Floor Statements

I appreciate the courtesy of my friends, the distinguished Senator from Oregon and the leader, Senator Byrd, for allowing me to speak for a few minutes. He has been waiting a long time.

Mr. President, yesterday the American people received the shocking news that the Vice President's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, may have acted on direct orders from President Bush when he leaked classified intelligence information to reporters. It is an understatement to say that this is a serious allegation with national security consequences. It directly contradicts previous statements made by the President. It continues a pattern of misleading America by this Bush White House. It raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with Congress and the American people.

Today, I come to the floor to request answers on behalf of our troops, their families, and the American people. For years President Bush has denied knowing about conversations between his top aides and Washington reporters, conversations where his aides, like Scooter Libby, sought to justify the war in Iraq and discredit the White House's critics by leaking national security secrets. In fact, President Bush is on record clearly, in September of 2003, as saying:

I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked

classified information. If somebody did leak classified

information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take appropriate

action.

Yesterday, we found there is much more to the story. According to court records, President Bush may have personally authorized the very leaks he denied knowing anything about. In light of this disturbing news, we need to hear from President Bush which of these is true: His comments in 2003 or the statements made by the Vice President's chief of staff. Only the President can put this matter to rest.

Harry Truman had on his desk in the Oval Office a plaque. It said: ``The buck stops here.'' In George Bush's White House, perhaps he should put one that says: The leaks start here.

He, the President of the United States, must tell the American people whether President Bush's Oval Office is a place where the buck stops or the leaks start. This is a question he alone must answer, not a spokesman, not a statement, only the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I am concerned with the lack of progress being made in conference on reaching a final agreement on the pension bill. To this point, little movement has been made to bridge the differences between the House and Senate bills.

This process does not need to be a partisan one. Throughout consideration of the pension bill, Democrats have worked with Republicans to move forward on pension reform. The Senate, working in a bipartisan manner, was able to produce a strong bill that passed by a vote of 97 to 2.

Democrats are eager to participate in the conference negotiations and are committed to enacting a strong pension reform bill. It is my hope that a conference agreement can be completed in a timely manner so that the uncertainty surrounding pensions can be resolved.

However, House Republicans seem intent on producing a bill without including Democrats. That would be unfortunate and is likely to produce a bill that fails to meet the principles supported by the Democratic caucus.

The Senate pension bill was crafted with bipartisan participation, and that approach produced a bill that received almost unanimous support in the Senate. Working together, the conferees can produce a conference agreement that would garner an equally strong vote.

Attached is a set of principles that our caucus has supported throughout consideration of this important bill. I believe these principles should be the basis for any agreement reported by the conference. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to acknowledge Senators Shelby and Sarbanes in their

work to ensure national security is at the forefront of the critical Government review process that is triggered when a foreign-owned company attempts to purchase U.S. companies and assets. At the same time, Senators Shelby and Sarbanes struck a balance that will not unnecessarily hinder investment in America.

The Dubai Ports fiasco shined a light on a flawed process at the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--referred to as CFIUS. It raised questions regarding the competence of those in the Bush administration to review these matters and make decisions about the purchase of strategic U.S. assets. It also raised questions about a process that did not trigger a full investigation into a transaction that was so important to our national security.

Members of Congress, Governors, and even the President found out about the approval only through newspaper reports. Notwithstanding the President's knee-jerk threats to veto legislation overturning the deal and frantic efforts by the Treasury and Homeland Security to justify this sale, the American public is rightly convinced that something needs to be changed about the CFIUS process.

First, this process has to place a far greater emphasis on nationa1 security. Second, the process has to have more legitimacy--so the American public will have confidence that these sales of strategic assets get the thorough review they deserve by Government. Third, the CFIUS process must require a greater level of accountability from those who administer the program so that we ensure that the process is followed as designed. Finally, the process must be balanced to ensure that the vast majority of transactions that raise no concerns are not inadvertently undermined.

The Senate Banking Committee on Thursday voted to report legislation unanimously that would reform the CFIUS process. It was a difficult job. I commend Senators Shelby and Sarbanes for putting together bipartisan, consensus legislation that puts security first, while striking a balance that continues to welcome foreign investment. America has benefited a tremendous amount from foreign investment into our economy, so I am glad that we have not overreacted to the Bush administration's mistakes and mismanagement in their review of these important transactions.

As with other legislation we deal with, this legislation is not perfect. And, as it moves forward, I hope we can work together to make further improvements. I urge the majority leader to schedule floor consideration as soon as possible so that we can complete action on this bill before we adjourn this fall.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize several young people who were recently selected by the American Automobile Association, AAA, to receive the Lifesaver Award for their outstanding work as school safety patrollers.

More than 500,000 students in 50,000 schools worldwide participate in AAA's School Safety program. These young people have taken on the important responsibility of making the streets around their schools safer for their classmates. Though their responsibilities are often routine, the patrollers on occasion must place themselves in harm's way in order to save lives. Today, I want to recognize four students who received the AAA Lifesaver Award for selfless and heroic actions while fulfilling their duties as patrollers.

Nico DelGraco and Mitchell Davis of Simpson Elementary School in Bridgeport, WV, are the first two recipients of this year's awards. In the second week of November 2005, Nico and Mitchell were watching their patrol posts for traffic; a first-grader on his way home from school began to cross the street. As the student walked just past the center of the street, Nico noticed an SUV coming toward the red light that showed no signs of stopping. Nico quickly left his post, took hold of the child, and directed him toward Mitchell. Mitchell then grabbed the first-grader from Nico and dragged him back toward the sidewalk. No one was injured in the incident.

The third AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is Molly Kaiser, a fifth- grade student from Defer Elementary School in Grosse Pointe Park, MI. On the morning of November 9, 2005, Molly pulled a second-grader out of the street as a bus was turning. Molly had tried to verbally caution the student that he was in danger. After this was met with no response, she pulled the student out of the intersection and the path of the school bus that was making its turn. The bus swerved to avoid the child and drove on without stopping.

