Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor SGT Lonnie Calvin Allen, Jr. of Bellevue, NE.

Sergeant Allen, 26, graduated from Bellevue East High School, where he was a four-sport athlete, participating in football, track, basketball, and wrestling. After attending Northeastern Junior College in Colorado, Sergeant Allen joined the Army, where he met his wife Birgit while stationed in Germany. ``I was just glad every minute I spent with him because it was the most wonderful time I've had,'' said Mrs. Allen.

Sergeant Allen was dedicated to the Army, choosing to reenlist after his first tour of duty. According to his family, he was expected to wrap up his Iraq tour in July and wanted to enter law enforcement as a career.

While serving with the 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, Iraq, Sergeant Allen was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle on May 18, 2006.

Sergeant Allen is survived by his wife, Birgit, who lives in Bellevue, NE; his parents, Lonnie and Sallie Allen, also of Bellevue; and his brother, Nuru Allen, of St. Louis, MO.

My prayers go out to the family and friends of Sergeant Allen as they face this difficult tragedy. Nebraskans should be proud of the commitment Sergeant Allen showed toward the Army and his country. He is an example for us all.

First Lieutenant Garrison Avery

Mr. President, today I honor 1LT Garrison Avery of Lincoln, NE.

First Lieutenant Avery, 23, graduated from Lincoln High School before earning his degree from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, NY. Following his graduation from West Point, he underwent Army Ranger and sapper training, receiving various honors. But according to his father, ``He wasn't interested in the decorations. He was interested in the job.'' Following his service, Lieutenant Avery dreamed of helping war orphans.

While serving with the 101st Airborne Division stationed south of Baghdad, Lieutenant Avery and two fellow soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb exploded on February 1, 2006.

Lieutenant Avery is survived by his wife, Kayla, who lives in Clarksville, TN. He is also survived by his parents, Gary and Susan; siblings, Clinton, Johnathan, and Elizabeth; and numerous other family members, friends, and fellow soldiers.

I offer my sincere condolences and prayers to the family and friends of Lieutenant Avery. His noble service to the United States of America is to be respected and remembered by all. Every American and all Nebraskans should be proud of the service of brave military personnel such as 1LT Garrison Avery.

Lance Corporal Kyle Codner

Mr. President, today I honor LCpl Kyle Codner, 19, of Shelton, NE.

Lance Corporal Codner joined the military after his graduation from Shelton High School on June 16, 2003, and was deployed to Iraq in mid- February. His deployment was to last 7 months, and the family hoped to see him home safe around mid-September. At the time of his death, Lance Corporal Codner was one among a group of marines traveling in an armored personnel carrier conducting security and stability operations in Anbar province, Iraq.

Lance Corporal Codner was liked by all who knew him; he was involved in his church and in his community, and he was a selfless part of the military who knew the worth of life. Codner's family remembers him saying, ``Freedom isn't free.''

The loss of this outstanding marine is felt by all Nebraskans, but his example will remain as an inspiration for his survivors, a devoted friend, fiancee, son, and grandson, and we extend our thoughts and prayers to them in condolence.

Army National Guard Sergeant Germaine L. Debro

Mr. President, today I honor Nebraska Army National Guard SGT Germaine L. Debro of Omaha, NE.

Sergeant Debro was a loyal son, brother, friend, and soldier. Selflessly placing his friends and their families before his own life, he volunteered for his last assignment to Iraq so others could stay home with their loved ones. ``He put his friends and loyalty first. He couldn't have lived with himself if one of his friends with kids went over there and died. My brother is a better man than me,'' said Sergeant Debro's brother, Alvin Debro, Jr.

Sergeant Debro was born into the military, as his father, Alvin Debro Sr., served in the Air Force. He first attended Omaha Benson High School; then in 1991, he graduated from high school in Arkansas, where he played football. His military career began on October 14, 1994, when he enlisted in the U.S. Army as an M-1 Abrams tank crewman. Sergeant Debro joined the Nebraska Army National Guard on October 12, 1997, as a tank crewman with Detachment 1, Troop B, 1-167th Cavalry Squadron based in Wahoo, NE. He was reassigned to the Fremont-based Troop B, 1-167th Cavalry Squadron in January 2001.

While serving with the National Guard, Sergeant Debro was mobilized overseas various times, including service in Kuwait in 2001 and in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 2002-2003. He was deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2005, serving as a scout with Troop B, 1-167th Cavalry Motor Reconnaissance Troop. On Monday, September 4, 2006, Sergeant Debro passed away when an improvised explosive device struck the humvee he was driving while on patrol near Balad, Iraq. Then-SPC Germaine L. Debro was posthumously promoted to Sergeant.

Sacrificing his own life so that others could live, Sergeant Debro was the embodiment of bravery and the finest example of generosity. In addition to his brother Alvin, he is survived by his parents Alvin, Sr. and Priscilla Debro of Omaha; and his brother Maurice Debro. I extend my deepest condolences to Sergeant Debro's family and friends, who played such a tremendous role in

his life. His unfaltering dedication to his country and family will remain a source of hope and inspiration for all Americans. Sergeant Debro was a man of exceptional honor, and we will not forget what he gave for our Nation.

Army Specialist Jeremy Jones

Mr. President, today I honor Army SPC Jeremy Jones of Omaha, NE.

Specialist Jones was committed to the Army. Wanting to make a career out of it, he chose to reenlist last April for 6 more years. ``He'd finally found something he really liked to do and that suited him. He was proud of what he was doing,'' said his wife, Jenny.

Last February, Specialist Jones flew back from his tour of duty in Iraq to see his newborn daughter, Mackenzie. Baby Mackenzie, together with her brother, Anthony, will grow up knowing their father is a hero.

Specialist Jones graduated from Millard West High School in 1999, where he participated in football and wrestling. While serving with the Army's 1st Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment of Fort Hood, TX, Specialist Jones, 25, was hit by a roadside bomb on June 27, 2006, in Iskandariyah, Iraq.

Specialist Jones is survived by his wife Jenny, daughter Mackenzie, and son Anthony, 3, all of Omaha; mother, Diane Jones, of Omaha; father, Scott Jones, of Council Bluffs, IA; and sister, Abbi Jones, of Omaha. Our hearts and prayers go out to the Jones family. Specialist Jones was a dedicated soldier, and all Americans admire the dedication he gave to his country.

Navy Airman Jason J. Doyle

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Airman Jason J. Doyle of Omaha,

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Alabama to offer this amendment that will provide funding to enable a new and indeed needed capability known as Prompt Global Strike. In March of this year, prior to an Armed Services subcommittee hearing, I met with General James Cartwright, of the U.S. Strategic Command, to discuss this capability. He explained to me that the need for it was urgent and why. It is designed for situations where the time to act is short and access may be denied or difficult, U.S. forces are not present, and the regret of not acting is high.

For instance, we could be in a situation that required a quick strike on a mobile ballistic missile launcher or WMD transshipment point or high-value terrorist target or an enemy command center. In order to hit these targets in a time-critical manner, General Cartwright has asked for authorization for some Trident missiles to be modified for conventional use.

