Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 239, S. 966.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be considered agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1710 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate committees may report legislative and Executive Calendar business on Tuesday, July 3, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, notwithstanding a recess or adjournment of the Senate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 2 p.m. today for the introduction of legislation, submission of statements, and adding cosponsors, notwithstanding adjournment of the Senate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, July 9; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time of the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 3 p.m., the Senate proceed to consideration of H.R. 1585, as provided under a previous order.

As I mentioned this morning, and I will reiterate now, Madam President, on Monday, July 9, at 5:30 p.m., Members should expect a number of rollcall votes on judicial nominations.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 179.

This morning the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 1639, the immigration legislation. There will be an hour of debate only prior to the cloture vote on the legislation. The time is divided between Senators Kennedy and Specter or their designees.

Following the hour, the leaders will each receive 10 minutes if they choose to utilize the time, with the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes. If all time is used, the cloture vote would occur about 10:50 this morning.

Members are reminded that there is a 10 a.m. filing deadline for any germane second-degree amendments.

Mr. President, is immigration a problem? Of course, it is. But is immigration a problem that is limited to Texas, Arizona, California, the border States? No. Is immigration a problem only for big cities, such as San Antonio, New York, Chicago, L.A.? No. Immigration is a problem all over America.

As people know, I am from Searchlight, NV, a little town I was born in and the town where I lived. It is 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas in the southern tip of the State. Is immigration something people talk about in Searchlight? Of course, it is.

Take yesterday. I got back to my office, and there was a call from Tommy. I am not going to give his last name for fear somebody will look him up. Tommy called me--and I do have his last name--and he said: I have a friend here who is from Mexico, has been here quite a long time. What is this immigration bill you are working on going to do for him? Should I be in favor of it?

Yes, Tommy, you should be because your friend will no longer have to be afraid of being arrested and deported. This bill will allow him to come out of the shadows.

The same day, yesterday, I received my mail from Searchlight. Somebody sends me my mail that comes addressed to me in Searchlight. A letter was addressed to me and said, among other things: You probably should go under the witness protection program because of your work on this immigration issue.

That is from Searchlight, NV. This doesn't take into consideration the letters and the calls my offices in Reno, Las Vegas, and here in Washington get filled with hate. I have, of course, turned the letter that I got from Searchlight over to the Capitol Police.

This situation is a problem not just in the border States and big cities, it is a problem all over America.

We are said to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Shouldn't we do something positive regarding an issue that affects everybody in America, immigration? Some say it is the country's biggest problem. While that may be debatable, it is a significant problem, one of the top two or three problems facing us, and the problem is not going to go away. Is it right to wait until there is a new President? Should we wait until we get a new Congress? Of course not. Talk radio has had a field day, these generators of simplicity.

I want everyone to know, and I want the record spread, I do not believe anyone who is a Senator who votes against this motion to proceed is filled with prejudice, with hatred, with venom, as we get in our phone calls and our mail. I don't believe that. But I do believe we have an issue before us that we must resolve.

My family has been enriched by immigration. My father-in-law, Earl Gould, came to America from Russia when he was a little boy. When he came here his name was Israel Goldfarb. He assumed the name Earl Gould. When I met my wife, her name was Landra Gould.

I had the opportunity to talk with my father-in-law many times. Every one of his siblings who came to America had a different name. They all changed their name in this great melting pot.

My father-in-law died as a young man--he was 52 years old--from leukemia. I think of him often. My wife is an only child. I think of him often for the kindness that he showed me. This ring I wear he gave to me on his death bed. This watch that I wear he gave to me. When he was sick and knew he was going to die, he and my mother-in-law took a trip to the Middle East and brought me back this watch. They didn't have money to buy watches for me, but they bought a watch for me. I still wear the watch.

In this great melting pot we have called America, of which I am a part, my five children are eligible for Israeli citizenship because, with the Jewish

tradition, lineage is with the mother, not the father. My children proudly know this.

