Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to offer an amendment, which I am sending to the desk.

Mr. President, I thank the managers for their hard work. They sincerely want to strengthen homeland security and want to keep this bill focused on that goal and not allow it to be tangled up in partisan issues. That is my goal, too. That is why I am offering this amendment today.

The provision in this bill, found on page 215, that reverses a critical homeland security policy and introduces collective bargaining for airport screeners who work at the Transportation Security Administration, or what we call the TSA, has nothing to do with improving our homeland security. It was certainly not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. My amendment would strike this provision so TSA can continue to protect us from another terrorist attack.

It may be helpful to review the history of this debate so my colleagues understand how we got here. Just 5 years ago, Congress voted in favor of a flexible personnel management system at TSA in recognition that special flexibility is necessary to protect American passengers from terrorists. This system allows security screeners to join a union, but it doesn't tie the hands of TSA when it comes to managing its workforce and protecting the American people.

Collective bargaining, however, would allow labor unions to stand between TSA and its employees in ways that would make the agency less flexible and less nimble and create an operational and security disaster. Mr. President, collective bargaining has been a topic of discussion since TSA's inception. It is important that my colleagues know that it has been evaluated and rejected in every instance as something that would be harmful to our safety.

First, in 2001, collective bargaining was not included in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act when TSA was first created.

Second, in 2003, collective bargaining was rejected by the TSA Administrator for security reasons.

Third, in 2004, collective bargaining was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

I need to repeat that because it is important. This whole bill is designed to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and they did not mention anything about collective bargaining.

Finally, the decision against collective bargaining at TSA has been upheld by multiple Federal and labor relations courts between 2002 and 2006.

Now I will outline six of the negative security consequences of this dramatic change in policy. First, TSA currently uses a security strategy as recommended by the 9/11 Commission that is based on flexible, random, and unpredictable methods. This approach keeps would- be attackers off guard.

Under collective bargaining, TSA will have to negotiate a predetermined framework within which the agency will be required to operate. This policy was not recommended in the 9/11 Commission Report, and it goes directly against the Commission's recommendations. This will weaken our security.

Second, TSA currently establishes security protocols on a national and international basis without having to bargain in advance over the impact of these protocols.

Under collective bargaining, TSA will be required to negotiate on every security protocol with multiple unions on an airport-by-airport basis. At its worst, this could stop many critical new security protocols, but even at its best it will slow them down. This will weaken our security.

Third, TSA currently shifts resources in real time without having to inform any entity. Under collective bargaining, redeployment decisions will be subject to binding arbitration review by a third party who has no Government or security experience but has authority to reverse TSA security decisions.

As my colleagues know, arbitration can take months or even years to resolve. This will weaken our security.

Fourth, TSA currently moves, upgrades, replaces, and repositions equipment to stay in tune with operational requirements. Under collective bargaining, equipment deployment will be subject to a 60- to 180-day negotiation process. All information, including standard operating procedures and tactics, will also be subject to union negotiation. This will weaken our security.

Fifth, TSA currently protects sensitive security information, such as the security resources at a particular site, and releases this information only to those who need to know.

Under collective bargaining, TSA will be required to disclose security information to third party negotiators and arbitrators, increasing the risk of unauthorized information release. This will weaken our security.

Sixth, and finally, TSA currently deploys many innovative security programs within weeks. Under collective bargaining, new positions and promotions will all be subject to months, or years, of impact in implementation.

TSA provided just-in-time explosive training to more than 38,000 security screeners in less than 3 weeks in November of 2005. Under collective bargaining, training is subject to negotiation on the need, design, order of training delivered, and method of delivery. This process could add 60 to 180 days to security training programs and weaken our security.

I know my colleagues understand the need for TSA to be able to move quickly, so I want to make sure everyone knows how slow and how cumbersome collective bargaining will be. Let's please keep in mind as we look at this situation the whole purpose of TSA is to protect our country. That is their first priority. We cannot allow the unionization and union requirements to preempt this first priority of TSA.

Today, TSA--and I know this is very difficult to read--can implement its changes in 1 day or less, and we will talk about some of those examples. But under collective bargaining, it can take up to 568 days to work out the negotiations and possible litigation that could occur when they are trying to establish new protocols. This is not acceptable when it comes to protecting our country.

If we introduce collective bargaining at TSA as proposed in this bill, changes could take, as I said, up to 568 days. My colleagues can see a collective bargaining process starts with up to 14 days of advance notice, up to 14 days for the union to decide how they are going to negotiate, plus up to 180 days to negotiate, and followed by 7 days to implement.

This whole process does not fit with national security interests. I hope my colleagues agree that this is too long and too cumbersome to subject our Nation's security to.

I wish to share with my colleagues several real-world examples of how TSA has been able to rapidly respond to security threats. I will point the attention of my colleagues to the United Kingdom bomb plot, of which we are all aware, last August in 2006. On August 10 of last year, information about one of the most spectacular terrorist plots since 9/ 11 was shared with TSA. TSA worked very quickly to develop a plan that would, over the course of 12 hours, ban all liquids beyond the security checkpoint and enact the quickest changes to the prohibited items list in history. It was simply the most drastic change airport security had ever undergone, and it happened in less than 6 hours from the time the arrest of the alleged terrorists was revealed.

I understand one of my colleagues has offered an amendment that would undercut the whole idea of this bill and force TSA to prove it is an emergency or an imminent threat in order to take the action we did when this plot was revealed.

What will TSA have to go through to prove there is an emergency? What kind of court case, what kind of litigation, what kind of hearings in Congress will they have to go through to prove it is an emergency? This attempt to gut this bill makes it worse than the underlying bill because it subjects our security to constant litigation and second- guessing.

The success of this operation--this United Kingdom bomb plot--was based on a number of factors, including a nimble and professional workforce who is highly trained and rewarded for their performance: an ability to change procedures within hours, expertise in dealing with the public to educate, inform, and help them handle the changes, and a commitment to security in the face of emerging threats. This is a clear example of why we should not tie TSA's hands and prevent it from accomplishing its security mission.

Another example of how TSA has been able to react quickly happened last July, when Lebanon erupted into violence and fighting broke out, leaving thousands of Americans trapped in between the warring factions. The Government of the United States safely evacuated these Americans and thousands of other refugees.

From July 22 to July 31, TSA officers helped to secure 58 chartered flights from Cypress to the United States and screened over 11,000 passengers. The overseas and domestic deployment was the first of its kind, and it demonstrated TSA's ability to use its flexible structure to appropriately respond to both domestic and overseas needs.

TSA delivered on its security mission and ensured the security of arriving airplanes and passengers. The mission was designed, executed, and people were being screened overseas within 96 hours, which is remarkable for a Government agency that had never deployed overseas and had not envisioned a need to do so.

It is important for us to remember at this point the amendment that has been offered to change my amendment would likely have resulted by now with TSA being in court, being challenged as to whether the situation in Lebanon was an imminent threat to our country, which is the language of the amendment that has been offered to change this bill.

We cannot water down our Nation's security by allowing TSA to have to follow collective bargaining rules or, which has been proposed, prove it is an emergency or an imminent threat. This would create a heyday for lawyers.

If these operations had been subject to arbitration and review required by collective bargaining, changes in deployments of personnel would have required notification on TSA's management to the collective bargaining unit, followed by a response accepting the changes in employment conditions or proposing modifications. This process would have created time-consuming rounds of negotiation, even using an expedited process.

TSA's response to the United Kingdom terrorist plot was developed in 12 hours, and the screeners were deployed to Lebanon and Cypress within 96 hours, response times that would have been significantly delayed by days and weeks, if not made impossible, had the notification and negotiation requirements in this bill been in effect. We cannot allow that to happen to our Nation's security.

I would now like to outline three ways collective bargaining will negatively affect workforce performance.

First, TSA currently uses a paid-for performance system that is based on technical competence, readiness for duty, and operational performance. Top security screeners receive a 5-percent base pay increase on top of a 2.1-percent cost-of-living adjustment and a $3,000 bonus.

Under collective bargaining, this paid-for performance system will be replaced with a pass-fail system based heavily on seniority that will not adequately assess technical skills. The collective bargaining system will not reward screening performance or good customer service, and it will reduce standards. This will weaken workforce performance.

Second, TSA can also currently remove ineffective security screeners within 72 hours. Imagine that: The frontline security of our country can identify someone who is not doing their job and remove them so our country and the airline passengers can be safe.