Trident missiles have longer ranges than Tomahawk cruise missiles, and in situations where airspace is restricted, are safer to employ than long-range bombers. Now the need is obvious. The attacks on September 11, the war on terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction demand prompt global strikes.

I would argue that in the wake of North Korea's missile tests that having this capability becomes even more necessary as an option.

One of the main arguments against CTM is that other countries could mistake a conventional missile launch for a nuclear missile attack.

Even though I am told that is a very low likelihood, to ensure that other countries don't mistake a conventional missile for a nuclear missile, the Department of Defense is developing assurance measures such as: Advance notification; Shared early warning; Inspections and transparency.

And General Cartwright said to me that ``the lines of communication are more open than ever between the United States and Russia and China.''

Additionally, the Department has studied alternatives. Conventional Trident Modification--CTM--is the only concept available within the next 2 to 3 years. Other options may be available by the middle of the next decade and are being pursued.

The Armed Services Committee, on which I serve, considered this issue and included language on CTM in the Defense Authorization bill. The Strategic Forces Subcommittee held a hearing and briefings; there was full committee discussion during markup and a compromise was reached to fully fund the CTM request, but limit spending beyond $32,000,000 of R&D funds pending submission of a joint DoD/State Dept report addressing virtually all concerns and alternatives.

Unfortunately, the Defense Appropriations Committee did not fund the program, and required a National Academy of Science study of the underlying mission requirement and options.

General Cartwright and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Giambastiani, believe these questions have already been answered by the JASONs, the Defense Policy Board, the STRATCOM Strategic Advisory Group, and the STRATCOM staff.

In a joint letter from Admiral Giambastiani and General Cartwright they state:

We are aware . . . of a range of issues associated with the

use of conventionally-modified Trident missiles, and

understand that Congress may desire assurances that these

issues be resolved prior to deployment of such a capability.

We are confident that the DoD, with the Department of State,

can satisfactorily allay these concerns in parallel with

continued research and development. This capability is too

important to the nation to delay.

Senator Sessions and I also have a letter from Secretary Rumsfeld indicating his very strong support for funding of the Conventional Trident Modification program. He said, ``Failure to fund this program would delay a capability we need now to respond promptly and precisely to time-sensitive, high value targets anywhere in the world.''

The House Armed Services Committee and the House Defense Appropriations Committee had similar concerns, but they have provided R&D funding--$30,000,000--while awaiting response to their questions.

The benefit of our amendment, and this compromise approach, is that the program will move forward with research and development funding-- not procurement funding--while DoD addresses the concerns of CTM critics.

It's a good, bipartisan compromise amendment and I hope our colleages in the Senate will support it.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a business that has provided irreplaceable value to the city of Omaha, NE, for 100 years.

Roberts Dairy was founded in 1906 on a farm near the outskirts of Lincoln, NE. This is where J.R. Roberts, the company's founder, began his first retail route using a herd of 60 cows. During the first years of the company's existence, Roberts was the only dairy that sold pasteurized milk to the community.

In 1992, the company expanded to Omaha and has been expanding ever since. Roberts Dairy is a full-service dairy that processes and fills more than 900 million gallons yearly. It operates around the clock, 365 days a year, to provide the freshest dairy products to customers. Roberts serves a region that includes Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas and parts of Colorado, Illinois, and South Dakota.

Roberts Dairy is one of the area's largest companies, employing more than 700 people and generating annual sales of more than $250 million.

Roberts is a Quality Chekd' dairy, which means all of its products are produced and tested by an independent association to higher standards that exceed State and Federal requirements for purity, freshness, and flavor.

In 2004, all four of Roberts' production plants received Merit of Excellence Awards from Quality Chekd, signifying production that far surpasses the high standards necessary to be Quality Chekd dairy.

In 2004, the Iowa City plant received the Wayne Gingrich Award for Production from Quality Chekd Dairies Inc., an international organization. The plant won the award after rigorous competition among 40 dairies, each with several plants.

Roberts Dairy actively supports local and regional causes, events, and organizations that seek to help make our communities better places to live. The company also annually raises funds for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

This year Roberts Dairy will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. As part of its centennial celebration, Roberts Dairy plans to host its celebration in Omaha on Sunday, September 3, 2006 prior to the annual SeptemberFest.

In closing, I would like to once again thank Roberts Dairy for their contribution to the State of Nebraska and the Midwest as a whole. The services that Roberts provide to all of its customers will continue to have a lasting impact for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the retirement of Col. Bruce W. Sudduth from the U.S. Air Force.

A father, a husband, a teacher, and a decorated Air Force colonel--on July 28, 2006, Colonel Sudduth will retire from the Air Force after honorably serving for 25 years. During that time, he has earned the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and the Combat Readiness Medal.

Colonel Sudduth began his illustrious military career in 1981 when he entered the Air Force through Officer Training School. His first assignment was as an intercontinental ballistic missile launch officer at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, where he earned wing responsibilities as a weapon system instructor, standardization evaluation, and flight commander. In 1985, he was selected for project TOP HAND at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. In 1988, he was selected for the last ASTRA class and was assigned to Air Force Studies and Analysis; later he was assigned to the Air Force Chief of Staff's staff group.

In 1990, Colonel Sudduth attended the last class of Armed Forces Staff College at Norfolk, VA. He was then assigned to the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, JSTPS, Future Concepts Branch at Offutt Air Force Base, NE. Upon the elimination of JSTPS and the creation of the United States Strategic Command, USSTRATCOM, he was assigned to the Strategy and Policy Division. In 1993, Colonel Sudduth was assigned as the 341st field missile maintenance supervisor at Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT. In 1994, he assumed command of the 490th Missile Squadron at Malmstrom AFB. Under his direction, the 490th participated in combat operations after 3 years of noncombat duty. He was selected in 1996 to attend the Naval War College at Newport, RI. In 1997, he was assigned to the USSTRATCOM Strategy and Policy Division as the chief of the Strategy Branch. Upon selection for colonel, he served as USSTRATCOM senior controller, standardization evaluation chief. That same year, in addition to his duties as colonel, he earned a master's degree in national security studies from the Naval War College.

In April 2001, Colonel Sudduth assumed command of the 91st Operations Group, Minot Air Force Base, ND. In April 2003, he was assigned as the senior special assistant to the commander, USSTRATCOM. Colonel Sudduth became the executive director of the Strategic Advisory Group in June 2004.

Colonel Sudduth graduated from Southeastern Oklahoma State University in 1973, earning a bachelor of science in education. He received a master of education in administration and supervision at Central Missouri State University in 1983. Prior to joining the Air Force, in another service to

our Nation, he taught high school math and science for 7 years in Oklahoma.

I would like to congratulate Col. Bruce W. Sudduth; his wife, Rita; and his two sons, Todd and Paul, on this day of his retirement. Colonel Sudduth's noble, dedicated service to the United States of America has greatly contributed to the safety and well-being of all Americans, and is to be respected and appreciated by all. I wish him and his family the best as they embark on their new adventures in life, and I thank him again for his service.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the devastating Japanese ban on imports of American beef and a bill that I have introduced that would ban imports of Japanese beef until such time as fair trade is resumed and Japan is once again importing U.S. beef. I am raising this issue because of its importance in my State of Nebraska and to the entire American beef industry.

