Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a man who has

dedicated almost 40 years of his life to the service of his constituency. Senator Ted Stevens was appointed to represent Alaska in the Senate in 1968 and has done so in a way that the citizens of his State have reelected him six times since. Senator Stevens is currently the longest-serving Senator in the history of our party and a steadfast representative for Alaskan conservative values.

As a young man Senator Stevens served his country honorably during World War II. A member of the Flying Tigers of the Army Air Corps' 14th Air Force, he is also twice a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for his heroism in aerial combat. Senator Stevens is in excellent company as the first recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross was Captain Charles A. Lindbergh, who also set a few records in his own time.

I am especially thankful for the work Senator Stevens has done to help aid the people of Louisiana. Through his position as Chairman in the last Congress and currently Vice-Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee he has worked tirelessly on important legislation to our State. Especially noteworthy are the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, which included provisions dedicated to the aid of the fishing industry in Louisiana following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and his essential support of legislation to get Louisiana its fair share of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues.

It has been an extraordinary experience to work with as accomplished a legislator as Senator Stevens in my time in the Senate. I thank him for his service to the citizens of this great country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Vitter amendment No. 1157.

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

Mr. President, this is an important amendment that goes to the heart of our debate. This amendment strikes all of the text of title VI, the Z visa amnesty section. It takes all of that Z visa out of this massive immigration bill. I thank several Members for joining me in this important amendment: Senator DeMint, Senator Thomas, Senator Bunning, Senator Enzi, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Coburn. They are all cosponsors of this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues to join in this fundamental but necessary correction of the bill.

Many folks will say: We can't do this. This goes to the heart of the bill. It goes to the heart of the compromise. Well, indeed, it does. It does that because that is where an absolutely fundamental flaw with this approach resides. The Z visa is amnesty, pure and simple. Amnesty is at the heart of this bill and is a fundamental problem and flaw with the bill that we must correct. Make no mistake about it, the American people know this. It is obvious. Why is it so hard for us to acknowledge the fact, acknowledge the negative consequences that flow from it, and correct it?

Considering how badly received last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill was, I am shocked we are here again, admittedly with a better bill in some respects but with a bill with Z visa amnesty right at the heart of it. The American people don't want this. They don't want the Z visa, because they don't want to reward law breaking and thereby encourage more of the same. The Z visa amnesty provision absolutely rewards those who have broken the law and, in doing so, is a slap in the face to those thousands upon thousands of folks who are honoring the law, following the law, standing in line, waiting their turn under the rules.

I ask my fellow Senators, are we going to be a nation that values that rule of law? These Z visas tell lawbreakers the opposite, that it is OK to break the law. In doing so, most importantly, most negatively, that has to encourage more like behavior in the future. Clearly, that sort of amnesty sends the wrong message, a reward for breaking the law. Clearly, that encourages the same sort of behavior we absolutely don't want in the future.

I think the fundamental question in this debate is, is this bill going to be a repeat of the 1986 immigration reform the Congress passed at that time or is this bill fundamentally different? Again, that is a central question that goes to the heart of the Z visa issue and others.

In 1986, Congress took up immigration reform. They passed a significant bill, not as wide sweeping as we are talking about now but certainly a significant bill. Arguments were very much the same: We are going to beef up enforcement. We are going to get serious. We are going to have real enforcement at the border. We are going to have meaningful enforcement at the workplace. In that context, we need this amnesty one time, and it will be done and the problem will be solved.

What is the history since then? The history is clear. A problem that was then about 3 million illegal aliens has grown at least fourfold-- 12, 13 million, or more. So it has mushroomed. The problem has gotten a lot worse. Why? Because the amnesty provisions of that bill in 1986 absolutely went into force and effect. They were absolutely honored. But at the same time, the enforcement never happened to an adequate extent.

So what happens with those two dynamics? It is simple to see what did happen--inadequate enforcement, real amnesty that sent the message loudly and clearly: You will eventually be forgiven for breaking the law to get into this country illegally. The problem mushroomed. The problem quadrupled from more than 3 million illegal aliens in the country to 12 or 13 million or more today.

That is an awfully fundamental question we need to ask as we look at this legislation. I have asked that question. My answer is: This is a vastly improved bill from last year, but this bill still has that fundamental flaw. This bill still risks--and I believe will inevitably repeat--the mistake of 1986, only on a far broader, a far bigger, and far more dangerous scale. We cannot afford that.

There are colleagues of both parties in this Chamber who make the argument that we hear about most legislation: The status quo is broken. This bill is not perfect, but this bill will move it along. This bill will make it better.

That sort of incrementalist approach is true in a lot of cases. In this case, I don't think it is true at all. In this case, a flawed bill gives us the real threat, the real danger of making the problem a lot worse, not better. That is the history of what happened in 1986. That is what will happen again with inadequate enforcement plus amnesty.

