Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a small amendment that deals with a problem each one of us has heard about in our States--the extremely long backlog at the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

One of the privileges of being a Senator is being able to help constituents. In my State offices, I get thousands of requests from Illinoisans trying to get their VA benefits or clear up a problem with their Social Security check or deal with any number of government bureaucracies. It is great when we can get involved and help folks cut through the redtape. We are helping make government work, one case at a time.

If your office is like mine, a large number of the cases involve immigration. And if your office is like mine, the most common complaint involves FBI name checks. I have only been in office 16 months, but in that time I have received 2,211 requests for assistance on immigration; 426 of these

cases, almost 1 in 5 deal with the FBI name check.

One step that legal immigrants have to take to stay in the country lawfully is going through a security check by the FBI. This is a standard procedure, and it is critically important to screen the folks to which we are granting citizenship and permanent residence. Unfortunately, the system is overwhelmed.

The FBI's National Name Check Program is asked to review 62,000 names a week--62,000 a week. In 2005, the FBI was asked to check 3.3 million names, a 20-percent jump from 2001. A great majority of these people are cleared automatically by computer, but for many, FBI agents have to comb through paper records spread across more than 265 sites across the country.

According to a November 2005 GAG report, the FBI background check is one of the top factors beyond the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services' control that contributes to long wait times and an extended backlog. The report found that 11 percent of applications studied took longer than 3 months, and a significant portion of those took much longer. The Department of Homeland Security has taken many steps to try to speed up this process, but unfortunately there are just too many requests being sent to the FBI, and not enough analysts to deal with them.

Many of my constituents have reported waiting as long as 2 years to get cleared by the FBI. These are innocent people who have jumped through every legal hoop we have put in front of them. But because of a bureaucratic mess, they are put in legal limbo.

My amendment isn't overly ambitious. It just gives the FBI a small amount of resources to start tackling this problem. It authorizes $3.125 million a year for the next 5 years to allow FBI to hire additional staff and take other steps to improve the speed and accuracy of the background checks. It also requires the FBI to report back to Congress on the size of the backlog and the steps it is taking to reduce it.

This is a problem we can do something about. And at a time when we are trying to stem the flow of immigrants entering the country illegally, this is a problem we must address. We should not punish the folks who have been responsible and applied to enter the country legally. We should make the system as efficient as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute Lloyd Bentsen, a dearly departed former Member of this body. Senator Bentsen died yesterday at the age of 85, and he leaves behind a legacy of fiscal responsibility, steadfast service, and unwavering statesmanship.

Senator Bentsen was born in Mission, TX, in 1921, a descendant of Danish immigrants. From a young age, he excelled in nearly all his endeavors: he was an Eagle Scout, a distinguished graduate of the University of Texas Law School, and a fighter pilot, flying B-24 combat missions during World War II. At the young age of 23, Senator Bentsen was promoted to the rank of major, a post that gave him command of over 600 men. For his valiant service during the war, the Army Air Corps, now the Air Force, awarded him the Distinguished Flying Cross, one of the military's highest honors.

Senator Bentsen went on to serve the people of Texas as Hidalgo county judge, U.S. Congressman, and, beginning in 1970, as U.S. Senator. He was overwhelmingly reelected to this body three times, in 1976, 1982, and 1988.

As a Senator, Lloyd Bentsen was a champion of sound national economic policy and fiscal responsibility. He served as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Finance, and balanced his keen eye on progressive causes such as women's rights with a dogged determination to cut taxes and support our Nation's businesses. As his contemporaries will no doubt attest, Senator Bentsen's political acumen was unmatched, and the coalitions he built crossed party, ideological, and even international boundaries.

Bentsen resigned his seat in the Senate in 1993 to serve as the 69th Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton. He helped President Clinton set the course for what would be our country's strongest fiscal climate in recent memory. As Treasury Secretary, Bentsen was known to be a firm and sound counselor on economic policy; the Houston Chronicle reports that an autographed picture from President Clinton was inscribed: ``To my friend Lloyd Bentsen, who makes me study things until I get it right.'' President Clinton went on to award Bentsen the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999.

Throughout his career, Lloyd Bentsen set a standard for no-nonsense service, responsible business practice, and judicious public policy. I honor his good work today, and the memory of a life lived strong and full.

Mr. President, if it would be acceptable, I ask unanimous consent that I have a total of 5 minutes and that the 1 minute also be retained by the Senator from Vermont.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to briefly discuss amendment No. 4177. It pertains to title III and I believe will be called in short order. It is a bipartisan effort to create the kind of employment verification system that will ensure that American workers are protected. It is an amendment that I worked on with Senator Grassley, as well as Senator Kennedy. And as I indicated, it will be offered shortly.

One of the central components of immigration reform is enforcement. This bill contains a number of important provisions to beef up border security. But that is not enough. Real enforcement also means drying up the pool of jobs that encourages illegal immigration. That can only happen if employers do not hire illegal workers. Unfortunately, our current employer enforcement system does little to nothing to deter illegal immigrants from finding work.

Just a few statistics: Overall, the number of workplace arrests of illegal immigrants fell from 17,552 in 1997 to 451 in 2002, even as illegal immigration grew during that time. Moreover, between 25 percent to 40 percent of all undocumented immigrants are people who have overstayed their visas. They are not folks who will be stopped by a wall. Rather, the only way to effectively deter overstays is to reduce their access to employment.

When Congress last passed an immigration bill in 1986, we did not provide any meaningful way for employers to check legal eligibility to work. Currently, employees can prove their legal status by showing a variety of documents, and employers are supposed to record their inspection of such documents by filling out an I-9 form for each employee. As a consequence, the market for fraudulent documents--fake Social Security cards, driver's licenses, birth certificates--has exploded.

Unfortunately, with more than 100 million employees in more than 6 million workplaces, and only about 788 Wage and Hour investigators, employer sanctions have basically become a nuisance requirement to maintain records, not a serious risk of penalty. As a result, the number of ``intent to fine'' notices issued to employers for hiring undocumented workers dropped from 417 in 1999 to just 3 in 2004. I want to repeat that. There were three employers in the entire United States in 2004 who were fined for hiring undocumented workers.

Now, understandably, employers cannot always detect forged documents. And employers who reject workers with questionable documents risk employment discrimination suits. That is why we need a better alternative. We need an electronic verification system that can effectively detect the use of fraudulent documents, significantly reduce the employment of illegal workers, and give employers the confidence that their workforce is legal.

When Congress first considered comprehensive immigration reform in April, the legislation on the floor addressed this problem by creating a national employment eligibility verification system. Senators Grassley, Kyl, and I all thought this was a good idea in theory, but we had concerns with the design of the system.

Senators Grassley and Kyl proposed that a verification system be implemented nationally within 18 months. Senators Kennedy and I proposed that the system be phased in over 5 years but that it also included additional accuracy and privacy standards, as well as strict prohibitions on the use of the system to discriminate against legal workers.