Under collective bargaining, however, arbitration proceedings will retain substandard employees for months, preventing the hiring of replacement officers. This process could take 90 to 240 days and will reduce overall workforce performance. This will weaken workforce performance.

Third, TSA currently uses multiple screening disciplines, adding interlocking layers of security. Under collective bargaining, employees will be able to refuse multidisciplinary jobs resulting in fewer resources to serve passenger checkpoints. This will weaken workforce performance.

My colleagues should know exactly how this weakened workforce performance affects air travelers in our country, and we can have a good look at how that is going to affect us by looking at Canada. A recent incident in Canada provides a great example.

Canada's air security system does not have the flexibility that TSA enjoys. Last Thanksgiving, as part of a labor dispute, passenger luggage was not properly screened and sometimes not screened at all as airport screeners engaged in a work-to-rule campaign, as they called it, creating long lines at the Toronto airport.

A government report found that to clear the lines, about 250,000 passengers were rushed through with minimal or

no screening whatsoever. One Canadian security expert was quoted as saying that if terrorists had known that in those 3 days their baggage wasn't going to be searched, that would have been bad. That is an understatement of the year. We cannot afford to have this kind of union-sponsored disruption at our airports. The Canadian union's airport security was not allowed to strike either, but we can see what they did in order to disrupt the proper screening of baggage there. This would happen in our country as well.

I think it is also important that people know how collective bargaining will impact passenger service. I know that for most Americans, security is the No. 1 goal when it comes to air travel, but they also want security operations to be efficient and not needlessly disrupt their schedules.

I know my colleagues would be pleased to know that TSA has managed the growth of passenger travel and kept average peak wait times to less than 12 minutes. Under collective bargaining, TSA will have to pull at least 3,500 screeners, or 8 percent of the total workforce, off a line to fulfill the needs of the new labor-management infrastructure. This would close at least 250 screening lanes, causing longer lines at checkpoints.

Under these circumstances, average wait times would increase from 12 minutes at peak to more than 30 minutes. This is something that will be very unpopular, especially given the fact that these longer wait lines come with less security.

TSA is also currently capable of relocating security screeners to enable on-time aircraft departures. Under collective bargaining, negotiating job stations and functions will result in poor staffing, leading to longer lines, late flight departures, and other adverse industry impacts. Americans want to make their flights, and they will not support needless delays that come at the expense of their security.

I think it is also important that my colleagues understand what I am talking about and how it could play out in real terms.

During Hurricane Katrina, TSA deployed security officers from around the country to New Orleans to screen evacuees during the aftermath of the storm. This response allowed them to evacuate 22,000 men, women, and children through the airport safely and securely. Several weeks later, TSA responded the same in response to Hurricane Rita in Houston. Security screeners left their home airports with little notice to fly to Houston to help those in need.

Another example of how TSA has been able to react quickly to weather- related events occurred this past December when a big snowstorm hit Denver. Because local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport, TSA responded quickly by deploying 55 officers from Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Colorado Springs to Denver. The deployment allowed TSA to open every security lane around the clock at the airport until they were back to normal operations.

Should we force TSA to prove this was an imminent danger or an emergency before they respond to the needs of the American people? That is what the second-degree amendment is intended to do. We cannot allow that. That will weaken our security.

These operations have been subject to arbitration review required by collective bargaining. Changes in deployment of personnel would have required notification by TSA management to the collective bargaining unit, followed by a response accepting the changes in employment conditions or proposing modifications. This process would have created time-consuming rounds of negotiations, even using an expedited process. Americans do not want needless bureaucracy in our airports, especially when it comes at the expense of our safety.

I also want my colleagues to understand the amount of money collective bargaining is going to cost and how it will impact TSA's operation in air travel security.

The first year startup costs of creating a collective bargaining infrastructure is conservatively estimated at $160 million, forcing TSA to relocate thousands of screeners currently working on aviation security. Since there is no money allocated for this change, this mandate would force TSA to pull 3,500 transportation security officers, or 8 percent of the total workforce, off the checkpoints.

These officers equate to 250 of the 2,054 active screening lanes across the Nation at any given time, closing 250 lanes. This impact is equivalent to closing all the checkpoint screening lanes in Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York. This impact is the equivalent of closing all screening operations across the system 1 day every week. This impact would result in failing to screen 300,000 passengers every day.

Some may say we should increase spending for TSA by $160 million. But if we have this money, why use it to pay for redtape? Let's use it for security.

I also want to address some of the objections to TSA's flexible management. First, those who want collective bargaining at TSA say they want screeners to be treated as every other Federal employee. That would be fine, except for the fact they are not like every other Federal employee. They have a mission to protect the American people, and collective bargaining will prevent them from accomplishing this mission.

Second, those who want collective bargaining at TSA say it will lead to lower attrition and, therefore, more safety. Collective bargaining may lead to lower rates of attrition, but it will not lead to more security.

I am sure there are security screeners who would like to be guaranteed lifetime employment, but that would prohibit TSA from keeping America safe. TSA currently has the ability to reward screeners based on their performance and to remove those screeners who are not performing. That is what ensures safety, not a workforce that is rewarded for seniority and is not accountable.

We have also heard the supporters of collective bargaining at TSA say it is working at Customs and border control. First, I take issue with the claim it is working with Customs or working at our borders. Our Customs agency has experienced numerous delays and complications in securing our borders that have been caused by collective bargaining. I think our Customs agency and border security should have the same flexibility TSA enjoys, and it is a debate we should have as we look at ways to better secure our borders.

Let's make sure we understand what we are saying. Advocates of collective bargaining for airport security are saying our border security has worked well. It is hard to look at 10 to 12 million illegal aliens in our country and say our border security is working well. It is not working well.

We are also hearing increasingly from all over the world that our customs process is among the worst in the world. Our tourism is down and our business visits are down because we are making it harder and harder for people from around the world to get into our country. Our customs system doesn't work and neither does our border security.

The supporters of collective bargaining at TSA also believe our screeners are lacking important protections to address their grievances. I hope my colleagues know TSA has given screeners the ability to have their whistleblower complaints reviewed by the Office of the Independent Counsel, even though it is not required in law. Critics also claim screeners do not have the ability to appeal adverse actions against them, such as suspensions and terminations, through the Merit System Protection Board. This is true, but TSA has created its own disciplinary review board that provides workers with relief faster than the Merit System Protection Board.

I want my colleagues to understand what all of this means for unions, because I am afraid that is what this policy is all about. Unionizing the 48,000 workers at TSA will give labor unions a $17 million annual windfall in dues from these new union workers. Let me share a quote. For my colleagues who doubt this policy is being driven by unions, I want them to hear what was said earlier this week by two leaders of the American Federation of Government Employees, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. They said:

We must gain 40,000 new members a year to break even today.

But because of the age of our members and pending

retirements, that number will grow to 50,000 in 2 years and

probably 60,000 a few years after that.

An additional comment:

This campaign is the perfect opportunity to convince TSA

employees to join our union and become activist volunteers in

our one great union.

The purpose of TSA is not to create activist volunteers for unions. It is to protect our country. Again, I need to remind my colleagues the top priority of Homeland Security and TSA is to protect Americans.

I conclude by saying this is a very serious issue, and I encourage all my colleagues to think about it carefully. We all want workers to have better benefits, but that is not what this debate is about. TSA offers great benefits and important protections to its workforce. This debate is about how to keep our country safe, and we cannot tie TSA up in knots of redtape.

I understand the unions want this new policy because it will add thousands of new dues-paying members to their rolls, but they are going to have to live without it in order to keep our country safe. This bill is about doing things that will prevent another 9/11 attack. Adding an earmark for labor unions that prevents TSA from doing its job is the last thing we should do.

I realize the Senator from Connecticut feels strongly about this issue, and I know I probably haven't changed his mind. Unionizing the Federal workforce is something that is very important to him, and it is something he has worked on for many years, most notably when Congress created the new Department of Homeland Security in 2002. I also realize the majority leader has impressed upon the Senators on the other side of the aisle to stick together in supporting this destructive policy. This is very disappointing, because it shows the majority may be more interested in having a political showdown than they are in strengthening our security.

The President has issued a veto threat on this bill if it creates collective bargaining at TSA, and there are enough Senators to sustain it. That leaves us with two options: We can remove this misguided position and preserve the bill or we can let the bill die. I simply ask my colleagues: Is this union earmark worth killing this bill for? I don't think so.

I think it is important to also note the second-degree amendment that is being offered to change my amendment is not supported by Homeland Security. In fact, they believe it will make this bill worse than it is right now.

