Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1537, introduced earlier today.

Madam President, I have to say this: The night before last at 9 o'clock at night, I got a call from the White House. They were upset because of this Christmas ornament issue on the emergency supplemental; it is so bad--Christmas tree ornaments in the emergency supplemental.

I said: Do you know what it is about? It is about the Senate Day Care Center.

They have sold Christmas tree ornaments every year to defray the cost for Senate employees for childcare. It doesn't cost the Government anything, but some lawyer said they didn't have the legal authority to do that, and we put language in the emergency supplemental to allow the Senate Day Care to sell Christmas tree ornaments.

They said: If you put it in there, the President is going to veto the bill. So we took it out.

Can you imagine that? It is hard for me to comprehend, in a budget involving $120 billion, the President threatens to veto it over Christmas tree ornaments, something that costs the Government nothing and helps our very valued Senate employees take care of their kids.

Anyway, I couldn't pass that up.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the bill be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate. And we got it done anyway.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2:30 Monday, June 4; that on that day, 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 reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and that the time be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that upon conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1348, the immigration legislation.

Madam President, I know everyone wants to leave, but I have to say this. As a younger man, I had a few fights in the ring. They were very minor compared to real fights in the ring with good fighters, but I had some. Today, I had the pleasure of visiting with a Las Vegas resident, Floyd Mayweather, who just beat Oscar De La Hoya in a split decision--a very big fight in Las Vegas. He is a Las Vegas resident, as I mentioned, and I wanted the record to reflect how gracious this man was to everyone who came up to him in the Senate. He signed autographs, he allowed a lot of pictures to be taken. He was just so nice and such a humble man.

When the books are written about great fighters, he will have to be near the top of the list, if not at the top. He has been deemed to be the greatest pound-per-pound fighter in the history of America, comparable to Sugar Ray Robinson.

It is nice that someone who is so famous would remember his roots and have the humility that he does to treat me, someone whom he came to see, no better than he treated all the people that he visited. So Nevada is fortunate that he considers Las Vegas his home.

Madam President, if there is no further business today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 158, recognizing that there will be no rollcall votes on the first day we get back, Monday, June 4, 2007.

Mr. President, the Senate will conduct a period of morning business for the next hour, with Republicans controlling the first half. Following that, we will resume consideration of the immigration legislation.

Mr. President, I walked by the President's Room today and said hello to a bunch of Senators in there. They were in there working on the immigration bill, Democrats and Republicans. We don't see enough of that. It was really, for me, a good scene. They were in there and had stacks of papers. They are trying to figure out a way to get through the immigration bill.

We all acknowledge that the immigration system in our country is broken and needs to be fixed. I am not foolish enough to think we are going to make it perfect with this bill, if we can get it out of the Senate. We need to try. We have an obligation to try. That is what is happening on a bipartisan basis.

I want Senators to keep working and see what we can do. There are certain issues, they have told me, they think will give Democrats heartburn and other issues that will give Republicans heartburn. Therefore, they are trying to get an agreement on some amendments, to have a 60-vote margin. That is the way it should be. We should not be in a posture where somebody is filibustering something they don't like. I hope people will be reasonable and continue to work as they have.

I spoke to the distinguished Republican leader late last night, and we talked briefly this morning. We are looking forward to, when the House finishes the emergency supplemental, moving to that as soon as we can. It is an important issue. We have struggled on this now for months. Emotions are high. I think it is time to move on and see what we can do to fund the troops in an appropriate way. So we will keep Members informed. I have told the distinguished Republican leader that I will keep him informed on any word I get from the House.

I have gotten calls, and people are upset that some of their things are not in this piece of legislation. It is very difficult--the President's Chief of Staff, in the first meeting Senator McConnell and I had with Josh Bolten, said: On this issue, I speak for the President. He said: If I don't have authority to speak for the President, I will go back to the President. When he called me, as he has on a number of occasions, and said: I am telling you that if this provision is in the bill, the President is going to veto it, we worked through some of these. We had to take certain things out of the bill. It wasn't a pleasure to do that because Members are affected on both sides. We had some issues that only affected the Senate. The President was unhappy with that. I wish he would let us do what we wanted to do, but we are in a position where that cannot be done.

