Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak against this measure. If one would want to suppress the election, suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. I urge a ``no'' vote. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It is a grant program to the States, but it goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008. I urge a ``no'' vote.

The pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I raise a point of order pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the higher education reconciliation bill that would increase critical grant aid to our Nation's neediest college students, help make loan repayment more manageable and encourage students to pursue careers in public service.

It is crucial that we help make college more affordable and accessible for students at a time when they are struggling to pay skyrocketing college costs and taking on more debt to pay for school.

In California alone, the cost of attending a 4-year public college increased 43 percent between the school years of 2000-2001 and 2005- 2006.

Furthermore, 46 percent of California students graduating from 4-year colleges in the 2004-2005 school year had student loan debt--at an average of over $15,200. Nationwide, almost two-thirds of all 4-year college graduates had loan debt.

What is even more concerning is that many students are being shut out of college altogether.

Each year, more than 400,000 low and moderate income high school graduates who are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college do not do so because of financial barriers.

It is imperative that all students seeking a college education have an opportunity to achieve their goals and this bill takes important steps to provide much-needed relief to students across the country.

Specifically, this bill would: Provide $17.3 billion in new grant aid to low-income college students. Increase the maximum award for Pell grant recipients to $5,100 in 2008 and to $5,400 in 2011. The current amount is $4,310 and this means low-income California students will be eligible for an additional $290.9 million in need-based grant aid next year, and an additional $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. Increase the family income level under which a student is automatically eligible for the maximum Pell grant from $20,000 to $30,000.

Eliminate the ``tuition sensitivity'' provision in the Pell grant program's eligibility formula that unfairly penalizes our neediest students who attend low-cost institutions, such as community colleges, from receiving the maximum Pell grant award. In California, over 260,000 community college students would benefit.

I was pleased to work with my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, as the lead cosponsor of legislation to eliminate this unfair provision. Cap Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income providing needed relief to students with high loan burdens.

Provide new loan forgiveness under the Federal direct loan program for individuals in public service careers for 10 years, such as teaching, nursing or law enforcement. It would include Head Start teachers and expands on a proposal that I have been working on for several years to provide loan forgiveness to educators in this important field.

Eliminates the 3-year limitation on the period for which certain members of the Armed Forces may receive deferments on the interest on their student loans. It also extends this deferment period to cover 180 days after such a member of the Armed Forces is demobilized. Extends the amount of time student borrowers can receive a deferment for economic hardship from 3 to 6 years. Would apply to borrowers who take out their first loan after October 1, 2012.

This legislation would bring significant help to many low-income California students and those across the country who would otherwise not be able to afford a college education.

A college degree is more important than ever to ensure success in today's global economy and we must help provide students that need it most with the resources necessary to reach their highest potential.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to enable hundreds of former Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers or their survivors

to receive compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances.

These benefits have long been denied them due to flaws in the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act of 2000.

This bill fulfills the intent of Congress when it approved the act, providing compensation and care for nuclear program workers who suffered severe health problems caused by on-the-job exposure to radiation.

Specifically, this bill will provide a special status designation, under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, to Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees, so they can receive the benefits they deserve.

The bill would extend the ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contract employees, or atomic weapons employees who worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2006.

This revision will provide the act's benefits to any of those workers who contracted a radiation-linked cancer due to their employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

Workers at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory played a significant role in keeping our Nation secure during the Cold War. They helped develop our nuclear weapons program, a cornerstone of our national defense.

Sadly, many workers of this era were exposed to radiation on a regular basis. But the records are incomplete and inaccurate. Some records show only estimated levels of exposure for workers, and are imprecise. In other cases, if there were records kept, they can't be found today.

Many Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no preventative equipment like respirators, gloves, or body suits were provided to workers.

More than 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers. Mr. President, 90 percent of those have been denied due to lack of documentation, or inability to prove exposure thresholds.

Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families now face the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed more than 40 years ago, in most cases with no documentation.

The case of my constituent, Betty Reo, provides a stunning example of why this legislation is necessary.

Ms. Reo's husband, Cosmo Reo, worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory as an instrumentation mechanic from April 18, 1957, until May 17, 1960. Cosmo worked in the rocket testing pits and was exposed to hydrazine, trichlorethylene and other cancer-causing chemicals which attack the lungs, bladder and kidneys.

Cosmo died of renal failure in 1980. Ms. Reo applied for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act. She has been trying to reconstruct the exposure scenarios under which her husband worked, but without adequate documentation, which is virtually nonexistent, she has repeatedly been denied benefits.

This bill would help people like Betty Reo.

I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting these injustices and cutting through the ``red tape'' that prevents Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers, and their families, from receiving fair compensation.

For many, such as Ms. Reo, time is running out. We can no longer afford to delay, and this bill provides a straightforward solution to fix a broken system.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to enable hundreds of former Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers or their survivors

to receive compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances.

These benefits have long been denied them due to flaws in the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act of 2000.

This bill fulfills the intent of Congress when it approved the act, providing compensation and care for nuclear program workers who suffered severe health problems caused by on-the-job exposure to radiation.

Specifically, this bill will provide a special status designation, under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, to Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees, so they can receive the benefits they deserve.

The bill would extend the ``special exposure cohort'' status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contract employees, or atomic weapons employees who worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2006.

This revision will provide the act's benefits to any of those workers who contracted a radiation-linked cancer due to their employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

Workers at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory played a significant role in keeping our Nation secure during the Cold War. They helped develop our nuclear weapons program, a cornerstone of our national defense.

Sadly, many workers of this era were exposed to radiation on a regular basis. But the records are incomplete and inaccurate. Some records show only estimated levels of exposure for workers, and are imprecise. In other cases, if there were records kept, they can't be found today.

Many Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers were not aware of the hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no preventative equipment like respirators, gloves, or body suits were provided to workers.

More than 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana Field Lab workers. Mr. President, 90 percent of those have been denied due to lack of documentation, or inability to prove exposure thresholds.

Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families now face the burden of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed more than 40 years ago, in most cases with no documentation.

The case of my constituent, Betty Reo, provides a stunning example of why this legislation is necessary.

Ms. Reo's husband, Cosmo Reo, worked at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory as an instrumentation mechanic from April 18, 1957, until May 17, 1960. Cosmo worked in the rocket testing pits and was exposed to hydrazine, trichlorethylene and other cancer-causing chemicals which attack the lungs, bladder and kidneys.

Cosmo died of renal failure in 1980. Ms. Reo applied for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act. She has been trying to reconstruct the exposure scenarios under which her husband worked, but without adequate documentation, which is virtually nonexistent, she has repeatedly been denied benefits.

This bill would help people like Betty Reo.

I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting these injustices and cutting through the ``red tape'' that prevents Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers, and their families, from receiving fair compensation.

For many, such as Ms. Reo, time is running out. We can no longer afford to delay, and this bill provides a straightforward solution to fix a broken system.

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

Mr. President, I sat here for the last hour or so and listened to the discussion, and what one concludes is that, once again, we are locked in a debate about the future of Iraq. I think many people watching this debate listen and think: Does this solve anything?

But in many ways, thanks to the courage of a few Senators on the other side of the aisle, the debate has undergone a major shift in the past few weeks. We are no longer simply asking whether we should change course, it is clear today that a majority in this body believe we must change course. Today, a majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working, and a majority believes there has been no progress on political reconciliation.

The question I hear repeated is: Do we change course now or do we wait until September? I have heard distinguished Members of this body say: Why not wait until September? I believe the answer is clear. When you know things are moving in the wrong direction, why wait to act? And a growing majority in the Senate agrees.

While there are over 50-plus votes to support this view, there doesn't appear to be the 60 votes needed to bring the debate to a close, and there still are not the 67 votes needed to overcome a Presidential veto. So those of us who believe we need to change course, and

need to change course now, have no option other than to press for a vote until we prevail.