The fourth AAA Lifesaver Award recipient is also from the State of Michigan. Her name is Emma Elise Binegar, and she is a student at Morenci Elementary School in Morenci. On December 9, 2005, Emma quickly noticed that 5-year-old William Leeroy Webster was in danger as he was crossing the street in the path of a fast-approaching car. Emma saved him by pulling him out of the path of a vehicle about 10 feet away.

I would like to thank AAA for making the school safety program possible. The program has helped save many lives over the years and has made our schools safer for our students. As the stories of the Lifesaver Award recipients demonstrate, the streets around our schools are not safe enough. That is why I have worked for the last 2 years to create a national Safe Routes to School program, which was adopted as part of the Federal transportation bill on July 29, 2005. The $612 million allotted for the program can now help communities construct new bike lanes, pathways, and sidewalks, as well as to launch Safe Routes education and promotion campaigns in elementary and middle schools.

Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum so the leader and I may speak for a couple minutes before the debate starts.

I ask unanimous consent that the time on our side be divided between Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Kennedy, each 8 minutes; Senators Salazar and Menendez, each 3 minutes.

It has already been suggested by the Republican leader that our time would follow the hour time that is allotted under the rule, a half hour on each side, and then I would speak, and then the distinguished Republican leader would end the debate. Is that appropriate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes for me and the 10 minutes for the majority leader be under leader time.

And I ask unanimous consent that the time not start running until we finish our personal colloquy.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Madam President, baseball season is upon us. Tomorrow, my friend, Hall of Fame to be pitcher Greg Maddux will pitch. With 11 more victories, he will be in the top 10 of all baseball players who have ever pitched in the Major Leagues. He needs to win 11 more games this year.

The reason I mention this is what we are doing here in the Senate is not a baseball game but, in spite of that, the American people are looking for a win. There is no question to this point the Senate has not pitched a perfect game, but I will say that the Senate Judiciary Committee has done a great deal. They have, in effect, loaded the bases. The Senate Judiciary Committee has loaded the bases. We have the bases loaded, and now the Senate is up to bat. We need to get a hit. If we get a hit, we drive in a run, it is over, and the American people have won.

We have to remember what we are voting on. We are voting to keep moving forward on a good, strong, bipartisan bill that will secure our borders. No matter how many people come and talk, how many speeches they give, the fact is that is what it is all about. We, the minority, believe we owe it to the American people to keep moving forward on legislation that will keep us safe.

Some Republicans disagree with that. It is very clear from the debate that has taken place. I can only guess they intend to kill this immigration debate and move on to other matters. That is unfortunate. If that happens, the Senate's inability to secure our borders and fix our immigration system will be the Republican's burden to bear.

The one question I ask throughout all this: Where is President Bush? On an issue which is this important, I haven't seen his congressional liaison working the halls the way they do on the budget matters or they will later today or early when we come back after a break on reconciliation. I haven't seen them here. I haven't seen the Vice President over in his little office here, calling people in, saying this is what we need to do for the country. On immigration, the President has been silent.

After this vote, which will take place in just a few minutes, I hope the President will become engaged in what is going on here and join in the move to pass important immigration legislation.

Everyone says that they support immigration reform. In a matter of minutes, we are going to vote, and we have been told that all the majority is going to vote against cloture. That is too bad because the bill before us is, as I indicated, a good bill. This legislation is important. It will be a blow to America if this vote is blocked.

For the last 2 weeks, we have enjoyed some rare bipartisan moments in the Senate. We have seen Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee work together on one of the greatest national security issues we have ever faced. The bipartisan spirit has resulted in a strong bill that was supported by half the Republicans and all the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

This bill isn't perfect, but it takes a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that this Nation needs. It

will secure our borders. It cracks down on employers who break the law. It will allow us to find out who is living here, whether it is 11 million or 12 million. We will find out. We want the people who are living in the shadows to come forward, to be fluent in English. We do not want people who have committed crimes. We want them to pay taxes and have jobs. Even with that, they go to the back of the line.

It is true that there will be additional immigration votes tomorrow-- maybe even late tonight if something can be worked out this afternoon. People have been working on the Martinez amendment for the last several days, and they haven't completed it yet, but they are very close. I compliment the Senator from Florida for the work he has done. Maybe it can be improved. I hope it becomes something for which I can vote.

There has been tremendous movement during the night. I think that is very fortunate. We don't need to wait until tomorrow to register support for a strong bipartisan immigration reform bill; we can do it right now by voting for the committee bill.

I have heard the arguments against voting for cloture but, frankly, they do not make a lot of sense.

The first argument you hear is that by invoking cloture, you are shutting down debate.

It was interesting. Late last night, Senator Frist offered an amendment. Do you know what he did? He filled the tree. He filled it up so no more amendments could be offered.

I said last night to the Presiding Officer: Can I offer an amendment?

He said no.

But I have to say that the majority leader, in rare form, said: I got the point.

That happens all the time here. It happens that people are not allowed to offer amendments. It is very frustrating to me--I wanted to offer a lot of amendments--and I am sure it is frustrating to others, but that is the way it is.

The other argument is that we shouldn't vote for cloture because the cloture motion was filed by the minority and not by the majority. If it is important to end the debate, it doesn't matter who files a cloture motion.

I don't know how easy it is for someone who has voted for this committee bill to vote against cloture. I don't understand how you could do that logically. But, in effect, that is what is going to happen. I think voting against cloture is a disservice to our country.

I have great hope that when we complete this vote here today, we will come back, the bases will still be loaded, and we will have a pitcher there ready to throw something, and what will be thrown is the Martinez amendment. It is something we can all take a swing at and drive in a run. What would that run be? It would be a run that would give the American people a victory--a victory for border security, a victory for people who want to work. It would be a very important provision of this guest worker program, supported by wide-ranging groups of people.

The third important aspect of this legislation, if we can get the hit this afternoon, would be to make sure that the 12 million people have a path to legalization--not an easy path but mountains to climb, some washes to move up, maybe even a tree or two to cut down, but it gives people hope that they can come out of the shadows and be part of our great American culture. I hope that will happen.

Mr. President, I so appreciate the courtesy of my friend from Alabama.

I appreciate your courtesy so very much.

