment that is a broad bipartisan amendment; 30-some Members of the Senate have worked on it, cosponsored it. This will not be the legislation in which we consider that amendment, I do not expect.

The amendment that Senator Vitter has offered, as second-degreed by Senator Cochran, would simply restate current rules; that is, currently what is allowed. It would simply restate current rules, which I assume offends no one but accomplishes nothing as well.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Let me say that on the amendment I just offered, I would be glad to a 10-minute time agreement when we get ready. I expect we will not need a recorded vote on that. But I know, as the Senator from Nevada is pointing out, we had an objection to even the motion to proceed on this bill, which was strange to me. Why would anybody have objected to proceeding?

Now we get a bill on the floor, and Senator Byrd, Senator Cochran, the chairman and ranking member, I know they want to get this done. I believe we ought to get these appropriations bills through and out of here. This is a good bill.

I hope this afternoon Senators can come and offer the amendments. I hope we can get this bill done today. It is not just this bill, we have got a lot of appropriations bills we have to do. So the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, has an important message: We need to get this appropriations bill done. It deals with homeland security after all.

Mr. President, my understanding is that by unanimous consent, we have a vote scheduled at 2 o'clock.

I know of no opposition to the amendment I have offered. Are there those on the minority side seeking to use time against the amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be recognized for 4 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to use the remaining time.

Mr. President, my understanding is that we have a 2 o'clock vote on this amendment. This amendment is one Senator Conrad and I had offered on the Defense authorization bill. That bill, as you know, is no longer on the floor of the Senate. So we offer it now to this legislation. Just as my colleague from Louisiana has previously offered an amendment with respect to the objective and the priority of eliminating the leadership of al-Qaida, this amendment we offered about 2 weeks ago would do two things: increase the reward for Osama bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaida; No. 2, and most important, it would require quarterly top-secret classified briefings to this Congress every quarter about what is or is not being done to bring to justice, to capture, or kill the leadership of al-Qaida.

Why do we want to do this? It has been nearly 6 years since thousands of Americans were murdered--innocent Americans murdered by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. They boasted about engineering the murder of innocent Americans.

Here is what last week's National Intelligence Estimate says:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland.

That doesn't need much interpretation. The most serious threat to our homeland is al-Qaida.

We assess the group has protected or regenerated key

elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe

haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas,

operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

Does anybody in this country believe there ought to be a safe haven on this

planet for those who boasted about murdering thousands of innocent Americans? Does anybody believe there ought to be secure hideaways or a safe haven for the leadership of al-Qaida that, today, in the mountains somewhere, are planning attacks against this country?

Why, after 6 years, are we not successful in bringing to justice and limiting the leadership of al-Qaida? It is not as if we don't know all of this.

This is in June:

Al-Qaida regroups in new sanctuary on the Pakistan border.

While the U.S. presses on in its war against insurgents

linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, bin Laden's group is recruiting,

regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary. . . .

This is from the New York Times in February:

Terror officials see al-Qaida chiefs regaining power.

Senior leaders from al-Qaida are operating from Pakistan

near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence

and counterterrorism officials.

How much more do we need to understand? We have soldiers in Iraq going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, where Sunni and Shia are killing each other and Sunni and Shia are both killing American soldiers. In the middle of a civil war, we have soldiers going door to door in Baghdad and, in the meantime, we have al-Qaida building training camps in a secure hideaway between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And today, this afternoon, they are planning additional attacks against our country. That is unbelievable to me.

Mr. President, in August 2001, the Presidential daily briefing given to this President said the following:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.

That was the title. Nearly 6 years later, we now have intelligence assessments with this title:

Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West.

That is what I call failure.

We must succeed. That is why we ask with this amendment for quarterly classified top-secret briefings to this Congress to tell us what they are doing or what they are not doing to bring to justice and to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. It is unbelievable to me that Osama bin Laden, who boasted of attacking this country, now apparently is in a secure hideaway or a safe haven. Nowhere on this small planet should there be somewhere safe for the leader of the organization or the leadership of the organization that launched the attack on this country in 2001. It is unbelievable to me that we are in this situation.

Now, the President said this when asked about it:

I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really

don't care. It is not that important and it is not our

priority.

Those are the words of President Bush.

Let me read the words of the National Intelligence Estimate of last week that came out from this administration:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland.

Maybe we ought to modify that statement of the President because it ought to be our priority. That is what this amendment is about. It should have been our priority 4 years ago, 5 years ago. It ought to be our priority today. I know of no more important priority for this country than dealing with the leadership of al-Qaida and eliminating the greatest political threat and the most serious terrorist threat to our homeland. That is what our amendment does.

I hope the Senate will once again agree to this amendment and establish this as a preeminent priority for this country.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, it is my understanding no time remains and we will go to a vote immediately; is that correct?