How do we correct this? One way is to beef up enforcement. I support a lot of different measures to make the enforcement more certain, to nail it down absolutely before we go into any of these other areas such as a temporary worker program, certainly Z visas. The triggers in this bill are much ballyhooed, but the triggers don't get us to where we need to be before they trigger the Z visa. All the triggers do is say: We are going to do what was planned for the next 18 months anyway, which isn't all of what we need to do, which isn't half of what we need to do to secure the border and have real workplace enforcement. But then we are going to trigger the amnesty. We are going to trigger the Z visa. That is not enough. We need to beef up those enforcement provisions.

The other way to fix going down the 1986 road again is to get rid of amnesty, to get rid of the Z visa. That is exactly what this amendment does.

Certainly many of my colleagues will protest wildly about calling this amnesty. If you look at the facts, there is no other conclusion to reach. If you look at history, there is no other conclusion.

For those lawyers in the Chamber, probably the best known legal reference book is Black's Law Dictionary. Open it. Turn to ``amnesty.'' It is very straightforward. Amnesty is ``a pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons.'' Black's Law Dictionary cites as its first example of what that means the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It points to that very act and says it ``provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the country.'' That is the example it cites in the very definition of the concept of amnesty.

I ask unanimous consent to print this definition with the example in the Record.

In that context, one obvious question is: How does that amnesty provision compare to what is in this 2007 bill?

I think if you go down the requirements of the 1986 law and the requirements of this bill before us, you will see they are disturbingly familiar.

In 1986, how do you gain temporary residence status? Continuous unlawful residence in the United States since before January 1, 1982. Fees: a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 fee for each child, a $420 family cap. You have to meet certain admissibility criteria: 18- month residency period, English language and civics requirement. Those are the basic requirements under that 1986 law.

Let's compare it to what is in this bill, which is very similar. The dollar amount fees are higher, more significant, but in terms of the nature of the requirements in this bill, they are disturbingly similar: physically present and employed in the United States since a certain date--January 1, 2007; $1,000 penalty and a $1,500 processing fee; meet admissibility criteria; background check; English language basic requirement, et cetera--the exact same type of requirements under the Z visa provisions of this bill, as well as the 1986 law, which ``Black's Law Dictionary'' itself labels amnesty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this simple side-by-side comparison of the 1986 law and this bill presently before the Senate.

So, again, let's not repeat the horrible mistakes of the past. Let's not repeat the fundamental mistake of 1986 that got us to the situation we are in today, that quadrupled, or more, the problem then faced in 1986. Let's not repeat it in either side of the ledger: by having inadequate enforcement--and I am afraid the enforcement provisions of this bill, the trigger requirements, et cetera, are inadequate--and let's not repeat it on the other side of the equation by granting amnesty and creating a magnet for more illegal activity into this country.

We cannot afford to do that. This amendment goes to the core of that fundamental problem and corrects it by taking out title VI, the Z visa amnesty provisions.

Mr. President, my amendment is very simple, it is very straightforward, and it is very important. It strikes title VI from the bill, which is the very controversial Z visa provision.

In my opinion, and the opinion of many people, many Americans, this is amnesty purely and simply, and that conclusion is important not because of a brand, not because of the word but because of what it means and what it will create.

It will create a magnet to increase illegal activity into the country, to encourage more of the same, more of the problem and not solve the problem. That is why we must remove this title from the bill.

The key question in this debate is will this bill fundamentally repeat the horrible mistakes of 1986 when we did amnesty but not nearly enough enforcement. I believe this bill, as it stands now, repeats that horrible mistake.

I, too, rise today to strongly oppose the motion to proceed that we will be voting on in a few hours and to strongly oppose this absolute rush to judgment on this bill, rush to pass legislation that will have a huge impact on our country for 25 to 50 years or more.

I start by thanking Senator Sessions for his hard work in defending the Senate procedure that is in place for a very good reason--to ensure the deliberative process, to ensure that important, weighty matters get careful consideration. That is what the American people deserve.

That is what is absolutely threatened by this rush to pass this legislation, starting with the motion to proceed that we will be voting on in a few hours.

The Senate is supposed to be the world's most deliberative body. Yet I and many other Senate offices have not had adequate time to look carefully at this so-called compromise proposal before this very important vote this afternoon. The first time the legislation was available to me or any other Senator was at 2 a.m. on Saturday. Yet right now, Monday, in a few hours, we are being asked to essentially start voting on it through the motion to proceed.

I am especially disappointed because I joined 16 fellow Senators urging the Senate leadership to provide 1-week prior notice before we are asked to cast votes on this massive immigration reform bill. Rather than 1 week, of course, we barely get a day of the work week. As I said, this bill was not available for anyone's consideration until 2 a.m. Saturday. Here we are on Monday about to start voting on this massive bill of 800 to 900 pages, at least. Maybe it will be near a thousand pages when it is put into proper bill form, which hasn't happened yet.

There has been no committee consideration, no committee markups and vetting, which is the normal course of action, which at least happened last year during Senate consideration of immigration reform. Senator Reid, the majority leader, is rushing and urging us to finish this week before the Memorial Day recess. Folks haven't had any chance to study the bill yet and we are going to rush to try to finish it this week and there is no estimate whatsoever of its cost, no CBO score.