The good news is that this debate may slowly be moving away from the partisan bickering and toward a bipartisan way out of Iraq. A growing number of well-respected Republicans have made it clear that they believe the President's current strategy is not sustainable. This includes Senators Warner and Lugar, two of the most distinguished Senators in this body, who have introduced an amendment calling on the President to develop a plan to transition the mission, and potentially--potentially--draw down our troops.

This includes Senators Hagel, Smith, and Snowe, who have cosponsored the Levin-Reed amendment calling for a binding timetable to redeploy our troops.

This includes Senator Voinovich, who, according to reports, has informed the White House that the only way to salvage the President's legacy is to begin moving out of Iraq.

And this includes Senators Domenici, Collins, Alexander, Bennett, Gregg, and Sununu, who have embraced legislation to implement the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

These Senators are to be commended for their courage, and I believe the ranks will only continue to grow as time goes by. Why? Because despite repeated predictions that security and stability in Iraq are just around the corner, this has proved illusory. The security situation has not improved. There has been no progress toward political reconciliation. None.

Simply put: Violence in Iraq continues unabated, and we have heard it said on the floor over and over again, just in the past few days: 25 people killed Sunday, attacks across Baghdad, 10 killed in a car bomb blast in a busy commercial area, a triple bombing attack in Kirkuk killing 85 yesterday, wounding 183. And within hours of that attack, several men in Iraqi military uniforms attacked a Shia village in Diyala fatally shooting 28 men, women, and children.

This is why we need a change in course. And these are not isolated incidents. They are not the exception. They are the norm, day in, day out. Every day there is more--more bombings, more shootings, more IEDs, more kidnappings, more death squads.

Has the surge led to a reduction in violence? No. The news continues. We also heard last week of a firefight between U.S. forces and Iraqi police.

This cannot be the right direction. The surge wasn't supposed to be a silver bullet, but it was supposed to give the Iraqi Government the space and stability needed to come to a political accommodation. But has this happened? The answer has to be no. Is this likely to happen in the next 55 days? The answer is no.

In fact, the Iraqi Parliament will be taking a month-long vacation during this critical period. That is 30 out of the 55 days.

But of greatest concern is the fact that there has been little, if any, progress in the political arena. Even by the administration's account, the Iraqi Government hasn't made progress in meeting the benchmarks. You have heard this, and there are two more reports due on benchmarks, so we will hear more of the same.

If you talk about benchmarks, to me the most critical has always been debaathification--a terrible mistake made by us and now supported to continue by Ahmed Chalabi to prevent former Baathists from working. You can never have a united Iraq as long as you have debaathification on a level that even today still exists. The absence of holding provincial elections, passing an oil revenue sharing law, ensuring that authorities are not undermining members of the Iraqi security forces, ensuring that the Iraqi security forces provide evenhanded enforcement of the law--simple things not done.

There is a misbegotten belief that we can turn Iraq into a democracy--a country with little infrastructure for democracy, a government where ministers don't show up, where parliamentarians don't arrive, where long vacations are taken in the middle of war and strife. At the same time, the Pentagon reported last week that there has been a slight reduction in the number of Iraqi security force units capable of independent operations. So there is even deterioration on that front.

Yet we are told to wait. Something good might happen. So what should we do? Rather than wait another 8 weeks, I think we should act now. I think the Senate should approve the Levin-Reed amendment, which, to date, is the only amendment, as the majority leader has stated so often, with teeth--in 120 days redeployment begins, and out by April 30th of next year. It is clear, it is definitive, and it has the support of a majority of this body.

No State has suffered more than California from this war. We have nearly 400 dead and 3,000 wounded; 400 dead, 400 young men and women dead from the State. I hear some States say they have had five or six. We have had 400 people killed in this war. It is clear we must change course, but the President and some in this body say, again, we should wait.

Let me tell you why we should not wait. Here is what we will lose in 8 weeks, if current trends continue. Hundreds more U.S. troops dead. At this present rate, that is 200 more dead. More than 1,000 U.S. troops injured. Actually, if the present rate continues, 1,200 to 1,500 more. Several thousand more Iraqi civilians killed. At the present rate, 4,000 to 6,000 by waiting. Nearly 100,000 more Iraqi civilians displaced and another $20 billion spent.

I ask you, is this an acceptable cost of waiting? It is not to me. Secretary Gates and other administration officials made it clear in January we should know in a matter of months if the surge was working. Here it is July. It is very clear the surge is not working. Every day there are more bombings. If you measure things in real terms, that kill people--there are more bombings, more killings, more IEDs, more violence. Casualties have jumped since the surge began. As I said, we are now losing 100 of our people every month. The 331 troops killed during April, May, and June is the highest 3-month total since the war began 4\1/2\ years ago.

How is this a sign of progress? Tell me how is it a sign of progress, when more people are killed, more displaced, Iraqis turn up in the morgue by the dozens every day? Because if this trend continues, 2007 will be the deadliest for our troops since this war began. Why wait to act?

Waiting is not going to change the political situation either. Will we see the Iraqi Government pass an oil revenue-sharing law by September? Does anyone believe that? I don't think so.

Will we see reform of the debaathification system by September? I don't think so.

Will we see provincial elections or an Iraqi security force that is free from sectarian influence? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, the answer to all these questions is no. We haven't seen movement on the political front in the past 7 months, so why do we believe it will happen in the next 2 months? This is especially true, given that the Iraqi Parliament is taking a month off in August.

The surge was not supposed to be this silver bullet. It was supposed to give the Iraqi Government the space, the stability needed to come to a political solution. But as I say, this has not happened. As important, moving out of Iraq would open the door to a reevaluation of our national security interests in the region.

I happened to listen to Senator Lugar on the floor in what I think was one of the most eloquent speeches I have heard. Let me quote from him.

Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national

security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our

continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is

limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in

the world.

We know our Nation faces major challenges and the primary focus on Iraq has allowed these problems to fester. It has sapped our ability to act elsewhere, both by crippling our military's readiness and by draining our soft power around the world. Our challenges today, our real national interests, include: preventing terrorists from gaining safe haven in Pakistan and Afghanistan; preventing the violence in Iraq from spreading throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the cities of Europe; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technologies and strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This is the national interest of this country.

Containing Iran and compelling it to abandon its uranium enrichment program and pursuing a sustained and robust diplomacy aimed at achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace--I am delighted the President has taken on this as a major initiative with priority and that the Secretary of State will be in charge of this effort.

Finally, improving the image of the United States and repairing the damage done to our credibility around the world.

Does anyone believe, truly, this war has gained us respect in the council of world nations? Does anyone believe that? Because if they do, they are smoking something. Because it has not. There has never been a time when America has less credibility abroad than today.

Does anybody believe this war is quelling a new generation of terrorists? It is doing exactly opposite.

Peter Bergen, whose books I have read, whose statements I follow, said the other day on CNN that he estimates terrorists have increased sevenfold, that is 700 percent, since the war in Iraq began. Is this our interest? Is our interest to encourage every madrasah all throughout the Arab and Islamic world to essentially preach to create a new generation of terrorists? That is what is happening right now and we are not addressing it. We are not spending the money, the $10 billion a month to see that there are normal schools in these countries that teach youngsters how to become educated, to accept a place of economic upward mobility in what is a modern world. No. Instead, the sores fester and the terrorists grow. That is the reason that, as far as air traffic is concerned, we are in orange alert today.

The simple truth is that none of these initiatives can be pursued adequately so long as we are bogged down in Iraq. Iraq dominates our Nation's psyche, it dominates our Nation's pocketbook, and it dominates in the loss of our men and women.

