Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will restore authority to the Forest Service to retain marina permit revenue for local expenditure.

Within some National Forests, the Forest Service has partnered with local small business owners, allowing them to operate houseboat marinas. In exchange, the Forest Service collects occupancy fees from these marina operators. A portion of these fees had, until recently, been kept in the Forest for local recreation and safety enhancement projects. My legislation allows the Forest Service to once again use these fees in the Forest where they were generated, and where their impact will be most direct.

Several units of the National Forest system will benefit from this legislation, but the unit most affected is the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California. Under the 1996 Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, the Shasta-Trinity Forest developed a recreation enhancement program at Shasta and Trinity Lakes. Forest Service officials used a portion of the revenue from this program for projects like dock repair, improved handicapped access, safety markers for boaters, law enforcement, and campground construction. Over $4 million was invested in the Forest through this program.

However, the program was inadvertently repealed when the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was passed. My legislation will correct this oversight by amending the Forest Service's Special Use Permit program, returning this recreation and safety project authority to the agency.

Recreation on Federal lands is important to quality of life in my state and throughout the nation. In many rural areas, it also provides a boost to the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a simple bill correcting an oversight in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Nonetheless, it has important implications both for recreation enhancement and for the local economies around the affected National Forests.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2006.

This legislation seeks to implement prior congressional action taken in 1988 to require the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. It is an absolutely essential step if the Redwood County is to obtain a firm and reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project to supply water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, in Northern California. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million partially financed this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The initial use projections developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau were seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise funds was restricted when a moratorium on new hook-ups was imposed; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's water allotment by 15 percent.

As a result of this situation, in 1998 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 that indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This loan renegotiation has never taken place and now the District finds its water supply highly uncertain. The Bureau of Reclamation acknowledged in a 2000 report that the District needs a reliable water supply in order to solve its current financial dilemma.

The District has recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could supply a firm and reliable source. No government funds will be sought for these projects, and the District will rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to repayment of the new loans.

This legislation requires the District to repay the United States the currently suspended loans once the new loans have been repaid. The new water project will provide enough revenue to allow the District to repay both its private loan and the United States government. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, the legislation creates a win-win solution for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Redwood Valley County Water District.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank the President. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee. He has been a very good chairman. I want him to know that the only reason I offer this amendment is because when we read the bill language of Hagel-Martinez, which has not been voted on by this body, I believe it to be unworkable. I believe it will create another class of illegal immigrants in this country. I believe it is impossible to carry out the deportation requirements of the Hagel- Martinez amendment.

Amendment No. 4087, as Modified

I send an amendment to the desk, as modified, on behalf of Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, and myself. This is a modification of my earlier amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of organizations across the country that support this amendment.

Mr. President, let me state why I think the Hagel- Martinez compromise is not workable. The Hagel-Martinez compromise essentially creates three tiers of people in this country in undocumented or illegal status. The first is 6.7 million who have been here more than 5 years; the second is 1.6 million who have been here less than 2 years; and the third is 2.8 million who have been here from 2 to 5 years. People here less than 2 years are subject to immediate deportation. Someone has to find them, go into their workplace or their homes, pick them up, and deport them. Then one has to consider the likelihood that in about 3 days, which is often the case in California, they will come back to their families and their job.

The second is the 2.8 million who must leave, touch back, get in a guest worker program or some other visa program, come back, be in this country, and then, after a period of time, get an employer to sponsor them for a green card or leave. They have a kind of mandatory departure. The guest worker program they would be eligible for is the H-2C program, which we reduced in size from 325,000 to 200,000 in an earlier amendment. The cap of the program is removed for them. Therefore, what is created for this group is a 3 million-person guest worker program, but they cannot earn a path to legalization unless they have an employer who will petition for them. They are limited in the time they can stay in the country, and they must return.

My sense, based on the reality of the largest immigration State in the Union, is that these two tiers in Hagel-Martinez simply will not work. We will have large-scale fraud. The people here slightly less than 2 years will present fraudulent documents to show they have been here for at least 2 years. That is what happens now. There is a wide market in fraudulent documents for the undocumented. And those here less than 5 years will shortly realize that when they have to go back they face a precarious situation of whether they can come back legally. If they can't come back legally, I hazard a guess they will come back and find a way to come back illegally. That is a major problem.

What we have tried to do is create a program, based on McCain- Kennedy, and to an extent on Hagel-Martinez, saying let's be realistic, let's understand what the situation is, that there is no way it is good to create another illegal class of up to 4.4 million people. It does not make sense to spend the time trying to seek out people living clandestinely.

It is much better to create the process for earned legalization which has some meaning and substance, and tests that individuals must pass. So we have created a three-step test for something we would call an orange card. That orange card is like this chart. I picked a

color that had no political connotation. This is a biometric card. It has the personal identifiers. It has the photo. It has the fingerprints. It has a number. Once someone has the orange card, that number, essentially, places them in a line. The line would begin with those people here the longest. They have the lowest numbers. Therefore, when the current green card line of 3.3 million people is expunged-- estimated to take 6 to 11 years--the people here the longest in the undocumented status are the first to receive their green card.

In the meantime, this would be the identifier. It is biometric. It enables an individual to move in and out of the country, and the individual reports electronically every year with their work history. They will pay a $50 processing fee. They will pay a total $2,000 fine by the time they reach green card status. They will show they are trying to learn English. They will present their work history. To me, it makes better sense because it is able to be managed.

The Hagel-Martinez amendment is not able to be managed electronically. Therefore, we have 4.4 million people, plus the remainder of the 10 to 12 million people that you have to handle. It is extraordinarily complicated and difficult to do that.

The system was created with good intentions, but I don't believe it is workable. I believe it is subject to fraud. I believe the most difficult part of it is the guest worker part for those who have been here 2 to 5 years. Under Hagel-Martinez, if you are here for 4 years and 9 months, you are 3 months shy of earning legalization. These 3 months cost you the ability to get on a clear path to legalization. With those stakes and no formal documentation that proves when you cross the border, it is only logical to assume that people are going to try to falsify dates in order to qualify for the higher tier. This becomes the bureaucratic nightmare.

Then there is the problem for the 2-to 5-year person, of returning to their own country, getting into a legal program and coming back. I pointed out this makes the guest worker program 3 million people because the 200,000 cap is waived, and therefore the 2.8 million come into that program. That is way too many guest workers for any one time.

Then there is the mandatory departure part of the guest worker program, which essentially says an individual, once in the country, can only be here for 6 years and then must return to their own country unless an employer will sponsor them for a green card. This in itself might appear to be a good thing, but I want to spend a minute on it. You are dependent on your employer for your legal status after that point. This is a huge burden for an employer to bear. It also means that for some employers that may not be good employers, they have a method to exploit an individual by threatening that, unless they do certain things, they will not recommend them for the earned legalization program and for their green card.

We know exploitation does happen. I believe the best step is clearly to put forward a process for everyone in this country, a process that allows you to electronically submit your data, fingerprints, photo, and work history. That is then verified. You then come in. If the verification of your criminal history is adequate, if you pay the fine, and if you are willing to sign up for the orange card, then you receive it. Therefore, you have your biometric identifier, and you can be tracked, if necessary. You are free to leave the country and come back. It is a much sounder path to legalization.

I hope this will be the program that eventually is accepted.

I now yield time to the Senator from Iowa, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Harkin. I believe he has asked for 5 minutes, or such time as he may consume.

I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Correct.

Correct.

That is correct.

That is exactly the point. It is a theoretical plan.

For those who live in big immigration States, who live this problem daily, who see the people and their families--many have bought homes, pay taxes, their children are born here and go to school here--it creates a dynamic which puts the Federal Government again in the place of having to find and deport 1.6 million people; and then if the 2.8 million don't follow the mandatory departure section of the program, they are subject to deportation.

The Senator is exactly right. The dynamic to add to that is, you create a work differential because these people will continue to be clandestine, embedded in the cultures of our country, and find ways to work, and employers, as they have in the past, will hire them. Then we will be faced with carrying out a program that has never worked and that is employer-sanctioned.

Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time. But I would like to also thank the Senator from Iowa. I think he showed, particularly speaking from the heartland of our country--a much smaller State than California--how much a local economy depends on this workforce. I think that is really important to understand.

I remember speaking--and I would like the Senator to know this--with Doris Meissner. She was the head of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and I think a very good commissioner. She said: Whatever you do, make it simple. Make it enforceable. That is the key where we go astray with this because you cannot enforce it, basically. Good luck finding all of these people subject to immediate deportation. It is impossible. You cannot deport 1.6 million people. And then to expect the other 2.8 million are going to go home and touchback within 3 years is an unrealistic expectation.