In fact, the proponents of the bill haven't even requested, as I understand it, a CBO score to date. That should tell you something. I urge my fellow Senators to vote against this motion to rush to judgment, because that is what it is, and join the American public in urging the leadership to postpone any vote until it has had a proper chance to review carefully this massive proposal.

I am not against all immigration reform. I am against voting on a bill that only a few Senators participated in crafting and that all Senators have not had adequate time to study carefully.

Mr. President, an obvious question: Why are we in the midst of this rush to judgment, rush to pass this bill? I believe there is a very simple political answer, and it is that if the American people fully understood what was buried in this bill, there would be a massive outcry against it, and Senators--politicians at heart--would have to react to that outcry. I believe that is the simple, cold, hard political fact behind this rush to judgment and rush to pass this bill.

Of course, the biggest item that I would argue falls into that category is the Z visa section of this massive immigration reform proposal. It would grant amnesty--I truly believe there is no other appropriate word for it--to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to come into this country, who have broken more laws to stay in this country and, in many cases, get jobs. But this Z visa section of this proposal--better known as Z visa amnesty--would give all these millions and millions of illegal aliens the opportunity for pure, unadulterated amnesty. Make no mistake, this Z visa is amnesty, pure and simple. It rewards folks for breaking the law and lets them stay in this country without ever having to return to their homeland forever.

I have an amendment that will strike the entire text of title VI and remove the Z visa amnesty program from the bill. I hope at least we have time for consideration of that and other crucial amendments. I will certainly offer this amendment, and the American public absolutely wants to have all Senators vote on record on that amendment and other important amendments.

Again, we should not absolutely rush to judgment and rush to pass this bill, 800 to 900 pages or more. We don't know because it is not in proper bill form yet, with language only available to all Senators starting 2 a.m. on Saturday, and yet here we are Monday, the first day of the workweek, rushing to start voting on this bill.

What is more, there is no estimate of the cost of this measure, costs that will be with us for decades and decades to come, no estimate of the cost, and to date the proponents of the bill haven't even asked the Congressional Budget Office to start working on an estimate, which should give us some inkling of what that cost estimate might look like. Yet in the midst of this, the majority leader is pushing for final consideration of the bill this week, before we leave this week. Yet most of us have only begun to look at its exact language.

Surely our Founding Fathers did not intend for this to be the legislative process. Surely they did not intend for a very few to represent the many, even in the Senate. We have 100 Senators who have votes in this body. All of them, not just the proponents and crafters of the bill, all of them, all of us should have a reasonable opportunity to digest this massive bill.

The legislative process should afford elected officials and our citizens the opportunity to read, amend, and debate bills. Can we honestly say we have honored that principle by going forward with votes on this legislation starting today, with the leadership rushing to try to finish the entire process in the Senate by the end of the week?

I ask my fellow Senators, is this a precedent we really want to establish for future very important legislation, legislation such as this that will affect our country for decades and decades to come? Clearly, this is not the right precedent. Clearly, we should have time to read the bill before we start voting on it, and we don't here. Clearly, we should have time to hear from the American people about the very important elements in this bill, and we don't. Clearly, all of us should know the cost estimate of this bill. We should get a CBO score before we start voting on this bill. And we don't. We are not likely to have that score before the end of Senate consideration with the proponents not even having asked for a CBO score, to my knowledge, to date. Clearly, something is up with this rushed process.

Clearly, this process needs to go beyond this week, through the Memorial

Day recess, so we can have an adequate and full national debate; not just Senate debate but a national debate among all our citizens and then be allowed to come back, flesh out details, offer more amendments, having digested the entire bill.

On any vitally important matter, on any key bill numbering 1,000 pages or so, on any legislation that will affect our country for decades and pose costs in the trillions and trillions of dollars, that is the right course of action. One has to wonder in that context why the Senate leadership is pushing for exactly the opposite course of action.

Again, I urge all of my colleagues, however they are leaning on this bill, which they have only begun to read, to vote no on this motion to proceed to preserve the integrity of the Senate, the deliberative process, and to respect the American people enough to give them, as well as ourselves, the time to digest all important aspects of this massive bill.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I rise very briefly to turn away from the budget for just a few minutes and focus on a matter of extreme importance for Louisiana and, indeed, the country, and announce a very important and positive resolution to this matter to give us the right leadership we need in place at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in time for this upcoming hurricane season which is due to begin this June 1.

Today LTG Carl Strock is ending his tenure as the Chief of Engineers and Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He served the Army honorably for 36 years, and for the last 2 years of his career, I would say he has gone under intense work and pressure as he led the Corps through the extraordinary events of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and those recovery efforts.

I join everyone here, Republicans and Democrats, in thanking General Strock for his service and wishing him all the best in the next phase of his life.

