Floor Statements

Mr. President, if the Chair could inform me when I have used 2 minutes.

Mr. President, we all stand here on the floor of the Senate and regularly acknowledge and even praise the common sense and the wisdom of the American people. Well, this vote this morning for each of us is about whether you really believe that or whether it is just a cheap political line to use.

The American people get it, and they do have common sense and wisdom on this issue. They know repeating the fundamental mistakes of the 1986 bill, joining a big amnesty with inadequate enforcement, will cause the problem to grow and not diminish. They know promising enforcement after 30 years of broken promises isn't good enough. They know the so-called trigger is a

joke because if the trigger is never pulled, the Z visas, the amnesty happens forever. They know groups like the Congressional Budget Office have estimated that this bill, so big on enforcement, will only decrease illegal immigration 13 percent and will have another 8.7 million illegal aliens coming into the country. They know that. They do have wisdom and common sense.

The question is: Do we or do we decide that Washington knows best? This isn't just a vote about immigration. This is a vote about whether this body is out of touch, whether this body is arrogant, or whether it will respect the true wisdom and common sense of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I truly find this process amazing. We have been told by the master crafters of this bill, who have developed this grand compromise in a relatively small group, that this is a delicate compromise and nothing can be allowed to upset it, certainly not allowing our amendments to reach the floor this week to be debated. So it has to stay exactly like it is.

For that reason, our amendments are being blocked en masse. But at the same time, these crafters of the compromise are changing their bill every half hour. It is a constantly moving target. Just a few days ago, we were presented with a brandnew underlying bill that is 761 pages. In addition, yesterday we were given a huge amendment, really 26 amendments put together, that is 373 pages. We had the audacity to ask that we be allowed to read the amendment and understand it.

After making the clerk read the amendment out loud for some period, Senator Reid finally acknowledged that, yes, maybe it would be fair to let us read the amendment. So we recessed for the night. Great. The trouble is, that amendment is out the window. They are now working on a brandnew version that they are trying to present soon. We have no idea what changes are being made to yesterday's amendment to make it today's amendment. It is probably going to be over 373 pages. So our study last night is basically for nought.

That process is not fair. It is patently unfair. We have the right to understand what is before the Senate. We have the right to read it. That is exactly what Senator DeMint's unanimous consent requests all went to. They were all shot down. They were all denied by the majority. I think it is a patently unfair process.

Let me ask this unanimous consent to at least allow us to digest this brandnew mega amendment, and that is, when Senator Reid offers his modified version of this amendment, which we expect will contain many changes from yesterday, including serious and substantive changes, that we have 5 hours as in morning business so that we are allowed to digest the contents of this new amendment. That is the unanimous consent request.

Reclaiming the remainder of my time, Mr. President, I think this is amazing. We are going to be presented with a brandnew mega amendment fairly soon. It is going to be at least 373 pages, maybe 400 pages, and we are not going to be allowed to read it before this Senate forges ahead debating and possibly voting on it.

I don't understand why we are not offered the opportunity to digest this brandnew mega amendment. Senator Reid stood on this floor yesterday and acknowledged it was only right and only fair to give us an opportunity to digest his mega amendment yesterday. The problem is, come this morning, that is out the window. There is a new mega amendment. We have no idea what line has been changed, what paragraph has been changed, what is new language, what is old language. We need a reasonable opportunity to independently digest that amendment, not simply take other people's summaries and word for it when we are presented with this brandnew 400-page amendment.

I will be happy to yield to the majority leader on this point, reserving the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, yes, but to do that we have to read the whole new mega amendment, I suggest to the majority leader. It is in that vein and in that spirit that I offered the unanimous consent request, that once the new mega amendment is presented, once that happens, we be in morning business for 5 hours so we may be allowed to read it.

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

Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Reserving my right to object.

I object.

Mr. President, I remove my objection.

Mr. President, with the majority leader on the floor, I want to use my brief minute to follow up on my inquiries and frustrations.

Very soon, we are going to be presented with a brandnew version of this mega-amendment, 400 pages or whatever it is. I would like to be allowed some reasonable opportunity to independently study that mega- amendment without having to depend on other people's summaries, and it is for that reason I made the unanimous consent request that we be in morning business for 5 hours once that brandnew mega-amendment is presented.

With that explanation and background, given that the distinguished majority leader recognized that right of ours yesterday, when we were allowed to read the old version of the amendment, I would like to make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

I would suggest, through the Chair to the distinguished

majority leader, that I have a real problem with depending on basically the other side's summary of these changes which are being made as we speak. So I would propound a new unanimous consent request, that if we have to do that, if that summary is lacking or inaccurate in any way, that all subsequent votes and actions of the Senate which are agreed to have no effect because we have depended on the other side's information and it could turn out to have been incomplete or inaccurate.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes under the same time agreement.

