Floor Statements

Mr. President, last week USA Today reported that the Bush administration may be collecting the phone records of millions of Americans. The administration's efforts to monitor activities of American citizens appeared to be far broader than President Bush had previously acknowledged.

Not surprisingly, Democratic and Republican Members of Congress have expressed concerns about this report and indicated they have sought more information about this program. Several Members made it clear that General Hayden would be required to answer questions about this program as part of his confirmation process.

Late yesterday, the Senate was informed that the administration agreed to brief all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the President's authorization of NSA warrantless surveillance programs, including clarifying whether the reports in USA Today are accurate. This new overture to the Senate on one aspect of the administration's overall efforts is a welcome development. I hope this action has more to do with a newfound interest to keep Congress fully informed than about its concerns regarding their nomination for CIA Director. I am surprised it has taken so long, and so much tugging and pulling, to get the administration to at least this point. It is, quite simply, required by law under the National Security Act of 1947 and by the Senate's own rules. So it really is about time.

Chairman Roberts approached me on the floor yesterday to tell me about these new developments. The Senator from Kansas and I have had our differences and will continue to have those differences over the conduct of the Intelligence Committee's investigation of the administration's misuse of intelligence on Iraq. Senator Roberts and I spent many good years together as the chairman and vice chairman, back and forth--whatever the leadership was in the Senate--on the Ethics Committee. We had a good relationship. That is going to override all the negativity we have had on this Intelligence Committee stonewalling we have had.

In the instance about this NSA wiretapping, I appreciate Chairman Roberts' acknowledgment that the Senate needs more information on these programs and the role the President has played in this. I appreciate very much the work by the Chairman and the hard work by Vice Chairman Rockefeller to step forward to allow all members of the Intelligence Committee to know what is going on or attempt to get to know what is going on. It is important

for everyone in this Chamber and for the administration to recognize that this briefing on this single issue is very necessary but not sufficient for the American people to have confidence that their Government is not only protecting them from terrorists but also respecting their constitutional rights.

Clearly, Senators need to know a lot more about the domestic surveillance program, and I hope today's briefing accomplishes that objective. But just as clearly, Senators need to know a lot more about other important issues: misuse of intelligence, selective leaking, damage to the CIA.

I hope the administration's offer yesterday is the first of their efforts to inform Congress, not the last.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No.

Mr. President, yesterday morning I talked about this being the summer season, new movies--there is a blockbuster out, starting this Friday it is, ``The Da Vinci Code,'' with Tom Hanks. I suggested yesterday that in the third week of May, on the Senate floor, we have our own blockbuster that is part 2 of immigration.

We had part 1. It didn't go very well. I suggested yesterday that in the President's speech he was going to give, he should become a player, an actor in this part 2 of the Senate blockbuster.

Last night the President, I thought, did a commendable job in laying out what he felt was a path to solving this immigration situation.

I acknowledge the President's statement, and I support the direction the President has taken. I want the President to continue to be a player in all of this. I remind everyone, however, that much of what the President talked about we should already have done. For example, the President talked--and rightfully so--about the fact that we don't have enough beds. We have the so-called catch-and-release program where we find people who are here illegally and we let them go because we have no place to put them.

Following the 9/11 Commission, there was a recommendation that we provide additional beds for the illegals, and we did. We authorized 18,000. But even though we have tried, the President and the majority have not supported our position in this regard. We only have 1,800 beds. We have to move forward and do all of that. I certainly hope that can be done.

It is important that we have additional Border Patrol agents. We have already called for them. In fact, our request has only been filled to 75 percent capacity. The President has said we need more beds. Let's move on that now. The President said we need more Border Patrol agents. Let's move on that now.

The National Guard: Yesterday, I asked the President to give us a timetable. He said within the next year. I hope we can take care of that situation so that we don't need to have National Guardsmen there. But in this interim period, I support the National Guard being on our border.

It is important that we move forward as quickly as possible with this very important legislation. I hope in the days to come that the President will also acknowledge how wrong the Republican House approach is to this. They are still talking the same way. They haven't backed down. They think their approach is the best, from what I have seen by a couple of speeches the chairman of the Judiciary Committee gave last week.

The President needs to stay engaged. He needs to recognize how bad the House bill really is and speak to the American public about how bad it is.

Yesterday, there were some remarks on both sides on this issue which I thought were good. Here is an opportunity. We always talk about bipartisanship.

Interestingly, I was just talking to a member of the Republican staff coming into the building today. We exchanged greetings. He said on the Republican side they are just going to vote their conscience. I said that is an interesting way to legislate. That is what we all need to do. We should have been doing it more in the past. This is the week in which we need to vote our conscience. We don't need to vote the Democratic way or the Republican way. We need to vote the American way and move this most important legislation down the road. I hope we can do that.

Mr. President, let me also talk about one other important issue; that is, the American people are not only counting on us to finish the immigration bill--which we need to do--but they are also counting on us to finish the stem cells bill.

Today, in the New York Times there is a letter from Nancy Reagan to Senator Hatch in which she writes:

For those who are waiting every day for scientific progress

to help their loved ones, the wait for the U.S. Senate action

has been very difficult and very hard to comprehend.

Yes, it really has.

Last Thursday, the Republican leadership concluded the only week they

intend to devote to health care in this Congress. I was disappointed that--despite his repeated promises to allow the Senate to consider the House-passed stem cells bill--Senator Frist didn't consider this issue important enough to bring to the floor and that parliamentary tactics were used to deny our efforts to bring this forward.

On May 10, prior to the conclusion of Health Week, my friend, the distinguished majority leader, Dr. Frist, stated:

The issue of stem cells is a very important issue. . . .I

am very committed to addressing that particular issue. . .

.The interest in stem cells will be debated in the future, at

a time that is mutually set by the Democratic leadership

working with the Republican leadership.

The one-year anniversary of the date the House of Representatives passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, is May 24, exactly 1 week from tomorrow.

The bill would offer hope to millions of Americans and their families. Why are we waiting so long to simply vote?

If the distinguished majority leader agreed that this is ``a very important issue,'' then I hope he will keep this issue moving forward and vote on it immediately and schedule a vote on the House-passed bill.

