Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want the Record spread with this: I have told a number of my colleagues who have some misgivings about this legislation that there are no tricks being done. We are just trying to move this legislation along as quickly as we can. If anyone has a problem--as my friend just had--if we can do that, we can always change the process. I am happy to do that. So we are now in a period of morning business with the time controlled by Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter.

Mr. President, I am sorry, I was in a briefing with Admiral McConnell. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from Louisiana said that minor changes have been made since he looked at the legislation, which I assume he finished this morning sometime. He wants to take a look and see what changes have been made; is that right?

Mr. President, I object to that.

I would say to my friend, however, that we would be happy to have our staff--they are relatively simple amendments, some with simple word changes--that we would be happy to have our staff, with his staff, show what those changes are. There would be no need to read the whole bill. If you read the whole bill, few changes have been made, and it would be very apparent. So I am sure we can do that, and we can do that with little trouble.

It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the time for morning business has ended.

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

Objection.

Objection.

Objection.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, he can either object or not object.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished Senator from South Carolina thought they had 5 minutes left; is that right?

I would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak, and this would be for debate only. Following the using of 7 minutes, I will take the floor.

Mr. President, I object. I will use my own time in response to him.

So as not to use the time of the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. President, there have been a few changes made, but they are very minor. As I indicated to my friend, this is not a new mega- amendment. This is the same amendment which was laid down last night, and people on both sides have had ample opportunity to read this. As I indicated, we would be happy to talk with him and/or his staff, with individual Senators and/or their staff to indicate where the changes have been made and what the purposes of those were. If that is not sufficient, I don't know how I can be more fair than that.

So I will now turn it over----

No, but I just want to make sure it is still under the same time agreement we had before. We add 30 seconds to the time we had given.

Mr. President, again using my time, I object to this, but let me just say that it wasn't a hard piece of reasoning to come up with to object to this.

The reason we are going through this process here is people--mostly on the other side of the aisle because we on this side are satisfied with the bill the way it was written, but mostly on the other side of the aisle and some Democrats--said, OK, if you are going to do this, we will do that. We are doing this to make people happy, so they have an opportunity to talk about this bill some more. This is a process.

I have really tried to be fair. I have not tried to take advantage of anyone. I have tried to be as candid with people who support the bill as those who oppose the bill, not trying to take advantage of them. The process here in the Senate wasn't invented yesterday; it has been going on for 220 years. I am working my way through the rules, making sure we follow every jot and tittle in these complicated rules, but they are not that complicated. We simply want to work on an issue that is important to the American people--immigration.

I acknowledge, as has my friend, that the system of immigration in our country is broken. We need to try to fix it, and this is our way of trying to fix it. Perfect? No. Good? Yes. The American people deserve our attention to this problem we have in our country. We have people of good will, Democrats and Republicans, who are trying to do this.

We have this occasion, for once in recent memory, where we are working with the President on this side trying to get this done. I have said publicly that I appreciate the President's advocacy on this issue. If we are able to pass this bill, and I hope we can, it will be a shot in the arm for the system, the political system which has been so generous to our country for so many years, and I think people will look and say: You know, those people in Washington who are always yelling and screaming at each other were able to get something done.

The American people know that whatever we come up with here is not going to solve every problem with immigration, but they also know it will solve many of the problems. The No. 1 problem it is going to solve that the American people want solved is border security. This amendment has $4.4 billion which will go directly to that border.

I am, by profession, a trial lawyer, and I know people have the ability to be advocates, as my friend from Louisiana who is speaking-- and I see on the floor today my friend from Alabama, whom I have told publicly and privately that I appreciate his advocacy. But my friend from Alabama is a lawyer, just as I am, and we should do everything we can to present our case. Then, when the case is over, we walk out of this shaking hands, as advocates, as Senators, and as friends. So I have no resentment or ill-will toward anyone who is trying to move this legislation in a way different than I am, but I think the time has come where we have to fish or cut bait, as they say.

