Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senator Lugar has already outlined the legislation that we are reintroducing here today and the process that has led us to this point, so I will be brief.

I don't want my brevity to be confused with indifference towards this legislation. I want to underscore the importance of this bill in establishing a broad framework to more effectively combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional weapons. As I have said before, these are two critical issues that directly impact the security of the United States.

In some ways, the bill has already had its desired impact. There was a reorganization of the State Department that will improve the Department's ability to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional weapons. Moreover, the legislation has focused additional high-level attention--the scarcest commodity in Washington--on these Issues.

However, there is more that needs to be done. I believe the Senate can and should move this bill in an expeditious fashion. We have already held a hearing on the bill, worked with the State Department to update and improve the legislation, and have received endorsements from an array of non-governmental organizations that follow these issues.

I will defer to the Chairman on the procedural issues, but my hope is that we can report this bill out of the Foreign Relations Committee as soon as possible and work for Senate passage shortly thereafter.

In closing, I want to thank Senator Lugar for his steadfast commitment to these critical issues and look forward to collaborating with him in the coming months on this legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Lugar has already outlined the legislation that we are reintroducing here today and the process that has led us to this point, so I will be brief.

I don't want my brevity to be confused with indifference towards this legislation. I want to underscore the importance of this bill in establishing a broad framework to more effectively combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional weapons. As I have said before, these are two critical issues that directly impact the security of the United States.

In some ways, the bill has already had its desired impact. There was a reorganization of the State Department that will improve the Department's ability to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional weapons. Moreover, the legislation has focused additional high-level attention--the scarcest commodity in Washington--on these Issues.

However, there is more that needs to be done. I believe the Senate can and should move this bill in an expeditious fashion. We have already held a hearing on the bill, worked with the State Department to update and improve the legislation, and have received endorsements from an array of non-governmental organizations that follow these issues.

I will defer to the Chairman on the procedural issues, but my hope is that we can report this bill out of the Foreign Relations Committee as soon as possible and work for Senate passage shortly thereafter.

In closing, I want to thank Senator Lugar for his steadfast commitment to these critical issues and look forward to collaborating with him in the coming months on this legislation.

Mr. President, this is National Public Health Week, and the American Public Health Association and its over 200 partner organizations and sponsors have organized events to raise awareness about the importance of public health in this nation. This year, the theme of National Public Health Week, ``Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids,'' focuses on building healthy communities to promote and protect the health of our children.

This focus on building healthy communities is both timely and critical. We are losing ground with respect to the health of our Nation's children. Studies have found that the percentage of overweight children and adolescents has more than doubled in the last few decades; without intervention, 1 in 3 children born in 2000 can expect to develop diabetes in their lifetime. My home State of Illinois has the unfortunate distinction of having the highest number of lead-poisoned children. And other diseases and conditions, including high blood pressure and asthma, are on the rise in young populations.

As bleak as the health situation is for so many children, there is good news. Many of these diseases and health conditions are completely preventable or can be delayed for many, many years. The American Public Health Association and countless other expert organizations have told us, and shown us, that if we make a real commitment to and investment in building healthy communities, we can substantially improve the health of our children and adults. Today I am introducing the Healthy Places Act of 2006, which will do just that.

The Healthy Places Act of 2006 focuses on the built environment, which includes our homes, schools, workplaces, parks and recreation areas, business areas, and transportation systems. Where we work, live, and play has tremendous implications for our health, and improvements to these environments will lead to: greater opportunities for physical activity and a reduction in injuries because of safe sidewalks, biking paths, and parks; less reliance on personal automobiles which reduces toxic emissions; better access to fresh fruits and vegetables which leads to healthier nutrition; and the planning and building of ``green'' homes and buildings which decreases energy consumption.

Like many other States, Illinois has already begun to take steps to improve the environment. City leaders in Chicago have recognized that many low-income families have no access to fresh foods and medicine because there are no grocery stores and pharmacies in their neighborhoods. Retail Chicago, an initiative of the city's Department of Planning and Development, is now using redevelopment funds to entice local developers to bring grocery stores and pharmacies into these neighborhoods.

The Lieutenant Governor's initiative ``Six Weeks to a Greener Illinois'' is another fine example. Now in its 4th week, this effort has encouraged Illinoisans to participate in making the State a healthier place to live, and rewarded those communities that are already taking steps to do so.

The Healthy Places Act of 2006 would expand these and other efforts to improve the planning and design of communities that can promote healthier living. It establishes and supports health impact assessment programs, which would assist States and local communities in examining potential health effects of major health policy or programmatic changes. The newly created Interagency Working Group on Environmental Health would facilitate communication and collaboration on projects among the agencies in order to better address environmental health issues. In addition, the bill creates a grant program to address environmental health hazards, particularly those that contribute to health disparities. Finally, the Healthy Places Act provides additional support for research on the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents as recommended by two Institute of Medicine's reports: ``Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity?'' and ``Rebuilding the Unity of Health and the Environment: A New Vision of Environmental Health for the 21st Century''.