Mr. President, finally, we are going to momentarily take up the issue of the circuit court judge, and proceed to the consideration of the nomination of Milan D. Smith, Jr., of California to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. That is a circuit which Nevada is in and a big, powerful circuit. This is an exemplary judge-to-be.

Just to mention a few names, such as Wallace, Wallace is the first person who has gotten the ``nonqualified'' rating, but yet he is going to be brought forward, I am told. Boyle, a man who is steeped in controversy, has been reversed 165 times, has ethical problems.

Let's go to the Milan Smiths. There are many qualified Republicans who I hope meet the standard following the Constitution and who are not controversial but are good people. Some are lawyers and some are judges elevated to a higher position. Let us move to those kinds of people. And there is no better example of that than the judge we are going to vote on in just a few minutes, Milan Smith.

I compliment the President for sending him to us.

Is all time expired?

I will use my leader time.

Mr. President, on the next vote cast, we are going to vote on the Isakson amendment, and then we will vote on the Salazar amendment. On the Salazar vote, the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Michigan, Carl Levin, will cast his 10,000th vote.

It is very difficult in a short period of time, or a long period of time, to convey to the American people and to this Senate the personality of Carl Levin. I have had the good fortune of serving in Congress now for more than two decades. Prior to that, I had the good fortune of representing the State of Nevada in other positions in government. Carl Levin is a unique individual. I have never served with anyone whom I had greater respect for his ability to understand an issue.

There are so many instances. I can look at the last time we did the Defense authorization bill. We worked very hard to get 45 Democratic Senators to have an amendment that we could agree on that we would put forward our position on the intractable war in Iraq, led by Carl Levin. In numerous meetings we held in my office, we came up with an amendment. He would come back each time with his handwritten notes that this needed to be changed or that needed to be changed.

To show his integrity and how people feel about him on both sides of the aisle, when we finished our difficult work, he called me within an hour and said: Would you mind if I discussed this with Senator Warner? I said: Of course, not. Within a few minutes, Senator Warner was a cosponsor of that Democratic amendment. It was not a Democratic amendment, as we thought it was, it was an amendment for the Senate, and it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate.

With the Schiavo case that came before the Senate, a very difficult matter that came before the Senate, we were out of session. Carl Levin was in town. He worked on this, as many will recall, during the recess. We went back and looked at it some more. Carl Levin was changing parts of this. Changes were agreed upon by the Senate, and when this matter went to the Eleventh Circuit, the reason they decided the way they did is because of what Levin did to this matter before the Senate.

These are only two examples I came up with as I walked into the Senate. The instances are too numerous to mention, but it is not difficult to mention what a difference he has made in the Senate and in our country.

Here is a man who has an exemplary family. His wife Barbara is one of the

loveliest, kindest, finest people, with one of the best smiles I have ever seen on a person I have ever known. He has three daughters.

To try to convey the kind of man he is, I was thinking about running for the Senate. I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I came to visit Carl Levin. One of the first things I said to him after I said hello, I said: I served in Congress with your brother, Sandy. Carl Levin said to me, in the most positive, affectionate way about his brother, he said: Yes, he is my brother, but he is also my best friend.

That is Carl Levin, a man who was born in Detroit, MI, who has an outstanding educational background. He was a law professor. He practiced law. He now joins a distinguished group of Senators. Carl Levin will shortly cast his 10,000th vote. Senators Sarbanes, Lugar, and Hatch are in that category. Over 12,000 votes for Senators Leahy, Biden, and Domenici. Over 14,000 votes for Senators Stevens, Inouye, and Kennedy; and Senator Byrd has over 17,000 votes. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, he is in the top ten. And that is the same reason that Time magazine announced that Carl Levin was one of the best Senators in the United States. I agree with Time magazine. Congratulations, Carl.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has asked that I indicate that we have no objection to his being in the queue.

As has been announced by the distinguished manager of the bill, the Senator from Pennsylvania, we are going to take up the Kyl amendment, the Obama amendment, and then we are going to go to Sessions, then a Democrat, and as far as we are concerned on our side, we have no objection whatever to Senator Inhofe being the next Republican amendment in order.

I have not checked with the majority leader, and if there is a problem, I can change it, but I ask consent that be the case.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows and interns of the Finance Committee be permitted floor privileges during the Senate's consideration of S. 2611, the immigration bill:

Lauren Shields, Caroline Ulbrich, Laura Kellams, Tiffany Smith, and Tara Rose.

Mr. President, yesterday morning in Las Vegas Chic Hecht died. Chic Hecht was a former Senator and a fellow Nevadan. On behalf of the entire Senate family, I extend condolences to Chic's wife, Gail, and their daughters, Leslie and Lori.

Chic was a man very small in stature, but his life has left a big shadow on the State of Nevada and the entire United States. Chic's political career was outstanding, and I consider it a privilege that I could serve with and know him.

When I was Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, Chic served in the Nevada State Senate. When I was elected to the Congress in 1982, he was elected to the Senate. A few years later, I had the good fortune of joining him here.

Chic was someone who had no guile. He made it through his political career recognizing that he was never going to be a dynamic speaker. He spoke with a distinct lisp. But this is something that people in Nevada came to admire and appreciate. People had great affection for him, as you can tell from his first Senate race.

Chic's election to the Senate is described as being the biggest political upset in the history of the State of Nevada. He beat a man who had served in the Senate 24 years, Senator Howard Cannon, a man who had been chairman of the Rules Committee, Commerce Committee and Armed Services Committee. It was a tremendous upset.

Chic was rightfully proud of that election. ``Only in America could this happen,'' he said the night that he beat Howard Cannon. ``Put that down. That is what makes America great.''

Even Chic's opponents liked and respected him.

In 1988, Chic was beaten by Senator Richard Bryan. But as Senator Bryan said, they were good friends during the race and continued being good friends after. That was Chic Hecht.

As successful as he was in the political field, he was even more successful as an entrepreneur. He made his money in a number of different ways. One was selling women's clothing. The other was in the banking business. He was extremely successful.

But public service called him. In addition to his Nevada legislature and Senate experience, he also served as Ambassador to the Bahamas from 1989 to 1994.