I think each deserves the continuous attention of this administration, and the longer we wait to begin a redeployment of our troops, the longer we delay the day of reckoning, the longer we refuse to take the diplomatic steps that are necessary to engage with Syria, to engage with Iran, the harder it is going to be to achieve a successful outcome. I believe this.

I believe the time has come to change course. Waiting is not going to change the facts on the ground. Oh, I wished I believed that. I wish I could say, in 2 months, we are not going to lose 200 men and women; in 2 months, 4,000 or 5,000 additional Iraqis will not be killed; 100,000 additional Iraqis are not going to be displaced, and we are not going to spend another $20 billion of our treasure. But I cannot.

In total, we have lost more than 3,600 of our brave men and women, almost 500 since this surge began 5 months ago. Nearly 27,000 have suffered injuries, and many of these injuries are more serious than anything we have ever seen in the history of veterans' care, people who will require care for the rest of their lives.

We lose 100 of our people every month. So why wait to act? The most recent Pentagon quarterly report on Iraq concluded that the ``aggregate level of violence'' in Iraq has remained ``unchanged''--unchanged. Five months into the surge, the level of violence in Iraq, according to the recent Pentagon report, is unchanged, and CIA analyst Tim Fingar testified to Congress last week the violence in Iraq has not yet been reduced significantly.

At the same time, even as we have appropriated $450 billion for this war, spending has increased to $10 billion a month; Armed Forces are stretched thin, equipment is worn, recruiting is down, and nobody knows what happens to the military come April when deployments cannot be met. So why wait to act?

We are going to be paying the costs of this war for decades. Yet this President has asked for more time. Waiting another 2 months will not change anything. It will be more of the same. As has been said on this floor tonight a myriad of times, but I must echo it: The President shows no inclination to listen to a majority of the Senate, to the American people or to the House of Representatives. He has provided no exit strategy, no plan to begin redeploying our troops. Come September, there is no reason to believe anything will have changed. Why wait to act?

I yield the floor.

(Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.)

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 25, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on S. 1487, the Ballot Integrity Act.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Committee on Indian Affairs

Mr. President, I believe I have a half hour to speak in morning business. Prior to doing so, I wish to give a brief rejoinder to my colleague from Arizona on some of the comments he just made.

It is my understanding that the underlying Defense Authorization Act has several provisions that are necessary to address shortcomings in the legal process for individuals detained on the battlefield. One of these provisions limits the use of coerced testimony obtained through cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Such testimony is immoral, and this provision is necessary if we are to obtain and use accurate information.

Another provision provides for reasonable counsel and the ability to present relevant information to detainees who have been held for 2 or more years. This is necessary in a war of undetermined duration.

Finally, the bill does not provide classified information to a detainee. It provides for a summary that is intended to be unclassified to the counsel for detainees.

One of the things that might help is if, on line 16, page 305, subsection II, the word ``unclassified'' was added before the word ``summary'' on that line. I believe that is the intent.

Mr. President, many in this body and people all over the world watched as America, 5\1/2\ years ago, began to arrest, apprehend, and incarcerate detainees. Some were real terrorists, some were conspirators, and some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. We watched as Camp X-Ray was built at the naval base at Guantanamo, and we have seen the development of a different and lesser standard of American justice developed for proceedings at that base. Since that time, Guantanamo has been derided as a blight on human rights values and as a stain on American justice worldwide.

I believe the time has come to close Guantanamo. An amendment I have filed with Senator Harkin--Senator Harkin is my main cosponsor--and Senator Hagel would do exactly that. It is cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Clinton, Brown, Bingaman, Kennedy, Whitehouse, Obama, Durbin, Byrd, yourself, Mr. President, Senator Salazar, Senators Feingold, Boxer, and Biden.

It is my understanding that the Republican side has refused us a time agreement, which means we will not be allowed a vote. The amendment is not germane postcloture. So if the Republican side will not allow us a time agreement, we have, unfortunately, no way of getting a vote on this amendment.

The fact is that yesterday's New York Times editorialized that Guantanamo should be closed. That is what many people believe, and yet we cannot fully debate that issue and vote on it here. I think that is truly a shame.

I very much regret this, but Senator Harkin, Senator Hagel, and I wish to take some time to address this issue. I assure this body that we will not stop here, but we will find another venue in which to debate and vote on this matter.

The amendment we have proposed would require the President to close the Guantanamo detention facility within 1 year, and it provides the administration flexibility to choose the venue in which to try detainees--in military proceedings, Federal district courts, or both. The administration would choose which maximum security facilities in which to house them.

Why should we close the Guantanamo detention facility? First and foremost, this administration's decision to create Guantanamo appears to have been part of a plan to create a

sphere of limited law outside the scrutiny of American courts that would result in a lesser standard of justice.

Guantanamo is unique. It is not sovereign territory of the United States; however, under a 1903 lease, the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this naval base. I believe the administration hoped to use this distinction to operate without accountability at Guantanamo.

This is revealed in a December 2001 Office of Legal Counsel memo by John Yoo of the Justice Department, who later authored the infamous torture memo. Yoo knew there was a risk that courts would reject the legal theory of unaccountability at Guantanamo, but, just as he did with his torture memo, he laid out the various arguments why his extreme views might prevail.

Let me point this out. In his memo, he says:

Finally, the executive branch has repeatedly taken the

position under various statutes that [Guantanamo] is neither

part of the United States nor a possession or territory of

the United States. For example, this Office [Justice] has

opined that [Guantanamo] is not part of the ``United States''

for purposes of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. . .

.Similarly, in 1929, the Attorney General opined that

[Guantanamo] was not a ``possession'' of the United States

within the meaning of certain tariff acts.

The memo concludes with this statement:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a district

court cannot properly entertain an application for a writ of

habeas corpus by an enemy alien detained at Guantanamo Bay

Naval Base, Cuba. Because the issue has not yet been

definitively resolved by the courts, however, we caution that

there is some possibility that a district court would

entertain such an application.

So here the administration apparently hoped to turn Guantanamo into a legal hybrid wholly under U.S. control but beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

What has happened since then? The Supreme Court rejected the administration's position in Rasul v. Bush in a 2004 ruling that American courts do have jurisdiction to hear habeas and other claims from detainees held at Guantanamo.

Following another defeat in the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, which declared invalid the Pentagon's process for adjudicating detainees, the administration responded by pushing the passage of a new Military Commissions Act. This expressly eliminated habeas corpus rights and limited other appeals to procedure and constitutionality, leaving questions of fact or violation of law unresolvable by all Federal courts. This happens nowhere else in American law. But this Military Commissions Act went through.

There are serious questions about whether this provision will withstand a court test. On June 29, just 2 weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two additional cases which go right to this point: Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. the United States. The High Court declined to hear these cases in April but has reversed itself and granted certiorari--the first time in 60 years that it agreed to take a case after previously refusing it. From this case, we will find out whether the military commissions law, which prevents full appeals, in fact, can stand the court test.

What is the administration arguing in that case? Once again, they are trying to argue that the Constitution's protection of habeas corpus does not extend to detainees at Guantanamo because it is outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

I believe it is time to put an end to these efforts to use a legal maneuver to create a law-free zone at Guantanamo.

As Justice Kennedy emphasized in his concurring opinion in Rasul:

Guantanamo is in every practical respect a United States

territory.

So U.S. law would apply at Guantanamo whether this administration likes that or not.

The administration's efforts to create a land without law at Guantanamo has been a moral and a strategic catastrophe for the United States. The bad decision to create a separate system of justice at Guantanamo led to another mistake, and I mentioned this briefly: the Military Commissions Act. In retrospect, let's look at what that act has done:

It expands Presidential authority by giving the White House broad latitude to interpret the meaning and authority of the Geneva Conventions.

It presents vague and ambiguous definitions of torture and cruel and inhumane treatment that fail to establish clear guidelines for what is a permissible interrogation technique.