As the health of our children continues to decline, and our health expenditures continue to soar, it is imperative that the Congress take action, and focusing on building healthier communities is a necessary step in this regard. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, this is National Public Health Week, and the American Public Health Association and its over 200 partner organizations and sponsors have organized events to raise awareness about the importance of public health in this nation. This year, the theme of National Public Health Week, ``Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids,'' focuses on building healthy communities to promote and protect the health of our children.

This focus on building healthy communities is both timely and critical. We are losing ground with respect to the health of our Nation's children. Studies have found that the percentage of overweight children and adolescents has more than doubled in the last few decades; without intervention, 1 in 3 children born in 2000 can expect to develop diabetes in their lifetime. My home State of Illinois has the unfortunate distinction of having the highest number of lead-poisoned children. And other diseases and conditions, including high blood pressure and asthma, are on the rise in young populations.

As bleak as the health situation is for so many children, there is good news. Many of these diseases and health conditions are completely preventable or can be delayed for many, many years. The American Public Health Association and countless other expert organizations have told us, and shown us, that if we make a real commitment to and investment in building healthy communities, we can substantially improve the health of our children and adults. Today I am introducing the Healthy Places Act of 2006, which will do just that.

The Healthy Places Act of 2006 focuses on the built environment, which includes our homes, schools, workplaces, parks and recreation areas, business areas, and transportation systems. Where we work, live, and play has tremendous implications for our health, and improvements to these environments will lead to: greater opportunities for physical activity and a reduction in injuries because of safe sidewalks, biking paths, and parks; less reliance on personal automobiles which reduces toxic emissions; better access to fresh fruits and vegetables which leads to healthier nutrition; and the planning and building of ``green'' homes and buildings which decreases energy consumption.

Like many other States, Illinois has already begun to take steps to improve the environment. City leaders in Chicago have recognized that many low-income families have no access to fresh foods and medicine because there are no grocery stores and pharmacies in their neighborhoods. Retail Chicago, an initiative of the city's Department of Planning and Development, is now using redevelopment funds to entice local developers to bring grocery stores and pharmacies into these neighborhoods.

The Lieutenant Governor's initiative ``Six Weeks to a Greener Illinois'' is another fine example. Now in its 4th week, this effort has encouraged Illinoisans to participate in making the State a healthier place to live, and rewarded those communities that are already taking steps to do so.

The Healthy Places Act of 2006 would expand these and other efforts to improve the planning and design of communities that can promote healthier living. It establishes and supports health impact assessment programs, which would assist States and local communities in examining potential health effects of major health policy or programmatic changes. The newly created Interagency Working Group on Environmental Health would facilitate communication and collaboration on projects among the agencies in order to better address environmental health issues. In addition, the bill creates a grant program to address environmental health hazards, particularly those that contribute to health disparities. Finally, the Healthy Places Act provides additional support for research on the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents as recommended by two Institute of Medicine's reports: ``Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity?'' and ``Rebuilding the Unity of Health and the Environment: A New Vision of Environmental Health for the 21st Century''.

As the health of our children continues to decline, and our health expenditures continue to soar, it is imperative that the Congress take action, and focusing on building healthier communities is a necessary step in this regard. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to enter the debate on comprehensive immigration reform. It is a debate that will touch on the basic questions of morality, the law, and what it means to be an American.

I know that this debate evokes strong passions on all sides. The recent peaceful but passionate protests that we saw all across the country--500,000 in Los Angeles and 100,000 in my hometown of Chicago-- are a testament to this fact, as are the concerns of millions of Americans about the security of our borders.

But I believe we can work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites the people in this country, not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears.

Like millions of Americans, the immigrant story is also my story. My father came here from Kenya, and I represent a State where vibrant immigrant communities ranging from Mexican to Polish to Irish enrich our cities and neighborhoods. So I understand the allure of freedom and opportunity that fuels the dream of a life in the United States. But I also understand the need to fix a broken system.

When Congress last addressed this issue comprehensively in 1986, there were approximately 4 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. That number had grown substantially when Congress again addressed the issue in 1996. Today, it is estimated that there are more than 11 million undocumented aliens living in our country.

The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.

The bill the Judiciary Committee has passed would clearly strengthen enforcement. I will repeat that, because those arguing against the Judiciary Committee bill contrast that bill with a strong enforcement bill. The bill the Judiciary Committee passed clearly strengthens enforcement. To begin with, the agencies charged with border

security would receive new technology, new facilities, and more people to stop, process, and deport illegal immigrants.

But while security might start at our borders, it doesn't end there. Millions of undocumented immigrants live and work here without our knowing their identity or their background. We need to strike a workable bargain with them. They have to acknowledge that breaking our immigration laws was wrong. They must pay a penalty, and abide by all of our laws going forward. They must earn the right to stay over a 6- year period, and then they must wait another 5 years as legal permanent residents before they become citizens.