Over the past few weeks, we have been in discussions to try to negotiate a compromise. I am pleased that we have reached an agreement by which all employers would have to participate by 18 months after the Department of Homeland Security receives the appropriations necessary to receive the funds needed to fund the system. All new employees hired would have to be run through a system. A series of privacy and accuracy standards would protect citizens and legal immigrants from errors in the system and breaches of private information. To make sure that employers take the system seriously, we strengthen civil penalties for employers who hire unauthorized workers, and we establish criminal penalties for repeat violators.

I think we worked in a constructive, bipartisan manner to design an employment verification system that is fair to legal workers and tough on illegal workers. I think it is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Grassley and all who worked on this amendment. This is probably the single most important thing we can do in terms of reducing the inflow of undocumented workers--making sure we can actually enforce in a systematic way rules governing who gets hired.

It is an amendment that has bipartisan support, as Senator Grassley indicated. It will increase fines. It will provide for an electronic data system that is effective.

I urge all colleagues on my side of the aisle to vote for the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 3971, as Modified

Mr. President, while the staff is consulting--we thought that the modifications had been agreed to--what I would like to do is tell you the essence of the amendment that I plan to offer. As soon as we get the go-ahead, we will offer it for immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss amendment No. 3971, which pertains to the guest worker provisions in the bill. I have some significant concerns with respect to the guest worker provisions. I am concerned that the guest worker provisions are premised on the idea that American workers are not available to fill the jobs that are currently being filled by undocumented workers or foreign guest workers. I am not certain that is the case.

Recently, I was on vacation in Arizona. I was staying at a hotel, and I noticed that all the individuals who were serving drinks and lunch at the swimming pool appeared to be from the West Indies. So I asked one of them: Where are you from? He said: I am from Jamaica. I asked: Are all the guys here from Jamaica? He said: Yes. I asked: How do you come here? He said: Well, I work for a company that essentially brings us in for 9 months during the high season. Then during the low season of vacation we will go back. And they take care of all their paperwork and handle all their immigration issues.

And he said: Did you notice that all the women who are cleaning the rooms are from China? I said: You know, I happened to notice that.

It turned out they have the same arrangement.

What it indicated was essentially you have a situation in which international temp agencies are being set up where workers will come in for 9 months, doing jobs that I think many Americans would be willing to do if they were available.

Now, having said that, there are some industries in which guest workers and agricultural workers are absolutely necessary. So the question is: How do we create this program but make sure it is tight enough that it does not disadvantage workers? To do that we are going to have to make the prevailing wage requirements of this bill real for all workers and all jobs.

We have to ensure that communities where American unemployment rates are high will not experience unnecessary competition from guest workers. So to that end, I will be offering an amendment, as modified, along with Senators Feinstein and Bingaman, to strengthen the prevailing wage language and to freeze the guest worker program in communities with unemployment rates for low-skilled workers of 9 percent or greater.

This amendment would establish a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that guest workers are paid a wage that does not lower American wages. The bill on the floor requires that employers advertise jobs to American workers at a prevailing wage before offering that job to a guest worker. And it requires that employers pay guest workers a prevailing wage. But the bill, currently, without the amendment, does not clarify how to calculate the prevailing wage for workers not covered by a collective bargaining agreement or the Service Contract Act of 1965, which governs contracts entered into by the Federal Government. That leaves most jobs and most workers unprotected.

The bill currently before us simply states that an employer has to provide working conditions and benefits such as those provided to workers ``similarly'' employed. So as a consequence, a bad employer could easily game the system by offering an artificially low wage to American workers and just count on those workers not taking the job. The employer could then offer that job at below-average wages to guest workers, knowing they would take it to get here legally.

That is not good for American workers, and it is not good for guest workers.

My amendment fixes that language. It directs the employer to use Department of Labor data to calculate a prevailing wage in those cases in which neither a collective bargaining agreement nor the Service Contract Act applies. That would mean an employer would have to make an offer at an average wage across comparable employers instead of just an average wage that she or he is willing to pay. The amendment also would establish stronger prohibitions on the guest worker program in high unemployment areas. The bill currently bars use of the program if the unemployment rate for low-skilled workers in a metropolitan area averages more than 11 percent. Our amendment would lower that unemployment rate to 9 percent of workers unemployed with a high school diploma or less. There is no reason any community with large pockets of unemployed Americans needs guest workers.

This is a good, commonsense amendment which is endorsed by SEIU, the Laborers Union, the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, and the National Council of La Raza. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I will actually call up the amendment to be read as soon as it comes back. I think there are some discussions taking place right now.

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

Mr. President, we have been having some discussion. My understanding is that the concerns that have been raised have to do with the underlying bill and not my amendment. As a consequence, I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk amendment No. 3971, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I also ask unanimous consent to add Senators Lieberman and Landrieu as cosponsors of the amendment.

Yes.

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

I already explained the amendment, Mr. President. My suggestion would be that if the manager of the bill has no objection, we go ahead. I want to make sure I am going in the appropriate order, given the manager's fine job of keeping this process moving.

As I indicated, this amendment essentially says that the prevailing wage provisions in the underlying bill should be tightened to ensure that they apply to all workers and not just some workers. The way the underlying bill is currently structured, essentially those workers who fall outside of Davis-Bacon projects or collective bargaining agreements or other provisions are not going to be covered. That could be 25 million workers or so which could be subject to competition from guest workers, even though they are prepared to take the jobs that the employers are offering, if they were offered at a prevailing wage. My hope would be that we can work out whatever disagreements there are on the other side. This is a mechanism to ensure that the guest worker program is not used to undercut American workers and to put downward pressure on the wages of American workers.

Everybody in this Chamber has agreed that if we are going to have a guest worker program, it should only be made available where there is a genuine need that has been shown by the employers that American workers are not available for those jobs. Without this amendment, that will not be the case, and we will have a situation in which we have guest workers who are taking jobs that Americans are prepared to take, if, in fact, prevailing wages were provided for. I don't know anybody here-- and I have been working closely with those who are interested in passing a bill--who wants to see a situation in which we are creating a mechanism to undermine the position of American workers.

I ask that this amendment be considered, and I will hold off on asking for the yeas and nays until we have had a chance to discuss it further.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the tax reconciliation conference report.

The Federal Government is the rare institution that can spend money it just doesn't have. We spend and we spend and when we don't take in enough to cover the bill, we just borrow from China and Japan and keep on spending.

Families would go bankrupt if they managed their budgets this way. Businesses would shut down. Most mayors and Governors would be thrown in jail. And yet Washington operates as if we can continue to get away with more of the same.

The reality is, we can't. To do so simply passes the burden to our children and grandchildren, while keeping us in debt to our major economic competitors.