Today, Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi visits with President Bush--in fact, they are together right now. I hope they are talking about the beef ban, but if they are not; I am. It is important that this devastating and unfair ban on U.S. beef does not get ignored.

Japan has now banned imports of U.S. beef for over 5 months. This ban has had significant affects on the U.S. beef industry and it has hit home in Nebraska.

First, Japan used to represent a $1.4 billion market every year for U.S. beef, which equals about $115 million every month--and Nebraska was the leading beef exporting State to Japan. That means Japan's most recent ban has directly cost the U.S. beef industry at least $575 million.

But this is only part of the problem. In December of 2003, Japan closed its borders to U.S. beef over purported concerns about BSE or mad cow disease. Their borders remained closed for over 2 years, until December 2005 and were opened barely a month before closed again in January 2006. This in spite of the low prevalence of BSE in the U.S. herd, especially compared to its prevalence in the Japanese herd.

Second, my home State of Nebraska has been hit especially hard. The beef industry is a big part of Nebraska's economy--we were one of the top States in cattle fed and cattle slaughtered in 2005 and Japan imported $350 million of Nebraska beef products in 2003.

We have estimated that both Japanese bans on U.S. beef imports have caused great damage in the State--up to $875 million and more than 1,300 jobs, including two plants in West Point and Norfolk that were closed due in part because of this ban.

Because of this I write to Japanese Ambassador Kato every week to urge Japan to end the ban as quickly as possible. Each time, I emphasize two main points: (1) That American beef is the best and safest in the world and (2) that Japan needs to end its ban on U.S. beef immediately. Unfortunately, I have now written 18 letters with more on the way.

Because the beef industry cannot tolerate this unfair ban much longer, I have introduced a bill that will ban all U.S. imports of Japanese beef until such time as the U.S. Trade Representative reports to Congress that Japan has actually resumed imports of U.S. beef.

My bill is about fairness and I urge my colleagues to become cosponsors.

I want to emphasize that my bill is about fairness in our trade relations: Japan's ban on U.S. beef simply cannot be considered a fair trade practice.

Last December Japan finally agreed to lift its initial ban on U.S. beef after a long series of negotiations and overwhelming evidence of the safety of American beef.

In January, the very first shipment of U.S. beef to Japan was found by Japanese inspectors to contain a few boxes of beef that did not comply with the export protocol that Japan and the U.S. had agreed to; the very first shipment!

It is extremely important to note that this shipment posed absolutely no risk to human health, it was merely in violation of the strict export agreement between the U.S. and Japan.

And how did Japan react? They immediately banned all imports of U.S. beef. They didn't send the shipment back or even de-list the company that sent the non-compliant shipment.

No, they punished the entire U.S. beef industry for a single instance of noncompliance--a situation that came about because of human error in the implementation of the export procedures--and their actions have caused great harm to a $1.4 billion industry.

I agree that mistakes were made by U.S. officials and facilities. But fair trade requires a reasonable and fair response to mistakes.

Japan's total embargo is not, in my opinion, a fair and reasonable response.

Because of that, I am bringing this matter to the attention of my colleagues on the day that Prime Minister Koizumi meets with President Bush, as a reminder of this unfair trade practice.

I have met with Ambassador Kato multiple times and I greatly appreciate all of his efforts to resolve this situation and end Japan's ban. Unfortunately, the Japanese bureaucracy has dragged this process out entirely too long.

Let me set out a timetable of events and discuss what this slow process has cost the U.S. beef industry in real dollars:

On January 20, 2006, Japan instituted the current ban on U.S. beef imports;

Within the first month of this second ban, two beef processing plants in Nebraska were closed, costing these communities over 1300 jobs and an untold amount of money;

I wrote my first letter on February 22 and by that time USDA had already conducted a thorough investigation of the incident and delivered a report to Japan with its findings and the steps it would take to correct the mistakes;

By the time of that letter, the U.S. beef industry had lost an estimated $116 million in exports;

By the end of March, when Japanese officials finally met with a technical team from the USDA to answer lingering concerns Japan had about beef safety--even though the noncompliant shipment posed no danger to human health--the ban had cost the beef industry an estimated $264 million;

In April, Japan held a series of public meetings to communicate to Japanese consumers that there were no risks to health from American beef. These

meetings were held over the course of 14 days at a cost to the U.S. beef industry of an estimated $56 million and the ban now causing about $348 million in lost exports;

On the 4-month anniversary of the Japanese ban, Japan announced that it had reached a basic understanding with the U.S. on the resumption of beef imports, but had not reached any formal agreement to resume imports. The damage to the beef industry topped $460 million when Japan finally reached this basic understanding;

Lately, we have been told that all that is left for Japan to resume importing U.S. beef is for its own inspectors to audit each of the 35 U.S. facilities permitted to export to Japan--and previously re-audited by USDA officials in April. This round of audits just began and will continue through July 21--or just past the 6-month anniversary of the ban when the cost to the beef industry will reach $700 million;

In the time that it takes Japan to re-audit the U.S. facilities, the loss in exports to the beef industry will be $116 million;

And Japan has recently said that they will not resume imports until after they submit a report on their audits--so each day that Japan takes to complete this report, the beef industry loses about $4 million.

Those numbers are only part of the real cost to an important U.S. and Nebraska industry of this slow, drawn-out process; most of the costs we are unable to estimate at this point in time. But the above timeline should serve as a real reminder of what unfair trade practices cost American industries.

I was given another real reminder of the damage caused by this ban at the end of last month. On May 31, I flew around Nebraska to meet with producers, packers and other members of the Nebraska beef industry. They all told me that the Japanese ban has been hard on them and they encouraged me to continue pushing Japan.

I talked to folks at a beef processing plant in Grand Island, where foreign beef sales once made up 16 percent of the company's sales--half of which once went to Japan. They have been hit hard by Japan's ban.

I talked to farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods have been threatened by this ban. Some of them were set to ship beef to Japan when it reopened in December. These producers couldn't emphasize enough the problems this ban has caused them and how it has affected their planning and businesses.

These Nebraskans were clear: our trade arrangements must be fair. They must be based on sound science and not on politics or emotion.

And they all supported my bill. Their message to me was clear: if Japan won't take our beef, there's no reason why we should continue to accept their beef. I couldn't agree more.

Recently the National Cattlemen's Beef Association unanimously voted to support my bill. They too emphasized that fair trade was the driving force behind their support for my bill. The cattlemen's message to Japan was simple: Enough is enough.

The Nebraska cattlemen have also recently stated that they welcomed my bill. They support this effort because they are frustrated that we have not obtained fair trade with Japan. Japan imported $350 million of Nebraska beef products in 2003 and that market has now been unfairly closed for far too long.

Japan's ban on U.S. beef has unfairly damaged the beef industries in Nebraska and the United States. This ban is not based on scientific evidence. It is not the result of real health concerns. It is based on politics and emotion. It is not a fair manner to conduct trade.

