Floor Statements

Madam President, T. Byers of Sparks, NV, was killed in Iraq on July 23, 2003, when his convoy hit an explosive device. He was 25 years old.

William Salazar of Las Vegas, 26 years old, was killed in Iraq on October 15, 2004, in enemy action.

John Lukac of Las Vegas was just 19 years old when he was killed in Iraq on October 30, 2004, when a bomb hit his car.

Nicholas Anderson of Las Vegas, again, Madam President, only 19 years old, was killed during an assault on Fallujah on November 12, 2004.

Daniel Guastaferro, also of Las Vegas, 27 years old, died in Iraq on January 7, 2005.

Richard Perez of Las Vegas, again, fresh out of school, 19 years old, died in Iraq on February 10, 2005.

Eric Morris of Sparks, 31 years old, was killed on April 28, 2005, when a roadside bomb exploded.

Stanley Lapinski, 35 years old, was killed in Iraq on June 11, 2005, by a makeshift bomb in Baghdad.

James Jaime of Henderson, NV, 22 years old, was killed in Iraq on June 15, 2005, when a bomb exploded near his vehicle.

Anthony S. Cometa of Las Vegas, 21 years old, was killed in Iraq on June 16, 2005.

James Cathey of Reno, 24 years old, was killed in Iraq August 21, 2005, by a makeshift bomb.

Joseph Martinez of Las Vegas, 21 years old, was killed in Iraq August 27, 2005, by enemy gunfire.

Thomas C. Siekert of Lovelock, NV, 20 years old, died in Iraq December 6, 2005.

Joshua M. Morberg of Sparks, 20 years old, was killed in Baghdad, Iraq, on December 27, 2005, by a makeshift bomb.

Gordon F. Misner II, from Sparks, 23 years old, was killed in Iraq on February 22, 2006, by an improvised explosive device.

Shawn Thomas Lasswell, Jr., of Reno, 21 years old, was killed by an improvised explosive device on April 23, 2006, just a few days ago.

These are the names of the 16 Nevadans who have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom since May 1, 2003. I never met these men but, to me, they are Nevada's heroes. They are our Nation's heroes.

In 1944, an American President said:

Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and

die. And it is youth who must

inherit the tribulation, the sorrow and the triumphs that are

the aftermath of war.

Many years and many wars later, this quote rings true. These 16 young Nevadans gave their lives for our country. These boys--these young men--left families and ofttimes their babies and children as they traveled across the ocean and seas to soldier in deserts and cities far from home.

Most of these men were living their childhood dreams of serving in the military of the United States. Others were using the military as a stepping stone. Whatever the reason for their joining this volunteer fighting force, we can never repay their sacrifice, but we will always remember their ultimate sacrifice.

To their families, to the families of all 2,404 U.S. troops who have fallen in Iraq, and to the thousands of families who have loved ones serving there now, our thoughts and prayers are with you. I know you are proud of your sons and daughters, and I am confident our Nation's people are also proud of them. Their exemplary patriotism, dedication, and competence speaks volumes.

I mention our troops and these fallen Nevadans for a reason. Today, our country marks an unfortunate anniversary: the 3-year anniversary of President Bush's donning a flight suit to declare ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq.

President Bush's dramatic landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln will be marked historically as a public relations stunt gone horribly wrong.

Since President Bush rendered his judgment of ``Mission Accomplished,'' more than 2,200 American military are now dead, about 20,000 have since been wounded, many hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money expended, and now Iraq is engaged in a civil war, the degree of which is unknown and debatable.

The image of President Bush standing in front of the ``Mission Accomplished'' banner has been etched into the minds of the American people as a metaphor for the Bush White House's misleading and dangerous incompetence. It shows a self-described ``war President'' not ready for the war or the difficult problems of securing the peace, the problems the President and his Secretary of Defense simply ignored or did not understand following the invasion of Iraq.

On this date 3 years ago, President Bush announced: ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.''

Let me repeat that quote.

Three years ago today, the President said on the aircraft carrier with his flight suit on: ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.''

He said further that ``in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.''

Here it is, 156 weeks later, with fighting and violence continuing across Iraq. We know that declaration was woefully premature. In fact, the President and his team's mismanagement and poor planning have now stretched the Iraq war to a length and monetary cost that matches that of World War II.

On that day 3 years go, President Bush also said ``a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld--that America is grateful for a job well done.''

Three years later, the debate is not whether Rumsfeld has carried out a job well done but whether he is even the man for the job. Eight retired generals and millions of Americans have called for him to be replaced as Secretary of Defense.

We know that Secretary Rumsfeld ignored the advice of the uniformed military and went into battle with too few troops and no plan to win the peace. As a result, the insurgency was able to gain a foothold, and now civil and sectarian strife threatens our troops and our future and the future of Iraq.

Friday we learned that four-star general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the President and Secretary Rumsfeld that the number of troops for the invasion was inadequate. General Colin Powell told the President and Secretary Rumsfeld that there were not enough troops to prevail. He was ignored.

Returning to this picture, President Bush also said on that day, in Iraq, ``we've removed an ally of al-Qaida,'' and, I further quote, ``we have seen the turning of the tide'' in the war on terror. The troops prevailed, yes. But provisions for peace were never made.

On April 17 of this year--a few days ago--the same day one of these gallant Nevadans was killed, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said--listen to this:

The implication that there was something wrong with the war

plan is amusing almost.

Amusing? Amusing, Mr. Secretary? Really?

How unfortunate. A failed plan with failed, manipulated intelligence taking us to war.

But here we are, 156 weeks later, 5,072 days later, the intractable war in Iraq and the war on terror rages on as never before. April was the deadliest month for Americans in Iraq this year. Over 70 of our brave soldiers have been killed.

The war on terror has also moved in the wrong direction. According to the State Department, the number of terrorist attacks has risen sharply around the world. More than 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide last year--a 250 percent increase from the year before. Iraq--a country where Osama bin Laden had few inroads before the war--has become a training ground and launching pad for international terrorism.