By standard accounting rules, our Federal deficit last year rose to $760 billion, a figure that now makes our national debt more than $8.4 trillion.

Think of it this way: last year, the Federal Government spent more than it took in by about $2,500 for every single man, woman, and child in America. And that is on top of each household's $75,000 share of our national debt. That is a credit card bill and a second mortgage that most Americans didn't even know they had.

What is worse is that even these figures don't tell the full picture. The rising demands on Medicare and Social Security over the next 35 years will swallow up the Federal budget unless we adjust either the amount that is paid into the two trust funds or the amount that is paid out.

Sadly, there may be too much partisan rancor right now to address these long-term challenges. But, at the very least, what we can do right now is to stop making things worse. This bill doesn't do that. This bill makes things worse--much worse.

The $70 billion pricetag is just the start. Because we know that that number is just a gimmick to push this through--and we know that more tax cuts are coming in another bill that will push the real cost closer to $150 billion in new deficits.

But the most offensive part of this bill isn't even the pricetag. The most offensive part is where this tax relief is going. Because this money's not going to the working Americans who are already having trouble paying their medical bills and tuition bills and their mortgage payments and their taxes. Those middle-class Americans will get an average of $20 from this tax bill. Twenty dollars.

On the other hand, if you make more than a million dollars, well, this is the bill for you--because you will get an average of $42,000 in tax cuts--$42,000 in tax cuts for millionaires.

This bill is out of touch with the country's priorities. It makes the wrong choice for Americans over and over again. It makes America more vulnerable financially at a time when we need to be stronger. It enshrines tax breaks for oil companies yet leaves out the deduction of college tuition. It creates a huge tax break for wealthy savings yet leaves out the saver's credit to help moderate-income households save for retirement. It privileges the high incomes of wealthy investors yet leaves out tax credits that help employers hire people off welfare. It rushes to address the demands of big corporations out in 2009 yet fails to shield middle-class families from the outdated alternative minimum tax even through 2007.

Given our country's precarious budgetary situation, now is not the time for a $70 billion tax cut that will only push us deeper into debt. Before we embark on an expensive package of tax cuts or new spending initiatives--no matter how meritorious--we should insist upon sensible pay-as-you-go rules so that tax cuts and new spending are paid for today rather than passed along to our children and grandchildren.

You know, this place never ceases to amaze me. It amazes me that at this time in our country's history--a time when so many Americans are struggling to get by; a time when so many have lost faith in the idea of a government that looks out for their interests and upholds their values; a time when we continue to mortgage our future to bankers in China; at a time when all this is going on--we are debating a $70 billion tax bill that will give the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent of all Americans a tax cut that is more than 4 thousand times larger than most middle-class Americans will get.

If you are wondering why our approval ratings are in the tank, take another look at this bill. This is a bill that is neither responsible, nor fair, nor honest. It is not worthy of the people who sent us here, and it certainly doesn't help them. And so I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report on tax reconciliation.

Mr. FEINGOLD Mr. President, this country needs meaningful health care reform. I believe that health care is a fundamental right, and I believe that this right should not be compromised, nor should the quality of the insurance offered to Americans be compromised. Far too many of our constituents lack health coverage, and we should be acting to address that problem today. In fact, we should have addressed that problem long ago.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that in this current political environment Congress will not discuss ways to provide health care coverage to all Americans. In fact, we find ourselves debating legislation today that will set back our efforts to provide adequate coverage to Americans.

The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Act would allow the preemption of State insurance mandates that were put into place to protect people from plans that would otherwise drop coverage of medically necessary services. Insurance regulation is an issue that has traditionally been under the jurisdiction of the States. As a former State legislator, I appreciate the hard work that is done on the State level to tailor these laws to State residents, and I think that it is shameful to undo all of this hard work and subvert States' rights in this area.

States rights are not my only concern about this legislation. This preemption could have a very dangerous impact on individuals and families. It could result in health insurance policyholders no longer having access to numerous services including mammograms, mental health care, and newborn baby care. And these are not simply my concerns--I have heard from thousands of chiropractors, podiatrists, optometrists, and mental health providers in the State of Wisconsin, all of them concerned about losing provider mandates in the State. The people of Wisconsin believe that they should have access to comprehensive health insurance, but this legislation would reverse the progress that Wisconsin has made in ensuring adequate health coverage for its citizens. Wisconsin is not the only State--many States would lose mandates under this legislation. This bill would essentially provide underinsurance for Americans, and this isn't what Americans want or deserve.

In addition, this bill would cause fragmentation in the health insurance market, which would make it even more difficult for sick individuals to obtain health insurance. Without adequate regulation, insurance plans offered under this new scheme would be able to attract healthy low-risk individuals, leaving higher concentrations of sick individuals in traditional health plans that operate within State laws. This could drive up the costs in these traditional health care plans, potentially making insurance unaffordable for their policyholders.

Supporters of this bill are right about one thing, small businesses are facing enormous challenges in offering health insurance to employees. Health care costs have skyrocketed along with health insurance premiums, and it is difficult for small businesses to stay competitive without being able to afford insurance for employees. I have been hearing about this problem firsthand for years from small businessowners who attend my listening sessions and tell me that they want

to provide insurance for their employees, but they are getting squeezed financially. They are looking for help from the Federal Government, and I regret that they are instead being offered a badly flawed bill.

Small businesses owners and their employees should have access to high-quality health insurance, and I introduced legislation with Senator Collins that would help provide this for small businesses. Our legislation would avoid the problems of S. 1955 while still allowing associations and small businesses to pool their members so as to negotiate lower insurance premiums. This bill, the Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperative Act, would establish grant programs to help both large and small businesses form group purchasing cooperatives within the framework of existing State regulation. This legislation provides an alternative to the legislation we are debating that would not preempt State mandates and that works within the existing framework in the States. But this legislation certainly isn't the magic bullet that can address the entirety of the problems within the health care system.

We need to find a comprehensive solution to the problems with our Nation's health care. Almost 46 million Americans are currently uninsured, and millions more underinsured. This number has been climbing steadily for 20 years. People who fall into the category of the uninsured are seven times more likely to seek care in an emergency room. They are less likely to receive preventative care, and they are more likely to die as a result. The effects of uninsurance are not limited to individuals and families without coverage--each one of us deals with the consequences.

By not taking action on providing affordable insurance for people in our country, we are putting our future physical and economic health at stake. America's survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among industrialized nations, better only than Latvia. Our other health outcomes for most segments of the population are poorer than outcomes in other industrialized nations. Additionally, our businesses are having difficulty competing in the global market with businesses in countries that have universal health care. The combination of problems is clearly taking its toll on our country's future.