So I hope somehow people will actually read the bill and understand the devil is in details of the language as to whether it can be carried out. I think the Senator from Iowa said it very eloquently, and I thank him for that.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time begin to run on the other side.

Mr. President, may I be clear as to what I just asked unanimous consent for: that the Presiding Officer allows the time against the amendment to run, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

I thank the Chair. I appreciate it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the names of Senators Durbin and Obama as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

My understanding is Senator Kennedy has 10 minutes. Would the Senator like to use that time now?

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of comments.

I very much appreciate my service and Senator Cornyn's service on the same committee and have great respect for him and also for Senator Martinez who has introduced the Hagel-Martinez plan with the best of motives. Senator Cornyn said we shouldn't throw up our hands. I am not throwing up my hands. I want strong borders. I voted for a fence. I believe we should put National Guard on the borders. We provide 12,500 additional Border Patrol, 2,500 border inspectors, over $1 billion of equipment for the border. We should have our border enforced. We should get the help of Mexico to enforce it.

Secondly, with this plan, there is no jumping in line ahead of anyone waiting legally for a green card.

The line begins for the orange card recipients, if such should ever be, when that line is expunged. What we do is recognize the reality, learn from the streets, understand what happens, and then try to build a comprehensive solution to deal with the real world--border control, increase practical numbers of visas, as well as providing a path for earned legalization for those people who are here now.

That path has several hurdles. It will weed out those who should not receive an orange card from those who should. It is an electronic process. It is doable, and it is practical. It recognizes that if you leave 4.4 million undocumented immigrants subject to deportation, whether it is this year or 4 years down the pike, you create another illegal pool of workers in this country, which I think destroys the comprehensive approach.

Therefore, I just want to say that this orange card has specific requirements that have to be met over a 6-year period of work, of learning to speak English, of paying a fine, of paying taxes, of work history. That has to be met on an annual basis, submitting work history receipts on an annual basis. The program financially takes care of itself with the fines and fees. I believe it is a practical, humane way to go which can, in fact, with the other components of the bill, create a comprehensive solution to immigration reform which has a chance to stop illegal immigration into our country.

I am concerned that should Hagel-Martinez become the law, we are back where we started with a huge group of people subject to deportation at one point or another. We know that creates the underground labor pool, which then creates the incentive for an addition to that underground labor pool. I believe the orange card proposal we have before the Senate now does not do that. But the devil is in the details of all of this. We will see.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I would like to say one other thing. A lot of people come to me in desperate circumstances for private bills. I have tried to meet some of the families. What I have seen in these families is truly amazing. I have seen a legacy of work over a period of time that is amazing for any human being. I have actually seen families whose children are valedictorians of their high school class. I have seen them hide, but they pay their taxes, and they own a home. Some are even supervisors of companies.

If you look around America, the meatpacking industry, the chicken- processing industry, virtually all of the manufacturing and production, you will see these people as a dominant part of that workforce. I look at the great bread basket that is California, the largest agricultural State in the Union, and I know at least 600,000 of our workforce are undocumented and illegal. I know they come here because of the absence of any hope or opportunity or ability to make a decent living where they were living before.

I think this whole dialog we are having puts an enormous obligation on Mexico to begin to understand the needs of their people and do something to help them become economically more upwardly mobile because this is certainly the main problem that leads to the cross-border immigration that is illegal into our country. So we have tried to solve this with a comprehensive bill. I think it makes sense. It says to everybody that you have to earn this legalization. You have to get out there and work for at least 6 more years. You have to report in, but you have a card which identifies that you are in an adjusted status, you are not subject to deportation. You can raise your children. You can volunteer for community activities. You can become a constructive member of society. I believe that is worth a lot.

Enabling people to live to their fullest is worth a lot. I hazard a guess that there is not one person who is going to go home because of what we do in a bill. They are going to stay, they are going to continue, but the lifestyle is going to be clandestine, and they are never going to be able to reach their full potential. This amendment allows them to do so. I urge the Senate to vote yes.

I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his thoughtful comments on the bill. I have the privilege of serving as a member of the Energy Committee, of which he is chairman. It has been a pleasure for me to serve under his chairmanship. I thank him for those comments.

I come to the floor to discuss an amendment, SA 4087, which I filed this morning. It is entitled ``To modify the Conditions Under Which Aliens Who Are Unlawfully Present in the United States Are Granted Legal Status.'' I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the amendment from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and over 115 groups and organizations from around the country be printed in the Record.

There, being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, I make these remarks as a 13\1/2\-year member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Immigration Subcommittee. I also come from a State which is very large in terms of immigrants, both legal and illegal, and a State which is a dynamic economic engine for our country. I strongly believe that any comprehensive immigration bill must address three issues: a strengthening of our borders so that they are safe, effective, strong; a limited guest worker program and an overhaul of the visa system; and most importantly, I believe, the creation of a pathway to earned legalization for the large number of people, estimated at between 10 and 12 million, who live today invisibly in our Nation and who have become a critical part of the American workplace and on whom employers depend to do work Americans will simply not do.

I respond to our analysis of the Hagel-Martinez amendment, and my remarks are in two parts. The first part will be to propose an alternative to Hagel-Martinez. The second part will be a critique on what I see are substantial flaws in the Hagel-Martinez amendment.

I first thank both Senators Hagel and Martinez. They have done a great service to the Senate and our country by trying to come up with a compromise solution to what is a major problem facing our Nation. Nonetheless, I find significant structural and practical faults and have tried to correct those with the proposal I have just introduced and will be speaking on now.

I am introducing what is called an orange card amendment. This amendment would streamline the process for earned legalization. It would create a more workable and practical program and dedicate the necessary dollars to cover its costs of administration. This amendment builds on the compromises already agreed to under McCain-Kennedy and Hagel-Martinez, and it incorporates the amendments already adopted on the Senate floor. But it eliminates what I see as an unworkable three- tiered program under Hagel-Martinez.

This amendment only deals with earned legalization. It does not change any of the border security provisions, the guest worker program, or any other part of this bill. Therefore, this amendment would essentially eliminate the program created by Hagel-Martinez and replace it with the orange card program I am now going to explain.

Under this amendment, all undocumented aliens who are in the United States as of January 1, 2006, would immediately register a preliminary application with the Department of Homeland Security. At the time of the registration, they would also submit fingerprints at the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service's facility so that criminal and national security background checks could commence immediately. That is the first step. It would also create a more precise registration system that would allow the immediate inflow of information into the Department of Homeland Security to be processed electronically, which the Hagel-Martinez amendment does not, and which is what we have been told is essential to ensuring that DHS can handle this new workload. It would give the Department time to vet the application through a thorough and orderly process. This would be the first step.

Under the second step, petitioners would submit a full application for an orange card in person by providing the necessary documents to demonstrate their work history and their presence in the United States. Their application would also require that they pass a criminal and national security background check that would be carried out based on the information and fingerprints from the preapplication; they demonstrate an understanding of English and U.S. history and Government, as required when someone applies for their citizenship; they have paid their back taxes; and they would pay a $2,000 fine. The money from this fine would be used to cover the costs of administering the program. These requirements are the second step of what is required to earn an orange card. They also comply with previous amendments passed on the floor of the Senate during this debate.

If the application is approved, each individual would be issued what I call an orange card. I selected orange because the color had no connotation I could think of. This card would be encrypted with a machine-readable electronic identification strip that is unique to that individual. The card itself would contain biometric identifiers, anti- counterfeiting security features, and an assigned number that would place that individual at the end of the current line to apply for a green card. The number would correspond to the length of time that the petitioner has been in the United States so that those who have been here the longest would be the first to follow those currently waiting to receive a green card. That is the 3.3 million people outside of the country awaiting a green card. These cards would go in order following the expunging of that line.

The issuance of an orange card would allow individuals to remain in the United States legally and work, as well as travel in and out of the country. It would become their fraud-proof identifier, complete with a photo and fingerprints. This is the second step to earning legalization.

The third step is that on an annual basis, each individual who applies for an orange card would submit to DHS documentation either electronically or by mail that shows what they have been doing in that year, the work they have carried out, that they have, in fact, paid their taxes that year, and

whether they have been convicted of any crime during that year, either through court documents or an attestation, and they would pay a $50 processing fee. These three steps, plus the required wait at the back of the green card line, clearly indicates that this is not an amnesty program.