What is the Senator's request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we consider the amendment I have offered, notwithstanding rule XVI.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada and others were in the well a moment ago when Senator DeMint indicated what he wanted was a vote on my amendment. I said that is fine, withdraw your objection and we will have a vote on my amendment. Apparently, that is not what he wanted because the Senator offered an objection relative to rule XVI. The Chair sustained the Senator's objection, and because the Senator won, he was not satisfied and wanted to do something further.

I don't have the foggiest idea what might be the motivations here. If the Senator from South Carolina wants a vote on my amendment, all he has to do is withdraw his objection, and we can have a vote in 30 seconds. If there is some other nefarious purpose here, then maybe the Senator might explain it to us.

Madam President, last November was one of those truly rare moments in the short history of our country and our democracy. Any political science student taking a freshman lecture, of course, will hear how incredibly hard it is to remove entrenched congressional majorities. They know the statistics about how hard it is to defeat incumbents around here. It doesn't happen that often. But sometimes, the American people rise up in one moment, as they did last November, and they make history. Just six times in our 230-year history has one party lost both Houses of Congress, and 2006 was the first time the Republican Party failed to win a single House, Senate, or gubernatorial office previously held by the Democrats.

We Democrats have been in that predicament. In 1994, Democrats woke up to a landslide defeat some people thought would never come. It wasn't always easy, it wasn't always collegial, but we listened and we learned. Together, we reached across the aisle to balance the budget and reform welfare. We wrestled with why we had lost, and we wrestled with what we had to do in order to come together--not just as a party but as a country.

Evidently, some people still haven't wrestled with what happened last November 7.

Last November, Americans were appropriately angry. They saw our young men and women in uniform paying the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq for a failed policy that was stuck on autopilot. They saw the number of Americans without health insurance skyrocket to 45 million, with more hard-working Americans joining them every day. They saw record-high oil prices and global climate change--a reality denied and deferred and no serious national effort to address these issues. They saw staggering corruption and no accountability for the way the people's House had been turned into a refuge for the special interests. Americans saw a politics and a party that was broken, and they rejected the stubbornness, cynicism, corruption, and failed policies that made ``Washington'' a dirty word. They voted for a change.

President Bush seemed to get the message the day after the 2006 election when he said to America:

The message yesterday was clear. The American people want

their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan

differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work

together to address the challenges facing our Nation.

The President said he got the message, but the question has to be asked: What have Republicans done since then? Where are they 6 months after their worst electoral defeat in 50 years? What happened to the President's postelection statements when measured against the President's actions and those of the Republican minority in the Senate? Those actions tell a very different story. Before the dust had settled, before defeated Republicans had even cleaned out their offices, this President and his remaining allies in Congress have made a calculation, on issue after issue, that they would just set out to stop everything from happening and then they would turn

around and they would ask: Why is nothing happening under the Democrats? This is a pure political calculation. It is wrong for the country, and I respectfully would suggest, ultimately, it will be wrong for the party. They would rather spend their time attacking Harry Reid than attacking the Nation's problems. Delay is no longer just a former Republican leader; it has become a Republican way of life.

We have been busy debating progress in Iraq around here and measuring benchmarks. I can't help but think as we talk about measuring benchmarks that pretty soon the Iraqi Government is going to wonder whether the Republican caucus is going to meet any of its benchmarks or any of the country's benchmarks.

For 6 months now, the Democratic majority has worked in good faith to deliver on our promises to the American people. Because of the Democratic majority, the minimum wage earner in America now makes 70 cents an hour more than they did under a Republican Congress--and soon they will be making $2 more. The longest streak without a raise in the minimum wage in the history of the minimum wage has ended but not before 4 months of Republican obstruction cost each minimum wage earner in America around $500 in earnings.

We passed legislation to make college more affordable and cut interest rates in half for millions of Americans with student loans. We stood up to powerful special interests and raised the fuel efficiency of our automobiles by 10 miles per gallon. Twenty years had passed since Washington raised the fuel standards, but Democrats took on the special interests and got it passed. We passed funding for stem cell research. We passed the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We passed ethics and lobbying reforms.

Just yesterday, we passed legislation that will fix many of the shortfalls in our care for injured troops and veterans, and, over yet another White House veto threat, we also passed a 3.5-percent raise for members of the military. Most importantly, we passed legislation demanding that the President face reality and begin redeploying troops from Iraq.

Regrettably, there is, on almost every one of these issues, today as I stand here a gap between how many of those policies that are aimed to help everyday Americans, which enjoy the majority support of the Senate, and how many have actually been signed into law. Why? One simple reason: The President and his allies in Congress have decided to use every means at their disposal just to slow it down and block it, to stand for a policy of obstruction and obstruction and obstruction, not accomplishment for the American people. They have vetoed and filibustered and killed bills in conference. They have wasted days and days with procedural motions and delays that have nothing more to do in their purpose than to waste time and squander the trust and patience of the American people and, ultimately, to hope to be able to blame it on the Democrats.

