Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3964.

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

Mr. President, yesterday on the Senate floor I briefly began to explain the purpose of this amendment. As was clear from yesterday's debate, I have grave and serious hesitations with many parts of this bill. One of those hesitations is about the huge loopholes and encouragements for fraud that exist in the bill in many different sections.

We are very good on the Senate floor in debating, tossing around ideas, general concepts, broad principles, but I fear we are often very bad at really looking at the details of a proposal and walking through how it is going to work in the real world and in practice or, perhaps it is more appropriate to say, how it is not going to work. Again, this bill is a glaring example of that.

Amendment No. 3964 does not correct all of those deficiencies. It does not close all of the loopholes to which I generally refer. It does not end all of that invitation to fraud. But it does do it in two significant respects which may be among the most significant examples of that in the bill. Let me explain what those are.

Both of the issues my amendment addresses come under section 601. The first has to do with how an illegal immigrant proves that he has been in the country for over 5 years. Why is this important? The underlying bill deals with illegal immigrants in the country now by putting them in one of three categories: if you have been in the country over 5 years, if you have been in the country between 2 and 5 years, and if you have been in the country less than 2 years. The consequence of being put in one of these categories versus the others is significant; you are treated differently. Over 5 years is the best category to be in from the viewpoint of the illegal immigrant by far because that is the most guaranteed and automatic and clear path to citizenship. Between 2 and 5 years is the next best scenario. That also has a path to citizenship. Less than 2 years is by far the least attractive category. That is all fine and good, to make these distinctions and to have different consequences for people who fall into these different categories. Maybe that makes sense. But it is important to understand what proof an illegal immigrant needs to offer to be put in one category versus another.

One might assume--and certainly the American public watching the debate might assume--with the significance of these three categories, how they color the entire picture of the pathway for that illegal immigrant--clear, objective documentary evidence is going to be required to go into the best category versus the second best versus the worst. That would be a pretty good assumption because these categories are important and lead to different consequences.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. In the underlying bill, the illegal immigrant can present all sorts of things to be put in the best category. And one of the things he can present, if he says he doesn't have any of the others, is a simple statement that he himself signs.

So at the end of the day, we are making all of these very important distinctions between has the person been in the country over 5 years or between 2 and 5 years or under 2 years, but when it comes down to the actual workings of how this will operate in the real world, all that person has to do is write out a fairly simple statement--``I have been here for over 5 years''--sign his name to it, and under the details of the bill that is good enough. To me, that makes a mockery of the entire system that is being proposed. That makes an open invitation for fraud. Why would a person who is in an admittedly difficult and strenuous, stressful, even desperate situation, why would a person put himself in category B or category C when all he has to do is sign a piece of paper to get in the best category, the clearest route to citizenship, category A? It makes no sense. Of course, a lot of folks in that desperate situation will do exactly that. This is a loophole, an invitation to fraud which we need to close.

Under a similar provision of the bill, also in section 601, there is a similar glaring loophole and open invitation to fraud in terms of the type of evidence that a person may present to get in the second category, being in the country between 2 and 5 years. I don't know why this is so much an issue because if I were the person, I would immediately rush to the best category, sign a simple piece of paper, and have the clearest route to citizenship. But still, in the evidence accepted in category B, between 2 and 5 years, a person can supply a simple statement, a piece of paper signed by a nonrelative third party. Again, the requirements for that are so loose, it is a glaring loophole and an open invitation to fraud.

If this system is to have any meaning, if these distinctions in terms of

how long a person has been in the country are to have any significance, if this plan is to have any hope of working in practice, rather than just being something pretty to talk about on the floor of the Senate, we need to close these loopholes. We need to end these outright invitations for fraud. That is what my amendment would do in important respects.

To summarize, my amendment would do five specific things that would close these loopholes, shut down these very wide open invitations to fraud.

No. 1, it would strike the language allowing an alien to prove employment history by providing a self-signed, sworn declaration; in other words, nothing more than a piece of paper that he himself signs.

No. 2, it would require that sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work--and that is a phrase in the underlying bill--can be corroborated by the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security and should include contact information of the affiant, the name, the address, the phone number, the nature and duration of the relationship, so that the Department has some hope, some ability of looking into this declaration, cross-examining the affiant to determine if this is trustworthy and if this declaration is truthful.

No. 3, the amendment would make the types of ``other documents'' provided to prove work history the same for those illegal aliens who have been living in the United States over 5 years and for between 2 and 5 years. So there would be uniformity, and we would be talking about objective documentary evidence.

No. 4, the amendment would strike the provision stating that Congress believes the Department of Homeland Security should ``recognize and take into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment'' because of their illegal status. That quote is in the underlying bill, that the Department must ``recognize and take into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment.'' In other words, the bill itself is telling the Department: Let it slide. Anything that is stated, you virtually have to accept. That is ridiculous, and we would remove that directive from the bill.

And No. 5, the amendment would clarify that the alien has the burden of proving his or her employment history by ``a preponderance of the evidence.'' It is very reasonable, and, in fact, there is no other workable way to do it, to put the burden of proof on the illegal alien to prove the amount of time he has been in the country. Any lesser burden of proof, any other way of going about it will be a glaring loophole and an open invitation for fraud.

Let me underscore the general thrust of my amendment. It goes to some of my broad concerns about the bill. We are very good, all of us, both parties in the Senate, in making arguments, talking about broad values, outlining generalities, and talking about how a new system of laws should work. In my opinion, we are very bad, almost always, at actually designing a concrete system and paying attention in excruciating detail to the words we pass into law to make sure that system can actually work in the real world and not simply be unworkable beyond being able to be administered full of glaring loopholes, full of invitations to fraud. I believe this bill, unfortunately, is an example of that. I believe in many aspects, including many that are not covered by our amendment, this is going to prove very unworkable in the real world and be wide open with loopholes you can drive a truck through, with open invitations for fraud. My amendment simply highlights perhaps the two most obvious or egregious examples of that and tries to close those loopholes, close down those open invitations for fraud.

With that, I am happy to hear from Members who would like to debate the amendment pro or con.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I don't have that in front of me. If you could read me the lines.

The Senator is correct.

The Senator is correct on all of that.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Massachusetts for their encouraging and supportive words. Obviously, I welcome that. Obviously, I welcome this amendment being adopted.

Without taking away anything from that statement, I simply add that, unfortunately, while these are very important cases we have identified in the bill that highlight these problems, these are not the only cases. Unfortunately, I think they are an example of the general nature in which many aspects of the bill were drafted.

In a spirit of working toward the end all of us have said we fully support, I encourage all of the Members intimately involved in continuing to draft the bill, including if a bill should go to conference--and I will certainly include the Senators from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts--to continue to identify those problem areas in the bill language. I hope this amendment will be adopted and we will have addressed two of them. I will continue identifying more. I am encouraged by the comments that they will join us in that endeavor as this work product moves on.

With that, I am prepared to yield back my time if we can proceed to voice vote.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment. First, let me congratulate my colleague from Alabama for putting together this very essential amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I want to strongly support it.