The legalization in the orange card must be earned, and it must be earned over a substantial period of time. It would be available to all who are here from January of this year.

This language will ensure that there are enough funds to run the program because there is a $2,000 fine that would be dedicated to paying for the administration of the program and a $50 annual processing fee. For example, assuming there are between 10 and 20 million undocumented aliens already in the United States who would have to pay a $2,000 fine, if 10 million came forward, that alone would raise $20 billion. So the program would be covered. By including this language, this amendment protects against creating a new burden on taxpayers and ensures that the Federal Government has the necessary money to make the program work.

Another safeguard contained in the amendment is the annual reporting requirement. By including this process, this amendment will ensure that individuals who apply to this program remain productive and hard- working members of their communities. The amendment requires that individuals must work for at least 6 years before they may adjust their status. Realistically, from what we know about the number of green card petitioners legally waiting in other countries for their green card, it is much more likely that they would have to wait a longer time before the process is completed. Again, this is not amnesty. It is a clear path to an earned legalization. These prospective reporting requirements ensure that only individuals who deserve to adjust their status and continue to be productive members of their communities may become legal permanent residents.

In addition, by focusing on prospective requirements, this amendment streamlines the process and helps avoid the bureaucratic morass that has been created other times when Congress has acted. If we don't get this right, we will end up repeating mistakes of the past. We will simply create new incentives for illegal immigration, and we will enhance the problems our country now faces in tracking who is coming and going across our borders.

Remember, it is estimated that about one-third of those who receive visas do not leave the United States when their visas expire. So the problem is not only people coming across the border; the problem is also people misusing their visas. In 2004, there were just over 30 million visas issued. That is an unbelievable amount, but it is true. That means there could be up to 10 million people who overstayed their visas and remained in the United States. Now, of course, most of them probably didn't stay here permanently. But it is clear from these statistics that our visa program has a serious problem when it comes to enforceability.

I strongly believe we must find an orderly way to allow those already here, many of whom have families, strong community ties, and some who have U.S. citizen children, to earn legalization over a substantial period of time. And virtually every poll I have seen has shown that over 70 percent of the American people agree. They know there are many people who are critical parts of our workforce. They work in agriculture, in landscaping, in housing, in the service industry, in the hotel industry, and they work all throughout our economy. I know some who not only have children, but their children are excelling. They not only live here, but they own homes, pay taxes, and they work hard. This is important so that this population can live fully productive lives without being subject to abuse or exploitation, and so that American commerce has the workforce that is necessary for agriculture, as well as many other industries.

During consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, of which you are a distinguished member, Mr. President, we adopted an amendment referred to as the McCain-Kennedy program that was offered by Senator Graham. This amendment created an earned legalization program that would also set up a number of hurdles individuals must pass through in order to earn their legalization. The Graham amendment was adopted by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 5 and was in the base bill previously considered by the Senate.

However, since that time, a new program was created and replaced McCain-Kennedy in the underlying bill. That program is known as the Hagel-Martinez compromise. It is important to point out that neither this body nor the Judiciary Committee has voted to adopt the three- tiered system which the Hagel-Martinez compromise proposes and which is now before this body.

Hagel-Martinez would treat people differently, depending on how long they have been in the United States. It is estimated that 6.7 million have been in the United States for more than 5 years; 1.6 million, less than 2 years; and 2.8 million, 2 to 5 years. The source of the numbers is the Pew Current Population Survey. So we have three tiers--more than 5 years, 2 to 5 years, and less than 2 years.

After an examination of the Hagel-Martinez language, I have come to believe that the three-tiered system is unworkable, that it would create a bureaucratic nightmare and it would lead to substantial fraud. My staff has consulted with current and former Government staff who have expressed serious concerns with the practical implications of how such a program could be implemented.

We already know the Department of Homeland Security is overburdened. Just for a moment, look at the problems they face today. Our current system is running neither efficiently nor effectively, and we all know that. Let me just put on the table a few examples.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security is struggling to implement a fully functioning US-VISIT Program to monitor those who are entering and exiting our country. This system of checking people in and out with a biometric card is only half completed. It is many years overdue.

The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services struggles with enormous backlogs in applications from those who come to this country and attempt to adjust their status legally. FBI background checks often take between 1 or 2 years to process fingerprints. Naturalization lines are so long, it can take a person years and sometimes even decades to get through the system. How on Earth is DHS going to be able to handle a new program which cannot be run electronically and which will require massive documentation and enormous staff time?

What we have done is provided a structure for an electronic handling of the data submitted by the individuals, the electronic verification of the data, the checking out of this data. Hagel-Martinez creates a tiered system where those here less than 2 years are subject to deportation and those here from 2 to 5 years must return to their country and get themselves somehow into a guest worker program. It is estimated that 1.6 million people have been here for 2 years or less, and approximately 2.8 million have been here from 2 to 5 years. So that is 4.4 million people who are going to be asked to leave the country one way or another. Do you believe they will? History and reality shows that they will not. How will the Government find all of them and deport those who do not leave voluntarily? And if they are found and deported, what would lead us to believe they will not come right back to join their families and return to their jobs?

Secondly, individuals who have been here just under 2 or 5 years will inevitably try to argue they qualify for a higher tier. I think it is only realistic to expect that these tiers will become a breeding ground for flawed, fraudulent documents, and true evaluations will be virtually impossible to make. How on Earth are DHS personnel going to be able to verify when an individual entered the country to determine the less than 2 years or the 2- to 5-year tier?

When it comes to the second tier, 2 to 5 years, and the deferred mandatory departure program of Hagel-Martinez, I am concerned about how this process is going to function and who is going to follow through with executing its requirements. How is the Department of Homeland Security going to find these people who have been here 2 to 5 years and ensure that they actually leave the United States? Does anyone really expect that a father or a mother will voluntarily leave their families and go

outside the country for this so-called touchback? What is the incentive for people who have already been living in the United States to come forward and go through this process?

In order to understand why I have these questions, I think it is important for everyone to understand how the deferred mandatory departure program of Hagel-Martinez is supposed to work. There has been a lot of discussion about the program, but when you read the fine print of the bill language, there are serious questions and consequences that need to be better understood.

My understanding of the bill language is that a person who falls into this second tier, who has been here for 2 to 5 years, may remain in the United States legally for up to 3 years and then they must leave the country and find a legal program through which they may reenter the United States. This is the critical flaw in Hagel-Martinez. People will not risk leaving their families or their jobs in the hopes that once they leave the United States they will be able to reenter through a visa program, whether that be the new H-2C guest worker program or another visa program.

To compound this problem but ostensibly to make it possible, Hagel- Martinez waives the 200,000 visa cap that we just reduced from 325,000 in the Bingaman-Feinstein amendment on the H-2C program. In doing that, this would create a larger bureaucratic hurdle, a difficult standard of proof, and a complete decimation of the limits on the guest worker program. Instead of a new guest worker program--H-2C--that will bring in 200,000 people a year, we would be, in effect, creating a guest worker program that is supposed to accommodate 2.8 million people, plus another 200,000 people annually. So through this deferred mandatory departure, the Congress creates a guest worker program that will need to accommodate over 3 million people.

But putting all that aside, assuming this was actually doable, there are other problems. For instance, the H-2C guest worker visa only lasts a maximum of 6 years. So every person will quickly see that this is not an automatic path to earn their legalization, and they will be forced out of the country at the end of the 6 years. Will they go? I doubt it. I think you will have a new illegal immigrant problem.

The path to legalization has been modified through the amendment process on this floor, and now an H-2C worker will likely need their employer to petition for a green card on their behalf. An employer has to petition for it, meaning that, for 2 million people, their only hope to continue to live in the United States is through the grace of an employer. I think this places an undue burden on an employer, and it leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation from bad employers.

Also, H-2C workers, their spouses, and their children are not allowed to remain in the United States if the worker fails to work for an approved employer for more than 60 consecutive at any time during the 6 years, with no exception for health problems or injuries. This will mean that if an individual does become injured or ill, they become deportable. In addition, all rights to administrative or judicial review of any future removal actions, are eliminated. Combined, in my view, these provisions are ill-advised. They make individuals extremely vulnerable to abuse, they put high burdens on employers, and they open the situation up to exploitation.

That leaves me to wonder, with these shortcomings, why would anyone in these categories participate in this program?