Just look at what they have blocked. They vetoed a Senate bill demanding a new strategy in Iraq. They vetoed a stem cell research bill, science that could prove crucial to cures for 100 million Americans with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or diabetes or other diseases. Now, another veto is threatened on children's health care--of all things, children's health care--a veto threat on a bill the President hasn't even read, because he was worried about the price tag. Well, we are talking about our children's health, and the bill offered just $7 billion each year for uninsured children, while we spend 1\1/2\ times that amount every month in Iraq. Those are just the bills which made it to the President's desk.

Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a bill to allow the Federal Government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for 43 million Americans on Medicare. Republicans are blocking the passage of a bill that would provide crucial funding for the intelligence community. They are blocking ethics bills that would mark the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate. They don't have the votes to stop it, so they are pulling a procedural maneuver and refusing to appoint conferees in order to hammer out the final details of the bill.

The Republicans are now setting records for filibusters and obstruction. The Senate record for filibusters is being set already, and it is only halfway through this term. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Never, in the field of Senate legislation, was so much progress blocked for so many by so few.

Actually, they have made history, I suppose, because thanks to the Senate Republicans, L.A. is no longer the center of gridlock in America--it is right here. On issue after issue, the Republicans have chosen to filibuster--and to do so just 2 short years after they declared the filibuster, as their then-leader, Bill Frist, said in late 2004, ``nothing less than the tyranny of the minority.'' After expressing outrage at the mere hint of a Democratic filibuster last session, the Republicans have suddenly become the principled champions of so-called minority rights in the Senate, but minority rights apply to legitimate filibusters for legitimate issues, not a policy of obstruction to stop everything that comes along.

After threatening the so-called ``nuclear option'' when Democrats stood up to defend the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they have introduced a filibuster to stop everyday business in the Senate. Almost everything the majority leader tries to do here now requires us having a cloture vote in order to prevent a filibuster. In fact, the rubberstamp Republicans of the previous 7 years have now become the roadblock Republicans. The party of Abraham Lincoln has become the party of redtape--vetoes, filibusters--any means necessary to deny the will of the majority of the Senate and the vast majority of the American people.

If you don't believe me, listen to what the minority whip, Senator Trent Lott, told a reporter just this April. He said:

The strategy of being obstructionists can work or fail, and

so far, it is working for us--

The ``us'' being the Republican Party and the minority in the Senate.

Well, I think the Senator is looking at it the wrong way. The question isn't, Is it working for Republicans, is it working for Democrats? The question is, Is it working for the American people? Is it working for the millions of low-income children whose health care funding the President has threatened to veto? Is it making us safer when you block the funding for the intelligence agencies? Is this obstructionist strategy working for the 12 million Americans forced to live in the shadows of American life while our borders stay broken? Is it working for the 554 soldiers who have died in Iraq since Republicans first blocked a measure to redeploy troops last February?

Instead of the Senate's highest shared principles of consensus and bipartisan accomplishment, the Republicans have chosen the lowest common denominator--a zero sum game in which they are willing to gamble the American people's loss for Republican gain. The Republican strategy seems to be to slash the tires of the Senate and then wonder why we are still stuck on the side of the road and blame somebody else for that problem.

Let me be clear what I am criticizing here. I support the right of the minority to filibuster. In fact, I have done so myself. Every Senator in this body has that right. I support that right. But when filibustering not for the principle of the issue at hand but for the generic, broad strategy of stopping what happens here so you can blame the party in charge for not being able to finish the work, that is unacceptable.

The rights of the minority in the Senate ought to be protected, but they also ought to be used responsibly too. Do I have a problem with time?

I ask unanimous consent for a few more minutes.

Mr. President, obstruction for obstruction's sake is not in the best traditions of this great institution. It is the worst kind of cynical political calculation. I think all of us on our side would join in voting to protect the right of the minority to be able to filibuster. We all understand that what goes around comes around, and the time may come when we again may be in the minority. We Democrats don't want to use the nuclear option. We are

not even talking about it. We want to pass bills. We want to pass bills that are supported by a majority of people in the Senate, including Republicans, and certainly supported by the majority of Americans.

I say to my Republican colleagues that there is a better way to do business. We can work together and actually do something positive for the American people. All of us know this is a uniquely challenging moment for this country. We face new threats and hurdles no generation has faced before. We ought to be working together to solve those problems. The only chance this Senate has to make a real contribution to history is to make a bipartisan contribution. That is the only way the Senate meets its own expectations.

Some of the great legislative accomplishments in recent memory came under mixed Government, when both sides of the aisle came together.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan saw that Social Security was in danger of going bankrupt and placed a call to the Democratic speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill. They realized that at the end of the day, nobody would solve it if they didn't. So they got together and took the politics out of a tough and unpopular vote. The deal they struck kept Social Security afloat. Neither man could have done it without the other. Neither party could have done it without the other.

We all know the limits of a politics of division, of partisan sectarianism. A politics of division can rush our country into war, but it cannot sustain our trust or the war itself. A politics of division has no answer for 12 million undocumented workers in our houses, fields, and factories. It has no answer for 45 million Americans with no health insurance, no answer for icecaps that are melting or a failed policy in Iraq. The politics of division is bad for America--from the Parkinson's patient to the undocumented immigrant to the soldier in Iraq. Nobody is benefiting from Republican obstructionism.