I know we still have some speaking time--5 minutes has been allocated.

Mr. President, I modify my amendment with the changes now at the desk.

Mr. President, the amendment is so modified, I understand.

I now ask the amendment be divided as indicated at the desk.

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

Let me say, very briefly----

I don't want it to go unanswered. This bill, as I mentioned earlier today, is different than what we did before--$4.4 billion goes to the border for security. It is totally different than the last bill.

Remember, we are at this point because we only got seven Republican votes in the prior vote. Now we have worked together. I was told there were a lot of people on the Republican side, if they had the opportunity to have more amendments, would vote with us. I am confident that will happen. This has worked out extremely well.

I would say, our work on comprehensive immigration reform has been pretty significant. Due to the man to my right, and Senator Leahy, who is not here, and Senator Kennedy, we have had 36 hearings on immigration since 9/11. That is a lot of hearings. We have had 6 full days of committee action. We have had 59 committee amendments. We have had 21 days of Senate debate since 2006--21 days, not hours. We have had 92 floor amendments. We have worked this thing hard. This is a bill people should fully understand.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there is now a unanimous consent in effect that there will be 10 minutes of debate on the first amendment, is that true, equally divided?

And the Senator from California also 5 minutes?

How much time does the Senator require?

We have no objection.

Mr. President, because of the various activities here on the floor, the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Louisiana did not have an opportunity to speak on this amendment. I would be happy to propound a unanimous consent request that they both be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes each for debate only.

Either object or don't object.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, we are now on division II, which is the amendment offered by Senator Webb, as I understand it.

Mr. President, I would like to have everyone have the opportunity to debate this amendment to their heart's content. What I would like to do is ask that we have an hour of time on this admendment equally divided between the proponents and opponents of this admendment, and the debate, of course, would be on this amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that there be an hour of debate on this amendment. As I have indicated, Mr. President, it would be for debate only on this amendment. And I ask that because it is his amendment Senator Webb, even though he has had an opportunity earlier to speak, would be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes to start this debate of the 1 hour that I have proposed. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to debate this amendment--it will be for debate only--that of the half hour on the majority side, 10 minutes of that be for Senator Webb.

Mr. President, is there an objection to my request?

Mr. President, if the present proposal is inadequate, I would be happy to yield for 1 minute to my friend from Louisiana, and I will get the floor when he completes his statement.

Mr. President, I appreciate the good faith of my friend, but we cannot do that. I cannot do that. I would have to object to that.

I would be happy to give him whatever amount of time he wishes to debate this amendment. Of course, as he knows, it would be for debate only. He could talk about anything he cared to, but it would be for debate only--5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever he feels appropriate, within reason, I would be happy to do that.

Mr. President, I say to everyone here----

As I have said before, I want everyone to have the opportunity to speak. I nor the managers of this legislation are trying to stop people from talking. We have certain rules. They need to be followed, and that is what we are trying to do. So I repeat, I would have no problem with my friend from Louisiana speaking for whatever time he wishes, for debate only, on this amendment. I think that is a reasonable proposal. I would be happy to consider that.

Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. President, does my friend from Louisiana--I thought I heard his voice. Oh, Alabama.

I may have the State wrong, but I had the voice right.

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield for a question to my friend--for not a long question--a couple minutes, if he needs that.

Mr. President, what I would say to my friend--and I know he has a lot to say; he has said a lot of things, and I am anxious to hear more--but we would like to be able to dispose of some of these amendments. I would consider if he would like to talk for an hour now-- and then I would get the floor after he completes his statement--and it would be for debate only. He can divide the time any way he wants. That is my proposal.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, here is what we are going to do. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized to make a motion in relation to the Webb amendment.

Following that, I ask unanimous consent that when the vote is completed, Senator Sessions be recognized to speak in morning business until 2:30. He can allocate that time after the vote is concluded until 2:30 any way he sees fit. So I ask unanimous consent. I think it is clear that the time we are spending in morning business be for debate only.