During the 1950s, Chic was a member of the Army. At that time, Chic was an undercover person--a spy. He was known for this his entire life. During some of his campaigns, people checked to find out if, in fact, this man of small stature really was a spy because if that was not the case, they planned to use it against him in the campaign. But they couldn't, because it was true. He served with distinction in the military.

Here's another example of the kind of man Chic was.

We had today, as we have for many decades, our Tuesday caucuses. During the time Senator Hecht served in the Senate, he attended the Republican Tuesday caucus. Well, one Tuesday, John Kerry was late coming to the Democratic caucus, and he came across Chic Hecht, who was in a state of distress because while eating lunch with the Republican caucus, he had some food lodged in his throat. He couldn't breathe. He staggered out of the Republican conference and, fortuitously, John Kerry recognized that something was wrong. Senator Kerry applied the Heimlich maneuver, and the food came out. Chic Hecht was told by the doctors that he had a matter of a few seconds to live.

Now, to show the kind of man Chic Hecht was, every Christmas, even though he was proud of his Jewish faith, every Christmas thereafter, recognizing that that was a day of celebration for Senator Kerry, Senator Hecht called John Kerry to tell him that he appreciated his having saved his life.

And what a life it was.

Nevada has had a great loss. I hope that Chic's family recognizes the greatness of this man. I know there are many in Nevada who do.

As strongly as I feel about Chic Hecht, his friends run deep in our state. My good friend Art Marshall, who is a good, strong Democrat and has helped me on everything that I have ever done, spoke with admiration of his deep friendship with Chic Hecht. They were from different political parties, but always had a very good relationship. Art called me nearly every day to tell me how Chic was doing while he wrestled with cancer.

Today, Chic's suffering is over. He will be missed.

In time, the pain of his loss will pass, but never our memories and appreciation for this man. Chic Hecht, Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, very briefly, we have in this most important debate two veterans of the Senate, to say the least, Senators Specter and Leahy, who will be managing this bill. I agree with the distinguished majority leader. This debate should be dignified. People have very strong feelings about issues. I look forward to some very pronounced debate and voting.

We have had a lot of talk about the need to do immigration. Now is the opportunity to see what we can do. I met with my staff today, and I asked them to prioritize our amendments. We worked through some of those, which ones we want to offer first, second, third. I am sure that has been done on

the majority side also. So I hope with Senator Specter and Senator Leahy leading the charge that we can move forward very quickly.

Mr. President, this is summertime. It is the time that we see the rolling out of American blockbuster movies. They also try to save their best for the summer. This summer's blockbuster is ``The Da Vinci Code,'' starring Tom Hanks. It starts this Friday all across America. But the third week in May on the Senate floor we have our own Senate blockbuster. It is the sequel though, not the original, part 2 of immigration. The first installment didn't go well for a number of reasons. One of the reasons I felt it didn't go well was the fact that the President wasn't involved personally in it. He wasn't involved in the debate.

For the first installment, I think the Judiciary Committee did very well. They were working on a very tight timeframe. There probably should have been more hearings. That is one reason there were probably more amendments than we would normally have on a bill. But I think Senators Leahy and Specter did an outstanding job to work out the bipartisan compromise--what we call the McCain-Kennedy legislation. It is a bill we tried to deal with on the floor. It didn't move forward for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact we couldn't work out a procedural mechanism to go forward. We tried. We had two cloture votes. All the Democrats voted to go forward with this; all the Republicans voted not to go forward with the legislation.

What did that legislation have in it? Both the McCain-Kennedy and the so-called Hagel-Martinez substitute. They have in them provisions that I think are so important to this country.

First, our border security.

I was in the Congress 20 years ago and served in the House of Representatives when we passed an immigration bill. Obviously, we didn't do a very good job. Twenty years later, we have at least 12 million people who are here that are undocumented.

With this legislation, which is so important, we do good, sound, long-term border security.

We also have to have a temporary worker program. There could be a number of amendments offered on this legislation. But we have to have a temporary worker program. I have said on a number of occasions that Las Vegas is a perfect example of why we need a temporary worker program. In the next 4 or 5 years, they will have 50,000 new hotel rooms. Management and the union say they cannot find the workers to man those hotels. So we need a temporary guest worker program.

I have mentioned we have 12 million people who are now living in the shadows. We have to have a way of bringing them out of the shadows. The McCain-Kennedy legislation sets the framework for doing that. How? By putting them on path of legalization--a path that would require their having jobs, paying taxes, staying out of trouble, no

crimes, learning English, paying some penalty. Then they move to the back of the line. It will take a long time for them to get to the front of the line, but at least they can come out of the shadows and not be worried about being picked up for a violation of some kind, with their American husbands and wives and their children. We need to do that.

Finally, we have to have in a good immigration bill something to make meaningful employer sanctions. That is why I support the legislation now before the Senate.

Of course, I am going to vote for some amendments. I think some improvements can be made.

We are now on the sequel of what took place before the Easter vacation. Yes, the sequel.

I hope the President will take a leading role in this sequel, a role on this rerun. But his role is up to him. It is up to him. His role starts tonight in a speech that he is going to give to the Nation. We have had preliminary statements as to what this speech is going to be. We understand that one of the things he is going to talk about is bringing out the National Guard.

I believe in strong border security. If there is a way we can work out the National Guard situation, fine. I am willing to go along with that. But my colleague, Senator Hagel, has said he believes that the National Guard is stretched too thin. My colleague, Senator Biden, said the same thing. He said it both yesterday and on Sunday talk shows. Some National Guardsmen have had four tours of duty in Iraq.

I hope we can come up with something that is meaningful.

Governor Napolitano and Governor Richardson of Arizona and New Mexico have stated on a number of occasions over the last many months they believe the National Guard should be called out. The problem is they need some way of financing this. This is a Federal obligation. The States shouldn't have to bear it.

I hope the President will address that.

The President must be specific. We must have permanent solutions--not stopgap measures for our border security.

The President's role in this sequel, ``Immigration No. 2,'' is up to him. I would be the first to give him a leading role. We need him. We didn't have him involved in the first immigration debate. He came in and started saying things after the votes had already taken place.