I hope the bill is in a position where we can fund the troops without a lot of animosity at this stage. People can make whatever statement they want regarding the war, and I am sure that will happen. I think we need to get to this as quickly as we can.

Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill, H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment.

Mr. President, more than 4 years ago, the Bush administration took this Nation to war in Iraq--took this Nation to war in Iraq without sufficient troops, without a plan to win the peace, and without truth regarding Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction or his nonexistent links to al-Qaida.

Nearly 51 months later--6 months longer than it took this Nation to defeat Germany and Japan in World War II--the violence in Iraq continues and the cost to our military and our Nation has been frightening. More than 3,400 American troops have made the ultimate sacrifice--death. Nine were killed yesterday and two more today in this escalating violence across Iraq in which we are losing our brave men and women. Guard and Reserve units all across America lack equipment to do their jobs at home and in Iraq. U.S. citizens have provided nearly half a trillion dollars to cover the cost of this intractable civil war. And because of this war, our Nation has been totally distracted in its effort to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11. Indeed, more than 5 years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still free, and al-Qaida remains an important force.

Throughout all this, our military has performed heroically. Our troops have done everything asked of them and even more. Our troops toppled a dictator and gave the Iraqis a chance to establish a new government and a new way of life. Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not provide them a strategy to match that sacrifice. Iraq is now in a state of civil war, with no end in sight, and our valiant troops are caught in the middle.

Instead of accepting this reality, President Bush has stubbornly refused to change course. Instead of listening to his military commanders who say there is no military solution in Iraq, he has plunged our forces further into sectarian fighting. Instead of accepting a bipartisan path in Iraq offered by Congress and even the Iraq Study Group, this President stubbornly clings to his failed ``my way or the highway'' approach to governing America.

MG John Batiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq, says this about the President's failed Iraq policy:

Here is the bottom line: Americans must come to grips with

the fact that our military alone cannot establish a

democracy. We cannot sustain the current operational tempo

without seriously damaging the Army and Marine Corps. Our

troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-

conceived mission.

Earlier this year, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said: The problems in Iraq are more complex than Vietnam, and military victory is no longer possible. Henry Kissinger said--and I repeat--the problems in Iraq are more complex than Vietnam, and military victory is no longer possible.

GEN George Casey, former Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, and currently Chief of Staff of the Army, said:

It has always been my view that a heavy and sustained

military presence was not going to solve the problem in Iraq.

That was General Casey. Six months ago, the Iraq Study Group said the situation in Iraq was grave and deteriorating. The civil war in Iraq has only gotten more pronounced since then. Unfortunately, the President's escalation strategy has not produced the positive results we seek. Attacks on U.S. forces have increased, not decreased. Since the onset of this latest surge, more than three U.S. soldiers have been killed every day. Nearly 90 soldiers have been killed this month so far, and almost 400 since the escalation plan began. Sectarian killings have increased to presurge levels.

According to today's Washington Post newspaper, over 300 unidentified corpses, most dumped in streets and alleys and water sewer systems, showing signs of torture and execution, were found all across the capital of Iraq in the month of May. And the month of May is not over.

Four million Iraqis, including 1.6 million children, have fled their homes because of the violence, setting the stage for a massive humanitarian crisis.

Our military has been pushed to the breaking point. To make up for the shortages of combat-ready forces, tours of duty have now been extended from 12 to 15 months, with many soldiers now in their third and fourth tours.

Mr. President, I spoke just last week to one Nevada family whose son was killed in action last week. We all remember there were three hostages, prisoners of war. I called the father, and he said: I pray that my boy is one of the three. There were four that were unidentified. Well, his prayers were not answered. His son was the one incinerated in the humvee, and they had to wait until they took DNA to find out it was his son.

This soldier had survived four vehicle explosions during his four tours of duty. That is too much to ask of any soldier or his family. Perhaps, not surprisingly after all, this soldier expressed reservations about the war in Iraq, is what he told his best friend before he left for the fourth time. His grandfather said:

It is a waste of young lives. We should not be in the

middle of a civil war.

Meanwhile, our capacity to respond to other challenges around the world has been greatly constrained. Terror attacks across the world are up, not down. U.S. influence and standing is down, not up. By focusing on Iraq and doing little or nothing in the rest of the Middle East, this critical region has been destabilized even further and stands even closer to a broader regional war.