The final thing: We understand the desire of the Senator from Alabama to be heard. He has, under the terms of the agreement that is already in effect, 2 hours of time. We ask that the time which is going to be used now be counted against the 2 hours he has under the previous order before the Senate.

The only thing I left out is that at 2:30, when Senator Sessions finishes his remarks, that I be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask my friends, would it be permissible that my friend from Virginia be recognized for 1 minute prior to the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Before he makes his motion to table.

Senator Sessions can do whatever he wants in relation to you because it is for debate only, anyway.

It would have to be for debate only, I say to my friend.

Mr. President, we have this matter before us. We are going to do our very best to work through it. To remind everyone about this legislation: This bill was taken up. We spent considerable days on the Senate floor. Prior to doing that, of course, we had a debate last year that encompassed much of what we have talked about this year. In addition to that, though, during the time we pulled the bill from the floor--this bill was pending here--of course, we brought that back with the amendments that had passed.

In addition to that, with the concurrence of the President--because the No. 1 complaint that folks on the other side had initially was there was nothing that was going to take care of the border--$4.4 billion is now in this matter that is now before the Senate, $4.4 billion to strengthen the border. It does do that. Not only do we spend the money, but we spend it well in this bill. There will be 370 miles of fencing that will be paid for--will not be just talked about--300 miles of vehicle barriers that work extremely well, probably better than the fences. It will now be possible to hire 20,000 new Border Patrol agents. The are 105 ground-based radar and camera towers. There will be a facility with detention beds for people who violate these immigration laws. There will be a place to put them.

It toughens employer sanctions by creating a mandatory employer verification system. It doubles criminal and civil penalties against employers who hire unauthorized workers. Employers can be fined up to $5,000 per worker for the first offense, up to $75,000 per worker for subsequent offenses, or they can serve jail time.

Also, as it relates to employer sanctions, it strengthens document integrity by requiring tamper-resistant biometric immigration documents.

And, yes, as the Republican Secretary of Commerce has said, and other administration officials have said, this is not amnesty. In fact, what Secretary Gutierrez has said is that if we do not do something, there is silent amnesty. We are going to move past that.

If someone wants to be on a pathway to legalization, they have a job, they pay taxes, they stay out of trouble, they learn English, they pay penalties and fines. They go to the back of the line, not to the front of the line.

This legislation, very importantly, includes AgJOBS and ends the exploitation of migrant farmworkers and provides them legal status.

The DREAM Act, which a number of individuals worked very hard on--but no one harder than my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin--the DREAM Act is to legalize immigrant children brought by their parents to this country through no fault of their own and to allow them to go to college or join the military.

So this is a nice piece of legislation. It is a step in the right direction. We have had 36 hearings since 9/11, 6 days of committee action, 59 committee amendments, 21 days of Senate debate, 92 Senate floor amendments. We have been pretty thorough with this issue.

Mr. President, I yield to my friend for a question, and I would, of course, regain the floor when he completes his question.

Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. He has been on the Judiciary Committee for decades in the Senate. He has been chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration for decades. He has watched what has gone on. We all recognize what happened in 1986 was not good. It is my understanding the senior Senator from Massachusetts voted against that legislation.

This legislation will correct that. This legislation will put 4.4 billion real dollars--not authorized--in direct funding. We got a signoff from the President to do this. If we did nothing else, zero-- for those people who have concerns about this legislation--if we did nothing else other than do this to secure our border, they should vote for this legislation. But there is much more in it. I have given a brief review of the good things in this legislation. It is a good piece of legislation to correct the problem we have.

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question.

Mr. President, the people who are talking about the negativity of this legislation I do not think understand how good it is. I have talked about the $4.4 billion. But to think about that: $55 billion to go toward making our country safer--not our borders--our country safer, and it is not paid for by the taxpayers. It will be paid for by the people who are seeking to change their status.