My colleagues, I ask everyone to set aside the partisan politics, set aside special interests, and let us continue to improve TSA, our Transportation Security Agency. They have demonstrated that while there have been a lot of problems with starting up a new agency, each year they have gotten better. Each year their workforce has gotten better trained. Each year we are moving passengers through with less and less inconvenience and better and better security. This is not the time to turn back. This is not the time to play politics and payback with our security.

I encourage everyone to take a careful look at this amendment and I ask my colleagues to support it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I want to make sure I understand the provisions in the Senator's amendment. I know one of them is TSA, in order to act quickly and make changes rapidly, would need to establish that there is an emergency.

My question is, Would the ongoing global war on terror be considered an emergency?

I know another criterion is that if they could establish that we have a newly imminent threat they could act quickly to respond and not go through the collective bargaining process. Would al-Qaida be considered a newly imminent threat?

If I could make one last appeal? This document is the collective bargaining procedures the border agents have for just one unit. This bill opens the possibility of literally hundreds of unions in every airport. I appeal to my colleagues. If every airport has to deal with separate collective bargaining arrangements and has to establish an emergency or imminent threat on every occasion, and we can second-guess them in Congress--and lawyers will--I think we need to work together to make sure we come to the best conclusion. I know the amendment of the Senator is well intended. Hopefully we can discuss it more on the floor tomorrow or next week.

Mr. President, we have worked long and hard on this piece of legislation. It is a very complicated bill, as it should be, because we have a complicated problem--that is immigration. We have come a long way since we started the debate on this matter. It is fresh in my mind what went on last year when we had the debate on an immigration bill that passed the Senate. Last year we worked long and hard. We had 23 rollcall votes prior to cloture. Seven amendments in addition to that were done by voice vote last year. Postcloture, we had 3 that went by voice, there were 11 that were voted on.

This year we have had 28 rollcall votes on amendments. We have had 14 amendments by voice, a total of 42 amendments. So we are way ahead of where we were last year.

I understand that people were concerned yesterday about not having enough amendments. I think everyone had an opportunity to offer amendments. But it is interesting--we had people who were saying: This amendment that passed is a deal breaker. On the other side: We had an amendment that passed that is a deal breaker. So I guess whether a bill is improved is in the eye of the beholder because there was certainly disagreement about what improved or didn't improve the bill. I also think it is interesting people agitated for amendments and then, when the vote didn't go their way, they were upset.

This is a bill we have pushed down the road a long way. I hope we can finish it. I spoke last night--I don't know what time it was, it was 4:30 a.m. European time. I called to see if Mr. Bolton, the President's Chief of Staff, was with the President. He was. I didn't want to disturb him at that time of day. But I did have a good long conversation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, Judge Chertoff. That was 10:30, 11 o'clock last night. I explained to him how this legislative process works. He asked me to go over it with him again because he wanted to make sure he understood it.

I told him, as much as any piece of legislation we have had here-- other than the supplemental appropriations bill this past 6 months-- this is the President's bill. He has worked long and hard. He has had Cabinet officers working with Democrats and Republicans to come up with a bill, the so-called compromise. Some call it a grand compromise, but it is at least a compromise. I told him the vast majority of Democrats want this legislation to move forward. I think someone should get word to the President that, if this bill goes down with the vast majority of the Democrats voting for this action to move forward--if the Republicans vote against it, he and I discussed what the headline is going to be. The headline is going to be: Democrats Vote To Continue This Bill, the Republicans Vote Against It--The President Fails Again.

I don't think that is good. I think we need to show we have the ability to work with the White House.

I know there are some people who would like us to stay on immigration for the rest of this work period. We have 3 weeks left. It would make some people as happy as larks to be able to spend the rest of this work period on immigration. Why? Because some don't want us to go to the next two matters we are going to have to deal with.

No. 1 is energy. When we went home during the Memorial Day break, there were two things people wanted to talk to me about. One of them wasn't immigration. The Iraq war and gas prices, that is what people wanted to talk about wherever I went. I spent a lot of time in Nevada, but I traveled to other places in the country. It was the same there: Iraq, end this war, and do something about these gas prices.

We are going to take up energy. That will be what we do after we do the immigration bill. So I know some people don't want us to go there. After we finish that, we have the obligation to do, for our military and our country, a Defense authorization bill. Again, there will be a debate on Iraq. I am sure some will want to talk about timelines. I am sure some will want to talk about readiness. I am sure there will be people wanting to talk about transitioning the mission. Maybe there will be some efforts to do away with the original authorization of the war. I don't know for sure. That is an issue some people would just as soon we stay away from.

I know people would like us to stay on this forever, but the question is, When is enough enough?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote be delayed to occur today at 5 p.m.

Mr. President, I am disappointed because, as I indicated, last year we had 14 votes postcloture. But I have learned a little bit about this place, that sometimes you have to do indirectly what you cannot do directly. It makes so much sense that, if people want more amendments, it would be wise to agree to our suggestion that we put over the cloture vote to later this evening. We could process amendments during that time and have a cloture vote tonight.

I understand there is going to be an objection, but I am going to do indirectly what I can't do directly. That is, everyone should know, if cloture is not invoked this morning--if the Republican leader says he is going to recommend to all his folks that they vote no on cloture, I am sure cloture will not be invoked. But everyone should know, we are going to have another cloture vote this early evening. We are going to process as many amendments, in the meantime, as we can. I hope there could be some more work done on what other amendments postcloture; that is, germane amendments. I know of a couple that are germane. I have told people they can have votes on those. I repeat what I have said on this floor several times, what I have told the managers of the bill and I have told individual Senators: We are not going to block, as we can do, procedurally, votes on the germane amendments that are postcloture. We are going to go ahead and process as many of those as we can reasonably do. If we have to spend the 30 hours doing it, we will. Otherwise, we will get a list of amendments that the Parliamentarian will determine are germane, and we will set up a period of time to vote on those and move on.

So I would hope that everyone understands that if cloture is not invoked, we are going to go ahead, and I will get on the right side of the issue, as we have to do here procedurally, to have the ability to bring this up early evening time. During that period of time, I hope the people who feel they have not had enough amendments are assuaged and we can go ahead and have a cloture vote and move forward. I had a member of our caucus explain it this way, Mr. President. She said: It is like running a marathon. I told her afterward that I was envious that she had thought of this and I hadn't because I have run a few marathons. She described it so well. It was Senator Cantwell from Washington. She said: You know, about the 22nd-mile mark, you are really tired, and you think, maybe I should have quit earlier. But I can see the end up here now, and I am going to go ahead and finish the race.

That is how I feel. There are times during this debate that I feel we would all be better off having walked away from it. It was hard. All of these phone calls coming into our offices, people accosting you as you walk out of the building, lobbying groups for and against this. But we have withstood that. Now, as Senator Cantwell said, I think we may be about at the 24-mile mark.

As with a marathon, Mr. President, there are times when you are running a marathon that you feel euphoric--I feel so strong, I am out here alone, I am able to travel those miles--and then, just like that, it can change. Well, the euphoria is gone. The determination is here. I think we need to complete this marathon. So I am disappointed we are not going to have cloture today. But everyone should know we will have cloture again later on in the day.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the cloture vote on the bill be delayed to occur only if the substitute amendment is agreed to.

I know the manager of the bill is here. The two leaders have used a lot of time. If you would like us to extend the time--OK. We can go right to the amendments. Thank you for being so patient.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided before the cloture vote.

Mr. President, I think the distinguished Republican leader has outlined the problem, the problem that exists with the Republicans in the Senate.

The reason there weren't a lot of cloture motions filed in the last Congress is, as the distinguished Republican leader has pointed out, we believed in legislating, not delaying. Most of the motions that have been filed regarding cloture have been on motions to proceed to bills-- dilatory tactics by the Republicans--and it is very frustrating to them that in spite of that--in spite of that--we have been able to accomplish much, including ethics lobbying reform, minimum wage, 9/11 Commission recommendations. We did the budget. We were able to do the continuing resolution. We did stem cell research. We have done some very good work, and we are going to continue to do that.

We have spent a lot of time on the Republicans delaying what the American people want us to do, and that is legislate. In spite of that, we were able to move on and do some significant legislating, as we are going to continue to do.

As I said this morning, we want to finish this legislation in a positive vein. The minority said they wanted more amendments. They got more amendments. We don't know if there is a magic number, but we will work and make sure--I think we are in the process now of lining up four amendments on each side. We should dispose of those fairly quickly. I have indicated that we are willing to do whatever is necessary postcloture to take care of as many of the postcloture germane amendments as we can. We are happy to do that. This is very important.

