Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 504 submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4311, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 8. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, the death tax relief bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, we have had a full day debating the motions to proceed to the death tax relief bill and the Native Hawaiian bill. Tomorrow morning, at approximately 10:45, we will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the death tax relief bill, and at 12:45 we will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Native Hawaiian bill. We have several nominations to address before the end of the week. These include several judicial nominations, as well as Susan Schwab to be United States Trade Representative, and Richard Stickler to be the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. We hope to vote tomorrow afternoon on the Schwab nomination and four district judges.

Following these votes, the schedule for the remainder of the afternoon will be dependent on the outcome of the cloture votes on the motions to proceed to the death tax relief bill and the Native Hawaiian bill. Moments ago, cloture was filed on the Stickler nomination. Therefore, Senators can expect to have a cloture vote on Friday unless we work out an agreement to vote at an earlier time.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Brownback. He is such a champion on this issue and has raised so many important matters for us to think about. I believe the debate we are having is a very important debate. I remember the hearings we had in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator had several--I believe he had one in the Commerce Committee maybe, and I had one in the Judiciary Committee on marriage.

One of the things we found was that almost every category of individual character and wellness was better if you were married. That is just the way it was. You had a longer lifespan, you ended up with more wealth, you had better health, you were happier, and there was less drug use, less criminality, and less suicide. All of those things are so taken for granted in the committed, historic marriage relationship.

I believe this issue is an important one that is before us. I want to share a few thoughts on the matter that deals with certain issues that are important to me, which I think are important. We are not here, let me say, first of all, because of some band of Christian conservatives. Indeed, virtually every religious organization in America cares about this issue. It is not that we wanted to enter into some sort of argument with the gay community or with those who favor same-sex marriage. We are not here because of a political agenda.

Traditional mainstream Americans were going about their business when courts began a pattern of rulings that subverted democratic principles on the long held meaning of marriage. As the cases and lawsuits have mounted and scholars reviewed the opinions and pondered their implications, it became clear that this activist movement was bold and far reaching in scope. Their design was to effect a complete change in the meaning of marriage, altering an institution that is thousands of years old. The lawyers who filed these cases had a simple plan: They would file a lawsuit attacking the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They would urge the courts to declare, based on some subjective constitutional theory such as evolving standards of decency, that the Constitution of the United States--they sought to have the courts declare that the Constitution of the State or the United States requires that marriage be redefined to include same-sex marriage.

When the people complained about this usurpation, what did you hear back from those who promote these ideas?

They all lift their noses and respond: ``All we are doing is being faithful to the Constitution. Don't you respect the Constitution? We know you have deeply held beliefs, and we understand that, but we all must yield to the requirements of the Constitution, don't you know?''

That is kind of the feedback we get on this issue. But the American people are not so easily fooled. They chose not to go quietly this time. They have chosen to fight, and it is going to be a long battle. And well they should have made that decision since the question here raises the nature of marriage and the usurpation of judicial power to effect a political or social agenda, which are matters that go to the heart of this Republic and our governing structure.

So let's make some things clear. One, those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage did not start this fight. The debate is not a distraction from important issues; it is an important issue. It is not about wedge politics.

Let me state the plain truth. We are here debating this issue because there has been a deliberate and sustained effort by leftists in America to alter the definition of marriage to include a union of two men or a union of two women. This action has been, to some degree, successful, as shown by rulings in a number of important cases. So the matter is real. It is not a theoretical matter; it is very real, right now.

I do not agree with these changes in marriage. I favor the traditional approach for many reasons. More importantly, the American people overwhelmingly oppose this idea. There has been no support in the Senate, no support in the House of Representatives or the State legislatures for such actions. This new marriage concept has been rejected by legislative branches all over the Nation and has been rejected in, I think, 19 statewide votes, averaging about 70 percent each time.

These social activists have always known they have no chance to get elected officials to adopt their concept of marriage. It will not be voted in. So they have looked through the Constitution and decided their goal could only be achieved by arguing before activist judges that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a denial of the constitutional guarantee of due process or equal protection or ideas such as that.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts flatly agreed with those lawyers. This court declared that the constitution of Massachusetts, adopted in 1780, requires that same-sex unions be given the same recognition as a union of a man and a woman. They found that a constitutional requirement. This is activism, pure and simple. It is the very definition of activism.

The drafters of that constitution in 1780 would never have imagined their

constitution would some day be so twisted. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court plainly reached, I believe, a political, social, and cultural conclusion about homosexual unions. And they took language out of their State constitution that was never, ever crafted, designed, or expected to cover such a situation as this, and they just declared that the long established concept of marriage violated the constitution of Massachusetts. They just did it. These judges don't have to stand for election--certainly Federal judges do not--and they are not accountable to the American people. If judges do not show their personal restraint, modesty, and fidelity to the Constitution--whether or not they like the Constitution--then democracy is thwarted. So this is no small matter, I say to my colleagues.

Some will argue that the problem is a problem for Massachusetts only and that each State can decide these issues. But the U.S. Constitution provides that every State must give full faith and credit to the marriages of another State. In other words, the U.S. Constitution ordinarily requires that each State must recognize the marriages of other States.

But what about DOMA? We passed DOMA, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, in this Congress a number of years ago. It was passed to deal with what was perceived as a problem a decade or so ago. Didn't DOMA fix the problem?

The simple answer is no. To understand why, let's look at the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. I was attorney general of the State of Alabama. This deals with one of the things you do as an attorney general of a State: you defend the laws of that State when they are challenged in the Supreme Court of the United States. So I can identify with Texas in this matter.

Without regard to established law, the Supreme Court reversed their own opinion on a very similar case in Georgia just 17 years earlier and followed a new vision of social justice, masquerading, I suggest, as constitutional law. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court reversed their opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, a Georgia case, and said all State sodomy laws are unconstitutional.

This is most certainly not a discussion concerning sodomy laws or the wisdom of such statutes. This debate is about the Constitution, what it means, and who controls the legal and social policy in America. Some statutes and ordinances certainly are unconstitutional and should be declared so. A city ordinance that required Rosa Parks to sit at the back of a bus simply because of the color of her skin did violate-- clearly violated--the command of the U.S. Constitution that everyone be provided equal protection of the laws, and Judge Frank M. Johnson and the U.S. Supreme Court were correct to strike it down as discriminatory. That decision was not activism. It was a new commitment to the plain meaning of the existing Constitution that had been the law all along.