My family has been enriched as a result of immigration. I knew my grandmother. I talked with her lots of times. As a boy, I listened to her stories. I talked with her. I can still hear her voice--oh, we had a grand time. That is how she talked. She was born in Katherine's Cross, England, and came over here as a girl, married my grandfather, had eight children, all of them raised in Searchlight, NV.

Those are two examples of what immigration is all about, two examples of what it has done to Harry Reid.

My skin is real white. We have African Americans. The Presiding Officer is of African-American ancestry. In the back of the room--we don't even have to look at the back of the room--we have Hispanics. But my skin is American skin, just as the Presiding Officer, just as Senator Salazar.

What is immigration all about? A number of years ago, one of America's great journalists, James Fallows, wrote a book called ``More Like Us.'' The thesis in this book was that everyone was saying we should be more like Japan.

Japan was at the zenith of its height and power, and we were in the doldrums economically. Everyone said we should be more like Japan.

James Fallows wrote this book, ``More Like Us,'' and he said: No, we should be more like us, like America, and the No. 1 issue he talked about being different from Japan, our strength, is immigration. I testify that is true; that is the strength of this great country.

Today in America we have a problem with immigration. We have porous borders that need to be fixed. We are Senators, I repeat, Members of the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world. With the honor of our office comes enormous responsibility. We must resist the ever-present temptation to do what is expedient at the expense of what is right. When short-term gain diverges from long-term good, we must choose the good. This is our challenge today.

I ask every one of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, not to shrink from this issue, to support us moving forward on this legislation for the good of our country, the greatness of our country.

There are 100 of us. If each one of us were given a few days to draft an immigration bill. We probably could do a better job than what has been done with this bill, in our own minds. But some of the greatest legislative minds in this body have worked long and hard to come up with this bill. Perfect? No. Good? Yes.

I hope we can do the right thing and move this legislation forward. I am not here to tell my colleagues this legislation is the greatest thing that ever came along, but it is something that is badly needed, and we need to continue this process.

Mr. President, there is $4.4 billion for border security. Is it going to help? Oh, it will help a lot. There are 370 miles of fencing, which we authorized and, of course, have done nothing about; 300 miles of vehicle barriers; 20,000 new Border Patrol agents; more than 100 ground-based radar and camera towers; and 31,500 detention beds.

Mr. President, I would say this, 31,500 detention beds. One of the problems we have----

It is my understanding in the order----

Mr. President, it is my understanding of the order of the presenters that Senator McConnell and I had 10 minutes.

Ten minutes was given to the distinguished Republican manager of the bill, and I now am using my leader's time that was not in the order.

I would also say to my friend from Alabama that I would never rudely interrupt him whenever he is giving a speech. I would never do that, and I wish he hadn't done that, but I will continue.

Mr. President, 31,500 new detention beds. In Las Vegas, when someone is picked up on an immigration violation, there is no place to put them. That is what this legislation does, actual money--not authorizing money but actual money. That is important.

It creates a mandatory employer verification system, which is so important, and a pathway to legalization for 12 million people, like my friend Tommy from Searchlight, NV. What do they do? They work, they pay taxes, they learn English, they stay out of trouble, and they pay fines and penalties. That is important.

AgJOBS. The DREAM Act. This legislation is important. It has come about as a result of a lot of hard work. For example, we have had 36 hearings, 6 days of committee action, 59 committee amendments, 21 days of Senate debate, and 92 Senate floor amendments.

I know the vote for everyone here today is a difficult vote. For some of us, it may be the most difficult of our careers. There is no perfect answer to this problem of immigration, but there are two paths. One path is diversion and negativity, while the other embraces hope. One path embraces exclusion, the other embraces the American dream. One path embraces the status quo, the other pragmatism. Democrats and Republicans alike, let us keep hope alive, let us keep the American dream alive, let us keep pragmatism alive and well here in the Senate.