This comes, as I mentioned, right as our next hurricane season is due to begin on June 1. As we go into that threat and into that battle, as it were, it is very important we have a new commander in place to lead us. The President nominated LTG Robert Van Antwerp to replace General Strock.

I came to this floor literally just a half an hour ago very concerned that his nomination was being held up by a Democratic hold, and that threatened that we would not have our new commander in place for this new hurricane season.

One does not go into battle without a leader, and that battle, as I said, is just a few weeks away.

It is important to acknowledge that nobody wanted to rush into this nomination. We all wanted to make sure this nominee, General Van Antwerp, is the right person for the job. Indeed, we have. I spent weeks looking very carefully at the nomination, as did my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu. We held hearings on this nomination in the committee of jurisdiction for the Corps, on which I serve, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Everyone over that period of time got comfortable and very supportive of this nomination. That is why it is very appropriate that we move forward and make sure this nominee, this leader, is in place before the start of the next hurricane season.

As I mentioned, I literally came to the floor a half an hour ago, and this was very much uncertain because there was a Democratic hold on the nomination. I am very relieved and very happy to say that in that short period of time, that has been cleared up. That hold on this particular nomination has been lifted, and the nomination of the new head of the Corps, GEN Robert Van Antwerp, will be cleared through the Senate later today.

This is very positive. I thank Majority Leader Reid for agreeing to this literally in the last hour in light of the crucial nature of this position and the impending start of this next hurricane season, June 1.

I, again, thank everyone for working toward this important goal. It is important that we have the right leader at the helm in time for the battle, in time for the start of the new hurricane season, June 1. Clearly, our work in overseeing the Corps, and our work in funding key work of the Corps in the gulf coast region continues. I will certainly redouble my efforts in that regard. But at least we have our general in place, our leader in place for the hurricane season, which is very appropriate and very necessary.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I ask the Chair to tell me when 3\1/2\ minutes elapses, and I will wrap up very quickly thereafter to use a maximum of 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this WRDA bill and in strong support of the managers' amendment which is now finalizing the Senate version of the bill.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were devastating events on Louisiana. Even before those devastating events, any WRDA bill would be enormously important to us because we live with water resources all around us because of our coast, which is a vibrant, working coast. But because of the hurricanes, this WRDA bill is even that much more vital in terms of our security and our future. Passing this WRDA bill through the Senate and hopefully soon on to the President's desk is an enormous step in our recovery.

I wish to thank everyone who has been so helpful in that step, starting with our chair, Senator Boxer, and our ranking member, Senator Inhofe. They have been enormously cooperative and enormously helpful. Also, Senators Isakson and Baucus, the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, have been very helpful. Our great staff have also been enormously helpful in this process.

Through this bill, we have been able to meet a number of urgent needs of Louisiana following the hurricanes. Corps reform is done the right way in this bill, particularly for Louisiana,

through language which I drafted for a Louisiana Water Resources Council. It will serve as the exclusive peer-review entity for all four projects in the Louisiana hurricane disaster area, and that is a very positive, proactive version of Corps reform for Louisiana projects in this bill.

The Louisiana coastal area project, our forward-looking coastal restoration program, is fully authorized in this bill. We lose a football field of land every 38 minutes in Louisiana, and in the horrible days after the two hurricanes, we lost 217 square miles of wetlands. Addressing that is authorized in this bill, and many other things, such as repairing our levees to a true 100-year level of flood protection, fixing the outfall canals in New Orleans, replacing the flawed I-walls with T-walls, preventing future flooding on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, the closure and restoration of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, and authorizing the very important Morganza to the Gulf Hurricane Protection Project. These are all enormously important. That was largely done in committee.

Here on the floor, I proposed a number of amendments. I worked with my colleague from Louisiana and others, and we adopted a number of other important amendments about MRGO to make sure it is closed once and for all; clarifying that 100-year standard; eliminating obstacles to the renovation of the Industrial Canal Lock; providing credit to Lafourche Parish for work on their hurricane protection projects; authorizing the first and second phase of coastal restoration; and creating a real integration team for Corps reform.

Last, but not least, we just agreed on a crucial amendment to have an expedited process to consider the next generation of projects to provide our area true category 5 protection. That is absolutely crucial. That has been a top priority of mine, and I just finalized that negotiation here off the Senate floor. So I am very excited, because it is hot off the press, to announce we will have that expedited process to make sure the next generation of protection gets expedited consideration by the Corps and by the Congress.

So thanks to all of the leaders who have been so helpful in this process.

With that, I yield the floor.

(for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Commitee on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 200

Whereas jockey Calvin Borel successfully won the 133rd

running of the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on May 5,

2007;

Whereas Calvin Borel rallied Street Sense from 19th place

to pass the pacesetting Hard Spun in the stretch and draw

away to a 2\1/4\-length victory;

Whereas the victory was Calvin Borel's first in the

Kentucky Derby;

Whereas Calvin Borel was born on November 7, 1966, in St.