And for any purposes.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I would like to ask that my full rights as a Senator be protected with a unanimous consent request also.

There is objection. I would like to propose an alternative unanimous consent request.

I thank the Majority Leader.

As the majority leader knows, several of us have been continually frustrated about our ability to exercise our rights on the floor of the Senate as duly elected officials. All of our amendments have been shut out. We have not had the opportunity to read this new mega-amendment. The last vote occurred with one copy of that division being at the desk, no copies being on the floor of the Senate.

I would like to protect my rights as an individual Senator and, therefore, I would like to propose a modified UC request incorporating the Senator's suggestions, but offering me 5 minutes within that 1-hour period for any purpose whatsoever.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask if my rights on the Senate floor can also be protected in that unanimous consent.

That is not really responding to my request. Again, reserving the right to object, I ask the distinguished majority leader whether my rights as a Senator can also be protected in that unanimous consent request regarding Senator Webb's time by allowing me 1 minute on the floor for any purpose.

Then I object.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

I want to briefly take the floor to lay out how enormously unfair this process is. I am new to the Senate. Coming here, I had always heard, particularly coming from the House, about the fundamental aspect of the Senate being unlimited debate. I walked through the wrong door, because that is not the case, certainly not the case for me in terms of this bill. It has been exactly the opposite from start to finish.

Why do I say that?

First, we are handed an 800-page bill, given very little time to digest it. Then a few days later, in terms of this latest revisiting of immigration reform, we are handed a 373-page mega-amendment and given no time to digest it. Then some of us demanded the time to digest it by not agreeing to waive the reading of that 373-page amendment. Only because we did that, we were finally given the right to look at the amendment overnight last night. Great. So we come back at 10 a.m. this morning, after working with our staffs to wade through 373 pages of the amendment, only to find out that mega-amendment is out the window. We have a new modified version of the mega-amendment, which we have never seen before, which we were only given a copy of in the last hour. Now we are trying to digest a new mega-amendment. Meanwhile, the procedure is rolling along.

Of course, the majority leader, through this unprecedented use of the so-called clay pigeon, has hand chosen the only amendments that apparently will come up during this debate on the Senate floor. It is not an accident that there are no Vitter amendments. I had plenty filed. None of them are on the list. The majority leader could have chosen any list of amendments. He could have tried to make an effort to have a balanced list to include some amendments of folks such as me who have fundamental reservations with the bill. He did not. There are no Vitter amendments. It is not a coincidence there are no Sessions amendments. There are no DeMint amendments. There are no Cornyn amendments, the person who began this process working with the working group, developing the bill. It is not a coincidence there are no Elizabeth Dole amendments. All of us have been completely shut out in terms of the handpicked list of amendments.

Then we try to participate in the process again on the Senate floor. I try to be recognized several times to exercise my rights as a Senator. I am shut down again because the majority leader will only recognize me for purposes that he decides, not me, for purposes that he approved of, not me. Basically, I am allowed to debate and nothing more. I am not allowed to offer a motion. I am not allowed to do any of that. It is coming to the point where I am wondering, even if he allows me to say anything, is he going to hand me a script and I will have to read from that?

This is not an open, fair process. This is not the Senate I heard about, with unlimited debate and amendment. Yes, there are unlimited amendments as long as they are approved, apparently, by the majority leader. None of them are my amendments. Yes, there is unlimited debate as long as you agree not to exercise any of your rights as a Senator. You can talk only. You can't make a motion. You can't try to bring up your amendments. You can't do any of that.

That process is fundamentally unfair. I hope many Senators who are still considering how they will vote on cloture will focus on this process. The American people have said loudly and clearly this is an important issue to them. They have also said loudly and clearly, by any poll out there, that they absolutely disapprove of this bill by enormous numbers. For us to move ahead anyway is one thing. For us to move ahead using this process, railroading me, railroading any strong opponent of the bill, is something else. It is patently disgraceful.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, as I consider the unanimous consent request, can I ask permission to pose two questions to the distinguished majority leader?

I thank the majority leader. Two questions. One is on the substance of the bill. In particular, on the point you were making regarding funding for enforcement, are you aware of the CRS letter and report which says that $4.4 billion, or at least much of it, can go to the Z visa and the Y visa program, and that it is not clear at all that the trigger provisions have to be met and that certification has to happen before those funds can instead be used for the Z visa program versus enforcement?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this June 25, 2007, Congressional Research Service memorandum printed in the Record because it certainly states clearly that the trigger does not have to be fully met before these funds can go to the Z visa program.

Yes. The second question for the majority leader is about procedure. I think he understands my frustrations in terms of the procedure we seem to be adopting. Does the distinguished majority leader see any opportunity between now and tomorrow's key cloture vote for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments on the floor versus his handpicked amendments or to be recognized on the floor for reasons of our choosing versus merely being recognized for reasons of his choosing?