I hope the President is willing to stand up and be counted on this issue.

I have some questions for the President. The first question is very basic. We need to know what kind of immigration reform he supports.

Does he believe, as his Republicans in the House do, that we should build a 700-mile fence on our border? He must take a stand in that regard.

Does he believe, as his Republican colleagues in the House do, that we should make all undocumented immigrants felons?

Does the President believe, as his Republicans in the House believe, that we should make all those who feed, clothe, and otherwise assist undocumented immigrants felons--also, people such as priests, ministers, missionaries, social workers, and welfare personnel?

He must speak out on these very unfavorable provisions in the House bill.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to spend some time in my office with Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Mahony, two wonderful, caring, spiritual men.

Under the House legislation, Cardinal Mahony would be a felon.

Here is what Cardinal Mahony said about the bill:

The whole concept of punishing people who serve immigrants

is un-American. If you take this to its logical, ludicrous

extreme, every single person who comes up to receive Holy

Communion, you have to ask them to show papers. It becomes

absurd and the church is not about to get into that. The

church is here to serve people. We're not about to become

immigration agents. It just throws more gasoline on the

discussion and inflames people.

I believe the Senate will move forward with good, strong immigration reform. But I also believe our work could be hijacked by House Republicans who want to turn immigrants into felons.

I have fought to prevent this from happening by guaranteeing fair representation in the conference committee. The President can do even more tonight.

Chairman Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the man who among others pushed this felony provision, stated publicly that the measure was included at the ``administration's request.'' If that is the case, President Bush needs to tell Chairman Sensenbrenner to remove the provision and that it is dead.

The President needs to make it clear once and for all that he will only support immigration reform that is tough and smart. He must publicly denounce the House bill.

The second question for President Bush concerns security. It is fine to hear him say that he wants to send the National Guard, but what else will he do to address 4\1/2\ years of neglect?

We all remember. We were celebrating the fact that one of the first things he did after becoming President was going to Mexico and saying he was going to work out the immigration problems with President Fox. It hasn't worked. This issue has been ignored for 5\1/2\ years.

Tonight, it is not enough for the President to tell us he wants to increase security at our borders. After all, I repeat, he has had 5\1/ 2\ years to do this. If he wants to be credible on border security, he must acknowledge the mistakes in the past and commit to fixing them.

The lack of security at our borders is frightening. Apprehensions of undocumented immigrants have dropped under President Bush by 30 percent. We have gone from apprehending 1.7 million individuals illegally crossing between 1996 and 2000 to just over 1 million now.

It is not that less people are coming. It is that we don't have the resources we need to catch them.

A month ago, I was on the border. I saw some of the problems which the overworked Border Patrol agents face. At San Ysidro, it is hard to comprehend, but there are 24 lanes of traffic coming into the United States 24 hours a day, 7 days a week--24 lanes of traffic one way.

They are understaffed and underresourced. They simply can't handle it. It can be handled, but they need the resources to do it.

But it is more than people whom we can't catch coming across our borders. We can't forget that a few weeks ago the Government Accountability Office reported that in March they detailed how two Federal investigators were able to smuggle into our country nuclear material. This shocking report is an indictment of what has happened on our borders. For too long this administration has neglected its responsibility for protecting our homeland, including our border.

The 9/11 Commission told the President that he should work with other countries to develop a terrorist watch list which Border Patrol agents could use to check people crossing the border. Did he do it? No.

The 9/11 Commission gave him a failing grade when they issued their report card last year--a ``D.''

In the 9/11 legislation which we passed to help secure our country, Congress authorized 2,000 new Border Parol agents.

What did the President of the United States do to put these 2,000 agents in place? Well, he did 75 percent of it. We are still 500 agents short. The President watched as the Republicans in Congress have refused to fund these positions even though we have tried.

The same legislation, the September 11 act, authorized facilities to hold up to 8,000 individuals detained while illegally crossing our border. Currently, we do not have the capacity to hold all those we detain, so they are most often released with a court date. They then disappear into our country. Over the weekend, there were news stories about tens of thousands coming into our country illegally. They are detained. Then we say: See you later, check in for court. Of course, they never come to court. Rarely do they come to court. Why do the authorities let them go? They have no place to put them. Did the President make sure the new 8,000 detention bed facilities became a reality? No. He has allowed the Congress to fund only 1,800 of these new detention beds. No wonder the border agents have no alternative but to let them go.

All this adds up to a credibility gap. It is no wonder the President got a failing grade, a D. He is coming late to

this sequel. He did not appear at all in immigration I. Let's hope he appears in immigration II and answers some of these questions.

It is not enough for him to unveil a proposal to use our National Guard. We need more. He must commit to fixing the problems that have been neglected and tell us when he will add additional agents. Congress calls for 2,000 agents; we are 500 short. It is not right that Congress passes laws saying we need 8,000 additional beds for the people coming to our country illegally and we get 1,800. He must commit to fixing the problem. These problems have been neglected. He needs to tell us when we will be getting the necessary authorized agents.

The States have had to bear the expense of holding these people. That should be defrayed by the Federal Government. This is not the State's border, it is the U.S. border. We must implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Question No. 3: If President Bush is going to get tough on border security, will he finally get tough on border sanctions as well?

This is a question of credibility. For years, this administration has been willing to look the other way as immigration laws have gone unenforced. In 2004, the Government issued just three notices of intent to fine employers. There are tens of thousands of employers, and most of us believe that lots of them have violated the law with improper papers. There were just three notices of intent in 2004. No one was fined. In 2005, the administration targeted only one employer for an enforcement action. That was Wal-Mart. Overall audits of employers suspected of using illegal immigrants have dropped from 8,000 under President Clinton to less than 2,000 in 2003. President Bush must account for this record. He must do it in tonight's speech.

Question No. 4: If, as rumored, the President will announce he is going to send the National Guard to our border, will he tell the American people how this proposal will work without jeopardizing the critical role the National Guard plays in keeping our communities and Nation safe?