I ask you to join on the path of hope, a courageous path, a path that President Bush, Leader McConnell, and I have chosen, a bipartisan path to legislative hope. That is what this vote of cloture is all about. Voting for cloture on this imperfect bill will make our union a little more perfect.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, the vote has been cast. As I told a number of my Republican friends, even though the vote is disheartening to me in many ways, I think as a result of this legislative work we have done in the last several months on this legislation, there have been friendships developed that were not there before, trust initiated that did not exist before. I say to my friends, Democrats and Republicans, this is a legislative issue. It will come back; it is only a question of when. We are only 6 months into this Congress. We have so much to do.

Hopefully, this lesson we have all learned will be one where we recognize we have to work more closely together. I hope we can do that. I say to all of you, thank you very much for your patience--the phone calls I have made; if I twisted arms, it was not very often. I so appreciate--I think I speak for all of us--being able to be part of this great Senate where we are able to participate in decisions such as this.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we go to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and Senator Robert C. Byrd be recognized to speak for double what everyone else is allowed to speak, 20 minutes.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on the Lute nomination, there be 10 minutes equally divided between Senators Leahy and Specter, or their designees, for debate on judicial nominations; that at the conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar Nos. 85, 105, and 106, in that order; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate return to legislative session.

Madam President, Senator Warner asked earlier today what would happen with the next judge, which is a Virginia judge. It would be my intent--I have to talk to Senator Leahy, and I have a meeting with him this afternoon--that we do that on Monday, the day we get back. We will do the Virginia judge and the remaining district judges. So there will be four votes on the Monday we get back on the district court judges.

That is right. That is what we had left on the calendar.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, H.R. 2316, Lobbying Disclosure; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1, as passed by the Senate on January 18, 2007, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio of 4 to 3, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

I would say to my distinguished colleague--my counterpart, Senator McConnell--that it is my intent not to appoint the conferees until we get back.

Madam President, I don't wish to relegislate the supplemental. I think it was one of the best things that has happened to the country in a long time. We were able to get some things in that bill, such as minimum wage, for the first time in 10 years; disaster relief for farmers, first time in 3 years; the first time we got money over and above what the President wanted for homeland security; we were able to get $6.5 billion for Katrina.

Having said that, the distinguished Republican leader has my assurance this bill will deal with the subject matter that came out of the Senate and out of the House. It will deal with ethics and lobbying reform.

I further say to my friend, and he and I have had long discussions on this bill and I am sure we will continue to have some, this will be a real conference, as we have had for many years--not recently, but this will be a conference where there will be public debate on what we should do and what we should not do.

We will schedule that the week we get back, schedule the conference as soon as we can when we appoint conferees. There has been a request we not appoint them today. I accept that. We will do it when we get back. The minority need not worry. This legislation, when it comes back, will be perfect for the President to sign if, in fact, that is necessary. In some instances, it is not necessary. But it will deal with ethics and lobbying and nothing else.

It is my understanding there is a unanimous consent pending.

Again, we have delay, delay, delay, on an issue of vital importance. What we are asking is to go to conference. We have already acknowledged there will be nothing that will come out of conference other than what is in this bill. For us to do the conference out here on the Senate floor is a little unusual proceeding. All the conference committees I have been involved in have been ones where the conferees decide what should happen, and then they bring that matter back to the respective bodies. Then there is a vote on it.

If my friend from South Carolina doesn't like what comes back, he has every avenue within the rules at his disposal. No one is trying to take advantage of him. I appreciate the work he has done on earmarks. A number of other people have worked on earmarks. It has been a progressive step forward. But it would not say much about my leadership if we negotiated it out here

on the floor of the Senate as to what was going to be in the conference report. That is what the conferees are all about.

Again, we cannot go forward on the 47 different items that are in this ethics and lobbying reform----

All of which are important. Earmarking is important to my friend from South Carolina. Other Senators have other things of importance in this lobbying/ethics reform. We debated this issue. We debated it at some length. We accepted a lot of amendments. A number of amendments were not in the final draft of what went to the House. They have now completed their work. It is time we go to conference and work this out. But we are not going to piecemeal this out here on the Senate floor.