Mr. President, reserving, again, my right to object, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.

For debate only.

That is correct.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Well, again, I take it from the distinguished majority leader that his answer to my last question is no. Under this process, there will be no opportunity for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments. We will only consider his 26 handpicked amendments. Again, he put together that list. He could have included some amendments of folks who have serious problems with the bill. But there are no Vitter amendments on the list. There are no Sessions amendments. There are no DeMint amendments, no Cornyn amendments, no Dole amendments, no Bunning amendments, and we could go on and on. Is that a fair process?

I also ask, is it a fair process for me to only be recognized on the floor of the Senate during this momentous debate leading up to a cloture vote only for purposes of the majority leader's choosing and for no purposes of my own choosing?

With that, I yield the floor.

There is objection. And I would like to ask the majority leader's----

I am reserving my right to object, and I was trying to gain recognition, and I believe I did gain recognition.

Then I ask that the record be read with regard to whether I was recognized or not.

There is objection. I would like to enter into that dialog on two points.

I thank the majority leader, and simply two points, quickly.

First, with regard to the statement the majority leader just made and the letter he read, let me end the debate. Let me stipulate for the record that Senator McConnell is not being railroaded and President Bush is not being railroaded. I am being railroaded and my allies on the floor of the Senate are being railroaded. So we will end that debate and stipulate that for the record.

Second, with regard to your last unanimous consent request, I would love to agree to it if it can be modified so that my rights on the floor of the Senate are also preserved--specifically so that I can be recognized for 2 minutes for any purpose.

There is objection.

Reserving my right to object, if I can inquire of the distinguished majority leader and explain to him, through the Chair, that my objection does not rest on the time period; it rests on my rights on the Senate floor being shut down.

So I would again ask if the unanimous consent request can be modified to allow me to exercise my rights on the Senate floor--specifically, to have a mere 5 minutes on the Senate floor to be recognized for purposes of my choosing, not merely for purposes of the majority leader's choosing?

Regrettably, I must continue my objection.

Reserving my right to object, may I ask if that can be amended to allow the Senator from Louisiana 30 seconds--30 seconds--to gain the floor for purposes of my own choosing rather than the majority leader's choosing?

Regrettably, because I am being shut down, I will continue my objection.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Yes. I would like to ask the leader if what happened, where apparently we withdrew one of the subamendments, takes unanimous consent or any consent?

I would like to ask for clarification from the Parliamentarian and what the effect is on that amendment?

Thank you for the opportunity to ask the question.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Regular order.

Regular order. The Senator is not asking a question.

Madam President, regular order. The Senator is not responding to a question, he is making a statement; he is engaging in debate.

Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

Reserving my right to object, if I could simply make a clarification about a statement that has been made.

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, in light of our discussion with the distinguished majority leader under which we won't take further action until tomorrow, so we can begin to digest this mammoth amendment, I move to waive reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge Louisiana Tech University for its scientific breakthrough and innovation in the department of nanotechnology. I would like to take a few moments to expand on Louisiana Tech's achievements and wish the facility and student body continued success.

Nanotechnology is the art of manipulating materials on an atomic and molecular level, and Louisiana Tech University has risen to the top of this scientific threshold. This year a trade magazine, Small Times, ranked LA Tech third in micro and nanotechnology education. Small Times evaluated each college based on various criteria, and Louisiana Tech surfaced as one of

the elite universities. Louisiana Tech also stands as one of the only universities in the country that offers a nanotechnology degree at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Their diversity within the program, and their excellence in both faculty innovation and curriculum ranks them among the best major scientific universities.

Louisiana Tech University also ranked tenth in the Nation for commercializing nanotechnology inventions, or the capability to process patents and turn them into profitable ideas. The university alone applied for 24 patent applications in the last year, 20 of which involved micro and nanotechnology, proving Louisiana Tech's dedication as a national contributor to the scientific spectrum. As Louisiana Tech blossoms, many profitable institutions have invested and settled within the university, such as Avoyelles Renewable Fuels, which is working to discover a way to convert biomass waste into a biofuel through a nanocatalyst.

I would also like to take a moment to honor Joshua Michael Brown. At Louisiana Tech University, he became this first person in the entire world to graduate with a nanosystems engineering degree. He will continue at Louisiana Tech University in order to gain his doctorate in micronanotechnology.

Thus, today I congratulate Louisiana Tech for its innovation in the ever-changing fields of science, and I look forward to the continued growth of the school and its students as they shape the future development of micro and nanotechnology.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of an amendment I filed at the desk some time ago, Vitter amendment No. 1658, and I would like to briefly explain what that is.

At its core, this amendment would allow Louisiana to use more Federal coastal impact assistance dollars, which are already going to the State under preexisting law, a law we passed a couple of years ago, to be used specifically for one of our top priorities in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and that is a hurricane protection effort.