I spoke last night to the Secretary of Homeland Security, one of the people who represented the President in these negotiations. This bill that is on the Senate floor is not a Democratic bill. It is a bill that has been worked on by Democrats and Republicans in cooperation with the President of the United States and his people. My message to Secretary Chertoff last night was that--it seems a little unusual to me when we have worked so hard and we have offered opportunities for all of these amendments, and we are going to offer more. My message to him is, why in the world would anyone object to delaying the cloture vote? But that is what has happened.

I think that is unfortunate because I told the Secretary of Homeland Security, Judge Chertoff, the message in the newspaper is going to be: Democrats Support Cloture to Continue Debate on Immigration; Republicans Oppose It--President Bush Fails Again.

Let's have some successes around here. We need to work with the President. He needs to work with us. Here is a way that it can be done.

I know there are people who want us to stay on this bill for the rest of this work period, but we have other things we need to do that some do not want us to work on. When we went home for our Memorial Day break, what were the issues people talked about more than anything else? Ending the war in Iraq and gas prices. So when we finish this, we are going to move on to energy--gas prices. When we finish that, we are going to move to the Defense authorization and again have a debate on ending the Iraq war. I know people don't want us to do that, but we need to do that. That is what the American people want us to do.

So I cannot accomplish directly what I think should be done, and that is have a cloture vote that is successful right now. But I can do indirectly what I can't do directly. If the cloture vote doesn't succeed, I will change my vote so I will be on the winning side, and I will bring up the cloture vote later today. We are going to continue working this bill.

As my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Washington said this morning in a caucus we had, she said: You know, what we have done here is like a marathon. When you run a marathon, you run 22 miles, you have 4 miles more to go, and you look back and think of all the times you wanted to quit, but right now, as tired as you are from running a marathon, you can see the end.

The race is up there and we need to continue. This is a marathon. We owe it to the American people to move forward on this legislation to improve a broken system. That is what we are trying to do. I hope my Republican colleagues vote for cloture. If they don't, they will have another opportunity later today and, hopefully, we can process some amendments in the interim.

Mr. President, I have a lot to say about the failed Attorney Generalship of Alberto Gonzales, but this is not the time to do that. I may not have that opportunity because the only issue that will be before the Senate is a simple vote on a motion to proceed. If the minority does not wish to proceed to have a vote of confidence on him, it will not happen. If there were ever an opportunity for a legislative body to speak about what is going on in the administrative branch of Government, it is with what is happening in that Justice Department.

All you need to do is read the newspaper today to find out what is going on in that Justice Department. Should we have confidence in Alberto Gonzales? I don't think so.

But we are on immigration. This is a day for getting along. I am going to do the best I can to get along, and I hope everyone will do that and continue to work on a bipartisan basis to move forward on immigration.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote on which cloture was not invoked.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at any time today when I return to the floor.

So it doesn't frighten people, the only reason I intend to do that is because we are working on a unanimous consent agreement now, and Senator Dodd can speak or Senator Sessions can speak or whoever wants to talk--they can do that. At least we can get the consent done. What we are working on now is to have three Republican amendments, three Democratic amendments. I hope we can get that done very quickly.

I say to my friend, we have a unanimous consent request we want the Senator to look at. It lines up a number of Republican votes and Democratic votes. We need the Senator to sign off on it.

Mr. President, I would sure like to be able to get this unanimous consent agreement. We keep changing things around and have decided we don't need to have an equal number of Democrats with Republicans. Let's get what we can. We have three Republicans lined up. They are all important amendments that the Republicans and Democrats have. I hope we can get this done.

We have a vote at about 3 o'clock. We changed the time to 10 minutes each, I say to my friend from Alabama, because people have had the opportunity to speak already, except for Senator Webb.

Mr. WEBB addressed the Chair.

If the Senator will withhold.

Is it OK that we do this?

Mr. President, we have been told that the Republicans are interested in more amendments. We finished the vote approximately 2 hours 15 minutes ago. We have been trying for that period of time to get up some Republican amendments. We had four and four, and they would not agree to that request. We had three and three, and they would not agree with that request. Then three Republican amendments, two Democratic amendments, and they would not agree to that request.

I repeat, it is time for the President and his folks to get involved in this matter. This is the President's bill. This isn't a bill we came up with. Democrats and Republicans working in unison with the administration came up with a bill. We want to help. No one has worked harder on the President's bill than Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Salazar. I would sure hope we get some help. We can't have Republican members vote on it if they won't let us call up amendments.

The distinguished Senator from Alabama is interested in this bill. We know that. He has spoken long and hard about his opposition to this legislation. But it is just not appropriate that the minority can have it both ways. They want these amendments but don't allow us to call them up. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Come the end of the day, when we have a cloture vote, they will say: You didn't give us any more amendments. They didn't get more amendments because they wouldn't let us call up more amendments. And they have control over that.

So, Mr. President, I think we need to have the record reflect that this bill isn't going anyplace, but it is not our fault. I repeat: This is a bill which was negotiated in good faith by Democrats and Republicans, and it is the President's bill. He says he wants this. Why can't we get this agreement?

Here are my friends. I see on the floor my distinguished friend from Alabama. I have told him personally, and I will tell him publicly--and I have said this before--there are times I don't agree with him, but with Jeff Sessions, you never have to guess where he stands on an issue, and I appreciate that. We know where he stands on this issue of immigration. But having said that, can we do this agreement?

Well, he is part of the deal here.

If I could say, through the Chair, to my distinguished friend, we did have this set up so we could vote at 3 o'clock. Senator Dodd has already spoken; Senator Webb has already spoken. He is part of the agreement. Senators Grassley, Coleman, and Brownback have not spoken, so we have put 15 minutes in here for those three Senators. It should be equally divided, but we can make it----

Be happy to.

Mr. President, it is obvious we are not going to be able to complete the President's legislation based on the request of my friend from Alabama. I took math at Searchlight, NV, Elementary School, where 1 teacher taught all 8 grades, but I can still figure out what 5 times 45 is, and it is a long time--hours. It is approximately 4 hours.

Be happy to yield for a request of my friend.

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

Mr. President, it has been now 2\1/2\ hours. We have tried every possible way of getting an amendment up to vote on it. We have tried this. We have tried that. We have tried this. We have tried that. We have tried everything.

There are individuals who don't like this bill. The Senate being as it is, they have a right to object to what we do.

And they are objecting; that is for sure. The objections have been nonpublic to this point, but it is frustrating because the people who want to move this bill forward, Democrats and Republicans, are being thwarted in their effort to do so.

As I have said before, we need to make sure the record is clear we are not trying to impede the offering of amendments. There have been some who oppose the legislation and are concerned there hasn't been the ability to call up amendments and have them pending. But until we disposed of the 14 pending amendments yesterday, it was thought by most to be inappropriate to call up more amendments and have, instead of 14 pending amendment, 28 pending amendments. I am going to ask unanimous consent in a minute that we vote on five amendments. Originally, we started the day with four on each side. Then we had three Republican and three Democratic. There was objection to both of those. So I said: Fine, let's have three Republican and two Democratic. There was objection.

We thought we had it worked out once, and then the time for debating these was a lot of time, which is another indication there are some who, no matter what we do, we can't move forward on this legislation.

I know I am being repetitive, but this is not a Democratic bill. The Democrats have helped get this bill to where it is.

The main proponents of this legislation on the Democratic side have been Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Salazar. On the Republican side, we have had a number of people work very hard: Senator Specter, Senator Kyl, and others. I appreciate how hard they have worked. This is a bill that is bipartisan in nature, supported by the President of the United States. I wish to help the President. I am not always in a position to do that. I think I am in a position to do that now, and I have done everything I can with this piece of legislation to do that. So I will ask consent that we have a series of votes set up. When I finish that consent, I will call up some amendments and have them set aside.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:15 p.m. today be for debate with respect to the following amendments; that the time run concurrently and there be whatever the allocated time is from now until 4:15 of debate with respect to each amendment, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with no amendment to be in order to any of the amendments covered under this agreement prior to a vote; that at 4:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each amendment in the order listed here; that once this agreement is entered, the amendments that are not pending be reported by number; and that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled; and after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be 10 minutes in duration.

I would also say, to show what we are trying to do in good faith, when there was a request on the other side to have a large block of time, on this side we agreed, 30 minutes, 5 minutes. We want to try to move this along. Thirty minutes for the proponents and 5 minutes for those opposed. The amendments are Dodd 1199; Brownback 1160; Webb 1313; Grassley-Baucus 1441; and Coleman 1473.