The American people saw all this unfolding last November and they reached a conclusion that enough was enough. That is why they sent this President and Congress a clear and unmistakable challenge and a direct message: Find a responsible end to this war.

That is what congressional Democrats have done. From the very first day of this democratically controlled Congress, we have made it clear to the President that the days of blank checks and green lights for his failed policy are over. After 6 years of rubberstamping President Bush's failed policy, Congress has reasserted its rightful position in our constitutional form of Government.

Democrats have held more hearings on Iraq in 4 months than the Republican-controlled Congress held in 4 years. We have repeatedly forced our Republican colleagues in the Senate and in the House to debate and vote on where people stand with respect to the President's failed Iraq policy. With each step we have taken, the pressure on the President and his Republican allies to change course has grown.

The most important step we have taken occurred last month. In the face of heavy White House pressure and more misleading statements by administration officials, Congress was able to pass a bill that did what the American people asked us to do: No. 1, fully fund our troops and, No. 2, immediately change the direction of the war in Iraq.

In addition, the bill provides much needed funds to procure additional equipment for our Guard and Reserve and to provide health care services for active-duty troops and America's heroic veterans.

As the Senate Democratic leader, I am very proud of Senate Democrats. In less than 4 months of Democratic control, with virtual Democratic unanimity, Congress sent the President binding language that would truly compel him to do what the American people desire. Unfortunately, though, the President vetoed that important legislation, leaving him further isolated from the American people, military experts, and an increasing number of his own political party.

In the days since that veto, we have had negotiations with the administration about how to proceed. The President made it very clear as late as last night that he intended to veto any effort to implement timelines, transition the mission, or ensure the readiness of our troops before they are deployed. Furthermore, here in the Senate our minority colleagues made it clear they are determined to place procedural hurdles, most notably requiring 60 votes rather than a simple majority, in front of those who seek to significantly alter the President's Iraq policy. Democratic unanimity with a handful of Republicans will not be sufficient to do what we believe must be done. Until more Republicans develop the courage to step forward and insist that the President change course in Iraq, Republican intransigence has left us with no good options.

How to vote on this bill before us is a very difficult and personal decision for each Member of this Senate. There are many thoughtful members of my caucus who believe we should vote no, and continue to vote no until the President and his supporters come to their senses. There are equally thoughtful members who believe we must vote yes because this bill does take a step forward in holding the President and the Iraqis accountable and it does increase pressure on this administration and its supporters to change direction in Iraq.

Although this is a very close call for me, as I suspect it is for many Senators, I have decided to support this measure. But let me say, I know those who oppose this bill care as deeply about the safety of our troops as I do. They know I care as deeply about changing the course in Iraq as they do.

This bill before us clearly does not go as far as a bipartisan majority of Congress would like. But it goes a lot further than the President and his supporters were willing to go earlier this month. That is why we saw this headline in a recent edition of the Los Angeles Times. Here is what it said: ``Senate Tilting On Iraq Policies; Republicans Show Their Strongest Willingness Yet To Rein In Bush.''

Here is what the bill requires of the administration and Iraqis, the one before us tonight: It establishes 18 benchmarks on which to measure the Iraqi Government's performance; restricts the use of foreign aid to the Iraqi Government should they fail to make meaningful progress; requires the President to certify that the Iraqi Government deserves these funds even if they fail to perform as promised; requires the administration to testify before Congress and an independent assessment by the Government Accountability Office on the performance of the Iraqi Government; requires the President submit a report on the combat proficiency of Iraqi security forces; requires the President to redeploy our troops if the Iraqi Government concludes our presence is no longer desired; restricts use of Defense Department funding until Congress receives information about contractors in Iraq; and states official U.S. policy precludes permanent military bases in Iraq, no torture of detainees, and no designs on Iraqi oil.

When the President signs the bill, that will be the law. Some of this language is taken from an amendment offered by Senator John Warner last week. Senator Warner offered his amendment as an alternative to the Feingold-Reid amendment that would have immediately transitioned the mission in Iraq and required a phased redeployment by April 2008. Naturally I said the Feingold-Reid language was far superior to the Warner language. However, today we don't have the option of choosing between Feingold-Reid and Warner. I wish we did. Although the Warner language is weak by comparison to Feingold-Reid, and I so stated on the Senate floor last week, I believe we can begin holding the administration accountable if we adopt the Warner language plus the other Iraq-related provisions contained in this bill, which I have outlined.