I also want to suggest that based on the discussion we just heard involving the chairman of the Budget Committee and the Senator from Massachusetts, everyone in this Chamber, based on their statements, should support this amendment. Based on what the Senator from Massachusetts just said, he should embrace this amendment because, if you look at the details of what this amendment does, it is perfectly consistent with those statements, and it is perfectly consistent with what the President said on Monday night. It is utterly consistent with what Secretary Chertoff says he wants and needs as a crucial element of border security. It is not the only element, not the only silver bullet, there is no magic wand, but it is a crucial element of border security.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill does not provide enough authorization and demand for fencing in this regard. The underlying bill, particularly section 106, only calls for a very limited and modest repair and construction of fencing along very limited parts of the southern border of Arizona. That is basically fencing that largely already exists in the Tucson and Yuma sections of Arizona.

What this amendment would do would be to expand that provision in a very reasonable and cost-effective way. What this amendment would say is that the Secretary of Homeland Security would construct at least 270 miles of triple-layered fence, including the miles of fence already built in San Diego, Tucson, and Yuma, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations.

Again, I underscore that this is not building a wall or a fence across the entire Mexican border. This is not the cost cited by the Senator from Massachusetts. This is something far more focused, that will be a great force multiplier as we put more agents at the border, and that is an absolutely critical part of truly defending the border.

As the chairman of the Budget Committee said, in highly urban areas there is simply no way around the need for a fence. To avoid a fence in highly populated areas would literally require a border agent every few feet to monitor the border because you are talking about a border running through the middle, essentially, of an urban neighborhood. That is an impossible enforcement situation without some sort of physical barrier. These 370 miles would go into those highly populated areas.

I underscore that this is exactly consistent with what virtually everybody has been talking about. Monday night the President talked about border security. He wasn't quite as strong on border security as I would have liked. He wasn't quite as focused on border security, first, before we move on to other elements of this bill, as I would have liked, but he explicitly mentioned the need for significant fencing for those highly populated areas. This amendment simply does that.

The President's own Secretary, Mike Chertoff, has met with Members of this body, and he specifically talked about exactly the same need and specifically talked about 370 miles. That is where this number in this amendment comes from. This number didn't come from out of the blue. It wasn't just a wild guess. It wasn't just a pretty number. It came from discussions with Secretary Chertoff.

The chairman of the Budget Committee, when asked by the Senator from Massachusetts would he support fencing, said we absolutely need it as a piece of our enforcement puzzle for highly populated areas--for urban neighborhoods.

That is exactly what this amendment addresses. Again, the 370 miles is exactly focused on that type of need--highly populated areas where to patrol the border without any physical structure would literally require a border agent every several feet, which is completely impractical and cost prohibitive.

I think this is an absolutely essential amendment to the bill. Really, this is the sort of amendment that will test how serious folks really are about enforcement.

This whole immigration debate is pretty interesting. We have wildly divergent views and strong passions on the issue from one end of the spectrum to the other. Yet if you listen to speakers on this floor, no one is in favor of amnesty and everyone is in favor of border security. Of course, it depends on how you define ``amnesty'' and how you define ``border security.''

In terms of border security, this amendment is a simple test on whether you are really serious in what you say. This is a gut check that the American people can understand very simply. If border security means anything, it surely means, among many other items, this 370-mile fence. If a Member of the Senate votes against this really quite narrowly tailored, limited in some ways, modest amendment, I think the American people will get it. They will surely know that Member isn't serious in any way about border security.

In closing, let me thank the Senator from Alabama again for this very necessary amendment. If border security is to mean anything, if it is to possibly work--and I have serious reservations about whether the plan in this underlying bill will be allowed to work, will be enforced, if the appropriations will happen to make it work, but if it is to have a chance to work, surely it has to include this modest 370-mile fence, the sort of fencing President Bush specifically talked about and the number of miles his Secretary of Homeland Security specifically mentioned in meetings with Members of this body.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3963.

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

Madam President, I bring before the Senate an important amendment, I believe, which goes to the heart of so many American concerns about the bill before us.

I must say, in the beginning discussion of this amendment, that I have grave concerns about this bill. I think it is a mistake in many aspects. I think it ignores history and ignores very specific, concrete experience. Not too long ago, in 1986, Congress passed similar measures, albeit on a much smaller scale, which ultimately and clearly failed to solve the immigration problem.

I am very fearful that we are repeating history, only on a much broader, much bigger, much more dangerous scale. My amendment goes to the heart of those concerns, goes to the heart of the matter, goes to the absolute heart of what so many Americans find most objectionable about the bill on the floor. That is what I would characterize what tens of millions of Americans characterize as amnesty provisions in this bill.

In introducing this amendment, let me thank the many coauthors I have who are in strong support of it: Senators Grassley, Chambliss, and Santorum. Also, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be added to this list of original cosponsors.

All of us join together with tens of millions of Americans to simply say we cannot have amnesty provisions in this bill. We cannot have anything approaching amnesty in this measure. So my amendment would very clearly, very simply, withdraw those provisions from the bill.

Madam President, as I noted while speaking on another amendment about an hour ago, this is an interesting debate. The country, including the Senate, is widely divided on the question in many respects. Passions run deep from one end of the argument to the other. Yet to listen to the debate, particularly on the Senate floor in the midst of a fundamental disagreement, it is interesting that nobody says they are for amnesty, and everybody says they are for enforcement.

But, of course, the devil is in the details. Of course, it depends on what you mean by amnesty, what you mean by enforcement. And what I mean by amnesty certainly covers many provisions of the underlying bill, which my amendment would strike. More importantly, what tens of millions of Americans know through common sense, basic reasoning is amnesty is included in this underlying bill and we must take it out.

Maybe we can begin the discussion with what is amnesty. Well, the President, in his speech 2 nights ago, said that he is not for amnesty and ``they''--meaning illegal aliens--``should not be given an automatic path to citizenship.'' What is an automatic path to citizenship? The President himself, again, 2 nights ago, pointed to this distinction: ``that middle ground''--the one he is advocating-- ``recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.''

So what the President points to, in terms of why the provisions in this bill are not amnesty, is that distinction between folks who crossed the border illegally very recently and those who have been here for some time. I think it is very important, if we think about that distinction, to look at the details of the bill.

I encourage my colleagues to actually read this bill. The devil is in the details. If that were ever true, it is true in terms of this legislation. It is important to read the bill and understand the details. Yes, this bill does make a distinction between those who have been in the country 5 years or longer and those who have been in the country less than 5 years, and some other distinctions, 2 years and between 2 and 5 years. But again, the devil is in the details.

How does an illegal immigrant prove that he has been in the country over 5 years? You would assume the proof required is specific documentation which has been verified by the Government or other authentication sources. Those documents are certainly accepted, but they are not required, because if an illegal immigrant doesn't have those sources of documents--objective evidence--he or she can do something else. He or she can get a piece of paper, declare that he or she has been in the country over 5 years, sign his or her name to it, and that is it. That is all that is required.

Well, if the President's argument that this is not amnesty in large part hinges on this big distinction that we are not giving a path to citizenship for those who have been in the country a shorter period of time, should it not matter what documentary evidence is required? Doesn't it make a farce of the whole distinction if that immigrant can simply sign a piece of paper declaring otherwise? That obliterates the entire distinction. That means, in fact, that we are making available this fairly automatic path to citizenship to virtually everyone in the country illegally.

The President also points to four requirements: This is not amnesty because there is a penalty the immigrant has to pay because they have to pay their taxes, because they have to learn English, and because they have to be in a job for a number of years.