Why would someone who is already living here clandestinely, working, and already active in their community voluntarily come forward and register with the Department of Homeland Security and leave the United States to join this program? With these risks and pitfalls, my experience in California and my 13\1/2\ years on the Immigration Subcommittee tells me they won't. At worst, I fear we are creating an incentive for individuals to continue living under an illegal status, and I don't know how that benefits this Nation, the people of our Nation, the employers, or the people who are here today in an undocumented status. At best, we are creating a new burden on DHS to locate and monitor millions of people who are clandestinely integrated into the fabric of our Nation today.

In addition, the Hispanic National Bar Association specifically criticized this second tier, and it wrote this: We are particularly concerned that requiring individuals in the [second tier] to leave this country in order to fully legalize their status will result in severe disruptions for families, workers, and employers . . . We [also] believe that creating an additional class of undocumented immigrants will lead to greater administrative burdens as it will require the implementation of two different paths to legalization.

I think that is a very true statement.

Let me speak about the third tier for those who have been here for less than 2 years because according to Hagel-Martinez, they must all be deported. This means that DHS would be required to find and deport 2 million people. That is the bill we are going to pass--2 million, find them, deport them. How is that going to get done? Even President Bush acknowledged that such a large-scale deportation program is unworkable when he said this:

It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of

people and send them across the border.

The only method to compel compliance with Hagel-Martinez is through employer sanctions, and we know from experience over dozens of years that employer sanctions do not work.

In fiscal year 2004, only 46 employers were convicted of illegal immigrant employment--46 employers--out of the tens of thousands of employers whom we know employ the undocumented, and the number of employer sanctions cases resulting in fines has declined from a peak of nearly 900 under President Clinton to only 124 in fiscal year 2003. Not to mention even when employers are raided and then sanctioned, there is a backlash from the public.

So I am one who doesn't believe it is realistic to assume that, first, the Department of Homeland Security is going to be able to go out and deport 2 million people; and then secondly, to ensure that the other 2.8 million leave to go back for the touchback program.

So because of these concerns about the workability, the practicality, and the real-world impact of such a three-tiered system, I believe we have to create a much more efficient process, and I believe the orange card process is the best way to ensure that our policy goals in creating a path to legalization can be implemented and realized.

The structural flaws of Hagel-Martinez must be corrected, and this amendment essentially corrects them. It is workable, it is practical, it does not reward illegal immigration, but it creates a pathway for everyone in this country as of the beginning of this year to show over a substantial period of time annually that they have been and will continue to be a responsible and productive member of American society. It puts the burden on them to go in, to petition, to submit their fingerprints, to submit their photographs, and to wait for those to be checked out before they would be issued the orange card.

Once you have this orange card then you know you are legal. You can come in and out. It has the biometric identifiers. It is fraudproof. And the orange card has the additional ability of being numbered, so you also know that the lower numbers are going to people who have been here for the 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years that we know people, in fact, have been in this country. It is done in a way that can be carried out electronically, and I think that is part of the strength of the program.

Here we have a pathway that requires an individual to show over a substantial period of time that they have been and will continue to be a responsible and productive member of American society and to do so with certain tangible deeds: the tangible deed of work, the tangible deed of living a legal life, the tangible deed of paying back taxes, the tangible deed of learning to speak English. This is not amnesty. Nothing happens immediately. Amnesty is the immediate transition of someone from an illegal status to a legal status. If an individual cannot demonstrate these things, they will not receive a green card at the end of this long pathway, and then at that time they are deportable.

If a bipartisan majority agrees that an earned legalization program is a critical part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, then the program

must work on the streets and it must be carefully structured so that it can be carried out. I believe this program can be carried out, and I am sorry to say that as currently structured, I do not believe the three- tiered process of Hagel-Martinez can or will be carried out.

This is an amendment on which I hope we will vote. It is at the desk. I ask my colleagues to look at it, study it, and if they have modifications--this is a complicated issue--if they have modifications they would like to see, please bring these to us because we hope there will be a vote in the next couple of days.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to listen to the discussion between Senator Craig and Senator Chambliss on this provision of AgJOBS which we put in as part of the blue card. I congratulate Senator Craig on one of the most colorful charts that we have seen.

The labor provision of this bill is a compromise that was negotiated. I think it makes sense to leave it that way. It is left that way for 3 years. This has been the subject of long negotiations. After many attempts to try to find the right balance, Senators Kennedy and Craig struck an agreement that was supported by both growers and farm workers across this Nation. That is the language in this bill.

Under AgJOBS, H-2A workers are paid the greater of the prevailing rate or the adverse effect wage rate. As Senator Craig has said, the standard is frozen at 2003, and growers will be required to pay the prevailing wage, or what the adverse wage rate was over 3 years ago. The compromise states that this will be the wage rate just for the next 3 years. And during that time, the GAO and a commission of agricultural and labor experts will perform two studies examining H-2A wage rates and making recommendations to Congress. If at the end of the 3 years Congress fails to enact a new adverse effect wage rate, the adverse effect wage rate would be adjusted by the cost of living.

While changing AgJOBS isn't, alone, a disqualification, I think we have to be very careful before we upset what has been a very carefully crafted compromise that is supported by a broad coalition of Members from all sides of the debate.

If I might, I would like to ask Senator Craig a question. Since he was the one who negotiated this, is it not true that this is a broadly agreed upon solution for both farm workers as well as growers?

Is it not true that when I introduced the blue card program in the Judiciary Committee I just took that part of the H-2A program which the Senator and Senator Kennedy had put together in the AgJOBS bill?

This has been a longstanding compromise that has been out there, which is a negotiated compromise.

If I might ask one other question, in the negotiations that the Senator had on AgJOBS, how long did it take to come up with this negotiated compromise?

How long has this agreement been in place?

I thank the Senator. My time has expired.

I urge the Senate to vote no on the Chambliss amendment.

Will the Senator yield?

I can speak for California, and California's Farm Bureau has signed off on this. I can tell the Senator that no State has as many farmers and growers as California does. This is the accepted agreement.

I thank the Senator.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4076, as Modified

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4087.

Mr. President, this is an amendment to modify the conditions under which aliens who are lawfully present in the United States are granted legal status. It is submitted on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself. We have a half hour to argue the amendment tomorrow, but I would like to just raise a few points about it tonight. I did have the opportunity to speak about it earlier, but I recognize many Members were not yet back and available.

This amendment creates an orange card, a replica of which is on my left. This would streamline the process for earned legalization. It would create a more workable and practical program than exists in the Hagel-Martinez compromise, and it would dedicate the necessary dollars to cover the costs of administering this program. This amendment builds on compromises already agreed to under the McCain-Kennedy and Hagel- Martinez proposals, and it incorporates the amendments already adopted on the floor, but it eliminates what I consider to be a very unworkable three-tier program. This amendment only deals with the earned legalization parts of the bill. It does not change any of the border security provisions, the guest worker program, or any other component of the bill. It would simply eliminate the program created by Hagel- Martinez and replace it with this orange card program.

Under Hagel-Martinez, there are three tiers. Now, note this: We have not voted on Hagel-Martinez. Hagel-Martinez was an arrangement put together by Members of this body and it was brought up by using rule XIV. We have not voted on it. It essentially takes the 11.1 million people now in this country--working in this country, living in this country, raising their families in this country, but doing so in a clandestine way--and divides them into three different categories. For the 6.7 million who have been here more than 5 years, it would provide a transition to achieve earned legalization. For the 1.6 million who have been here less than 2 years or the 2.8 million who

have been here from 2 to 5 years, it creates two different tiers, and this is the bone of contention, these two different tiers.

I would say for anyone here as of the first of the year, we should provide this orange card process which I will describe in a moment. The problem doing it the Hagel-Martinez way is that it opens the door for fraud and for manipulation because you essentially have 4.4 million people here less than 5 years who would come forward and produce, in all likelihood, fraudulent documents, or simply remain in a clandestine status because they are working and they have families here.

The 2.8 million who have been here 2 to 5 years are then subject to leave the country, to touch back and enter into the country through a visa program, most likely the H-2C worker program which has 200,000. We lowered the cap for the H-2C program from 325,000 to 200,000 in an earlier amendment offered by Senator Bingaman and myself. But what people haven't realized is that the cap would be waived for individuals coming in from this tier, which would raise the guest worker program to 3 million people. And then here is the rub with the guest worker program: they would have to return after a period of time to their country. Therefore, there is no automatic path to earned legalization for these people, unless they can get an employer to petition for them for a green card. I think that is an unusual responsibility placed on an employer for so many people, and I think it is not fair for the employee, either.

Therefore, we have put forward a three-step process under the orange card amendment, which has received the support of 115 organizations and groups.