The situation is quite different in Lawrence. It is instructive to review how five members--only five, really, because Justice O'Connor only concurred in the result, not in the reasoning--of the Supreme Court came to reverse Bowers, which had upheld Georgia's law just 17 years before.

So what changed? Certainly not the law. Certainly not the Constitution. This is why our American people need to pay close attention to these issues, or the judicial sleight of hand that is beginning to occur too often will succeed. No doubt the American people are paying closer attention today than they have in the past.

The majority opinion in Lawrence divorced morality from law. The Court flatly held that morality, even long established, objectively determined moral values, cannot be a basis for law, so they struck down the Texas law. The Court said the law was a product of morality, which they found was without value as a justification for law. I kid you not, that is what they did.

Remember, the Court is examining now a long-established provision of criminal law, a provision that had been recently upheld as constitutional. Remember also, the issue is not whether you approve or would vote for such a law but whether it stands without any basis such that it becomes the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down as violative of the U.S. Constitution. Lawrence was troubling, with far- reaching ramifications.

What does Lawrence have to do with the marriage amendment? A great deal, unfortunately. If the Supreme Court were to hold that marriage should no longer be limited to a union of a man and a woman and a court finds as they did in Lawrence that such is required by some word or phrase in the Constitution, than any Federal law, such as DOMA, or any State constitutional provision--we are voting on one in Alabama today to protect marriage, and I assure you it is going to pass--but any State constitutional provision would be erased from the books, held for naught, and struck down if found to be in violation of the Constitution because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and its provisions trump all other laws and State constitutional provisions.

In Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court used very broad language that by fair deduction would suggest that the majority's reasoning would be supportive of redefining marriage. While not denying the logic of this possibility, the Court in its opinion in dicta did note that Lawrence ``does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.''

So the facts did not involve that, but the opinion did not deny that this same reasoning could be used in the future in cases such as the Massachusetts marriage case. It was obvious, of course, that the issue of same-sex marriages was not before the Court in Lawrence, but they were aware of that.

Justice Scalia was not beguiled by this language. His brilliant dissent went right to that point, and it is the issue before us today. Justice Scalia aptly stated:

This case ``does not involve'' the issue of homosexual

marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and

logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

It doesn't involve the issue of homosexual marriage only if logic and principle have nothing to do with the opinions of the Court. What he is saying quite plainly is, following the logic and principle of the opinion in Lawrence, marriage, as we know it, is in jeopardy today, and he dissented. Justice Scalia is a brilliant jurist. He loves the law and believes in being faithful to the law as written, not as he may wish it to be.

This debate in the Senate about activism is important. It is a debate that was raised aggressively in recent elections in Senate races and the Presidential election. President Bush said he admired Justice Scalia and he wanted more judges on the Court such as Justice Scalia.

Justice Scalia's dissent reflects one of the critical issues that highlight the difference between an activist judge and one who is respectful of the people's branch of Government, the legislative branches of Federal and State government.

In large part, the Massachusetts marriage case and Lawrence v. Texas are the kinds of rulings that have caused so much controversy, rulings where a slim majority of an aging group of justices--four maybe in some courts, five on the U.S. Supreme Court--allow personal views on some subject to cloud their thinking to such an extent that they delve into the Constitution in order to find some phrase they can use to impose that view on the people, all the while insisting they are merely following the commands of the Constitution.

In fact, our Supreme Court Justices have created a double standard. They have plainly held that the legislative branches--the Congress, our State legislatures--elected by the people, cannot base a law on an established, objective moral code, but they--the enlightened judicial branch, the one branch of our Government unaccountable to the people-- may strike down congressionally passed laws if the Justices conclude that the legislative laws do not comply with what the judges find are ``evolving standards of decency.''

``Evolving standards of decency'' is a phrase activist judges often use, and it can mean anything. Who can say what that means? ``Evolving standards of decency'' is not a proper legal standard. It lacks the precision needed for a legal standard. It is, in fact, not a standard

at all. In truth, it is a license to the court. It can allow as few as five Supreme Court Justices to roam the world to find European law or some other foreign law or some study or some report which they base their opinion upon.

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. President, I would just say this: that we are at a point in our history where it is now the opportunity of this Senate to allow the American people an opportunity to have their views heard on the question of the definition of marriage. It has been eroded by courts improperly, in my view, but it is being eroded nevertheless. By voting for this constitutional amendment, we will not make any constitutional amendment become a reality. We will simply send the matter to the States. And if three-fourths of the State legislatures agree, only then will this amendment become law. Why would we want to deny the American people the right through their representatives to adopt this amendment? I do not know, and I do not think we should. I think we should support the amendment.

How should the people properly respond to this real or perceived abuse and, in particular, to this very real threat to traditional marriage?

The proper answer is for the people to ask their elected representatives to pass a constitutional amendment to fix the problem, or the potential problem.

It is the right way, the lawful way, for the people and the Congress to respond.

Amazingly, it has been suggested by those who oppose the right of the people to have their voice heard on this matter, that the Marriage Protection Act violates the Constitution. How silly is that? The Marriage Protection Act would become a part of the Constitution. How could it violate the Constitution?

More importantly, the court rulings that have created this crisis are themselves, in my view and the view of many, contrary to the Constitution. Regardless of whether such rulings are sound, the people have a right to have their voice heard on the matter of marriage.

Some here argue that we should not have an amendment that decides the question here in the Senate but should allow the States to do it. But, that is the problem.

The States, and the people, are having their decisions overturned by courts. On May 16, a Georgia judge struck down that State's law that prohibits same-sex marriage. At least nine States are facing similar lawsuits. And if Lawrence is any indication, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to make a similar ruling.

This is why the American people are rightly concerned and want us to do something to stop this trend by the undemocratic branch of government from altering marriage, a cornerstone of our civilization.

Of course, if this Congress were to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment, it does not then become law. It then would go to the States where three-fourths of the State legislatures would have to agree, for it to become part of our Constitution.

Thus, our vote today is the key step in allowing the States to express the will of their people.

Thus vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment by those who say they oppose same-sex marriage, would deny the States the authority they need to protect their laws from judicial activism.

Finally, some argue that marriage is not an issue of such importance that it should be placed in our Constitution or even have debate time allotted to it. They are wrong. This is a huge issue, one of great importance. The real question is, why deny the right of the American people through their legislatures the right to vote on this issue? What harm is there in letting the people speak? I suspect the real concern of many is that if this amendment were to get to the States, it would pass. Those who openly or surreptitiously favor same-sex marriage surely would not want the Marriage Protection Amendment to go to the States.

And, there is nothing unusual about constitutional amendments that address specific problems.