I am happy to.

Madam President, the House, of course, has issues that affect them only. Sometimes they affect what we do. So we can't do this in a vacuum. I have a suggestion. I think it is a valid, constructive suggestion. I would say to my friend from South Carolina, what he should do is see what he can do to get on the conference. That is what I would suggest. I would be happy to have you on the conference. I don't select who the Republicans put on the conference, but that may be an answer to the problem. I would be happy to have you in the conference. I think it would be a good exercise for you to see what goes on inside of a real conference.

Separate and apart from that, I have to simply say, this is, again, a diversion, a distraction from doing the work of this country.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator from Illinois has it down pat. We have worked within the confines of the rules that have been given us. We have passed a bill. They have passed one in the House. Now is the time to see if we can make it into law.

There will be some things that will wind up being a Senate rule. Some things will wind up being a House rule. That is part of what the conference is going to work out. No one is trying to detract from anything that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina wants. But just because you want something doesn't mean you are necessarily going to get it. I just think this is such a bad way to legislate. Here we were within seconds of being able to go to conference. A phone call came in to the cloakroom. I understand that. The Republican leader has an obligation to take care of his Members. But I think this is not a good way to go.

The eyes of the American public are on us.

I am happy to yield.

I appreciate----

For the first time in 131 years, someone was indicted working in the White House. That man has now been convicted and is in prison. The President's appointee to handle Government contracting was led away in handcuffs from his office. He is now in prison. The majority leader of the House of Representatives was convicted three times of ethics violations. He has now resigned in disgrace after having been indicted in Texas.

We have another Congressman, part of the whole Abramoff scandal, who is in prison. Many staff members have pled guilty to crimes, have quit. Some of them are giving State's evidence. The investigations are still ongoing. A couple of days ago, Mr. Griles, second in command at the Interior Department, was sentenced to prison.

It is time that we got real and change this culture. That is what this legislation is all about. It is time that we started doing things for the American people. One of the things we can do is tell the American people that we are distancing ourselves from this culture of corruption.

That is what this legislation is all about. To not allow us to go to conference on some petty issue that my friend has raised is really bad, not good for the American people. This is a bill loaded with good things. We want to do some good things for the American people.

On some procedural suggestion that is not within the confines of common sense and good judgment, we have an objection. That is wrong. All it does is focus more attention on the culture of corruption.

Madam President, I would assure my friend that I have spoken to the Speaker on more than one occasion. We have been trying to get to conference on this for quite some time now. They completed their work. It has been about 3\1/2\ weeks. I believe without any stretch of the imagination, we will finish this conference in a week. It might go 10 days. But it will only be a question of scheduling. The conference will go very quickly. It will be a public conference.

I would say to my friend--I say this respectfully--did you serve in the House before you came here?

I thought so. So you are probably not familiar with conferences because under Republican leadership, they were eliminated. There were no conferences. I have said we will hold public conferences. So even though my friend is probably not familiar with a real conference, we will have one. It will not take all year. It will not take all conference. We will finish it very quickly.

No one suggests that earmarking is trivial. I suggested that your objection to this is trivial. I say that you shouldn't do this. It is wrong. It is only slowing up what you in your heart want. All you are doing is slowing it up. There is no intent on my behalf to eliminate earmark reform. I think most everybody in this body lives by earmark reform. I think it would be very good that rather than some vacuous thing talking about earmarks, we have something here that we can look to that is either a part of a law or a rule. My friend should not worry about this taking a long time. Once we get to conference, it will not take long.

Madam President, we have a vote scheduled. I have just received word from the Appropriations Committee, bipartisan, they need another 10 minutes. So I ask unanimous consent that they have 10 minutes; otherwise, I will just go into a quorum call.

So the vote will take place at 10 after the hour.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, it is my understanding that there are three votes for district court judges, is that true?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes be 10 minutes in duration.

I thank the Chair.