Our National Guard is a vital force on which all of us--Presidents, Governors, mayors, and Members of Congress--depend. Unfortunately, President Bush has overtaxed, overused, and underfunded this critical national security resource. The men and women of our Guard have given us their best in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. They have given their best on the gulf coast. They have given their best in Nevada and other States across America, whether it is fires, floods, hurricanes, or civil unrest.

Now, if it is true that the President is going to order them on another mission, he must tell us how he will help them succeed and ensure they are ready and prepared should they be called to another mission--our border.

It is remarkable that in January, this White House submitted a budget to Congress calling to cut 17,000 guardsmen. Yet now he is asking them to do more with less. Tonight, in clear and consistent terms, we need to hear how they will be used, how they will be supported, how they will prepare and be ready for the unexpected missions.

Remember, all the preliminaries coming out from the White House say that it is going to be a temporary fix. I am for doing anything we can to protect our borders, within reason, but we must do it on a permanent basis, not a temporary basis. We have been told this Guard thing is a stop-gap measure.

These are just four questions. There are a lot of other questions we could ask, but these are questions on which I will judge the President tonight, as I believe the American people will. His answers will tell if he is committed to comprehensive reform and if he is finally serious about securing our borders. As I said, today marks the beginning of immigration part II. Scene I closes tonight with the President's speech, leaving many more scenes to play in the Senate, but the President must be a player, an actor, not a spectator, in all the processes of this debate, not just the first act.

The bill before the Senate is not perfect. I like McCain-Kennedy better than I like the substitute, the Hagel-Martinez bill. There will be amendments to consider and to work their way through the Senate.

For example, it is important we pass a bill and go on record supporting the concept of immigration reform, our enforcement-plus- reform approach, and opposing the House punitive enforcement-only bill. I have made it clear that I will support the Hagel-Martinez compromise but with some amendments. We will be well advised to take a look at some of the provisions in that bill to see if they should be amended. There are Members from both sides with good intentions who want to offer amendments, and they should do that. I voted to move forward on Hagel-Martinez before the Easter recess, with germane amendments being available postcloture. That did not work.

However, we are here now. The compromise we have is not perfect. Among other problems with the bill, I particularly wish to highlight my concern with the division of the population of 11 to 12 million undocumented immigrants that is in this legislation.

Under the Hagel-Martinez bill, we have three groups. The middle group of immigrants who have been here between 2 and 5 years will be required to do what I have heard some refer to as the ``touch back'' or ``touch base'' return. They have to cross the border at a port of entry then they can come right back. I personally think that is a big waste of time, effort, and energy, but that is what is in that legislation. There will be amendments offered on that, and unless there is something I don't understand, I would support the amendment to change that provision. It does not make sense to me. I fear that it may deter participation in the program because some immigrants fear they will not be allowed to return or will be fined, or it is too much of a hardship with regard to their financial or childcare responsibilities to be able to make that trip. There is a waiver in it, but it is very difficult to obtain.

I repeat, this provision is a waste of time, energy, and effort. I know there will be an amendment offered to take that out.

More importantly, this bill includes some mean-spirited provisions for this group that strike me as unwise as a matter of public policy. They have to waive their right to administrative or judicial review, which means they have no right to contest the decision of some bureaucrat who for whatever reason decides they do not meet the requirement to participate in this legalization program. This sounds like a big problem to me.

In addition, many tens of thousands of people in this group will be ineligible for the program because they had a prior deportation order and failed to leave the country under a voluntary departure agreement or--this is particularly disturbing--they failed to comply with any request for information by the Department of Homeland Security.

The whole point of what we are doing is to deal with this population which is here under the table, for lack of a better description. They are here. They came here illegally, and there has been a decision made--and some people disagree with this, but we cannot simply deport all of these people. So we want to put them on a path to legalization. I repeat, jobs, taxes, no crimes, learn English, pay penalties. Most people believe that is the right thing to do. And in the future, have a better hold on our border and make sure we do not have problems in the future. This is what we need to do.

I don't see why we should make a distinction between those who have been unlucky enough to get caught and put through deportation proceedings and those who have not.

As far as those who have been here less than 2 years, we have to draw a cutoff line somewhere, but I am concerned, as the bill stands, this will simply lead to a situation where a couple million people will not leave the country and will simply remain here undocumented. That is unfortunate. I hope we can make improvements in the bill to address this group of people as well.

We have so much to do. I hope we can make some fixes to these sections so we can get as many people as possible out of the shadows, registered with the Government, paying taxes, learning English, staying out of trouble, and complying with the law generally.

I look forward to this bipartisan debate. I hope it is that. There are strong feelings, but this is when the Senate is

at its best. This is a debate which needs to take place. People have the ability to offer their amendments, debate those amendments, and move this legislation along. Democrats and Republicans are working together to construct legislation to protect our borders. It is so important we do this. I look forward to this debate. As I have indicated, we can do this. We must have this bipartisan measure move forward. The American people recognize the importance of it. It is important for our country.

In the Senate now, we have the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He and I have not always agreed on matters. More often we have agreed than disagreed, but I want the record spread with my view on the remarkably good job under a very difficult situation that this experienced legislator has done during his tenure as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have been able to work our way through the most difficult issues.

I don't serve on the Judiciary Committee. Never have. I did in the State legislature. All difficult measures that are around come through the Judiciary Committee. They are funneled through the Judiciary Committee. That is the way it was in the State legislature, and we find the same here. Contentious issues find their way into the Judiciary Committee. Senator Specter has done a tremendously good job.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, what he and Senator Leahy were able to do to get this bill to this point was a miracle. It was nothing short of a miracle to get the bill out of the committee in the first place and then to get it in the Senate. I hope, in the not-too-distant future, we can all look back and say this is one of the times the Senate has shown what the Senate is known for, and that is working its way through very difficult issues and having debates the country will long remember.

Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield briefly?

Mr. President, through the Chair--the Senator, because of airplane connections today, wasn't here. I made a statement on this legislation. One of the things I want to make sure the Senator from Massachusetts understands is that I completed my statement this morning saying that I hope we can have bipartisan, good debate on this legislation; this legislation is so badly needed.