I know none of these measures comes close to the timelines and accountability provisions I supported in the vetoed bill. However, I also know these provisions will force the administration to do more than they have ever done before. I also know the stakes are too high and our obligation to the troops and the country is too great for us to stop working to force the President and his supporters to change course. The burden for securing and governing Iraq must now rest with the Iraqi people.

As General Abizaid said:

It is easy for Iraqis to reply upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

GEN Doug Lute, recently nominated by President Bush to be his war czar, said:

We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence

on the coalition, you simply have to back off and let the

Iraqis step forward.

As long as I am Democratic leader and this President persists in pursuing the worst foreign policy blunder in this Nation's history, the American people should know I am determined to fight for change in Iraq. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill earlier today. We will move to it in our next work period, which starts in about 10 days. This battle for responsible and effective Iraq policy will be joined in the Senate no later than when we take up that bill. Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change our course in this war until either enough Republicans join us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new President.

In 1941, in an address at Harrow School, Winston Churchill said:

Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never. . . .

My colleagues here in the Senate, particularly my Republican colleagues, should know this is precisely my attitude when it comes to bringing about a change in course in the intractable civil war in Iraq. Although I didn't get everything I sought in the bill before us, and that is an understatement, I will not give up until the supporters of the President's failed policy accept the realities on the ground in Iraq, until they accept that the President's plan is not working, that this war must come to an end, and that it is time for our troops to come home in a safe and responsible way.

Paraphrasing the words of Winston Churchill, when it comes to forcing the President to change course in Iraq, Senate Democrats will never give in, never give in, never, never, never.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this morning, following any time used by the leaders, there will be a 60-minute period of morning business. The majority will control the first half hour and the Republicans will control the second half hour.

Following this period of morning business, we will resume consideration of the immigration legislation. The next amendment to be offered this morning will come from the Republican side. Yesterday, I announced that the next Democratic amendment will be that of Senator Bingaman relating to the guest worker program.

Members can expect votes throughout the session today on the immigration bill.

Also, I had a meeting with Senator Kennedy this morning. He indicated he would like to work into the evening on amendments. So Senators should plan to be here until at least 8 o'clock tonight with votes.

We are making progress on the supplemental. It is not done yet, but we are very close.

Mr. President, I cannot let the day go by without at least acknowledging a conversation I had yesterday afternoon with the father of another fallen soldier from Nevada. We lost two in 1 week. His boy just turned 19. I talked to his dad who was very sad.

I listened to the news this morning, and nine American soldiers were killed yesterday in Iraq. So we are going to continue doing what we can to have the President change course in Iraq. The present course is not working. We need a plan to bring our soldiers home.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a resolution honoring the life of Rachel Carson, a scientist, writer, and pioneer in the environmental movement, on the occasion of the centennial of her birth, which was introduced early today by Senators Cardin, Specter, and others; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements thereon be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I appreciate the obligation my friend from Minnesota has. But I am going to continue offering this unanimous consent request. To think that we would not honor Rachel Carson on the anniversary of her 100th birthday--a woman who did as much for the environmental movement in this country as any human being who has ever existed.

Somebody has objected to this? I have heard the reason for the objection is she relied on flawed science to come to her conclusions. I do not know anything about flawed science, but I do know this woman turned the minds of young people to the environment, turned the minds of the academic world to the environment. As a result of her work--as a result of her work--we became conscious of our need to make sure we do things to protect the environment.

So, Mr. President, I am going to continue to move on this. I will tell you, I feel strongly about this, as do Senators--both Democrats and Republicans--that we will have a couple more objections, and then I am going to have a vote to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to this piece of legislation.

I think it is too bad, first, that the person who objected to this would not have the--I should not say courage, but that person who objects to this should come and do it on their own behalf, not have some other Senator object.

Rachel Carson was a scientist, a writer, and a pioneer in the environmental movement to make this world a better place. This is a simple resolution. It does not cost a penny. All it does is give recognition to someone who certainly deserves that. So I am terribly disappointed that there is an objection to this, but we will do it again at another time.