It abandons the independent judicial review process by establishing a new Court of Military Commission Review with members appointed by the Pentagon. This court has yet to be established.

It limits appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is given limited review authority. This is what will most likely be before the court very shortly.

For the first time in U.S. history, it allows coerced evidence-- obtained prior to December 30, 2005--to be entered into a court record, and it revokes habeas corpus rights that allowed detainees to appeal their status before the Federal court.

Direct review is limited and habeas is eliminated by this military commissions bill.

Clearly, the military commissions bill, which passed by a vote of 65 to 34 in this House, seeks to once again set up a separate and lesser standard of justice.

Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have introduced a bill to restore habeas rights to Guantanamo detainees. I hope that bill is allowed to be presented as an amendment to this bill. It is timely, it is important, and the world is watching. It should happen, and finally, it is the right thing to do.

So what have been all the consequences of this? The detention center at Guantanamo Bay has become a lightning rod for international condemnation. It draws sharp criticism from our allies and hands our enemies a potent recruiting tool. It weakens our standing in the world and makes the world a more dangerous place for our troops, who may be captured on foreign battlefields in the future.

Yet the administration fails to act, despite public comments from President Bush and top advisers that the facility should be closed. Recent news reports say there is renewed debate inside the White House over closing Guantanamo, but still nothing happens. So I believe it is up to Congress to act.

What would this amendment do? In addition to requiring the President to close Guantanamo within a year, it would prohibit the administration from transferring detainees at Guantanamo to other U.S.-controlled facilities outside the United States. It also requires the President to keep Congress informed of efforts to close the facility and transfer the detainees, and includes the specific requirement that the President report to Congress in writing within 3 months of the bill's enactment.

I believe it is critical that we act. To do nothing, to leave Guantanamo open, as some in the administration would like, is to invite further condemnation and further risk. It will weaken our efforts to fight terrorism and it will continue to erode our standing in the world.

I recently heard Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert, on CNN. I have read his books and listened to him throughout the years. He said he and his colleagues had taken a good look at the increase in terror and he believed it would be fair to assert that our presence in Iraq has served to increase terrorists by sevenfold--by 700 percent over what the world of terrorists was before Iraq and today.

The simple fact remains that Guantanamo violates our values and our traditions, including respect for the rule of law and for human rights.

In avoiding the full weight of American justice, Guantanamo has shocked the conscience of the world. It has led the men and women who have worn the uniform, including many retired flag officers, to speak out. A dozen former generals and admirals warned in January of 2005 that the interrogation techniques allowed at Guantanamo and elsewhere had:

. . . fostered greater animosity toward the United States,

undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to

the risks facing our troops around the world.

Among those who commented were GEN John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; GEN Merrill McPeak, former Air Force Chief of Staff; Marine GEN Joseph Hoar, a former commander of the U.S. Central Command; and RADM Dan Guter, a former Navy judge advocate general.

Earlier this year, a very respected retired Marine Corps general, by the

name of James Jones, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said:

I would close the prison tomorrow. I would do it

immediately. Just the images alone have hurt our national

reputation. I don't know how you fix that without closing it.

I agree with him. I don't know how you begin to fix the damage brought by Guantanamo without closing it. A military commissions bill couldn't do it. We can't do it, and that is the fact.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it succinctly:

I would close it not tomorrow, but this afternoon.

But importantly, the sense of conscience, as well as a measure of the international reaction to Guantanamo, came in a statement by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Here is what he said:

I never imagined I would live to see the day when the

United States and its satellites would use precisely the same

arguments that the apartheid government used for detention

without trial. It is disgraceful.

In May of 2006, President Bush told German television:

I would very much like to end Guantanamo. I would very much

like to get people to a court.

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Bob Gates, new to his job, made clear that he also wanted Guantanamo closed. He said:

There is no question in my mind that Guantanamo and some of

the abuses that have taken place in Iraq have negatively

impacted the reputation of the United States.

He said that at the Munich Conference on Security Policy earlier this year. On February 27, following an Appropriations Committee meeting, I personally asked him what he thought, and he said, equally as succinctly as General Powell, that he thought it should be closed.

The following month Secretary Gates told the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that trials at Guantanamo would lack credibility in the eyes of the world. In March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said:

The President has been very clear, and he is clear to us

all the time. He would like to see it closed. We all would.

Well, then why is the Republican side preventing us from having a vote today or tomorrow or the next day that would say that Guantanamo should be closed within a year? How can the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State make these comments that they want Guantanamo closed and the Republican side of the aisle prevent us from taking a vote in the Congress? I don't understand this.

Additional fallout from the Military Commissions Act is that it has stymied further trials under its auspices. Two military judges recently found that the detainees have been incorrectly classified as ``enemy combatants'' rather than as ``unlawful enemy combatants.'' So that is another hitch in this. They have classified people wrongly so they can't be tried.

Recently, a lieutenant colonel, who was part of this process from an intelligence point of view, in an affidavit has stated that even this classification was based on vague and incomplete intelligence. Lieutenant Colonel Abraham also said tribunal members were pressured by their superiors to rule against detainees, often without specific evidence, and that military prosecutors were given ``generic'' material that did not hold up in the face of the most basic legal challenges.

Now, let me be clear: I have no sympathy for Taliban fighters, al- Qaida terrorists, or anyone else out to hurt the United States, or commit cowardly and despicable acts of terror. There is nothing in this amendment that puts terrorists back on the street. That is not the goal. Any argument that this amendment would harm national security is flat out false.

I believe what harms national security is sacrificing our Nation's values--which have made us rightly the greatest democracy in the world--by setting up a hybrid system of justice, by not following the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but by creating this hybrid system, which has failed court tests now and will quite possibly fail another one shortly.

Now, how do you stop all this? As long as you have this extraterritorial facility out there, without the light of day shining on it, you can't. Today, two of our colleagues are visiting Guantanamo. Unfortunately, I couldn't go with them. The last time I visited Guantanamo was with Secretary Rumsfeld, rather early on, and I suspect what they will find is a rather well-run, strong, staunch military prison. But that doesn't mean the justice that is dispensed there is correct if it is secondary justice, if it is sublevel justice, if there is limited right of appeal, if you don't have access to an attorney easily, if you can't see evidence against you.

One can say, well, Guantanamo is no Abu Ghraib, and I would most likely agree with that--today. There have been allegations of inappropriate behavior in terms of interrogation techniques, no question about that. I assume that is corrected now. But it still looms out there as a way the United States has of not allowing these prisoners to face justice. It is one thing if you are a terrorist; it is another thing if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, if you are swept up, if you are put in either a cage or a cell at Guantanamo, and if you stay there year after year after year with no recourse. That is a stain on American justice. We criticize the Chinese for their form of administrative detention, and yet here we practice a similar thing.

We face a serious, long-term terrorist threat. It may well go on for the next 10 or even 20 years. We must track down, punish, and prosecute those who seek to hurt this country and hurt our people. At the same time, we need national policies that are both tough and smart, and this isn't smart. We will fight terror with vigor and drive and purpose, but we must not forget who we are. We are a nation of laws. We are a nation of value and tradition. These values have been admired throughout the decades all over the world.

The world has looked at Guantanamo and made the judgment that it is wrong. I think it is time for the Senate to do something about it. The Senate has borne the burden of Guantanamo for too long. The time has come to close it down. I appeal to the other side to allow the debate on the floor and to give us a unanimous consent time agreement so that there might be a vote in this body.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Lady Bird Johnson, one of our Nation's most beloved former First Ladies.

Lady Bird Johnson was a conservationist, an enthusiastic political wife, a shrewd businesswoman, and the loving grandmother of a close- knit family.

But she will be best remembered for her efforts to make America a more beautiful country.

Lady Bird Johnson was born Claudia Alta Taylor to her parents near Karnack, TX, in 1912. Legend has it that she received the quaint nickname when a nursemaid exclaimed that the young Claudia was ``as purty as a lady bird.''