By way of background, in 2005, we passed the Energy Policy Act, and that did a very important thing for the State of Louisiana and other producing States. It established a Coastal Impact Assistance Program for the six States in the United States that produce offshore energy, particularly oil and gas. Obviously, that includes Louisiana. Under that 4-year Coastal Impact Assistance Program, certain Federal dollars flow to those producing States in light of the enormous work they do producing energy for our country and the negative impact that activity has in many cases on our coastline.

Back at that time, a provision was made to restrict the amount of those funds that could go specifically to infrastructure projects, and that cap was established, with the work of Senator Bingaman and others, at 23 percent. Back in 2005, I argued strongly and worked with Senator Bingaman and others to say that cap should be lifted with regard to hurricane protection work, at least in Louisiana, because that work was absolutely so vital, so essential for our very existence. Unfortunately, that argument did not hold the day. The cap was not lifted, and an exemption was not put in place for hurricane protection efforts.

I am trying to get that cap lifted for hurricane protection work in Louisiana now. My argument that we should do it comes down to two words--two words that happened, that devastated our coastline between then and now, and the two words are ``Katrina'' and ``Rita.'' Since that original act in 2005, Katrina and Rita struck, and they struck literal death blows to the Louisiana coast. If hurricane protection was a big priority before that, it has only grown enormously with those two hurricanes coming upon our shores.

I think there is every rationale, every reason to allow us to use more of that coastal impact assistance money for hurricane protection efforts and to lift that arbitrary ceiling of 23 percent for infrastructure projects, specifically when we are talking about hurricane protection efforts.

I have been in contact with Senator Bingaman about this issue. We have just discussed it on the Senate floor. I know he is considering these arguments. Perhaps in wrapping up my discussion, I could invite the Senator to engage in a brief colloquy and ask him again to focus on the extreme needs of the Louisiana coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and to continue consideration of lifting this cap in light of those extreme needs and to see where we are in that discussion.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming the floor, I will put that down as an ``undecided,'' and ``maybe.'' I want to continue these discussions with the Senator from New Mexico. He is essentially the key to clearing this amendment, probably without objection.

Again, I restate that because of the devastating impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I think there is every reason in the world to lift this arbitrary cap of 23 percent, specifically and only for hurricane protection work on our coast. It is absolutely vital for our survival. It will not mean we are not doing everything else we have been talking about. That is moving forward for a number of reasons, including the revenue sharing piece we were able to pass into law late last year. That will give significant new revenue to our coastal restoration efforts and other things. I again urge the Senator to continue to look at this and hopefully clear this so it can be adopted without even the need for a vote on the floor, adopted by unanimous consent.

Amendment No. 1776

Now I wish to move to a second very important amendment I have at the desk, which is amendment No. 1776. I just happened to get that number but I think it is a very appropriate number for this amendment because this goes to our very important, patriotic efforts to increase our energy independence and to get away from our enormous reliance on the Middle East, including very dangerous countries and regimes in the Middle East that are clearly not friends of ours at all.

This amendment is straightforward. It would allow increased domestic production of minerals or renewable energy in Federal areas that are not allowed now, if and only if all four of these things happen--really five.

No. 1, the national average gasoline price would have to exceed $3.75 a gallon at the pump.

No. 2, in addition, foreign imports of oil would have to exceed 65 percent of all oil use.

No. 3, in addition, the President would have to determine that an ample supply of renewable fuels is insufficient to meet fuel demand domestically at that time.

No. 4, in addition, the President would have to determine that continued and growing reliance on foreign oil imports is a threat to national security.

If all of those four preconditions were met, then and only then, No. 5, the Governor of a State, with the concurrence of the State legislature, could petition the Secretary of the Interior to initiate leasing activities on specified Federal lands within the State or within the administrative boundaries of the Outer Continental Shelf related to that State for oil and gas or alternative energy production. So if everything I mentioned happened, then and only then a State itself, through its Governor, through its State legislature, can say: Yes, sir, Mr. President, we want to be part of the solution. This is a dire, extreme case. This is a real national security threat. We want to be part of the solution by producing, safely and in an environmentally friendly way, more oil and gas, more renewable energy for America.

I think this is an utterly commonsense and very much needed amendment to increase domestic production, decrease reliance on foreign sources. That goes to energy security. As such, it goes to economic security. It goes to national security.

Again, none of this would happen unless all of those things happened first: gasoline prices at $3.75 at the pump, foreign imports over 65 percent of everything we are using in this country, the President saying renewables cannot make up the difference, the President saying this is a real national security issue, the Governor of the State saying we want to do this, it is our home, we can do it responsibly, and the State legislature of the State concurring. All of those things would have to happen before opening up either land within the State or part of the Outer Continental Shelf off the State to leasing activity, in terms of Federal land.