Under this amendment, all undocumented aliens who are in the United States as of January 1 would immediately register a preliminary application with the Department of Homeland Security.

At the time of the registration, they would submit fingerprints to the Customs and Immigration Services facility so that criminal and national security background checks could commence. It would create a more precise registration that would allow this to proceed electronically. That is a major key--proceed electronically so that DHS would have time to do the necessary processing and vet the application in an orderly manner. Then they would submit a full application for their orange card.

Once they have passed the security background check, they have paid their back taxes, they have paid the $2,000 fine, then they would be issued the orange card. The orange card would have biometric identifiers, would have the history of the individual, and would have a number, and this number would be designed so that those who have been here the longest would be first in the line for the green card at the end of the work period.

As everyone recalls, there are 3.3 million people back in their own countries waiting for green cards. None of this goes into play until that green card list is expunged. It is estimated that could take anywhere from 6 to 11 years. So during that period of time, individuals in this country would have an identifier: the orange card. This would be their identification. They could come and go with it. It is fraud- proof, it is biometric, it has a photo, it has a fingerprint, and therefore provides a safe methodology. As long as individuals fill out the annual reports required by the program which attest to their work history, pay the fine, and pay their back taxes, they would keep the orange card effectively in place.

I wish to comment that first of all, Senators Hagel and Martinez have done a service. They have tried to work out a compromise. I find fault with that compromise only when you read the small print of the bill language. When you read the bill language, you see that it is a huge program with 4.4 million people having to be found, having to be sought out. If they are here for less than the 2 years, they are deported. Who would deport them? How would they be found? You are going to find 2 million people? I think that is very difficult to do. We know employer sanctions haven't worked. In 2004, total convictions under employer sanctions for the tens of thousands of employers who employ these people was a total number of 47.

So I believe the orange card would serve us well. It is a streamlined process. It has the ability to consider all people to avoid the problem of deportation but to create a system which is secure, where people are checked out, where they are held accountable for their work, held accountable for their payment of back taxes, held accountable for the payment of a fine so they can then come out of the shadows and live a more normal and more productive life.

This goes back to the original McCain-Kennedy formula, but in essence it essentially provides that there is an orderly process connected with this.

As I said earlier, I think there is a critical flaw in Hagel- Martinez, and that is those people who fall into the second tier can remain in the United States legally for up to 3 years, and then they must leave the country and find a legal program from which they may reenter the United States. This is the flaw because this would subject people to, once again, going back into a clandestine lifestyle rather than running the risk that they leave their families, go home, can't get into a program, and then can't come back again.

The other problem with the Hagel-Martinez program is that if an individual doesn't work for 60 consecutive days, they are out. There is no provision for injury, there is no provision for illness, and when you are dealing with 6 million people, that is a problem. Some people are going to be the victims of bona fide injuries or bona fide catastrophic circumstances and not able to work for a period of time. So if they become injured or ill and effectively can't be on the job for 60 consecutive days at any given time during the year, they are then subject to deportation.

I believe we have an opportunity, through the border patrol with 12,000 additional agents, 2,500 additional inspectors, the money in the supplemental appropriations bill for the border, the National Guard doing logistical support and physical work on the border, and the fence to be built on the border, to make a major step forward in securing our borders. The next step and the most important part of the bill is what is the proper handling of the 10 million to 12 million people who are here illegally in our country at this time.

I would respectfully submit to this body that the fair handling of these people is creating a pathway to an earned--not an amnesty--but an earned legalization where people have to document over a consequential period of time that they are working, they are good citizens, they are learning English, they are paying their taxes, and they are paying the fine. All of the proceeds from this fine would go to support the costs of the program. If there are 10 million people, at $2,000, that produces $20 billion for the additional hires that are necessary to run this program and hopefully run it well.

So we will continue to argue this tomorrow, and I ask that the amendment be set aside at this time.

Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator just for one brief change?

Mr. President, I ask that instead of setting aside the amendment, it will be continuing in a pending status.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a Californian to indicate my support for the confirmation of Milan Smith to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a fine occasion to be able to come here and represent that we have a very competent man to become an appellate court judge.

Mr. Smith has a long and distinguished legal career in our State. The chairman of the committee pointed out some of this. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School in 1969, Milan Smith moved to Los Angeles where he has been an important part of the legal community ever since.

Mr. Smith founded the law firm known as Smith Crane Robinson & Parker in 1972, and over the last 34 years with Smith Crane Robinson & Parker he has engaged in a wide-ranging legal practice in business and real estate law.

After reviewing his extensive record, a majority of the American Bar Association rated him ``well qualified'' to serve as a judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He has demonstrated an impressive and enduring commitment to serving the public, from presiding over the Governing Board of the Los Angeles State Building Authority to acting as vice chairman of Ettie Lee Homes for Youth.

As many of you know, Milan Smith is the older brother of our esteemed colleague, Senator Gordon Smith. I know the Senator from Idaho was just talking to Senator Smith and saying: Isn't it nice that California is getting a Californian.

We are having a little tussle over another judge which the Senator from Idaho believes should be an Idaho judge, and the Senators from California believe should be a California judge. So that issue has not yet to be joined, but it certainly will.

Certainly.

California would prefer having two Smiths. But we will talk about that another day.

The Smiths' maternal grandfather, Jesse Udall, was the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. So Milan Smith stands poised to follow family precedent in serving on one of our Nation's highest courts.

I congratulate him on this nomination. I urge all of my colleagues to vote

for him. I say to his younger brother, who is sitting here in the Chamber, that it is a wonderful day for both Senator Boxer and for me to be able to see you so happy. I know what it means to you and how great it is to have such a fine legal mind in your family. We offer you our best congratulations, as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I would like to speak as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I think one of the things we really need to understand about this bill is that it is a very large bill. It is 640 pages long. It contains a multitude of programs. And it--through the visa programs, the nonimmigrant visas--brings in large numbers of people.

I think when we were in Judiciary we did not realize the extent to which large numbers of people are brought in on some of these visas. We were working to a march. We had to get the bill done. And it is my understanding that studies of the bill now on the floor have shown that this bill could allow up to 193 million new legal immigrants. That is a number greater than 60 percent of the current U.S. population in the next 20 years. Now, that is a way-out figure--20 years--but I think we have to begin to look at each of the visa increases over at least the next 10-year period to determine how many people would come in, particularly the guest worker program.

I am happy to cosponsor this amendment with Senator Bingaman. The amendment does two things: it lowers the annual numerical cap from 325,000 of H-2C guest worker visas--and there are a myriad of guest worker visas, but this one is H-2C--to 200,000, and it eliminates the annual escalator.

In my view, all annual escalators in this bill should be eliminated because they bring in too many people over a relatively short period of time. This bill has the potential, as I said, to bring in millions of guest workers over the years. This means that over 6 years--the length of an alien's stay in the United States in this one temporary visa category--there could be 1.2 million workers in the United States.

Under the current proposal, let's say you start at 325,000 guest workers in the first year, and you add the 10-percent escalator. The 10-percent escalator would yield, over 6 years, 2.7 million people. The 15-percent escalator would take it to, over 6 years, 3.2 million people. And if you had the 20-percent escalator, it would take it up to, over 6 years, 3,807,000 people. It is simply too many. So the current bill doubles and even triples the number of foreign guest workers who could enter the United States over the 6 years of our amendment.

I hope this amendment will pass. I would hope that we could eliminate the escalators in these visa programs. The H-1B visa escalator would have a total of 3.67 million people over the next 10 years coming in under an H-1B visa. We increase the H-1B from 56,000 to 115,000, and then we put in a 20-percent escalator each year. If the number of visas reached the 115,000--and it will--therefore, the next year you add 20 percent. Then if that is reached, you add another 20 percent. And it compounds in this manner to the tune of a total of 3.6 million.

I am very concerned about this. I hope the Bingaman amendment will be successful. Again, it does two things. It reduces the base amount from 325,000 to 200,000, and it eliminates the escalator. Two hundred thousand guest workers a year are ample because this is just one part of the bill. There are other visa programs. There is AgJOBS. There is earned adjustment. It all adds up to millions and millions of people.

I strongly support the Bingaman amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA

Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know.

Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road.

The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children.

Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status.

I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred.

I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer.

Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card.

Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now?

It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter from Claudia and Jose Marquez Rico.

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA

Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know.

Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road.

The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children.

Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status.

I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred.

I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer.

Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card.

Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now?

It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter from Claudia and Jose Marquez Rico.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, could I ask a question?

I believe I am recognized for 15 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I don't think any single bill or issue more delineates the difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties today than this bill and the issues it contains.