At a very early age, she expressed an interest in the environment, and in particular, wildflowers--which would become a lifelong passion.

A graduate of the University of Texas, Lady Bird received a bachelor of arts in history and a bachelor of journalism in 1934.

It was in Austin where she met her future husband, Lyndon Baines Johnson. The connection between the two was electric--after a whirlwind romance and courtship, the two were married in November 1934.

Lady Bird was a loyal and tireless supporter during her husband's political career--usually behind the scenes--from Congressman to Senator, from Senate majority leader to Vice President, and finally, on that fateful day in 1963, as the 36th President of the United States.

And it is her accomplishments as First Lady that distinguished Lady Bird as visionary.

Lady Bird brought a dash of Texas hospitality and genteel charm to the White House during those first dark days of the Johnson administration, as the Nation struggled to recover from the tragedy of the Kennedy assassination.

A life-long lover of the environment, Lady Bird Johnson is best known for the Beautification Act of 1965, which is widely credited as the Lady Bird Act. The legislation encouraged efforts to make the Nation's Interstate System more scenic and limited billboards that could be posted along roadways.

So as millions of American families go on summer vacations, they can thank Lady Bird Johnson for the beautiful wildflowers that bloom along the highways.

It was the first of a major legislative effort undertaken by a First Lady--and helped to transform the very nature of the Office of the First Lady.

Lady Bird began her beautification efforts with the ``First Lady's Committee for a More Beautiful Capital'' in 1965.

Although it is largely known that the First Lady worked to have flower beds and dogwood trees planted throughout the Capitol, Lady Bird also worked to address more urban societal concerns here in the District of Columbia, such as crime, public transportation, mental health and recreation.

And to Lady Bird, beautification meant much more--it embodied a deep commitment to the conservation of this country's natural resources.

In her own words, it meant: ``clean water, clean air, clean roadsides, safe waste disposal and preservation of valued old landmarks, as well as great parks and wilderness areas.''

As First Lady, she was often considered a ``shadow Secretary of the Interior.''

When the White House Conference on Natural Beauty was convened in May 1966, Lady Bird kicked off the conference proceedings by asking this important question:

Can a great democratic society generate the drive to plan,

and having planned, execute projects of great natural beauty?

And thanks in part to her efforts, the Johnson administration helped to oversee some 150 legislative accomplishments for the environment, including: The Clean Air Act; The Wilderness Act of 1964; The Land and Water Conservation Fund; The Wild and Scenic Rivers Program; and numerous additions to the National Park system.

Lady Bird Johnson helped to ensure protection of some of America's finest natural treasures, including the Grand Canyon, the Hudson River Valley, and perhaps closest to my heart, the majestic California redwoods.

Lady Bird Johnson was also closely involved in President Johnson's civil rights efforts and his ``Great Society'' campaign, particularly on the Head Start program.

She helped to ensure that low-income youngsters are given the opportunities they need to compete fairly and equally when they enter elementary school.

So she truly left her stamp as a First Lady.

After leaving the White House in 1969, Lady Bird turned her attention once again to wildflowers. She was instrumental in launching the National Wildflower Research Center in 1982, which was later renamed in her honor.

The center has been central to helping preserve many species of wildflowers and plants, which are increasingly sensitive to the challenges of climate change. In fact, today, some 30 percent of the world's wildflowers and other native flora are endangered.

Lady Bird Johnson was one of America's finest citizens. And she was recognized as such. In 1977, the former First Lady was presented with America's highest civilian award, the Medal of Freedom, by President Gerald Ford. And in 1988, she received the Congressional Gold Medal from President Ronald Reagan.

As Laurance Rockefeller aptly stated when Lady Bird was awarded the Conservation Award for Lifetime Achievement in 1977:

She's a role model for leadership responsibility for women.

That's a big part of her legacy, above and beyond the

environment.

Lady Bird Johnson will be very much missed. And I offer my personal and deepest sympathies to her family.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Levin- Reed amendment has been laid down. I wish to say a few words about it and the situation in Iraq in general.

Once again, the Senate is confronted with a series of votes over the future of Iraq. These votes present a very simple choice: Continue with more of the same, or change course. To me, the choice is crystal clear. The United States should and must change course in Iraq. We must begin to redeploy our forces and reevaluate what is truly in our national interests.

This is not the first time we have been confronted with such a choice. Many of us have voted over and over and over again for change, yet this President has refused to listen. He has worn blinders. He has ignored the views of Congress and the American people. Majorities in both the Senate and the House have voted to redeploy our forces from Iraq, but the President vetoed the legislation and there were not the votes to override, so we are back again facing many of the same questions. Will the President listen this time?

In this current debate new voices have emerged, raising significant concerns about the progress of the war. This includes Senator Lugar, the deeply respected Senator from Indiana, who said in a very eloquent speech before this body--and I have had the privilege of reading it in detail and I wish to quote him:

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the

current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be

achieved.

This includes Senator Warner, who has said that waiting until September is too long. This includes Senator Voinovich, Senator Hagel, Senator Smith, and Senator Snowe, who have questioned the current path. Will this President listen?

Moving from the Halls of Congress to the streets of Baghdad, it is clear to see that this is not a rhetorical game. It is about facts on the ground, and the facts are this: It has been 4\1/2\ years since U.S. forces entered Iraq. That is longer than we conducted World War II. Yet, the nation remains in chaos. Violence continues unabated. The insurgency is as strong as ever. The internecine fighting between Shia and Sunni is strong. Every day, there are more bombings, more IEDs, more deaths. In total, we have lost 3,600 brave men and women, almost 500 since this surge began 5 months ago. On average, four U.S. troops are being killed every day in Iraq.

Has the surge worked? Five months into it, it is clear that the surge has failed to stop the violence. Fatalities and sectarian attacks are on the rise. At no period in the war have we lost as many American troops as in the last 3 months. If the trend continues, 2007 will be the deadliest since the war began.

The promise of the surge was not that it would solve all of Iraq's problems, but that it would increase security and stability so that Iraq's government could confront the difficult political questions. So we must ask the question: Has it? But in this area too, there has been no progress; no progress on passing an oil revenue-sharing law; no progress on reforming the de-Baathification system which, to a great extent, was responsible for this insurgency in the first place; no progress in holding provincial elections, and no substantial progress on any other benchmark.

In fact, the Maliki government seems to be under siege. Sectarian tensions are mounting, and there have been calls for a no-confidence vote in the Prime Minister. So the vaunted surge has not worked and there has been no political progress. Yet, this President has asked for more time and more resources, and he gives no hints that he

now recognizes how dire the situation is. He gives no indication that he believes the course must be changed. He provides the American people with no exit strategy. To me, this represents a major failure of leadership.

I believe America's continued mission in Iraq is counterproductive. Therefore, the time has come for a change of course. I believe that within 120 days, we must begin to redeploy our combat troops. The goal would be to transition the majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by April 2008, and that is exactly what the Levin-Reed amendment does. A small supporting force would remain in Iraq for the purposes of training, counterterrorism, border security, and force protection. This would move the vast majority of our troops out of harm's way.

Just as importantly, moving out of Iraq would open the door to a reevaluation of our national security interests in the region. Our Nation faces major challenges, and the primary focus on Iraq has allowed these problems to fester unaddressed. These include preventing terrorists from gaining safe haven in Afghanistan or, yes, Iraq. That is an abiding national security interest of this country. Senator Lugar alluded to it in his remarks. I certainly agree. To prevent Iraq from becoming a safe harbor for terrorists should remain a national security goal of the United States.

Secondly, preventing the violence from spreading throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the cities of Europe.