Mr. President, the Democrats continue to fight for strong border enforcement and comprehensive immigration reform. This compromise is the second bipartisan plan we have supported, this Martinez amendment which is now before the Senate. We are happy to welcome Senator Frist. He has been very cooperative in working to get this bill where it is now, to the Senate, at this time. It is a comprehensive, tough, smart approach that we have advocated all along.

Unfortunately, other Republicans seem intent on delaying and defeating this compromise. We are ready to move forward, but a group of Republican Senators want to slow this matter down, it appears. If not for them, this legislation could move forward. We would head into the recess with a bipartisan victory for the American people.

Although this compromise is not perfect, it still is the right comprehensive approach. It is ``enforcement plus,'' tough reforms to protect our border and crack down on employers who hire illegally plus it will bring the millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

The Republicans are divided, obviously, on this issue. We must protect this fragile compromise and those bent on gutting this bill with hostile amendments. We still must ensure that this comprehensive approach is not lost when the bill reaches conference with the House of Representatives.

Therefore, I have suggested to the distinguished majority leader that the conferees on this be the Judiciary Committee. There would still be the two-vote majority that we have on all conference committees. These men and women who make up the Judiciary Committee fully understand this legislation. I believe they would make sure the Senate's position was protected.

I have also said in addition to that we should have a limited number of amendments. I have made that proposal to the distinguished majority leader.

I believe it is a test of leadership for President Bush to see what he can do to help bring everyone into this program. We do not need this matter derailed.

I will meet with Senator Frist at approximately 8:30 again tonight and see if there is something we can work out. Here he is. So I hope there is something we can do.

I have, as I indicated, suggested that the Judiciary Committee members be conferees and we have a limited number of amendments. It sounds fair. It sounds reasonable, to me. I hope President Bush, who has talked about immigration reform, would get involved and help us reach the finish line.

Mr. President, I will say a few words. I wasn't planning on saying anything, but I think I must say something.

Mr. President, no matter how many times I call this lectern a car, it does not matter, this is not a car. This is a lectern, used here in the Senate for us to put our papers on and deliver a speech. This is not a car. If I come to the Senate floor and, day after day, hour after hour, call this a car, it is not a car. It is a lectern.

If I come to this Senate floor day after day and say what the Democrats have done is unusual, unwarranted, unbelievable, it is wrong, it is as wrong as this lecturn being called a car.

Now, we are in a unique situation. The distinguished majority leader and I have really tried to work something out. I indicated that I thought it would be appropriate that we agree on who would be on the conference--the Judiciary Committee. It sounds reasonable.

I also thought we should have--not that I was rushing forward with this, but I would agree, on behalf of my caucus, to a reasonable number of amendments. Mr. President, 20 or so is not a reasonable number of amendments. That is filibuster by amendment. It appears here what they want is to filibuster. They, the Republicans, want to filibuster the Martinez bill.

So I do not know how much more reasonable we could be. We are united. We have produced votes this morning to show we are serious about legislation. We will continue to fight for strong border enforcement, comprehensive immigration reform.

What we have suggested is reasonable. It is fair. And the distinguished majority leader said we will see how the vote goes. I think that is really important, that we see how these votes go. I would hope that the night will bring the confidence that we can move forward and invoke cloture on the Martinez bill and finish this legislation. There are still votes that would be valid postcloture on that.

I also make this commitment: If cloture is not invoked--and I think that would be a terrible disservice to this country--I will continue to work on immigration reform. This is something that has to be done. It has to be done. The leader and I have gone back and forth so many times today that we are beating paths to our offices.

I hope this legislation will move forward tomorrow. I know people feel that this lecturn is a chair, but it is not. This is the Senate. This is how it works. The way to bring all this to a close is to invoke cloture. And then we can all walk out and declare victory for the American people. This isn't a question of who filed a cloture motion or who allowed amendments or didn't allow amendments. This is the Senate. That is how it has worked for almost 220 years.

I hope the night will bring what I think is common sense and we can resolve this matter. It would sure be something I would like very much.

If I could ask a question--pardon the interruption--that would be in addition to at least 17 other amendments at some time in the future; is that right?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

If cloture is invoked tomorrow, there would still be an opportunity to offer amendments postcloture, germane amendments?

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Chair, those slots were not filled by the minority, were they?

I think the point is made.

I have no further questions.

Is that postcloture?

I would be happy to consider that. I think we would have to see what amendments were offered. But I think something such as that is within reason. I am happy to see what we can do. I cannot say until I know what the amendments are, which ones are germane or not.

My point is that there is a way we can have amendments offered postcloture. All we have to do is have cloture invoked tomorrow.

Reserving the right to object, of course, Mr. President, until we have an agreement, as has been indicated, on what is going to happen postcloture, and we have talked about this, and a conference-- these things sound very procedural in nature, but they are important to what this body does. So I object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Santorum would lay down his amendment, speak on it for whatever time he feels appropriate. Following the termination of his remarks, the Senator from Florida would be recognized, or someone on his behalf, to lay down amendment No. 3220 and speak for whatever time he thought appropriate.

I ask unanimous consent on that.

Mr. President, we certainly have no objection to anyone speaking on this bill at any length they feel appropriate. But at this stage, we are not going to agree to set aside the pending amendment for laying down other amendments.

Yes.

Mr. President, I just hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle--and there isn't a single Senator over there I don't consider a friend and have great respect for--I hope they remember this exchange between the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the majority leader today, as we wind down this session of this Congress. I want them to remember this because you don't have to have a very long memory to understand what has happened in the Senate with our inability to offer amendments. The most recent that I can think of, of course, was the Dubai Ports situation on lobbying. The next thing I can go back and look at is the PATRIOT Act, where the distinguished majority leader filled the tree.

There is no need--we went through this yesterday. There is no need to do this. But the Senate, in the 200-plus years it has been in existence--even though the rules are somewhat difficult to accept, they are here. And they are here for a reason. Because over the generations of the Senate, there is always the ability to have an endgame. There is a way to proceed orderly on a piece of legislation. And what we should do on this, if everyone is so upset with what is taking place here, is in the morning we will have an opportunity to invoke cloture. All germane amendments will be allowed, if they were filed before 1 o'clock today. There would be an opportunity then to debate these amendments and vote on them. So there is no more orderly way to proceed to a matter than cloture.