Madam President, is there an objection?

I thank the Chair.

In a moment, I want to talk about an amendment I will be offering with Senator Grassley to the immigration reform bill. That is amendment No. 1332. I should mention this amendment has been endorsed by the AFL- CIO. It was endorsed by the Programmers Guild and by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Before I speak about the amendment, it is important, as we debate the immigration bill, to talk about what is happening to the lives of Americans who live in the middle class and the working families of the country. I fear that in this long and complicated immigration bill, sometimes we lose track of the impact of this bill on the lives of American workers. This bill deals in a reasonable way in terms of dealing with the very serious problem of illegal immigration. It says we must strengthen our borders and not allow people to so easily come into the country. That is long overdue, and it is absolutely right. It says finally we must begin to hold employers accountable for the illegal immigrants they are hiring, something the Bush administration has been very reluctant to do. That is extremely important.

This bill also carves out a path to citizenship which, frankly, is the right thing to do. But also what this bill does not do is analyze effectively the impact of various aspects of this legislation--the guest worker program, H-1B program--on the lives of American workers. The basic premise under which this bill operates in those areas is a false one. What it says is there are

jobs out there, large numbers of jobs, that American workers won't take. I think that is true to some degree, but this bill grossly exaggerates that problem. Because the truth is, if employers paid living wages for jobs, we would be very surprised at the number of people in this country who would be delighted to hold those jobs. But if people are going to pay starvation wages and not provide health care or other benefits, yes, it is true American workers may not gravitate to those jobs.

The truth is, over the last many years, there has been a war going on in this country, and that is not the war in Iraq. It is not the war in Afghanistan. It is the war being waged against the American middle class, the American standard of living, and, indeed, the American dream itself. This is an issue, unfortunately, we do not discuss enough on the floor of the Senate. It is not discussed enough in the corporate media.

The American public understands that since President George Bush has been in office, over 5.4 million more Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. The American people understand that nearly 7 million more Americans have lost their health insurance, and we are now almost at the level of 47 million Americans without health insurance. The American people understand that for the average American family, their income has fallen by over $1,200 and 3 million more Americans have lost their pensions.

What does all of this have to do with the immigration bill? It has everything to do with the immigration bill, because we have to take a hard look at what various aspects of this bill do in terms of bringing workers into this country and what it means to people who are struggling on $8 or $9 an hour or, in fact, what it means to young people who someday aspire to hold a professional position. That is an issue we have not focused enough attention on.

Some people say: Yes, it is true, poverty is increasing. Yes, it is true, there are millions of people working at the minimum wage or near. But if you have a college degree, you don't have to worry. There are plenty of these good professional jobs out there that pay people good wages. The truth is, even college graduates in today's economy are not getting ahead. From the years 2000 through 2004, we have seen the wages of college graduates decline by 5 percent. According to a new study by researchers at MIT, earnings of the average American worker with an undergraduate degree have not kept up with gains in productivity over the last 25 years. In other words, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity over the past 30 years, millions of American workers, including college graduates, are working longer hours for lower wages. In America today, the personal savings rate is below zero. People are spending more than is coming in. That has not happened since the Great Depression. Home foreclosures are at their highest level in nearly four decades.

What I fear the most is if we keep going in the direction in which we are moving now economically, what we are going to see is our children are going to have a lower standard of living than we do. In fact, according to a recent joint study by the Pew Charitable Trust and Brookings Institute, men in their thirties earned on average 12 percent less in 2004 than their fathers did in 1974, after adjusting for inflation. Incredibly, men today are earning less than their fathers did despite a huge explosion in technology and worker productivity.

In addition, it is important to note that over the last 6 years, this country has lost more than 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs.

Why do I raise that within the context of an immigration bill? I raise that because the argument of all the large corporations that are supporting this legislation is: My goodness, we have a crisis in America. It is that wages are going down. It is not that more and more Americans are losing their health care and their pensions. The crisis is, supposedly, there are all these jobs out there--jobs in teaching, psychology, nursing, hotels, restaurants--and we cannot find American workers to do those jobs.

Let me tell the business community: Raise wages, provide decent benefits, and you are going to have all kinds of people flocking to those jobs.

During the debate over NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China--which I participated in as a Member of the House of Representatives--we were told by all the corporate interests who pushed that legislation on the Congress not to worry about the blue-collar jobs we would lose. I remember it distinctly. They said: Well, yes, it is true. If we open up our markets, yes, it is true we are going to lose a lot of these factory jobs. They are going to go to China, Mexico, whatever. But don't worry because if your kid does well in school, becomes computer proficient, your kid is going to have a great job out there at good wages. That is the future of America. Don't worry about the blue-color jobs. You have all these white-color information technology jobs.

Well, guess what is happening. From January of 2001 to January of 2006, we have lost 644,000 information sector jobs. Alan Blinder, the former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has told us between 30 and 40 million jobs in this country are in danger of being shipped overseas.

The middle class of this country is being squeezed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

When Americans get up in the morning and they take their kids to daycare, they find the cost of childcare is unaffordable. That is certainly true in Vermont. It is true all over this country. Working families cannot afford quality childcare.

When they drive to work, and they stop at the gas station to fill up their gas tanks, what they are paying in Vermont now is $3.10 a gallon for gas, and in other parts of the country it is even higher. ExxonMobil earns record-breaking profits and manages to find $400 million for a retirement settlement for their former CEO.

When workers go to their jobs, they are being squeezed as often as not by their employer who is cutting back on their health care and pension benefits. Then, if workers stand up for their jobs, they want to form a union, they are told that those jobs could go to China: So take your cutbacks.

When workers come home, they open up their mailbox only to find that the interest on their mortgage payments and their credit cards in some cases is doubling or tripling. There are working people in this country who are paying--if you can believe it--27, 28, 29 percent in interest rates, while big banks are making record-breaking profits.

When Americans go to the hospital, they are told by their insurance companies their premiums and copays will be going up or, even worse, they are not covered for the medical procedures they need.

When they want to send their kids to college, they look at the cost of tuition, and they find colleges costing $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000 a year, and people are making $30,000 a year. We are seeing kids in this country now--low-income kids--not going to college and others coming out deeply in debt.

Now, in the midst of all of that, we have this immigration bill, a bill that would allow employers to hire hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers from other countries in both low-skilled jobs and high-skilled jobs.

It is important to note--and this point has not been made often enough, but it is important to note many of the same corporate groups that supported NAFTA, that supported PNTR with China, and other disastrous trade agreements, that these same businesses that fought against an increase in the minimum wage, saying: Hey, $5.15 an hour, we don't have to go higher than that; these same companies that have outsourced hundreds of thousands of jobs to China, to Mexico, to Vietnam, to India, to other low-wage countries, these same companies are supporting this legislation.

Let's understand that, and let us ask why that is the case. Why are companies that opposed the minimum wage, that oppose the right of workers to form unions, that oppose anything that makes sense for the American middle class supporting this legislation?

Some of those groups are the National Restaurant Association, the Business Roundtable, the American Hotel & Lodging Association. These are all groups that opposed raising the minimum wage above $5.15 an hour, and they are sitting here saying: Well, we think this immigration bill is a good bill for us.

High-tech companies that have sent hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas, they think this legislation is good. Why? Why do they think it is good legislation? Well, if you listen to them, they will tell you two things: First, in terms of low-skilled jobs, they say they need foreign workers to do the jobs Americans will not do. In terms of high- skilled jobs, they say they cannot find enough Americans who are smart enough, who are skilled enough, who are well educated enough to be engineers, to be scientists, to be mathematicians, et cetera.

In other words, corporate America tells us they need a new guest worker program because they cannot find any Americans for construction jobs, for manufacturing jobs, hotel jobs, restaurant jobs. Then they tell us they need more foreign agricultural workers because no American is willing to break their back working in the fields, picking strawberries or lettuce for poverty-level wages and no health care.

Then--this is what gets me--they tell us they need more H-1B visas because Americans are not smart enough to be computer professionals; engineers; university professors, they cannot find anybody to be a university professor; accountants--I guess Americans do not add very well--we cannot do that work; financial analysts; nurses, I guess we do not have the capability of producing nurses; psychologists, Americans, I guess, cannot do that; lawyers--lawyers--lawyers--my God, if there is anything the United States is capable of producing it is lawyers, but I guess we need more lawyers to come into this country; and elementary school teachers, I guess the young people who graduate from college in America are not quite qualified to be school teachers.