I also want the Senator from Massachusetts to understand that as far as I am concerned, the key to our having been able to move forward on this legislation is the work done by the Democratic Senator from the State of Massachusetts, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and the Republican Senator from Arizona, the senior Senator from Arizona. The Kennedy-McCain legislation is the framework for doing something to solve a problem that needs to be solved. I hope we can move forward on this matter in a bipartisan, constructive way.

I said this morning there are strong feelings on all sides of this issue, as there should be. But I hope the Senator from Massachusetts agrees with me that it is imperative that this legislation be completed and that--the Senator, being the modest person he is, would not agree with me about the importance of the Kennedy-McCain bill--but I want the Senator to know that I believe the key to our moving forward was the work done on this matter in many private meetings, some public meetings, with you and the Senator from Arizona. I want to compliment and applaud you for the work done, making it possible to be at the point we are in this legislation.

Mr. President, as we honor and celebrate America's teachers on National Teacher Appreciation Day, I thought it would be appropriate to say a few words about the state of education in my home State of Nevada.

I had an eye-opening meeting recently with the school superintendents from all corners of Nevada, and they shared the challenges that teachers and students face each day and ideas on what we can do to improve education. With only 17 school districts in the State, we have a unique situation where our education leaders can come together--in one room and around one table--for a discussion of the issues that concern them.

Even more remarkable is the unique diversity of Nevada's school districts. Our 17 school districts range from one of the Nation's largest and most diverse, Clark County, to vast, rural Esmeralda County, which has less than 100 students in the entire district. Such diversity makes Nevada a microcosm of the Nation and provides a snapshot of the varied needs of teachers and students across the country.

I met with many of the same superintendents during the early years of No Child Left Behind implementation to discuss the difficulties that their school districts were having in meeting the requirements of the new law.

When NCLB was passed, there were many who lauded President Bush's commitment to education. After all, who among us would allow any child to slip through the cracks in our education system if we could prevent it? None of us would do that. And at the time, many thought that this sweeping legislation would fill those gaps. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case.

My own State of Nevada has suffered under the burden of unfunded mandates and punitive measures this law has imposed. But I want to give our educators in Nevada credit: from our teachers to our superintendents, they have all tried hard to comply with this law.

They have robbed Peter to pay Paul with their budgets. They have compromised on teaching art and history classes. They have shortened the time allotted for recess. And they have even tacked on extra reading or math classes.

Instead of resisting these requirements, they have tried to work within it, and I commend them for their unified efforts. But there is only so much they can do with a flawed law.

To be sure, Nevada isn't the only State that has struggled under this law. It is a national problem. School districts across the country are already trying to juggle school construction costs, increasing graduation rates, finding money for textbooks, reducing class sizes, and figuring out what to do about overcrowded high schools.

But, now, in its fourth year of implementation, most of us have heard similar stories about the many problems with No Child Left Behind.

So with an eye toward authorization of NCLB, I asked to meet with the State's school superintendents once again, not so much to discuss problems with the law, but, rather, ways to improve it and make it more responsive to the needs of our students and teachers. One after the other, these educators gave examples of how changes, some minor and others much larger, to the No Child Left Behind Act could help them to reach its stated goal.

No Child Left Behind is based on the premise that we can track the progress of every school by using a one-size-fits-all approach, including standardized tests. And what I heard from these superintendents was that their problems aren't standardized--so a one- size-fits-all approach doesn't always work.

In Clark County, Carla Steinforth talked about accommodating the more than 12,000 students that move into the county each year by building a school nearly every month.

Another of the more pervasive challenges that Nevada as a whole, and Clark County in particular, face: the influx of students who are not native English-speakers. There are so many children entering our public schools who don't speak English that--under the NCLB--most of our public schools will eventually be on the ``watch-list'' or considered a ``failing school.''

One idea to deal with the district's growing and constantly changing student population was to implement a ``growth model'' or accountability. Under such a model, student progress would be measured from year to year, rather than by measuring 1 year of student performance to another, as is currently being done. Keith Rheault, the State superintendent of education, said Nevada is pursuing this idea, under a pilot program that opens up this possibility to just a few States. Everyone, it seems, with the exception of the Federal Government, has recognized the need for greater flexibility under CLB.

A neighboring school system, Nye County, is growing but at a much slower rate than Clark County. Nye County is the largest school district in the continental United States. The superintendent, Rob Roberts, talked about the morale of many of the students, teachers, and parents, when their school has been labeled as a ``failing school.''

In rural Mineral County, Superintendent Steven Cook discussed the difficulty the district has had in retaining and attracting special education teachers. He talked about the

need for greater flexibility for rural counties with teacher qualification requirements in NCLB. The superintendent of White Pine County, Bob Dolezal, concurred and shared the challenges of ensuring that his high school teaching staff of five, who each have taught multiple subjects, would be considered ``highly qualified'' to teach all subjects.

Make no mistake about it: The issue is not whether teachers in rural areas should be qualified to teach multiple subjects--they should. However, requiring them to attain ``highly qualified'' status in all subjects simultaneously is unreasonable.

In other counties, like Douglas County, they have actually seen enrollment decline, as housing costs drove families to less expensive areas. Yet the district has had increased expenses because of onerous NCLB requirements. The superintendent, John Soderman, said he appreciates the accountability principles in the law but also talked about the negative implications of the law's punitive nature.

Mary Pierczynski in Carson City cited NCLB's effect on thinking and creativity. They have over 200 days of curriculum to teach but with only 180 days of school. And standardized testing is taking up more 10 days of that time.

In Humboldt County, it is difficult to get qualified paraprofessionals, and additional requirements will leave many of the schools without aides. Superintendent Charlotte Peterson said that the only other option would be to bring them in from many miles away.

In Eureka County, where there are just a few hundred students, Ben Zunino talked about a feeling of inevitability for schools to be labeled as failing and how one student's performance can often make the difference between a school being labeled as high achieving or needs improvement. To improve this, Lincoln County Superintendent Rick Hardy suggested counting the percentage of students who move into proficiency as a way of recognizing improvement and the hard work of teachers and students.

In Storey County, Rob Slaby is fretful about the time for history and arts that has been lost to testing and preparation for these tests and suggested some kind of credit for these important subjects.