It is very important that we do a balanced approach, all sorts of things, to decrease our reliance on foreign sources. This is a very commonsense part of that menu.

With that, I understand there may be objection, but I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that this very commonsense amendment, which goes to the heart of this debate and the heart of the bill, Vitter amendment No. 1776, can be called up and made pending.

Yes, I do.

Certainly.

Mr. President, I was happy to do that.

Reclaiming the floor, all of that is interesting. It is also what is commonly referred to as ``inside baseball.'' For the sake of the insiders here, let me translate for you what the American people just heard. To quote Charley Brown, ``Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah.''

The fact is, what Americans are faced with is an energy crisis and we have all this ``inside baseball'' tangling us up in the Senate, in the House, and we are not doing a darned thing about it.

The other fact is there is no objection on the Republican side to calling this amendment up, No. 1776, to making it pending, to considering it. There are all sorts of debate and all sorts of discussions about other amendments. There is certainly no objection on our side to this amendment. Why should there be? Why shouldn't we allow individual States to say: Yes, we want to be part of the solution, particularly when all of the following events occur: average price of gasoline reaches $3.75 a gallon, foreign imports top 65 percent of everything used in the country, the President certifies that renewables can't make up the gap, the President certifies there is a continuing reliance on foreign oil, which is a national security threat? If all of those things happen, shouldn't we be allowing a State,

through its Governor, through the State legislature, to be part of the solution in a safe and environmentally sensitive way to produce more energy in this country that doesn't take away the need for alternative fuels, that doesn't take away the need for conservation or everything else?

But the clear and simple fact is, this problem is so big we need to do all of the above. Certainly this commonsense approach should be on that menu, should be among all of the above.

Let's get beyond the Washington insider ``Wah, wah, wah,'' all the running around, all the objections, all the being tied up in knots, and present some reasonable, commonsense solutions to this growing national energy crisis.

I hope those who control the floor and leave the floor, starting with the distinguished majority leader, to whom I deferred a few minutes ago on the floor, can be part of that.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Councilwoman- at-large Pearl D. Williams of Slidell for being named volunteer of the year by the United Way of St. Tammany Parish. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on her success and her contributions to Louisiana.

Councilwoman Williams has long enjoyed volunteering with various organizations in order to assist the community, especially needy children, and this award recognizes the hard work and success she has constantly rendered.

Councilwoman Williams has shown tireless dedication to the United Way. Williams has served on the St. Tammany United Way Leadership Council as a progressive, active fundraiser who helped establish various committees and celebrations in order to benefit different charities. She also served on the board of directors for the Children's Wish Endowment and as past president of the Slidell Memorial Hospital Women's Health Alliance, among many other great accolades.

Councilwoman Pearl D. Williams passed away of heart failure at the age of 64 on Thursday, May 17, 2007, at her residence. She is survived by not only proud family members but also the grateful city of Slidell who will never forget Councilwoman Williams' selfless acts of generosity and charity.

Thus, today, I rise to honor Councilwoman Pearl D. Williams so that more people can understand the kind of sacrifices she gave for others.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Jay Lapeyre and Laitram, LLC, of New Orleans for receiving the Recognition of Excellence in Innovation certificate from the Louisiana Technology Council. I would also like to take a few moments to expand on Laitram, LLC, and their continued success.

The Louisiana Technology Council recently hosted their third annual awards council and the first since Hurricane Katrina. This certificate awards local and regional leaders in new technology throughout the United States who have created a new industrial advance or service in the last 12 months, operated a new, original manufacturing process, or have received a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office for a recent technological discovery. More than 60 nominations were submitted from public and private sectors, institutions, and individuals.

J. M. Lapeyre, the designer of the original shrimp-peeling machine in 1946, founded Laitram, LLC, and completely transformed the shrimping industry. Since its inception, his descendants have continued to carry on this tradition of improvement and modernization. Over the past 5 years, Laitram has patented more than 60 new inventions, including 16 in 2006, illustrating Laitram's commitment to innovation and the best quality for its customers and the State of Louisiana. Specifically, the Intralox Series 400 Angled Roller conveyor belt has revolutionized the industry, allowing the replacement of older technology and maintaining Louisiana's package handling applications not only in food but in other industries as well. Therefore, I congratulate Jay Lapeyre and Laitram LLC on being an inspiration to business owners everywhere, and I wish them success.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Bossier City, LA, which is celebrating its centennial anniversary, and I would like to take a few moments to publicly recognize their great history.