Martinsville, Louisiana;

Whereas Calvin Borel hails from South Louisiana, the heart

of Cajun Country, famous for its production of many top

jockeys during the last 20 years; and

Whereas Calvin Borel's victory in the 133rd running of the

Kentucky Derby solidifies his place in a tradition of

Louisiana jockeys who have won the Kentucky Derby, such as

Eric Guerin (1947), Edward Delahoussaye (1982, 1983), Craig

Perret (1990), and Kent Desormeaux (1998, 2000): Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) commends Louisiana jockeys for their continued success

at one of America's most heralded thoroughbred horseracing

events, the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs;

(2) recognizes jockey Calvin Borel for winning the 133rd

running of the Kentucky Derby on May 5, 2007;

(3) recognizes the achievements of all the owners,

trainers, and support staff who were instrumental in helping

Calvin Borel and Street Sense to victory; and

(4) recognizes the achievements of all current and former

Louisiana jockeys in the Kentucky Derby.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Deacon Joseph T. Lazo for receiving the 2007 Connie M. Hulsey Community Volunteer award presented at the Angels Among Us banquet. I would like to take some time to talk about this great honor.

Deacon Joe Lazo is the director of the Covington Food Bank/St. Vincent de Paul Society. He has been known throughout the community as someone who works vigorously to provide many services day and night to those in need. In 2001, Deacon Joe and the St. Vincent de Paul Society worked tirelessly to set up a free medical and dental clinic in the Covington area. Through all of these programs, Deacon Joe Lazo has tremendously helped the needy citizens of the Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa, and Washington Parishes.

I applaud Deacon Joseph Lazo on receiving this well-deserved recognition, and I wish him continued success in helping the citizens of the Northshore.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I may call up amendment No. 983.

Madam President, I renew my unanimous consent request that any pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 983 be called up.

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

Madam President, first, in terms of laying the groundwork for this amendment, let me speak very briefly about the broader reimportation debate. I commend my colleagues who have brought this issue to the floor, and I certainly join them in pushing strongly for reimportation language in this bill. I have worked with many Members of this body, Republican and Democrat, on this issue since I was elected, including the primary authors of the reimportation amendment that we will be voting on later under this bill. I certainly want to join many voices, again, on both sides of the aisle, in terms of the need for this sort of important legislation that helps stabilize and bring down the price of prescription drugs.

My amendment, No. 983, to which I will now turn, is very directly related to that. It is not a reimportation amendment per se, but it goes directly to one of the primary issues that opponents of reimportation regularly bring up, which is safety. My amendment, No. 983, is about tamper-resistent technology--packaging technology--which can go a long way in meeting all of those safety concerns. I think there are many legitimate ways we can meet them, but this is a very effective and a very economical way to help meet any of those concerns.

This amendment, No. 983, would require the incorporation of counterfeit resistent technologies into the packaging of prescription drugs. Not just reimported prescription drugs, but all prescription drugs because counterfeit prescription drugs is an issue not simply with regard to reimportation. Specifically, wholesale prescription drugs would contain RFID radio-tagging technology, tamper-resistent packaging, and blister security packaging, when possible.

This is language directly from my legislation of the last Congress, the Reducing Fraudulent and Imitation Drugs Act. Of course, the purpose of that bill and this amendment is to address that safety concern, which comes up in a number of contexts, but certainly including reimportation. By ensuring that prescription drugs are authentic, this amendment would ensure the drug supply within the United States, as well as prescriptions reimported from Canada and other industrialized nations, are indeed safe.

Again, the amendment would require that such technologies be used exclusively to authenticate the pedigree of prescription drugs. It would actually prohibit such technologies from containing or transmitting any identifying information of a health care practitioner or consumer or any advertisement or information about indications or off-label uses. So it is specifically for authentication. This is what you are getting. It cannot be used for any other purpose that might bring up privacy or other concerns.

It would also require prescription drug shipments to include a label on the shipper container that incorporates similar packaging technologies.

Finally, the amendment would require the Secretary to publish a national specified list of susceptible prescription drugs consisting of not less than 30 of the most frequently counterfeited prescription drugs in the United States. This would provide significant assistance to efforts by U.S. law enforcement and the FDA to deal with this issue.

I hope all of us can join together around this very promising new technology that can help meet any legitimate safety concerns out there. Much more broadly speaking, of course, I certainly hope we come together to pass broad-based reimportation language in this bill, which I have supported well before coming to the Senate and, being in the Senate, certainly support in this context.

Certainly I yield.

I honestly do not know if I am technically a cosponsor. I am certainly supporting it. I supported our common efforts for several years. Many of the elements of my separate bill have been incorporated into the Dorgan-Snowe language, going back to last year. So we are certainly all working in concert.

I again recognize and thank the Senator from Florida for our common work on the amendment last year, which he referenced.

I agree with the Senator, absolutely. We should have taken care of this a long time ago. But we are where we are, and I certainly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this in a full and comprehensive way.

I thank the Senator from Florida. I certainly have similar beliefs.