That is why I am doing all that I can to push this process along and that is why I will continue to push until trade is actually resumed and U.S. beef is once again on the shelves in Japan and available to Japanese consumers.

That is why I am speaking on the Senate floor this morning while the Japanese Prime Minister is at the White House--as a reminder that our trade relationship with Japan must be conducted fairly.

There has been progress made and I do not wish to discount that. It has come too slowly and at a high price to the beef industry. But progress has been and continues be made.

I do want to mention that I applaud Japan's agreement to refrain from closing down all trade over any future instances of noncompliance. The shared understanding reached last week between the U.S. and Japan includes a provision whereby Japan, upon finding a noncompliant shipment, will only take actions that are commensurate with the nature of the violation.

I believe that. fair trade between our countries requires that action only be taken against noncompliant shipments or, at most, against the facilities responsible for the noncompliant shipment. I do not believe that it is fair to hold the entire industry at fault. I welcome Japan's agreement to conduct trade in this fair manner.

I will wrap up by again asking my colleagues to support my bill and to help send a message to Japan that trade between our nations must be fair.

It is my hope that together our efforts will continue to speed along the process for resuming the beef trade with Japan and will help ensure that when trade resumes between our nations it is conducted fairly.

I close today by reiterating what I keep telling Ambassador Kato: That U.S. beef is the best and safest in the world and that Japan's ban on it should end immediately. I am cautiously optimistic that Japanese consumers will again be able to enjoy U.S. beef before the end of July, but this ban has gone on too long and I am worried about the lingering damage it has caused--to the U.S. beef industry in particular.

I yield the floor.

I don't believe I will need 10 minutes-- certainly less than 10 minutes--but any time yielded is appreciated.

Mr. President, I thank my friends from Alabama and Colorado for this opportunity to rise in support of Senator Sessions and our colleagues who are raising a budget point of order on this bill. I have said throughout the entire debate and since I introduced legislation last fall that we have to secure our borders first.

The budget implications of this all-encompassing, do-everything bill are just overwhelming, but what concerns me the most is that we are not doing enough to secure our borders first. We shouldn't spend one dime on any sort of amnesty provisions until we secure our border first. We shouldn't attempt to guess how many billions of dollars we are going to spend on how many millions of people might be coming into our country until we secure our borders. It is a very simple equation. We will never get a real grasp on solving the problem of illegal immigration in this country until our borders are secure. Border security first.

The deficit is real, and the problem of illegal immigration is also real, and we should make a serious investment in securing our borders. But to adopt an all-encompassing, do-everything bill with a multi- billion-dollar price tag that won't match up with what the House has passed, and that doesn't do nearly enough to secure our borders, is irresponsible, and I can't support it.

That is why I am here today to support Senator Sessions and the budget point of order he intends to raise against this bill.

If we don't get a bill out of Congress this year--and when I say out of Congress, I am talking about out of committee as well--the costs associated with this illegal immigration issue that we have right now will only continue to go up. That is why investing in border security first is, in fact, the right investment.

Now, not only does this do-everything bill cost a considerable amount of money--although we can't be sure exactly how much, but we do have some idea from the CBO estimates that for the first 10-year window, it could be as much as a net of $52 billion, and direct spending from 2017 to 2026 could be at least at $108 billion. So while we don't know everything about the costs, we do have estimates that would suggest that the cost will be significant and even end up costing us more.

So we do have to address the border security first. Until we do, the implications and the costs will continue to grow at an alarming rate.

Mr. President, there is an old saying that I imagine every parent has told their child: When you are in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging. We have to stop digging. We must secure our border first, and we must shut down illegal immigration, and only then--only then--can we move forward in a financially responsible way that secures our border and, at the same time, gives us an opportunity to put an end to illegal immigration and deal in a comprehensive manner with the illegal immigration that we already have. We must, in fact, stop the problem from getting bigger in terms of the number of illegal immigrants before we can deal with the problem of what we do with illegal immigrants already here.

It is not mean-spirited to want to protect our borders, to want to close the back door on illegal immigration and look at opening the front door to legal immigration. There is nothing irresponsible about wanting to secure the borders with appropriate barriers,

fences, and walls to make sure that we are secure against not simply illegal immigration for people who want to come to work, but also against the drug dealers, the smugglers, as well as the gang members from Central America who continue to come over the border at an alarming rate. We have a security issue. I stand today to support the budget point of order.

I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, for his incredible work on this border-security- first issue and his work on this particular amendment. It is a pleasure for me to join with him to support securing our borders.

Senator Sessions has made a very strong argument as to why we need to secure the border first to pursue this whole question of how do we deal with border security and with the immigration issues of those who are already here illegally.

The key is to prevent not only illegal pedestrian and vehicular traffic crossing the international border of the United States for people coming here to work, but it also includes a great concern, a growing concern about the number of people who are smuggling drugs into the United States, as well as those who are crossing the border for other illegal purposes, such as gang membership in communities across this country.

We have a multisituation with which we have to deal, but it is all handled in the same way in terms of securing the border first. Whether it is to prevent illegal people coming for purposes of work or whether it is for other purposes, most of which would be criminal in nature, we need to secure that border.

I never thought I would be proposing a security system that would include a border fence and a surveillance system that would protect our borders to the south or requiring a border study for the northern border as well. But I never expected that we would end up with the problem we have today.

If we go back to 1986 when the first amnesty bill was dealt with and President Reagan signed it and promised that the U.S. Government would continue to enforce border security, we had between 1 and 2 million people in the United States illegally. Of course, that was, by comparison to the 11 to 12 million today, a much smaller number, obviously, but a much smaller problem in terms of the numbers to deal with.

Today, the problem has continued to worsen, and as a result of the debate in the Senate and without action to secure the borders first from 3 weeks to 4 weeks ago, the number of border crossings is increasing percentagewise. The numbers continue to increase because there is an expectation that when they get here, somehow the U.S. Government, Congress, will find a way to bless it, find a way to excuse it, find a way to accept it, find a way to make it legal, and everything will be OK. That is because we haven't taken the opportunity to secure our borders first. Then, when we have those borders secured with this fence, with this barrier against pedestrian and vehicular traffic, we will be in a position to deal with the 11 to 12 million people in this country illegally and find solutions through a comprehensive approach.

My colleague has made it very clear and I believe it is very obvious that if we continue to pursue a multiapproach in the Senate, as opposed to border security, and try to solve all the problems with a do- everything bill, that if this bill then passes and goes to conference, it will be easier to square a circle than it will be to square the Senate bill with the House bill. I am not going to excuse the dealings we have with the people already here, but if we can't put the proper order in place, we are not going to be able to solve this problem. I believe that is a given.

When I first announced my border security bill last fall along with Senator Sessions and Senator Coburn, people across the country were talking about

securing our borders, but there wasn't any action. The truth is, that was last fall, and here we are in the spring, and there is still no action, people are still coming across the border in significant numbers. We must, in fact, focus on how to deal with this problem in a commonsense and effective way.

Sometimes it is great to talk about a comprehensive approach, and sometimes it makes a great deal of sense to talk about what might be involved in a comprehensive approach, but when we don't have a comprehensive approach on the House side--and we have to, through conference, be able to make the Senate bill work with the House version. We have to be practical and recognize that these are two, in many ways, diametrically opposed approaches and there is no real way to square them.