We have passed amendments that are quite specific as well as broad.

The 27th amendment, ratified May 27, 1992, provides that Congress can't raise the pay of members of the House or Senate until the next election in the House.

The 26th amendment, ratified July 1, 1971, provides that eighteen- year-olds must be allowed to vote.

The 25th amendment, ratified February 10, 1967, provides for presidential succession.

The 24th amendment, ratified January 23, 1964, abolished the poll tax.

To my mind, the Marriage Protection Act is a wonderful way to allow the American people to have their voices heard on a matter that is very important to them and our Nation.

The courts have gotten it wrong. Wrong as a matter of law and wrong as to policy. They are not higher beings. They make mistakes and they need to be held to account so that good law and good policy are restored. A narrowly drafted constitutional amendment that deals with this one, single issue, is the proper way to give legitimate voice to our citizens.

The traditional understanding and law of marriage are being overturned. The sounds of the conflict can be heard in Lexington and in Omaha. Why stand we here idle? Let's authorize the Marriage Protection Amendment to go to the States so the people's will may be accomplished. After all, our founders created a democracy, not an oligarchy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to confirm President Bush's nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be a U.S. circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

President Bush first nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the DC Circuit on July 25, 2003. He received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee on April 27, 2004, but the committee did not vote on Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination. President Bush renominated Mr. Kavanaugh on February 14, 2005, and again on January 25, 2006. It is past time for Mr. Kavanaugh to receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Brett Kavanaugh is a well-respected attorney with impeccable academic credentials and the background and experience necessary to serve as an excellent judge on the DC Circuit. He currently serves as Assistant to the President and staff secretary. He previously served in the White House Counsel's Office as Senior Associate Counsel and Associate Counsel to the President.

Mr. Kavanaugh graduated from Yale College, cum laude, and Yale Law School where he served as the notes editor on the Yale Law Journal. He served as a judicial law clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as Judge Walter Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Prior to his Supreme Court clerkship, Mr. Kavanaugh earned a fellowship in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States. After his clerkship, Mr. Kavanaugh served as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel, where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues. He was a partner at the prestigious Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis and has argued both civil and criminal matters before the Supreme Court and appellate courts throughout the country.

Besides his obvious academic and professional credentials, I would note that Mr. Kavanaugh believes in giving back to his community. While in private practice, Mr. Kavanaugh took on challenging pro bono matters, including representation of the Adat Shalom congregation in Montgomery County, MD, against an attempt to stop the construction of a synagogue in the county.

Those who know Mr. Kavanaugh best strongly praise his intelligence, integrity, and approach to the law. Mark Touhey III, Mr. Kavanaugh's supervisor at the Independent Counsel's Office, wrote in his support: ``Mr. Kavanaugh exhibit[s] the highest qualities of integrity and professionalism in his work. These traits consistently exemplify Mr. Kavanaugh's approach to the practice of law and will exemplify his tenure as Federal appellate judge.''

Judge Walter Stapleton said of Mr. Kavanaugh: ``He really is a superstar. He is a rare match of talent and personality.'' After arguing against Mr. Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court, Washington attorney Jim Hamilton stated, ``Brett is a lawyer of great competency, and he will be a force in this town for some time to come.''

Some of Mr. Kavanaugh's critics have tried to argue that he is too young to be a Federal appellate judge. In truth, Mr. Kavanaugh is 41 years old and has had a broad range of experience that makes him an ideal candidate for the DC Circuit.

Mr. Kavanaugh's legal work ranges from service as Associate Counsel to the President, to appellate lawyer in private practice, to experience as a prosecutor. He clerked at two of the U.S. Courts of Appeal, the Third and Ninth Circuits, and at the Supreme Court. In private practice and during his service as a prosecutor, Mr. Kavanaugh participated in appellate matters in a number of the Federal courts of appeal and in the Supreme Court.

Besides, at age 41, Mr. Kavanaugh is considerably older than many of our Nation's most distinguished judges were at the time of their nomination. In fact, all three of the judges for whom Mr. Kavanaugh clerked were appointed to the bench before they were 41. All have been recognized as distinguished jurists. Justice Kennedy was appointed to the Ninth Circuit when he was 38 years old. Judge Kozinski was appointed to the Ninth Circuit when he was 35 years old. Judge Stapleton was appointed to the district court at 35 and later elevated to the Third Circuit. There are many other examples of judges who were appointed to the bench at a young age and have had illustrious careers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name Circuit Age ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Harry Edwards................... DC Circuit............... 39 Judge Douglas Ginsburg................ DC Circuit............... 40 Judge Kenneth Starr................... DC Circuit............... 37 Judge (now Justice) Samuel Alito...... Third Circuit............ 40 Judge J. Michael Luttig............... Fourth Circuit........... 37 Judge Karen Williams.................. Fourth Circuit........... 40 Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson............. Fourth Circuit........... 39 Judge Edith Jones..................... Fifth Circuit............ 35 Judge Frank Easterbrook............... Seventh Circuit.......... 36 Judge Donald Lay...................... Eighth Circuit........... 40 Judge Steven Colloton................. Eighth Circuit........... 40 Judge Mary Schroeder.................. Ninth Circuit............ 38 Judge Deanell Tacha................... Tenth Circuit............ 39 Judge Stephanie Seymour............... Tenth Circuit............ 39 Judge J.L. Edmondson.................. Eleventh Circuit......... 39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Age should not be the sole measure of a person's experience. Many Senators began their service at a young age. Senators Biden and Kennedy were elected to the Senate at the age of 30, and Senator Leahy was elected at age 34.

Some of Mr. Kavanaugh's critics have suggested that we should hold his service in the White House for President Bush against him. They seem to suggest that Mr. Kavanaugh's public service to his Nation is somehow a disqualifier for later serving on the bench. I disagree.

Public service in the executive or legislative branches of Government should not be a disqualifier for judicial office. This has never been the case, nor should it be. Justice Stephen Breyer was once the chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee before being nominated and confirmed to the First Circuit by a substantial majority. I hope that none of us believe that his service on Senator Kennedy's staff should have disqualified him.

Judge Abner Mikvah spent most of his career prior to the bench as a Democrat in elective office. He was a State legislator in Illinois and later a U.S. Congressman. In fact, he was a sitting Congressman when he was nominated to the DC Circuit. He, too, was confirmed by a substantial majority.