Now, if Americans will not take low-skilled jobs that pay poverty- level wages and, presumably, if they are not smart enough to do high- skilled jobs, I think the question we have to ask is: What kind of jobs are going to be available for the American people? Can't do low-skilled jobs; can't do high-skilled jobs. Hey, what is there for us?

I happen to think the Congress should be spending a lot more time discussing this issue and making it easier for us to create decent- paying jobs for American workers instead of allowing corporate interests to drive wages down by importing more and more people to do the work Americans should be doing and, conversely, exporting and outsourcing a lot of decent jobs.

As someone who, as a young man, worked in a hotel and worked in a restaurant, I can tell you the guest worker provisions, for the most part, have nothing to do with a shortage of workers but have everything to do with a concerted effort by corporate America to drive down wages for our people.

Now, one of the largest corporations that is involved in an association in support of this legislation is Wal-Mart. I made this point yesterday, but I think it is worth repeating. Wal-Mart says, being a part of this association, that apparently there is a shortage of Americans willing to work at Wal-Marts. Well, let's take a look at that.

Two years ago, when Wal-Mart announced the opening of a new store in Oakland, CA, 11,000 people filled out applications for 400 jobs. I think most Americans know that Wal-Mart is not a great employer. Wages are low. In many instances, they do not provide 40 hours a week; health care benefits are not particularly good.

Oakland, CA: For 400 jobs, 11,000 people filled out applications. More recently, in January of 2006, when Wal-Mart announced the opening of a store in Evergreen Park outside Chicago, over 24,000 people applied for 325 jobs at that store. What does that tell us? It tells us that even in low-paying jobs, such as at Wal-Mart, when given the opportunity, Americans want those jobs. They want to make a living for their families.

So the idea Wal-Mart and other similar-type companies would say: Gee, we can't find workers to do that work, is just plain wrong. What they want to do is have a surplus of workers coming into this country so wages do not go up. So instead of having to raise wages and benefits, in order to attract workers and retain workers, what you do is simply open the door and you bring in more and more cheap labor. That enables them to keep wages low.

Then we have the situation with high-skilled jobs, with our professional jobs. Again, we have associations and organizations made up of different corporate groups that are strongly supporting this immigration bill, and they include, among others, companies such as Motorola, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Boeing, to name a few. These are corporations with a main argument that we cannot find Americans to do this work, and we need to go all over the world to bring in people.

Well, I find it interesting that many of these same companies that tell us they cannot find workers in the United States are exactly the same companies that have recently announced major layoffs of thousands of American workers: We can't find workers. Oh, by the way, you are fired. We need more workers from abroad. Five hundred workers are gone. We are laying you off. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

Let me give you a few examples. A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times reported Dell would be eliminating 10 percent of its workforce, slashing 8,800 jobs. But Dell, last year, applied for nearly 400 H-1B visas to bring people into this country--at the same time they lay off 8,800 workers. Maybe they might want to retrain some of those 8,800 workers for these new positions, if possible, rather than simply bringing in new employees from abroad.

Dell is not alone. The Financial Times, on May 31, reported Motorola would be cutting 4,000 jobs, on top of an earlier 3,500 job reduction, designed to generate savings of $400 million. Yet last year, Motorola received 760 H-1B visas. The list goes on and on. It is IBM. It is Citigroup--companies bringing in foreign professional workers at the same time they are laying off American workers.

So we have a situation where, on one hand, these companies say they cannot find highly skilled American workers while, on the other hand, they are eliminating thousands of American jobs.

What upsets me is how our young people feel about this situation. These are kids who go to school--sometimes they borrow a lot of money to go to college--they work hard, and what they are looking forward to, whether through a BA or a BS or an MA or a Ph.D., is a good, secure, challenging, meaningful job with a decent income. What they are seeing is companies saying: We do not want you. We want somebody from abroad who will work at lower wages than you. I think that must be very discouraging for so many of our young people.

Madam President, the amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Grassley, is a pretty simple amendment. What it would do is it would prohibit companies that have announced mass layoffs from receiving new visas of any kind, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these layoffs. In other words, we are calling their bluff, and we are saying: You can't lay off large numbers of American workers and then tell us you desperately need workers, professionals from abroad. Those companies which are truly experiencing labor shortages would not be impacted by this amendment and could continue to receive increases in foreign workers, but companies that are reducing their U.S. workforce by laying off thousands of Americans would be prevented from importing workers from abroad.

The bottom line is, the companies that are laying off thousands of Americans shouldn't be allowed to import workers from overseas. Let us stand up for the American people. Let us stand up for American workers. Let us support this amendment.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Coburn will be here shortly and has some time set aside. He indicated he will yield some time to me. I will take a couple of minutes.

First, there are not any of my colleagues on the floor, but I assume the objection that was received last night to my request to dispense with the current business and make pending my amendment No. 1323 will still be in effect. I renew it, and if any change has been made with regard to it, I hope they will permit it, but I assume, based on what I know, that there is still an objection to bringing up that amendment.

I have quite a number of amendments, 10 or more amendments, that have been filed but cannot be made pending because it requires unanimous consent to move those amendments to pending status, and that means if cloture is granted later this morning, those amendments will not be on the list and cannot be given a vote.

I am not trying to run around and move something through to which I understand there is an objection, but I want to make the point that a number of Senators have a number of important amendments that are filed but cannot be made pending, and they will fall and not get a vote if we move forward with this premature cloture vote. So I strongly object to cloture. I believe it denies us the right to amend this bill which is seriously flawed.

I note that the particular amendment I want to bring up is named for Charlie Norwood, a Congressman from Georgia, who died recently. He was a tremendous patriot who shared my

concern. We worked together in drafting his amendment that was introduced in the House which was designed to clarify that local law enforcement officers have an opportunity to participate in enforcement of Federal immigration laws simply as they go about their normal course of duties. If they arrest someone for speeding or some offense of that kind, then they could check their records, and if they are here illegally, they could detain them for Federal officials.

Actually, in many instances, that is still doable today, but in a couple of areas it is vague. The lawyers for the departments have objected to their police officers participating because they think there might be a problem.

This is a critically important amendment. If it is not adopted, it indicates to me that the persons pushing this legislation do not want it to work because there are 600,000 to 800,000 State and local law enforcement officers and only about 1,200 ICE agents and only a fraction of them not on the border, 2,000, something of that nature of ICE agents. They cannot cover this country. They have to rely on State and local officers, who, by the way, caught individuals during their crime sprees or plans to attack us on 9/11. They were apprehended in traffic stops. John Malvo was apprehended. Other terrorists have been apprehended for speeding but let go because the local officers were not participating effectively in the system.

One of the weaknesses of this bill is that the professionals who understand how this system works were not invited and were not in the room with the people who wrote this political bill. A bunch of politicians wrote it. They did not understand sufficiently the details that are critical to a successful report.

I note that Kent Lundgren, former chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, has said this is a bill which will not work. ``Based on my experience,'' one individual said, ``it is a disaster.'' Another said that the system will not work as proposed today, that it represents, according to Mr. Hugh Brien, former Chief of Border Patrol for the United States from 1986 to 1989--this is what he said just a couple of days ago: It is a ``sell out.'' It is ``a complete betrayal of the Nation.'' He said it is ``a slap in the face'' to the millions of Americans who come here legally.

He came here as an immigrant legally. He was former Chief of the Border Patrol, and he made these strong statements about this bill.

I see my friend, Dr. Coburn, is here. I know he has an amendment. I am glad to have made my comments beforehand and I, once again, express concern that amendments are not being accepted, and we should not invoke cloture.

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

Mr. President, the legislation before us deals with one of the most important subjects any nation should concern itself with, which is immigration. The American people care about it. Many people are watching it extremely closely. They are cynical about Congress. In 1986, Congress passed a major bill that was supposed to fix so many problems, all of those things they are aware of, and the problem has only gotten worse. They have also discovered that our leadership in Washington, the executive branch and the Congress, really is not committed to creating a lawful system. Some people think it can't be done. Some people think Congress just doesn't want to do it. Some people think it would interrupt the flow of labor. For whatever reason, the American people have concluded this Congress is not to be trusted with this bill. We have had for decades--in the full decade I have been in the Senate and before--Members asserting they are going to fix these problems at the border, and nothing gets fixed. We arrested a million persons last year--a million who were illegally entering the United States. What kind of broken system is that?