In the 1830s, the area of Bossier City originally encompassed the Elysian Groves Plantation of James Crane. Due to its proximity to the river, it quickly became a hotbed for trade and activity. By 1850, hundreds of wagons crossed through the vicinity on their way to the West; many settlers also stayed, realizing the land's fertile river valley and abundant farmland. Soon, interstate railway systems boomed, and Bossier became a growing metropolis. The farmers, realizing the area's potential, quickly began to sell plots of land as transportation flourished. Finally, in 1907, with its growing textile industry and expansive transportation system, Bossier City received official status as a city in Louisiana. Throughout its history, Bossier City has endured and survived many impediments, such as the great fire which consumed over half of the downtown area. In the late 1950s, Bossier was named the fastest growing city in Louisiana.

Bossier City began its centennial celebration on April 7 with the biggest birthday party that the city has ever witnessed on the banks of the city's foundation on the Red River. The initial festivities ranged from the opportunity to meet the city's oldest resident to a reception, with a 100-square-foot birthday cake. Throughout the year, the commemoration will continue with events from the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life to Barksdale Air Force Base. Over the year, residents and business owners in the city will be able to attend and plan activities that aid in representing the city's deep southern history and culture.

The centennial memorializes Bossier City's rise to one of the great cities of the State of Louisiana. Today, I want to congratulate Bossier City on the last 100 years, and I wish the residents luck and continued success and progress.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that would go a long way toward ensuring that Federal contracting remains a process of equal opportunity and open competition. Specifically, my legislation would prohibit the practice of attaching restrictive union-only project labor agreements, or PLAs, to Federal contracts.

In short, any contractor or subcontractor who is bidding on a construction project that includes a union-only PLA must agree to recognize unions as the representatives of the employees on that job; use the union hiring hall to obtain workers and apprentices; pay union wages and benefits; and follow the union's restrictive rules, job classifications, and arbitration procedures.

These restrictions would apply at the expense of a contractor's or subcontractor's usual team of workers. They would apply in States that may have low numbers of unionized construction workers, even if it meant denying jobs to local, in-State workers and required bringing in employees from out of State. Finally, the restrictions in a union-only PLA would apply even though only 13 percent of our private construction workforce belongs to a construction labor union, and therefore effectively locking out almost nine of every 10 able, qualified workers.

In my home State of Louisiana, just 7.4 percent of private construction workers belong to a construction labor union. Yet, for example, if union-only PLAs are attached to the Federal construction projects helping rebuild Louisiana after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisianans will be locked out of this important rebuilding process, making it difficult to find work and earn a decent wage; the same jobs and wages that would enable Louisiana families to return to the hurricane-affected areas and rebuild their lives in these communities. Yet, instead of enabling local folks and businesses to come together and participate in their community's renewal, PLAs will ensure that these valuable jobs will go to just a select few, mostly out-of-State union workers. It is inexcusable that local Louisiana firms and their workers would be barred from freely bidding on construction projects in their own town or parish. And this is just one example of the harmful consequences associated with PLAs.

In sum, the Federal Government should not be in the business of taking taxpayers' money to fund projects that exclude more than four out of five workers, making these projects discriminatory, anticompetitive, and unnecessarily expensive. At the very least, taxpayers should be able to bid and work on projects that they are funding with their own hard-earned dollars. Construction workers should have the opportunity to work on projects that benefit their own communities regardless of their union affiliation. The Federal Government should maintain a neutral position and encourage full and open competition in the Federal contracting process.

Contracts should be awarded based on sound, commonsense criteria, such as quality of work, experience, and cost. Union affiliation has no place within the criteria for considering a contract bid. The best bid, by the most qualified contractor or subcontractor, should always be the winning bid.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to oppose attempts to attach union-only project labor agreements to Federal projects.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that would go a long way toward ensuring that Federal contracting remains a process of equal opportunity and open competition. Specifically, my legislation would prohibit the practice of attaching restrictive union-only project labor agreements, or PLAs, to Federal contracts.

In short, any contractor or subcontractor who is bidding on a construction project that includes a union-only PLA must agree to recognize unions as the representatives of the employees on that job; use the union hiring hall to obtain workers and apprentices; pay union wages and benefits; and follow the union's restrictive rules, job classifications, and arbitration procedures.

These restrictions would apply at the expense of a contractor's or subcontractor's usual team of workers. They would apply in States that may have low numbers of unionized construction workers, even if it meant denying jobs to local, in-State workers and required bringing in employees from out of State. Finally, the restrictions in a union-only PLA would apply even though only 13 percent of our private construction workforce belongs to a construction labor union, and therefore effectively locking out almost nine of every 10 able, qualified workers.

In my home State of Louisiana, just 7.4 percent of private construction workers belong to a construction labor union. Yet, for example, if union-only PLAs are attached to the Federal construction projects helping rebuild Louisiana after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisianans will be locked out of this important rebuilding process, making it difficult to find work and earn a decent wage; the same jobs and wages that would enable Louisiana families to return to the hurricane-affected areas and rebuild their lives in these communities. Yet, instead of enabling local folks and businesses to come together and participate in their community's renewal, PLAs will ensure that these valuable jobs will go to just a select few, mostly out-of-State union workers. It is inexcusable that local Louisiana firms and their workers would be barred from freely bidding on construction projects in their own town or parish. And this is just one example of the harmful consequences associated with PLAs.