But in exchange for accepting those penalties, we must allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step on a path toward full participation in our society. In fact, I will not support any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population--not just for humanitarian reasons; not just because these people, having broken the law, did so for the best of motives, to try and provide a better life for their children and their grandchildren; but also because this is the only practical way we can get a handle on the population that is within our borders right now.

To keep from having to go through this difficult process again in the future, we must also replace the flow of undocumented immigrants coming to work here with a new flow of guestworkers. Illegal immigration is bad for illegal immigrants and bad for the workers against whom they compete.

Replacing the flood of illegals with a regulated stream of legal immigrants who enter the United States after background checks and who are provided labor rights would enhance our security, raise wages, and improve working conditions for all Americans.

But I fully appreciate that we cannot create a new guestworker program without making it as close to impossible as we can for illegal workers to find employment. We do not need new guestworkers plus future undocumented immigrants. We need guestworkers instead of undocumented immigrants.

Toward that end, American employers need to take responsibility. Too often illegal immigrants are lured here with a promise of a job, only to receive unconscionably low wages. In the interest of cheap labor, unscrupulous employers look the other way when employees provide fraudulent U.S. citizenship documents. Some actually call and place orders for undocumented workers because they don't want to pay minimum wages to American workers in surrounding communities. These acts hurt both American workers and immigrants whose sole aim is to work hard and get ahead. That is why we need a simple, foolproof, and mandatory mechanism for all employers to check the legal status of new hires. Such a mechanism is in the Judiciary Committee bill.

And before any guestworker is hired, the job must be made available to Americans at a decent wage with benefits. Employers then need to show that there are no Americans to take these jobs. I am not willing to take it on faith that there are jobs that Americans will not take. There has to be a showing. If this guestworker program is to succeed, it must be properly calibrated to make certain that these are jobs that cannot be filled by Americans, or that the guestworkers provide particular skills we can't find in this country.

I know that dealing with the undocumented population is difficult, for practical and political reasons. But we simply cannot claim to have dealt with the problems of illegal immigration if we ignore the illegal resident population or pretend they will leave voluntarily. Some of the proposed ideas in Congress provide a temporary legal status and call for deportation, but fail to answer how the government would deport 11 million people. I don't know how it would be done. I don't know how we would line up all the buses and trains and airplanes and send 11 million people back to their countries of origin. I don't know why it is that we expect they would voluntarily leave after having taken the risk of coming to this country without proper documentation.

I don't know many police officers across the country who would go along with the bill that came out of the House, a bill that would, if enacted, charge undocumented immigrants with felonies, and arrest priests who are providing meals to hungry immigrants, or people who are running shelters for women who have been subject to domestic abuse. I cannot imagine that we would be serious about making illegal immigrants into felons, and going after those who would aid such persons.

That approach is not serious. That is symbolism, that is demagoguery. It is important that if we are going to deal with this problem, we deal with it in a practical, commonsense way. If temporary legal status is granted but the policy says these immigrants are never good enough to become Americans, then the policy that makes little sense.

I believe successful, comprehensive immigration reform can be achieved by building on the work of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee bill combines some of the strongest elements of Senator Hagel's border security proposals with the realistic workplace and earned-citizenship program proposed by Senators McCain and Kennedy.

Mr. President, I will come to the floor over the next week to offer some amendments of my own, and to support amendments my colleagues will offer. I will also come to the floor to argue against amendments that contradict our tradition as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of laws.

As FDR reminded the Nation at the 50th anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty, those who landed at Ellis Island ``were the men and women who had the supreme courage to strike out for themselves, to abandon language and relatives, to start at the bottom without influence, without money, and without knowledge of life in a very young civilization.''

It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something.

Today's immigrants seek to follow in the same tradition of immigration that has built this country. We do ourselves and them a disservice if we do not recognize the contributions of these individuals. And we fail to protect our Nation if we do not regain control over our immigration system immediately.

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

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Lautenberg, who has been a leader on chemical plant security for more than 20 years. He first introduced chemical safety legislation in 1985 and is an expert on the issue. I am proud to join him in introducing this bill.

The dangers that chemical plants present to our homeland security have been well documented. Industrial chemicals, such as chlorine, ammonia, phosgene, methyl bromide, hydrochloric and various other acids are routinely stored near cities in multi-ton

quantities. These chemicals are extremely hazardous and identical to those used as weapons during the First World War.

Today, there are 111 facilities in the country where a catastrophic chemical release could threaten more than 1 million people. These plants represent some of the most attractive targets for terrorists looking to cause widespread death and destruction.

Despite this, security at our chemical plants is voluntary--left to the individual plant owners. While many chemical plant owners have taken steps to beef up security, too many have not. In Illinois, there have been recent reports by ABC-7 in Chicago of chemical plants with dilapidated fences, insufficient guard forces, and unprotected tanks of hazardous chemicals. These plants are basically stationary weapons of mass destruction. Their security is light, their facilities are easily entered, and their contents are deadly.