I wish to switch a little bit here and talk about something that is extremely personal to me. I have been a legislator for a long time. The first job I had in public office was in 1964. I have been involved in government for 42 years. I was a city attorney, served on county boards, the State legislature, and other such opportunities that the people of the State of Nevada have given me. I don't want this to be true confessions,

but I want to relate to the Senate that the biggest mistake I ever made, the largest error I ever made was 15 or 18 years ago, as a Member of the U.S. Congress, when, with my chief of staff, my dear friend Reynaldo Martinez--he and I played baseball together. He was a star on that team. I wasn't. But we beat everybody. We were the California Scholastic Federation champions when I was a sophomore in high school.

He was my chief of staff. He is retired, a wonderful man. He has credentials in the Hispanic community. He has had a school named after him in Nevada. He has a youth center named after him. He is a very famous Nevadan and my dear friend.

A group of people came and talked to us and convinced us that the thing to do would be to close the borders between Mexico and the United States; in effect, stop people from coming across our borders to the United States. This period of time for which I am so apologetic--to my family, mostly--lasted about a week or two. I introduced legislation. My little wife is 5 feet tall. We have been together for soon to be 50 years. As I said here on the floor a few days ago, her father was born in Russia. He was run out of Russia. His name was Goldfarb, his family. They were Jewish. My wife heard that I had done this. She does not interfere with my legislation. Only when I ask her does she get involved in what I am doing. I didn't ask her about this. She, in effect, said: I can't believe that you have done it. But I had done it.

To compound this, I held a meeting a day or two after being confronted by my wife, a meeting in Las Vegas. It was a townhall meeting to explain this travesty that I called legislation. My friend, Judge John Mendoza, was there, somebody who, when I lost my Senate race in 1974 by 524 votes, spent all night with me consoling me, but he was in that audience. Larry Luna, Larry Mason, Isabelle Pfeiffer, people I had not talked to about this, in addition to my wife, pointed out the errors of my way. I have done everything since that meeting in Las Vegas, in conversation with my wife, to undo my embarrassment.

I have nothing against my friend, the junior Senator from Alabama, for bringing up what I had said those many years ago today on the Senate floor. I have no problem with that at all. But I do want to tell him and the rest of my friends in the Senate, that is a low point of my legislative career, the low point of my governmental career. That is why I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform today. People in America are counting on us to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. They recognize that this country's national security depends on securing our borders and fixing our immigration system. They all want us to do this, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and do this.

I still believe that the bill before us is a compromise. I believe it is a good bill. It is up to my Republican friends to decide what they want to do. They can work with us to move forward and vote cloture and have some amendments that are germane postcloture. My friends, the majority, can move forward with a bill that will fix our borders and reform the immigration system or continue to stonewall. It is in the eyes of the beholder who is stonewalling. I think what we have here is a compromise. We have a real bipartisan opportunity to fix our immigration system. Thanks to the hard work of the Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we have a bill that will do it.

So I hope that tomorrow morning, an hour after we come into session, that there will be a bipartisan vote to invoke cloture, move forward with this legislation, look at those germane amendments, vote them up or down, and move forward with the process.

I, first of all, want everyone in this Chamber to know that there is no animosity between the two leaders. We have jobs to do. We do the best we can to fulfill those responsibilities. But as far as the two of us are concerned, there is no ill will toward me from Senator Frist. He has never shown that on a personal basis. I have attempted not to do that with him. I will say on one occasion I did, and he brought it to my attention. I acknowledged that, and I understood what he was critical of. It was constructive criticism, and I took it as that.

I hope we can move forward. There have been proposals made by both sides. My friend's proposal on this side of the aisle was not acceptable. My proposal to him was not acceptable. But it is only 4 o'clock. Maybe something will happen before tomorrow morning's cloture vote.

Mr. President, I am sure it was an oversight by my friend from Arizona in just mentioning Senator Salazar, but also Senator Menendez has been involved in the things we have done over here, and he is a great addition to our caucus.

My friend from Arizona, who has established his credentials as being courageous as none of the rest of us have, except perhaps Senator Inouye, said we should not be afraid to take votes. So my suggestion--I made it yesterday and I make it today--is that there has been significant debate on the Specter-Leahy substitute. It is now before this body. We should not be afraid to vote on that. As I said, we are willing to vote. We don't need to have cloture. We can have an up-or- down vote on that right now. That is one alternative that could be considered.

Parliamentary inquiry: Does this mean there are no other amendments in order? I couldn't file another amendment now, could I?

I was curious why we aren't able to offer any amendments at this time, but we can talk about that tomorrow.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader, I would hope, the amendment--we have a general idea what it is about--I would hope this amendment is one, as it has been related to me, that is such that it improves the underlying Specter substitute, that it deals with only the legalization process.

I would hope, after Senators and staff pursue that amendment in detail tonight, that it is something we could all support and move on to completing the bill as soon as germane amendments were offered and debated and voted upon.

It would be great if we could end this very acrimonious week on a high note. And we will not know that until we study this amendment. We are hearing of a lot of things that are in it and not in it. So time will only tell.

I would say, through the Chair to the majority leader, because we have already had phone calls in the last half hour or so from Senators--they have asked me, as the distinguished majority leader did earlier today, if I would agree to earlier cloture votes. I do not know what the pleasure is of the Senator from Tennessee, if you want to wait until Friday, or you want to try to complete this tomorrow.

So unless there is some agreement, the two cloture votes would begin occurring an hour after we come in on Friday.

Is that right, I say to the Chair?

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and other Senators have been told prior to this piece of legislation passing there would be a vote on hate crimes legislation that has been in this body for a long time.

I would hope--and it is my understanding the chairman of the committee had worked this out with Senator Kennedy--we could, at an early date, I mean in a matter of hours, work this out. This sex offender registry is

an important piece of legislation. But also, as we have learned here in the Senate, people keeping their word is also important. I am confident it was some kind of a misunderstanding. I am hopeful that is the case. But until Senator Kennedy and others and Senator Specter work this out, I must object.