In sum, the Federal Government should not be in the business of taking taxpayers' money to fund projects that exclude more than four out of five workers, making these projects discriminatory, anticompetitive, and unnecessarily expensive. At the very least, taxpayers should be able to bid and work on projects that they are funding with their own hard-earned dollars. Construction workers should have the opportunity to work on projects that benefit their own communities regardless of their union affiliation. The Federal Government should maintain a neutral position and encourage full and open competition in the Federal contracting process.

Contracts should be awarded based on sound, commonsense criteria, such as quality of work, experience, and cost. Union affiliation has no place within the criteria for considering a contract bid. The best bid, by the most qualified contractor or subcontractor, should always be the winning bid.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to oppose attempts to attach union-only project labor agreements to Federal projects.

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

I thank all my colleagues for their courtesies.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Cornyn amendment and in opposition to the much weaker, watered-down Democratic alternative.

This amendment illustrates a lot about this debate. The Cornyn amendment is clear. It is necessary. It is common sense. It is absolutely necessary we pass amendments such as this and have the ability to debate and vote on amendments such as this in the important immigration debate.

This amendment is very straightforward. It prevents terrorists, gang members, sex offenders, and other folks who have broken the law in significant ways, committed significant felonies, from receiving immigration benefits and citizenship in the future. How can any of us in the Senate oppose a straightforward and necessary commonsense amendment? How can any of us be comfortable with an underlying bill which has these gaping loopholes? We must address these gaping loopholes. How can we tell families across America that we are going to allow sex offenders and gang members to become legal residents, possibly citizens? The Cornyn amendment would prevent this. It would address all of these significant loopholes.

Again, terrorists, gang members, violent gang members, those who have committed other significant felonies, those who have been detained for coming into the country illegally and have absconded, those who have been deported from the country for coming into the country illegally and have reentered illegally--all of those categories of illegals should be prevented from gaining the benefits of this bill. The Cornyn amendment clearly does that.

The Democratic alternative clearly does not. It has significant omissions from the Cornyn amendment. It allows absconders, those who have been detained and have gone underground, to receive the benefits of the bill. It allows those who have been deported from the country and who came back in illegally to get the benefits of this bill. It allows others who fall into the category of gang members and those who committed serious felonies to gain the benefits of this legislation. That is simply wrong. We must support the commonsense, straightforward Cornyn amendment.

I also want to spend a portion of my time urging my colleagues to not vote for cloture on this bill as it presently rests before us, because we have many important amendments to consider. Two of those are the amendments I will humbly offer to the Senate. They are important issues; they are important amendments. I urge us to pay careful consideration to them and to have an opportunity for debate and vote.

In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and to call up my amendment No. 1338.

I am sorry to hear that. Let me try my second amendment which is also at the desk. It concerns a significant provision in the bill which we need the opportunity to debate and vote on. That is Vitter amendment No. 1339.

Madam President, unfortunately, this illustrates the point about the inappropriateness of cloture. These are two significant amendments which go to important provisions of the bill. All of us--and more importantly, the American people--deserve to have these matters debated and voted on. Let me explain what these amendments are about. Everybody--certainly the majority side--has been given the amendments.

My first amendment only requires what Congress originally mandated back in 1986; that is, the entry/exit system known today as US-VISIT. We must have that fully operational before all aspects of this bill are allowed to go into effect. It was authorized 10 years ago, but it is not near to fully operational now. We must make sure that it is a part of this bill's enforcement trigger.

Without the US-VISIT system's completion, we can't be sure that we know what individuals are in the country. In fact, we can be sure we will not know because how can we possibly have a grasp of who is in the country and who is not in the country without this system which tracks people as they exit? There are a lot of folks on visas here for a limited period of time. Under that visa, they, of course, need to exit the country before their visa is up. The US-VISIT system allows us to know if they are doing that. How can we possibly be ready for the full implementation of this legislation, how can we possibly say we have the enforcement system we need in place without the US-VISIT system, without knowing who exits the country and when, without knowing whether they have overstayed their visa?

As of 2006, the illegal population included 4 to 5.5 million overstays, people here illegally because they are overstaying the time limits of their visa. The US-VISIT system is absolutely necessary to get to the heart of the problem and to enforce against overstays. How can we say we have adequate enforcement, how can we trigger the other provisions of this bill without making sure we have that in place, functioning, fully operational?

The US-VISIT system is not any part of the triggers now in the bill. It must be. That is what my amendment 1339 goes to.