I think it is a tremendous improvement, a step forward. I think it is so important that the American people not hear all this ``some of us have not been on the floor talking about this piece of legislation a lot.'' It seems the voices we hear are people who are talking about the process being unfair, that they have not had a right to be heard. Some people complain, ``I thought the Senate was different than this.''

Mr. President, for my friends, some of whom are complaining who served in the House of Representatives, this is a fair process. People in the Senate have a right to speak. We have rules that after so much time, when 60 Senators say you talked enough, debate comes to an end. That is where we are in this matter. We are at a point where tomorrow morning cloture will be invoked on this bill. It would be so important that we do that. It would make our country a better country. We need to do this; otherwise, our borders remain porous, with no end in sight.

Mr. President, what is now before the Senate?

I thank the Chair.

I will be happy to in a minute.

Division III is an amendment offered by the senior Senator from the State of Missouri. If anyone wishes to speak on that, what I would like to do is ask--not like to do; I am going to do--I ask unanimous consent that there be an hour of time, for debate only, on this amendment; that following that time being used--it would be divided equally between the two managers--following that time being used, I would have the right to the floor.

Mr. President, I withdraw my unanimous consent request. I appreciate the suggestion of my friend from Missouri. I think it is a constructive one. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that on the Bond amendment there be 20 minutes equally divided, that this conversation during this 20 minutes be for debate only, that the time be controlled by Senator Specter--I am sure he will give his time to Senator Bond-- and Senator Kennedy on our side; and that following the using up of that 20 minutes, I obtain the floor.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have the floor; is that right?

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my friend for a question.

Mr. President, in response to my friend's question, first of all, at least for the next 18 months, President Bush is our President. His Cabinet officers--two of whom have been heavily involved in this legislation, Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez--have confirmed that this money--anything the President has power over through his administration--this money will go to border security, the things I have outlined earlier this afternoon: fencing, vehicle barriers, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, 105 ground-based radar and camera towers, detention beds--and a lot of detention beds, specifically 31,000.

One of the problems we have had at the border is that as our valiant Border Patrol agents grab these people coming across the border, they have no place

to put them. They will now have 31,500--a pretty good holding facility. It will alleviate many of the problems, many of the complaints that our own Border Patrol agents have.

So in response to my friend from Louisiana, the administration assured all of us this money will be used in a manner to make our border more secure.

Mr. President, does my friend have another question?

Mr. President, we are in the Senate. We have certain procedures and rules. I have tried to make things as family friendly as possible; that is, Senate family friendly. I say to my friend, during the early days of this legislation, amendments were offered by him and others, some of which got votes, some did not. That is the way the Senate operates. We are now in a process to work toward in the morning when we have a cloture vote.

I think the process is very fair. The people who are managing this legislation, directed by Senators Specter and Kennedy--two of the most senior Members of our Senate--have been as fair as possible for our getting where we are. There are amendments in this procedure we are going through by people who have never supported the bill and do not intend to support the bill. The amendments were arrived at in a way to try to improve this bill. Will all amendments improve the bill? I guess that is in the eye of the beholder.

I say to my friend, the procedure has been set here. I am sorry you are concerned about it. I, frankly, though, think we have been very fair. As a result of that, I would ask my friend if he has an objection to Senator Bond's suggestion, that we debate this amendment of his-- that is debate only--for 20 minutes equally divided.

Is this for debate only?

I would have the floor as soon as the minute is up; is that right?

So the record is very clear, Harry Reid, the majority leader, did not pick the Republican amendments. The Republican leadership picked those amendments. Senator McConnell and I worked the process so that we would be back on the floor. It wasn't done by me; it was done by us.

I would further say, these amendments, Republican amendments in this bill, were not picked by me; they were picked by the Republican leadership. I didn't stand over his shoulder. They chose what they decided to do.

So I ask my friend if he has an objection to my request.

Is all time expired?