Dottie Merrill from Washoe County, the State's second largest school district, suggested that students who are English-learners not be included in testing until they have been in the United States for a few years, as opposed to 1 year, as is currently in the law. This would give schools the time necessary to help these students transition to school in the United States.

Nearly all superintendents mentioned the struggle to pay for the basics, like school buses and supplies, with the ever-increasing costs of NCLB requirements. If the Federal Government would fully fund NCLB, as it had promised, it would alleviate some of these hardships.

As an example, many of the districts mentioned the cost to provide transportation for their increasingly scattered student population. In many rural counties, where some students travel up to 150 miles a day for school, transportation expenses can be upwards of 70 percent of the budget. Many districts have had to cut some special events because of rising transportation costs, and all were concerned about the amount school bus costs and high gas prices will cut into their overall budgets.

I have touched on just a few of the problems with the No Child Left Behind Act and some of the ways educators in Nevada have suggested to improve it. It is going to take a lot of hard work to make it what it promised to be: a tool that will help the teachers and students in every public school in America.

Today, as we honor the Nation's teachers for their work and dedication, we must ensure that we keep our promise to America's students. We can't afford to leave them behind.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor one of the true heroes for Nevada's veterans, retired COL Charles ``Chuck'' Fulkerson. This man is a Reno native, a war hero, and a dedicated public servant.

I have known Chuck for many years, and I have always appreciated his dedication to improving the lives of veterans in our State. When Chuck spoke about veterans issues, he spoke from a position experience.

In 1955, Chuck enrolled in the Army Reserve while an undergraduate at the University of Nevada-Reno. The Korean war had ended, but our world was still a very unstable place. A few years, later when the United States found itself involved in another crisis in Southeast Asia, Chuck answered his Nation's call to service. He went to Vietnam, not once but twice, for tours of combat. After the war, Chuck served his country in Europe before returning home to serve in the Nevada National Guard.

While maintaining his military obligations, Chuck served the citizens of Nevada in a variety of government positions. Gov. Bob List appointed Chuck to be the director of the Nevada Selective Service in 1979. After almost 6 years of service in that role, Gov. Dick Bryan recalled Chuck to active duty when he appointed Chuck to be the director of the property and fiscal officers for the Nevada National Guard.

After almost 40 years of military service, Chuck retired in 1991. He taught military history at the University of Nevada-Reno, but his public service to our State was not yet complete. Gov. Kenny Guinn appointed Chuck to be the executive director of the Nevada Office of Veterans Services in 2000, an office he faithfully served until this March.

Chuck presided over the Nevada Office of Veterans Services at a critical point in our State's history. Since 1990, Nevada's veterans population has increased by more than 40 percent. This unprecedented growth put strain on many resources in Nevada, but Chuck was never discouraged.

Instead, he worked tirelessly for more staff and additional resources to help Nevada veterans.

Under Chuck's watch, Nevada modernized their veterans services including the completion of a new Veterans Nursing Home in Boulder City. Chuck presided over the construction of this facility, which is home to more than 162 of America's heroes. Another key part of Chuck's work was his effort to improve veterans cemeteries through Nevada, including cemeteries at Boulder City and Fernley. I was pleased to work with Chuck to secure Federal appropriations to expand these cemeteries.

The Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education has awarded Chuck their highest award, naming him a Distinguished Nevadan. With his long list of accomplishments for Nevada's veterans, Chuck is most deserving of this high honor, and I am pleased to recognize his accomplishments today before the Senate.

Mr. President, this is one of the rare times that we have been able to move forward on a bipartisan basis. The procedural aspects of this immigration debate are over with. The two leaders want a comprehensive immigration reform bill. What is going to be in it? I don't know and the Republican leader doesn't know. But, Mr. President, this is going to take a lot of hard work.

I want to extend to the majority leader my appreciation and my acknowledgment of the difficulty of arriving at this point. It has been very hard for both of us. And as the time went on after the Easter recess, it didn't get easier, it got harder. But I do believe that this is what the Senate is about, and we can move forward in a way that I think the country will acknowledge. There is a lot of hard work to be done, but we can do it well.

I receive my fair share of criticism, as does the Republican leader. But I want everyone to know we try very hard to move things along. It is not easy with the political atmosphere we find in the country today, but we have done this on this bill, and it has been extremely difficult. I don't want to sound like poor me, but that has been pretty hard to do. I will always remember the difficulties we have had, but also things such as this, as we know, in life bring people closer together. I think the majority leader and I have had--if we have talked about this bill once, we have talked about it 25 times. I have nothing but admiration for the Republican leader for arranging things so we can be at this spot today.

Mr. President, I also want the Record to be spread with the fact that this is not a time for anyone to claim victory. Certainly, in this process, I didn't get everything I wanted. I think the majority leader didn't get everything he wanted. But in the legislative process, building consensus is the art of compromise.

I look back to the days when I tried cases. I found some of the best settlements were those where basically both sides were kind of unhappy about it, and I think that is what we have gotten. I certainly feel that this is a fair compromise procedurally with these intricate rules we have in the Senate. This is going to work well.

I also want to repeat what the majority leader said. This is going to take a lot of work. We have a lot of amendments. This is not a two- or three-amendment bill. There are a lot of amendments. People on both sides of the aisle have been waiting for weeks to offer amendments. We are going to have to work our way through these. It is going to take a lot of cooperation.

There may come a time during this debate that the managers are going to have to move to table some of these amendments. I hope we can arrange for time on these amendments. If we can't, we will do what has to be done in the Senate and move forward as expeditiously as we can. People have strong feelings about this bill on both sides of the aisle. But I feel very good that we have a road forward, and I believe we will complete this legislation and have, for the American people, comprehensive immigration reform that deals with security, deals with the guest worker program, deals with the people who are undocumented, and also will deal with a better way of enforcing employer sanctions.

How much time remains on this side?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the headlines glared yesterday from Bloomberg News: ``Republicans Set Aside Middle-Income Tax Cuts to Focus on the Rich.'' Those are not my words. They are the words of Bloomberg News. It is a headline they chose to describe the Republican tax reconciliation bill, and it is 100 percent correct: ``Republicans Set Aside Middle-Income Tax Cuts to Focus on the Rich.''