While we face these looming problems of poor health and access into the health care system, we devote more of our economy to health care than any other developed nation. In real dollars, we spend more on health care than the entirety of England's GDP. Despite this incredible spending, our country is still looking at astounding numbers of uninsured people, and Congress continues to do nothing.

The only thing worse than doing nothing is pretending to do something, and that is what this Republican-designated Health Week amounts to. We have been given 1 week only 1 week to discuss the staggering problems facing the health care system in this country. We have been presented with legislation that ignores or exacerbates the real problems we face. And we have been shut out of the opportunity to offer amendments. If we are going to finally debate health care, as we must, we should engage in a real debate, a debate that gives health care the attention it deserves, instead of debating a bill that Republican leadership probably expects will not even be passed into law. Let's talk about real answers for real people. Let's talk about true health care reform.

I was pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on health care reform. Our legislation would force Congress to finally address this issue. It requires Congress to discuss, debate, and consider universal health care bills within the first 90 days of the session following enactment of the bill. This bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate policy. This simply requires Congress to act. The American people want action, the States want action, and it is time that we answered their call.

Instead of avoiding the issue or offering dead-end solutions, we should enact health care reform legislation that harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. That is why I advocate a State-based approach to health care reform, which allows States to experiment with ways to enhance access to health care for their citizens. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--its mind-power and diversity--to bring our country closer to the goal of realizing a working health care system with universal coverage. If the Federal Government helped States enact changes in the health care system, then I believe we would see our political logjam around health care begin to loosen.

We are already seeing States move ahead of the Federal Government on covering the uninsured. Massachusetts recently passed into law a plan to require health insurance for residents. In Wisconsin there has been discussion of expanding health insurance coverage in the State. I think the Federal Government should be working to encourage these innovative initiatives.

States could be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State could use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan.

This approach would guarantee universal health care but still leave room for the flexibility and creativity that is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to good, affordable coverage.

Why don't we use this so-called Health Week to discuss meaningful legislation like the approach I have discussed, rather than simply bringing partisan bills to the floor that won't move? It is time for the government to step up and fulfill its duty to make sure that the benefits of our Nation's health care system can be enjoyed by all Americans. I urge my colleagues to act.

I yield the floor.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1955

Mr. President, over the past year and a half, I have spent a few days every month holding townhall meetings around my home State of Illinois. I have now done almost 50 of these in cities and towns all over the State.

After I give a short presentation, I open the floor to questions from the audience. And without fail, one of the first questions asked at every townhall is about health care. Too many hard-working Americans can't afford their medical bills or health insurance premiums. Too many employers are finding it difficult to offer the coverage their employees need. And sadly, too many people in the world's wealthiest country have no insurance at all.

When Senator Frist declared the second week in May as ``Health Week,'' I naively assumed that maybe, just maybe, we would actually begin a real discussion about health care in the United States. I thought we would talk about serious and meaningful ways to address the health care problems faced by average Americans--important problems like: the 45 million Americans without health insurance; the worsening epidemic of chronic diseases, including asthma, obesity, and diabetes; the persistent and pervasive problems with patient safety and health

care quality; or the status of emergency and pandemic avian flu preparedness.

I know that I am not the only Senator who has been disappointed. A number of my Democratic colleagues have mentioned other pressing, critical issues on the floor this week, including stem cells, the looming enrollment deadline for Medicare Part D, and drug importation.

Yet so far we have had only a sham discussion on medical malpractice, revisiting the same old bills that have been rejected in the past that do not represent any real attempt to compromise and find solutions to the problems that many of our doctors and patients face.

And now, the Senate has turned its attention to the Enzi small business health plan. I know that small businesses need help in providing health care coverage to their employees. Small businesses are paying the price for this Congress's refusal to seriously embrace comprehensive health care reform, to expand coverage and contain costs.

Yet this bill is not the solution, and it is not part of a solution. In fact, some have described it as the antisolution.

In my opinion, any health coverage reform bill that passes the Congress should meet, at a minimum, three criteria: First, it may sound crazy, but I think a health coverage bill should actually expand coverage. The Enzi bill has been estimated to expand coverage to less than 1 million of the 45 million uninsured Americans. This is laughable.

In fact, some States will actually see an increase in the number of uninsured. In New York, for instance, 28,000 people could lose their health insurance coverage because of this bill.

Second, a good health reform bill should ensure comprehensive, quality health care. Over 200 health professional and patient advocacy groups have expressed their opposition to this bill, because it will promote health plans that won't offer the basic health care services that we all depend upon and take for granted, such as maternity care, mental health services, diabetes care, dental care, and so forth.

I have rarely seen such a large number of groups come together as swiftly, as vociferously, and as united as these groups have been against this bill.

Third, a good health reform bill should have a positive effect on the health insurance market. Will the market be stabilized and strengthened, or will it be weakened and fragmented? Again, the Enzi bill does not pass muster. Over 40 attorneys general have expressed serious concerns about this bill's preemption of State protections and laws and its restrictions on State oversight and regulation.

This so-called health week makes a mockery of the efforts of those who are working to achieve real health care reform. While we in Congress are squandering precious time on this bill, our States are moving ahead, exerting leadership because Congress has failed to act.

Illinois is in the process of implementing a program called All Kids, which will ensure that every child in the State is covered by health insurance. And we all know that Massachusetts just passed a sweeping, universal health coverage bill, negotiated and passed in bipartisan fashion.

In contrast, the last major health insurance reform passed by Congress was in 1997, when the SCHIP program was created. Even though the number of uninsured has continued to rise, almost 10 years have gone by without a serious congressional effort to address this crisis.

This is wrong. The Durbin-Lincoln amendment, which I have cosponsored, is a good example of how we can meaningfully expand health coverage without sacrificing the quality of care received.

The central tenet of the amendment is that small business employees should have access to the same health insurance coverage that members of Congress and other Federal employees receive themselves.

The health care problems facing our country are serious ones, and the solutions will not be easy. But we need to have a serious debate about this issue--a debate that addresses the whole problem and isn't just about scoring political points in an election year.

The American people expect as much, and I hope this failed attempt at a ``health week'' is not the last chance we will have to talk about an issue that is the chief financial concern of millions upon millions of people in this country.

Mr. President, on vote No. 115--the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 22--I was necessarily absent due to a delay with my flight back from Chicago. Had I been present for that vote, I would have voted against the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Illinois celebration of ``Navy Week,'' which will occur this year during the week of May 15, 2006. This celebration recognizes the men and women who have served and sacrificed on behalf of this country both at home and abroad.

The strength and bravery of the U.S. Navy played an integral role in the creation and development of the United States during its struggle for freedom and American sovereignty. Many brave Illinois citizens have served and continue to serve honorably in the U.S. Navy.

There are more than 350,000 active duty and more than 135,000 Ready Reserve Navy personnel in the U.S. Navy, serving the Nation in support and defense of the values and freedom that all people in the United States cherish.