Again, I say to my fellow Senators and everyone watching this debate, the devil is in the details. Let's look at this bill. Let's look at what it requires.

No. 1, a penalty. It is true, the underlying bill means a person has to pay $2,000--$2,000--which is less, in some cases far less, than many legal immigrants pay to go through the legal process. Is it a penalty when the amount of money required is the same or, in many cases, less than a person who is following all the rules, doing everything we ask of them, following the law, living by the law, becoming a legal immigrant and a full citizen through the legal process?

No. 2, pay all their taxes. Well, not all their taxes. A person doesn't have to pay all of their back taxes. They have to pay a certain number of years; they do not have to go back for the entire length of time that person was in the country. Again, they are being treated better than the folks who have lived by the rules from the word go than the folks who are citizens through the legal immigration process who have had to pay taxes every step of the

way. Those folks who live by the rules have to pay all their taxes. These folks do not have to pay all their back taxes by any stretch of the imagination. The devil is in the details.

No. 3, learn English. Well, not necessarily learn English. The actual requirement can be met simply by being enrolled in an approved English language and history program. Again, the requirement can be met simply by being enrolled in a program with no test at the end of the program about proficiency or anything else.

And No. 4, work in a job for a number of years. Well, not the full period for a number of years, only 60 percent of the time for a handful of years.

Again, the devil is in the details, and I suggest that when the American people look at those details and ask themselves, is this amnesty, is this a fairly automatic path to citizenship, the answer will clearly be yes.

What does this sort of amnesty program do? We can debate about that, we can bring up hypotheticals, we can say I think it is going to do this, may do that, but the sure answer is to study history--and not ancient history, but recent history, going back only to 1986 because the last time Congress acted on this matter in a major way, it put together a package strikingly similar to this general package before us, which included an amnesty provision for agricultural workers.

One of the most interesting exercises I performed in thinking about this issue, in getting ready for this floor debate, was to go back to that time period, the mid-1980s, and read some of the arguments made in this Chamber, including the arguments of the folks who were for that immigration reform proposal of 1986.

The arguments they made are strikingly similar to the arguments being made by the proponents today: We need to do something comprehensive; it can't be enforcement only; we need to do this provision for earned citizenship, once, this one time, and then the problem will be solved forever because we will have border security and will have dealt with illegal immigrants then in our country.

What is the bottom line on that experiment doing exactly what we are debating doing again? The bottom line is not very hopeful in terms of solving the problem once and for all. The bottom line is back then the flow of illegal aliens was 140,000 per year, and now the flow is 700,000 per year. So it didn't exactly stop the problem.

The bottom line is back then the number of illegal aliens in the country was perhaps about 3 million, and today, by conservative estimates, it is 12 million. It didn't exactly solve the problem.

I will be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, Madam President.

Madam President, there have been significant studies since 1986 that have looked specifically at the impact of what Congress did then. What do these studies show?

A 2000 report by the Center for Immigration Studies states:

INS estimates show that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly

increased illegal immigration, as the relatives of newly

legalized illegals came to the United States to join their

family members.

Again, these are INS statistics, not some think tank on the conservative side. These INS statistics show that even though 2.7 million illegal aliens were granted lawful citizenship through the amnesty program--and by the way, that was far more than anticipated-- within 10 years, a new illegal alien population had replaced all of those and had grown to 5 million. That growth only continued.

Again, that growth today has gone from 140,000 illegal aliens streaming across the border per year back in 1986 to 700,000 per year today. That growth has been 3 million illegal aliens in the country going back to 1986 to at least 12 million today.

There was another study in 1992, 6 years after the agricultural amnesty program was passed. The Commission on Agricultural Workers issued a report to Congress--so a specific report to Congress that studied the effects, again, of the 1986 agricultural amnesty program. First, the Commission found that the number of workers amnestied under the bill had been severely underestimated. So the numbers that were talked about, in fact, the true numbers were well more than that.

Second, the Commission found that the agricultural worker amnesty only exacerbated existing problems:

Six years after IRCA was signed into law, the problems

within the system of agricultural labor continued to exist. .

. . In most areas, an increasing number of newly arriving

unauthorized workers compete for available jobs, reducing the

number of work hours available to all harvest workers and

contributing to lower annual earnings. . . .

Again, the bottom line is very clear. We had the same arguments back then as today: Let's do this once, the problem is solved forever; we will get tough with enforcement, we promise; really, we mean it. And what happened? That 140,000 per year increased to 700,000 per year. The problem of 3 million illegal aliens has increased to at least 12 million. We do need to study history and see what the impact of this amnesty program in this bill will be.

This threat is particularly grave, and I think it is absolutely certain that this will exacerbate the problem for the following simple reason: In terms of border security, everyone--everyone--on the floor of this body, everyone agrees that true border security cannot and will not happen overnight. The best case, if we are sincere about it, if we follow up this debate with adequate appropriations, the money, the manpower, the resources, the focus, the best case is that we will get a handle on our border in several years, perhaps 2 to 3 years, absolute minimum. But, of course, the other elements of this bill would be passed into law and would go into effect immediately. That is repeating the exact mistake of 1986. It would be one thing to consider an amnesty program down the road after we have acted on border security and proven that we have executed meaningful border security.

I don't think I could be for it even in that circumstance. That would be one thing. But what this bill does is something far different and even far more dangerous. What this bill does is put that program into effect now, immediately, move forward with that amnesty track immediately, even though everyone agrees, best case, we will only have meaningful border security in several years. So we establish the magnet to draw more illegal aliens into the country before anyone pretends that we have adequate border security or workplace security.

That is an even clearer reason that this is a big mistake and repeating the mistakes of the past, particularly in the era around 1986, on a much grander and, therefore, more troublesome scale.

Another point I wish to make is the overall numbers these provisions will lead to because I think there has been a lot of fuzzy math and a lack of attention to detail on this question. Again, the devil is in the details. Let's read this bill. Let's look at this bill and understand the full consequences of this bill, including the amnesty program.

The number folks toss around most commonly on the floor of the Senate, as well as in the wider debate around the country, is 12 million illegal aliens are currently in this country. Most experts seem to think that is a pretty minimum number. It could be significantly above that. Again, we need to look at the bill, and we need to understand the details because that is not the total number who may be eligible for citizenship.

The bill is very liberal and very broad in granting this citizenship path to an extended definition of family

members of these folks. So in fact, as a direct, immediate result of this bill, we could well have about 30 million folks on that citizenship path, getting on that path very quickly.

Over an extended number of years, that number will be far larger. Estimates, for instance, by Robert Rector over a 20-year period after enactment of this underlying bill is that it would mean a minimum of 103 million new folks gaining citizenship, possibly much higher. Again, the devil is in the details. Let's look hard at the numbers. Let's add it up. We are not talking about 12 million, we are talking about 30 million immediately. We are talking about huge numbers, 100 million or more over 20 years.

Finally, the argument that is most often put up against avoiding this sort of amnesty program is that we can't make felons of all these millions of illegal aliens in the country. We can't round them up and deport them. It is impractical. It may not be a good idea, even if we could do it. President Bush made this specific argument 2 nights ago. Many of my colleagues on the Senate floor have made the same argument.