I urge adoption of this amendment I presented and certainly urge my colleagues to also support the broader reimportation language, as will

Mr. President, I rise to encourage all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to support the Cochran amendment as a responsible action. The situation in Iraq is deeply controversial and divisive. As we debate it, everyone here and in the country say they are clearly for supporting our troops in the field and giving them what they need once they are put there to do their mission. That is why just a week or two ago huge numbers of Members of the Senate supported the Gregg resolution, 82 Senators saying clearly: We are going to support the men and women in uniform in the field; likewise, they supported in huge numbers the Murray resolution, 96 Senators, to support the men and women in uniform in the field.

I am afraid the path some are urging us to go down today belies that statement, contradicts that statement, and does not support those men and women in uniform in the field.

We all know the consequences of the Reid language. That language insists that the President pull our troops out of Iraq on a date certain with no regard at all for the conditions on the ground or the progress being made by our troops or the Iraqi Government. It micromanages the war, taking what is in the purview of the Commander in Chief and bringing it to Congress. The Reid language will absolutely draw a veto from the President. What would that do? It would delay for a significant amount of time getting aid, money, help, and equipment to our troops in the field.

We should not go down this path. This language will earn a veto from the President. Indeed, it would earn a veto from any President because it micromanages his responsibilities as Commander in Chief, and that will delay getting resources to folks in the field.

Our military leadership has said in no uncertain terms that they must get this supplemental funding to support the troops in the field by mid-April. This language will push all of that well beyond that deadline, will delay it by 5, 6 weeks or more, and endanger our troops in the field by not getting them the resources and equipment they need. That is not right. That is exactly contrary to what almost all Members of this body have spoken for: supporting our troops in the field.

This supplemental appropriations bill also has important help for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the gulf coast, emergency measures that are supported by the President and the Congress but have not yet been fully funded. Just as we are playing politics potentially with our troops in the field with this veto scenario, we would be playing politics with this language, drawing a veto from the President, with the victims of the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. That is not right. It is politics over people. Worse than that, it is politics over our people in uniform. It is politics over our people who suffered the worst natural disaster in history. We should not go down this path. We should not be so cynical and callous. We should put our people in uniform first and get them the funds and support they need in the field as we promise to do speech after speech after speech.

Words are cheap. Actions, votes lead to consequences. That is what this debate and what these votes are all about--supporting our troops in the field, supporting the victims of the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce very important bipartisan legislation S. 953, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will improve America's railroad system by ensuring increased rail competition and enabling rail customers to obtain more reliable service. Today, I introduce S. 953, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007 along with my colleagues Senators Rockefeller, Craig, Dorgan, Klobuchar, Tester, Landrieu, Crapo, Baucus and Cantwell.

The lack of healthy competition in our national rail system is stifling rail customers from our petrochemical manufacturers to utility providers to agriculture and forest product providers. The extreme prices these rail customers are charged and the service challenges they face have a direct impact on jobs and prices for consumers. We must reform our railroad system to foster more competition and provide relief to consumers.

The Surface Transportation Board, which is supposed to oversee rail pricing and practices, has not proactively addressed rail problems, and government accountability reports have noted a lack of competition in the railroad industry. The Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act will direct STB to do its job and foster a free marketplace for our rail system by addressing the inadequacies in the rate reasonableness process of the STB and directing the STB to actively investigate and suspend unreasonable practices.

I would like to share with you a bottlenecking example of how the lack of railroad competition impacts rail customers in Louisiana. The city of Lafayette's electricity customers have faced $6 million or more annually in rate increases because of the lack of railroad competition. The Rodemacher Plant that provides electricity to the Lafayette Utilities System gets its coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. This coal is transported by rail for more than 1,500 miles. Currently, two railroads travel from the Basin to Alexandria, LA. However, the last 19 miles of travel distance to the Rodemacher Plant only has one major railroad provider. Present law allows the current rail provider's control of the last 19 miles to push its pricing monopoly all the way back to the Powder River Basin, which in essence, turns a 19 mile monopoly into a 1,500-mile monopoly.

This monopoly forces the Lafayette ratepayers to pay much higher rates than if the Rodemacher Plant had access to both railroads that serve the Powder River Basin. When enacted, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act would address bottlenecking issues like this and the lack of competition saving the Lafayette ratepayers money.

I look forward to the consideration of S. 953, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, on which I serve, and the full Senate.

Madam President, I, too, rise to talk about this very important matter we are debating and voting on today, the situation in Iraq.

First, I want to say hallelujah, we are finally having a full, open debate and a range of votes. That is exactly what I have been pushing for, pleading for, asking for, along with so many of my colleagues on the Republican side. I am very glad finally we do have a full and fair and open debate, with the ability to cast votes on measures we deem very important, and specifically the Gregg resolution about supporting our troops in the field.

Secondly, I want to express real reservations about the Reid resolution, which we will also be voting on today.