This week, members of the Navy in Illinois will spend time serving their country and community in other ways. The Navy band will perform in city parks throughout Chicago, and Navy personnel will work at food banks and travel to the Great Lakes Veterans Hospital to support those who are a part of the great history of the U.S. Navy.

In addition, the Navy will participate in Habitat for Humanity, building houses around Illinois, and they will work with the Chicago Christian Industrial League to help the homeless of Chicago and those suffering from substance abuse.

Recognizing ``Navy Week'' will allow us to celebrate the strength and bravery displayed by members and veterans of the U.S. Navy and the role they have played throughout our history.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate Emmanuel Ofosu Yeboah for his leadership and dedication to raising awareness about disabilities around the world.

Emmanuel was born without a tibia in his right leg, leaving it useless and severely deformed. This would have been an enormous obstacle for anyone in our society to overcome. But he was not born here--he was born in Ghana, where historically the disabled were often poisoned or left to die. At the time, it was believed that a child was born disabled due to a sin the mother had committed. Because of his son's deformed leg, Emmanuel's father abandoned his family, and his mother's friends encouraged her to kill or, at the very least, abandon her disabled son.

Instead, she chose to nurture and encourage him, making the radical decision to send him to primary school, rather than sending him to the streets as a beggar.

Unfortunately, his mother died when he was 13, and Emmanuel was forced to drop out of school. His only option for survival was to shine shoes for a living--earning the equivalent of only 2 dollars a day.

Despite his struggle, Emmanuel's story is a successful one. He refused to resort to begging, and instead chose to focus the attention of his countrymen on the issue of discrimination of the disabled in Ghana. His method: biking across Ghana--with one leg. The only problem was that he didn't own a bicycle.

After seeking support from the Challenged Athlete Foundation in the United States in 2002, Emmanuel began his journey through Ghana, garnering media attention with every mile. By the time he reached his destination, Emmanuel was a national hero.

After 2003, when he competed in a triathlon, riding a 56-mile bike segment as part of a relay team, he was given a whole new life. Doctors were able to free him from his crutches by partially amputating his leg and applying a prosthetic one.

Emmanuel has since dedicated his life to improving the lives of Ghana's many disabled citizens. In conjunction with the Free Wheelchair Mission, Emmanuel has helped provide free wheelchairs to disabled people around the world. He has started a cycling team, a wheelchair basketball team, and a running team for physically challenged athletes, and is currently working on starting a sports academy for disabled athletes in Ghana.

Today, of the 20 million people living in Ghana, 2 million are disabled. Thanks to the efforts of Emmanuel Ofosu Yeboah, Ghanaians with physical disabilities are living their lives with purpose, dignity, and value.

Mr. President, thank you very much for recognizing me. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3824.

Amendment No. 3824.

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be modified.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank the distinguished Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I believe small businesses are the heart of the American economy and I am committed to expanding opportunities for small businesses to compete for Federal contracts.

One of the reasons I offered the amendment was my concern that noncompetitive contracts have shut out small, local and disadvantaged businesses from contracting opportunities in the gulf coast. If we are serious about restoring the gulf coast, we must ensure that small and disadvantaged businesses have the tools and opportunities necessary to create the local jobs and provide the local services that are essential to a quick and sustainable recovery. The SBA has an important role to play and should be actively using its authority to promote small business growth and competitiveness.

I want to be clear that it was not the intent of the amendment to interfere with small business set-aside programs that use appropriate competitive procedures in the awarding of contracts. I have been troubled by reports of outrageous overhead charges going to large firms that just end up subcontracting the work anyway to small businesses. It is important to preserve Federal Acquisition Regulations that require contracts to be directed to small businesses where responsible small firms are available to provide the government with quality products and services at fair prices.

My amendment is directed at large Government contracts and seeks to prevent no-bid deals that deprive all of us of the benefits of fair competition. My amendment should not limit Federal funds for contracts legitimately set aside for competition among small business concerns. Small businesses help competition and competition helps small businesses. When a conference committee gets appointed on this bill, I will communicate this understanding to the conferees.

Again, I thank the distinguished leader of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and I look forward to continuing to work with her to strengthen small businesses and to expand opportunity throughout the American economy.

Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business so I may call up my amendment No. 3810.

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

Mr. President, to begin with, I thank the floor managers on this bill for their help in finding the time to call up this amendment. I would love to get advice from the Senator from Colorado in terms of how to unanimously get an amendment accepted.

After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, millions of Americans opened their hearts, their homes, and their wallets to help the victims in the gulf coast. Even before Katrina's winds and rains died down, Americans across the country called national hotlines and pledged their hard-earned dollars, their time, and their prayers to the relief effort.

But they didn't just pledge--they also delivered. They delivered to the tune of $3.5 billion. Many of these donations came from working- class families who didn't have much to give, but they gave what they could.

Like the American people, President Bush made a pledge after the disaster. He pledged he would provide the gulf coast with the Federal assistance it needed to get back on its feet. With the bill now before us, the total amount of Federal funding for hurricane recovery will exceed $100 billion, and it is safe to say more money will be needed in the months and years to come.

But in order to make good on the President's pledge, we need to do more. We need to pledge to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. We owe this to the Americans who donated their own funds to hurricane relief efforts and to those who trust us each day with the tax money they send to Washington. Unfortunately, we haven't done a very good job so far of delivering on this pledge.

Yesterday, Senator Coburn and I came to the floor to detail the numerous instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in the use of Katrina funds. We know that FEMA spent nearly $880 million in taxpayer money on 25,000 temporary housing trailers stored around the country, including 11,000 that are currently rusting away in a field in Arkansas.

There are reports of prime contractors charging upward of $30 per cubic yard for debris removal--work that actually costs subcontractors as little as $6 per cubic yard.

As the Washington Post reported, four large companies are charging 1,500-percent markups--1,500-percent markups--to cover damaged roofs with plastic tarps.

Senator Coburn and I have tried to address these problems by offering a sensible package of amendments to ensure fiscal accountability and transparency. We have proposed the appointment of a chief financial officer to oversee the spending of Federal funding. We have proposed limits on the amount of overhead expenses a contractor can charge the Federal Government, and we have proposed that the details of all large Katrina contracts be posted on the Internet.

Unfortunately, these amendments are not germane now that cloture has been invoked. I think that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because the interests of the American taxpayer are not being well served by this body. Even though we will have appropriated well over $100 billion by the end of this week for Katrina relief and recovery, we haven't put in any accountability systems to ensure that the money is well spent.

I am aware that I am new to this body, but I am troubled that Senate rules are getting in the way of sound policy. I understand that is how the Senate works, so Senator Coburn and I are here to offer one modest amendment to protect taxpayer dollars. Our amendment addresses no-bid contracting and is germane to the underlying bill.