The Senate has not considered service as a Democratic staff member or as a Democratic Congressman a bar to service as a U.S. Circuit Judge, nor should it consider Mr. Kavanaugh's service in President Bush's White House as a strike against him. Suggesting that service in an elective branch of Government somehow tarnishes a lawyer's reputation would be a terrible message for this body to send to the legal community and to all citizens. Mr. Kavanaugh is superbly qualified to serve as a U.S. circuit judge, and he has made clear that he understands the role of a judge is different from the role of a member of the White House staff.

Some of Mr. Kavanaugh's critics have raised concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh's ABA rating. The ABA's Committee on the Federal Judiciary has consistently and unanimously

found that Mr. Kavanaugh has the integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament to serve on the DC Circuit. Each year Mr. Kavanaugh's name has been in nomination the committee has rated Mr. Kavanaugh, and each year every member of the committee has found him ``qualified'' or ``well qualified.''

According to the ABA:

To merit a rating of ``well qualified,'' the nominee must

be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal

community; have outstanding legal ability, breadth of

experience and the highest reputation for integrity; and

either demonstrate or exhibit the capacity for judicial

temperament. The rating of ``qualified'' means that the

nominee meets the Committee's very high standards with

respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial

temperament and that the Committee believes that the

nominee will be able to perform satisfactorily all of the

duties and responsibilities required by the high office of

a federal judge.

In 2004 and 2005 a majority of the committee thought Mr. Kavanaugh had earned its highest rating, ``well qualified''; the rest thought he had earned a ``qualified'' rating. This year the balance changed, with more members of the committee believing he deserved a ``qualified'' rating and the rest thinking he deserved a ``well qualified'' rating.

Despite the fact that the ABA committee has included many committed Democrats, the committee remains unanimous that Mr. Kavanaugh is indisputably competent, intelligent, and qualified to serve on the DC Circuit. In response to what some of my Democratic colleagues have said about Kavanaugh's ABA rating, listen to what ABA committee chairman, Stephen Tober had to say:

Let me underscore . . . that we didn't find him not

qualified. There's not a breath of that in this report or any

earlier report. We found him qualified/minority well

qualified. What I said at the end is what, in fact, many

people said, that he has a solid reputation for integrity,

intellectual capacity--a lot of people refer to him as

brilliant--and an excellent writing and analytical ability.

Those are great skills to bring to the court of appeals.

There is just no question about that.

According to Mr. Tober, in all of the ABA's ratings, Mr. Kavanaugh's ``positive factors haven't changed a whole lot. He is found to have high integrity. He is found to be brilliant. He is a very skilled writer and legal analyst. He has those components, and I have said this before . . . he has those skills that will serve him well, certainly, on a Federal court.

Finally, Mr. Tober acknowledged that ``there is not a single not qualified vote in the picture.''

Brett Kavanaugh is a highly qualified attorney who has experience as an appellate litigator presenting arguments in court, and experience as a judicial law clerk on the other side of the bench evaluating appellate arguments. He has spent most of his career as a public servant. I am confident that he will perform his duties as a judge in a fair and even-handed manner.

Today's vote on this nominee is long past due. I urge my colleagues to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to be a U.S. circuit judge.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his exemplary and hard work on this legislation. From the beginning, had we listened to him, we would not be in the fix we are. With regard to this amendment, I have to tell my colleagues, it is a defining amendment. It defines us as a nation, as a Senate.

The question is, Are we going to continue to allow lawlessness to operate at the border? If we don't pass the Cornyn amendment, we will be saying we have no more intention to see that we have lawfulness in the immigration system in the future than we had in the past.

I was a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years. What do you mean you can file a document and Federal investigators can't look at it to determine whether you committed fraud when you filed it? They are not going to be looking at people in the millions who are going to file to try to find some innocent mistake. How silly is that? They are not going to be able to prosecute blatant fraud, frankly, in large numbers. But we don't want them to be incapable of doing so. We don't want to set a policy that would prohibit criminal investigators of the United States

to examine an application for amnesty under this bill and not be able to prosecute, if it has fundamental fraudulent statements in it, or even be able to use it to build some larger investigation that may relate to coyotes or organizing rings. That is what we are most likely to come up with, in my experience.

Most likely they will be investigating rings of illegal aliens who have used false identification or come across the border illegally. And you are trying to put that together, and you go back and look at these applications which will be critical in establishing that case. They are barred from doing that. This is really a big deal because one of the weaknesses I have seen in our whole approach to immigration and, frankly, other issues is that we as a nation are becoming so soft that we are incapable of drawing a line anywhere. We are incapable of drawing a line anywhere. So the proponents of this legislation are saying it is somehow wrong that we could hold people to account if they file an application to become a beneficiary of amnesty. We cannot even investigate that and prosecute them, or prosecute other people who brought them in illegally in some sort of conspiracy, and deny the investigators that.

I thank the Senator from Texas, who is a former attorney general and a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court. We should listen to him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, once again Senator Bingaman is correct and has a very, very important amendment.

My staff was the first to alert the country to the huge numbers that are involved in this bill and the extraordinary increases in legal immigration that will occur. We ran the numbers also.

Senator Bingaman's previous amendment helps fix some of those problems. This one will further help.

Under current law for employment-based green cards, 140,000 people are allowed in the country each year, and spouses and children count against that 140,000. Under the bill that is on the floor today, that number goes to 450,000, and spouses and children do not count. Utilizing the numbers of the Congressional Research Service, as the

Senator said, 1.2 children and a spouse per worker coming in, that would total 990,000 under this simple provision alone. It goes from 140,000 to 990,000. It could be more that come in under the spouse and family provisions. Let's just say go to 650,000. That is about four times the current rate.

How reasonable is that? I have not seen any economist, I have not seen hearings in which we have ever had official testimony that increasing by fivefold or sixfold the amount of legal immigration in this country is the right approach to take. So we don't have a necessary basis to assert this.

There is not really a tenor here. It is not a question of evocative, emotional feelings. It is a question of what does this bill do. It is fatally flawed, and the Senator is correct.

I support his amendment.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. President, this is a very real problem in the American court system today. In fact, one of our Senators wants us to add 9 new Federal district judges as a result of immigration, and we are having surges of cases involving immigration appeals to the courts of appeals, where people can take their appeals directly if they are unhappy with the system that has been set up where administrative judges, through the immigration department, make adjudications within their sphere of influence as to whether someone is here in this country legally or not.

We are a great Nation. We are a nation of laws. Our strength is that we provide a good legal system. That is why a lot of people come here, because they are tired of being abused in their home country. They know they will be fairly treated here in our legal system. It is a key to our growth and prosperity and liberty.