Yucca Mountain

Mr. President, for 25 years, there has been an effort made to do something that is degrading to the environment and that would jeopardize the health and safety of millions of Americans. It is a project to bury nuclear waste in the deserts of Nevada.

Originally, when this project started, there was a program that would have had three sites that would be selected for places to characterize; that is, to prepare them for the taking of nuclear waste. One was in Washington, one was in Nevada, and one was in Texas. There was a time that came in the 1980s where, because of political maneuvering, Washington and Texas were eliminated, and they thought because Nevada was a place that set off atomic bombs and did other things, it was a big desert wasteland and it didn't matter. But it has mattered. The DOE has done a terribly bad job. They have botched what has taken place out there. The scientific community basically recognizes now it is a very bad idea to try to bury nuclear waste in Nevada.

One reason for that is not only is the science bad, but since 9/11, think of trying to haul 70,000 tons of the most dangerous substance known to man across our highways, our railways, past schools, homes, and businesses. This would be a field day for terrorists. Seventy thousand tons of the most dangerous substance known to man--plutonium-- hauled from more than 100 nuclear generating facilities across this country, some more than 3,000 miles to Nevada. It hasn't happened and it will never happen. It will never happen.

So I rise today because some of my colleagues have introduced legislation to salvage this dying project, a project that threatens the health and safety of Americans everywhere. The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump is not a solution for our nuclear waste problems. The science behind Yucca is corrupted with politics, and it doesn't take into consideration the problem with the transportation of this poison.

The administration and the sponsors of this bill know that Yucca is a flawed and dangerous project and that it cannot move forward without passing legislation designed to circumvent existing laws. Many of the laws are environmental laws. If Yucca was truly scientifically sound and safe, this administration would not need to gut laws that protect our environment, public health, transportation, and security. This legislation exempts the Department of Energy from longstanding Federal laws designed to make Americans safer. This is unacceptable to the Senate. It is unacceptable to our country. It is unacceptable to the Senate.

Senator Ensign and I have worked together on this project for many years. That is why we introduced the Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act earlier this year. Under our proposal, the Department of Energy will take ownership of nuclear waste and store it safely at nuclear power plants where it is produced, as is happening as we speak. Calvert Hills, a short distance from here, is a nuclear generating facility, and they store nuclear waste as Senator Ensign and I say they should store it.

So I challenge all my colleagues who have concerns about this to sit down with Senator Ensign or with me or with both of us, as many have already done, to begin discussing a scientifically sound solution to our nuclear waste problems. Let's take the focus away from this dead- end project and find real solutions for our energy future.

Madam President, as you just announced, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business for 1 hour. Following morning business, we will resume consideration of the immigration legislation. Senator Sessions, under a previous order entered, is to be recognized for 2 hours. He will speak until 12:30 p.m. Today, the regular party conferences will be held beginning at 12:30 p.m., so Senator Sessions will complete his remarks after 2:15 p.m.

It is my understanding that the first amendment that has been agreed to be laid down will be by Senator Dorgan. I don't know if there is a consent agreement to that effect. Is there one, Madam President?

I think this has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the first amendment be offered by Senator Dorgan, after the remarks of Senator Sessions.

Madam President, if there is any problem with this procedure, the two managers can ask unanimous consent, and we will all agree to change it. But I think that is the agreement which has been made. If it has not, we can start over. That is the general agreement. What we plan to do during consideration of the legislation is to alternate back and forth--Democrat and Republican, Democrat and Republican. That is what we did the last time.

The only thing I will announce--I told both managers and I think Senator McConnell agrees with this, and if not, it is something we need to do for an orderly process here--is that we do an amendment at a time. The last time on this bill, we wound up with 30, 40 amendments pending. I am saying we are not going to do that this time. We are going to do one amendment at a time, unless there is something extraordinary to come along to change that procedure.

We have a long amendment list. The substitute amendment was laid down last night. It is now available to all Members.

Tonight, I should announce, as has been announced in the past, there is going to be a dinner in the Botanic Garden to honor the spouses of the Senate. I hope all Members will attend this event.

Mr. President, we want to have a full and complete debate on this bill. But my experience has been that if we do not follow having one amendment--if the managers do not like it, they can move to table it, or there are a lot of things you can do. But where we run into trouble is where you stack up a bunch of amendments that are pending because that is when the managers lose control of the bill. The people who have offered all the amendments control what goes on with the legislation.