Immediately after the hurricane, FEMA awarded four $100 million no- bid contracts to four large companies--400 million taxpayer dollars-- without full and open competition. Acting FEMA director David Paulison was asked about these contracts when he testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on October 6, 2005, and he said the following:

I have been a public servant for a long time and I have

never been a fan of no-bid contracts. Sometimes you have to

do them because of the expediency of getting things done. And

I can assure you that we are going to look at all of those

contracts very carefully. All of those no-bid contracts, we

are going to go back and rebid.

Senator Coburn and I expected Director Paulison to stick to his word and rebid these contracts. But a month and a half passed, and the contracts still had not been rebid. So last November, we introduced an amendment to the tax reconciliation bill expressing the sense of the Senate that FEMA should immediately rebid these contracts. Our colleagues agreed and the amendment passed by unanimous consent.

After our amendment passed, both Senator Coburn and I met again with Director Paulison and again he assured us these contracts would be rebid. Yet, surprisingly enough, these contracts still have not been rebid. And to add insult to injury, FEMA said in March that the contracts would not be rebid after all. In fact, the contracts have actually been extended, despite the fact that GAO found three of these four firms had wasted millions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

The abuse doesn't stop with these four contracts. We learned 2 weeks ago that the Army Corps of Engineers missed an opportunity to negotiate a lower price on a $40 million contract for portable classrooms in Mississippi. Instead, a no-bid and overpriced contract was awarded to an out-of-State firm. I have often heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Frankly, what we are doing with Katrina funding borders on insanity. We in Congress keep

on trusting FEMA to enter into competitive contracts even though there is no evidence that it has any intention of doing so.

The amendment we are offering today is only our effort to say enough is enough. Our amendment requires all Federal agencies to follow competitive bidding procedures for any Katrina-related contracts exceeding $500,000. It is a commonsense amendment. It is a good- government amendment. Eight months after Katrina, there is no longer any emergency that justifies a no-bid contract that might have been entered into in the days after Katrina. If there is an emergency, it is getting control of how the money is being spent by FEMA.

The American people deserve the benefits of competition on Government contracts. Competition is good for American business. It is also good for government. It helps ensure high quality and low cost. That is what the American people have the right to expect. That is what our amendment seeks to deliver.

Before we spend another dollar in the gulf coast, let's make sure we have some transparency and accountability in place to ensure that Federal money is helping those people who need it the most, instead of lining the pockets of contractors. In our rush to give money to the gulf coast 8 months ago, we didn't do that. It was understandable. We were all shell-shocked by what had happened. But the American people, and more importantly the victims of Katrina, have paid a heavy price. I urge we not repeat that mistake. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Coburn and me in this effort.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Oklahoma does not wish to speak on the amendment, so I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, in addition to the 20 minutes, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3696.

What I will do, Mr. President, if it is all right, is I will read my statement. I will divide time with Senator Coburn. And then, procedurally, we can sort out my ability to present this amendment.

Mr. President, it has been 8 months since Hurricane Katrina devastated our southern shores. It was a storm that brought more pain to our citizens in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama than any other in our collective memories, pain largely experienced by the poorest and the most disenfranchised but felt by all of us.

In the wake of this devastation, the Federal Government has mobilized significant resources, totaling over $100 billion, to repair levees, provide temporary housing, and help cities and States rebuild highways, schools, and hospitals.

The task is enormous, but with proper planning, leadership, and oversight there is no reason we cannot rebuild the gulf coast and help its people rebuild their lives. Yet if we don't work quickly to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal reconstruction efforts, all of our best efforts to rebuild this region will fail. A dollar misspent by a contractor is a dollar denied to victims of Katrina. Money stolen by fraud or abuse is money that is unavailable to strengthen homes, schools, and small businesses. It comes straight from the pockets of the American taxpayer. Even worse, cronyism and incompetence siphon Federal dollars away from the gulf's citizens, and all Americans lose confidence in their Government's ability to respond to urgent needs.

Unfortunately, the list of wasted and fraudulent expenditures related to Katrina recovery is startling, and the abuse continues to this day. Let me mention a few examples. We know that FEMA spent nearly $880 million in taxpayer money on 25,000 temporary housing trailers stored around the country, including 11,000 that are currently rusting away in a field in Hope, AR. Why are they rusting away? Because FEMA went ahead and bought the trailers that their own regulation prohibited from being placed in flood plains like New Orleans. They bought trailers for New Orleans that would not hold up in a flood. Great job.

We learned just 2 weeks ago that the Army Corps of Engineers missed an opportunity to negotiate a lower price on a $40 million contract for portable classrooms in Mississippi. Instead, a no-bid and overpriced contract was awarded to an out-of-State firm. There are reports of prime contractors charging upwards of $30 per cubic yard for debris removal, work that actually costs subcontractors as little as $6 per cubic yard. And as the Washington Post reported, four large companies won an Army Corps of Engineers contract to cover damaged roofs with plastic tarp at a price of $1.50 to $1.75 per square foot for work that actually costs as little as 10 cents per square foot. A dollar seventy- five per square foot is enough to buy roofing shingles. Why are taxpayers paying a 1,500-percent markup for plastic tarp?

The list goes on and on: Funding for $438 a night hotel rooms in New York City; FEMA hiring a company as an ice vendor that doesn't own icemaking equipment; millions of dollars for bus services going to a transportation broker that doesn't own buses. We later found that this broker earned almost $1,200 per bus per day while the bus companies themselves received only a little more than half of that.

Together these specific incidents amount to an enormous problem, billions of taxpayer dollars being spent and no assurances that the funds are going where they are needed.

My good friend, Senator Coburn, held a hearing in the gulf coast 2 weeks ago to seek answers from officials in charge of contracting for Katrina. He found that neither FEMA nor the Army Corps of Engineers were able to answer allegations of unreasonable costs and

overhead. They were unable to justify many questionable contracts. In fact, Senator Coburn found that Federal agencies routinely release incomplete data or no data at all about how they have been spending their money on hurricane relief.

Let me put this simply. There is no one accountable for coordinating the oversight of these contracts. As Benny Rousselle, a Louisiana parish president told the Washington Post:

The federal government ought to be embarrassed about what

is happening. If local government tried to run things this

way, we'd be run out of town.

I am embarrassed. Senator Coburn is embarrassed. And every single lawmaker in this city should be embarrassed, too. What is worse, we predicted this would happen. That is why we introduced a bill last September, 2 weeks after Katrina, that would have created an independent chief financial officer for Hurricane Katrina recovery. This CFO would have been in charge of every penny spent on Katrina before it went out the door and would have been able to prevent contracting problems before they happened. But while our proposal received some attention, we couldn't find enough people in Congress and, more importantly, the administration who would support it. In fact, we were repeatedly assured by administration officials that a CFO was not necessary, that the money would be well spent. Now after 8 months, $100 billion, and millions in no-bid contracts, overpriced tarp, unusable trailers, these assurances don't mean much.