The truth is that is not the alternative. That is a straw man, an easy argument to push aside and defeat. That is not the practical alternative at all. The practical alternative to rushing toward an amnesty program is to do meaningful things with regard to enforcement and other measures in the country that on their own can decrease the illegal alien population in this country over time.

Let me mention six items in particular: Secure the borders through Border Patrol agents, increase fencing, substantially increase detention space and do that before we do anything else. Some provisions are in this bill, but it is not being done before we move on to other aspects of the bill.

No. 2: Implement strong and serious worksite enforcement measures and, again, do that before other aspects of the bill are implemented.

No. 3: Eliminate document fraud through the use of biometrics, immigration documents, and secure Social Security cards.

No. 4: Reform existing laws to reduce the incentive to work illegally by providing the IRS with increased resources to investigate and sanction both employers and illegal aliens for submitting fraudulent tax returns, requiring the Social Security Administration to share information with DHS when no match letters are sent to employers, and barring illegal workers from counting work performed illegally toward Social Security.

No. 5: Encourage State and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws themselves by giving them authority and by requiring the Feds to reimburse them for expenses directly related to that enforcement, and enhancing coordination and information sharing between the State and local law enforcement and Federal immigration authorities.

No. 6: Provide the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice with the necessary resources to perform their jobs.

Madam President, these six things, without an amnesty program, would, in fact, lower the population of illegal aliens in this country over time. Why would it lower it? Because it would remove the incentives for those folks to stay here. It would remove the mechanism by which they can successfully stay in this country and gain employment.

So again, it is a straw man to talk about making all of these people felons. My amendment doesn't do that. We are not proposing that on the floor of the Senate. It is a straw man to talk about rounding up 12 million people around the country. It is a completely false argument to suggest that the only alternative to essentially amnesty is to have to do that and deport all 12 million of these people.

The practical alternative, which we can absolutely do, is avoid amnesty while implementing steps such as these six things. And that will provide real border security and real workplace security by demanding absolute requirements that ensure that folks getting jobs are legal immigrants, not illegals. That is the practical alternative which, over time, can dramatically reduce the illegal population in the country.

I don't know of any single aspect of this bill before us on the floor of the Senate that has Americans more concerned than these amnesty provisions. It goes to the heart of this debate. It goes to the heart of Americans' concerns that, once again, we are talking a good game about enforcement, but we are not demanding that it happen before considering other aspects of the bill. It goes to the heart of our experience in 1986, when that agricultural worker amnesty program clearly--clearly--was a huge part of the failure of that attempt to get our hands around illegal immigration. It was a huge part of the flow across our border, ballooning from 170,000 per year to 700,000 per year, and a huge part of the illegal population in our country skyrocketing from about 3 million to over 12 million.

So this is an important amendment that goes to the heart of so many Americans' concerns about the bill which are reflected in townhall meetings and discussions I have all across Louisiana. It is also reflected in every major national public opinion poll on the subject. Over and over again, Americans make very clear the huge majority want enforcement. There is a legitimate debate about a temporary worker program, but a huge majority have fundamental problems with these provisions which they know, using common sense, particularly when they understand the details of the bill, amount to absolute amnesty.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, if I could clarify the request to understand that under our previous unanimous consent agreement on this amendment, it will come out of the time of the opposition.

Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes to respond to some of the arguments of the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, what is amnesty? I'll tell you what Merriam-Webster's dictionary says:

[T]he act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon

is granted to a large group of individuals.

What we are talking about is a large group of individuals illegally in the country. And the main consequence of that, under present law, is to leave the country. Surely, under this provision, we are pardoning them from that main consequence. Surely, this is a pardon from what present law states must happen to folks who have come into this country illegally, who stay in this country illegally.

The Senator from Arizona made several points, all of which I essentially rebutted in my comments before. There is a big distinction in this bill between those who have been here over 5 years and those under. There is on paper. And guess what. An illegal alien can satisfy the requirements of the bill that they have been here over 5 years and get all of the benefits of this amnesty program

by simply signing a piece of paper himself that it is so. It makes a mockery of the distinction.

The other requirements--a penalty. Yes, a penalty, which is less money than many immigrants pay to go through the legal process. Is that a penalty?

Paying back taxes--well, not all of them. Paying some back taxes. That is certainly less than folks who have gone through the legal process have had to do.

Learning English--well, not exactly. Being enrolled in a program is good enough, not proving any proficiency.

And working in a job solidly for a number of years. Well, not solidly for a number of years; 60 percent of the time is good enough.

The devil is in the details. I invite Members to look at the definition of amnesty. I invite Members to study the details of this bill because the American people certainly will and will come to the clear conclusion that is what it is and is a repeat of the mistake of past experience.

I would now like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

I have no objection and will be happy to grant the Senator an additional 5 minutes.

In closing the debate on this amendment, I thank all of the Members who have participated on both sides. It is a very important debate.

I wish to make three closing points.

First of all, I find it a little bit amusing and quite telling, the extreme reaction that erupted from some of the

Senators at my suggestion that this is amnesty. It sort of reminds me of the famous line ``Thou doth protest too much.''

I offered a textbook definition of amnesty, and I heard no rebuttal to the fact that these provisions match that definition. Here is an even better definition from ``Black's Law Dictionary,'' which specifically cites as an example:

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided

amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the

country.

What is the comparison between that 1986 act and this bill? The comparison is laid out, and it is very striking. Penalties were there in both cases. Learning English? Guess what. That was required in 1986. Working in a job for certain periods of time? Guess what. That was in 1986 as well. The parallels, the comparison is striking.

Second, again, it is a straw man to suggest there is absolutely no way to deal with the 12 million illegal aliens presently in the country but the provisions of this bill. There are alternatives. I laid out an alternative. Senator Chambliss laid out an alternative offering these folks the ability to work as temporary workers but not an automatic guaranteed path to citizenship.

This is not about whether we deal with the problem; this is about how we deal with the problem. And amnesty, in my opinion, is exactly the wrong way to deal with the problem. Recent history has proven that.

Third, and finally, I do not offer this amendment ignoring the values behind American citizenship, ignoring the enormous devotion to those values that so many Americans have, perhaps most of all those who have recently become American citizens. I offer this amendment because of those values and my commitment to honor them because I truly believe the provisions of this bill, which amount to amnesty, will erode the concept of citizenship and will erode those very values.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I object to proceeding with the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for creating this opportunity to begin to discuss this amendment.

This is amendment No. 3964. This amendment would close some very serious invitations for fraud that are contained in the bill as it now stands.

I said on the floor before that I have some very serious reservations with this bill. One of those is that it is riddled with loopholes and invitations for fraud. There are many of these, in my opinion. As I have said many times over, the devil is in the details. Senators need to read this bill. Senators need to look at the details and understand how it would work, or more accurately how it would not work in practice, because this is not just an esoteric debate on the Senate floor. This would be law which would be put into practice, and we need to think about the hard nuts-and-bolts issues of how this would work or how it would not work in practice.

Unfortunately, I believe these loopholes, these invitations to fraud, and these other detail problems are numerous in the bill. My amendment, No. 3964, simply highlights and hopefully will correct, if adopted, a couple of these specific provisions. These are among the most important invitations for fraud and problems. In particular, there are glaring loopholes contained in section 601 of the bill.