It is also bad for the Senate. This Senate has been known as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But there is nothing deliberative about partisan sabotage. There is nothing deliberative about blind obstructionism.

The ongoing debate we have here is about much more than Senate procedure. At its core is a debate, really, about where we are headed in our relationship with each other, Republicans and Democrats. All of us go home and hear from our constituents about how they have lost faith in Washington. All of us want to do right by the people who elected us and try to make life better for the American people.

Any Senator who has been here for a period of time has watched the decline of the quality of the exchange on both sides of the aisle in this institution. I have seen colleagues stand up against it. I remember when Senator Gordon Smith, in the middle a painful debate on Iraq, said:

My soul cries out for something more dignified.

I think a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle are concerned for the Senate. Voters want a debate over ideas, not a war of words; a choice of direction, not a clash of cloture votes. The stalemate we have now is not what the Senate is renowned for. This is called, as I said, the greatest deliberative body in the world, a place where people on both sides can find common ground and get good things done for other people.

Ultimately, we are accountable to the American people--accountable for false promises, accountable for failure to address issues we promised to address, whether it is energy independence or military families who lose their benefits. We are accountable.

Mr. President, a filibuster to stop all progress, then claim Democrats aren't doing anything, is a failed strategy. It is a failure because it doesn't put the American people first. I believe the American people will hold a party of obstruction accountable. I hope that will change.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is issuing subpoenas to political operatives at the White House for documents and testimony related to the committee's ongoing investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice. This is not a step I take lightly. For over 4 months I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings but to no avail. They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials--not current officials but former officials--to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.

We have now reached a point where accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. And today I will subpoena Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a coverup and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort. Just this week, during his sworn testimony, Mr. Gonzales contrasted these firings with the replacement of other U.S. attorneys for ``legitimate cause.''

The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege, despite testimony under oath and on the record that the President was not involved. The White House refuses to provide a factual basis for its blanket claims. The White House has instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know and instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. The White House has withheld relevant documents and instructed other witnesses not to produce relevant documents to the Congress but only to the White House.

Last week, the White House did much to substantiate the evidence that it is intent on reducing U.S. attorneys and Federal law enforcement to merely another partisan political aspect of its efforts when it dispatched an anonymous senior official to take the position that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia would not be permitted to follow the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of executive privilege by prosecuting contempt of Congress. In essence, this White House asserts its claim of privilege is the final word, that Congress may not review it, that no court can review it and that this White House, unlike any White House in history, is above the law.

Two days ago, during an oversight hearing with Mr. Gonzales, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, rightly asked:

Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional

government in the United States can survive if the President

has unilateral authority to reject congressional inquiries on

grounds of executive privilege and the President then acts to

bar the Congress from getting a judicial determination as to

whether that executive privilege is properly invoked?

There can be no more conclusive demonstration of this administration's partisan intervention in Federal law enforcement than if this administration were to instruct the Justice Department not to pursue congressional contempt citations and intervene to prevent a U.S. attorney from fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty. In other words, telling the U.S. attorney: Violate your oath of office; don't carry out your sworn constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and proceed pursuant to section 194 of title 2 of the United States Code. The President recently abused the pardon power to forestall Scooter Libby from ever serving a

single day of his 30-month sentence for conviction before a jury on multiple counts of perjury, lying to a grand jury, and obstruction of justice. Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further demonstration that this administration refuses to abide by the rule of law.

This stonewalling is a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional oversight. In that time, Presidential advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas. During the Clinton administration, White House and administration advisers were routinely subpoenaed for documents or to appear before Congress. For example, in 1996 alone, the House Government Reform Committee issued at least 27 subpoenas to White House advisers. The veil of secrecy this administration has pulled over the White House is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic.

The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of U.S. attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence.

What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these Federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who has testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the Federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House.

A former political director at the White House made a revealing admission in her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee when she refused to answer questions citing the oath she took to the President. In this constitutional democracy, the oath taken by public officials is to the Constitution, not any particular President of any particular party. The Constitution itself provides the oath of office of the President. Every President since George Washington has shown to ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' The oath for other Federal official is prescribed by Congress through statute and provides that every Federal officer's duty is not to support and defend any particular President or administration but ``to support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to bear true faith and allegiance'' to our founding principles and law.

I will. The witness testified that she had taken an oath to the President. I reminded her the oath is to the Constitution, not to any particular President.

The distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the constitutional authority in this body, knows that every President since George Washington has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

`` . . . to support and defend the Constitution of the United States'' and ``to bear truth fair and allegiance'' to our founding principles and law, not to a particular political party or to a President.