According to the State Department, it is now a ``foreign fighter pipeline'' to terror. While the security situation in Iraq has worsened, U.S. taxpayers have been asked to shoulder an even bigger burden.

We are now spending more than $10 billion a month in Iraq for operations, and people have seen more than a 100-percent monthly increase from when the war began. After passage of the supplemental, our commitment to Iraq will stand at far more than $300 billion, and it is moving higher faster and faster and faster.

Americans have come to accept what Bush said 3 years ago was wrong. It was false. And they understand that President Bush's refusal to level with them over the last 3 years has made the mission of keeping America safe even more difficult.

But 3 years later, Americans are still counting on him to accomplish the mission. This is not a matter for future Presidents, as he has said. This is President Bush's war, and we need to hear him explain how the mission is going to be completed. The mission has not been ``accomplished.''

In the months ahead, President Bush must give the American people and our warfighters what he failed to give us on May 1, 2003--real answers and a real plan.

He needs to step up and explain his strategy for bringing the conflict to an end so our troops can begin to come home. As Congress and the American people have demanded, and Congress has passed into law, 2006 must be the year of significant transition in Iraq.

We need a new direction because our troops, their families, and the American people cannot wait for the next President to be elected to do what is right.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Just out of curiosity, I know on some of your trips you have taken to care for the poor in these countries, you have done a lot of surgery and other things. Have you done any in this area?

Mr. President, there will be time, of course, for debate prior to the vote; is that right?

Mr. President, I think prior to this vote, we should have time to talk about it. The hour is set aside for morning business?

Parliamentary inquiry: What time would that vote take place approximately?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The distinguished majority leader is right, we confirmed two Supreme Court Justices. I think they were dignified debates. I think the committee did a good job in preparing the Senate for those two Supreme Court nominations. We have also approved 29 lower court nominations. All nominees have been considered by the full Senate in this Congress and have been confirmed. The minority recognizes what rights we have. We will continue to recognize what those rights are, and certainly we have not abused any of those rights. We don't intend to. We will perform our constitutional role.

I say to the majority leader he is right, Mr. Kavanaugh had a hearing, but that was more than 2 years ago. I think one of the things that should be considered is whether the Judiciary Committee should update that. There have been a lot of things going on dealing with the situation in Iraq in which he was involved. That is a subject for discussion at a later time.

Supplemental Appropriations

We look forward to the supplemental appropriations bill being finished. We have a lot of amendments. At this stage, we have had very few quorum calls. I am somewhat disappointed that we have this situation before us today. I believe the committee did some very good work--the Appropriations Committee--in bringing this matter to the floor. I wish we had a vote. I think when it is all over, that is what it will wind up being, anyway. I hope Senator Coburn, for whom I have the greatest respect, when he sees the first few votes, will get the idea how things are moving along and maybe we won't have to have all those votes.

As I understand it, at this time, there are about 30 votes in order at this stage. We have to dispose of those. There are people over here on this side waiting to offer amendments, none of which are dilatory in nature and all of which are dealing with the situation in Iraq, our military generally, with veterans. We have amendments that people wish to offer dealing with the energy situation we find in America.

So I hope today we can figure out a way to get through this situation. I appreciate very much the majority leader recognizing, as he has for the last few weeks, that we have an event over the weekend, a retreat in Philadelphia. We understand that.

The point I am making is that on this side we understand the importance of this bill. We wish it had not been part of an emergency appropriation in the original budget. We have to play the cards we are dealt. We will do everything we can to move this forward in what we believe is a dignified manner.

Mr. President, I ask permission to propound a unanimous consent request. May I propound a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3665 by the Senator from Oregon be made the last amendment in order and that it be subject to no second-degree amendment; that is, when we dispose of approximately 31 amendments, there would be a vote on his with no second-degree amendments.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question without losing his right to the floor?

Is the Senator's understanding the same as mine, that no matter how he tried to do all the different proposals which he has made he is not being allowed a vote by the majority? Is that your understanding?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, the Senator from Oregon has clearly established that he will not get a vote on this most important amendment. I am disappointed. There are many disappointed Senators. I am sure there are millions of disappointed Americans. There are a number of Senators here who wish to offer amendments. For lack of a better way of describing this, I reflect back on a time when I was doing something similar to the Senator from Oregon, and Senator Byrd was the leader of the Democrats at the time.

He said to me: Would the Senator yield? And I said yes. He said: How much longer are you going to talk? So I reflect back on those days. I told him I had a goal that I wanted to make. He said: Fine. Shortly thereafter, we went on to other matters.

I am wondering, because we have other Senators on both sides of the aisle to either offer amendments or do some voting, does the Senator have an idea how much longer he has a right to maintain the floor?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

I say to my friend from Oregon--an athlete, went to college on a basketball scholarship, certainly he has the stamina to stand as long as necessary--that the point has been made. I, therefore, ask at the end of his speaking for another 3 minutes that we go into a quorum call and when the quorum call is called off, Senator Cochran then would be recognized.

Would the Chair rule on the unanimous consent request?

That we go into a 5-minute quorum call, after which Senator Cochran would be recognized.

I ask unanimous consent that after the quorum call is terminated, Senator Cochran be recognized.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in Nevada, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is $2.97. We know it is $3.10 a gallon elsewhere. And in other places, it is higher than that. That 45-cent increase has caused tremendous pain in Nevada and around the rest of the country. The prices are going up and up and up. Talk to any Senator about the price of gasoline.

I watched the evening news last night and they had a segment where they talked about the booming business of pawnshops since the price of gas has gone up. It showed people there pawning antique watches. One man was pawning a watch he had that was 100 years old, which was his grandfather's. Why? He had no money to get back and forth to work. They are also pawning guitars and guns. One man even went in and pawned his car. He got to drive it away, but he gave the title to the pawnshop. That is the price of gasoline as reported on the national news.

It is not just Nevada, as indicated in the national news. Talk to any Senator; they have similar stories. The average price of gas in California is $3.14. In New York, it is $3.09. Here, in the District of Columbia, it is $2.99. In Illinois, it is $2.96. Those are average prices. Unfortunately, gas prices are expected to soar and increase at least another quarter by this summer--that is, if nothing goes wrong. There doesn't appear to be any relief in sight.