We have heard over and over how this bill does not contain amnesty. It is not amnesty, the proponents say. And one of the reasons they say that illegal aliens are put into different categories is according to how many years they have been in the country. They are treated differently according to how many years they have been in the country. President Bush made this point on Monday night specifically, that folks should be treated differently if they have been in the country for many years, if they have put down roots, if they have family here, et cetera, versus if they have just come into the country and have been here a clearly shorter period of time. That is a reasonable argument.

The problem is, when you look at the details of the bill, when you actually read the bill, again the devil is in the details. The details of this bill make a mockery of that distinction. Why do I say that? It is because under the provisions of the bill that say how an illegal alien may prove how long he has been in the country, there are many different types of proof which are acceptable--certain documents, certain sworn affidavits from employers, certain records. But another form of acceptable proof is nothing more than a statement by that illegal alien himself, signed by that person, a piece of paper saying: I have been in the country some years, under these circumstances; here is my signature.

Again, for this to be an acceptable method of proof to put an illegal alien in the best category that offers the best track to citizenship, a program I would absolutely characterize as amnesty, obviously means that these distinctions, depending on how long you have been in the country, are meaningless. In practice, all a person has to do to put himself in the best category, the most lucrative category that will lead to this amnesty, is to sign a piece of paper saying it is so. That is an enormous invitation to fraud. That is a huge loophole which will make all of the related provisions of this bill completely unworkable.

There are other aspects of the bill that are similar. There are other distinctions between having been in the country 2 years, less than 2 years versus between 2 and 5 years. Again, the devil is in the details. When one looks at the proof required for these various categories, again a simple affidavit signed by any third party is acceptable in that case. Again, that makes the whole system unenforceable. That makes all of these distinctions meaningless and, in fact, ridiculous.

We need to close these loopholes. We need to require more significant proof and documentary evidence than a simple affidavit signed either by the illegal alien himself or any third person. That is what my amendment would correct. If a Senator wants to be half serious about making this work, if a Senator wants to put any meaning behind his or her words in favor of enforcement, clearly we need to fix these glaring deficiencies in the bill.

In summary, my amendment would close just some of the loopholes in section 602 of the underlying bill. These loopholes would not only allow fraud but create incentives for illegal aliens to commit fraud.

My amendment would strike the language allowing an alien to prove employment history by providing a self-signed sworn declaration-- nothing more than a piece of paper with the illegal alien's own signature.

My amendment would require that sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work be corroborated by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and include contact information of the affiant, the nature and duration of the relationship, his name and address, and the phone number of the affiant's relationship. In other words, these types of affidavits can at least be checked. At least the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and his personnel can put some rigor into the process to see if these statements by third persons are true.

My amendment would make the types of other documents provided to prove work history the same for those illegal aliens who have been living in the United States for over 5 years and those who have been here between 2 and 5 years, bringing some more rigor, some more demand for objective evidence into the enforcement mechanism.

My amendment would clarify that the alien has the burden of proving his or her employment history by a preponderance of the evidence.

Again, I am very fearful that the Senate is doing on this matter what we do all too often. We have these debates. We get very involved in words and arguments. Yet we ignore where the rubber really hits the road--the details, the practicality of enforcement: is this system really going to work? Are these promises really going to be borne out to the American people? The devil is in the details. We need to have a system that is workable.

We have lived this history before. The 1986 experience was an utter failure because the enforcement mechanism was completely unworkable. Are we going to repeat that history or are we going to have enforcement that is workable, that is meaningful?

If we are going to make these distinctions, they have to be able to be meaningful in practice. If an illegal alien can put himself in the best category on that path to amnesty versus the category in which he truly belongs based on the number of years he has truly been in the country, then all of these promises by the proponents of the bill are utterly meaningless and the enforcement mechanism will be utterly unworkable. We need to fix these sorts of glaring loopholes and invitations to fraud in the bill.

Let me not oversell my amendment. My amendment does not fix all of those loopholes, it does not close down all of those outright invitations to fraud, but it does address two of the most important, two of the most serious. I invite all Senators on both sides of this debate to come together to pass this amendment.

Again, I think this is one of these gut-check amendments. This is one of the basic threshold test amendments, like the security fence amendment was. If a Senator isn't willing to close this sort out of outrageous loophole, then that Senator, in my opinion, is not serious in the least about making enforcement work. This is an absolute minimum to begin closing these serious loopholes.

I look forward to coming back to this amendment tomorrow when I will be able to present it formally on the floor and have the entire Senate take it up. I look forward to Senators from both sides of the aisle--in fact, both sides of this debate--coming together in support of my amendment because it is a basic gut-check amendment. It is an absolute minimum that needs to be done to begin to close these outrageous loopholes and invitations to fraud in the bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3728, as modified, for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be further modified to reflect the changes which have been submitted to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment has been worked on quite a bit. An agreement has been reached with all relevant Members, particularly the chairs and ranking members of all of the relevant committees. It doesn't increase the cost of the bill. It addresses a number of urgent flood protection needs in Louisiana and, again, represents a very solid compromise which I am proud to sponsor.

With that, I ask that Members agree to the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be temporarily set aside and that we call up amendment No. 3728 for consideration, which has been ruled germane.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified according to the technical modifications which I have presented to the desk. These modifications do not change the scope of the amendment.

Mr. President, I spoke to this amendment yesterday. I will not speak to it again. I will simply underscore several things.

First of all, Senator Landrieu joins me in presenting this amendment which goes to the essential levee and hurricane protection needs of the greater New Orleans area.

Second, the entire amendment is offset. So this amendment does not increase the spending in the bill by any amount--not one single penny.

Third, we believe this amendment is very important to make sure that there are adequate funds for the essential levee hurricane protection work which is at the heart of this bill.

We have many debates about what is at the periphery, but this type of work is at the heart of this bill, and, of course, the President and his leadership have made that clear.

Again, I went into the details of this amendment yesterday. I won't go into them again. But I certainly hope in light of the fact that this amendment does not increase the cost of the bill, the Senate can come together and support Senator Landrieu and myself in passing this very important amendment to ensure that the vital work going on right now building up to the next hurricane season which starts in June can be done, and that all necessary moneys are there for all those important categories of work.

I believe my colleague from Louisiana would like to say a few words in support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in closing, I would also say that this amendment has been cleared by the majority and minority managers of the bill.

With that, I ask for a rollcall vote.

If I could respond to the suggestions of the distinguished chairman through the Chair, I have no objection to scheduling this vote later in the day. I have been in a lot of contact with the authorizing committee, its leadership and its staff. I will continue to be in contact with them about issues contained in this amendment. I have no objection to proceeding to a vote later in the day.

I do wish to restate my call for a rollcall vote. I would be perfectly amenable to any unanimous consent order to schedule the vote later in the day as long as that vote is assured.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3819.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and pass amendment 3626, as modified. This amendment is noncontroversial but very much needed and has been cleared by both the majority and minority side and all leaders of the relevant committees.

Precisely.

Mr. President, I renew my request that amendment No. 3626, as modified, by Senator Landrieu and myself, be called up and passed by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent amendment No. 3627 be called up. Also, I request unanimous consent it be modified according to the modification I am sending to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment is a very important hub zone small business amendment. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle and with all the relevant committee chairs and ranking members. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3704

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to just make the suggestion through the Chair that the Senator from New Mexico go second and I proceed third.

Madam President, I ask that the Chair advise me when I have 45 seconds of my time remaining.