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, my friends, Senators Vitter and DeMint and Sessions, have asked a number of questions during the day, and they are valid questions, but I feel it is appropriate to respond. The way I will respond now is with a letter I wrote in response to the letter they wrote to me a few days ago. This letter is dated June 25:

Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint:

Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my effort to

bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the

Senate floor.

As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on

the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of

Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated

efforts to call up further amendments to the bill. Following

the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators,

including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference

Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter,

came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration

bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a

large number of additional amendments could become pending to

the bill.

The so-called ``clay pigeon'' procedure is unusual, and I

would not have considered employing it in this instance

without the full support of Senator McConnell. It seems to me

appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome

the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow

the full Senate to debate an important national issue like

immigration. The White House made clear that it also favors

such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of the

President's top priorities.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend

to ``shut off the debate'' and that the procedure in question

will ``silence amendments instead of facilitate their

debate.'' On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate

on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill. In

contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as

few as five amendments during the earlier debate. The

American people can see clearly who wants to debate

immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate.

Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate

amendments which I ``hand select'' is plainly untrue. The

dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to

the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not

by me.

In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter

but consider them misplaced. Senator McConnell and I have

worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and

productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance

that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by

President Bush.

I signed it, Senator Reid.

Mr. President, what is the matter now before this body?

What I would like to do, Mr. President--this is the Dodd amendment--I would like to ask, as I did with the prior amendments that have come up today, I ask unanimous consent for debate only; that we start with 1 hour, equally divided, to debate this amendment, and then following that, I would be recognized to do whatever I felt appropriate.

The Senator from Louisiana is not recognized. I have not given up the floor.

Mr. President, it is my understanding----

It is my understanding the Senator from Louisiana objected; is that true?

Mr. President, I would ask my friend to object, if he cares to, and then I would be happy to enter into a dialog with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, first of all, I would be happy at this time to yield to my friend from Louisiana for 2 minutes for the purpose of a question, and then I, of course, would have the floor following the termination of those 2 minutes.

I could not agree to that, Mr. President, so I would certainly object to that.

Now, we had in the last amendment that was laid down, I thought, a very sensible debate. People were able to offer their opinions as to the merits. In fact, it was a good debate. Senator Bond was advocating his position, and Senator Kennedy and others were advocating against that. My question to the Senate now is, Could we have the same procedure? I have suggested 1 hour equally divided, which would be for debate only, and following that period of time, I would be recognized.

I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that request be back before the Senate at this time.

I am sorry. Oh, there you are. I would be happy to yield for a question from my friend from South Carolina for up to 2 minutes, and then I would get the floor back.

Go ahead.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I wrote, along with Senator DeMint's-- that both appear in the Record, Senator DeMint's first, with mine following that.

Mr. President, I will say that his letter makes our argument. Of course there were more than 60 who voted against proceeding on that legislation. That is precisely why we are back on this legislation, because a significant number of those 60 came to me and Senator McConnell and said that we need to bring this bill back and we need to have amendments heard. So I think the letters speak for themselves.

Finally, let me say this. Would the Senator from Louisiana or South Carolina--I asked for 1 hour--would they agree to 30 minutes equally divided on this amendment, for debate only?

So is there objection?

No, I would not do that.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, my objection to the request comes from the fact that we are here as a result of the Republican leadership coming to me. And I am glad to be here, but we are here because, as everyone will recall in the first go-round, we had seven votes from the minority. We needed more than that. Everyone realized that. And in an effort to do that, we have these amendments which have been brought before this body. It is a fair process.

I just think my friends from South Carolina and Alabama and Louisiana have made their point, and I think we have made our point, also. This is a process which we are trying to move. Why are we trying to move it? Because immigration is in need of fixing.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Arizona wishes to ask me a question, and I will be happy to yield to my friend for a question.

I say to my friend that we have really no alternative. That is the process we are in. So the answer is, I would think there would be a motion to table made if we can't resolve this debate issue.