That is especially true if this President and this Republican Congress have their way. Yesterday, the President said he had a four- way plan. I don't come here to the floor every day just to say things about the President, that I don't agree with him, because there is nothing else to talk about. I come here because I believe I have an obligation to the people of Nevada and all the people in this country to call it the way I see it.

We went to the White House yesterday. I thought what the President did in dealing with immigration was significant. I heard myself on the morning news complimenting the President, as I should have. I cannot compliment the President today because he is wrong on this gas situation. What he did with his four-way plan is nothing. Most of it has already been done, thanks to Democratic amendments in the Senate. Other parts don't make a dent. For example, he talks about an investigation. In the bill we passed in Commerce, State, Justice last year, we passed what he says he wants done. It is the law of the land. They are going to report sometime next month on their investigation. The President said he is not going to pump 12 million barrels of oil this summer into our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Well, two things-- one, we are not buying oil to put in it now. We are not doing that now.

We use 21 million barrels of oil every day. Twelve million barrels over the summer?

So what the President has done is not a serious attempt. What he provided in his speech was not a solution to the energy crisis but exactly what you would expect from a President who spent 5\1/2\ years standing side by side with big oil in his Oval Office. And next to big oil is an even bigger oil baron, the Vice President of the United States.

America needs a new direction on energy. Our dependency on oil is ruining our competitiveness, the balance of trade, damaging our national security, and limiting freedom and opportunity. It is time to change. We, the minority, want the American people to guide that change. We have a plan for a better future, and it doesn't involve Enron or the former CEO of Exxon.

I hope the Republican majority will work with us on this bill to give consumers relief and security to America's long-term energy future.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Every day I get something called ``A Look at Today's News,'' such as immigration and homeland security. But No. 1 on today's news is energy.

Is the Senator aware that the L.A. Times headline today reads, ``Bush's Proposals Viewed as a Drop in the Oil Bucket''? Is the Senator aware that the Washington Post headline today is, ``GOP Blocks Measures Boosting Taxes on Oil Companies' Profits,'' and the New York Daily News headline is, ``Midterm Elections Fuel His''--meaning the President's-- ``Sudden Flip-Flop,'' and the Hill newspaper, about which the Senator has already commented, headline is, ``Oil Industry Prepares $30 Million Fight Back''? Is the Senator aware of these headlines?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the profits these massive international companies that are controlling the cost of gasoline and fuel oil in this country are theirs only? If one goes to their corner service station or convenience store that pumps gas, does the Senator realize they only make about 4 cents a gallon on each gallon of gas, even though the consumer may be paying $3.20 for that gallon of gas?

This is all a gouge, an obscene gouge by these massive international corporations. Even the people who retail their product make no money. Is the Senator aware of that fact?

Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, but he is absolutely wrong on this issue. I heard his impassioned statement that this is no problem; anyone who says this is a problem, they haven't read the bill.

The amendment is written in English. It is very clear:

The aggregate amount provided by . . . chapter 3 of title

II of this Act may not exceed $67,062,188,000.

The amendment takes $1.9 billion from this bill. It seems rather unusual to me that on an emergency appropriations bill--this bill-- everything in it is being paid for, like everything else around here, by the American taxpayers. This, I am sorry to say--like most of what has been paid for in the past 5\1/2\ years in the Bush administration-- is being paid by my children, their children, their children's children. Deficit spending and suddenly there is a concern about this.

Our concern is that money that should go to our gallant troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will not go to them if the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is adopted.

What are these cuts? They are cuts to the military personnel account, operations and maintenance, Iraqi security forces training, the improvised explosive device defeat fund, defense health program. What are these programs? No matter what my friend from New Hampshire says, the $2 billion has to come from someplace, and this is what is in this bill:

Military personnel account: This includes hardship pay for those in the line of fire--I think people in Afghanistan and Iraq who are serving in our military qualify for that--and family separation pay for those who are forced to serve in combat zones away from their families.

Is this what we want, for men and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan not to get this pay I have outlined?

The operations and maintenance accounts provide resources for the day-to-day needs of our military. This money allows our forces to conduct operations against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. It includes money for nuts-and-bolts activities--the airlifts, the transportation, and other logistical missions. It also provides for the Commander's Emergency Response Program which gives resources to commanders on the front lines to support humanitarian reconstruction projects. If a commander in the streets of Baghdad wants to put up a power line that was knocked down, this account gives them tools to do that. Is this what we want to cut?

As the President has said time and again, as foreign troops stand up, we can stand down. This account is what will help us ensure foreign troops are able to stand up. It is the money that we use to assist the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to assume increased responsibility for their Nation's security. Is this what we want to cut? I hope not.

The joint improvised explosive device defeat account: Explosive devices every day are a threat to our forces in Iraq. This account directs money helping our troops to spot these IEDs and defuse them. These people in Iraq are very ingenious. We figure out a way to stop them from using a certain method, and they figure out a way to go around that. We need to stay ahead of them. We are not doing a very good job of that, and cutting money from this account isn't going to help. Our troops need resources so they can keep up with everchanging enemy tactics. This account will help them do that.

Defense health program: This is money for health care for our troops--and their families--who are serving today in Iraq. It is their health care.

The choice here is pretty direct: If the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is adopted, we will have added border security.

Mr. President, I will use my leader time now.

If the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is adopted, we will have improved border security, and that is important. If there were ever an emergency, this is it. If my amendment is adopted, we will have increased border protection. But with my amendment, we pay for it as we do everything else in this bill--in this bill. I think it is rather unusual to have the majority coming to the floor now suddenly with qualms of conscience about these deficits that have been run up by President Bush and his administration--trillions of dollars, not billions, trillions.

I am not willing to vote to cut the military personnel account, operations and maintenance, Iraqi security forces training, explosive device defeat fund, the defense health program, or the death gratuity fund. I am not willing to cut those programs. I want border security. It is important. I was 3 weeks ago today on the border. If there ever was an emergency and we need to do something, it is this program. I don't make any apologies for saying this situation on the border is an emergency.