Third, thwarting Iranian domination of the region, and persuading the Iranian government that continued development of nuclear weapons is not in its best interests. This can't be done by not talking with Iran; it can only be done by talking with Iran. This is what we should be doing.

Fourth, pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. Yesterday afternoon, I met with the Foreign Minister of Egypt and he agreed. This is a window of opportunity to move toward a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. To once again overlook that opportunity is a big mistake.

Finally, containing the damage done to our credibility around the world. Our credibility has suffered. The war has spawned terror. Over this past weekend, I happened to hear Peter Bergin, the distinguished expert on Osama bin Laden, speaking on CNN. He estimated that terrorism has increased sevenfold because of our involvement in Iraq.

Many people say if we leave Iraq, the Middle East collapses. I don't believe that. If we leave Iraq, we leave Shia and Sunni to come to grips with the problems between them, without the United States being a buffer and creating the point of attack for terrorists and insurgents.

I say remove that point of attack and begin to solve some of the problems. The simple truth is that none of these initiatives can be pursued adequately so long as we are bogged down in Iraq. So I believe the time has come to change course. We are 4 years and $450 billion into the war. Costs are increasing at $10 billion a month. We are losing 100 soldiers a month. Our Armed Forces are stretched thin, equipment is worn, recruiting is down, and no one can estimate what the impact will be come next April, when forces will be unable to meet the rotations.

We will be paying the costs of this war for decades to come. Thanks to medical science and battlefield medicine, many soldiers ordinarily would have died, but they have been saved. Some have egregious injuries. We have all seen the people with traumatic brain injury, amputees--single, double, quadruple amputees, people who will need care for the rest of their lives.

We have a choice: more of the same or change course. The Levin-Reed amendment represents a change of course. It represents this Senate standing up and saying forcefully we want our people out. We want redeployment within 120 days, and we want us off the streets, no longer to be that point of attack between Shia and Sunni. So the choice could not be clearer. It is time to act. I am very much in support of a Levin-Reed amendment. I very much hope we will have a chance to vote on the substance of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is really a very difficult time because probably in the 14 years I have been here, there is no more important bill than this one. There is no more difficult bill. There is no bill that calls upon the courage of every single Senator more than this bill. I know what has been happening out there. I know the calls that have been made. I know some of the threats that have been made. Yet we have a chance in this bill to do the right thing.

Many people don't understand the bill. They don't understand the large amount of the bill that is dedicated to enforcing our borders. They don't understand the money that the fees and fines put into the process to be able to do what we need to do with respect to immigration. They don't understand the reforms that are made in employment verification. They also don't understand the threat to our national security--that having so many people in this country and not knowing who they are, having more people coming into this country every day and not knowing who they are--the threat this presents to the security of every man, woman, and child.

This bill is aimed to fix what is broken in our system. I have had individual Senators say to me: Well, if the bill was just this part, I would vote for it; if the bill was just that part, I would vote for it. The point is, this part or that part won't get 60 votes. Only a combination of parts to accomplish a broad fix of broken borders, broken identification, a totally broken system will get enough votes.

We are very close to the votes required. I don't know what to say to Members who are not yet decided to bring them on board. I agree with what Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter have said: If we miss this opportunity, there is not likely to be another one in the next few years to fix the system. What will that mean? That will mean every year 700,000 to 800,000 more people will come across our borders unobserved, unknown. They will disappear into the shadows. If there is period of ``do nothing'' for the next 10 years, that will be 7 to 8 million more people illegally in the country. If we don't fix our visa overstay system, which is in this bill--40 percent of the illegal population are visas overstay; many of them don't go home--that will remain unfixed. If we don't come up with fraud-proof identification cards, employers will never really be able to know whom they employ and whether that individual is a legal person. This is an opportunity to fix all of that.

The fixes may not be to everyone's liking, but they are positive. It is the most positive immigration bill we have considered yet.

Additionally, never before in the history of the country is more being done to fix our broken borders, to fix interior enforcement, to fix employer sanctions. One thing is happening that has turned this bill by talk show hosts into something it is not, and that is for those people who are opposed, this is an amnesty bill. I don't know how we could say more strongly that it is not. I don't know how we could say more strongly that what is out there now is a silent amnesty. People are here 15, 20, 25 years. They are working, owning property. They now have a state of amnesty. This bill reconciles that. This bill changes that. This bill prevents it from happening in the future. It is hard for me to understand why that doesn't measure big-time with many of our colleagues. Apparently, it does not.

I can only come to the floor to plead: Let us finish this bill. If you are concerned about enforcement, Senator Graham's amendment coming down the pike next has many very interesting improvements. Give him a chance to offer that amendment, then vote no. But I think to cut this bill off now is a huge mistake. We are so close. There are still a series of amendments to be passed. Please, give them an opportunity postcloture. Please vote for cloture.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want the Senator from Virginia to have his full 15 minutes, and then, if it is agreeable, I will have what is left.

Mr. President, I want to have an opportunity to speak on the bill. I know then Senator Hutchison will offer her amendment, and I will have an opportunity at that time, hopefully, to speak against the amendment.

Mr. President, there has been one inescapable truth in all of this. Year after year----

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I am sorry, I cannot hear you.

For the remainder of the time we have on this side, which is----

--18 minutes.

He just spoke.

For the 14 years I have served on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I have become more and more convinced that what we have is a broken system. To me, the word ``comprehensive'' means fixing a broken system. The system is broken in many different directions.

In one direction, every year, year in, year out, 700,000 to 800,000 people cross the border looking for hope, opportunity, work, or to reunite with family. They come into this country in an illegal status, and they disappear. There is a portion of our economy that welcomes immigrant labor. They are able to find work. They are able to hide. They are able to falsify documents.

I have personally gone to Alvarado Street in Los Angeles and seen where, in 20 minutes, you can obtain a green card, a driver's license, a Social Security card. You cannot tell the difference between a real and a fraudulent document. The border is broken in that we cannot protect it.

Secondly, it is estimated that 40 percent of the people here illegally are visa overstays. Some go back after awhile. Some never go back. What does this constitute? It constitutes a silent amnesty because these people exist in America. They are able to work in America. Most are never found by authorities. Those who are found are similar to the Munoz family in San Diego.

A few weeks ago, a mother and a father were deported in the middle of the night. They have three American children, the oldest of which is 16. They own their home. They both work. They own their furniture. In the middle of the night, Immigration Naturalization Service comes in, picks up the parents and deports them. This is an actual case--the house is gone, the furniture is gone, the three children are living with an aunt in San Diego. Why? Because they could be found, or because perhaps somebody reported them, but they could be found. But the dominant number of people here illegally cannot be found.

What this bill tries to do is fix the broken border. We fix it with infrastructure. We say this new infrastructure, whether it is UAVs or vehicle barriers or fencing, has to be in place before anything else is done. The bill mandates $4.4 billion upfront in spending for border enforcement. This money will be used to carry out the enforcement triggers. That is one part of the fix.

A second part of the fix----

I certainly will.

Through the Chair to the Senator from Massachusetts, there is no question about it.

Through the Chair to the Senator from Massachusetts, that is absolutely true. We will have a continuation of what is, in effect, a silent amnesty.

That is absolutely true. We have no idea who is in this country and who comes into this country illegally. We have no idea who is in this country overstaying their visas.

These are the 12 million people who remain unidentified. This is what we are trying to do: First, fix the border as it has never been fixed before. Second, hire the additional Border Patrol, bringing the total number of agents up to 20,000. Third, fix interior enforcement. Fourth, provide for employer verification documents. No more fraudulent documents. Everybody will have biometric documents to be able to prove they are, in fact, who they are.

One of the big problems is in a category called OTMs, ``Other Than Mexicans,'' coming across the border. Because it is so easy to come in, more and more people from other countries are going to Mexico first and coming up through that border, particularly countries from the Middle East. This represents a serious national security issue.

I will.