I rise in strong support of the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, who chairs the crucial subcommittee under which all of these vital corps projects fall. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership on this crucial issue. This is an absolutely essential amendment, and in supporting it, I wish to stress a few items.

First of all, everything the Senator has outlined, everything in his amendment was specifically requested by the President of the United States and was given by the President the top priority possible. Secondly, we are debating a number of issues on the floor as to this hurricane relief bill, and some are being cut out and others are being added, those at the margin. This amendment is not at the margin in any way, shape or form. This is at the heart of this hurricane relief bill because it goes to essential hurricane flood protection for the citizens of south Louisiana.

So I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership and certainly strongly support the amendment.

Now, Madam President, I would like to call up a separate but related amendment which I have filed at the desk, amendment No. 3728.

It is my understanding that the amendment has been filed; is that not the case?

Madam President, if I could suggest that I move on and speak about the amendment, and then perhaps we can formally call it up when it arrives at the desk, if that would be appropriate.

I have no objection, if it doesn't come out of my time and everyone is agreeable to do that.

I thank the Chair. And I appreciate all of those words by my colleague from Louisiana and certainly join her in all of those comments.

Now, if I could briefly outline amendment 3728, which has not been called up, but I will outline what it does. Again, the Domenici amendment is crucially necessary for levy and hurricane protection work in south Louisiana. Amendment 3728 would simply supplement that in relatively small ways in terms of dollar amounts but in very important ways.

At the outset, before I explain what it covers, let me explain three crucial overall points about the amendment.

No. 1, all of the moneys or funds or expenditures in this amendment 3728 are completely offset so it does not increase the size or the cost of the bill whatsoever.

No. 2, everything covered in the amendment was actually included in the underlying bill at the committee stage of the process. It has been removed as it comes to the floor, but it was included in committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from New Mexico, has no objection to the inclusion of these important items. In addition, the statement of administration policy on the bill, while it highlights a number of items the administration actually opposes in the bill, does not highlight any of the items in this amendment. The administration has not expressed opposition to these items.

And No. 3, all of the operation and maintenance required for these items in my amendment is funded 100 percent by the locals, by the local sponsors of these projects.

Basically, it covers five crucial things.

No. 1, addressing further damaged, destroyed or inferior protection levees in south Louisiana. While the Domenici amendment addresses many of those needs, all of these areas where there is a blue rectangle giving the new heights of the levee protection system, after the work in the Domenici amendment is completed, there are, unfortunately, a few gaps in this area of Lafourche, Terrebonne, and also the east bank of Plaquemines Parish. And this amendment would help fill those gaps.

No. 2, fulfilling shortfalls in funding for full pumping capacity needs in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes with the closing of outfall canals.

No. 3, meeting shortfalls to ensure equal levels of hurricane protection on the east and west banks of the Mississippi River in lower Plaquemines Parish, again, one of the slight gaps I pointed to on the map.

No. 4, providing a plan to protect lower Plaquemines parish for the long-term and vital resources in that Parish--energy and seafood and maritime.

And No. 5, the amendment would direct the national academies to perform a study to determine that portion of the levy system that lost height due to construction, design, subsidence, and settlement.

In closing, Madam President, again, let me emphasize that everything in this amendment No. 3728 is offset, that everything in it was included by the committee during committee deliberations and is not opposed in the statement of administration policy and that everything in it, operation and maintenance related to these works, would be funded 100 percent by the local sponsors of these important works. I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support my amendment. It does not increase the size of the bill, it merely perfects, if you will, the very important work being done by the Domenici amendment.

With that, Madam President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 457, expressing the Senate's disappointment with the government of Germany concerning their release of convicted terrorist and murderer Mohammad Ali Hammadi.

The German government in December of 2005 released Mohammad Ali Hammadi, a Hezbollah leader who killed U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem in the June 1985 Hezbollah hijacking of TWA Flight 847. Coincidentally, a few days later Susanne Osthoff, a German hostage was released. Mr. Stethem was savagely beaten and then executed for refusing the demands of his hijackers. Hammadi and his fellow terrorists escaped, but Hammadi was eventually arrested in Germany in 1987 for traveling with liquid explosives and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Mr. Stethem. Hammadi's other accomplices are still part of the FBI's most wanted list and have a 15 million dollar bounty on their heads.

The German government released Hammadi despite a U.S. request for his extradition to face numerous charges of terrorism. He was sentenced to life yet only served 18 years. Furthermore, despite our longstanding agreement to honor each others' extradition requests the German government flew Hammadi to Lebanon to reunite with his brothers who are senior Hezbollah leaders. The Germans did this despite knowing the United States does not have an extradition treaty with the government of Lebanon.

Sadly, the family of United States Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem was not notified in advance of Mr. Hammadi's release. Mr. Stethem is an American hero who was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. He also has a United States Navy ship named in his honor called the USS Stethem.

We should continue to call on Lebanon to hand over Hammadi and other wanted terrorists to face trial in the United States, and we urge Lebanon to comply with such requests in order to help foster better relations between the United States and Lebanon. While the United States should continue to assist Lebanon in democratic reform initiatives, we must see results in denying refuge to some of the world's most wanted terrorists. The people of Lebanon have made great strides in recent times but the government of Lebanon must understand that continuing to harbor terrorists will only further isolate them from the international community and put future financial aid in doubt.

The murderers of Robert Stethem must be brought to justice, and a clear message must be sent that the brutal murder of American service members or civilians will neither be tolerated nor forgotten.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the fisheries and seafood provisions in this supplemental appropriations bill to help a very important industry simply begin to get back on its feet on the gulf coast. This is a vitally important industry, not just for the gulf coast but for all of America.

I am very proud of Louisiana and our coastline and our fisheries. We are the largest producer of fisheries in the lower 48 States, second only in the country to the home State, of course, of the Presiding Officer. So it is a true national priority in terms of the service and the food we yield to the country.

With two hurricanes, our nationally important fisheries sustained huge damage. Individual fishermen and their families sustained huge damage. Vessels, equipment, offloading and processing facilities, and oyster farms will take years to recover. Because of this damage of truly historic proportions, the administration, through the Department of Commerce, made a disaster declaration, which is appropriate under the law, for fisheries specifically. However, for the first time in history, they did not follow up that disaster declaration with a request for certain emergency funding to meet that disaster.

The work of the full committee in the Senate, led by Senator Cochran, fills that gap by producing an important section of this bill devoted for fisheries. I personally thank Senator Cochran for filling that gap because, again, it is a very real gap.

We had a disaster declaration, the highest ever in terms of fisheries losses and devastation in the United States, but we had no corresponding funding request from the administration in light of that disaster emergency declaration. This section of the bill, again, is enormously important to meet those needs.

I want to turn specifically to the seafood marketing section which has been a particular target of several Members, led by Senator Coburn, and they have brought up some very good points.

First, I begin by complimenting Senator Coburn on his work on many fiscal reform matters. I applaud it. I not only applaud it, because talk is cheap, I support it in the vast majority of cases. Earmark reform, for instance, is something we desperately need in Congress, and I strongly supported those efforts a few weeks ago when they were before us, and I continue to strongly support those efforts.

I have no problem with the light of day being shone on all of these issues and our having to justify all specific spending items. So I compliment him on his work in general.