Nearly five years after September 11, the Federal Government has done virtually nothing to secure chemical plants. It is one of the great failures of this administration that needs to be addressed this year.

The Lautenberg-Obama bill is a huge step forward. It protects our communities in a responsible, but balanced way. There are features of this bill that should be a part of any chemical security legislation passed by this Congress.

Our legislation is risk-based. While all chemical facilities would have to take a number of concrete steps to improve security, only the highest-risk facilities would be subject to bill's strictest scrutiny and regulation by the Department of Homeland Security. These high- priority facilities would have to perform vulnerability assessments, develop prevention and response plans, submit to unscheduled inspections, and perform practice drills.

Our legislation is strict, but fair. Our bill replaces volunteer security standards with clearly defined Federal duties and regulations. While plant owners would not be able to substitute their own security standards, they would be able to come up with security plans that are tailored to each facility. And while the bill includes tough penalties for noncompliant facilities including strict fines and the threat of shutting down plants, it also minimizes duplicative requirements under other Federal laws.

The Lautenberg-Obama bill also protects state and local rights to establish security standards that match their local needs. States like New Jersey have been leaders in chemical security, and we do not want to cut these efforts off at the knees. The legislation also gives employees a seat at the table, by creating employee security committees, ensuring that employees are part of the security planning process, establishing security training requirements, and establishing tough whistleblower protections.

Our bill also includes all the methods to reduce risk. Our legislation requires security forces, perimeter defenses, hazard mitigation and emergency response. These are the ``guns, gates and guards'' that prevent terrorists from attacking plants and minimize the impact of an attack. But there are other ways to reduce risk that need to be part of the equation. Specifically, by employing safer technologies, we can reduce the attractiveness of chemical plants as a target.

This concept, known as Inherently Safer Technology, involves methods such as changing the flow of chemical processes to avoid dangerous chemical byproducts, reducing the pressures or temperatures of chemical reactions to minimize the risk of explosions, reducing inventories of dangerous chemicals and replacing dangerous chemicals with benign ones. Each one of these methods reduces the danger that chemical plants pose to our communities and makes them less appealing targets for terrorists.

The concept of IST was created thirty years ago by chemical industry insiders, and it has been embraced at different times by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, foreign governments and states like New Jersey. Even the chemical industry itself has embraced IST, and many facilities across the country have already employed safer technologies.

Unfortunately, the chemical industry has been lobbying nonstop on this bill. They do not want IST, they do not want protection of state laws and they do not want strict regulations. So far, because the industry wields so much influence in Washington, it's been getting its way. For example, the Department of Homeland Security initially embraced the concept of Inherently Safer Technology in a 2004 draft chemical security plan, only to reverse itself after heavy industry lobbying in 2006. Secretary Chertoff's announcement last week, in front of an audience of chemical industry executives, very closely tracked the industry's talking points.

This is wrong. We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms of this debate. We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate interests.

Senator Lautenberg and I will fight for strong legislation to pass the Senate. We believe that we can work with chemical plants so that new safety regulations are implemented in a way that is flexible enough for the industry yet stringent enough to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to come together to pass meaningful security legislation this year.

Mr. President, I rise today with sadness to note the passing of a college basketball icon, Ray Meyer, the longtime coach of the DePaul University Blue Demons. Mr. Meyer died on March 17 of congestive heart failure at age 92. Although we mourn his passing, I choose to celebrate the memory of a good and decent man and a quintessential Chicagoan.

Ray Meyer had a hardscrabble upbringing on the West Side of Chicago the youngest in a family of seven boys and three girls. His dad ran a wholesale candy business but died when young Ray was only 13. Finding an outlet in competitive sports--baseball, basketball, football, and wrestling--Ray Meyer started to make a name for himself at St. Agatha's Grade School, Quigley Preparatory Seminary, and St. Patrick's Academy.

Coach Ray's earliest mentoring skills led him to the love of his life--Margaret Mary Delaney--when a local priest cajoled Ray into assisting him with the St. Agatha's parish girls team. The ``Coach and Marge'' had a lifelong love affair in a marriage of 46 years that ended only with Marge's death in 1985 at age 72.

Earning a scholarship to Notre Dame under coach George Keogan, Ray Meyer had a distinguished collegiate career. He graduated on the honor roll with classmates including future Notre Dame president Theodore Hesburgh and future executive vice president Edmund Joyce. Graduating in 1938, Ray was the proud recipient of Notre Dame's Byron V. Kanaley Award for lettermen demonstrating the highest in academic achievement and leadership.

Following graduation, Meyer worked several jobs unrelated to his love of sports. Shortly after his marriage, Ray was offered the job of basketball coach at Joliet Catholic high school, but he refused when the school fell $100 short of his requirement for an $1,900 annual salary. But fate intervened when his former Notre Dame coach George Keogan suffered a heart attack and Ray was hired to fill in for the remainder of the 1940-41 season, staying on as an assistant to Keogan until 1942 when DePaul University came calling.