I pointed out to Ms. Taylor that the oath I have been privileged to take as a U.S. Senator is likewise to the Constitution. I proudly represent the people of Vermont. I know it is a privilege to serve as a temporary steward of the Constitution and the values and protections for the rights and liberties of the American people that it embodies. My oath is not to a political party and not even to the great institution of the U.S. Senate but to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a former prosecutor, I feel strongly that independent law enforcement is an essential component of our democratic government, and that no one is above the law.

Despite the constitutional duty of all members of the executive branch to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'' the message from this White House is that the President, Vice President, and their loyal aides are above the law. No check. No balance. No accountability.

The law says otherwise. The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194, provides that if a House of Congress certifies a contempt citation, the U.S. attorney to whom it is sent has a ``duty'' and ``shall'' ``bring it before the grand jury for its action.'' For this White House to threaten to intervene in an effort to preempt further investigation, cover up the truth and avoid accountability is an insult to the rule of law. This law was duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by a duly elected President of the United States. It is derived from law that has been on the books since 1857, for 150 years.

The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances. Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.

Given the stonewalling by this White House, the American people are left to wonder: What is it that the White House is so desperate to hide? As more and more stories leak out about the involvement of Karl Rove and his political team in political briefings of what should be nonpartisan government offices, I think we have a better sense of what they are trying to hide. We have learned of political briefings at over 20 government agencies, including briefings attended by Justice Department officials. This week, the news was that Mr. Rove briefed diplomats on vulnerable Democratic districts before mid-term elections. Why, Senator Whitehouse properly asked at our hearing yesterday, were members of our foreign service being briefed on domestic political contests? Mr. Gonzales had no answer. Similarly, why were political operatives giving such briefings to the Government Services Administration, which rents government property and buys supplies? In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the former political director at the White House ultimately had to concede that her briefings included specific political races and particular candidates being targeted.

In this context, is anyone surprised that the evidence in our investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys for political purposes points to Mr. Rove and his political operations in the White House? Despite the initial White House denials, Mr. Rove's involvement in these firings is indicated by the Department of Justice documents we have obtained and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials. This evidence shows that he was involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S. attorneys. E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated inquiries at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. attorneys. The evidence also shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal. He was fired a few weeks after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ``voter fraud'' enforcement cases in his jurisdiction.

We have learned that Mr. Rove raised similar concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term election he sent the Attorney General's chief of staff a packet of information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004. This evidence points to his role and the role of those in his office in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects. Such manipulation shows corruption of Federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes.

Documents and testimony also show that Mr. Rove had a role in the shaping the administration's response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public. This response included an attempt to cover up the role that he and other White House officials played in the firings.

Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd Graves, U.S. attorney in the Western District of Missouri, was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by a ``loyal Bushie'' for partisan, political purposes.

Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted ``crossing the line'' when she used a political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration judges. Rather than keep Federal law enforcement above politics, this administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law.

The Senator from Washington has been very good to let me have this time. With our service of these subpoenas, I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. attorneys. I hope that the White House steps back from this constitutional crisis of its own making so that we can begin to repair the damage done by its untoward interference with federal law enforcement. That interference has threatened our elections and seriously undercut the American people's confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement. Mr. Rove and the White House must not be allowed to continue manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. Apparently, this White House would rather precipitate an unnecessary constitutional confrontation than do what every other administration has done and find an accommodation with the Congress. If there are any cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them to reconsider the course they have chosen.

There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm. I hope they will reconsider their course and end their cover up so that we can move forward together to repair the damage done to the Department of Justice and the American people's trust and confidence in Federal law enforcement.

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 11 amendments pending on this bill. There are points of order that lie against several of them. And the managers will make those whenever they see fit. I hope that those people who have other amendments pending would agree to short time agreements on them and accept a time for voting. Maybe the managers can even accept some of them.

This is a bill we want to finish today. It is an important piece of legislation. It has been improved in many different ways, not the least of which is this border security legislation that was passed earlier today. So I hope that Democrats and Republicans who offered these amendments will contact the managers and agree on a reasonable period of time so we can vote. It is 1 o'clock in the afternoon. It is important we do this.

I do not want to sound like a stuck record, but we have to finish this legislation before we go home in August. We have to finish the SCHIP bill before we go home in August. We have a 9/11 conference report we have to finish before we go home in August. We have the ethics and lobbying reform we have to finish before we go home in August. We are going to do that.

Everybody should understand--and, of course, I mentioned on the floor about the bill that Senators Boxer and

Inhofe have worked on dealing with WRDA, which is so important to the whole country, but certainly important to the western part of the United States.

I would be happy to yield.

That is a really good example to set for the other people offering amendments. I would also say, as I said on the Senate floor this morning, there is an extremely important congressional delegation that is scheduled to be in Greenland this weekend. I would really like--first of all, I would like to have gone on the trip. But there are 10 or 11 Senators scheduled to go on that trip. I hope that trip can take place. But we are going to have to get this legislation done.

If we get some idea that there is a real stall going on here, we will have to file cloture on the conference report dealing with homeland security, the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and that vote would not take place until Saturday. So we are doing our best to work through all of this. But I want everyone to know, as I have said here so many times, we have a very few things to do, but we are going to do them. And it is no bluff. We have a whole month to complete everything in August. I hope people will help us work through that so that is not necessary.