But it is in that spirit that I stand to proudly defend this seafood marketing issue and to completely rebut some notion that it has nothing to do with the hurricanes and nothing to do with an emergency situation.

Really, what the argument comes down to is two words, two words that we heard on television over and over again for weeks after the storm. And the two words are ``toxic soup.''

I have to tell my colleagues that the media coverage after the storm really frustrated me. I grew up in New Orleans, LA. I was there in Louisiana. Obviously, I represent Louisiana now in the Senate. I was living through the devastation and the challenges, and we had a lot of devastation, we had a lot of challenges, we had a lot of screw-ups by all levels of government, certainly including State and local.

But the media coverage got a few things wrong, too. One of the things they got very wrong was the constant, unrelenting for weeks repetition of this term ``toxic soup.'' To listen to the national media and the way they portrayed the situation, all of the city of New Orleans was covered with toxins that would leave it virtually uninhabitable for decades to come, and because of the toppling of rigs and other localized events which did occur in the gulf, there was a toxic soup spreading throughout many areas of the gulf and coastal Louisiana.

There were serious and real environmental issues. There were many environmental issues, dozens, hundreds of localized events, but they were addressed as quickly and completely as possible by the good national servants of the Coast Guard and many other agencies. Although these events were real and serious, they did not create, they did not amount to this toxic soup we heard about over and over through the national media.

Again, the impression that was clearly left over and over was that all of New Orleans and much of the gulf and much of the gulf coast where fisheries were harvested was a toxic soup with life-threatening toxins that would be in the area and seep into the water and seep into the ground and be factors for literally decades to come.

When we have that sort of national media coverage 24 hours a day, dwelling on this theme over and over for

weeks, one can begin to imagine what it might do to the gulf coast seafood industry. It killed it. What Katrina and Rita hadn't devastated, that media coverage absolutely did. And that is why an informational campaign addressing, among other issues, that ``toxic soup'' claim and the fact that it is just pure fiction, has no basis in science, is very necessary for the immediate health of this industry, and is directly related to the emergency situation stemming from the hurricanes.

I want to compliment several agencies such as NOAA that have done important environmental testing and other work since the hurricanes and which certified that after thousands of tests and sampling of water and seafood from the Gulf of Mexico, that the seafood is absolutely safe to eat. The States of Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana, along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, EPA, NOAA and others, have again analyzed hundreds of samples of fish and shellfish from the waters. All of this testing across the board also proves that there is no broad- based toxic soup; there is absolutely no danger in terms of that seafood from the gulf.

But as many thousands of these tests have been performed, guess what. Hardly a single U.S. consumer has heard about it. Hardly a single U.S. consumer knows about it. So in terms of the viability of the industry, it really doesn't matter, all of these tests being done, because it is not common knowledge, and the word has not gotten out. That is the biggest reason we absolutely need this informational campaign, this promotional campaign, again, that is directly related to the emergency situation produced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I would welcome Senator Coburn to put back up on his easel the definition of emergency, the definition that we are supposed to be following for true emergency measures. That definition applies here because of the phenomenon I am talking about. That definition is absolutely applicable here because we have an emergency situation for the immediate future of our gulf coast fisheries industry, again, that were devastated by the hurricanes, and much of the fisheries section of this bill goes to that, trying to get processing plants and boats and docks and essential equipment back and repaired, back up and running, and that is important. But just as important is the enormous harm that was caused after the storm by very flawed national media coverage and a lot of misinformation summarized by those two words, ``toxic soup.'' That is why this informational campaign, this promotional campaign is an emergency situation and is directly related to the hurricanes and absolutely meets every one of the definitions Senator Coburn rightly says we must be guided by.

With that, Mr. President, I will close. But in doing so, I urge all of my colleagues to please support the very important fishery provisions in the bill. They are emergency measures. They are all directly related to the hurricanes, including the promotional campaign.

Amendment No. 3626, as Modified

Mr. President, I quickly would like to address a small bit of housekeeping, which is to ask unanimous consent to modify language to an amendment I already have at the desk, No. 3626, to take care of a technical matter, and the new language will be delivered to the desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

First, a small bit of housekeeping.

Amendment No. 3628, As Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that language revisions be made to my amendment No. 3628, which is already at the desk. And those revisions, which are largely technical in nature, will be sent up to the desk right now.

That would be fine. This is an amendment that has already been presented to the minority side. This is a language revision of that amendment.

Mr. President, I also call up and briefly wish to speak on a new amendment, which I will also send to the minority side, amendment No. 3668.

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

Mr. President, this amendment does not cost any money. It does not increase the size or expense of the bill whatsoever. It does, however, add significant language regarding an issue that is very important to coastal Louisiana with regard to coastal flooding, and that has to do with the now infamous Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, also known as MRGO.

MRGO is considered by virtually everyone to be a real problem, a conduit of hurricane storm surge and a conduit of saltwater intrusion which has eaten away at our coastal marshland in southeast Louisiana and has produced increased vulnerability to coastal storm surge.

Many eyewitnesses and computer models confirm that MRGO contributed to enormous destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of thousands of acres of coastal lands have also been lost because of the saltwater intrusion invited by MRGO.

My amendment, again, would not increase the funding in the bill. It would not increase the cost of the bill. It would simply allow for a portion of the funds already appropriated in the last emergency supplemental for hurricane recovery for the restoration of the banks of MRGO to also be used to begin implementation of a water control structure to block hurricane storm surge from rolling up through MRGO to populated areas. Again, there is broad consensus that this needs to be done to battle against this vulnerability.

In closing, I would simply underscore my amendment does not score, does not appropriate any new money.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I seek recognition to ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendments so that I may call up four rather minor amendments, outline them very briefly, and basically put them in order for consideration on the floor.

Mr. President, I will be happy to send copies over to the Senator. I will resume consideration in a few minutes when she has a time to peruse them.

In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I rise seeking consideration of four specific amendments. All of them are hurricane related very directly, and none of them add to the cost of the bill.

Amendment No. 3627

Mr. President, the first amendment I call up and ask for its consideration is amendment No. 3627, which has been filed at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would do something very specific, very narrow, but also very important in terms of making sure that small business, including local business, gets a full opportunity to participate in the recovery throughout the gulf coast region. This would designate the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita as HUBZones and would waive the Small Business Competitive Demonstration Program Act of 1988 for those specific areas.

This idea has been fully vetted in the committee of jurisdiction, the Small Business Committee, on which I serve. It was an important element of a larger small business package that was reported out of the committee to the floor, to the full Senate. However, because of other unrelated matters in that bill package, that overall package has some objection and has not passed through the Senate. So I simply chose to remove out of the full package these narrower HUBZone provisions to include in the supplemental bill.

I would also note that the leadership of the Small Business Committee supports this move in terms of this legislation and has no objection to the amendment.

Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 3626 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the Community Disaster Loan Program. That is a preexisting program that existed well before these hurricane events that in particular situations loans money to communities in dire straits that have major disasters and therefore revenue problems.

Obviously, in this hurricane, there are many communities in that situation--the city of New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish, and others. The community disaster loan program has been utilized to help them through this very difficult time. Already in the supplemental appropriations bill is $300 million for this program, additional dollars to use in the disaster area. My amendment would simply tweak certain language that would say rather than the upper limit of a jurisdiction, which jurisdiction is subject to be able to borrow being 25 percent of its annual operating budget, my language would raise that upper limit to 50 percent, so it would change language. It would not add money to the bill. The appropriations and the money are already in the bill.