Early in his career, Coach Meyer was blessed with a bespectacled, gangly 6-foot-10-inch center named George Mikan. Mikan, who later was named the outstanding player of the first half of the 20th century, was awkward and inexperienced. Under Ray Meyer's tutelage and his own work ethic, George Mikan turned into a dominating force as one of the first true big men to excel at the college level.

In 1943, Mikan and his DePaul mates played in the 1943 NCAA tournament against the Georgetown Hoyas and a freshman reserve named Henry Hyde the same Henry Hyde who is just now serving his final term in the other body as a distinguished member of Congress from Illinois. In 1945, the Mikan-led Blue Demons won the National Invitational Tournament, which at the time was more prestigious than the NCAA tourney.

Coming to DePaul in 1942, Coach Ray stayed 42 years on the sidelines and another 13 as the colorful radio broadcaster for the games of the school he loved, then coached by his former player and son, Joey Meyer. Ray Meyer's list of coaching accomplishments is truly impressive: 724 victories at 1 school; 55 years of attending all of DePaul's 1,467 games; 37 winning seasons; an NIT title in 1945; NCAA Final Four teams in 1943 and 1979; and membership in the Basketball Hall of Fame. DePaul University recognized the role of Coach and his wife as ambassadors in its expansion to the largest Catholic University in the United States. DePaul named in its campus Fitness and Recreation Center after the coach and the floor at its home court, Allstate Arena, as the ``Ray and Marge Meyer Court.''

Coach Meyer was not only good, he was resourceful. For many years, his recruiting budget was minimal. Enticing promising players to come to a school in the shadow of the North Side ``L'' was difficult. Finding housing for players near a campus with little student housing at that time was also a challenge. Sometimes, the players were fed from the Meyer kitchen or some extra meal tickets at the Roma on the corner of Sheffield and Webster, where they could enjoy a great Italian beef sandwich. But Coach was imaginative and diligent. He used both qualities to establish and operate a basketball camp in Three Lakes, WI, for 55 summers.

Ray Meyer left an impact on all of his players. He had some great ones Mikan, Jim Lamkin, Howie Carl, Dave Corzine, Mark Aguirre, Rod Strickland, Terry Cummings, and Dallas Comegys, among others. But he had an incalculable impact on his school, his family and friends, Chicago, the Midwest and the Nation. Hall of Fame coach and native Chicagoan, Mike Krzyzewski, may have said it best:

Coach Meyer casts a large shadow on the game of college

basketball. . . . He truly loved the game and the kids he

coached. It was so evident. In each game that he coached and

each game that he announced. I love him. He served as a great

example of what a coach should be.''

To his children sons Tom, Joey, Bob and daughters Barbara and Pat and his 18 grandchildren, I send my most heartfelt condolences, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and memory of a wonderful human being, Coach Ray Meyer.

Mr. President, I wish to take a minute to offer my sincerest condolences to Senator Byrd on the passing of his beloved wife Erma. In a love story that is both moving and inspiring to all people, Robert Byrd's grade school sweetheart became his lifelong best friend in a marriage that spanned almost seven decades. While this makes the loss that much more profound, I would imagine it makes the

memories that much sweeter and the love all the more enduring.

As somebody who is fortunate enough myself to be married to a wonderful woman for the past 14 years, I can only imagine the difficult transition this causes for our dear colleague from the State of West Virginia, but I pray that the Byrd family will find strength in this difficult time. I pray that Erma may now rest in eternal peace.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak after Senator Santorum for approximately 10 minutes.

Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating members on both sides of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee for the fine work they did yesterday on the immigration bill. My expectation is that it will be coming to the floor soon.

I wish to echo some of the remarks that were made by my senior colleague from Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin. I think everybody in this Chamber should be interested in a comprehensive immigration reform bill, one that takes seriously the security of our borders, one that takes seriously enforcing the hiring practices of employers, but also one that makes sure we are providing a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million to 12 million undocumented workers who are making enormous contributions to this country.

The bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee last night strikes the right balance. I believe it is a bill that is worthy of support on both sides of the aisle, and I am looking forward to participating in the debate on what I think will be one of the most important issues we face in the Senate.

Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to address the ethics bill that has been pending before

the Senate for the past three weeks. It has now been exactly four months since Duke Cunningham resigned from the House after pleading guilty to bribery, tax evasion, and mail fraud charges. It has now been almost three months since Jack Abramoff pled guilty to defrauding Indian tribes.

In the aftermath of both guilty pleas, Members on both sides of the aisles in both Houses of Congress brought forward good proposals to change the culture that led to these scandals, and yet here we are on March 28th with a half-finished ethics bill in the Senate and even less in the House.