I believe we ought to take the approach that makes the most sense, and that is to pass a border-security-first bill, adopt this amendment, and continue to work toward securing the borders so that once we get that done, we can get a bill to the House, to conference, and we can get that accomplished, and then we can spend the time necessary to figure out how we square the problems in the United States today with people who are here illegally. Before we jump to conclusions that will enable others to come here legally or illegally, let us figure out what the needs of the United States might be for workers before we decide to allow people to come on their own initiative, whether they fit the needs that exist for workers in the United States at the present time or the future.

We don't have to be mean-spirited dealing with this issue. We don't have to be divisive among one another to solve this problem. What we have to do is apply some common sense as to what is going to work and how we can get that accomplished. If we do that, then we can sit down and work our way through the other problem we have of the President's points 1 and 2 in terms of border security. We can figure out a way, if we are going to close the back door to illegal immigration, to open the front door to legal immigration, whether it is through guest workers or emergency situations where we have emergency needs that would require workers to come in on a guest-worker basis. We can resolve those issues. We can resolve that. What we cannot do is we cannot resolve all of this at the same time in one package effectively and get anything done.

I am an optimist on most occasions, but I have to tell you that I am very concerned what will happen is that the Senate will pass this comprehensive, do-everything version of a bill, and then it will go to conference and nothing will happen. Actually, nothing will happen on the legislation because it won't be able to be squared with the House version.

But let me tell you what will happen. If we don't have that border secured sufficiently, there will be an influx of more illegal immigrants coming to get here while they can, while nothing occurs on the legislation. That is unacceptable to the American people. The American people want to secure the borders. They want to find a comprehensive solution. But they know it doesn't make any sense for the problem to get bigger in terms of the numbers while nothing happens on our legislation once it is passed by the Senate and goes to the conference committee.

I wish it were different. I wish I could say all we have to do is pass a good version in the Senate and send it over to the House and somehow the whole process will work and everybody will come together and we will have a bill and then it will all be taken care of and we can all say: Well, we have solved that problem. It just doesn't work that way here. We all know that.

Why don't we admit the practicality of where we are and resolve the border security first, and then we can begin the very laborious and the necessary task of working with the people who are here and do it in an appropriate fashion, rather than rushing our way through with one amendment after another amendment after another amendment, and see at the end of the day what we have? When you make a pie a slice at a time, it isn't necessarily a comprehensive approach.

I appreciate and I thank my good friend from Alabama for the opportunity to speak on this issue today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as many of you are aware, I am a former insurance commissioner from Nebraska. For several years, I served as the head of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and spent most of my adult working life, except for Government service here and in the State house, in the insurance business. I do not propose that I can propound I am an expert, but I do think I have some experience in this field.

I know you have heard from small businesses in your States. The average cost of health care premiums has doubled in 5 years for small businesses. Everywhere I have gone around the State of Nebraska, every small business owner I have spoken to has told me the same story: We either can't afford or we can't find health care coverage for our workers. We are very concerned about that. What can you do to find a solution?

They pushed me toward the House version of the associated health plans. I couldn't support that unregulated form of self-insurance for the promoting of insurance on an association basis. I couldn't support it. There was no guaranteed fund protection, no requirement for the filing of forms--nothing. I could not support it.

I also knew the status quo where there are now more mandated coverages in several States than people can afford, so the status quo continues to add to the problem, creating more and more uninsureds. We now have gone to the total of 40 to 45 million uninsured, and the number continues to grow.

I am pleased that the Senate is finally debating the problem. We all recognize it is here and it needs to be solved. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas that we need to spend time on this. We just disagree on how to get there.

More time is important, but I can tell you right now that the chairman of the committee, Senator Enzi, has spent more time listening and listening and acting on suggestions than I have ever seen happen in this body. We could probably spend more time, but I think that is what it is about, that is what a cloture vote is about, spending more time rather than cutting it off at this point in the discussion. I believe we were starting to make progress in finding the solution when Senator Enzi and I and our staffs began to talk with one another about how we might solve the problem of having an uninsured plan with an insured plan with regulatory oversight, but cutting out the unnecessary cost to reduce overhead expense, therefore reducing the cost of the premiums, making it more available and more affordable to the employees and to the owners.

I didn't want to create an adverse playing field between association health care plans and the small group market. The traditional AHP bill gave a rating and mandate advantage to association plans that resulted in adverse selection and an unlevel playing field. The proposed SBHP legislation has eliminated this unfair playing field by including rules to prevent these problematic practices and at the same time requiring all insuring entities to abide by the same regulations.

Therefore, there is more than a modicum of State regulation associated with this plan--on a financial solvency basis, on a rating basis, and fairness as to the practices that could be provided.

Unlike AHPs, SBHPs must be fully insured and marketed by State- licensed insurance companies. The insuring entities must meet the capital and solvency requirements within each State they operate, comply with the consumer protection laws in each State, pay the applicable premium taxes, and be part of any assessments associated with high risk pools and/or guarantee funds. As a former State insurance commissioner, keeping State regulation involved in this process was important to me because I know the value of State insurance regulation.

Competition will return to the small group market when we move forward with this legislation. The market will expand. There will be more opportunities today than ever before when this passes. The rates will be in competition as well. Everybody will benefit.

There are those who have suggested that this is not in the best interests of some special interest groups. Senator Enzi and I and our staffs have met with these individuals and in some cases we have made the changes that would take away the concerns they have, but they still oppose the bill.

It seems to me what we need to do is refine this legislation after a cloture vote and listen to the proposals that will be brought up. If there are better ideas out there, I know this body will find them. But to close it off at this point in time is to say no to small business. It is to say we don't care enough to move forward, to consider other proposals, but we simply are going to close debate.

I hardly ever vote to avoid moving forward and I am not going to vote against it now. I am going to vote to go to cloture so we can get a chance, if we get 60 votes. I would hate to see us be four or five or six votes short of that process because I think there is too much at stake for our small businesses, too much at stake for us not to be able

to find solutions. I am afraid if we don't move forward and debate it fully and see what we can do on the floor of the Senate, it will carry over into another year.

I have been here long enough to know when somebody says we will do it next year, you can't always count on next year coming. I think it is important we move this forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished cochair of the committee for his courtesies.

Naturally, I am disappointed with the outcome of the vote. Instead of thinking of it as a setback, I want to think of it as a step forward, because it is the first time since I came to the Senate that we have had a serious debate about the accessability and affordability of health care for small businesses.

I thank Senator Enzi for his great work. It has been a pleasure working directly with him. Not only is he tireless, he certainly is willing to listen to other people and has shown a great capacity to listen and to act on good advice. I thank him for that. He was able to bring together groups that had been on opposing sides for years. Through his leadership, this bill was brought to the floor.

I also thank his staff. I appreciate all the assistance they have given me as we have developed this legislation. They are true professionals: Steve Northrup and Andrew Patzman have devoted hours to researching and drafting the legislation and have so diligently reached out to my side of the aisle for suggestions, I now think of them as my satellite staff.