It is an emergency, like other matters in this bill.

I hope that on a bipartisan basis we will vote to give the troops everything they need and also do a better job of protecting our borders.

Mr. President, the manager of the bill is absolutely right. We have an amendment that has been laid down by the Senator from New Hampshire. We are going to lay one down. Rather than do a second- degree, we have talked to the floor staff, and it would be more appropriate to have two side by side.

Subject to the approval of your leader, we would have those two votes around noon tomorrow. We will debate. Anybody who wants to debate it tonight can do so and then we will come in in the morning and divide up what time is left over after morning business and have that vote. As I indicated, I only briefly talked to the majority leader about this. We had a meeting down at the White House, so I didn't talk to him at any great length, but this sounds like a fair way to go forward and move this bill along a little bit.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I call that up.

I ask unanimous consent to do so.

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

Mr. President, I am going to briefly talk about this amendment tonight and then we will have more time in the morning if necessary.

I had the opportunity 3 weeks ago tomorrow to go to the border, the Mexico-California border. We flew. We could see the Arizona border. I spent the day there and certainly got an understanding of some of the problems that these valiant Border Patrol agents face.

San Ysidro, CA, is one of the entry points. It is hard to visualize this, but think in your mind's eye of 24 lanes of traffic coming into America from Mexico. That is what is at San Ysidro, 24 lanes of traffic, one way; 24 lanes of traffic, 7 days a week, year round.

While I was there, the agent showed me some of the things they had been able to catch: a little utility truck, and hidden in it was narcotics in a secret compartment; a car, a compact car, and they had built a canvas drop in it under the back seat. Eight people were stuffed into that in the compact car, underneath so you couldn't see them, but the dogs and agents were able to pick them up.

These were only two examples. All day long this goes on. I talked to the agents about the walls that have been put up. These people, called coyotes--call them whatever you want--these people, who are criminals, who take money from Mexicans to bring them into the United States, sit up on one fence, which is a metal fence. On the other side there is a chain-link fence. If they see a Border Patrol agent, they have these powerful slingshots that have hospitalized our agents.

The Border Patrol agents say they can handle most of the traffic of people coming across the border. But what they need is protection against automobiles coming across the border. That is what they need help with. In a few places they have big metal things, about this big, that are stacked side by side to keep automobiles from coming across the border.

The only reason I paint this very meager picture of some of the things I saw is, as we speak, there is an emergency on the southern border. I am happy for the $2 billion. I am happy to put it into border security. That is important. I have talked about comprehensive immigration reform, and I have done it often and I always start with: Let's protect our borders. Then we move into the guest worker program, then we move into the path of legalization, and then we move into what we are going to do to make sure employer sanctions are meaningful.

I am in favor of the $2 billion, but I am not in favor of the across- the-board cut that is in the underlying Gregg amendment. That is not right. It is not right because it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The amendment I have offered will secure the border in the same way as the Gregg amendment. It is the same amount of money. The difference is, I say, on an emergency appropriations bill, which we have before us--if there were ever an emergency, this is it--the Gregg amendment makes no sense. I have the greatest respect for Senator Gregg. I think he is one of the most principled people with whom I have ever dealt. But I say this amendment makes no sense. It robs Peter to pay Paul at the end of the day by taking vital resources away from who? Our military. And it fails to make us more safe. It makes us less safe.

There are lots and lots of examples of what an across-the-board cut would do. In order to pay for border security, it cuts the military personnel account, which includes cuts to pay and benefits for our Active Duty, our Guard and Reserve serving now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. Do we want to have an across-the-board cut there? I don't think so. I hope not.

The underlying amendment, the Gregg amendment, makes cuts to operations and maintenance which provide for the body armor, for example, and the other day-to-day needs of our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The underlying Gregg amendment makes cuts to the Iraqi security forces training. I had the good fortune to be invited to the White House today, and on the big TV screen there in the White House we had the Ambassador to Iraq from the United States and General Casey telling us what is going on in Iraq.

One of the things General Casey and Khalilzad talked about was what is happening with the training of Iraqi forces. We are going to cut this money down as a result of border security? I don't think that is a good idea.

If we are going to succeed in Iraq, and that is very questionable at this time, but if we are going to succeed in Iraq, and I hope we do, one of the key areas of concern is the Iraqi security forces. If we are going to bring our troops home, we have to bring them up, and this amendment, the Gregg amendment, cuts those moneys.

The Gregg amendment makes cuts to the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, which aids our troops in eradicating the deadly IEDs they confront daily. The reason that is so vitally important is when the war started, basically what the terrorists used were garage door openers. That is what they used, a garage door opener, basically. A vehicle comes by, they planted a bomb, they push that down, it blows up.

We have worked on ways to change that. But the Iraqis have also worked to stay ahead of us. That is why we still have these bombs going off. It is because we have to continually work with money from the Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to have scientists and other technicians decide how we can defeat these explosive devices. The Gregg amendment cuts these moneys.

The Gregg amendment makes cuts to the Defense Health Program which provides medical assistance to our troops on the battlefield. One good thing about this war--and there are not a lot of good things about this war--is the percentage of the soldiers who are wounded who end up dying is very much less than in any other war because we have such great medical attention on the battlefield and we have protective equipment for these soldiers.

So they are not dying at the rate they did in the first Iraqi war, certainly not in Korea, and certainly not in the Second World War and certainly not in Vietnam. But the Gregg amendment makes cuts to this defense health program which provides medical assistance to our troops who are in the battlefield, not after they have come home. And really, the senseless nature of this amendment is that it makes cuts to the Death Gratuity Fund which assists families of fallen soldiers.

Also, I think almost every Senator has been to Walter Reed or Bethesda. You will see parents there with their wounded sons and daughters, husbands and wives. There is a fund that helps bring these people here. A lot of it is done through other charitable organizations, but we don't want to cut the Defense Health Program. And we don't want to cut the Death Gratuity Fund.

The Gregg amendment forces us to take from our troops to fortify our borders. That is a false choice. We do not have to choose between a secure border and a secure military, especially at a time when we are in a war. We can secure our borders and support our military.