We think it is time for a new approach. It is time for the Congress to put some of the checks into place that we first proposed last September. Senator Coburn and I will bring to the floor a number of financial accountability and transparency amendments that will go a long way toward eliminating Government waste and stomping out fraud and abuse. Our first amendment creates the chief financial officer position that we first proposed last September. This office would oversee the relief and recovery process and take responsibility for the use of Federal funds. We have witnessed the failure of oversight, communications, and control in the absence of a CFO, and our amendment fills a critical gap. We need to have somebody in charge of the Federal checkbook. The buck has to stop somewhere.

Right now, 8 months after Katrina, we still have Federal agencies pointing fingers at each other. This CFO will ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively, and he or she will provide the financial information to Congress that is essential for adequate oversight and accountability. There is simply too much at stake to have no one in charge of these taxpayer dollars.

Our other amendments are commonsense approaches to improving transparency and accountability and to reduce administrative waste. We require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue monthly reports on Federal Katrina contracts that are funded by this supplemental appropriations bill. Every contractor who receives more than $250,000 will have its identity posted on a Federal Web site, including the total amount of funds received and for what purposes. The Web site will also show the contractor's location and tax status and details about the type of contract and whether it was competitively bid. This information is at the heart of transparency. We cannot reduce waste, fraud, and abuse without knowing how, where, and why Federal money is flowing out the door.

We also address the dangerous problem of no-bid contracting for Katrina-related projects. There are, of course, situations in which expedited contracting is necessary for emergencies, but Senator Coburn and I believe contracting officials should have to justify any use of noncompetitive procedures and inform Congress of their actions.

The American people deserve the benefits of competition, when their money is being spent. Under this amendment, the Director of OMB must specifically approve all no-bid contracts and provide details about the contracts to congressional oversight committees within 7 days.

Finally, we would stop excessive overhead expenses from being paid on Federal Katrina contracts. We have an amendment to prohibit contracts where administrative overhead exceeds industry standards. People should not be getting rich off of Federal contracts. They should be getting the job done at a fair price. If exceptional circumstances require higher overhead, Congress must know about it in advance. If the Government is going to spend $1.75 per square foot on a 10-cents-per- square-foot tarp, then Congress has the right to know why. And we better be able to do something to stop it, if necessary.

This is just common sense. The Federal Government must ensure that taxpayer dollars are directed where they are supposed to go. If we can't do that, we fail the American people, and we fail the people who sent us here. We also fail the victims of the hurricanes who need our help to restore their lives and their communities.

With the money in this bill, the Federal Government will have appropriated more than $100 billion in hurricane relief and recovery. I strongly suspect that this figure will increase in the coming years, as it should. But before we spend another dollar in the gulf coast, let's make sure that we have the right transparency and accountability systems in place to ensure that every dollar is being used to help those in need.

In our rush to get money to the gulf coast 8 months ago, we didn't do that. The American taxpayers and, more importantly, the victims of Katrina have paid a heavy price. I urge my colleagues not to make the same mistake again. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Coburn and me in this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in introducing the Alternative Energy Refueling System Act of 2006. I applaud his work in crafting this bill and I hope my colleagues will provide their full support and work towards its swift enactment.

As members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senator from South Dakota and I have worked to promote the expansion of alternative fuels production capacity in the United States--most notably

with the enactment of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) included in last year's Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS states that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol must be phased into the 140-billion-gallon annual national gasoline pool during the next 6 years.

That's a bold step in reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but we can't just rely on greater production of alternative fuels if we also don't make sure those fuels are available at gas stations. We need to make sure that when American drivers want to ``fill `er up'' with something other than petroleum, they can.

Last year, I introduced S. 918, a bill to provide a tax credit for the cost of installing alternative fuel pumps. I was pleased that this tax credit was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Soon hundreds more ethanol and biodiesel pumps throughout the United States will be installed as a result of this new policy.

But if we are serious about reducing our reliance on foreign oil in an expeditious fashion, we must intensify our efforts. We must double, triple, and quadruple our efforts. And that's exactly the purpose of our bill today, which simply provides a partial Federal reimbursement for the installation of alternative fuel pumps that otherwise are ineligible or have received the new tax credit.

Many more alternative refueling properties will be established by this bill--a strong complement to the tax credit passed last year. And this bill is fully offset in that it is financed by using just a small slice of the approximately $70 million in annual interest generated by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. We don't ask to use that small slice in perpetuity, but just for the next several years until enough alternative fuel refueling capacity is established across the country.

The total principal of the LUST fund is more than $2.5 billion--none of which we propose to draw down. And given that this fund has been capitalized by a one-tenth-of-a-penny fee for every gallon of petro-gas or petro-diesel purchased by the American people, it is altogether appropriate that any interest generated by any unused fractions-of- pennies be reinvested in infrastructure that weans our Nation from its dependence on the Middle East. All of this can be accomplished, while ensuring that the integrity of the LUST fund--which is used to clean up underground storage tanks--remains fully intact and untouched. In fact, I hope my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee will take note and will increase funding for LUST fund activities to the level it has long needed and deserved.

The Thune-Obama bill is a good bill that will accomplish good things for our national energy dependence, but even if enacted, this bill cannot by itself guarantee more alternative fuel refueling stations. As my colleagues are aware, alternative fuel refueling stations make up only a tiny fraction of the nationwide network of gas stations. And while that fraction is growing by leaps and bounds, the vast majority of stations within that small fraction are independently owned and operated.

By comparison, the big oil companies--the Exxons, the BPs, or the ConocoPhillips of the American petroleum industry--have not installed alternative fuel pumps. Rather, the evidence is accumulating that these companies have used institutional policies to deter the installation of alternative fuel pumps despite their retailers asking to sell these new fuels to meet growing consumer demand.

I think these practices must end. It is time for these companies to demonstrate leadership and reinvest in America. Until that day comes, however, I pledge to continue my work in Congress with like-minded colleagues to ensure that this Nation invests in a 21st Century refueling structure. The bill we are introducing today is part of that investment. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for his authorship on this bill.

I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in introducing the Alternative Energy Refueling System Act of 2006. I applaud his work in crafting this bill and I hope my colleagues will provide their full support and work towards its swift enactment.

As members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senator from South Dakota and I have worked to promote the expansion of alternative fuels production capacity in the United States--most notably

with the enactment of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) included in last year's Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS states that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol must be phased into the 140-billion-gallon annual national gasoline pool during the next 6 years.

That's a bold step in reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but we can't just rely on greater production of alternative fuels if we also don't make sure those fuels are available at gas stations. We need to make sure that when American drivers want to ``fill `er up'' with something other than petroleum, they can.