The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. This bill has three huge chapters called titles that are devoted to enforcement. It is extraordinarily important, and it isn't going to get done if this bill doesn't pass.

Now, in addition to that, it says--because there is no way to find and deport these individuals because they live in the shadows and because an overwhelming number of them live a life of hard work and want to continue to work and want some hope and opportunity for their family--that if they go through an extensive process--not an easy process, not a process of amnesty in any way, shape or form--as a matter of fact, they feel the process may be too tough because they must go through an extensive period of paying fines. For one person, the fines amount to $8,500 over the first 8 years. They must learn English. They must show work documents. They must do this periodically. They must pay taxes. They must show documents that they have paid taxes. This is not a pushover by a long shot.

If they can comply with this, they receive something called a Z visa. That Z visa eventually, between 8 and 13 years into the future, will enable them, after everyone now in the green card line--after that green card line is expunged--to get a green card. It is hard. There are many hoops they will jump through. The fines are heavy. But they say they will do it. The dominant majority say they will do it. That means they will be documented. That means the national security problem will end.

Additionally, we are requiring US-VISIT to track people leaving our country so we will know if somebody who is here on a visa actually leaves the country when their visa expires. There is a penalty. If they come back illegally, they will be held and do some jail time prior to deportation.

The bottom line is this bill also incorporates two other bills. One is a bill that has been negotiated between farmers and growers and organizations representing farm labor, such as the United Farm Workers, over a substantial period of time. The reason for this portion of the bill is because agriculture in America is dominantly--perhaps 90 percent--undocumented illegal workers. The reason it is that way is because American workers will not do the job. I know that in California because we have tried over the years to get American workers to do these jobs.

One day I went out to the Salinas Valley, and I watched row crops being picked. What I saw was the degree to which this is stooped labor in the hot Sun but with a skill. These people bring a skill. Agriculture workers have a skill: the way they pick, the way they sort, the way they pack, the way they prune. If you watch them, you see they go from crop to crop. They are not American citizens. They come from other countries. They are the labor that puts our food on the table in the United States of America.

What this bill does is incorporate a closely negotiated bill called AgJOBS, which would allow these workers to become documented and, at the end of 8 years, if they carry out their requirements to continue their agricultural work for an additional number of years, they are then eligible to be first in this line for a green card.

The final part of the bill is the DREAM Act, which recognizes that children, for example, such as the three Munoz children, or other children who are brought here illegally and go to school and earn a degree in college or serve in our military, can earn a green card.

So the bill is a compromise bill as well. People on the other side of the aisle wanted certain things in this bill. People on our side of the aisle wanted certain things in this bill. It was negotiated and the bill was put together. Is the bill a perfect bill? No. Is it a good bill? I absolutely believe that it is. I absolutely believe this Nation will be better off with this bill. Will the Judiciary Committee have to practice oversight? We have Senator Kennedy, we have the Presiding Officer, and members of the Judiciary Committee. I believe very strongly what we should do is have bimonthly hearings, oversight hearings into the operation and mechanics of the bill, so that as the bill is carried out, if there are tweaks that need to be made, we can make them.

But to fail, at this point in time, is to continue this situation where 12 million remain unidentified, where they pose a serious risk to national security, where 700,000 to 800,000 people will enter our country illegally or overstay their visas over 10 years, with 7 million to 8 million additional people here in undocumented capacity, where 400 to 500 people die every year trying to cross the Mexican border, and where 4 million people will continue to wait for a green card. We take these problems and we try to solve them in this bill.

Now, people who are opposed to the bill say: I don't like this. I am going to vote against the bill. I don't like that. I am going to vote against the bill. Yes, they can do that. Yes, they are entitled to do it, but know what you are doing when you do it. There will be no $4.4 billion to enforce the border. There will be no additional Border Patrol.

There will be no electronic verification. There will be no biometric documents, and the flow and the silent amnesty will, in fact, continue.

This is our chance. We should not squander it.

Certainly. I would be happy to.

That is correct.

I would be happy to. Through the Chair to the Senator from Massachusetts, he is dead right. This is $55 billion where the people affected by the bill pay for the costs. That is a big thing: $55 billion will flow to do what needs to be done, whether it is the biometric cards, whether it is the US-VISIT Program, whether it is the infrastructure at the border, whether it is the 5,000 additional Border Patrol; whatever it is in the bill, the fines are very heavy in this bill. Many people--and a reason why much of the immigrant community has become concerned about the bill--is because of the size of the fines. Nonetheless, we can make the argument that this bill will pay for itself, by and large. The fines are stiff to do that.

Mr. President, there is no question that that is the case, certainly, in California. We have the largest number of undocumented immigrants, people estimated at between 2 million and 3 million. California is an expanding economy. When you get your gas filled in your tank, when you are served a meal in a restaurant, when you look at who is doing the dishes, the person who is changing the beds in the hotel where you stay, who transports patients in the hospital, who does landscaping in the gardens, sweeping the streets, picking the crops, pruning the crops, working in the canning factories that dot our State, you see people who are among those 2 million or 3 million people. No question about it.

Reserving the right to object, is the Chair saying I will not be able to have time to speak against the amendment?

I see. After 11:30, I would be able to speak against the amendment.

After Senator Reid.

Mr. President, I wish to clarify where we are right now. It is my understanding in the unanimous consent agreement with respect to morning business that the next 15 minutes belongs to the Republican side; that Senator DeMint has 10 minutes reserved of that time, and then the remaining 5 minutes of that time can be accorded however the Republican side wishes to do; and that the majority leader is coming back on the floor at 11:30 a.m.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator, it is my understanding that is correct; that following the majority leader, then I will have 5 minutes to respond to Senator Hutchison and then she will have 5 minutes to respond to me.

I object.

Objection.

Objection.

Objection.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, but before I do, I wish to respond. This is not a new bill, this so-called 700 pages. These are amendments packaged together which are subsequently divided. These are amendments which have been around for a substantial period of time. It is true some of them have been modified. Senator Hutchison is modifying her amendment. However, we

have had an opportunity to know that and see it and can speak to it. So I object.

Objection.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to division I.

I ask I be granted 5 minutes, following the Senator from Texas, to speak on the amendment.

Mr. President, shall I proceed?

Mr. President, I worked with the Senator from Texas, now, 10 years up close. I do not like to oppose her amendment, but in this case I believe I must. This is an issue we debated in many conversations during the process of drafting this legislation.

I was opposed to the touchback idea and I am skeptical about it now. However, in the spirit of compromise, we went forward with the touchback that we have in the base bill, specifically in title VI. We included some important safeguards to make sure it is workable.

This amendment from the distinguished Senator from Texas actually does away with this by creating a touchback requirement before people get their full Z visa. What immigrant is going to show up and register for a program if he has to take his chances on leaving the country and coming back in before he gets some kind of immigration status? What immigrant is going to report to deport?

I wager that many, if not most, will simply stay underground and try to keep their heads down for as long as possible. They have built lives here, they have families, they own homes, and they have jobs they want to keep. Very few undocumented immigrants are going to show up for a program that offers no certainty they will actually be able to legalize their status.

What this amendment does is essentially front load the requirement that makes the program unworkable from both an agency and an applicant perspective. Requiring consular officers to steal themselves for a flood of applications, 8 to 10 years down the line, is one thing. Requiring them to gear up for adjudication of this in-person application in the next 2 years following registration is a very different story.

I hope the body will defeat the amendment. Those of us--Senator Craig and I and others--who have worked on the AgJOBS program believe that the agriculture jobs program is the way to go. It is negotiated by farmers, by unions, by growers, and it has a specific requirement.

I know the Senator does not touch this specific requirement, but the main problem with the amendment is requiring this touchback so soon, before people have acquired any kind of legal status. They register and then in 2 years, they would have to go and perform this touchback.