I would be happy, Mr. President, because of the suggestion of my friend from Arizona, to make a unanimous consent request, so that people better understand this amendment, that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Arizona be recognized for 5 minutes, and then following that, the Senator from Pennsylvania would be recognized for purposes of making a motion.

Is there an objection to the request I made?

The next amendment up is the Kyl amendment. Is that true?

Is that Kyl? I withdraw it.

What is the next amendment pending?

Madam President, we have been moving through these. We have a number more to go. What I have tried to do----

No, I do not. I yield to my friend for a question, if it is short. Does my friend have a question?

No, it does not take consent.

I would direct a question to the Chair. It is my understanding that I have the right to withdraw that amendment.

Madam President, during the time that we were in the well during the last amendment, I was told by my friend from New Jersey that he had a question he wanted to ask me. We want to move on. I certainly will try to get a time agreement on it. We haven't been too successful on that in the past. I would be happy to yield to my friend

from New Jersey for a question if, in fact, he still has one.

I understand the question. I will respond to it right now. He started it, if you read the Record, he asked me if I understand what his amendment does. I do understand what it does.

A brief summary, Madam President. This legislation comes up with a point system. The point system----

Madam President----

I have a right to make a statement. Back to where I was before I was so rudely interrupted.

Madam President, I understand the question. In this legislation which has been worked on, as I have indicated, 36 hearings, 6 days of committee action, 59 committee amendments, 21 days of Senate debate, 92 floor amendments, one of the questions a number of us had and have is: What does it do for family reunification? And no one has spoken out more on that issue than the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

The question he asked me is about the amendment. Now a point system has been set up where the process has been used over these many months coming up with this legislation to give various points to different parts of the immigration process.

Now, what my friend from New Jersey and others feel would be appropriate is that out of a 100-point system, 10 points would be allocated to someone for family reunification. I understand the amendment. There is more to it than that, but that is a synopsis. That is what the amendment does. It recognizes the importance in America of family. It recognizes the importance in immigration of family.

Madam President, I move to table the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, under the order that is before the body, there is time that has been allocated to the distinguished junior Senator from Alabama. I would ask the Chair how much time he has under the order?

Madam President, I had a conversation during the vote with the Senator from Alabama. I ask him at this time, would this be an appropriate time for him to use the 47 minutes or any part thereof?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be allowed to speak, for debate purposes only, for the next 30 minutes, and that following that, I be recognized to obtain the floor.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Alabama has about 27 minutes in the time that has been ordered; is that true?

I am also of the understanding, having spoken to the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, that Senator Sessions is at this time willing to give him part of the time he has been allocated for debate only on this matter.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Yes, Madam President.

It is my understanding that the Senator from Iowa is going to take 10 minutes of the time of the Senator from Alabama for debate, and if we have an opportunity to debate his amendment, of course, he can speak on it.

Madam President, I can handle the issue dealing with the Senator from Iowa because that is simply time the Senator from Alabama is giving him. As to the amendment itself, I know how strongly the Senator from Arizona feels on this amendment. He has explained that to me. He knows what we have been going through trying to get people the opportunity to speak. The only thing I can do now is ask unanimous consent that the time of the Senator from Alabama, which is 10 minutes, be allocated to the Senator from Iowa for debate only, leaving the Senator from Alabama, at a subsequent time, 17 or 18 minutes.

I think that is very fair. I thank the Senator from Alabama.

I propound a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Iowa be recognized for 5 minutes from the time given to the Senator from Alabama and 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona for debate only.

I say to my friend from Iowa, I have been trying all day to allow people to speak to their heart's content. I have had objections. At this time, I have no objection to you speaking for a reasonable period of time and the Senator from Arizona speaking for a reasonable period of time. You can talk about your amendment, and he can talk about why he doesn't like your amendment. Forget about the Senator from Alabama. He reserved his 28 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized for up to 10 minutes for debate only, and following his remarks, I ask that the Senator from Arizona be recognized for up to 10 minutes for debate only and following their remarks, that I be recognized.