As I mentioned, I have another amendment, No. 1338, that would correct a provision in the bill which doesn't allow for a catch-and- release program anymore but simply changes that to a catch, pay, and release program. In this legislation, those in this country illegally who are caught and who are not from Mexico don't have to be kept in custody. They can be released on a $5,000 bond. For months, and indeed years, we on the Senate floor and those around the country have decried the catch-and-release program, a program that has been in place where illegals are caught but are released into our country and simply given a piece of paper that says: Show up to court on such-and-such a date. Guess what. They never do. This bill merely changes that to a catch, pay, and release program. It allows catch and release to continue, only with a $5,000 bond.

Why is that a problem? Because many of the folks we are talking about, particularly those who are among the most dangerous, those involved in illegal drug activity, those in other organized crime, can get the $5,000 bond. If they are already paying human smugglers to get them across the border, in many cases thousands and thousands of dollars, one has to assume they can get the resources to pay this bond. Changing catch and release to catch, pay, and release is completely inadequate. Yet that is what the underlying legislation does.

Amendment No. 1338 would close that loophole, would say: No, we are going to end catch and release forever, and we are not going to allow cash, pay, and release. When we catch these folks coming into the country illegally who are not from Mexico, so we can't simply send them back to Mexico at the southern border, we are going to detain them. We are not going to let them into the country on a bond or anything else. We are going to detain them until they are deported, and we are going to work very hard to deport them as quickly as possible.

Again, I believe my two amendments, which have not been allowed to be offered, clearly illustrate why we are not ready for cloture on this bill. This is a significant debate on a massive, 800-page bill. This bill, if enacted, will affect our country in major and significant ways for decades to come. Everybody admits that, no matter what side of the debate they may be on. Yet we have only been allowed to have a modest number of votes on the bill, something on the order of 12. That is ridiculous. We need these sorts of amendments considered and voted on, and we must oppose cloture until that happens.

Mr. President, if I am in order, I will speak in strong support of my amendment No. 1339 which will be voted on later tonight.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in this debate on the immigration bill about enforcement provisions. There has been a lot of discussion about triggers in this bill to ensure that enforcement actions are taken, are paid for, and are enacted before other aspects of the bill, such as the Z visa program and the temporary worker program, go into effect.

My grave concern is that these triggers are wholly inadequate and represent thinking that is backward from where it needs to be. If you look at the triggers designed in the bill, they were arrived at, again, as I would put it, in a backward fashion.

The question was asked: Well, it is going to take about 18 months to be ready to enact the other provisions of the bill, so what enforcement are we teed up to do during the next 18 months anyway? We will define that as the enforcement trigger for the bill.

I simply think that is the wrong way to arrive at a trigger. The key question has to be: What needs to be done? What is the totality of significant measures that needs to be done in order to have real enforcement at the border and real enforcement at the workplace? Let's make that totality the trigger in the bill. Of course, the triggers are far less than that.

One perfect example is the subject of this amendment. The US-VISIT Program has been authorized since 1996, but it is not near operational. This is the program that would establish an entry and exit system so we know absolutely who comes into the country on visas and when those people leave, if they leave on time under their visa, or if they do not and are, therefore, overstaying their visa.

Without such a system, we cannot possibly know who is in the country and who is overstaying their visa. This

is a very serious part of our illegal immigration problem. As of 2006, the illegal population, by most estimates, included 4 million to 5.5 million overstays. So visa overstays are a big part of the problem. We know from 9/11, that visa overstays accounted for many of the terrorists at the center of the 9/11 plot.

So how can we have meaningful enforcement without this US-VISIT system, including the exit portion of the system? We cannot. The simple answer is that we can't. My amendment No. 1339 would include full implementation of this exit system of the US-VISIT Program into the trigger of the bill. Therefore, the other significant portions of the bill, such as temporary workers, such as Z visas, et cetera, cannot take effect until the full trigger is pulled, including full implementation of the US-VISIT system.

If we are serious about enforcement, we have to pass this amendment. If we are serious about enforcement, we have to recognize that 4 million to 5.5 million illegals in this country are visa overstays, and we cannot get our hands around that visa overstay problem without full implementation of this system, which has been authorized but nowhere near implemented since 1996.

So I urge all my colleagues to come together and build up the trigger and enforcement provisions of this bill with the Vitter amendment No. 1339.

With that, I yield back my time.

(Mr. SALAZAR assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would add to the enforcement trigger mechanism of the bill that the US-VISIT Program be fully operational. This is the entry/exit system program that has been authorized since 1996 but has never been put into operation.

As Senator Hutchison just mentioned, we all know a huge part of the

illegal immigration problem is visa overstays. The latest estimate, in 2006, is that 4 million to 5.5 million visa overstays are illegal immigrants in this country. We cannot get a handle on that problem without the US-VISIT system knowing when people are leaving the country and, thus, whether they are overstaying their visa. Yet that is not part of the enforcement mechanism in the bill at all.

Let's vote for this amendment and make it part of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.