I would be happy to do that for my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from the State of West Virginia, of the West Virginia hills.

We have four things to do for sure: the bill we are on now, this appropriations bill, children's health, the conference report on the 9/ 11 Commission recommendations, and the message that we are going to get from the House on ethics and lobbying reform. Those four things are essential.

The luxury we would have is also to complete WRDA. The conference report is important. We should be able to do that quickly. We got a huge vote when it came out of here.

These are the things that we must do before we leave. This is not anything new that I just sprung on anybody. That is something that I have been saying for a long time. We have made great progress. I am very happy with it. We were able to get Wounded Warriors done. We were able to get the pay raise for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We were also able to pass for the first time in 3 years the higher education bill--that is important--reconciliation, getting the biggest change in how students are able to go to our schools in our country since the GI bill. We have a few things we need to do, and we really need to do it.

I repeat, it is almost 1 o'clock on Thursday. I will be happy to work into the night to complete this bill. I say that the managers of the bill says it all, Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran. They are the best we have.

Madam President, I gave a talk a week ago tomorrow to a group of people. It was a church meeting. There were adults and young adults there. I told them about my experience serving in the Congress. I have served in the House, and I have served in the Senate. It is not like when I practiced law.

When I practiced law, you put everything in writing. We do not do that in the Congress. We do not do that in the Senate. Your word is your bond. If a Republican Senator or a Democratic Senator--it does not matter--if you tell them you are going to do something, that is the way it is.

To show how powerful and important that is, Alan Bible was a Senator from Nevada who served 20 years and became ill. He retired. When he passed away--there was a plane that was always available to take Senators to funerals. The plane was scheduled to go to Nevada so Senators could attend Alan Bible's funeral.

There was a Republican on that airplane, Ted Stevens. The reason he was on that airplane was there was a vote very important to Ted Stevens dealing with Alaskan oil. Alan Bible had given his word he was going to vote with Ted Stevens. There was tremendous pressure on Alan Bible. Alan Bible's vote was the essential vote, and he withstood all the pressure and voted with Ted Stevens. That is the reason Ted Stevens went to Reno, NV: to honor the life of Alan Bible because he kept his word.

That is what we do in this Senate. We keep our word. It does not matter with whom you make an arrangement; if you tell him you are going to do something, if you tell her you are going to do something, that is the way it is.

So my disappointment in what has happened in the last few minutes is--it appears Senator Murray said it in a more discreet fashion than I am going to say it. Somebody did not keep their word. And that, I suggest, should be worked out. I think if someone in this body is known to have broken their word--and I was part of the little conversation right here--you do not take advantage of people. There are a lot of rules that allow you to take advantage of people, but you cannot do that.

So this is not appropriate. This is wrong. And I would hope that the Senator from Louisiana would kind of retrace his steps and back off and put us back where we should be. If that is not the case, and he chooses not to do that, I think it is going to be a difficult time, I would suggest, for him making other arrangements with Senators in the future because that is how we do business here.

Madam President, if the Republican floor staff would check to find out if we could do the vote at 1:50, 2 o'clock. Two o'clock is fine? Two o'clock.

Madam President, are we in a quorum call?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 15 minutes prior to the vote be equally divided between those in favor of the amendment and those opposed to it. Senator Dorgan is in favor of it, so he would get 7\1/2\ minutes. Is that appropriate?

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

Mr. President, we are in the twilight zone. We are on an appropriations bill. An amendment was offered subject to a point of order. The point of order was raised and sustained by the Chair. And now the person who won wants to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

I say to my friend, you won. The rule XVI you raised and you won. The amendment falls. And it is a Democratic amendment.

Just a second; I have the floor.

Mr. President, that is why I said I think we are kind of in a twilight zone here. The Chair is not partisan. The Parliamentarians who serve at our pleasure, Democrats and Republicans, are not partisan. They go by the rules and the precedents set in this body.

I will be happy to yield to my friend. I will say to my friend, he and I were on this floor and we danced this tune once before. It took us 4 years to unwind from it. That is why the vote yesterday was so important.

Mr. President, our roles were reversed too many years ago when I had his job and he had my job, and it was a very difficult time. Even everything being in order, to move these appropriations bills is hard, and then anybody can offer anything on them. The key to these appropriations bills is you deal with matters of appropriation, not some of the subjects people have thrown into them all the time.

As my friend said, there is a lot of frustration. The House can move a lot of authorizing legislation. We cannot over here. So there is a tremendous temptation to stick in these appropriations bills all kinds of authorizing legislation that shouldn't be on appropriations bills.

I plead to my friend from South Carolina: It doesn't prove anything to have us vote on something--you have already won. I will also say this. The only partisan nature of raising points of order is we try--it usually works out that way--if there is a Republican who violates a point of order, a Democrat who is the manager of the bill will raise a point of order; if it is a Democrat, then a Republican will raise a point of order. That is the only partisan nature of raising points of order.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, calling on his years of experience, to try to settle things down.