I would like to respond to the Senator from New Hampshire. He talked about how good this was for job creation. Under the Clinton administration, 23 million new jobs were created. So far, 2.6 million jobs have been created under President Bush. Take a look at the difference between the two in jobs and also in debt. These are the early years of Clinton, up to 1997. Look at the blue. That is all surplus: $69 billion, $126 billion, $236 billion, $128 billion. These are the years under George Bush, the deficit: $158 billion, $378 billion, $412 billion, $318 billion, and $350 billion. So far, the tax cuts have cost $1.9 trillion.

I believe this conference report reflects misplaced priorities. It exacerbates an already serious deficit. It certainly exacerbates the national debt. And most importantly, it is certainly not equitable.

At a time when most American families are struggling to meet the rising cost of living, we should be taking constructive steps to provide targeted tax relief to those who need it most. We are not doing that. You would think this package of tax cuts might take steps to alleviate some of the financial strain. Instead, the bill offers no benefit to middle-class and low-income households. These provisions have been removed in favor of billions of dollars of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Unfortunately, this conference report does not resemble the bill that left the Senate earlier.

Today, Americans deal with record gas prices. It is $3.40 a gallon in some areas in California. The conference committee chose not to require more from big oil companies, even as corporate profits hit a record $1.35 trillion last year, now accounting for the largest share of national income in 40 years. The conferees decided not to do anything to affect the oil companies, the special incentives and tax breaks they get. Instead, middle-class families were left to bear the brunt of these decisions.

Rather than providing millions of Americans with the necessary extended relief, the lion's share of this bill--$50 billion over the next 10 years--is devoted to extending reduced rates for capital gains and dividend tax breaks. I have never had anyone in the business community come up to me and say: You have to lower capital gains. What they have said to me is that it doesn't make much difference, certainly not dividend tax breaks. Unlike the AMT fix, these rates were not scheduled to expire this year or even the next. Why are we doing it now? We are doing it now only to make the future bleaker. More than 75 percent of the capital gains and dividend tax breaks have served Americans earning more than $200,000.

The Senator from New Hampshire says how great these are for the average person. No, they aren't. They are good for the very wealthy, for the individual who makes more than $200,000 a year. That is 75 percent of the benefit. The average millionaire will receive a $42,000 tax cut from capital gains and dividends alone in 2005. Meanwhile, the average taxpayer, earning less than $75,000--that is three quarters of the taxpayers--receives only $13. So three quarters of the tax-paying population of America receives only $13, while the individual earning over $200,000 has a huge tax break. This is unfair. It is irresponsible. It is not without consequences.

The Federal budget deficit will be at least $300 billion this year. The national debt is soaring. We have fewer resources available for critical domestic priorities.

Under President Clinton, we had 4 years of budget surplus. When he left office, we had a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. What is interesting to me is, the two parties have switched. The Republicans are not the deficit hawks; the Democrats have become the deficit hawks. The Republicans have become the big spenders, and this bill clearly identifies that.

The economic policies of the last 5 years have produced a catastrophic turnaround. Record budget surpluses have given way to record deficits projected at $1.6 trillion over the next decade. The full impact of this administration's fiscal policies remains clouded. This President has broken with his predecessors by submitting only 5- year budgets. Why? Think about it, especially after we were presented with the traditional 10-year numbers during the President's first year in office. I will tell you why I think he is doing it, and that is to hide the fact that these tax cuts explode in the out years. They create enormous problems for the future. The result is a wall of debt.

Over the next 10 years, the debt is projected to reach $12 trillion. In this year alone, our national debt is slated to increase by $654 billion. More startling is the fact that the national debt is currently at 66 percent of our gross domestic product. I heard someone make a speech the other day and say it was 2 percent of GDP, ``don't worry

about it.'' So we went and got the CBO figures. It is 66 percent of GDP; worry about it.

The total debt equates to roughly $30,000 owned by every man, woman, and child in America. This is really troubling to anyone who runs a household or runs a business. You would have your house repossessed if you ran your books this way. You would lose your business if you ran your books this way.

When all costs are included, the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans will cost almost $2 trillion over the next decade. When you combine the cost of the tax cuts with spending on the war in Iraq-- currently totaling $370 billion--the inevitable result is the programs that matter most are squeezed.

Let me explain that. This chart takes 2 years, 2005 and 2015. It looks at everything the Federal Government spends. It is deceptive to look just at the budget. The budget does not reflect what we spend in entirety. The fact is, entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits--are 53.5 percent of what the Federal Government spent in 2005. Interest on the debt alone was $184 billion. That is 7.4 percent. So 60.4 percent of everything the Federal Government spent in 2005 was not budgeted and cannot be controlled. What is left? Forty percent of total spending. There is 20.1 percent for defense--not likely to be cut much in view of the circumstances of the war on terror--and non-defense discretionary, which is everything else, at 18.9 percent of what the Federal Government spent in 2005. That is a fact.

So because the only thing you can cut is discretionary defense and other discretionary spending, these tax policies mean the only thing you can do is cut every program that matters to the American people. Fewer cops on the street, down 15,000. Every nutrition and supplemental aid to seniors is cut. Less for highways, interior, and agriculture. That is what you have to cut. That is it. And that is what these tax cuts, when they explode exponentially at the end of the 10-year period, will do. They will create an enormous problem for the future.

If you add interest on the debt and go to the year 2015, 70 percent of everything the Federal Government spends will not be controllable-- it will increase 10 percent from 2005 to 70 percent in 2015. Defense discretionary will be reduced to 15 percent and non-defense discretionary to 13.7 percent. That is the projected inevitable trend of what we are doing here today.

Let me talk about some of the cuts: Food stamps for poor people, $272 million; COPS Program, $407 billion or 15,000 fewer officers nationwide; job training, $55 million. Education, the President's signature program, No Child Left Behind, will be underfunded this year by more than $12 billion, and $39 billion since it was enacted. That is the impact forced by passing a bill like this. No wonder people look at No Child Left Behind and say: ``Yes, we like the standards, yes, we want to strive for excellence, but you have to provide the money that was assured when the bill was signed.'' The fact is, it is $39 billion underfunded since that bill was signed.

So we are shortchanging our Nation, and it isn't worth the tax cut for millionaires. I have never had a millionaire--and I would defy any Member of this body to identify one--come before me and say: ``You know, I really need a tax cut. I really need that additional $140,000 a year these tax cuts provide for me.'' I challenge anyone to bring a name forward of someone who said that because I don't believe they need it at all.

I have supported tax cuts in the proper context. Let me tell what you that context is. It is a balanced budget and a projected surplus. That is the time to cut taxes for people, when you can say: ``We have balanced the budget and we are in surplus.'' That was true when the first tax cut went through. The budget was in surplus. The projected surplus was $5.6 trillion over 10 years. That is when the first tax cut was made. This is the difference between the two parties. The Republicans cut taxes even when the red ink is great.

Cut out the revenues, force the squeezing of Government. That means you have to cut transportation, and agriculture, and cops, and aid to seniors and virtually every other program, because you cannot cut entitlements. You cannot cut interest on the debt. We are in a war and unlikely to cut defense. So you have to cut everything else.

That is where we are going and it is only going to get worse in the future. The fact of the matter is that we don't have to make these tax cuts permanent at this time. There is only one reason they are in this bill. I don't believe it is for jobs. Clinton balanced the budget and produced 23 million jobs. This administration produced 2.6 million jobs. That is a pittance in comparison, and it is tax cut after tax cut. And when we finish here, we will be faced with an estate tax cut that will take hundreds of billions of dollars out of this revenue stream. So if there are any cops left, you can be sure they will be gone. If there are any food stamps left, they will have to be cut.

Those are the choices this forces. It is wrong, it is immoral and, I think, long term, it is a disaster for this Nation.

Bottom line: I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my concern for the 6.6 million uninsured individuals in California and the impact the Enzi Small Business Health Insurance bill, S. 1955, will have on both the uninsured and the insured in my State.

While the goal of this legislation is one I agree with--finding a solution to lower health insurance costs and greater access to health insurance for small business owners and their employees--I have serious concerns about the fundamental shift toward insurance deregulation and bare bones insurance coverage under the Enzi bill.

It is my understanding that some changes have been made in the substitute amendment to the Enzi bill but that those changes do very little to change the fact that this bill will result in a loss of covered benefits and an increase in costs for older, sicker workers.

While I respect the position of small businesses that support this legislation, I simply cannot support a proposal that I believe would result in higher costs for older, sicker workers and would result in a loss of covered benefits my State fought hard to guarantee.