This is very important for the hardest hit communities, such as St. Bernard Parish, such as the city of New Orleans, because they have virtually no revenue for the foreseeable future. This is absolutely necessary to help them get through these very difficult times for the next several months.

Amendment No. 3628

With that, Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3628.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is language only. It does not add dollars or cost to the bill. It is important language to make sure that all of our activity and all of our spending in the disaster area goes to important needs. This language would base the allocation of hurricane disaster relief and recovery funds to States on need and physical damages rather than by other arbitrary allocation formulas. This is specifically in the situation where Congress, in a particular issue area, allocates a fund for the entire disaster area and leaves it to the administration to disburse those funds between the various localities and States affected. This language would simply say that when you do that, the administration has to think about a fair formula that is based on actual objective criteria that is based on actual objective need or statistics that make sense and then would have to publish that formula with regard to the specific funds we are talking about several days in advance of the money being disbursed. This would make sure that the money is used appropriately in the disaster area and is not allocated in an arbitrary or purely political way.

That explains this amendment. Again, it is language. It does not add any additional cost to the bill.

Amendment No. 3648

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3648 which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this has to do with the fisheries component of the bill. Thanks to the leadership of the chairman of the committee, a fisheries component was included in this supplemental appropriations bill because the fisheries industry was truly devastated along the gulf coast. Before this general fisheries provision was added, I believe this is the first instance in U.S. history where an administration has made a declaration regarding fisheries losses but has not followed that declaration of loss with a request for funds.

The chairman's committee action would, in a general sense, remedy that. My amendment No. 3648 would tweak the language--again, not add or increase any dollars--so that that money could be used in part for the repairing of vessels in situations where those repair costs go beyond insurance proceeds available and other available funds.

This is a very large component of the need that exists in the fisheries of the gulf coast. Passing this fisheries aid package without making any of that money available under the proper circumstances for repairing vessels would leave a huge hole in our attempt to get that industry up and running once again.

To reiterate, this is language that would not change or increase the spending level of the bill.

I have explained my four pending amendments. I look forward to any further discussion on them as well as votes, hopefully tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask that my amendment No. 3648, which I spoke about, be modified with the changes at the desk, which are technical in nature.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the volunteers of St. Francis Medical Center and St. Francis North Hospital in Monroe, LA. Beginning April 23 and ending April 29, this great organization will observe National Volunteer Week. Today, I would like to spend a few moments highlighting the importance of their efforts.

Sponsored by the Points of Light Foundation and Volunteer Center National Network, National Volunteer Week began in 1974. President Richard Nixon signed an executive Order establishing an annual celebration of volunteering. Every President since then has signed a proclamation promoting and recognizing National Volunteer Week during the third week of April. The theme for this year, ``Inspire by Example,'' reflects the opportunity volunteers have to bring joy and hope to the people they serve, as well as to inspire others to serve.

National Volunteer Week allows volunteer centers, nonprofits, hospitals, faith-based organizations, and schools to recognize their own volunteers and support thousands of service projects in the community. This week, America has the pleasure of celebrating more than 64 million volunteers who use their time and talent daily to make a real difference in the lives of the children, adults, and elderly whom they serve.

I applaud the volunteers of St. Francis Medical Center and St. Francis North Hospital in Monroe for their continued service to the citizens of their community. Their hard work and dedication is something we all appreciate and celebrate as we recognize National Volunteer Week.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the bicentennial of St. Charles Parish. As one of the

original 19 parishes created from the Territory of Orleans, St. Charles will celebrate its 200th anniversary in 2007.

St. Charles Parish was created in 1807 from the ``Cote des Allemands,'' or county of the German Coast, which begins 25 miles above the city of New Orleans and extends along both sides of the Mississippi River for 40 miles toward Baton Rouge. It contained a rich mixture of Germans, French Creoles, French Acadians, and Free Blacks and thrived as an agricultural center whose produce fed the city of New Orleans.

In 1720, 21 German families from the Rhine region of Germany settled on the west bank of the Mississippi River. These families had suffered horribly during the Thirty Years' War and fled by the thousands to the New World. These original German settlers were given small plots of land by Mr. Law's Company of the Indies.

By 1721, 330 German immigrants, also with the Company of the Indies, arrived in Louisiana. A year later, Germans from John Law's Arkansas Concession arrived in New Orleans demanding passage to Europe. Due to a lack of ships and supplies, Louisiana Governor Bienville persuaded them to remain, and they eventually joined the other German settlers along the banks of the river. In 1765 and 1766, the first Acadians arrived in the area, and they too were given land along the river, and joined the Germans in raising the fruits and produce that was used to feed the city of New Orleans. This produce business along with tobacco, indigo, and lumber made the area a major component in the growth and development of Louisiana.

Later the parish turned from an agricultural to an industrial economic base where new opportunities opened in large-scale oil production. The economic base of St. Charles Parish now centers around energy and petrochemical industries, and recent years have seen the parish's economy diversify into the areas of technology and transportation. The region has also been rated in the top 10 percent of best places to live in the United States by the Places Rated Almanac.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006'' that would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies.

The city of New Orleans confiscated more than 1,000 firearms under the misguided policy of a local law enforcement officer. Our Second Amendment rights should not be subject to the whims of individuals. My bill would prohibit any agency using Federal disaster relief funds from seizing firearms or restricting firearm possession, except under circumstances currently applicable under Federal or State law.

Our law enforcement officers are under intense pressure to protect and serve, and I value their call to duty with great respect. The ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006'' would not prevent law enforcement from confiscating guns from convicted felons or other prohibited persons. Also, it would have no effect on law enforcement outside of disaster relief situations.

The horrible tragedy that unfolded upon the State of Louisiana was certainly unprecedented. The devastation that occurred will last for generations, and yet, there is immense hope that our great State of Louisiana will shine better than ever before. In the days and nights that followed there were mistakes at all levels of government, and the confiscation of law-abiding citizens' personal protection was one of them.

I ask my fellow Senators to support this legislation in the hope that in the unfortunate likelihood of another disaster our citizens will be able to protect themselves without fear of government intruding upon our second amendment rights.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006'' that would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies.

The city of New Orleans confiscated more than 1,000 firearms under the misguided policy of a local law enforcement officer. Our Second Amendment rights should not be subject to the whims of individuals. My bill would prohibit any agency using Federal disaster relief funds from seizing firearms or restricting firearm possession, except under circumstances currently applicable under Federal or State law.

Our law enforcement officers are under intense pressure to protect and serve, and I value their call to duty with great respect. The ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006'' would not prevent law enforcement from confiscating guns from convicted felons or other prohibited persons. Also, it would have no effect on law enforcement outside of disaster relief situations.

The horrible tragedy that unfolded upon the State of Louisiana was certainly unprecedented. The devastation that occurred will last for generations, and yet, there is immense hope that our great State of Louisiana will shine better than ever before. In the days and nights that followed there were mistakes at all levels of government, and the confiscation of law-abiding citizens' personal protection was one of them.

I ask my fellow Senators to support this legislation in the hope that in the unfortunate likelihood of another disaster our citizens will be able to protect themselves without fear of government intruding upon our second amendment rights.