The situation in Iraq is very tough. We need to make a final push, and certainly the biggest part of that push does need to be strong action by the Iraqi Government. We need benchmarks and pressure on the Iraqis to do the right thing. I specifically talked

about that. But the Reid resolution does some things I believe we absolutely must not do. Specifically, it sets very precise and complicated and cumbersome dates certain. I believe that is much more useful as a message to the enemy and a help to the enemy than a roadmap for us.

In addition, I think the Reid resolution clearly micromanages the war. It clearly oversteps our bounds as a legislative body by taking on the responsibilities and the management and the function of the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, for that reason, I think that aspect of the Reid resolution is, No. 1, a bad idea, but, No. 2, very possibly unconstitutional.

I will be voting against that Reid resolution. But again, I thank everyone who finally, after weeks and weeks of talk--finally--gave us the opportunity for these votes and for a vote on the Gregg resolution and other important matters.

The third and final point I want to make goes to the path, unfortunately, I think we are headed down with some of this language. I think this is very unfortunate, and I think this path and where it is headed, in my opinion, is something we must all work to avoid. Let me explain what I mean.

Senator Reid has made it perfectly clear he will put forward his resolution today with all of those complicated dates and timetables and what-ifs and benchmarks. Again, I have problems with that; I will vote no. But Senator Reid has also made clear he will also put forward the exact same substance in the context of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund our men and women in uniform in the field in Iraq.

Now, why is that a problem? Well, it is a problem for the following reasons: that emergency supplemental bill is needed, as I just said, to fund the men and women in uniform in the field right now, under fire, risking their lives in Iraq.

We have all said over and over and over that no matter how we feel about the war, no matter what we put forward as the proper policy on the war effort, we would give our men and women in uniform in the field what they need to do their job and defend themselves. The problem is this Reid language, particularly the threat to put it on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, threatens to cut that funding off because that language, if it gets on the bill, will, first of all, delay debate and implementation of the bill, and secondly, if it is in the final version of that spending bill, it will absolutely-- absolutely--produce a veto by the President of the United States. He cannot agree to that language because of his position on the proper path forward, and no President can agree to that language because of the constitutional power of the President as the Commander in Chief. That will further delay this emergency spending bill and further delay getting necessary funds and equipment to troops in the field.

The military has said very clearly we need to act by April 15 so those funds and that equipment can get to the field starting in early May. Our troops are counting on it. They are waiting for it. These are men and women in uniform, in the field, under fire right now. But, again, this strategy and this language of Senator Reid will make it very likely that won't happen and will make it very likely this whole matter and this whole spending to get to our troops in the field will be significantly delayed. That is not funding men and women in uniform. That is not supporting our troops in the field. What that is doing is refraining from supporting them, slowly bleeding away the resources, the equipment, and the money they need to do their job.

It is one thing to say: New troops, you are not going anywhere. You stay right here. We are having this debate. But it is quite another to slowly bleed and endanger troops in the field. Yet this is the path that I am very afraid we are embarking on with the Reid language, particularly if it is put on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

In closing, let me say, we have all said on this floor, virtually to a person in the U.S. Senate, that no matter what we think about the war, no matter what we think about the right path forward in the war, we will not endanger our troops in the field. We better think long and hard about the path some would adopt because they are beginning to do just that. We can't have that. We need to give our brave, smart, courageous men and women in the field already the money, the equipment, the resources they need to do their job. They are literally under fire there. We cannot bleed away what they need in the field, quickly, slowly, or anything inbetween.

Again, I am very concerned that is the path Senator Reid and some others would put us on.

So, thankfully, we are having this full and open debate today. We will be having votes today. I believe the most important vote is on the Gregg resolution. I will proudly vote for that in support of our men and women in uniform in the field, and I will do everything I can to avoid slowly, quickly, or anything inbetween bleeding resources, money, and equipment away from what those brave men and women whom we have already put in the field need to defend themselves and to conduct their mission.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jake Bowers, Emily Ponti, and Krisha Sherburne of St. Thomas More School in Baton Rouge, LA. They are the winners of the 2007 National Engineers Future City Competition, and I would like to take a moment to recognize these talented students in their tireless effort.

Starting in September, 30,000 entrants from 1,000 schools began across the country working on their future cities for the National Engineers Future City Competition under the guidance of professional engineers in their local communities. In January the entrants were narrowed down to 105 students from 35 schools to go to the nationals in Washington, DC. St. Thomas More School was one of these talented groups to be chosen.

This hard-working group presented their future city of Mwinda in the Congo Republic with the guidance of their teacher Mrs. Shirley Newman, their engineer mentor Mr. Guy Macarios, and the help of Mr. Eric Ponti. The future city design featured renewable energy resources to power the city and hydrogen-powered hover cars and buses to transport citizens around the city. St. Thomas More has made it to the nationals in this competition for the fourth time and is their second national win.

I applaud the students from St. Thomas More School for this great honor and wish them continued success in their academic career.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the bicentennial of St. Martin Parish. As one of the original 19 parishes created from the Territory of Orleans, St. Martin will celebrate its 200th anniversary in 2007.