Why don't you just yield it back?

For debate only.

Mr. President, I know this is not debatable, I understand that, but we are going to move to table Baucus, Grassley, and Domenici. I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be the standard time; the next two votes be 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Well, first, we have a unanimous consent request.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, as I indicated earlier, I am going to move to table the--oh, we can't do that. We are stuck on this amendment. Why don't we agree to the amendment now and move on to something else?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the distinguished junior Senator from Oklahoma has indicated he wants to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that he be so recognized and that I be recognized following his 10 minutes. I have explained to the Senator from Oklahoma, and he understands, this is for debate only.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know my friend from South Dakota wishes to speak. I have a unanimous consent request I wish to make that will put us into a situation where he can speak. I understand he wants to speak for 5 minutes. This will only take a minute, and then I will be recognized to do some other business we have to do tonight. It is nothing in relation to immigration. No one need worry about that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday June 28; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1639, the immigration bill, with an hour for debate only prior to a cloture vote on S. 1639, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy and Specter or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture; that Members have until 10 a.m. to file any germane second-degree amendments; and that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, wishes to be recognized. Is the Senator going to use the full 10 minutes? He is entitled to it.

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

Mr. President, despite the fact that we are fast approaching the 6-year anniversary since the terrorist attacks of September 11, it is painfully clear that we have a lot of work to do to protect this Nation from further terrorist attacks. The threats are real, they are growing, and when Democrats took control of the Congress at the start of this year, we said we would implement the unanimous recommendation of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. That matter passed this body by a big vote. That is where we said we should implement into law the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Democrats voted for that, and Republicans voted for it. It was one of the first bills we passed at the start of this session of Congress. The House passed its version of the bill on January 9. The Senate passed our bill on March 13. The House bill was 299 to 128; ours was 60 to 38.

As my colleagues know, Democrats and Republicans who serve on the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over this bill have worked tirelessly to resolve the differences on these two bills. I myself have spoken to Chairman Lieberman, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say a dozen times. The American people expect us to finish this work quickly, and that is why we believe we need to take the next procedural step as part of our regular order, which is to appoint conferees to finish these negotiations.

When this bill is signed into law, it will make America more secure. It will improve the screening of maritime cargo so that Americans can be assured we are doing all we can to prevent the smuggling of weapons into this country, including nuclear weapons. It will improve the congressional oversight of intelligence to ensure we are building the best capabilities possible to stop terrorist attacks. It will improve information sharing and communications interoperability among first responders so that they can work swiftly to prevent terrorist attacks. It will ensure that transportation and mass-transit structures are hardened against terrorist attacks.

This legislation wasn't something a couple of Senators dreamed up. It was the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, chaired by Governor Kean and cochaired by Congressman Hamilton, a Republican and a Democrat. This is what we are doing. We are long past when we should have done this. We need to do this.

I make the following request, Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent

that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S.4, as passed by the Senate on March 13, 2007, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 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 the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

I, of course, am very disappointed my Republican colleague has chosen to object to this request on moving forward on the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill. The minority stated yesterday that they had a problem with the bill. We agreed to take that out of the bill. I don't know how much more we can do.

It appears to me there are forces within the Republican Senate that simply don't want this bill enacted. This is really too bad. As my friend--and we have worked together on this Senate floor, my friend, the junior Senator from Mississippi, we have worked on this floor together for many years. When he was the majority leader, we worked together in detail on so many different issues, so this is not directed toward him. But I do say that there have been procedural roadblocks thrown up in front of virtually everything we have tried to do in the Senate this year. I was hoping we could reconsider this obstructionism when it comes to moving legislation that would make America more secure. Every day we wait on this is another day for the terrorists. For example, I talked about cargo screening. Other countries do it, but we don't.