As I have indicated, I am 100 percent for securing our borders. But we can find a better way to do it than cutting necessary resources from the men and women who keep us safe. This is an emergency appropriations bill. If there were ever an emergency, it is our border with Mexico and at times the northern border.

So I hope we can go forward with these resources but, as with the other things in this bill, this is an emergency. Our amendment calls for spending the $2 billion, but it would fall in line with the other matters in this bill. It would be an emergency.

I hope Senators will vote for this, what we call a side-by-side that I have offered. This is the right way to do this. I don't think anyone should have on his or her conscience voting an across-the-board cut on a defense bill. This is basically a defense bill, this supplemental. We should not have this on our conscience. Border security is an emergency without any question in my mind. I hope Senators will agree.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National Crime Victims' Week, which began April 23 and runs through April 29. This year's theme is Victims' Rights: Strength in Unity. Victims of violent crime may never be able to forget the trauma they have suffered, but with unity and support, they will have a chance to heal.

That is why I would also like to acknowledge a powerful event that will take place in my home State of Nevada on April 28--the Take Back the Night March.

Take Back the Night started in the late 1970s as a way to recognize and protest the concerns women had about walking outside at night due to threats of assault, rape, and murder. Since then, the event has spread to almost every corner of the United States and around the globe

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Take Back the Night marches and rallies are held each year--often in late April--to coincide with National Crime Victims' Week. We have had events in Nevada before, especially on our university campuses, but this year is the first community-wide march in Las Vegas.

I am pleased to see this event expanding into the entire Las Vegas community. Take Back the Night marches are positive events that bring together communities and empower victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The women and men who have survived these crimes can see they are surrounded by strong and supportive friends, neighbors, family members, and advocates. As organized by the Rape Crisis Center, this Take Back the Night includes activities for children and families, music, food, an open microphone, and a peace rally.

I have been a longtime supporter of legislation to combat violence against women, including the landmark Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. I voted for VAWA in 1994 and its reauthorization in 2000 and 2005. Our society can never be strong unless all its members feel safe in their own homes and on their own streets. We must do more to stop domestic violence and sexual assault.

I appreciate the time and effort of every Nevadan who is taking part in this year's Take Back the Night March. I would especially like to thank the Rape Crisis Center and its dedicated staff for organizing this wonderful event. I look forward to working with them in the future to make our streets safer.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I ask unanimous consent that a State Department fellow in his office, Richard Driscoll, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill, and that Navy detailee Tom Crowley also be granted the same privilege.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Jeffords, I ask unanimous consent that April Richards, a professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 4939.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority leader wants to have a judge vote at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

I think we should alert all Members that we will have a vote in the morning.

Mr. President, I first would like to acknowledge the prayer of Admiral Black, our good Chaplain. I hope that all those who heard his prayer, as I did, will take it to heart. Certainly, I am going to try to. I try to get here every day--and I am not able to do it every day--to hear his prayer. He is a remarkable man, and we are fortunate to have him as our Chaplain.

Mr. President, I spent the recess traveling in Nevada--Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, my hometown of Searchlight, and I also traveled to Pahrump, Reno,

Fernley, Yerington, Fallon, and Hawthorne. These are all very different places, but not once in any of these cities where I met with people during the days, and in the evenings on occasion, not once did anyone talk to me about eliminating the estate tax, flag burning, or gay marriage.

Instead, throughout Nevada I was constantly asked about skyrocketing gas prices. My daughter-in-law, Amber, lives in Reno with my son with their four children. She has never talked to me about anything political in the many years we have known one another. But at dinner on Easter Sunday, she wanted everybody to hear, including me, how fed up she was with gas prices. She said that this is wrong and something has to be done about it.

She was speaking for millions of Americans. Even though she is the one who mouthed the words to me, this conversation could have taken place anywhere in America, at any dinner table, rich or poor. So not once did anyone in any of these Nevada cities talk to me about the estate tax, flag burning, and gay marriage. Instead, throughout Nevada I was constantly asked about these skyrocketing gas prices, the intractable war in Iraq, taxes, immigration, education, health care and, of course, homeland security.

I share this short report of my trip home because I am concerned about the Senate schedule in the coming months, and certainly in the next 5 weeks. All of us in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, spent the last 2 weeks listening to what our constituents wanted to talk about, issues they care about. Now that we are back in Washington, when we look for these issues on the Senate calendar, they are nonexistent.

According to what I have read in the press in the last week, the majority leader is clearing time on the Senate schedule for what I describe as pet issues of the rightwing, issues such as a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration--Mr. President, I agree with that; I have voted for that--a constitutional amendment to establish a Federal definition of marriage, and the estate tax reduction.

Each of these controversial issues has merit. There is no question about that. Each issue has a lot of merit. But do they trump gas prices? I don't think so. Do they trump homeland security? I don't think so. Do they trump a full, complete discussion on the Iraq war? By the way, that war, in a few short months, will have taken longer than World War II, in which the Presiding Officer flew airplanes. That American cause took about 3\1/2\ years. We are approaching that time with this war--a war that has already cost our country more than the Second World War. It is now costing us about $120 billion a year, $10 billion a month.

Do these issues have precedence over public education? I don't think so; over our polluted skies, where asthma for children is becoming endemic? I don't think it does trump that. How about our country's shaky economy? Should we have a complete discussion on that? Do these issues trump our having raised the debt ceiling to $9 trillion? I don't think so. Does a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage have a higher priority than a debate on high gas prices? No. Does a constitutional amendment on flag burning have more precedence than immigration? No. Does a constitutional discussion on the estate tax, legislating a reduction in the estate tax, have more precedence, more importance than a discussion on health care? I don't think so.

We have only about 15 very short weeks left in this session of Congress. Regardless of your position, the majority leader's constitutional amendments and his saying he will bring the estate tax matter to the floor, there are serious issues of importance to millions of Americans. Surely we can all agree that they are not among the most pressing problems facing America today and the Senate's attention in these few remaining weeks that we have is best focused on the needs of the American people.