Mr. President, very briefly, if the distinguished majority leader will yield, Democrats support the concept of a national registry. It is important. But we also support the concept that people who are injured, maimed, or murdered as a result of hate crimes also deserve protection. We hope we can do all this at one time. I am hopeful and confident that can happen.

Yes.

What is the question?

I object.

Mr. President, I object.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

We are witnessing here a new procedure in the Senate that I am not familiar with, and that is legislating by press conference.

What we have before the Senate now is a rare moment of bipartisanship. We have a bill that came from the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan fashion. It is strong bipartisan legislation that strengthens our national security. We need to move forward.

We have reviewed the list of amendments filed by both sides. There are several good-faith amendments that are intended to improve the bill without damaging the integrity of the committee product or which are not designed to score political points. We are ready to schedule votes on these amendments at the right time.

However, it is important that we take advantage of the bipartisan momentum behind this bill and keep moving forward. We must not allow this strong bipartisan legislation to be torpedoed for reasons that probably are very partisan. We on this side are united behind a comprehensive immigration reform bill, a bill that is bipartisan, and we are ready for prompt action on this bill. So I object to voting at midnight.

As I said, Mr. President, staffs are looking at it. It is my understanding there are 70 to 100 amendments that have been filed; is that right?

We are in the process of looking at those. As you have to do on any bill, you have to decide, when you have a bill that is as large as this, what amendments are going to be decided to be voted upon. It can't be decided on one side; it has to be decided by both sides. The only way we are going to get votes on amendments on this most important bill is to have both sides agree on them, and we are in the process of doing that right now.

I indicated--as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania indicated--in my caucus today, I said that staff would be working just as I outlined. It can't be done in 5 minutes or 10 minutes; it will take a little bit of time. But this is an important bill. It deals with our national security, it deals with a guest worker program, and it deals with a path to legalization for 11 million or so people.

I will say to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that I think the work the Judiciary Committee did on this piece of legislation is extraordinary. It is good. Frankly, I was very pleasantly surprised at the complexity of the bill and how good it was. I like the bill as it is. That is my personal feeling. So I am willing, as I have indicated, to work with Senator Leahy and his staff, Senator Kennedy and his staff, Senator Durbin and his staff, and we will look at these amendments and see if we can agree on a bipartisan basis what amendments should be decided here--or voted upon, I should say.

Mr. President, responding to my friend, it seems quite unusual that these crocodile tears are being poured out now because amendments aren't being considered. We have waited for years to have an amendment considered on raising the minimum wage. We have waited months and months to have a debate on amendments on stem cell research. I have trouble accepting the plaintive cries from the other side of the aisle in not having their amendments heard. With this Republican-dominated Senate, we have been unable to offer amendments, only two of which I have mentioned. We have tried and tried and tried.

This is the Senate, and we have 100 amendments pending. And the mere fact that the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona offers an amendment he believes strongly in does not mean it takes precedence over the other 100 amendments that have been offered. This is a procedure that has been followed for many years.

I would further say I simply don't accept the explanation of the amendment the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona has offered on this bill. First, the Kyl amendment, as amended by Senator Cornyn, would make classes--various individuals who would become part of a class of undocumented immigrants--ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant status and to earn their legalization; for example, immigrants who came through the visa program who overstayed their visas. Is that what we want to do? I don't want to do it: Make immigrants subject to expedited removal at the point of arrival. And did you know one of the definitions of aggravated felon that is in this legislation is somebody who has twice overstayed their visa?

So I like the bill we have before the Senate. I don't accept this amendment--the Kyl amendment--as one that improves the bill. It hurts the bill. It hurts the very foundation and what I believe is the spirit of this legislation.

I do not accept the fact that this good legislation which is now before the Senate will be improved by the Kyl amendment as modified by the amendment of the distinguished Presiding Officer. I believe the bill before us is a good bill and we should stick with it. That is what I want to do.

The answer to the distinguished Senator is yes, I have had time.

I apologize very much.

Mr. President, with all due respect to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he has been in this body a lot longer than I have, but I still understand the rules of the Senate. At this stage, as a Senator from the State of Nevada, I am not ready to move forward on the Kyl amendment. I do not have to explain in any more detail than I have why I do not want to move forward on it. I do not agree with the amendment. I don't think it is going to benefit this legislation pending before the Senate. I am going to do what I can to prevent a vote on it. I can't be more direct than that to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, I apologize for being late. I was occupied when Senator Specter started talking about an event that I had out in the hall, and I thought it was important I come back to the floor. I came to spend a few minutes talking about some of his assertions.

But now what I want to focus on for a minute--Senator Kyl stood and told the merits of his amendment, with a very brief outline he gave.

Senators Kyl and Cornyn claim the Judiciary Committee bill would allow criminals to become residents. This simply is not true. The Judiciary Committee bill, like the McCain-Kennedy bill upon which it is based, already denies earned legalization to broad categories of aliens who have committed crimes or are a security risk to our country. Immigrants denied legalization include--and this is only a partial list--immigrants convicted of ``crimes of moral turpitude: aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, fraud, larceny, and forgery; immigrants convicted of controlled substance offenses: sale, possession, and distribution of drugs, drug trafficking; immigrants convicted of theft offenses, including shoplifting; immigrants convicted of public nuisance offenses; immigrants with multiple criminal convictions; immigrants convicted of crimes of violence; immigrants convicted of counterfeiting, bribery, or perjury; immigrants convicted of murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor; immigrants convicted of espionage or sabotage; immigrants believed to have engaged in terrorist activity, which is broadly defined; immigrants with any association with terrorist activity or representatives of a terrorist organization; spouses and children of individuals who

are inadmissible as a terrorist; immigrants known to have acted in ways that are deemed to have adverse foreign policy consequences.''

What the Kyl-Cornyn amendment does is undermine the earned citizenship program in the committee bill, which I strongly believe in. It would prevent millions of Mexicans, Central Americans, Irish, and other nationals from applying for legal status because of status violations, not crimes. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants who would be affected by this amendment are not criminal aliens but, rather, the exact classes of immigrants intended to be covered by title VI of the Judiciary Committee bill.