I know there are many important issues facing our country--health care, education, the war in Iraq, and, as I just mentioned, immigration--but it is equally important that we as Members of Congress consider how we are going to deal with the cloud of corruption that hangs over the Capitol and how that affects the issues which are important to the American people. For that reason, I sincerely hope the leadership of both parties will be able to reach an agreement to bring this bill back to the floor before our next recess.

The American people are tired of a Washington that is only open to those with the most cash and the right connections. They are tired of a political process where the vote you cast isn't as important as the favors you do. And they are tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways.

It is not a game that is new in this town. It is not particularly surprising to the public. People are not naive about the existence of corruption. They know it has worn the face of both Republicans and Democrats over the years. So the hope is that we could find a bipartisan solution to the problem.

Before the recess, we made some progress on the ethics bill. I was pleased to join with Senator Dodd on an amendment to ban Members and staff from accepting meals from lobbyists. And when we get back to the bill, I will be joining Senators Santorum, McCain, Lieberman, and Feingold in offering an amendment to define the way we reimburse corporate jet travel. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about this amendment.

During the past 5 years, Members of Congress, Presidential candidates, and political parties have used the corporate jets of 286 companies a total of more than 2,100 times. Despite the fact that a single flight of these jets can cost tens of thousands of dollars, the average reimbursement rate has only been about $1,700 per trip. So far, politicians have gotten away with this because current law only requires us to reimburse the cost of a first-class ticket on these charter flights, not the actual cost of operating the plane. But since we are usually the only passengers on the plane who don't work for the company, this rule is effectively giving us thousands of dollars in unwarranted discounts. This has to change.

Let me say this to my colleagues: Although I discontinued the practice earlier this year, I have used corporate jets in the past. I know some of the other proponents of this amendment have done the same. I know how convenient these charters can be. I know that a lot of my colleagues, particularly those from large States, will oppose this rule change because it makes it significantly more difficult and costly to interact with their constituents who live in less populated parts of their States. So I am not unsympathetic to these concerns. There are many parts of Illinois in which there is no commercial air service.

But this isn't about our convenience. It is about our reputation as public servants who are here to work for the common voter, not the highest bidder. We all know that corporations are not allowing us to use their jets out of the kindness of their hearts. It is yet another way that lobbyists try to curry influence with lawmakers.

One lobbyist told USA Today about the advantages of allowing Members of Congress to use his jet. He said:

You can sit down and have a cocktail and talk casually

about a matter, rather than rushing in between meetings on

Capitol Hill.

A lobbyist for a telecommunications company is quoted as saying that providing a jet to a lawmaker ``gives us an opportunity to form relationships, to have a long stretch of time to explain issues that are technical and complicated. If it wasn't useful, we wouldn't do it.'' The vast majority of the people we represent don't have the money to buy that access and form those relationships. They don't have the ability to fly us around on their private planes. In fact, they are having enough trouble paying the mortgage and their medical bills and their kids' college tuition. And they expect us to listen to their issues with the same concern we would any lobbyist or corporation with a jet.

I know that some say that legislation isn't really being discussed on these flights. But appearances matter. If we want to be serious about showing our constituents that we are fighting for them--and not just for the wealthy and powerful--we can't allow a small number of special interests to be subsidizing our travel.

If there isn't enough commercial air service in a state and there is a need to take a charter flight, then we should pay the full cost of the charter. If there is not enough money in our Senate travel accounts to cover these costs, then we should increase our travel budgets. What we shouldn't do is allow lobbyists to pick up the tab.

I know this may not be a popular amendment. I know many of my colleagues will be inconvenienced if it is adopted; I will be as well. But if we are serious about cleaning up the way we do business in Washington, it is an important step for us to take. I hope my colleagues will do the right thing and support this amendment.

In closing, let me say it is obvious we are not going to be able to finish ethics reform today. I know Senator Lott and Senator Dodd are working diligently to try to get this bill back on the floor. I also am aware of the importance of the immigration bill that we are going to be considering for the next two weeks. But I have to insist that we bring this ethics and lobbying bill back to the floor as soon as practicable and that we get to work on getting a bill passed and sent over to the House. The American people expect us to take strong action to clean up the way we do business in this city. They have been waiting for a long time. It is time we got to work.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Illinois, in a bittersweet moment. One of our dearest friends from Illinois, Congressman Lane Evans, announced today that he will not be seeking reelection next term.

Since the day he arrived in Congress more than two decades ago, Lane Evans has been a tireless advocate for the heroes with whom he served and the countless other veterans who bravely defended this country. When Vietnam vets were falling ill from Agent Orange exposure, he led the effort to pass Agent Orange compensation. Just recently, he led the fight to make sure the children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange who were born with spina bifida would be taken care of as well.

He was one of the first in Congress to speak out about some of the health problems facing Persian Gulf war veterans and has fought for benefits for them ever since.

He fought to expand benefits to women veterans. He worked to help those veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, and also worked to make sure there is a roof over the heads of the thousands of homeless veterans in our country today.