This morning, in a letter, I asked the majority leader to drop his plan to bring these partisan issues before the Senate and to commit to bringing the people's priorities to the floor instead. That is not an outrageous request. I guarantee you that if we could put this issue before a jury of the American people, overwhelmingly Democrats and Republicans would agree with my suggestion to the majority leader that we work on these real issues rather than these three issues that I have discussed.

We need to approach these last few weeks in a bipartisan way, and we are reaching out to the majority to let us tackle the urgent issues facing our country, and there are urgent issues facing our country. Americans are frustrated with the direction in which America is headed. We are frustrated equally with the performance of the Bush White House and the Republican Congress.

With just a few months remaining before we adjourn, the 109th Congress is going into the history books as the country's least productive Congress in the more than 200 years we have been a country. In fact, the 109th Congress is on track to exceed the famous do-nothing Congress of 1948, and there have been articles written on that. I am not making it up.

This Congress has worked on class action and bankruptcy, legislation that benefits big business. I have helped with that, but we need to do something to help the vast majority of the American people. To check these off as being great accomplishments, I don't think that is right.

The Senate, thanks to Democrats, did pass lobbying ethics reform legislation, known as the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. But as yet we have not heard a single word from the House on this issue. And passing important legislation such as the Honest Government Act has proved to be the exception and not the rule.

Congress has not passed a budget. We haven't completed last year's budget, as a matter of fact, and, I might add, the ethics legislation we passed in the Senate has yet to be considered in the House.

America can do better. America can do much better.

This week the supplemental appropriations bill will be on the floor. It is important legislation, especially since President Bush refused to put the cost of the war of Iraq or the cost of helping the Katrina victims in his budget. Why? Can you imagine that, we are doing a supplemental appropriations bill on matters that should have been in the budget that was brought before the Congress some time ago. Why is it done this way? It is done this way to try to disguise the staggering deficits this administration has run up.

The best example I can give to the American people is what would happen if they did their budgeting the way the White House does its budgeting. We make so much money in our household, but to make our budget complete, what we are going to do is eliminate our car payments and our house payments. That, in fact, is what the President has done. He had a budget, but he eliminated the cost of the war in Iraq and the cost of the Gulf catastrophe, and now we are coming up here in the last few weeks before the Pentagon runs out of money to say we have to do it, it is an emergency. It is not an emergency. We had a bill. We should have taken it up as part of our ordinary cost of Government. Just as I explained, how can a person who has a household budget eliminate car payments or house payments or any other example? That is what this White House has done, and it is wrong.

But in spite of the President's budget gimmicks, Democrats look forward to the debate on the supplemental. We have a number of what we believe are tough and very smart amendments that we will offer to protect the American people, address the situation in Iraq, and provide relief from the energy crisis here at home.

When the Senate is finished with this supplemental, Democrats will insist the majority leader put his partisan agenda on the back burner and continue to focus the Senate on issues of urgent national importance.

I believe we as a Senate owe it to the American people to focus on their needs and not waste a single day working on partisan needs. We are asking in a bipartisan manner to reach out to the American people and say: We have something that will help you.

What this would mean, though, is setting aside issues such as the marriage amendment and tackling an issue such as gas prices. The price of gas has increased 100 percent--100 percent--during this President's last 5 years in

office--35 cents to 50 cents in the last month, and over the weekend 10 or 15 cents.

In San Diego, I heard this morning, the highest price as of yesterday was about $3.10 a gallon. Nevada is not far behind. There are places in Nevada charging over 3 bucks a gallon for gasoline.

Today many families are paying $100 to fill their gas tanks, only to drive to work, pick up the kids, and whatever they have to do to get to and from work--$100. People say: Why don't they buy a car that doesn't use so much gas? That is for them to decide, and they are getting no help from this administration to establish CAFE standards so that cars are more fuel efficient.

It takes $100 to fill many of the vehicles in America today. These prices are taking an enormous toll on the pocketbooks of hard-working Americans. They are even more difficult for families to swallow given the headlines that Exxon sent their chief executive officer into retirement with a more than $400-million golden parachute. That is about a half billion dollars to retire. Golden parachute is what you get upon retirement, about a half a billion dollars.

There is nothing wrong with corporate profits. I am all for Americans having retirement security. But does anyone think it is fair to have consumers pay $100 a week to fill their fuel tanks and the big energy bosses fill their bank tanks with hundreds of millions of dollars?

We on a bipartisan basis need to work to provide consumers relief at the gas pump. It is much more important than measures to appease a few. We ask, on behalf of America, that the majority move to legislation that allows us to pass a Federal law with teeth and resources to go after price gougers regarding fuel, the profiteers, the energy market speculators.

We ask the Republican majority to debate a windfall profits tax. With a windfall profits tax, we can take big oil's excess profits and give them right back to consumers in rebates or use them to build alternative and renewable fuel facilities.

If the greedy oil companies won't invest their billions in profits in delivering affordable domestic fuels for America, then maybe America needs to take some of the windfall profits and put them to better use.

I worked a lot putting myself through school. I worked for Standard stations. I worked for Chevron Oil. I worked in all kinds of gas stations pumping gas, changing oil, lube jobs, and tires. My brother ran a service station for many years. Back then, oil companies made about 4 or 5 cents a gallon on gasoline. Gasoline then was cheap. Now with gas $3 a gallon or more, they still make the same amount of money. The service station operator still makes the same amount of money on $3 a gallon. He makes 3 or 4 cents a gallon. So when you fill up the car with gasoline, don't be mad with that corner service station because Exxon and all these other big oil companies are the greedy ones taking all the obscene profits. They are not going to the guy you are going to ask to wash your windows or to fill up at tank No. 6 and you pump it yourself.

We ask the Republican majority to bring before the Senate legislation that will secure America's energy future so we can put an end to the cycle of higher and higher gasoline prices. If the majority so moved, the Senate could develop a more aggressive national energy policy that would deliver affordable, clean energy from domestic sources now, not in 30 years or whenever the oil company CEOs decide the time is right. We cannot produce our way out of the oil problems we have. We in America, including the oil they say is in Alaska, have less than 3 percent of the reserves in the world. We can't produce our way out of our problems. We have to look to alternative energy sources.