So people are not going to go for--they are not going to bite a promise in a poke. They are not going to take a pig in a poke. They are not going to buy into a bill that is not going to work. They expect us this time to do something that works. I really believe we can. This is not impossible. The more I have studied it, the more confident I am that we can make progress and create a bill that would actually end the unlawfulness and create a flow of workers to meet our real needs, without having so many workers that the wages of Americans are reduced; that we tilt, as Canada and Australia and other nations have, to a system that focuses more on high-skilled workers.

So those are the things that are important. Well, how did we get in this fix with this bill that, I suggest, is losing steam? Like that mackerel put out in the sunshine, as the days go by, it begins to have an odor. Well, it started in an unusual way. Normally, a bill is introduced--especially a big piece of legislation--and it is assigned to a committee. The committee brings in expert witnesses and hears testimony. Depending on the complexity of the bill, it could be the subject of many weeks of testimony and hearings.

For example, on the asbestos bill in Judiciary Committee, I bet we had 25 hearings. We had all kinds of meetings outside. We brought in experts and we talked to them about how to solve this very complex and important issue of asbestos in America. I think if the American people were to rate asbestos compared to immigration, they put it on a scale of 2 or 3 and immigration on a scale of 9 out of 10.

What happened? A group of Senators met, along with special interest groups and activist groups that want everybody to come to America, and business groups who want cheap labor. They all met and talked to a bunch of politicians. They didn't have a Border Patrol professional there. Mr. Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, was in and out of the room. They were not involved in the kind of public fact-finding they should have been. They skipped the committee entirely. Last year's bill--the one the House refused to even consider--that passed this Senate, a bill that was fatally flawed and would never have accomplished what it promised to accomplish, should never have become law. That bill was introduced on the floor of the Senate. For about a week, that was the bill. It sort of sat there, but everybody knew there were secret meetings going on among good Senators, good people, who were trying to figure out what kind of bill they were going to write.

So Senator Reid pushed them and pushed them and made it come out before they were ready. They plopped it down in the Senate the Tuesday before Memorial Day recess week. They said it was 300 pages. But it was written in small print, and not the legislative format in which legislation is supposed to be introduced. Had it been printed in the proper form, it would have been nearly a thousand pages. It is over 300 as it is. They plopped this bill down, and nobody knew what was in it except those who had been in the room. It is obvious when they announced it, they didn't even know everything that was in it.

This is a big matter. It is very important. Now we want to rush this through. We had Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday--Tuesday being the day the bill or the substitute hit the floor, the week before Memorial Day. We did nothing on Friday, except a few of us came down to the floor and talked. The next Monday--Monday of this week--all we did was talk. This week, we have been on the bill for a couple of days so far, and a few amendments have been heard.

Mr. President, I had 15 minutes. I see the majority leader here. I know he is busy and his time is short. I respect him. If he needs to make an announcement, I will be glad to yield to him for that purpose.

Let me wrap up and then I will look at it. I am concerned that there is a desire to move this bill through quickly. That is the goal, just to pass something. I am worried if we pass something that is not right, it will not get any better, especially after going through conference committee, where the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House will appoint the conference committee majority and they will decide what changes get made in conference. I am worried about the legislation.

Let me tell you one thing that is causing some of us to get our backs up a little bit about this. The group that met to decide how to write this bill and put it together--that group made a pact with one another. What they said is this represents the final, real agreement between us. When the bill hits the floor, if anybody offers an amendment that disagrees with anything significant you and I have agreed to, we will all get together and oppose it. You have heard them say it publicly on the floor repeatedly. This goes against the agreement. This goes against the grand bargain. This is a killer amendment because we all got to stick together. ``We'' who? We have to stick together and cannot accept any change.

Let me tell you, this is the Senate. The group that met was not the full Senate. I have had members of that grand bargain tell me: Jeff, that is a good amendment, but I cannot vote for it because it is not in our agreement. I agree with you, Jeff, but I cannot vote for that because it wasn't part of our agreement.

What kind of legislation is that? So we have that factor going here. I am getting tired of it. I wasn't in on the grand compromise; neither were the American people. They weren't in on that deal.

I am pleased to.

Well, I have been here since 1 o'clock and, all of a sudden, I start speaking and they want me to look at an agreement. How many minutes do I have left?

I wish to finish my remarks and then I will look at the agreement, if that would be all right.

I think most of us knew that discussions were going on of that nature. We knew the deal. The deal is what all of you have agreed to. If you reach an accord, you are committed to vote for the deal on the floor, even if you agree with the amendment that is brought up. I was not prepared to tie my hands in that fashion. I submitted ideas because some Members were concerned about it. I don't say everything was blocked totally, but the final print analysis was not available to those not participating and who didn't agree to sign on to whatever was produced between you, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Menendez, and the others who participated in the agreement.

I think I probably reserved my independence as a Senator to maintain my ability to make an independent evaluation of the legislation that was produced.

Yes.

Well, when the Senator from Pennsylvania chaired the Judiciary Committee, the immigration bill did have hearings--a few hearings--and did have a markup, as the Senator knows. But I will tell you that last year's hearings and markup were quite insufficient, in my view, considering the intensity and enormity of the subject.

I will tell you what I believe needs to be done. It is much closer to what you did, as I mentioned before the Senator came to the floor, with asbestos. When you led the effort to reform and fix the very big problem with asbestos--and I was pleased to support you--you traveled all over the country and had hearings with judges, lawyers, and interest groups. We had hearing after hearing. We had markup days, and recess, and more markup days. It went on for months. It was brought up on the floor and knocked down--and then brought up on the floor again and it went on for months. We didn't quite get it done, but I supported the Senator's view of it.

That is what we need. Even though asbestos was exceedingly complex, this is even more complex and even more significant for the average citizen. So I think that is where we messed up. I know this was a real attempt to get something done. People said we needed to do something. But do what?

We do have a problem, Mr. President. I say to my esteemed colleague, one of the most able Members of this Senate, I have in my mind a framework that I believe would work for immigration reform. A number of the things I thought were critical I was told might be in this new bill this year. But the fine print convinced me it was not there. I believe we have a problem with the American people. They want to make sure this is done in the open light of day. I am not prepared to say at this point in time that I could meet and reach an accord on the overall difficulties with this bill in a matter of hours, or even days.

I think we need to start over with an open process and maybe something else can be accomplished. My inclination is to say let's get it out there and let the American people be involved. They understand the difficult choices that have to be made. They are also principled people and want to be sure we do it right.

I thank Senator Specter for his efforts.

My time has expired.

I am sorry.

Please give me a few moments to review this because I have some concerns.

Amendment 1313

Mr. President, I was looking for whoever had it. They disappeared. And also Senator Grassley has to look at it.

Good. I think the only disagreement we have is perhaps time, and I can make a suggestion on that. Is there someone authorized to talk to me about it? I am looking for Mr. Schiappa.

I think about 45 minutes per amendment. Some of these amendments are very significant. We have not heard opposition to the amendments. Maybe some have spoken in favor of them, but I don't agree with some of the amendments. The amendment of Senator Dodd--I think there are some important reasons that one is not satisfactory.

I am saying that I am not going to be able to support a lot of amendments that are rushed up here to receive votes when Senators have very little time to review them. I think this is important. If we are going through a process just to say we have a bunch of votes, that is one thing, but I think we need an intelligent discussion about these amendments.

Mr. President, I understand, as agreed upon, I will have 20 minutes to discuss amendment No. 1311, as modified. I call up my amendment, and in that 20 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas be given 1\1/2\ minutes of that time to speak.

The amendment is pending?

Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I was promised 20 minutes last night. I will be happy to try to finish my remarks in less than 20 minutes and give the Senator from Texas the remaining time.

Mr. President, the Coburn-DeMint trigger amendment--that is what this amendment is--is about setting right what has been promised since 1986. It is about requiring that the existing border security and immigration laws we have on the books today be enforced and that the fact they are being enforced be approved by Congress before the amnesty in this bill can be granted.

The Federal Government has an obligation to secure the U.S. borders and enforce U.S. laws. The American people expect that their laws will be upheld. If the U.S. borders are not secure and an estimated 12 million--of which 4.5 million or 5 million have overstayed their visas and make up part of this 12 million illegal immigrants in our country today.

The United States faces a history since the 1986 amnesty bill of being overpromised and undersold on immigration enforcement by their Government. The Federal Government has failed and has rightfully lost the trust of the people. How can the people trust that this time things will be any different than 1986? This is not about having welcoming arms; this is about the security of this country and the rule of law.