I would say that, perhaps with Senator Vitter, giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe there was a misunderstanding in the conversation. That is totally possible. Maybe he didn't understand the rules. Maybe he didn't do one thing and say something else, and I accept that, if in fact that is the case.

So I think what we should do is, I am going to ask a quorum call be started, and then we will huddle over here and see if we can work all this out.

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

Mr. President, due to the good work of my friend from Mississippi and others, on both sides, here is what we are going to do. There has been a point of order raised against the Dorgan amendment, and that has been sustained. So that amendment will fall. And in the order of amendments filed, Senator Vitter's is at No. 11 or 12; OK?

Senator Vitter, when he had his conversation with Senator Cochran, Senator Murray, and me, was under the impression he could still modify his amendment. We thought differently. It was just a misunderstanding. Maybe we have been around here too long--I shouldn't say ``we.'' Maybe I have been around here a long time and just accept things for the way they appear to be and not sometimes the way they are. Senator Vitter has said there was nothing nefarious in what he did. He just assumed he could automatically modify that. And under the rules, he could.

So we will go back right where we were. No one is accusing Senator Vitter of anything that is illegal or unethical. It was simply a misunderstanding among the four of us. So anything I have said earlier today, based on my misunderstanding of him and what his thoughts were, just forget about them because based on the conversation I have had with him in the last few minutes, that wasn't the case. So I shouldn't have been as upset, and

Senator Murray shouldn't have been as upset as she was. Senator Cochran was his usual stoic self trying to lead us in the right direction, which we didn't go.

Finally, Mr. President, let me say, I haven't mentioned his name but, of course, the distinguished Republican leader, being involved in this little huddle that took place, had a tremendous influence on our ability to work this out. I would say--and I hope I don't jinx anything we are working on now--what I would really like us to do is to see if in the foreseeable future we can work out a time on this bill for final passage. No one has had any amendments being prohibited. If people don't want to have final passage in the next 24 hours or so, that's fine.

As I have said before, I don't want to file cloture. We can just keep grinding through the weekend, but I would rather not do that.

Sometime today we are going to see if we can move to the conference report that Senator Lieberman has so masterfully brought back to us dealing with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. He, of course, worked with Senator Inouye and others to get this done, and so we will do that at a later time. But I wish everyone would work--certainly the two managers of the bill--to see when would be an appropriate time to see about a time for final passage.

Remember, we have this bill to complete. We have to work on children's health. We have two conference reports--there may be three conference reports--and that is all we have to do. But we have to go through all the procedural hurdles, and that may take longer than any of us wants to get through in the next few days.

Mr. President, consistent with the unanimous consent agreement, we will be talking about an amendment that was discussed last night. Senator Cornyn had some language changes to the amendment that have now been adopted. I believe it makes it a much stronger, better amendment.

What we are trying to do here is add $3 billion to go toward securing the border, and I believe that is a homeland security event. So it is certainly an amount of money that is large in nature but goes to something that is large in nature in terms of our national security needs.

In terms of Senator Voinovich and his concerns about spending--I admire him greatly. He has been a constant, serious, thoughtful voice about controlling spending. This is an emergency designation, which means it is an off-budget item. I think Senator Voinovich has every right in the world to be concerned about how the Congress is spending money in a way for the next

generation to pick up the bill, but I would argue there is a time for emergencies in business life and personal life and legislative life, and this is one of those times.

This is an emergency kind of manufactured by Washington. It is something that should have been done 20 years ago. Now we have taken up immigration in a serious way. We had an extensive debate not long ago, and we were not able to get comprehensive immigration reform, but I think most Americans believe losing operational control of the U.S.- Mexican border is a national security issue of a serious nature, and they applaud our efforts to put money into securing the border between the United States and Mexico. That is exactly what this amendment does.

If there were ever a legitimate emergency in this country, I think this would be one of those times because we have lost control of our border. In the age of terrorism, what does it mean for a nation like the United States, which is being pursued by a vicious enemy that knows no boundaries, to lose control of its border?

It means that you are opening yourself up to attack. Now, most of the people who come across the border come here to work. This amendment does not deal with that. Hopefully, it will slow down how you get into the country. Hopefully, it will control who comes into the country-- people coming to work illegally or people coming across the border to do us harm, it would make it more difficult.

But the idea of employment and the magnet of employment is not addressed by this amendment. We need a temporary worker program. We need employer verification systems so people cannot come here and fraudulently get jobs. That is not dealt with in this amendment. But this amendment is a great first step to controlling people coming across our border and overstaying their visas. I think it is a step that will get a large bipartisan vote.

What does it do? The $3 billion in emergency spending will allow us to hire 23,000 Border Patrol agents to go report for duty; more boots on the ground, more people patrolling our border making it harder for somebody to come across illegally. We should have done this a long time ago.