These appeals are increasing in large, large numbers. Under this amendment it would have the possibility of accelerating those increases of appeals, a great deal of it.

I want to say a couple of things. A person who comes to our country, to any country, comes at that country's sufferance. They are here subject to the pleasure of that country and can only stay here according to the laws of our country. The laws of our country give adjudicative immigration courts the power and responsibility to adjudicate those questions about whether or not a person can stay here or has to be removed because they violated some law.

One of the things that is wrong with immigration today is we have so muddled and so complicated and so confused our thinking that we don't understand what has happened. So a person is here. They are here illegally--or at least on appeal and a second appeal and a trial and appeal with the immigration courts they have been adjudicated as not being here legally. What should happen then, I ask you? They have a right to appeal to the U.S. court of appeals--not even a Federal district judge, the court of appeals of Federal judges, where we have had a number of appointments recently, and it is one step below the U.S. Supreme Court.

They get a right to have that, but they do not get the right to remain here unless that court of appeals allows them to. In fact, the law is clear. In the vast, vast majority of the cases, they ought not remain here. They have no constitutional right to remain here after the adjudicative branch of the Government has concluded they are

not supposed to be here. Their appeal can continue. They are not denied the right to continue their appeal. But they are allowed to go back home to their home country and to pursue their appeal otherwise through their lawyers in the appropriate way.

They say this focuses on asylum. I would say asylum represents the best argument that can be made against the provisions of the bill that is now before us, but it does not apply just to asylum cases. It applies to all cases. Any immigrant who can maintain an appeal can get to stay in the country. We had testimony in the Judiciary Committee from the second circuit, a fine circuit court of appeals, that it takes them on average 27 months to decide one of these cases. What happens to that person during the 27 months, may I ask you? Two things happen. We have to take extremely precious bed space and leave them in custody for 27 months--remember, these could be people with terrorist connections or other connections--or we have to allow them out on bail. We have one area in our country where it was reported that 95 percent of the people who were released on bail pending an immigration decision absconded.

That means they will go on, decide their appeal and some adjudication, and order that he is supposed to leave. Where has he been? He broke into the country, presumably illegally. Is he waiting around? Is he now going to show up so they can deport this person? They have already melded into the community in an illegal fashion. It is part of the problem that we deal with and which is making our system ineffective.

We have to simply understand that there is no right to be here after a final adjudication has occurred while your case is on appeal in the court of appeals. But we allow them to. We give them a right, if they can show sufficient evidence under the standards that the Senator mentioned, that a court can approve that and allow them to stay if they think they have, according to the law, convincing evidence that they are rightly here. The court of appeals can override the adjudicating authority of the Immigration Service and allow the person to stay if they choose. We have had an abuse of that. We have had 10,000 such cases. With this amendment, we are going to see even more such cases.

I suggest that we must get serious about immigration. The more we create appellate possibilities, the more we can confuse the law. The more we create exception after exception after exception, the more unable we are to operate a system effectively and fairly.

The fair principle is, if you are adjudicated not to be here, you have no right to be here. But we give you a generous right to appeal to a court one step below the U.S. Supreme Court, but you have to go home until that court decision. If they override it, he can come back.

I think that is preciously generous. I think that is fair and right, and it also provides that court, in narrow areas, to extend and allow a person to stay if they feel it is necessary to do so.

I think this is a good amendment. The Department of Justice, I think, understands it.

Senator Coburn offered a good provision to the bill which was adopted in the Judiciary Committee. It should not be overturned here on the floor.

We can be sure that those who have a good case to stay will be able to stay. But overwhelmingly, if you have been found not to be here legitimately, you are not entitled to stay, you should go home. This amendment undermines that principle.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield our time.

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

Mr. President, what is the time agreement at this point? How much time do I have remaining on this issue?

I thank the Chair. 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 call up amendment No. 4108 on the earned income tax credit.

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

Mr. President, before I get into that, I would like to take one brief moment to note that in an election which took place last night the winner got 63 million votes, more than anybody who has ever run for President. The winner is a fine Alabaman, Taylor Hicks, who was crowned ``American Idol'' winner last night. I have to tell you I am proud of him. We watched it closely and with enthusiasm. If my wife were voting in a normal election, she would be in jail because she voted more than once for him, I can tell you. And we are thrilled. Taylor is Alabama's third finalist in the show, and after last night's finale, he became the second person from Birmingham to be crowned ``American Idol.'' Of course, that followed Rubin Studdard's victory 2 years ago, and Bo Bice as a runner up last year. We are proud of that fact and we are proud of Taylor Hicks being crowned ``American Idol.''

Mr. President, I am also pleased that the sponsors of the immigration bill we are debating accepted my preemption amendment that I originally offered in committee. That provision, which was included in the current bill, relates to day labor centers and is included in title III. My amendment makes clear that the provisions of title III which regulate the recruiting, referring and hiring of undocumented aliens, preempt any State or local laws. The laws it preempts are those that require business entities, as a condition of conducting, continuing or expanding a business, to provide, build, fund or maintain a shelter, structure or designated area for use by day laborers at or near their place of business or take other steps that facilitate the employment of day laborers by others. Language identical to this preemption provision in the current Senate bill was included in H.R. 4437, the bill passed by the House of Representatives.

Empirical research proves that day laborers in the United States are used overwhelmingly by undocumented migrants. I would like to enter into the Record along with this statement, an extensive January 2006 study of the day labor issue in this country entitled: ``On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States,'' by Abel Valenzuela Jr. and Ana Luz Gonzalez of the UCLA Center for the Study of Urban Poverty; Nik Theodore of the University of Illinois at Chicago, Center for Urban and Economic Development; and Edwin Melendez of the New School University, Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy. The findings in the study are based on a national survey of day laborers drawn from 264 hiring sites in 139 municipalities in 20 states and the District of Columbia. A critical finding of this national survey, page 17, is that three-quarters of the day labor work force is comprised of undocumented migrants.

The scope of title III goes beyond the prohibition of the direct hiring of an unauthorized worker or the requirement that employers electronically verify the validity of the work authorization documents they are provided by applicants. It also prohibits persons from recruiting and referring undocumented workers and facilitating the employment of undocumented workers. A number of local governments have taken actions or sought to impose ordinances that facilitate the employment of day laborers, many of whom are not authorized to work in this country. Local governments have done this by providing public funding of day laborer centers that act as gathering places where employers can hire day laborers, and by requiring, as a condition of conducting their businesses, that business entities build and maintain day laborer centers on or near their property to facilitate the employment of day laborers by customers or contractors.