I also thank Katherine McGuire, who has been instrumental in guiding us through this process, and Brittany Moore, who has coordinated all of our information.

Particularly, I thank Senator Kennedy for his gracious and agreeable manner in disagreeing on the substance of an issue. It is typical of his approach to the Senate. Especially I thank his staff: David Bowen, Stacey Sachs, and Brian Hickey from the Democratic Policy Committee. They have kept us on our toes.

The staff of the leadership offices also has been helpful. I thank Jay Khosla, a newcomer, and Liz Hall, a veteran, for their help. And particularly I thank my staff, both Kim Zimmerman and Amy Tejral, and others who have worked so hard to get us to this point.

Even though not all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree that this bill is the right answer for small businesses, I know and respect the fact that they want to find a solution. We all in the Senate want to find a solution, something that will deal with the availability and affordability of health care for small businesses and their employees. I am tonight encouraged that with this discussion, we will be able to move together and work together to find a common solution. Sometimes right after disagreement, there is a solution that is achieved.

I thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle for their willingness to listen and my friends for their votes.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Enzi from Wyoming and his staff and my staff for the effort they have put into S. 1955. I was pleased to work with them in trying to help our Nation's small businesses and our Nation's uninsured.

Mr. President, 45 million people don't have health insurance in our country today. We have heard that statistic so many times that it is starting to feel numb to us, but we can't let that happen. Forty-five million people translates to about one of every six Americans. I would like to put a face to that figure and start bringing some feeling back to the state of health insurance coverage in the United States.

If the 45 million uninsured Americans held hands and formed a chain between New York City and Los Angeles, they would not only stretch the entire distance, they would be able to go back and forth from coast to coast 14 times.

We can no longer wait to help this ever-growing number of people gain health insurance. It is time to start increasing the number of insured people in our country, and this bill does just that.

It is projected that S. 1955 will make health insurance affordable for 1 million working Americans, and that is a sizable start to the process of providing health insurance to the one in six without it.

By allowing business and trade associations to band their members together and offer group health insurance coverage on a national or statewide basis, we will be making an important stride in making health insurance affordable for Americans.

Nearly every week since becoming a Senator, I have heard from small business owners in my State that can no longer afford health care for themselves or their employees.

Health care premiums are experiencing double-digit growth annually. Small businesses can't keep up with the costs. Since 2000, group premiums for family coverage have grown nearly 60 percent. So if we don't do something to help small businesses cope with the cost of health insurance, soon we will have an entire workforce without health insurance coverage.

This bill, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005, is designed to lower health insurance costs by stimulating market reforms and promoting competition, while allowing trade associations the ability to offer group insurance plans for employees.

It is important to note that we keep oversight at the State level with the State insurance commissioners. For the past 10 years, the Senate has debated AHP legislation, and for 10 years nothing has happened to help our small businesses provide those health benefits. And small business health plans can work. It is time we looked at something that can and will work.

I believe in this legislation because it is the first health benefits legislation to get both sides--the business folks and the insurance folks--working together.

Senator Enzi and I know that concerns have been raised about this bill, and each time we have been approached by a group with a concern, we have listened and we have tried to work together to strengthen this bill and its hopes for making health insurance affordable for America's small businesses.

The traditional AHP bill gave a rating and mandate advantage to association plans that resulted in adverse selection and an unlevel playing field. The Enzi-Nelson bill eliminates the rating and mandate advantage that Federal AHPs would have had under previously proposed legislation, which went nowhere. As a former insurance commissioner myself, it was crucial to me that this bill adhere to strict insurance principles. I think the bill before us will do just that.

As I see it, we have three options. The first is to do nothing to help the 45 million uninsured Americans. Since I genuinely believe we all want to improve health care, I will move on to the next option.

The second option is to keep trying to pass AHP legislation year after year, but I am afraid this approach will result in about the same dismal outcome as the do-nothing option that no one wants.

The third option, which I think is the best solution, is to act on small business health plans and pass this legislation.

In Nebraska, there are at least 30,000 small businesses with fewer than 50 employees who would be directly impacted by this legislation. Currently, 20,000 of these businesses don't offer health benefits.

I read a report last month by respected actuaries who looked at our bill. They believe it will help small businesses reduce health insurance costs by $1,000 per employee and shrink the number of uninsured working families by 8 percent. That is 1 million Americans who will now be able to afford health insurance because of the bill.

Recent survey results conducted by a bipartisan research firm shows that S. 1955 enjoys the support of 89 percent of Americans. It is a rare day in the United States anymore when 9 out of 10 people are united behind a cause.

So I hope this unity carries over to the Senate floor and that colleagues will join with Senator Enzi, myself, and others and pass S. 1955. It is in the best interest of Americans who want health insurance.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the ``National Integrated Drought Information System'' (NIDIS) within the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for purposes of improving drought monitoring and forecasting capabilities.

Over the last decade, several severe and long-term droughts have occurred in the United States. Recent severe drought conditions across the Nation and in particular in the West have created life-threatening situations, as well as financial burdens for both government and individuals.

Extremely dry conditions have led to numerous forest and rangeland fires, burning hundreds of thousands of acres of land, destroying homes and communities, and eliminating critical habitats for wildlife and grazing lands for livestock. The subsequent ash and sediment loading threatens the health of our streams. In addition to the millions of board-feet of timber lost, these fires have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fight and have put thousands of lives at risk.

The droughts have caused shortages of grain and other agricultural products resulting in soaring prices that will be passed on to consumers. In addition, deteriorating soil conditions and lack of forage are devastating the farm and ranching communities. The droughts have negatively affected livestock market prices and caused the premature selloffs of herds.

The droughts have threatened municipal water supplies, causing many communities to develop new water management plans which institute water restrictions and other water conservation measures. Drought causes social, economic and environmental consequences including negative effects on commerce and industry, tourism, air, water and other natural resources, and quality of life for our citizens, ranging from limits on recreational opportunities to loss of employment.

The fiscal impacts of drought on individuals and governments are significant. According to NOAA, the federal government spends on average $6-8 billion per year on drought. The most devastating of these was the 1988 drought in the central and eastern U.S. which caused severe losses to agriculture and related industries totaling $40 billion and an estimated 5,000-10,000 deaths.

The issue of drought is one I have been involved with for many years. Fortunately, drought conditions are improving in Nebraska, but we have endured a number of very difficult years struggling with the impact drought has had on our economy and environment and the social implications that go along with a disaster like this.

One of my biggest frustrations the past few years as an elected official, trying to help the areas of my State devastated by drought, has been making people understand that this drought really was a disaster--as much as a hurricane, or an earthquake, or a tornado.

I even named the drought in Nebraska--Drought David--in an effort to crystallize it so people could see that it is the same kind of experience as any other natural disaster.

Unlike other natural disasters, however, droughts are much more difficult to identify. It is hard to miss an oncoming flood or tornado--or their immediate aftermath. Drought, and its effects, is much harder to quantify. It develops slowly; it doesn't necessarily have a beginning point or an ending point but it spans over an extended period of time.