Lane Evans has fought these battles for more than 20 years, and even in the face of his own debilitating disease, Parkinson's, he has had the courage to keep fighting. Today, veterans across America have this man to thank for reminding America of its duty to take care of those who have risked their lives to defend ours. Today, we all thank Lane Evans for his courage in reminding us of this. His voice is going to be missed in this town, but I am sure it will continue to be heard wherever there are veterans who need help or vulnerable people across America who are looking for a hand up, not a handout.

Just a personal note: I don't know many people who are more courageous than Lane Evans, who has worked tirelessly, despite extraordinarily challenging physical ailments. He is one of the most gracious, best humored, and hardest working people that I have ever seen.

I remember when I first started my own campaign for the Senate, he took me around on a tour of his district. By the end of the day I was worn out because he was indefatigable in terms of his efforts. I consider him not only a dear friend, but I think it is fair to say that had he not supported me early in my election campaign I would not be here today. So I think this is an enormous loss for the Congress, but I know all of us will continue to draw inspiration from Lane Evans, and I am glad that he will continue to be my friend for many years to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins, not only for her accommodation but also for her leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Lieberman for his outstanding work on this issue.

I rise today to speak about the importance of improving the ethics enforcement process that we currently

have. Last month I introduced legislation to create an outside congressional ethics enforcement commission that would be staffed by former judges and former Members of Congress from both parties. Under my proposal, any citizen could report a possible ethics violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. My commission would have had the authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, gather records, call witnesses, and provide its full public report to the Department of Justice or the House-Senate ethics committees.

I knew this proposal would not be the most popular one that I introduced in Congress, but I didn't anticipate the deafening silence that greeted it. Change is difficult and Members of Congress are understandably concerned about delegating investigations of their own conduct to an outside body, but I hope, when my colleagues learn a little more about the amendment I am offering with Senators Collins, Lieberman, and McCain, that they will understand an independent ethics factfinding body is not only a good idea but a necessary idea.

Earlier this year, I was asked by the Minority Leader to take a lead role in crafting ethics legislation. I was glad to assume that role because I believe that the foundation of our democracy is the credibility that the American people have in the legitimacy of their Government. Unfortunately, over the past few years, that legitimacy has been questioned because of the scandals we have here in Washington.

But one of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.

Because for all the noise we have heard from the media about the bribes accepted by Congressman Duke Cunningham, the thousands of dollars in free meals accepted by other Congressmen, and the ``K Street Project'' that filled lobbying firms with former staffers, we have heard only silence from the very place that should have caught these ethics violations in the first place, the House Ethics Committee.

For years now, it's been common knowledge that this committee has largely failed in its responsibility to investigate and bring to light the kind of wrongdoing between Members of Congress and lobbyists that we are now seeing splashed across the front pages. And the sad truth is that the House ethics process does not inspire public confidence that Congress can serve as an effective watchdog over its own Members.

Time and time again over the past few years, the House Ethics Committee has looked the other way in the face of seemingly obvious wrongdoing, which has the effect of encouraging more wrongdoing. In those few instances when the committee has taken action, its leadership was punished, and it ceased to become an effective body. Coupled with a Federal Election Commission that was deliberately structured to produce deadlock, this has produced a dangerous outcome

In the words of one outside observer:

When everyone in Washington knows the agency that is

supposed to enforce campaign finance laws is not going to do

it and the ethics committees are moribund, you create a

situation where there is no sheriff. You end up in the Wild

West, and that's the context we've been operating under in

recent years.

Without question, the Senate ethics process is far superior, and I commend my colleagues who have served--and continue to serve-- selflessly and tirelessly on the Senate Ethics Committee. Indeed, I have the greatest respect for Senator Voinovich and Senator Johnson. They have done an outstanding job in a difficult task. They are two of the finest people I have had the pleasure to serve with since I arrived in the Senate.

But here's the sad reality. No matter how well our process works here in the Senate, it doesn't really matter since the American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. Our constituents, unfortunately, do not distinguish between the bodies in their opinion of Congress. And as long as our credibility is stained by the actions--and inactions--of the other body, then the legitimacy of what we do is also called into question.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the Senate Ethics Committee, there's some good reason for the American people to be skeptical of our enforcement system. After all, we in the Senate are our own judge, jury, and prosecutor. Under the current system, Members investigating their colleagues are caught in a bind. Either they investigate and become vulnerable to the allegation that they are prosecuting a Member for political reasons or they do not investigate and it looks like they are just covering up for a colleague. That investigation trigger has to be depoliticized for the good of Members and the integrity of the process.

And so, we can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.

That's why I come to the floor today to support this amendment for an Office of Public Integrity. The office is the next critical step in the evolution of ethics enforcement in the Senate and vital to restoring the American people's faith in Congress.