These phantom issues which are blocking this bill do not exist. This is a bill which the managers, Senator Lieberman and others, have worked out. We could go to conference and do this bill in one-half hour, an hour. And this is a real conference where conferees would sit down, there would be open debate, public debate, there is nothing to jam this through. This is the way we should do things.

The 9/11 victims' families have organizations, and these family representatives are calling for all parties to move this forward, and we are listening to them. This bill needs to pass. We are willing to be flexible. We have shown that. I would hope my Republican colleagues and the administration will demonstrate what they do not like about this bill, and what they do not like about it, tell us. This bill is important. It is important for me and my family, every Senator here and their families, everybody in this country, and every day we don't do something is a day lost.

I can assure my Republican colleague that Senator Lieberman, our lead conferee, as well as the rest of our conferees will continue to work in a bipartisan manner, as they have to date. So I am very disappointed the Republicans are still objecting to moving the process forward on this bill. I say to my colleagues and to all Americans that I will be back on the floor again and again until our Republican friends allow us to move forward.

I do say, Mr. President, that it is a real shame we can't get this done before the Fourth of July recess. I am not exaggerating when I say this bill needs to be done. I think, without going into any confidential information, this bill should pass. We should do it as soon as we can. I urge my friend to speak to whomever needs to be spoken to on the other side to reconsider their objection.

Tomorrow, let us move this bill. It is Thursday. We could complete this before we go home, and it would be a day of celebration for all America that we are implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that I would like to make, and I will do that right now.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 189, H.R. 1585, the Department of Defense Authorization Act, on Monday, July 9, following the period of morning business.

Mr. President, I would say this: The labor provisions about which the distinguished Senator talked, we have agreed to take care of those. Everybody knows that. Maybe my friend doesn't, but we certainly have conveyed this to the minority in great detail. I would simply say, if it is not this, then what is it? We have agreed to handle the labor situation in this bill. The Speaker and I have agreed, and I don't know what other assurance anyone could give.

This is really stunning to me, that on the Defense authorization bill I am

going to have to file cloture--Defense authorization bill--a motion to proceed to it. We have already filed--I don't know the exact number, I lose track of it, but 12 to 14 motions, clotures on motions to proceed, far more than were done in the last Congress just in this little period of time we have been here. Why? Because everything we move to, there is an objection.

Keep in mind what this is. It is the Defense authorization bill, a bill we have to pass to take care of our troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Korea, in Germany, and troops here at home. It is for training. It has a pay raise in it. It is a good piece of legislation worked on by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. It is a bipartisan bill, and I just think everyone who is listening to these proceedings, wherever they might be, should understand the Republicans are objecting to going to the bill to fund our troops.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 189, H.R. 1585, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion to proceed and ask the mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion required under rule XXII be waived.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. 1701.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record with no intervening action or debate.

I compliment Senators Baucus and Grassley for getting this done. We were running out of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 259, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate request the return of papers on the bill S. 1612 from the House of Representatives. I further ask consent that upon compliance with this request, the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make corrections in the engrossment of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned following the remarks, for 28 minutes or thereabouts, or however much time the distinguished Senator from Alabama has left under the order before this body. When he finishes, we would adjourn.

I would say through the Chair, the time is equally divided between Senator Kennedy and Senator Specter. Whatever time the Senator would request, I am sure one of those Senators might yield him time.

As I understand it, it is automatic, an hour before cloture.

I think the Senator raises a valid point there. It is for the proponents of the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent out of Senator Specter's time and Senator Kennedy's time, you have 10 minutes. How is that?

Mr. President, if we wait, we are going to check to see if time has been allocated yet.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what I had requested is that the Senator from Alabama would be recognized for 10 minutes; five minutes would come from the time of Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes from that of Senator Specter, and I would further say the last 20 minutes of the debate wouldn't count against any of this time. The first 10 minutes would be for Senator McConnell, if he so chooses and, if I so choose, I would have the last 10 minutes, right before the vote. That is additional time. That doesn't count against the time we have allocated here earlier.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

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