We believe it strikes at the heart of the bill and urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate works in strange ways. I think there is no question about that. Some of us were upstairs holding a press conference on the fact that we had come together around a substitute amendment, and Senator Kerry, who had participated, came back up and said the amendment was agreed to.

For me, I began this in 1993, so it has been a very long time. Senator Snowe and I have worked, first, for the SUV loophole closer and then for this ten-over-ten bill for 6 years now. So it was adopted by the Senate, and there are some people I would like to thank.

I would like to begin thanking Senator Snowe, who has been the cosponsor of this legislation--10 miles improvement in mileage efficiency over 10 years--since we started; the chairman of the committee, Senator Inouye; the ranking member, Senator Stevens; Senator Carper, who was so helpful all the way along; Senator Dorgan, who had one part of the legislation, who agreed to a change and came into the compromise; Senator Kerry, who worked very hard with Senator Cantwell on the flex-fuel part of this; Senator Lott, Senator Corker; Senator Klobuchar; and many others. You, Mr. President, we thank you for being a cosponsor of this compromise effort as well.

We have pushed the rock for so long I think it is hard to feel anything once the rock goes over the hill. But the amendment was adopted and it is in the base bill. For this, we are very grateful.

I would quickly like to say what this agreement does. It increases the fleetwide average fuel economy for all cars, SUVs, and light trucks by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years or from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020.

Second, it requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which we call NHTSA, to establish an attribute-based system that sets mileage standards based on size, weight or type of vehicle. This is important because it creates a level playing field for all automobiles.

From 2011 to 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible and ratchet these standards up, making steady progress to meet the 35- miles-per-gallon fleetwide average by 2020. The fleetwide average must be met unless NHTSA determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide average would not be cost effective for the Nation.

From 2021 to 2030, NHTSA must set fuel economy standards that are the maximum feasible and ratchet even these standards up at a reasonable rate.

In addition, the agreement establishes a credit system that NHTSA would design, run, and operate. This would allow automakers to buy credits if you exceed the standard, and essentially sell those credits to those who cannot make the standards in a given year. So the credit trading program gives an automaker a financial incentive to exceed the standard.

It can bank its credits also for up to 5 years. That is insurance if it falls below the standard in a later year. If an automaker cannot meet the standard in a given year, it can purchase credits, use banked credits or borrow from projected surpluses in future years.

This provision was strongly recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. In part of the negotiation we negotiated with the two Senators from Michigan, both distinguished Senators, Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Levin. And I want to say this: There are no two Senators from any single State that I have seen fight harder for their State's industries than Senator Stabenow and Senator Levin. We could not reach an accommodation. Those of us who have watched this fight for CAFE standards and participated in it for the last 13 years, I have just found, for me, the automobile industry has never responded. They have fought everything we have proposed every time. When this happens, when an industry is not forthcoming and does not come to you and say: Look, I cannot support this, but I can support that, could you make some changes, just something--instead, it is a stone wall. It is: No, it does not work in this agreement, the arena, with those of us who feel strongly.

I come from a huge State. We have two nonattainment pollution areas, the central valley of California and the Los Angeles area. We are having a huge problem meeting the attainment standards. If we do not, it can stop everything dead.

Therefore, this, which reduces pollution, which reduces carbon dioxide, reduces global warming gases, and saves oil to the tune of 1.2 million barrels a day, is something that is going to happen when you try, try, try year after year and decade after decade.

I am very sorry we could not make an accommodation with these two Senators. But those of us who have worked on this felt so strongly that after all these years, 23 years, where Detroit has said: No, no, no, the time had come to say: Yes, yes, yes.

I, for one, want to help with leap-ahead technology. I, for one, want to help with financing, wherever I can, to make it possible. I believe I speak for all of the cosponsors of this bill. I believe we all want to help. So I hope the next step these Senators will take is to say: Here is a bill that we want to help on, that will provide the leap- ahead technology, and here is something that would help financially the American automakers meet these standards.

We who have worked on this, we who asked in the early 1990s--I was the one who asked for the National Academy of Sciences study. They took a period of years to do it. We have read it. I think those of us who have been at that for so long gave up any hope that we could work with the automakers. We do not believe this will stifle the American auto industry. We believe the technology is now available, we believe it is cost effective to use this technology. It is not just based on reducing weight; there are new materials, new engineering strategies, new types of engines that can be employed.

I want to summarize by saying with this amendment, 206 million metric tons of carbon dioxide will not be pumped into the air in 2020; between 345 million metric tons and 428 million metric tons by 2025. We estimate savings for consumers at the pump, at $3-a-gallon gasoline, to be $55.6 billion in 2020, and $93 billion to $116 billion by 2025. As I said, oil savings of 1.2 million barrels per day, or 438 million barrels per year in 2020, and between 2 and 2\1/2\ million barrels per day by 2025. That is about what we import from the Middle East.

I thank everybody who participated. There are some of those Senators on the floor. I want to particularly thank Senator Cantwell for her efforts on flex fuel. She is extraordinarily knowledgeable. She is also determined. She

perseveres. Her amendment was added as a modification to the amendment that passed.

I thank Senator Carper for his steadfast help. The Senator from Delaware has been there every step of the way, in every meeting.

Most of all, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee. What can I say about this chairman? Well, I can begin by saying how lucky we are to have you, Dan Inouye. You run a fine committee. We are so grateful for your leadership in this matter. I do not believe it would have happened had you not, A, been chairman of the committee; B, been committed to this legislation; C, wanted us to come together and find a solution. You were so right, because we did come together, and the solution happened quicker than any of us might guess.

I also want to, if I might, thank your staff. David Strickland is a technological wizard on this. He also has the dedication. He is sitting here today. I know he has worked very long hours. But we are very grateful for his help.

Mr. Chairman, I say thank you very much.

I would be remiss if I did not thank my staff, particularly John Watts, who has been with us for some time, as my environmental counsel, and has worked on this issue; and Matthew Nelson, who is new to our staff, but came in and got his feet wet very fast. I am very grateful to both of them as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bill Nelson as a cosponsor to this amendment.

I know others want to speak. This is one of the great days in the Senate. When you work on something for a long time, and you find yourself cut out year after year, you are determined you are going to persevere to find new ways to do it, and for Senator Snowe and for me, it is a very special day. I thank everyone for making it possible for all of us in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McConnell and the cochair of the United States Senate Women's Caucus on Burma, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to introduce a resolution honoring Nobel Peace laureate and leader of Burma's democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi.

We are joined in this effort by Senator Boxer, Senator McCain, Senator Mikulski, Senator Clinton, Senator Lincoln, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Dole.

Our resolution: honors Aung San Suu Kyi for her courage and devotion to the people of Burma and their struggle for democracy, and; calls for the immediate release of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners by the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council.

Two days ago, we celebrated the 62nd birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi. Sadly, she spent the day as she has for most of the past 17 years: alone and under house arrest. And just last month, the State Peace and Development Council renewed her sentence for yet another year.

Yet I am heartened to know that the Senate and the international community are coming together to ensure that the abuses and injustices of the military junta in Burma do not go unnoticed.

Earlier this year, 45 United States Senators signed a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release.

In a recent letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including former Filipino President Corazon Aquino, former Czech President Vaclav Havel, former British Prime Minister John Major and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi.

They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.''

The calls for Suu Kyi's release are also coming from Burma's neighbors.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, now recognizes that Burma's actions are not an ``internal matter'' but a significant threat to peace and stability in the region. At a meeting of senior diplomats last month, ASEAN made a clear call for Aung San Suu Kyi's release.

Last month, the women of the United States Senate came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, call for her immediate release urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma.

At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush, who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma.

And last week, Senator McConnell along with 58 of our colleagues introduced legislation to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.

Our message is clear: We will not remain silent, we will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.