This amendment doesn't have quite the same level of independence as the outside commission that I proposed setting up. But it does have much more independence than the current system, and for that reason I wholeheartedly endorse it and am proud to be a cosponsor.

The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner. Final authority to act on these findings would remain with the members of the Ethics Committees, which would satisfy constitutional concerns.

Currently, in both the House and the Senate, the initial determination of whether to open an investigation has often resulted in a game of mutually assured destruction--you don't investigate Members of my party, and I won't investigate Members of your party.

But what's interesting is that while there is often great disagreement and sometimes even deadlock in the decision to open an investigation, there's usually general agreement on what the final judgment and punishment should be. That's because the development of a full factual record can convince even the most ardent partisan that a Member of his own party should be disciplined.

In this sense, the OPI proposal is an admirable attempt to reform the most troublesome aspect of the current ethics process while still retaining what works about it. Under this proposal, Ethics Committee members would be relieved of the most difficult part of their duties, which will make it easier for members to serve on the Ethics Committees and easier for them to carry out their responsibilities.

Most importantly, it would add much-needed credibility to the outcome of the process itself. By having the courage to delegate the investigative function to an Office of Public Integrity, the U.S. Senate would be sending the message that we have confidence in ourselves and our ability to abide by the rules. That would be an important signal to send to the American people.

To put this in some historical context, a similar approach was endorsed by a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress that was cochaired by Congressmen Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, and David Dreier, a Repulblican, in 1997. Representatives Hamilton and Dreier recommended the establishment of an independent body to supplement ethics investigations through fact finding. Had that recommendation been embraced by the House then, it is possible that the recent House scandals could have been averted.

In the Senate, similar proposals have been suggested over the years by Senators Bond, Grassley, and Lott, as well as former Senator Helms. And state legislatures in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida, among others, have established mechanisms to allow for independent input into ethics enforcement.

Today, it's time for the Senate to take the lead, the same way it took the lead in creating the first congressional Ethics Committee in the 1960s.

In the end, the true test of ethics reform is not whether we pass a set of laws that appeal to a lowest common

denominator that we can all agree on, it's whether we pass the strongest bill with the strongest reforms possible that can truly change the way we do business in Washington. That's what the American people will be watching for, and that's what we owe them.

Enforcing the laws we pass is a crucial step toward reaching this goal and restoring the public's faith in a government that stands up for their interests and respects their values.

I commend, once again, Senators Collins and Lieberman for their outstanding work in the committee. I strongly urge my colleagues to support their amendment.

Mr. President, on Monday, we heard Secretary Leavitt tell us that the avian flu will arrive in the United States by this fall. And if our worst fears are realized and it becomes a virus that can spread easily from human to human, the avian flu could be here within 30 days.

As Dr. Julie Greenberg, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has said, ``This is the most important threat we face right now.'' We are not talking about hundreds or thousands of lives here--we are talking millions. Millions.

The question, then, is not whether we have taken steps to prepare ourselves for the avian flu. Instead, the question is whether we have taken every imaginable and necessary precaution--whether we have done everything we possibly could do--to combat potentially the greatest global health threat in a century.

I don't believe that we have. But I know that we must. The United States cannot afford to have a Katrina-level of preparedness or a Katrina-like response to an international outbreak of avian flu. With so many warnings and so much knowledge of the threat we face, there is no excuse for failure this time around.

The first thing we need to do is increase our supply of Tamiflu and other medications. Countries such as Japan, France, England, and others have now stockpiled enough Tamiflu to cover a quarter of their populations. The United States has enough to cover just 2 percent.

If the avian flu mutates and is able to spread between humans, we will also need a new vaccine to treat the new virus. But as we saw during last year's flu season, our vaccine industry remains fragile and even the supply and distribution of something simple like a flu shot poses a challenge. This has to change.

Of course, as Secretary Leavitt has pointed out, the time it takes to develop a new vaccine means that we could be without any treatment for up to 6 months after the avian flu first breaks out. And that means that if we have an outbreak, it is imperative that our public health infrastructure be prepared to handle the crisis.

First, we need a clear chain of command. We can't be wondering who is in charge of dealing with an outbreak.

Second, we need an aggressive outreach campaign to warn and educate the American public about what to do in the event of an outbreak.

Third, it is still unclear how much assistance the Federal Government is willing to provide already cash-strapped States to strengthen their fragile health infrastructures. Although States such as Illinois are rapidly increasing their efforts to prepare, many States will need substantial assistance to buy antivirals and other supplies. And our hospitals and health professionals still don't have the capacity to care for large numbers of sick Americans.

The devastation wrought by Katrina last year has shown us that we cannot stop the forces of nature. But as the wealthiest country on Earth, we can prepare, and we can respond in a way that saves as many lives as possible.

We must do that now with the avian flu. The Conrad avian flu amendment will provide the necessary funds for Federal agencies, working with the States, to prepare for potential pandemic. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ``trillion'' with a ``T.'' That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans--a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.

As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ``the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem

and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.