Because it is difficult to forecast and plan for droughts, it is especially important that we have programs in place such as the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. The Drought Mitigation Center, among other things, maintains a web-based information clearinghouse, provides drought monitoring, prepares the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor which covers all 50 States, and develops drought policy and planning techniques. I believe it is crucial to encourage more investment in research programs such as the Drought Mitigation Center.

The research done upfront in monitoring drought trends will help our capabilities to mitigate and respond to its effects in a much more effective manner. It is cost effective to support programs such as the National Drought Mitigation Center and I advocate for continued support for this important program.

The National Drought Policy Commission stated in their May 2000 report to Congress that ``Drought is the most obstinate and pernicious of the dramatic events that Nature conjures up. It can last longer and extend across larger areas than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes . . . causing hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, and dashing hopes and dreams.'' Among its recommendations to move the country toward a more proactive approach to drought preparedness and response, the Commission called for improved ``collaboration among scientists and managers to enhance the effectiveness of observation networks, monitoring, prediction, information delivery, and applied research and to foster public understanding of and preparedness for drought.''

The call for improved drought monitoring and forecasting has also been advocated by the Western Governors' Association (WGA). In the WGA policy resolution adopted in June 2005, ``Future Management of Drought,'' the Governors state that NIDIS ``would provide water users across the board--farmers, ranchers, utilities, tribes, land managers, business owners, recreationalists, wildlife managers, and decision- makers at all levels of government--with the ability to assess their drought risk in real time and before the onset of drought, in order to make informed and timely decisions that may mitigate a drought's impacts. The Governors urge Congress and the President to authorize NIDIS and provide funding for its implementation.''

NIDIS has also become a key component of the multi-national effort to create the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), a mechanism for linking the individual networks of satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations and other instruments scattered across the globe. The U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS), the U.S. contribution to GEOSS, has identified NIDIS as one of six ``near-term opportunities'' in their Strategic Plan.

Finally, the Administration supports this program. Funding for NIDIS is included in the President's FY 2007 budget request.

The National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006 that Senator Domenici and I are introducing today would authorize the much needed drought early warning system envisioned by the National Drought Policy Commission, the Western Governors' Association, and the Integrated Earth Observation System. If enacted, this bill will allow our Nation to become much more proactive in mitigating and avoiding the costly impacts and contentious conflicts that so often happen today when water shortages and droughts occur.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the ``National Integrated Drought Information System'' (NIDIS) within the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for purposes of improving drought monitoring and forecasting capabilities.

Over the last decade, several severe and long-term droughts have occurred in the United States. Recent severe drought conditions across the Nation and in particular in the West have created life-threatening situations, as well as financial burdens for both government and individuals.

Extremely dry conditions have led to numerous forest and rangeland fires, burning hundreds of thousands of acres of land, destroying homes and communities, and eliminating critical habitats for wildlife and grazing lands for livestock. The subsequent ash and sediment loading threatens the health of our streams. In addition to the millions of board-feet of timber lost, these fires have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fight and have put thousands of lives at risk.

The droughts have caused shortages of grain and other agricultural products resulting in soaring prices that will be passed on to consumers. In addition, deteriorating soil conditions and lack of forage are devastating the farm and ranching communities. The droughts have negatively affected livestock market prices and caused the premature selloffs of herds.

The droughts have threatened municipal water supplies, causing many communities to develop new water management plans which institute water restrictions and other water conservation measures. Drought causes social, economic and environmental consequences including negative effects on commerce and industry, tourism, air, water and other natural resources, and quality of life for our citizens, ranging from limits on recreational opportunities to loss of employment.

The fiscal impacts of drought on individuals and governments are significant. According to NOAA, the federal government spends on average $6-8 billion per year on drought. The most devastating of these was the 1988 drought in the central and eastern U.S. which caused severe losses to agriculture and related industries totaling $40 billion and an estimated 5,000-10,000 deaths.

The issue of drought is one I have been involved with for many years. Fortunately, drought conditions are improving in Nebraska, but we have endured a number of very difficult years struggling with the impact drought has had on our economy and environment and the social implications that go along with a disaster like this.

One of my biggest frustrations the past few years as an elected official, trying to help the areas of my State devastated by drought, has been making people understand that this drought really was a disaster--as much as a hurricane, or an earthquake, or a tornado.

I even named the drought in Nebraska--Drought David--in an effort to crystallize it so people could see that it is the same kind of experience as any other natural disaster.

Unlike other natural disasters, however, droughts are much more difficult to identify. It is hard to miss an oncoming flood or tornado--or their immediate aftermath. Drought, and its effects, is much harder to quantify. It develops slowly; it doesn't necessarily have a beginning point or an ending point but it spans over an extended period of time.

Because it is difficult to forecast and plan for droughts, it is especially important that we have programs in place such as the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. The Drought Mitigation Center, among other things, maintains a web-based information clearinghouse, provides drought monitoring, prepares the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor which covers all 50 States, and develops drought policy and planning techniques. I believe it is crucial to encourage more investment in research programs such as the Drought Mitigation Center.

The research done upfront in monitoring drought trends will help our capabilities to mitigate and respond to its effects in a much more effective manner. It is cost effective to support programs such as the National Drought Mitigation Center and I advocate for continued support for this important program.

The National Drought Policy Commission stated in their May 2000 report to Congress that ``Drought is the most obstinate and pernicious of the dramatic events that Nature conjures up. It can last longer and extend across larger areas than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes . . . causing hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, and dashing hopes and dreams.'' Among its recommendations to move the country toward a more proactive approach to drought preparedness and response, the Commission called for improved ``collaboration among scientists and managers to enhance the effectiveness of observation networks, monitoring, prediction, information delivery, and applied research and to foster public understanding of and preparedness for drought.''

The call for improved drought monitoring and forecasting has also been advocated by the Western Governors' Association (WGA). In the WGA policy resolution adopted in June 2005, ``Future Management of Drought,'' the Governors state that NIDIS ``would provide water users across the board--farmers, ranchers, utilities, tribes, land managers, business owners, recreationalists, wildlife managers, and decision- makers at all levels of government--with the ability to assess their drought risk in real time and before the onset of drought, in order to make informed and timely decisions that may mitigate a drought's impacts. The Governors urge Congress and the President to authorize NIDIS and provide funding for its implementation.''

NIDIS has also become a key component of the multi-national effort to create the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), a mechanism for linking the individual networks of satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations and other instruments scattered across the globe. The U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS), the U.S. contribution to GEOSS, has identified NIDIS as one of six ``near-term opportunities'' in their Strategic Plan.

Finally, the Administration supports this program. Funding for NIDIS is included in the President's FY 2007 budget request.

The National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006 that Senator Domenici and I are introducing today would authorize the much needed drought early warning system envisioned by the National Drought Policy Commission, the Western Governors' Association, and the Integrated Earth Observation System. If enacted, this bill will allow our Nation to become much more proactive in mitigating and avoiding the costly impacts and contentious conflicts that so often happen today when water shortages and droughts occur.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I will sound, unfortunately, like a broken record for the next 15 minutes or so.

It is important to stress again and again we must focus on border security first.