Our analysis shows that over 95 percent of the people potentially affected by this amendment are individuals whose only crime--and ``crime'' is very loosely construed for purposes of this discussion--is being in the United States out of status--95 percent.

If the Kyl-Cornyn amendment passes, the United States will still confront a crisis of illegality and it will deny the will of the American people, three out of four of who favor earned legalization for immigrants who work, pay their taxes, learn English, and stay out of trouble.

This bill before this body is a very fine piece of legislation. It sets a very strict standard to protect our national security. Our borders will be protected better than they have ever been protected. It will allow places such as Las Vegas, NV--and Las Vegas is not the only place. They are going to build within the next few years, 4 to 5 years, 50,000 new hotel rooms. They will need a minimum of 100,000 new workers. This legislation will allow that to happen. There are places all over America that are faced not with numbers that are as huge as that but with big numbers.

Finally, what this legislation that is now before the Senate does is it allows 11 million-plus people not to have to live in the shadows of America. It is a path to earned legalization--not like the old amnesty that was done when I served in the House of Representatives--but a path toward legalization. Stay out of trouble. Pay your taxes. Have a job. Learn English. Go to the back of the line.

We are here trying to protect the integrity of a bill that is bipartisan in nature and one of the best things to happen to this partisan atmosphere we find ourselves in. It is a bipartisan bill. Last week, we stood on this floor--and I do not think ``boasted'' is the right word--and talked about how good it was we were able to pass a bipartisan bill that improved the situation dealing with the ethics of this body and this country. Why can't we continue on a bipartisan basis on this committee-reported bill?

So for individuals to come to this floor and think we are doing something that is anti-Senate, anti-American, because we do not want to vote on an amendment that I think guts this bill does not mean there is anything wrong with those of us who believe this is what we should not do. And it does not take away from the good faith of my friend from Arizona. He thinks he is doing the right thing. I disagree with him a lot. I think what he is doing is wrong. I think it hurts this bill. And I am going to do everything I can to protect this bill.

Mr. President, I think it takes a lot to criticize the fact that Republicans are offering amendments and we wouldn't allow votes on them. This has been the history of the Republican-controlled Senate for years: not allowing us to have votes on amendments that we offer, or wanted to offer. How many amendments have there been? Minimum wage, Dubai Ports, health care in many different areas such as stem cell, prescription drugs, and importation of prescription drugs. So there may be some logical issues that could be propounded as to why the majority doesn't like what is going on here. But the fact that we are not allowing votes on amendments should fall on deaf ears because we are experts at trying to offer amendments and not having votes on them.

So I repeat what I said a little while ago. We have on the Senate floor today a bipartisan piece of legislation. Over here, we are united. We like the bill. The vast majority of us in the minority really like this bill, the one that is before the Senate right now. For example, the Kyl amendment, which was not tabled--it was moved in an effort to table their own amendment, which was somewhat surprising to me, but it wasn't tabled. The Kyl amendment, as I have explained on the floor before, would defeat a very good bipartisan bill. It would take what I believe, from my eyes, is the integrity of the bill, it would take it away.

This is a good bill, a bill that has strong enforcement. It provides for guest workers, and those in America who are interested in business support this. For example, the Chamber of Commerce, including the National Chamber of Commerce, supports those provisions in this bill, and then, of course, the path to legalization, which is so American, not anti-American--the path to legalization for these people.

I don't believe we should do amnesty. I was part of that in 1986 and it didn't work very well, and that is an understatement. This is not amnesty, what is in this bill. I like it. The vast majority of the minority likes it.

So we are willing to have our efforts rise or fall on this bill that is before the Senate. We are not going to allow amendments like Kyl- Cornyn take out what we believe is the goodness of this bill.

Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to that. I will respond to the distinguished majority leader. We have had three votes on Frist-Reid, Bingaman, and the other was--anyway, we have had three amendments, and they are amendments that we would be

happy to sit down and discuss, as I indicated earlier, and--the other is the Alexander amendment, thank you--sit down and find a way we can proceed.

We have Mikulski-Warner, Dorgan-Snowe-Burns, the Bond amendment, I think it is Collins, Brownback-Lieberman have an amendment, Stevens- Leahy have an amendment. So there are some amendments we could work on.

But let me just say this: We are happy to try to work something out. It is my belief--and people could disagree. It is certainly everyone's right to disagree. I don't think some of these amendments, some of these amendments I have talked about, would take away what I call the integrity of the bill. But I do say to my friend--and he is my friend, the distinguished majority leader--we have had example after example in the last many years where there is legislation on this floor and we are not allowed to offer amendments. We offer them once in a while, we don't get votes on those, and we are not allowed to offer amendments.

As my mother would say, they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

The answer is no.

Mr. President, as I said just a few minutes ago, I would be happy to have the two managers, with the appropriate staff--I have listed a number of amendments here: Mikulski-Warner-Snowe, Dorgan- Burns, Bond, Collins, Brownback, Stevens-Leahy, maybe the Allard amendment, which I haven't read in its entirety, but I think that is appropriate. I think what we should do--there are a number of these, and you may have some others on the other side that we could work out and set up a sequence of when we should vote on these, how much time should be used in debate. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. President, the Democrats are very serious about passing a bill that affects the security of this Nation--this legislation and other legislation but particularly this legislation. We believe that the first provision of this legislation, which we talked about from the very beginning, is border security, security for our Nation. This legislation that is now before the Senate will do that. But in addition to that, we want enforcement plus.

So as I have indicated, we want to pass the legislation right now. We would be happy to vote on this bill right now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill before the Senate be moved to third reading right now and vote on it.

Those that I mentioned?

I would be happy to work with our manager, and with Senator Kennedy, and come up with the sequence of how we should vote on these and how much time should be spent on each amendment. I would be happy to vote on that.

I don't know; 9:30, or sometime tomorrow morning, if we work out a sequence on these. That would be fine with me.