It is terrible to think that American consumers are sending billions and billions of dollars overseas to pay for oil and some of that money, I am told, may be getting into the hands of violent anti-United States groups.

Even if that is not true, wouldn't it be better if we were like Brazil, a country that is areawise bigger than the United States with lots of people? Brazil is energy independent. They produce oil, but they also have determined that they are not going to import oil. And as of this coming June, just a few weeks from now, they will be totally energy independent. They started a number of years ago an alternative energy program, and it worked.

Brazil, this huge country, heavily populated, large in area, is energy independent. Think what America would be if we did not have to use 21 million barrels of oil a day, over 60 percent of which we import. Brazil is an example. It can be done.

National security is another issue that deserves considerable time on the floor in the remaining months. I am confident we will ultimately pass the supplemental for our troops, and the majority has pledged to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor. I heard that earlier. That was the plan before we left for our recess. I hope that is true. Bring it to the floor, when? Do we want to wait, as we did last year, until the fall, leaving our troops, veterans, and families without the resources they need? I hope not.

Unlike last year, I hope the Defense authorization bill will not be pushed aside for other less important business. The troops are depending on us. It is so important. It was wrong to wait as long as we did last year. It sets up pay for the troops and what new equipment they need. It authorizes what the appropriators must come forward with to help our brave men and women.

I also hope we can pass last year's intelligence authorization bill. Interesting. Now, more than any other time, we are dependent on our intelligence for our security. What does that mean? It means our spies, our satellites, the other activities we do to make America safe. But because of the majority, we have not brought an intelligence bill before the Senate. Why? Because they are afraid amendments will be offered on prison abuse scandals and on how intelligence was manipulated prior to going to war. We have not even had an intelligence authorization bill. Right now we are in danger of not passing that important bill for the first time in 28 years because Republicans have been unwilling to hold the Bush White House accountable for its conduct in the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

For the first time in 28 years, we are not going to take up this most important bill dealing with the safety and security of our Nation. I ask: Is it important we do that? Is it more important we do that or talk about same-sex marriage or the estate tax which will affect a fraction of a percent of the American people, a tiny fraction of the American people? I think it is more important we deal with intelligence, the intelligence authorization bill.

Health care: Shouldn't we dive into health care and talk about it? That is something when you go home--and home can be anyplace in our 50 States--whether you are a big company, a little company, a rich man, a poor woman, it doesn't matter, people are concerned with the cost of health care. Surely we can agree that health care problems in our country are far more important than a handful of amendments to please the rightwing.

We need a real health care debate, not a 2- or 3-day minidebate. The majority leader said he will bring to the Senate floor a health care bill, the Enzi bill. He said we are going to do it during this work period.

The Enzi bill threatens existing coverage for everyone who has State- regulated health insurance. It is touted as a cure for the problems small businesses have in providing coverage to their employees, but it would actually expose small businesses to fraud and leave self-employed individuals with the same, if not more, problems than they have right now.

We all agree small businesses need health care relief. All businesses need health care relief. But the Enzi approach is not the way to move forward. Senator Durbin has a bill in committee that will provide small businesses with the same kind of options Senators have. Why don't we bring them to the floor and debate them together and find out what is the best of the two or what is the best mix of the two. With the Enzi and Durbin bills we can, and we can also consider other problems facing our health care system, such as lowering drug prices, health care costs, expanding coverage, and fixing the President's botched Medicare drug program.

And if we are going to talk about health care, isn't it about time-- isn't it about time--we got to stem cell research? We are approaching May 24, the 1-year anniversary of the House passing their stem cell bill, and we still haven't seen it in the Senate. Ask any of the Nevadans with whom I visited if they are more interested in seeing the Senate spend its time on issues of stem cells, an issue that offers hope to millions and millions of Americans suffering from heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig disease, diabetes, or if they would rather see the Senate spend its remaining days debating same-sex marriage? The answer is obvious. I hope the majority leader, who said he supports stem cell research, will allow us to move forward with the House bill. Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans, and the Senate must not stand in its way.

Immigration. President Bush likes to point fingers on immigration and many other issues. I repeat: President Bush likes to point his finger on immigration and many other issues. Isn't it about time we move beyond that? Isn't it about time we pass comprehensive immigration reform that will secure our borders and secure our country?

Before we left for our 2-week break, we had a bipartisan immigration deal that was blocked by a handful of Republican Senators. That arrangement would have sealed our porous borders, given 12 million undocumented workers a reason to come out of the shadows, and provided personnel to enforce our laws, so existing ``employer sanctions'' would be more than just words. It also had a very important provision to take care of guest workers.

The Senate can move forward on immigration if the President will stand up to those in his party who are filibustering reform and tell them to quit standing in the way of America's security.

It is my understanding that the President gave a speech in Orange County, CA today. By the way, that is where San Diego is, where the highest gas prices are in the country, and maybe he should have spent a few minutes talking about that. Speaking about immigration, the President said he wants to do something about security. We all want to do something about securing our borders; everybody does. Is that a stand of integrity and courage? No. Everybody wants to do something about protecting our porous borders. The President says he wants to do something about a guest worker program. What? What does he want to do? It is easy for him to criticize. What does he want to do? Let us know what he wants to do. He is the leader of his party. He never got involved in the immigration debate until the two votes had taken place, and then he was a great finger pointer.

It is interesting. In all that I have heard when the President talks about immigration, what does he say about the 12 million who are here who are undocumented? What does he want to do? His party is split. What does the President of the United States want to do? What does he want to do on security? He wants to protect our borders. So do we. What does he want to do with guest workers? Rather than just words, tell us what his program is. He has a staff of thousands. Have a few of them come up and tell us what the President wants on a guest worker program. It appears he doesn't want anything. But does he want us to do anything with the 12 million? Let him take a stand on that.