So unless something untoward happens, I think we are so much better off having people offer amendments. If they are dilatory, the managers can move to table. If that does not work, then we can try something else. But for the foreseeable future, why don't we try to move through this one at a time.

I think the debate today has been excellent. There have been no surprises to what Senator Dorgan was going to do. I thought what would be the right thing to do is have--we have had a Democratic amendment. If the Republicans want to offer an amendment, let them offer the next one, and go back and forth. The next Democratic amendment, as far as I understand it, is the Bingaman amendment; is that right?

My only point is----

Even tonight--there is an event for the spouses--if people want to stay and work, that is fine, they can do that, too. There are no time limits on how late we can work. I want people to feel they can work as late as they want. And we can have some late votes. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Today, following any time that will be used by the leaders, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1348, the immigration bill.

When the Senate resumes the motion, Senator Sessions will be recognized for up to 3 hours. Following that time, the remaining time will be divided between the two leaders.

A cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bill will occur at 5:30 today.

If cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed, by a previous order, the Senate would then adopt the motion and proceed to the bill.

As we know, all those who negotiated on this worked very hard over the weekend. I appreciate their work. The provisions of that agreement will be the form of a substitute agreement, which I understand will be laid down this evening.

Mr. President, over the weekend, 7 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq--in 2 days--bringing the total this month to over 70 and the total since the war started to 3,422 American soldiers.

On Friday, the State of Nevada lost PFC Alejandro Varela, a 19-year- old from Fernley, NV. As he traveled south from Baghdad, his vehicle was hit by a makeshift bomb, and he was killed.

Alejandro was known in high school and by his family as Alex. Serving in the military was his ambition, and he worked very hard to earn his GED so he could arrive at the goal of being able to join the military.

For lack of a better description, my heart and the hearts of Nevadans and all Americans ache with the loss of this 19-year-old man. Yet we have to be proud of his willingness to serve and his courage and we are certainly humbled by the sacrifice he made in giving his life.

emergency supplemental

Mr. President, this week the Senate will continue the conference on the emergency supplemental bill. Negotiations have not been easy as President Bush continues to stand isolated to his commitment to this endless war. We will continue to negotiate in good faith and in the spirit of bipartisanship. We will send the President a bill that fully funds our troops. We stand firm in our commitment to change course and bring the war to a responsible end.

immigration reform

While the supplemental conference committee continues to meet, we will begin addressing the complex, crucial issue of immigration reform, and we will do that today. We all agree the current system is broken.

Employers don't know whom they can hire and whom they can fire. Produce is dying on the vine because farmers cannot find enough workers to harvest crops. There are no winners under the current system, only losers.

The Senate will have an opportunity this afternoon to vote on whether to begin debate on comprehensive immigration reform.

The bill we debate and eventually pass will give us the chance to strengthen border security, put in place an effective and efficient employer verification system, design a

new worker program to take pressure off the borders, and give the 12 million undocumented immigrants the opportunity to come out of the shadows and into the light of America. Improving border security is only part of the puzzle. As long as the identities of those who cross the border are unknown, our national security is at risk.

There is no question but that we need more Border Patrol agents with better technology and equipment. But there is also no question that enforcement alone cannot solve the problems of immigration.

We have tripled the number of Border Patrol agents over the last 20 years and increased the Border Patrol budget 10 times over. Yet the probability of catching someone illegally crossing the border has fallen from one-third to only 5 percent. That is a startling figure.

A population as high as that of Las Vegas crosses the border every year. That is almost a million people who find their way into the country, despite our best efforts at enforcement. Fences alone would not stop them. Years of dangerous border crossings show us that millions will risk their lives for the opportunity to reach what is on the other side of that border.

We must not forget that just as these immigrants depend on America for opportunity, our economy depends on them as well. The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants have lived here for years, contributing to our economy lawfully and honestly, causing harm to no one.

Many have children and spouses who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Many own property and contribute to their communities. Yet, unlike us, they live their lives in hiding. If they are a victim of a crime, they cannot report it. They cannot do that because they have to avoid contact with the police. If they are treated unfairly in the workplace, they have almost no recourse. If they are discovered, they face deportation and separation from their families. Their families, as we have indicated, are, many times, U.S. citizens.