Mr. President, the use of words of the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee--``travesty, unprecedented, unthinkable''--whatever those were, those are words I am going to remember. I should have come up with those before on all the many times that we were unable to offer amendments on legislation that was pending before the Senate. But I think, as usual, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee did an outstanding job of describing what happens when people are not allowed to offer amendments. We are experts at recognizing when we are not able to offer amendments.

As I say, again, we have a number of amendments we would be happy to vote on. My friend, the majority leader, said he wanted to add in those that are pending, and we could not agree to that.

I have the greatest confidence in our ranking member, Pat Leahy. I have spoken in his behalf on this floor so many times I can't count it, but we have, in addition to Senator Leahy, 44 other members of our caucus. I am not going to give you and Senator Leahy carte blanche as to what amendments would be offered and in what order.

I am happy to yield to my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, for a statement of 1 minute or 2 minutes, whatever he cares to speak.

I may not like what you say, but I like you.

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

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

Mr. President, I have said nonchalantly, to put it in perspective, how much I appreciate the work of the members of the Judiciary Committee on this bill.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on this other than to say I think it is so important that we understand the time people have spent on this issue. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has been working on this issue of immigration for 35 years. He has seen what has happened in years past with all the different pieces of legislation. I can remember legislative battles on the Senate floor that we had with disputes between him and Alan Simpson, the distinguished former Senator from Wyoming, who everyone knows was such a good Senator, with such a great sense of humor.

Senator Leahy has, I think, done such an admirable job of being ranking member on this committee.

We have gotten work done on this committee that no one ever expected could be done. And the principal reason that work was able to be accomplished is because of the relationship that was developed between the chairman and ranking member, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy.

If someone had come to me a month ago and said we would be in the status we are on this immigration bill, I would have said: No, I don't think that could be accomplished. I do not think we can get a bill out of that committee.

But as I have said publicly, and certainly I have said it to the distinguished majority leader, I thought his bill alone, dealing with enforcement only, was inappropriate and not good. I was surprised--but pleasantly surprised--with the work product that came out of the Judiciary Committee.

Even when the distinguished majority leader said that he and the ranking member would work during the week that we had off to see if they could come up with a proposal, I kept checking with Senator Leahy and other members of the Judiciary Committee. And they felt there was a lot of movement.

When that committee met on Monday, there were compromises made, and a bipartisan bill came before the Senate; again, pleasantly surprising me and, to me, proving that when people work together to accomplish a goal and there is a partnership between those leading the committee, members of the committee usually go along with that leadership as they did in this instance.

I appreciate the good work, and I support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary status of the Senate?

Last summer, the Governors of Arizona and New Mexico declared states of emergency at their

southern borders. I don't think anyone in this Chamber would disagree there is a crisis on our borders. There are, as indicated by the Governors of the two States of Arizona and New Mexico, an emergency.

We would all agree we should do something about this. We all agree we need to gain control of the chaos and restore order.

As do many Members of the Senate, I believe the approach endorsed by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee represents the best way to address our border crisis. It combines tough, effective enforcement with smart reforms to the immigration laws. It strengthens our borders, cracks down on employers who hire illegally, and brings undocumented immigrants out of the shadows of America.

It also requires these same people who are now living in the shadows to learn English, to have jobs, pay taxes, make sure they are not in trouble with the law. And even if they do that, they still go to the back of the line.

I strongly believe in tough and effective enforcement of our immigration laws. I also believe you cannot enforce laws that are unenforceable. Our current laws are unenforceable. I was at the borders just a few days ago, the California-Mexico border. It was very close to the Arizona border. There is chaos.

When I came into the port at San Ysidro, I had a tour of the facility, and just from a few hours' work the Border Patrol agents showed me what they had found that day. There was a little compact car. Somebody had scooped out the back of the car and built a canvas apparatus there. It was a small area, much smaller than the trunk of a car. It was very small. It was as though they had built a canvas basket, and five people had piled on top of one another and were hidden under that.

Another thing they showed us that happened just that day, within a matter of hours: in a truck, which was ostensibly a contracting truck-- in fact, it was not--they had had a storage compartment hidden under cement bags with people in it.

The narcotics they find are, of course, another situation. We are talking about cargo being human beings. They showed me, as I have said, in a matter of hours, how difficult it is to stop people from coming. A million people come over that border every day. It is hard to comprehend. There are 24 lanes of traffic coming one way from Mexico into the United States--24 lanes of traffic.

The easy thing for all of us to say is: Get tougher, throw more money and more Border Patrol agents at the problem, and it will get better. That is not the answer. It seems appealing, but it is simply not true.

As I said, I support the strong enforcement measures included in the bipartisan Judiciary Committee bill, which are, by the way, close to identical to those included in the border security bill offered by the majority leader. I strongly believe we need to have additional Border Patrol agents. We have to modernize our computer system. We have to do many other things, most of which are included in this bill, to secure our border and enforce our immigration laws with respect to employers.

But I also believe that enforcement alone will not fix our broken immigration system. To those who say we should secure our borders first and then consider ways to reform our immigration laws, I say the only way to secure our borders is to reform our immigration laws. If we want to create laws that are enforceable, first we have to make them realistic.

There is widespread support for the approach the Judiciary Committee has established, including the support of most labor unions, the vast majority of businesses, religious groups, and immigrant community leaders.

Months ago, I held an event at the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce building. I was stunned by the people appearing at that forum I held, but it did illustrate the broad support comprehensive immigration reform has from different sectors of the Las Vegas community. I think this is the same all over the country.

In addition to representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, there were people there from the Nevada Restaurant Association, the Culinary Union, which is a union of some 60,000 people in Las Vegas which prides itself in giving people who do the dirty work--people who park the cars, who do the janitorial work, make the beds--they pride themselves in these being good jobs, high-paying jobs. They have 60,000 union members.

In addition to that, we had representatives from hotels, including the MGM/Mirage Corporation, which, by the way, has the largest hotel in the world, the MGM Hotel, with 5,005 rooms in that one facility alone. We also had the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas. They were all there standing with me to confirm their support for realistic immigration reforms, the kinds we are now discussing in the Senate.

D. Taylor, the leader of the Culinary Union, the one I just spoke about, local 226, said at the time it had to be an important issue to get representatives of the Culinary Union and the Chamber of Commerce in the same room talking about the same subject.