The Martinez bill that came before the Senate was not supported by any of the Republicans. The Martinez bill had a provision for 7,000 new workers via Immigration and Naturalization, and their sole function would be employer sanction enforcement. I thought that was a step in the right direction. Does the President want that? Does he want stronger employer sanctions? I repeat: What does he want regarding immigration? I think he has to move beyond security, because all 100 Senators want that.

Finally, if we are going to do taxes, let's do something that will make a difference for those who need it. Talk to any economist and they will tell you that in America today, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed. Could we spend a little bit of time here on the Senate floor talking about tax relief for the middle class, this vanishing breed we have in America? It is not much of a distinction anymore to be a millionaire; it is whether you are a multibillionaire. That is what gets some attention. A millionaire is not much anymore; there are lot more of them. The poor are getting poorer and poorer, the rich are getting richer and richer, and the middle class is being squeezed.

We could start this tax debate by fixing the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. AMT was originally established to ensure that millionaires paid their fair share. But because AMT income levels were not indexed for inflation, it has essentially become a tax increase for millions of middle-class families. That was never its purpose, and we should fix it and fix it quickly.

Tax fairness should be the Senate's focus, not immoral, unfair tax breaks that will benefit a privileged few, which is further exacerbating the problem we have in America today where the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting squeezed, squeezed, squeezed.

So in the weeks ahead, we are ready--the Democrats are ready--to work with the majority on the real issues facing our country. Let's spend some time here debating these issues, legislating high gas prices and immigration and improving our Nation's security. We want to put politics aside and take up the real work facing our country.

With the right priorities and the right commitment from the majority, we can move America in the right direction and give the people the real solutions they need. America can do better, and we can do it together. That is what we need: bipartisanship, working together on America's problems.

Mr. President, what is the matter before the Senate at this time?

No. I wish to proceed under the time allotted, 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. President, for my colleagues who are in the Chamber and want to speak under the half hour that is allotted to us, I will leave time for them. I know Senator Leahy has a matter elsewhere, and I will speak and give him the time next.

The committee bill that was reported from the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote is a bill that virtually all Democrats support. We now are past that piece of legislation and on what we call the Martinez substitute. Virtually all Democrats support the Martinez substitute. I thought yesterday morning we were going today to be able to pass this important legislation. As I was walking from the caucus we had yesterday, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware said: I have to leave early; I sure hope we can get something worked out on this. That is how the Senate felt yesterday. I sure hoped we could work something out. But as the day went on, things didn't work out as well as we had anticipated.

In the Senate, there are different ways of conducting filibusters. One is to have people stand and talk for long periods of time. The other is the ability Senators have, if they wish, to filibuster by virtue of amendment.

I made a proposal to the distinguished majority leader that we would have the Judiciary Committee do the conferees and have a limited number of amendments and move on. Last night, Senator Frist said on the floor that he would have 20 amendments and, as we know from conversations we had on the floor, that was just the beginning. There would be more amendments. These amendments, of course, would be offered by those who oppose the Martinez legislation.

The majority leader said last night--and I was surprised--that he thought he would vote no on cloture on the amendment that he offered. Certainly, there could be an argument made, even though I don't think it is a good one, that we are going to vote against the substitute amendment, the Specter legislation, as a result of the fact that the minority filed a cloture motion. That is not the case here. The cloture motion that is pending now was filed by the majority leader, he says, because no amendments have been offered. Why would we reward those who don't like the bill? Why would we reward those who want to kill this bill by amendments?

I would hope that night has brought change, that night has turned to day, and that there will be those on a bipartisan basis who will support this invocation of cloture. That would be the right thing to do. To do so takes courage, I know, but it would be the right thing to do.

Virtually all Democrats support the Martinez legislation. This bill is supported by wide-ranging groups: the Catholic bishops, the Chamber of Commerce, civil rights groups, human rights groups, La Raza--on and on with groups that support this legislation. This legislation is good legislation, national security, real security, border security. It gives guest workers the opportunity to come to America with dignity. Twelve million people would no longer have to live in the shadows.

Franklin Roosevelt said it a lot better than I could in 1938, when he said: My fellow immigrants, remember always that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants.

General George Washington, in a letter in 1783, said:

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges if, by decent and proprietary conduct, they appear to merit the enjoyment.

That is what this is all about--Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington. Let's vote for cloture and move on, have a day of celebration.

I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, the distinguished ranking member of this committee.

Mr. President, as soon as the distinguished chairman finishes his remarks, I will yield 8 minutes to Senator Durbin, and following his statement, 8 minutes to the ranking member, Senator Kennedy. If a Republican comes in between, that is fine with us. So 8 minutes to both Senators Durbin and Kennedy.

Mr. President, I am yielding 1 minute of my leader time to Senator Feinstein and 1 minute of my leader time to Senator McConnell.

If the majority agrees here, I will make a brief statement and use my leader time.

Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the American people's need for a win on immigration--not the Republicans, not the Democrats. Today we have another chance to give them that win if we vote for cloture and move forward on legislation that will protect our borders and fix our badly broken immigration system. All of us, Democrats and Republicans--we all need the courage to do what is required of us now. It is time to move forward on tough and smart immigration reform.

The amendment before us does what we need of an immigration bill. An immigration bill will secure our borders, crack down on employers who break the law, and allow us to find who is living here by giving 12 million undocumented workers a reason to come out of the darkness, out of the shadows, pay a fine, undergo a background check, stay out of trouble, have a job, pay the penalties, and become legal when their number is called, even though it is many years from now.

Americans have demonstrated literally in the streets for a bill like this. They have spoken. It is up to the majority to answer their call. If tough, comprehensive immigration reform fails to move forward, it will be the Republicans' burden to bear. Virtually all Democrats supported the Specter bill that came before the Senate. Virtually all Democrats support the Martinez substitute. So the majority must explain to the American people why they are permitting a filibuster of immigration legislation, a filibuster by amendment.

On such an important national security issue, this is no place for stonewalling and obstruction. Yet that is where we are. We are ready today to fix our broken immigration system and give Americans the real security they deserve. They are looking for a win. They deserve a win. We can do it with a vote to invoke cloture.