Last year, I introduced S. 918, a bill to provide a tax credit for the cost of installing alternative fuel pumps. I was pleased that this tax credit was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Soon hundreds more ethanol and biodiesel pumps throughout the United States will be installed as a result of this new policy.

But if we are serious about reducing our reliance on foreign oil in an expeditious fashion, we must intensify our efforts. We must double, triple, and quadruple our efforts. And that's exactly the purpose of our bill today, which simply provides a partial Federal reimbursement for the installation of alternative fuel pumps that otherwise are ineligible or have received the new tax credit.

Many more alternative refueling properties will be established by this bill--a strong complement to the tax credit passed last year. And this bill is fully offset in that it is financed by using just a small slice of the approximately $70 million in annual interest generated by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. We don't ask to use that small slice in perpetuity, but just for the next several years until enough alternative fuel refueling capacity is established across the country.

The total principal of the LUST fund is more than $2.5 billion--none of which we propose to draw down. And given that this fund has been capitalized by a one-tenth-of-a-penny fee for every gallon of petro-gas or petro-diesel purchased by the American people, it is altogether appropriate that any interest generated by any unused fractions-of- pennies be reinvested in infrastructure that weans our Nation from its dependence on the Middle East. All of this can be accomplished, while ensuring that the integrity of the LUST fund--which is used to clean up underground storage tanks--remains fully intact and untouched. In fact, I hope my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee will take note and will increase funding for LUST fund activities to the level it has long needed and deserved.

The Thune-Obama bill is a good bill that will accomplish good things for our national energy dependence, but even if enacted, this bill cannot by itself guarantee more alternative fuel refueling stations. As my colleagues are aware, alternative fuel refueling stations make up only a tiny fraction of the nationwide network of gas stations. And while that fraction is growing by leaps and bounds, the vast majority of stations within that small fraction are independently owned and operated.

By comparison, the big oil companies--the Exxons, the BPs, or the ConocoPhillips of the American petroleum industry--have not installed alternative fuel pumps. Rather, the evidence is accumulating that these companies have used institutional policies to deter the installation of alternative fuel pumps despite their retailers asking to sell these new fuels to meet growing consumer demand.

I think these practices must end. It is time for these companies to demonstrate leadership and reinvest in America. Until that day comes, however, I pledge to continue my work in Congress with like-minded colleagues to ensure that this Nation invests in a 21st Century refueling structure. The bill we are introducing today is part of that investment. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for his authorship on this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the compromise that we have reached around a comprehensive immigration bill.

A group of Members led by Senators Hagel, Martinez, Salazar, McCain, Kennedy, Durbin, Lieberman, Graham, and others, have agreed to move this debate to a sensible center. In doing so, they have bridged a wide divide and demonstrated what the U.S.

Senate is capable of when it comes together to work on an important problem affecting the lives of all Americans. So I commend this group that I have had the honor of being a part of for moving closer to an agreement that serves the twin purposes of securing our borders and bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows.

To assess our progress on this issue, we need only look back on where we were when this debate started last week. Many Members on the other side of the aisle opposed any plan that would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented workers who are living in the United States. I think the fact that, a little over a week later, we are now at a point where it is recognized that a path to citizenship should be part of a comprehensive package; that it will, in fact, improve our ability to monitor these workers and to make sure they are not depressing the wages of American workers; and that the undocumented population should have the opportunity to live out the immigrant dream over the long term is a positive step forward. I am especially pleased that the compromise includes changes to the guestworker program, first proposed by Senator Feinstein and me, to protect American wages and ensure that Americans get a first shot and a fair shot at jobs before they go to guestworkers.

Everyone in the Senate who has introduced a comprehensive immigration bill, including the Administration, has called for a new guestworker program. I have to say that there are some concerns I have with a guestworker program. Clearly, there is a consensus among employers and the Chamber of Commerce that they need greater access to legal foreign workers in order to avoid the disconnect between supply and demand. In recognition of that consensus, the Judiciary Committee bill created a new temporary worker program. But many experts have expressed concerns about the size of that guestworker program and the effect it could have on American workers' wages and job opportunities. I think many of those concerns are legitimate.

The Judiciary Committee bill would have allowed 400,000 new temporary ``essential'' workers per year, adjusted up or down by market triggers. It would have created a 3-year visa, renewable for 3 years, with portability to allow guestworkers to move from employer to employer. It would have required that employers first seek out U.S. workers, and that guestworkers be granted labor protections and market wage requirements.

Under the Judiciary Committee proposal, the guestworker could apply for permanent status within the new employment-based cap if his employer sponsored him, or the guestworker could self-petition to stay if he worked for 4 years.

In order for any guestworker system to work, it has to be properly structured to turn people who would otherwise be illegal immigrants into legal guestworkers. And it has to provide protections for American workers who perceive their jobs to be at stake.

Unfortunately, I believe the Judiciary Committee did not quite strike the right balance. But we can do better. We can ensure that guestworkers are not just unfair competition for American workers; rather, that they are a legitimate source of critical workers.

To that end, Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment to retain the underlying structure of the program presented in the Judiciary bill, but to address some legitimate concerns that have been brought to our attention.

Let me discuss some of the key provisions in this amendment.

First, Senator Feinstein and I originally sought to lower the cap on guestworkers from 400,000 to 300,000. The compromise bill lowers the cap to 325,000 workers. That's a significant decrease that should give some comfort to American workers.

Second, our amendment ensures that localities with an unemployment rate for low-skilled workers of 9 percent or higher do not see an inflow of guestworkers under any circumstances.

Third, our amendment ensures that guestworkers receive a prevailing wage, whether or not they are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Finally, we guarantee that any job offered to a guestworker is first advertised to Americans at a fair wage.

These are fair, commonsense changes. Our amendment recognizes that American workers will be better off if we replace the uncontrolled stream of undocumented workers with a regulated stream of guestworkers who enter the country legally and have full access to labor rights. Replacing an illegal workforce with legal guestworkers who can defend themselves will raise wages and working conditions for everyone.

I think the amendment Senator Feinstein and I have offered will ensure that an employer seeks a temporary worker only as a last resort, and only after making a good-faith and fair offer to American workers, which is why this amendment has been endorsed by the Laborers' International Union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, SEIU, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

I am pleased at the work that has been done. My understanding is that the compromise Hagel-Martinez legislation that is being prepared will provide for these terms. However, I remain concerned. We have to make absolutely certain--given the delicate balance between security, border protection, and treating all workers fairly--that we do not end up having a series of amendments that effectively gut this legislation. We also have to make sure that, if this bill is negotiated with the House in a conference committee, we do not end up with a program that creates a second-tier class of workers who cannot be citizens, and can be exploited by their employers.

I am pleased at the progress that we have made since last week. I hope we continue it. I am looking forward, on a bipartisan basis, to addressing these concerns in the debate that follows over the next several days.

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