When I first announced and then introduced my border security bill last fall along with my colleagues, Senator Sessions and Senator Coburn, people across America were talking about securing our borders but there wasn't any action.

No bill in Congress was moving because most of the efforts tried to tackle everything and ended up doing nothing.

I proposed changing the way we address immigration reform and introduced a bipartisan bill that focuses on border security first.

Until we secure our borders, the U.S. will never be able to control the deeper problems of illegal immigration. I repeat: without securing our borders first, the U.S. will never be able to deal with its illegal immigration problems.

That is why, I, along with my colleagues Senator Sessions, Senator Byrd, and Senator Vitter are offering our bipartisan border security bill as a complete substitute to the bill that Senator Specter and the Judiciary Committee have offered.

We all have great respect for Senator Specter and the hard work by the Judiciary Committee to complete the bill they reported out last week under difficult time constraints. It is a good thing that we have so many people working together trying to find solutions to our illegal immigration problem. But it is important that those efforts are not lost because we tried to tackle everything and accomplished nothing. Those efforts are why we must focus on border security.

My colleagues and I are convinced that there is only one way we are going

to find consensus and see real action this year, and that is if we take the very important step of securing our borders first.

Our proposal would add 3,000 border patrol agents per year for 5 years and enhance border security technology.

It also adds:

1,000 new investigative personnel dedicated to stopping immigrant smuggling;

10,000 new Department of Homeland Security investigators dedicated to worksite enforcement; and

15,000 immigration enforcement agents dedicated to fraud detection.

At the same time, we give employers the tools they need to confirm the status of prospective employees to ensure that they are following the law.

If the companies have completed the verification process they will be protected in their hiring decisions. And the companies will not need to be concerned with verifying documents nor will they have to be in the business of making sure that documents handed to them are not fraudulent. However, if a company ignores this process and hires illegal immigrants anyway, our proposal enhances the penalties for breaking the law.

We believe that this is an important component for securing our borders and addressing the problem of illegal immigration. By removing the motivation behind most illegal immigration--securing employment through fraudulent documents or unscrupulous employers--we can take another important step towards resolving our illegal immigration problems.

In addition to aiding employers identifying illegal immigrants, this proposal also helps border security agents to stop immigrant smuggling, human trafficking, and other border offenses. This will ensure that gangs, organized crime, and individuals looking to exploit illegal immigrants for profit are prosecuted and prevented from putting immigrants in harms way.

Currently, these offenders are difficult to prosecute and are soon back committing new offenses of the same old crime.

I understand there has been some confusion about who this provision of the Border Security First proposal targets. I would like to set the record straight and make absolutely clear that this section is not aimed at prosecuting any religious or humanitarian groups that assist individuals in need. These people are not prosecuted now nor will they be in the future--nor should they be.

Instead, we need to stop the criminals who are smuggling people for financial gain and commercial profit. They are the ones hurting immigrants, not our religious and nonprofit groups.

I would also like to clarify for the record that this proposal does not make illegal immigrants in this country felons. It merely seeks to secure our borders as a first step towards resolving our illegal immigration problems.

I continue to push for border security first because I believe that it is our responsibility to work together to find a solution to this problem confronting our Nation. Our fellow Americans expect no less from us.

I continue to push for border security first because it makes common sense.

We all agree that the borders need to be secured.

And with a problem as pressing as illegal immigration, it is important that we work to build a consensus and that we concentrate our efforts on getting something accomplished that moves us along the path towards resolving this problem.

The disagreements we face all stem from the additional problem of what to do with the illegal immigrants already here. I am for securing the border first--and then developing a plan for the illegal immigrants already here. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to begin solving this problem because we concentrated on the things we disagree about rather than working to make sure we accomplished what we all agree needs to be accomplished first.

Unless we secure our borders first, the problem will only continue to worsen and the number of illegal immigrants we need to address will be larger than it is now.

Unless we secure our borders first, the U.S. will never have a firm grasp on the interior problems we have as a result of illegal immigration.

Unless we secure our borders first, we will never be able to adequately address the remaining issues that illegal immigration present.

Unless we secure our borders first, we will miss this opportunity to begin solving a problem and we will have failed to properly do our jobs for the American people.

By implementing tough new changes to secure our borders we can take an important first step toward addressing illegal immigration.

Today as we continue this debate and we continue to think about the bill that is before the Senate, we need to redirect our attention and put border security first so we can then go on. The ``do everything'' bill that is before the Senate today will end up doing nothing. The reason is if it is passed by this Senate and goes to the conference committee, it cannot be squared with the House version that has already been passed. It will be easier to square the circle than it will be to bring these two disparate bills together, and that is why we need to do something to secure our borders first.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a second- degree amendment to the Sessions amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Gerald ``Gary'' Leeling for receiving the Colonel Paul W. Arcari Meritorious Achievement Award from the Military Officers Association of America--MOAA--on March 18, 2006.

I have come to know Gary through his service as minority staff director of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, of which I am ranking member. His responsibilities include recruiting and retention, separation and retirement, pay and benefits, personnel policies, military medical programs, and military officer nominations. Gary is highly deserving of this award for his strong staff work on numerous legislative initiatives affecting military people. Whether he is briefing me on pending nominations or changes to numerous defense programs, Gary does so in a professional and committed manner.

Before beginning his service in the Senate in December 1998, Gary was an Army Judge Advocate General's corps officer. During his 28 years of service in the Army, Mr. Leeling served as chief of the Administrative Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army; staff judge advocate for III Armored Corps, Fort Hood, TX; faculty, Industrial College of the Armed Forces; staff judge advocate for 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX; and deputy staff judge advocate for VII Corps, Stuttgart, West Germany.

Gary received a bachelor of science degree from South Dakota State University and a juris doctorate from the University of South Dakota. He is a graduate of the Judge Advocate General's Graduate Course, the Army Command and General Staff College, and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

I consider Gary a tremendous asset that the Senate Armed Services Committee is lucky to have, and I commend Gary on his accomplishments and thank him for his contributions to our country's servicemembers.

Mr. President, many of our colleagues would be surprised to learn, as I was, that some agencies are skimming off the top a portion of some of the congressional appropriations and keeping money in that agency without authorization.

This amendment is simple. It says if it has been determined that a constituency warrants a direct appropriation,

one that has gone through the scrutinizing process and is supported by the House, Senate, and signed into law, that constituency should receive the full amount. Bureaucrats at the agencies, who are not the fourth branch of Government, should not be unilaterally determining that some sort of surcharge should be charged against these projects. It amounts to a tax on our constituents, and it usurps the authority of Congress by circumventing the legislative process and giving nameless, faceless bureaucrats the authority to alter legislation after it has been signed into law.

We have every right to expect that what we appropriate will be 100 percent provided when we determine that is the way it is, unless we determine otherwise. And in the situation where our constituents determine that the full amount of the earmark is not needed and turns back some of the funding to the government--this amendment says that instead of going to bureaucrats in the agencies to spend as they wish-- it should instead go towards deficit reduction.

I am withdrawing my amendment at this time for the sake of time. But we will all see this amendment again because I will bring it back.