This amendment allows the hiring of a substantially larger number of Border Patrol agents, four unmanned aerial vehicles that will allow us to patrol isolated areas of the border by having new technology in place--the unmanned aerial vehicle has been a very effective tool in controlling illegal border crossings--one hundred and five ground-based radar and camera towers. We need walls along the border in urban areas where you can walk across the street, but technology in the desert and other areas of the border has proven to be a good investment. This amendment seriously increases the amount of technology to detect illegal border crossings; 300 miles of vehicle barriers, where people can drive up and down the border with vehicle lanes, where the Border Patrol can patrol that area in question and make it a more effective policing regime; 700 miles of border fence. We have approved the fencing. This would actually completely fund 700 miles of fencing. The border is, I believe, over 2,000 miles. Why 700 miles? Seven hundred miles would allow us to control crossings where you can literally walk across the street. The technology we are putting into place through this amendment will control other areas. The additional boots on the ground will help in all phases.

On the catch-and-release program, where you catch someone, turn them loose, and they come right back, well, we are trying to deal with that problem by increasing detention beds to 45,000, so when we catch someone, we can detain them and deport them--without them never showing up to their hearing.

The Cornyn addition will allow this $3 billion to be used in interior enforcement in a way to go after people who have absconded, who have been deported, who have been issued orders but have left and they are on the run. We can track them down and bring them to justice.

Overall, this amendment is money well spent. I am sorry it has to be spent in an emergency fashion, but it is an emergency. The reason this is an emergency, we have let it get out of hand. The goal of this amendment is operational control of the U.S.-Mexican border.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2480 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hutchison as a cosponsor.

I yield to Senator Cornyn to speak on this topic for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. President, I understand Senator Sessions wishes to speak. He is on the way. As soon as he gets here, we will gladly yield back any time that is remaining. I wish to make a couple comments about the amendment.

No. 1, in terms of spending, it is one of those situations where the country finds itself in an emergency that maybe shouldn't have been an emergency to begin with because we have neglected our border security obligations.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Specter, Coleman, and Lincoln as cosponsors of the amendment.

We are where we are as a nation. We have a porous border. Every time a supplemental bill comes through on Iraq, it gets the votes from this body that it needs to become law, because all of us understand, whether we disagree with the policies in Iraq, that once the soldiers and warfighters are there, our troops are there, there are certain things that have to flow from their presence, and we designate a lot of money for the Iraqi operation as emergency spending; I believe rightfully so.

Well, I would argue to anybody, Republican or Democrat, that one of the big chinks in our national security armor is a porous border between the United States and Mexico, and this $3 billion will really help in a serious way. It is serious money to deal with a serious problem that is truly an emergency. It will add more boots on the

ground. It will add agents for there to be a total of 23,000 border security agents on the border, which is a tremendous increase over what we have now. I think it is like 13,000 or 14,000.

But the technology in this bill will be a force multiplier. The technology we spend money to secure will allow the force in place to be multiplied by a factor of many because the technology literally leverages the boots on the ground in a tremendous way.

The 45,000 additional bedspaces will stop a program that is really the wrong message to send--catch and release: We catch you. We release you back. You come again. Now we have bedspace to detain people to make sure they do not flee, and they are deported for coming across the borders illegally.

It is an effort to basically deal with a problem that has been a long time in the making. There is money that will have a beneficial consequence to securing our borders. The term ``operational control'' is a military term. I look at this effort to secure our borders in many ways as a military operation.

I hope this amendment gets a strong bipartisan vote. I understand Senator Voinovich's concern about the emergency designation in spending money offline, but this is one of those times I think it is justified.

To the administration, I understand your concerns about spending, but you have sent hundreds of millions of dollars in requests over-- billions of dollars--to the Congress to make sure we have the money necessary to secure Iraq for our troops' point of view. Now it is time to spend $3 billion to secure our borders here at home.

I hope the body will understand this is a step forward. It does not solve the problem. We still have a magnet of employment that has to be dealt with. We need a temporary worker program. We need a lot of things this amendment does not cover. But this is a great start in providing operational security to a porous border that in the age of terrorism is really not only an emergency but a national disgrace.

I hope the taxpayers at large will see this as a serious effort to do something about a problem which has huge consequences over time if left unaddressed. So I appreciate Senator Reid working with us and Senator Cornyn making it better and my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for helping us move the ball down the road.

If this bill ever gets to conference, which I hope it will, I hope this provision is left standing as is because if there is a retreat from this, from the money, and from the designations in this amendment, I think it would be considered a retreat in terms of regaining operational control of our borders.

So with that, I believe Senator Pryor wishes to be recognized.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Alabama would like to speak. We have until 11:35.

I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, would you like 5 minutes?

To be followed by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be evenly divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors Senators Alexander, Dole, Domenici, and Vitter.

Absolutely. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and Senator Coburn from Oklahoma also.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my good friend from Arkansas. It has been a pleasure working with him and all of my colleagues. Senator Gregg has been working on this issue for many years. Senator Cornyn's addition to the amendment last night has made it far better. If no one else would like to speak----