My concerns are shared by a wide range of people.

It was also the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 41 State attorneys general including the attorney general of California, 13 Governors, the California State insurance commissioner, the California Public Employees' Retirement System and countless national organizations such as the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, and many more.

California has one of the most comprehensive set of required insurance benefits in the country. A partial list includes: Coverage of routine patient care costs of cancer clinical trials; coverage of breast, prostate, cervical,

colorectal and other cancer screening; coverage of breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment, including prosthetic devices and reconstructive surgery; the right to a second opinion when requested by insured individual or health professional treating an insured individual; minimum maternity hospital stay; coverage of equipment, supplies, including prescriptions, and management of diabetes; coverage of alcoholism and drug abuse treatment; coverage of blood lead screening; coverage of contraceptives approved by the FDA; coverage of services related to diagnosis, treatment and appropriate management of osteoporosis; coverage of domestic partners and coverage of infertility treatment.

The legislation before us sets a ceiling, not a floor for insurance coverage of vital services. Amendments that have been discussed such as creating a 26-State benefit mandate threshold are a ceiling, not a floor.

The reality is that any attempt to ``harmonize'' State benefit mandates will likely result in harm to Californians.

Just like legislation passed by the House last March called the National Uniformity for Food Act which I strongly oppose, this legislation preempts States rights.

California voters and elected officials have determined what they think is best for the State and this legislation override the will of Californians whether they work for a small business or large one.

I am also concerned about the impact this bill will have on premiums for small business employees. California has rules to protect premium adjustments from increasing year to year beyond 10 percent.

And in California, insurance companies may set premium rates for employees based on only three risk factors: age, family composition, and geographic region.

Under this bill, not only will employees be subject to rating based on additional factors such as the size of business, gender and type of business, but California's age and geographic region limitations are preempted.

The new rating factors in the bill disadvantage certain small businesses and they disadvantage businesses with a high proportion of women of child-bearing age.

I find it deeply troubling that Senators on both sides of the aisle have been denied the opportunity to vote on amendments to address the problems with this legislation.

I would like to address another healthcare issue that I have been deeply concerned about and that is stem cells.

The Senate has spent a week dedicated to health care and yet, the majority leader has not scheduled a vote on embryonic stem cell legislation.

It has been 8 years--1998--since I introduced one of the first bills dealing with the ethical issues around stem cell research.

It is almost one year--May 24--since the House passed the Castle- DeGette bill.

It has been 9 months--July 29--since the majority leader shocked the Senate and announced his support for stem cell legislation.

But no bill has been passed by the Senate.

What we have learned over that period is that the more than seventy lines the President said were available when he set his policy in August 2001 are down to just over twenty.

Those approximately twenty lines are contaminated with mouse feeder lines and they are old. They are of no therapeutic value.

We need more lines if we are going to untie the hands of researchers so they can do the research needed to learn about the biology of diseases, the restoration and repair of damaged tissue, and the development of treatment therapies.

Time and time again researchers say they need more embryonic stem cell lines.

But, the leadership of the Senate and White House won't listen. They would rather obstruct the work of scientists who want to work with embryonic stem cells. The result is scientists moving to other countries to do their work.

The time to act is now. The price of inaction goes up every day.

Since this fight began, we have lost Christopher Reeve on October 10, 2004, Dana Reeve on March 6, 2006, 4 million Americans to cancer, 1.8 million Americans to diabetes, and 144,000 Americans to Parkinson's.

I have heard opponents of embryonic stem cell research talk about the promise of adult stem cell research. No one I know is arguing that we shouldn't pursue adult stem cell research. That's why the Senate passed the cord blood bill unanimously last year.

But, we must not fund this research to the exclusion of embryonic stem cells.

There is no question that this country needs an effective stem cell policy--both to provide Federal funding for viable stem cell lines and to provide Federal ethical guidelines.

It is simply appalling that here we have a week dedicated to a debate on health care and the leadership of the Senate has not scheduled a vote on the Castle-DeGette, embryonic stem cell bill.

I personally believe this week should be renamed the ``week of missed opportunities'' instead of ``health week''.

Instead of addressing problems associated with the Medicare drug benefit such as the amendment I filed to the pending legislation to protect seniors from insurance plans who may decide to end coverage of drugs they said they'd cover when the senior enrolled in the plan, we are doing nothing.

Instead of allowing the Federal Government to use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate with drug companies to provide lower prices for seniors, we are doing nothing.

Instead of addressing the fact that millions of confused seniors will face a penalty in Medicare forever if they are eligible and don't sign up for the drug program by this Monday, we are doing nothing.

And yet we will have a cloture vote on a bill that will leave millions of Californians without a guaranteed access to cancer screenings and treatment, diabetes coverage, the right to a second medical opinion if they request it, among many others.

All of those protections will be lost, and Senators will have been denied without the opportunity to vote on any amendments to address the problems associated with this legislation.

It is a shame that the leadership of the Senate has allowed this week to become one of missed opportunities when we have bills such as the Castle-DeGette embryonic stem cell bill that have passed the House and are sitting at the President's desk waiting to be taken up and passed by the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the first day designated to the conservation of the world's endangered species. I would like to take a moment to thank my Senate colleagues for unanimously designating this special day, and especially to my Senate cosponsors for helping to make this day possible.

Let me also commend my constituent Mr. David Robinson for suggesting the establishment of Endangered Species Day. I appreciate his hard work and dedication. Today's designation shows that individuals like Mr. Robinson do make a difference.

I am encouraged to learn that today many fine institutions across our country will use the opportunity of Endangered Species Day to bolster public awareness about the threats facing endangered species worldwide. From lectures at local zoos to birding trips with regional Audubon chapters, events are being held nationwide to commemorate this day. My hope is that Endangered Species Day will spark the wonder and interest among young people, students, and the general public about how they can become more involved in these conservation efforts.

In fact, I am proud to note that in my State of California, conservation and management efforts have helped significantly to restore California condor, winter run chinook salmon, and California gray whale populations. It is remarkable that even species once believed to have been extinct, such as the mount diablo buckwheat and the ventura marsh milk vetch, have been newly found in our State. The dedicated conservation efforts of volunteers, organizations, businesses, private landowners, and government agencies have proved effective in rehabilitating many endangered species populations.

We can be encouraged by these developments. These instances demonstrate that with responsible management we can halt endangered species from continuing down the path towards extinction.

Such success stories also show that more needs to be done to ensure the survival of these species. There are more than 1,000 species in the U.S. and abroad that are designated as ``at risk'' of extinction. With awareness comes responsibility, and it is my hope that Endangered Species Day will inspire continued action in response to the precarious circumstances of endangered species.

Mr. President, I hope that communities across the country take advantage of this special day to discuss ways that they can participate in conservation efforts for endangered species in their State, throughout the country, and around the world.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2006.

This legislation would convey upon the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, one of Congress' most prestigious awards for his advocacy of peace, tolerance, human rights, non-violence, and compassion throughout the globe.

I am deeply honored to be joined today by my colleague, Senator Thomas, and wish to express my appreciation to him for his willingness to be the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation.

Senator Thomas has long been an advocate for addressing the plight of the Tibetan people, and in 2001 joined with me in introducing the Tibetan Policy Act, the first piece of legislation outlining U.S. policy toward Tibet and its people. He was truly instrumental in helping to advance its passage in the Congress.

In fact, one of my proudest days as a U.S. Senator was on September 30, 2002, when President George W. Bush signed the Tibetan Policy Act into law.

Both Senator Thomas and I are also grateful that 73 of our Senate colleagues have agreed to be original cosponsors of this legislation honoring the Dalai Lama.

Under the rules, Congressional Gold Medals need the support of at least two-thirds, or 67 Senators, in order for the Senate Banking Committee to consider such authorizing legislation.

I look forward to working closely with Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes to ensure that the Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act can be taken up and passed out of the Banking Committee in a timely and efficient manner.

In my view, there is no international figure more deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal than His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

This is a man who has dedicated his life to the betterment of humanity as a whole. As one of the most respected religious figures in the world today, the Dalai Lama's teachings on peace, non-violence and ecumenical openness have been embraced by millions.

One of his greatest contributions has been his promotion of harmony and respect among the different religious faiths of the world.

In his own words: ``I always believe that it is much better to have a variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather than one single religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the different mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion has certain unique ideas or techniques, and learning about them can only enrich one's faith.''

As the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, he has worked arduously for nearly 50 years to increase understanding between China and the people of Tibet.