This bill is a big gift to the wealthiest of the wealthy and an even bigger burden to future generations of Americans. It was bad legislation when it left the Senate, and it is a lot worse now that it has returned. To think, with gas prices still on the rise--the average price in Nevada is about $3.08 a gallon--46 million Americans with no health insurance, students literally worrying about whether their parents can afford to send them to college, with the debt at $8.2 trillion, the majority has sent us a bill that does nothing to help any of the people about whom I spoke. In fact, for many Americans, it makes life far worse by presenting them with a tax increase. The choices the Republicans made in producing this legislation are very revealing. Remember the headline: ``Republicans Set Aside Middle-Income Tax Cuts to Focus on the Rich.''

Three bad choices were made in this bill. They chose millionaires and billionaires over the middle class. For 5 years, the Republican majority has handed out billions of dollars in tax breaks and perks to the wealthy elite at the expense of everyone else.

This bill is no different. It extends $21 billion in tax breaks for capital gains and dividends over the next 5 years, a tax break that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy. It ignores provisions that could have helped families in Nevada and all across the country today. For example, the sales tax deduction, some States pay a lot of sales tax. This was not extended, even though it provides tax fairness for taxpayers in nonincome tax States. This provision, the sales tax deduction, expired. Why would a State such as Nevada that has no income tax be penalized? Because the majority wanted the wealthiest of the wealthy to get a tax break.

The tuition deduction was not extended, even though it helps families pay for the high cost of college and the provision expired at the end of last year. During the 5 years that George Bush has been President, college tuition costs have gone up over 30 percent.

Something simple, the teacher school supply deduction, not a lot of money but what a symbol. Teachers in Nevada and around the country pay out of their own pockets for supplies that the school district can't afford to give them. This little deduction helped thousands and thousands of teachers with a deduction for the school supplies they paid for themselves out of their own pockets. It is not in here because it may take a little bit away from the billionaires. Remember the headline from Bloomberg News: ``Republicans Set Aside Middle-Income Tax Cuts to Focus on the Rich.''

What is in this bill are tax breaks on capital gains and dividends. An analysis in yesterday's New York Times shows how unfair these tax cuts are. According to the newspaper, the 2003 tax cut for those with $10 million or more of income was one half of $1 million--$500,000. For those with a meager income of $1 million a year, the average tax cut was $41,400. In contrast, the

average capital gains and dividends tax cut for those whose income was up to $50,000 was $10. So if you make more than $10 million, you get half a million; $1 million, $40,000 plus; anything less than that, 10 bucks. That says it all about this tax reconciliation.

Choice No. 2: Republicans wrongly ignore America's fiscal security. I always thought the Republicans were the party of fiscal integrity. That has been blown sky high as being a false impression. On the same day a month or so ago, we passed a bill increasing the deficit by billions and billions of dollars, and on the same day, we increased the debt ceiling up to $9 trillion. But that is not enough. We understand the House is bringing one over here that increases the debt ceiling to more than $10 trillion.

Given all the rhetoric from the other side in recent weeks about the need to get the Federal Government's fiscal house in order, you would think our Republican friends would come forward with a fiscally responsible bill. I heard one Republican Senator say: We had the budget bill and Democrats offered amendments to increase spending.

I will now use leader time.

Any amendment we offered to increase spending, we had some unique thing in this modern Republican world. What was so unique? We had an offset for it. We found savings someplace else in this massive budget to pay for what we wanted. Remember, during the last 3 years Bill Clinton was President, we spent less money than we brought in. We brought down the national debt by a half a trillion dollars. But not this Republican Congress and this Republican President. Now it is red ink as far as one can see.

Instead of real fiscal discipline, all the majority has given us is gimmicks that actually make the problem worse. They purport to offset the cost of the tax cuts for capital gains and dividends. But as reported in the Washington Post yesterday, these offsets are nothing but cheap tricks.

One measure would allow upper income savers with a

traditional individual retirement account to pay taxes on the

account's investment gains and then roll over some of the

balance into a Roth IRA, where the money can be withdrawn

tax-free upon retirement. The provision would raise about

$6.4 billion over 10 years, seemingly keeping the size of the

tax-cutting package down. But over the next 35 years, it

would cost the [federal] government $36 billion, according to

the Urban Institute.

Think about that. A gimmick to let people think that this was a good thing for the American people because it was raising revenue. It was only about $30 billion short. It is a shell game, and it is a wrong choice for America.

Choice 3: This bill, if you can imagine, is still lavishing tax breaks on the oil companies. As we speak, ExxonMobil--we know they made $34 billion, which is the most any company has ever made in history--as we speak, ExxonMobil has $34 billion in cash. We are giving them more tax breaks? We have these oil companies, as my friend from Oregon said, which are marinating in oil. They cannot make enough money because there is no way they can make enough. But they made $34 billion last year, and that is the most money made in the history of our Republic.

On the other hand, we have middle-class families who have paid for these profits and they are sick and tired of being squeezed at the gas pump.

Who did the Bush Republicans choose? Big oil companies. Their big oil friends. This is the most oil-friendly administration in the history of our country. President Bush had an oil company. Vice President Cheney worked for an oil company. The Secretary of State was on the board of directors of Chevron. They liked her so much they named a tanker after her. Secretary of Commerce Evans? Oil.

This reconciliation bill kept in place billions of giveaways for big oil, even though the industry is doing well enough to send a CEO into retirement--and there is a dispute as to how much he made when he retired, whether it is $400 million or $670 million. It was a lot of money.

Once again, this is the wrong choice for America. I oppose this bill. It caters to an elite group of wealthy Americans at the expense of the middle class, those with the greatest needs, and future generations. We need a new direction. This legislation won't do it.

Mr. President, the only request for time I have at the present time is for the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, for 7 minutes. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Senator Kennedy wants 10 minutes. Senator Durbin may request time, I think 7 minutes for Senator Durbin. No for Senator Durbin. So 7 and 10, 17 minutes over here.

Does that give us our 17 minutes? I ask to amend the request to 17 minutes on each side.