We should not allow them to jump to the front of the line for a green card, in front of those who have played by the rules, but we should give them a place in line--a chance for citizenship--if they do what we ask of them. We could continue to track down the undocumented housekeepers, dishwashers, and farm laborers who live among us or we can provide them the chance to earn their citizenship with all the responsibilities it requires and refocus our limited resources on those who would do us harm, rather than those who would do us proud. We could embrace the unrealistic rhetoric calling for mass deportation, or we could pass laws that require them to pay taxes and learn English. If we put rhetoric aside, we have the opportunity to pass a law that treats people fairly and strengthens our economy.

Over the past several weeks, a group of Senators has spent countless hours and days negotiating in good faith and in the spirit of compromise.

Last week, Democrats and Republicans, standing with the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Commerce, announced they had finally reached an agreement on immigration reform. The bill they have drafted will be offered as a substitute amendment this evening for us to debate and amend this week.

I am grateful to my colleagues for their hard work. Reaching agreement on an issue as controversial as immigration requires extraordinarily hard work, compromise, and consensus building. They have taken that important first step.

I was not heavily involved in the negotiations, but similar to some of my colleagues, I have reservations about the agreement that was reached. The bill impacts families in a number of ways that I believe are unwise. The bill also allows 400,000 low-skilled workers to come to America for three 2-year terms but requires them to go home for a year in between. This is impractical both for the worker and for the American employers who need a stable, reliable workforce.

Senator Bingaman will offer an amendment almost immediately when the bill is laid down to reduce that number to at least 200,000.

We must not create a law that guarantees a permanent underclass-- people who are here to work in low-wage, low-skill jobs but don't have the chance to put down roots or benefit from the opportunities that American citizenship affords.

Allowing these temporary workers to apply for possible citizenship through a new points system is not good enough. There must be certain opportunities for those who are willing to work hard and contribute to our economy.

Finally, I will say a word about the idea of this so-called touchback, which would require the head of each household eligible for legalization to return to their home country to file their application for a green card.

I understand this concept is important to many of my colleagues, but it seems to be a plan that will cause needless hardship for immigrants and needless bureaucracy for the Government.

Nearly everyone agrees that the existing bill is imperfect. The problems I have outlined will be addressed in the Senate and in the House and, of course, in conference. What we have now, though, is a starting point.

I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture so we can begin an open debate. The bipartisan legislation before us is not perfect, but I think we can agree the spirit of bipartisanship behind it is encouraging.

If we continue along that road in the coming days, I am confident we can write another chapter in America's great immigration story that makes our county safer, treats people with dignity, and keeps our economy moving in the right direction.

Mr. President, for all Senators, I have had a number of conversations with the distinguished Republican leader. I think it would be in the best interests of the Senate--I am confident that Senator McConnell agrees because it was his suggestion--that we not try to finish this bill this week.

I think we could, but I am afraid that conclusion wouldn't be anything that anyone wanted. There simply is not enough time on this massive, massively important piece of legislation to do it all on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

So, reluctantly; I kind of guard this schedule like my best friend, I think I am going to have to give my best friend 1 less week to do other things. When we come back the week after the Memorial Day break, we will spend that on immigration. I think the country deserves it. I think the Senate deserves it. We can come up with a better piece of legislation in that period of time.

I do appreciate the suggestion of my distinguished Republican counterpart. Also, Mr. President, as I have said, this is an imperfect piece of legislation. But what in the world would anyone expect? This is a tremendously important piece of legislation. The immigration system in our country is broken. It needs fixing. We have an obligation to fix it, as hard as it is, because it is required that we take positions on issues we would rather not.

So I would hope, during the next couple of weeks as we are working on this matter, that people will legislate in a bipartisan manner. No one is trying to get an advantage over anyone else with this piece of legislation. We have blame for both Democrats and Republicans.

But whatever we do in the Senate is not the last word. After we complete the legislation, the House will have to do something on that. They will come up with what they feel is the best way to handle immigration. We will then go to conference.

During these entire three steps, we will be working with the White House to try to come up with something to fix a broken system. Now, are we going fix it perfectly? Probably not. But it is something that is badly in need of fixing. We are going to make it much better at the end of the process than it is now.

I yield the floor

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