This amendment is the first step to help restore some of the trust Congress has lost. It says that before this bill can go forward, the President must demonstrate to Congress, and Congress must agree, that current laws are being enforced--laws that are on the books.

This amendment is common sense. If the agencies can demonstrate that U.S. borders are secure and immigration laws are enforced, then the American people have reason to believe that this time things will be different. They will demonstrate that compassion, once again, so often seen in the past.

What will the trigger do? This trigger is the legislative mechanism for ensuring that the Federal Government meets certain legal obligations before the process for legalizing illegal immigrants can begin. It is very simple. It will add to the current trigger amendment. It takes several provisions of existing law, laws that are on the books, and requires they be fully implemented before we grant amnesty or legal status to illegal aliens.

What are they? The Department must achieve and maintain operational control over the international maritime borders of the United States, as required by a law passed last year by 80 to 19 in this body--the Secure Fence Act.

All databases maintained by the Department with information on aliens shall be fully integrated, as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. That is not accomplished yet.

No. 3. The exit portion of the U.S. visa system is to be fully implemented, as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is not being enforced.

That the provision of law that prohibits States and localities from adopting sanctuary policies is fully enforced by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996; that the Department employ fully operational equipment at each port of entry in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border and Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002; aliens with border crossing cards are prevented from entering unless their biometric card is matched to them, as required by section 1101(a)6 of Title VIII of United States Code.

How this trigger works. It requires the agencies that are responsible for

implementing these laws and the various portions of them to report to the President when they have been fully implemented, and that the President review the certifications and either approve or deny them. If the President denies the agency has fulfilled the requirement, according to the law, the President must instruct the agency on what to do and when to bring it up to date. Congress shall then, on an expedited basis, once the President has certified, review the report and pass a resolution affirming the laws have been enforced; that they have been implemented.

We are not ever going to gain back the trust of the American people on immigration until we do what we have already passed. It is not about not welcoming people, it is about the rule of law and understanding that only can they have a future if we maintain the rule of law.

Why is this needed? The Gregg amendment did several good things, but it didn't go far enough. It lacked two key elements. It did not require that existing laws be implemented and enforced. Why is it we are debating that existing laws should be enforced? We are ignoring existing laws. And the Gregg amendment did not require congressional approval.

A recent Rasmussen report found two-thirds of Americans believe it does not make sense to debate new immigration law until we can first enforce and control our border and enforce existing laws.

The bill is flawed because it allows those here illegally to adjust to legal status before any of the new or old enforcement provisions are made. It requires those who are here illegally become legal before we have control of the border. This is not about not wanting and admiring and accepting the work ethic of those who come here, but it says we must secure our border.

Remember Fort Dix, NJ? One out of three of those involved in Fort Dix, NJ, were terrorists who came in through our southern border.

This amendment requires before any illegal alien is allowed to adjust their legal status that Congress certify the Department of Homeland Security has operational control of the border.

The second problem: It creates a new temporary worker problem without first having a mechanism in place to verify that temporary workers and visitors leave when their visas expire. We are going to set up a whole new program and we cannot even tell you now when they have exited under the current U.S. visa law. It has never been implemented, the visa exit system. So we have a system that controls who comes into the country but no control over who goes out. You cannot have a temporary worker program if you don't know when they come in or go out under the existing proposed statute under this bill.

The U.S. visa exit component is key to the successful new temporary program. The system created in the 1996 bill for the U.S. visa program was supposed to be in place September 30, 1998. The deadline was changed to October 15 and then to March 30, 2001, except the exit portion has never been operational. It has never been implemented.

The third problem addressed: The American public does not trust we will enforce the laws we have; namely, they do not trust the enforcement provisions in this bill, such as the employer verification system, will be implemented. Congress continues to pass laws that do not get enforced and then does nothing to ensure they are enforced. Part of the purpose of the last amnesty was to enhance our enforcement so Americans could maintain sovereignty, as President Reagan put it.

Specifically, on November 6, when President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, he stated this legislation would help meet the challenge to our sovereignty caused by illegal immigration. He highlighted three provisions of the 1986 bill, including employer sanctions--nonexistent--to increase enforcement of our immigration laws, and legalization of those here illegally more than 4 years later. The amnesty happened, yet significant portions of employment sanctions and the increased enforcement measures have been delayed or, in some instances, never implemented.

Americans have a right to question whether things will be different this time. What this amendment will do is ensure that a employer verification system, required by the current trigger, is actually implemented and working properly before we grant legal status to those who are here illegally. It is not enough to allow Presidential certification; that will not likely be reviewed. We have that problem now. Congress must review, discuss, have hearings, and then publicly vote to certify that the provisions required in this bill, and by prior laws, are functioning. That is when we will regain the trust of the American people.

This amendment will provide the transparency and accountability to the public Americans want. Not only that, if the public views the enforcement mechanism as inadequate and not in compliance with our laws, they will be able to hold elected officials accountable at the voting booth.

The May 30, 2007 Rasmussen report revealed the public does not support or trust this immigration bill. Seventy-four percent do not believe illegal immigration will decline if the Senate passes this bill. Forty-one percent believe illegal immigration will increase, as we heard the group of retired Border Patrol agents state.

Interestingly, if those polled had a chance to improve the legislation, 75 percent would make changes to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration. Sixty-five percent of Americans are willing to accept a compromise on illegal status if you can assure them the rest of the laws are going to be enforced. This bill does not require that, and what they are going to get is the same thing they got in 1986.

What this amendment will do is to help improve enforcement at the borders. It will reduce illegal immigration, it will give the public confidence, and it will give elected officials the opportunity to vote on the status of where we are in terms of enforcing the law.

How did we get here? We got here through well-intentioned mistakes. We got here because we gave amnesty in 1986. We said we were going to have employer verification, and we told the American people the borders would be secure. What this amendment does is, it says: Fool me the first time, shame on you. Fool me the second time, shame on me. What this amendment does is assures the American people that this time, as we grant amnesty to those who came here illegally, it is not going to happen again.

There is no assurance in this bill that this is not a repeat of 1986. It is not about not being compassionate to those who are here and are contributing. It is not about saying no. As a matter of fact, 65 percent of the American people want to say yes, if you can prove to them things are going to be different this time. However, under this bill, there is nothing that will say things will be different.

I praise the people who worked on this bill, who put together this compromise. But I think history points us in a direction that says we have to have proof this time. We have to know if we do this again, with at least 12 million people, if we grant amnesty--and I know the President says it is not amnesty, but if you come here illegally and eventually are legal, that is amnesty--if we are willing to do that, this time the American people ought to have the assurance we are not going to do that again; that we are going to have an immigration enforcement policy, an employer verification system, an entrance and exit system, and border security that is going to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. I believe this bill needs a lot more work. I believe it has a lot of complications that are unforeseen, and complications that we are aware of at this time.

I wish to take a moment to thank the majority leader for allowing me this time, and Senator Kennedy for working with me to allow me this time to talk about this amendment. I believe we have a critical problem in our country. The President's ratings are low, but our ratings are even lower. The trust of the American people in this institution is less than a third of the people in this country.

How do we build it up? We build it up by passing this amendment. We build it up by showing them we understand their concerns, we understand they are

willing to accept and allow people who came here illegally to live here as citizens and get on that pathway to citizenship provided we do the necessary things to not go back to this again. This bill is severely lacking in demonstrating that proof to the American people.

We have to build their confidence. We have to regain the trust of the American people that we will, in fact, this time do what is necessary to secure our borders and control our borders. We are at risk, as the discovery of the Fort Dix belated plan reflects, in terms of our own national security. So it is not all about immigration, it is about national security, and there is nothing in this bill that forces the President of any party who is in charge or forces the Congress to do anything different than we have done in the past.

I believe it is highly important we have this trigger mechanism for the assurance of the American people that we have a secure border; that we have a visa entrance and exit system that works; that we have employer verification that works; that those key things are intact before we grant legal status to those who are here illegally.

I say again I appreciate Senator Kennedy working with me in allowing me the time to do this, and Senator Reid for his graciousness for this time.

I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Would that not negate the direction of the Secure Fence Act of last year?

No, no. I agree. But it would relieve that problem as you saw in the Secure Fence Act of last year, of 2006.

Your underlying language would alleviate that problem in the 2006 Secure Fence Act?

So that would supersede whatever we had in the Secure Fence Act in my amendment?

So therefore your argument, I believe, is moot, because if you have that in the underlying bill, then that problem is solved and you should be able to support this amendment.