Less than 2 weeks ago, I attended a similar event held at the Mandalay Bay Hotel/Convention Center in Las Vegas, where leaders of the Culinary Union and MGM/Mirage representatives stood together again with dozens of immigrants who are hotel workers to highlight the importance of immigrants to the Las Vegas economy. The representative of the Chamber of Commerce was an immigrant.

In the State of Nevada, the Culinary Union has been a strong supporter of the reforms we have in this legislation before the Senate. The Culinary Union, like all other unions in this country, understands that when there are people working illegally in our economy, it undercuts the wages and working conditions of everyone else.

The Las Vegas business community has been supportive of our efforts here in Washington to reform our immigration laws. That is an understatement. They depend on the hard work of immigrants in our community to get the work done. In Las Vegas, we have a very low unemployment level. It is estimated that Las Vegas will add almost 50,000 new hotel rooms, requiring 100,000 new workers.

Mr. President, the Culinary Union, like other unions in this country, as I said, understands the importance of people working legally. If we have illegal workers in our economy, it undercuts the wages of everyone else.

As I indicated, in Las Vegas, where we have very low unemployment, we expect to add in the next 5 or 6 years another approximately 50,000 new hotel rooms, requiring 100,000 new workers there alone. Nevada's restaurant industry is expecting an almost 4-percent gain in jobs this year alone.

I know that businesses I have been working with on this issue comply with their duties under the law and do everything they can to ensure that the workers they hire are legal. But they acknowledge we need legal immigrants to keep the economy expanding. I have worked closely with many of the resorts in Las Vegas, the Nevada Hotel and Lodging Association, the Nevada Restaurant Association, and others, and they will all tell you that reform of our laws is essential to our expanding economy.

Immigrants help create more jobs for American workers. They help expand our economy and provide labor for new businesses that will also employ Americans. Immigrant consumers spend money that keeps American businesses going. Immigrants employed at companies that also employ Americans help to make sure that American jobs stay in America more than being outsourced to other countries where there is cheaper labor.

It was probably 15, 18 years ago that a book was written by a journalist whom I have the greatest respect for. He has been the editor of US News & World Report. He has had many high-level jobs in the journalism field. But he wrote a book called ``More Like Us.'' This was at the height of the Japanese economy, some saying taking over the world. People were saying then in America, we have to be more like the Japanese if we are going to succeed economically. James Fallows is the man about whom I just spoke who wrote this book. And he said, no, that is not true. We need to be more like us. We need to continue doing what America does best. One of the things America does that is far better than Japan and most any other country is we are a nation of immigrants.

These immigrants, James Fallows has pointed out in this book, come to this Nation in limited numbers, and when they come here, they are striving to achieve.

We saw, all of us who are Members of the Senate, with the people coming here from Southeast Asia, from Vietnam, and other nations that were torn by war--the so-called boat people--we saw the kids graduating from high school who were the valedictorians, the salutatorians, the people who were doing so well in high school, and then were going into college with these grades that were better than anyone else. These were the kids from Southeast Asia who were here to prove to their parents and their family that they could succeed in America.

They even considered at UCLA, one time--I read this in an article in a weekly magazine--limiting the number of Asian students who could go to UCLA because people get in that school simply on the merits and Asians were, some thought at the time, getting more than their fair share of spots. It is because immigrants do well. And James Fallows pointed that out. We see it today more than at any other time.

For example, UNLV's Center for Business and Economic Research published a report in 2003, concluding that non-native Hispanic immigrants helped drive the Las Vegas economy, generating $15.5 billion in spending, contributing $829 million in State and local taxes and helping to create more than 200,000 jobs.

Finally, I want to talk about the support of the religious community for the reforms in this legislation we are discussing today. As I mentioned, one of the people who joined me last fall to emphasize his support for comprehensive immigration reform was the bishop of the Diocese of Las Vegas, Bishop Pepe. He and others in the religious community are supporting this effort because they know that reforming our immigration laws is the right thing to do. It is the American thing to do. It is the moral thing to do.

We have U.S. citizens and permanent residents who are separated from their family members for years, sometimes decades, because of long processing backlogs and legal limits on family immigration. That is why one of the things we need to do in this legislation--and we are doing it--is to make sure Immigration and Naturalization and the Border Patrol have the resources they need so people do not have to wait in line. Even after becoming qualified to become a citizen, in Las Vegas you have to wait for years, sometimes up to 5 or 6 years, for the papers to be processed because they are so understaffed.

We have 11 million people living in the shadows of our society. Many of these immigrants have been here for years, have children and spouses who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. They pay taxes. They own property and are active, valuable members of our community. Virtually all of them came here to work. Our immigration laws, in many instances, force them to go into hiding. They live in fear every day that they will be deported and separated from their families and communities, separated from their children who are American citizens.

For those people who are already here, I believe we have to provide an opportunity for those who work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules, commit no crimes, learn English, and contribute to our economic growth, to earn the right to stay here--to earn the right to stay here.

We should encourage people to work here, and under the legislation that is pending before this body, there is a time when they have to go back to the country from which they came. Many people want to do this, and used to do this before we made it so dangerous for them to go back and forth across the border.

But for people who decide they want to stay here, they should not be allowed to jump to the front of the line but should be allowed to earn their legal status here, I repeat, if they pay fines and penalties, work steadily for years, learn English, and pass the necessary background checks.

As Americans, I do not think we want to forcibly uproot so many people who have put down their roots in communities for the same reason our parents and grandparents came: to make better lives for themselves and their families. We need to continue, as James Fallows said, to be ``more like us,'' what has made America great.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, and under rule VI, paragraph 2, I ask that he may absent himself from Senate business and any rollcall votes during his recuperation from recent back surgery.

Mr. President, has the Chair announced morning business?

Mr. President, the first 20 minutes would be yielded to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.

I see the Senator from Louisiana. It is my understanding she and Senator Kerry need 10 minutes.

How much time does the Senator from Louisiana need?

OK. So 20 minutes to Senator Salazar and 10 minutes to Senator Landrieu.