St. Martin Parish was initially established in 1756 by the French Government as the ``Postes des Attakapas.'' It was originally the site of an Indian trading post and was later turned into a Spanish military- administrative center. In 1807, when the Territory of Orleans was divided into the original 19 parishes, St. Martin Parish was the last to be created. The parish at that time included the present parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary, Lafayette, Vermillion, and Iberia.

The structure of St. Martin Parish has remained virtually unchanged since 1868. It is divided by an arm of Iberia Parish into the upper and lower portions of the parish. The upper portion consists of the communities of St. Martinville, Breaux Bridge, Parks, Henderson, and a portion of Arnaudville. The lower portion borders the East Atchafalaya Basin Levee and consists of the unincorporated areas of Stephensville and Belle River.

A population rich in diversity and cultural theory calls St. Martin Parish home. In the late 1700s, 3,000 French Canadians fled British persecution, finding refuge in south Louisiana. The birth of Acadiana can be attributed to the settling of 200 of these refugees in present day St. Martinville in 1765. There, the Acadians were introduced to enslaved Africans tending cattle for French landowners.

Refugees fleeing the French Revolution as well as Spanish-speaking Malagans also arrived in the settlement. Creole families from New Orleans and Mobile along with Anglo-Americans soon followed. German wheat farmers trying to find a place in the rice industry, along with Italian merchants and Irish workers building the railroads began to call St. Martin Parish home in the 1880s. These founding cultures, French, Acadian, African, Italian, and Spanish, have maintained their cultural identities while simultaneously blending together to form one culture that is uniquely St. Martin Parish.

St. Martin Parish encompasses the copious and picturesque regions that extend from the Bayou Teche to the Atchafalaya Basin. An agriculturally prosperous area, St. Martin Parish is comprised of sugar cane fields, low-lying swamps, and majestic waterways. Regal oak trees draped with moss frame passageways throughout the parish. With its distinctive cultures and striking scenery, St. Martin Parish has come to embody the definition of the Louisiana way of life.

Today, I would like to applaud the good people of St. Martin Parish on the bicentennial and wish them continued prosperity.

Madam President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I have used 6 minutes.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, clearly, without doubt, without question, the war in Iraq is the leading concern of the American people, as well it should be. It is a very difficult situation, and a situation that will define our future and our security for years to come. Because it is the dominant, the leading concern of the American people, without any close second, I think it is imperative we have a debate and votes on this crucial question.

I would urge the majority leader to come back to the floor and engage in this debate and move forward with this discussion and accept the very reasonable compromise of the minority leader in narrowing down all of the universe of ideas and resolutions to simply two.

I will freely admit that is not my first preference in terms of this debate. I had always heard before coming here 2 years ago that the Senate was about open debate, unlimited debate, the ability to get your ideas and your amendments and your resolutions to the floor with very few limits. So I thought, particularly in the context of this very serious situation in Iraq, we needed an open debate, we needed more ideas, not fewer, we needed every significant vote that should be taken.

So that was my preference: unlimited debate. But the majority leader rejected that, only would allow very limited votes, very limited debate. At the end of the day--again, it was not my first choice, but at the end of the day, the minority leader said: OK, you want two votes--only two votes--OK. Let's focus on two proposals. Let's have just two votes. But our choice for our one proposal will be the Gregg amendment because we feel so strongly about supporting our troops in the field. And then the majority leader said no, I can't accept that. I need to choose your proposal. I need to choose what you want to put up for a vote.

That is not the tradition of the Senate. And, more importantly, that is not treating this very serious issue, the dominant concern among all Americans, bar none, properly. We need to debate this issue now. We need to vote on this issue now. Again, I urge the majority leader to come back to the floor and engage in this debate this week--now-- because the country is concerned now about Iraq. The country has questions, understandably, now about the President's plan. And our troops in the field have questions and uncertainty now about whether we will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them no matter what policy is adopted.

Again, I think the minority leader's proposal yesterday bent over backwards--compromise and compromise and compromise--to reach an ability to have this debate we must have on the floor of the Senate. We wanted far more than two proposals debated. We wanted far more than two votes. But we accepted the majority leader's number. We accepted the majority leader's parameters of just two proposals, just two votes. But surely the minority gets to choose one of those two proposals to discuss, particularly given that this Gregg proposal has broad bipartisan support.

So let's have this Iraq debate that we must have. Let's have key votes that we must have. And let's do it now. I urge the majority leader, again, not to give up, not to reject this very reasonable compromise, bending over backwards by the minority leader to agree to his number of two. Let's take that up. Let's have this debate. Let's have crucial votes. The American people deserve that, given the very tough situation in Iraq. And our men and women in uniform sure as heck deserve that. They sure as heck deserve to hear from us: OK, we know some of you are for the President's surge plan; we know some of you are against it. But what about supporting whatever troops are put in the field? They sure as heck deserve an answer to that question. And they certainly deserve that reassurance.

Let's have that fair debate, and let's have it now.

Madam President, I yield the floor.