In some instances, these local governments even force employers, as condition of doing business, to hand out to day laborers a written description of their employment rights under the law. There is no doubt that these local governments are directly or indirectly forcing these businesses to attract and recruit these day laborers to their property and facilitate their employment by customers and contractors. They are forcing these businesses to create what amounts to hiring halls in the form of day labor shelters. These ordinances or proposed ordinances expose these businesses to liability under the employer sanctions provisions of title III by forcing them, as a condition of conducting business, to act as agents of the day laborers in facilitating their employment. While these businesses may not hire the day laborers, they are forced to be parties to the hiring process, for which they face potential exposure to liability under section 205 and title III of the Senate bill, and the harboring provisions of section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

These local ordinances and practices put businesses in an untenable position. Businesses oppose ordinances that provide for the accommodation of day laborers on their property, particularly when these laborers are undocumented workers. Some local governments deny licensing essential to expand or maintain their business if they do not. It is a no win situation that Congress must address consistent with the overall purpose of this legislation.

Without the preemption provisions I have offered to this bill, there would be a gaping hole that would allow public entities to foster the employment of day laborers, whom the recent study I have cited shows to be largely undocumented workers, and force, through their regulatory and licensing authority, businesses to be their agents in this process. This flies in the face of the overall intent of this bill, which is to control our borders and eliminate the job magnet for undocumented workers to enter this country. Through the preemption language that I have added to title III, we have exercised the uniquely federal role given to the Congress under the Constitution to regulate illegal immigration into the U.S. and to prohibit State and local governments through local regulatory authority to thwart the intent of Congress to prohibit the hiring and facilitation of hiring of undocumented workers.

Mr. President, let me share a couple of thoughts fundamentally about the immigration bill that is now before us.

The question of immigration is clearly one of the most important issues of our time. This vote will be one of the most momentous of our decade. The American people know that. That is why they are engaged in this debate. That is why they are watching it. That is why your phones are ringing in your offices and mail is pouring in. They care about it. They are focused on it, and they want something done.

A lot of people say, Well, they are angry at immigrants, they are mad at immigrants, they want to punish them, and they are not fair and generous. That is not so.

You know who the American people are mad at. I will tell you who they have a right to be mad at, and that is the governmental officials they sent to Washington who refuse to create a lawful system of immigration to enforce the laws that have been passed by this Congress. That is what they are mad about. They have every right to be mad about it.

They were angry in 1986. What did we do? We passed an amnesty bill that promised enforcement in the future. It was utterly not so. The amnesty took place immediately, and the enforcement never occurred. They have been asking, What is going on?

In 1986, we found that there were 3 million people who came forward to claim amnesty, and now they tell us 20 years later that there are 11 million people here illegally. Why shouldn't they be frustrated? They are not against immigration. The American people are not against immigration. They are worried about a system that is lawless, unprincipled, and indeed makes a mockery of law. And they

have every right to be so. They should not be forgiving if we try to pull another fast one by passing a deeply flawed bill. I don't think they will be forgiving. The problem is, this is a deeply flawed bill. It is not going to accomplish what the goals are for immigration in America. That is a plain fact.

It is amusing now to see the sponsors of the bill when confronted with the problems, and those who say they are going to vote for it, and say they do not like it, a lot of them, but they are going to vote for it. Do you know why they say they are going to vote for it? Because maybe the House will save us in conference.

What a weak argument, that the great Senate of the United States, dealing with one of the most important issues of our time, is reduced to saying, We know this bill is flawed, we know we have problems, maybe somebody in the House can fix it, but I am going to sign my name and I am going to cast my vote to pass it. First of all, immigration will not end if this bill is not passed. There is not going to be mass deportation of people from America if this bill is not passed.

We should do what I suggested several months ago when they tried to run this bill through. Remember, about a month ago, they tried to move this bill through this Senate without any amendments. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said we are not going to have any amendments. They tried to move it through, just slide it through, so the American people did not know about it. Senator Frist finally said, no, we will pull the bill, and they reached an agreement that we would have some amendments. But the bill that hit the floor, as I said at the time, was so deeply flawed, it would never be able to be fixed by the amendments we could bring up. I know Members care about this issue, as do I. They want immigration to continue, and so do I. I can support an increase in legal immigration.

What I am saying is we are voting on a bill, not some vague picture, not some emotional deal. We have legislation before the Senate. Will it do what we tell the American people we are going to do? Will we be honest and faithful with the American people when we say this piece of legislation is a comprehensive fix of immigration problems in America? I submit not.

As time has gone by, more and more people have seen this is a totally flawed bill. People are getting more and more worried. They had no idea and I am not sure the sponsors knew of a lot of the weaknesses and problems with the legislation. Some have been changed by amendment but, trust me, there are many more.

Briefly, I will mention the fundamental flaws in the legislation. These are fundamental. What I am going to talk about today is not some nitpicking over the error of a draftsman. I am talking about fundamental flaws in the bill that make it unpassable, legitimately, in my view. It should not be passed. That is why I have said it should never, ever become law.

First, the people now here illegally, the 11 to perhaps 20 million people here illegally, will be given, over a period of years, every single benefit this Nation can bestow on its citizens. That is amnesty. In my mind, that is amnesty. I have tried not to use the word ``amnesty'' in the sense that is automatically disqualifying. What I have tried to say is we should not give those who violate our laws to get here every single right we give the people who wait in line and come lawfully. That is a very important moral and legal principle.

In 1986, those who opposed that amnesty, warned that if we do so, more people will come and they, too, will expect amnesty. We will have increased numbers in our country, and we will be forced to grant more amnesties in the future. That is exactly what they said. Go back and read the debate. Who proved correct? The other side said it is a one- time amnesty, we will enforce the law in the future, and the result was 3 million people were given amnesty. The laws were not enforced. Twenty years later, we have 11 million people here, and we are talking about another amnesty. We should not do that. Whatever word you want to use, amnesty or not, we should not do that.

Second, the border is not secured by this legislation. We have not worked out the difficulties on the border. T.J. Bonner of the Border Patrol Agents Association, as reported in the paper on Monday in the Washington Times, said the House bill will not work and the Senate bill is ineffective. Why should we pass a bill the experts say will not work?

Now, under our procedures, we can authorize fencing. My amendment to add some fencing passed. We can authorize electronic equipment. We can authorize more agents. We can authorize more bed spaces. But will we fund it? Will we maintain a determination in the years to come to make this system work?