He has also dedicated his life to the preservation of the Tibetan culture, religion, and language.

The Dalai Lama's story is a fascinating one.

In 1959, as a teenager, he fled his Tibetan homeland for neighboring India, where he established a government-in-exile that eventually settled at Dharmasala--in the Himalayan foothills.

While he admittedly once espoused independence for Tibet-- particularly in the face of the heavy-handed oppression of the Tibetan people by the Chinese Communists--the Dalai Lama foreswore this position nearly two decades ago.

Alternatively, he began to pursue a reasonable and flexible ``Middle Way Approach'' that would provide for cultural and religious autonomy for Tibetans, within the People's Republic of China.

In 1989, the Dalai Lama was the recipient of the Noble Peace Prize for his consistent and unfailing advocacy for the rights of the Tibetan people, along with his promotion of non-violence and peace throughout the globe.

In their recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote:

The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai

Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently

has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated

peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in

order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his

people.

In April 1991 , when the Congress welcomed the Dalai Lama in a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda that was attended by the entire Congressional leadership, he offered a moving anecdote about receiving a small gift from President Franklin Roosevelt when he was a young boy.

That gift--a gold watch showing phases of the moon and the days of the week--became very special to him.

``I marveled at the distant land which could make such a practical object so beautiful,'' he said.

``But what truly inspired me were your ideas of freedom and democracy. I felt that your principles were identical to my own, the Buddhist beliefs in fundamental human rights freedom, equality, tolerance and compassion for all.''

I have been blessed to be able to call the Dalai Lama a friend for almost three decades. I first met him through my husband Richard during a trip to India and Nepal in the fall of 1978.

Incidentally, our first stop was in Dharmasala, where we met with His Holiness and invited him to visit San Francisco where I was mayor.

The Dalai Lama was grateful for the invitation. At that time, he had never even been to the United States.

For political reasons, the Chinese objected to his visiting the United States, and our government, which at that time was in the process of normalizing relations with the People's Republic of China, was sensitive to these concerns.

While the trip was postponed temporarily, as mayor I was delighted to receive the Dalai Lama and present him with a key to the city upon his arrival in San Francisco in September 1979.

During our many conversations over the years, His Holiness has often reiterated that, at its core, Buddhism espouses reaching out to help others, particularly the less fortunate. And it encourages us all to be more kind and compassionate.

The Dalai Lama's persona exudes these qualities. He has a great sense of humor, responds quite spontaneously, and his philosophies cross all religions, cultures, and ethnic lines.

I have visited with him many times since 1978, and while his principled beliefs have never wavered, his teachings have become more expansive. His message has never been more relevant in our troubled world.

At the same time, I also had the opportunity as mayor of San Francisco to become acquainted with several of China's future leaders through the San Francisco-Shanghai Sister City Relationship that I started with Mayor Wang Daohan in 1980.

Mayor Wang's immediate successors, Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, were both later promoted to high-level positions in the Chinese Communist Party and Central Government after leaving Shanghai.

Consequently, since 1990, my husband and I have had many discussions with Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji, and other Chinese officials about the status of the Dalai Lama and the plight of the Tibetans in and outside of Tibet.

On three separate occasions over the past 15 years, I have hand- delivered letters from His Holiness to the Chinese leadership, asking for direct talks and reiterating that he does not seek independence for Tibet.

I know that at the same time President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush, and many others in the U.S. Government have also encouraged a meaningful dialogue. For the most part, these efforts have had little success.

If His Holiness the Dalai Lama were to return to Tibet, his wish is, as he says, to be a simple monk and to be involved only in religious and cultural matters.

China will be a better nation when it embraces the aspirations of the Tibetan people.

Through the passage of this legislation, the United States Senate would recognize the Dalai Lama's worldwide contributions to peace and religious understanding.

Among past recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal are fellow moral and religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa, and fellow Nobel Peace Laureates, such as Elie Wiesel and Nelson Mandela.

By definition, a Congressional Gold Medal is reserved for the most heroic, courageous and outstanding--those who we wish to emulate in our life's actions.

I strongly believe that the Dalai Lama is such an individual.

I am proud that the U.S. Congress has a long record of showing support for the Dalai Lama's message of peace and compassion, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in recognizing him with this distinguished award.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Sununu to introduce a bill to strike the ethanol import tariff.

With record high gas prices and demand for ethanol growing faster than expected, I believe we need to act now to ease the ethanol supply crunch.

As many of my colleagues know, I have been strongly opposed to the ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill enacted last August.

Today, more than ever, I believe that the time has come to end unwarranted subsidies to ethanol producers.

They include: $4.5 billion in agricultural subsidies in 2004 alone that benefit corn farmers (Environmental Working Group); a 51 cent per gallon tax credit for ethanol producers; and a 7.5 billion gallon ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill.

The current 51 cent per gallon subsidy is costing American taxpayers $2 billion per year, and will cost even more after 2012--almost $4 billion per year--when the use of ethanol is mandated to nearly double.

Now that the ethanol mandate is law, it is time for the subsidies to cease.

I believe we need to start by striking the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff.

Ethanol imports are extremely limited, even though production costs for ethanol in foreign countries are significantly lower than in the United States.

For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, Brazilian productions costs are 40 to 50 percent lower than in the United States. Yet the tariff raises the cost of ethanol enough to pose a significant barrier to imports.

It is egregious to put such a high tariff on ethanol importation. It makes it impossible for U.S. consumers to purchase the lowest-cost ethanol.

And with the refineries choosing to phase-out MTBE this year, the demand for ethanol is even greater than was expected.

It is not clear if the domestic supply will be able to meet that growing demand.

Any ethanol supply disruption will hurt drivers on the east and west coasts the most.

Right now, ethanol is produced in the Midwest and must be trucked or railed to the coasts. According to news reports, ethanol delivery from the Midwest is currently being hindered by strong demand for limited rail time and a shortage of trucks and drivers.

If we strike the tariff, refineries can have more economic and efficient access to ethanol.

So, it's time to eliminate this 54 cent tariff and give consumers a break at the pump.

And we are not alone in this effort. Just last week, the President asked that Congress consider eliminating the tariff.

If they are going to be forced to use ethanol, our refineries should have the ability to buy it from the cheapest seller. They should not be constrained by artificial protectionist tariffs.

I hope my colleagues will join with me to strike this tariff.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kyl and Sununu to introduce a bill to strike the ethanol import tariff.

With record high gas prices and demand for ethanol growing faster than expected, I believe we need to act now to ease the ethanol supply crunch.

As many of my colleagues know, I have been strongly opposed to the ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill enacted last August.

Today, more than ever, I believe that the time has come to end unwarranted subsidies to ethanol producers.

They include: $4.5 billion in agricultural subsidies in 2004 alone that benefit corn farmers (Environmental Working Group); a 51 cent per gallon tax credit for ethanol producers; and a 7.5 billion gallon ethanol mandate that was included in the energy bill.

The current 51 cent per gallon subsidy is costing American taxpayers $2 billion per year, and will cost even more after 2012--almost $4 billion per year--when the use of ethanol is mandated to nearly double.

Now that the ethanol mandate is law, it is time for the subsidies to cease.

I believe we need to start by striking the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff.

Ethanol imports are extremely limited, even though production costs for ethanol in foreign countries are significantly lower than in the United States.

For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, Brazilian productions costs are 40 to 50 percent lower than in the United States. Yet the tariff raises the cost of ethanol enough to pose a significant barrier to imports.

It is egregious to put such a high tariff on ethanol importation. It makes it impossible for U.S. consumers to purchase the lowest-cost ethanol.

And with the refineries choosing to phase-out MTBE this year, the demand for ethanol is even greater than was expected.

It is not clear if the domestic supply will be able to meet that growing demand.

Any ethanol supply disruption will hurt drivers on the east and west coasts the most.

Right now, ethanol is produced in the Midwest and must be trucked or railed to the coasts. According to news reports, ethanol delivery from the Midwest is currently being hindered by strong demand for limited rail time and a shortage of trucks and drivers.

If we strike the tariff, refineries can have more economic and efficient access to ethanol.

So, it's time to eliminate this 54 cent tariff and give consumers a break at the pump.

And we are not alone in this effort. Just last week, the President asked that Congress consider eliminating the tariff.

If they are going to be forced to use ethanol, our refineries should have the ability to buy it from the cheapest seller. They should not be constrained by artificial protectionist tariffs.

I hope my colleagues will join with me to strike this tariff.