I submit that without the Isakson amendment, which simply says that until the Congress fulfills its authorization requirements under the bill, the amnesty cannot take effect. When it was voted down in this Senate, every American had to know right then there was no commitment to make this system work. If not, why didn't they vote for it? All it said was if we fulfill the things we authorize, amnesty can be given, if they choose to do amnesty, which remains in the bill.

The US-VISIT system is not working. The agents and beds and fences are not up. What about the workplace? That is a critical component in our legal system. The workplace verification system is not in place. There is only a pilot system. We have not worked out the Social Security number problem. It is not fixed. We voted down an amendment so weak in dealing with that. We have not fixed that problem. So the workplace is not fixed.

They say it is a temporary guest worker program, but it is not. The bill does not have temporary guest workers. People come into this country, and they ask for a green card as soon as they get here. We vastly increased the number of green cards that can be issued. And everyone comes in under the rubric, the big print in the bill that says ``temporary guest worker'' and will be able to file for a green card through their employer the first day they get here. Soon they will get that green card unless they get in some sort of trouble, and that entitles them to legal, permanent residence. Within 5 years of that, they can become a citizen.

This idea that it is a temporary guest worker program is as phony as a three-dollar bill. I hope we never hear that word mentioned in the Senate anymore. We should have one. That is what the President says he wants. The American people understand that and would be more supportive of that. That is precisely what we need: a good, temporary guest worker program and another program to allow people to come into the country to citizenship. But we do not have that. They sold this as a ``temporary worker program'' when it is not.

The bill will increase immigration legally by at least three times the current level. We have had no study which justifies that. Three times the current level? Has anyone heard a national discussion or discussion in the Senate about that? No.

We have conducted no official study of the huge adverse financial impact this bill will have in the outyears. Any legislative body serious about this issue would have known of this problem long ago. Even before the bill was drafted, they should have known we would have these consequences. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that in the 10th, 11th year, through the next 20 years, this bill will cost $50 billion a year. That is more than the budget of Homeland Security. It has tremendous financial costs. We will have some increased taxes, yes, but in the outyears it will not compensate for this. The reason is, the people who will be given amnesty, a certain high percent of them, unfortunately, do not have a high school diploma. Once they become a legal permanent resident, once they become a citizen, they are entitled to all the panoply of welfare and social benefits our country has.

We have taken no steps to ensure this country's immigration policies reflect our Nation's needs. Canada, England, Australia, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are working on that. Canada has a point system. They evaluate people based on what they can contribute to the Canadian economy, and then they decide whether to let them in. We have nothing like that.

We know, from my analysis of the bill, it will allow in three times as many people, legally, as we allow in today, and that 70 percent of those will be admitted without regard to what skills, education, or English language capabilities they have. That is not a good principle. That is not what Canada does. Is Canada a backward nation? I submit they are smarter.

There are a number of reasons we need to vote down this bill. One of them is the huge financial cost. I will talk about one of the most dramatic costs this bill will impose on the American taxpayer.

I offer an amendment to deal with the extraordinary financial impact that will accrue to the American taxpayers as a result of the legalization of 11 million people here today. I asked the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, what the score would be with regard to earned income tax credits. They scored that over 10 years. It would cost the taxpayers of this country, this single program alone, $29 billion. As soon as we allow people into our country who are here illegally now, to convert to legal status under the language of this bill, they will immediately become eligible for the earned income tax credit. Most of these are low-skilled workers. They are not high school graduates. They are making the lower wages. They will qualify for that.

Hold your hat. The average person who receives an earned income tax credit check from the Federal Government receives $1,700 a year. The maximum amount you can receive under it is $4,700 a year. These are huge welfare payments designed to help working families, American working families. It started in the 1970s. It cost about $1 billion then. The figure today is closer to $39 billion, one of our largest welfare programs. It has a lot of fraud, a lot of criticism, but it was designed with good intent, and it remains a good part of how we assist lower income people in America. These people will immediately become eligible for that benefit.

When they become citizens, they are entitled to all the benefits. If they go through this process and we provide a path to citizenship, they will get that, and we cannot prohibit that. I would not want to prohibit that. I don't intend to prohibit that. We would not want to. But prior to that time, they are not entitled to it.

Let me state why. As a matter of law and as a matter of fairness, we should not reward them with this. People who come to the country illegally want to work here, we are told. They do not want to be on welfare. They are not asking for anything special. They just want to be able to work in our country. We have allowed them to do that. They have not asked for, in my view, welfare; they are not asking for it and are not entitled to it. So what happens when they convert to a legal status? Are they then entitled to this gratuitous, generous program of the United States of America that was designed to help American families who have workers trying to get ahead, they get a little extra money each year? Should they be able to participate in that program? I say no. I say there is no moral or legal reason that requires us to provide this benefit as a reward and an inducement for those who have come here in violation of our laws. It is just not required of us. And it is not smart of us.

People ask: How are we going to afford the fences and the several billions for the cost to enforce the border? They cannot find the money for it. I can tell you where we can find the money. They say that if you built a fence all the way across the border, 2,000 miles--our bill has 370 miles of fences--it would cost $4 billion or $6 billion. You have heard them say that.

This legislation, under the earned income tax credit alone over 10 years, will increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office, our outlays by $29 billion.

We can pay for the whole enforcement system on our border by not giving this gratuitous benefit to people who come here in violation of the law. They will be able to stay. They will be able to work. They will have medical care. They will have education for their children. They will have all those things provided to them free from the Federal Government or State governments, if need be. They get all those things, but they are not entitled and should not be provided the earned-income tax credit, in my view.

They say: Well, they will pay taxes in the future. OK. Well, how long have they been here not paying taxes? It is just not possible for us to do everything. And this Government ought to ask: Why should we--out of fidelity to the taxpayers of our country, who already see that we are spending recklessly, and already have a major deficit--why should we provide this benefit? I do not think we should.

The entire concept of earned legalization is muddled in this bill, in my view. But that aside, what should we do about the cost and the benefit that could be given to these people? Do we need to provide them an extra welfare benefit that they have no expectation of ever getting?

By the way, I told you earlier, that the amount of money this benefit would cost over the next ten years was projected to be $29 billion by CBO. That was based on their estimate a few days ago that we would have 6 million to 7 million people who would be given amnesty under this bill. Just yesterday, we received a letter from them that said those numbers were wrong. They are now estimating it would be 11 million people coming in. So I would submit, if you take that increased number and you apply it to the $29 billion estimate we have, we are talking about at least a $40 billion outlay over the next 10 years. But $29 billion, $40 billion, $39 billion, whatever the figure is, it is very large.

It is not necessary we provide this transfer payment, this outlay from our Treasury, directly to people who have come here illegally, and reward them in that fashion. What we should do is proceed forward. And if they move their way on to the path of citizenship, they would be entitled to it.

I thank the Chair and retain the remainder of my time.

I would like to speak further.

Mr. President, let's talk about the question of whether these ``legal'' workers have followed the rules and are entitled to this benefit. Those granted amnesty under this bill entered the country illegally, and have not followed the rules. At this very moment, the law says they are illegal and subject to deportation from the United States. Many of them have filed false Social Security numbers and committed crimes of that kind. We are not going to deport them. We are going to allow them to stay here. We are going to be generous to them. We are going to figure out a way that under this bill the vast majority of them will be on a path to full citizenship. Anybody that becomes a full naturalized citizen would be entitled to the earned income tax credit.

My colleagues have said we are punishing these individuals by giving them amnesty. They don't say we are punishing them by saying they have to pay a penalty. They are not saying we are punishing them by saying they have to pay taxes if they owe them. One said we are declaring war on who they are.

Those kinds of words and phrases indicate the bankruptcy of the argument that is being put forth. Under current law, they are not eligible for the earned income tax credit. Under current law, they should not be here. They are here illegally. We are now going to pass a law that is going to allow them to stay here, that will give them free medical care, that will give free education for their children, and allow them to utilize all the services this Nation has put together through the taxpayers of America. Then we are prepared, under this bill, to give these illegal aliens, prior to the time they become a citizen when we change the rules, $40 billion of the taxpayers' money. What offsets do we have? What efforts or plans have been made to pay for that over the next 10 years?

Let me ask my colleagues: If we change the rules and we say we are not going to enforce the criminal laws against you or the immigration laws, why can't we say: you can stay here and, for the overwhelming majority under this bill, you are on a path to citizenship, but you do not get to claim the tax credit? This is a transfer payment. It is classified as an outlay by the U.S. Treasury.

I was disappointed to hear a Senator try to compare this to having to go to the back of the bus. I introduced and was pleased to see passed a resolution that gave the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. It was given to her in the rotunda of the Capitol before she died. She is from Montgomery, AL. She was mistreated simply because of the color of her skin, and she was required to go to the back of the bus because of the color of her skin. I don't appreciate the suggestion that this amendment is against civil rights. These people broke the law by entering the country illegally, and should not be able to take advantage of this tax credit. This is a fair response of the American people. Let me ask this question: What about Rosa Parks' descendants who are paying taxes today? Their wages may be reduced this very day because of a large surge of illegal immigrants. This bill would increase that by threefold. Who cares about their wages perhaps being reduced as a result? And it is their money that will be paid to fund this $40 billion transfer payment to people who come here illegally. We are simply not required to give that benefit.

Now, what about taxes? They say they pay taxes. The truth is that lower-wage people--and most of these are lower-wage people--don't pay income taxes. They pay Social Security taxes, but they will get Social Security under this proposal. They don't pay income taxes because they are low-wage. If they have children, they don't pay. Most of the people that get the earned income tax credit don't pay any federal income taxes. At the end of the year when they file a tax return they get, on average, $1,700 per person. Some get as much as $4,700. It is not just families that are eligible for this credit. Single people get it, too, though not as much. It is an income tax credit. It is a payment to them.

I suggest that this is an important issue and that we think about our responsibility. We could pay for the entire enforcement mechanism for the border of the U.S. by simply not rewarding those who have come here illegally, who never expected to receive this benefit, with $40 billion in transfer payments. That is not punishing them. They are free. They are able to go back if they choose. They are able to work if they choose. They are able to carry on their own activities and make choices. But they are not entitled because we give them the benefit of legal status to receive this transfer payment that is provided for our people under current law.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I think I need that time.

Mr. President, I will wrap up. Although it is my amendment, I suppose I will give my colleagues the chance to have a final word. This bill would not prohibit those who come here legally in the future from being entitled to the earned income tax credit even before they become a citizen. It would say, with regard to those who came here illegally and have no entitlement whatsoever to this outlay payment from the U.S. Treasury, that they should not be able to get it until they become a naturalized citizen. That is not a punishment to them. We are rewarding them with legality in our country. We are rewarding them with the health care benefits of our country and educational benefits of our country, and it is not required that we spend, I believe, what is a fair estimate of $40 billion over the next 10 years to fund this program. That money alone would be enough to fund almost the entire immigration enforcement system we need to put into place. Maybe it would fund all of the one-time costs and much of the continuing costs of that program.

Why would we want to get into this argument that suggests that somehow we are discriminating against people because we don't give them a benefit to which they are clearly not entitled? We are giving them a number of benefits. We simply do not have to give this benefit. It has huge implications for our Treasury. Any way you spin it, our deficit would be $40 billion higher than if we don't adopt my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit is a major transfer of wealth that we provide to American workers and their families. It is a plan that has grown extraordinarily. The people who are illegally here now are not entitled to that plan. Just because they are legalized, they should not have an automatic right to obtain those benefits. If they are here until citizenship, they are entitled to those benefits. As a matter of law, they would be entitled to that. It amounts to, I believe, $40 billion over the next 10 years. It is something that we need to take seriously.

This $40 billion will increase our debt by that much in the next 10 years. We are generous with health care and with education and to allow overwhelmingly these people to stay in our country. But they are not entitled to this welfare benefit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 11:30 a.m., to receive a briefing on the status of on-going investigations into an incident involving Iraqi civilians on November 19, 2005, near Haditha.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 10 a.m., to mark up an original bill entitled ``The Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2006.''

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 10 a.m. on S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. This is the second hearing on this act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the outlook for growth of coal fired electric generation and whether sufficient supplies of coal will be available to supply electric generators on a timely basis both in the near term and in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on A Status Report on United Nations Reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a joint hearing with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs titled, ``VA Data Privacy Breach: Twenty-Six Million People Deserve Answers.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to hold an off-the-floor markup during the session on Thursday, May 25, 2006, to consider the nominations of R. David Paulison to be Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Lurita Alexis Doan to be Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Indian Education.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda will be provided when it becomes available.

Tentative Agenda

I. Nominations: Sandra Segal Ikuta, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Kenneth L. Wainstein, to be an Assistant Attorney General; Erik C. Peterson, to be U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin; Charles P. Rosenberg, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

II. Bills: S. 2453--National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 [Specter], S. 2455--Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine, Graham], S. 2468--A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer], S. 2039--Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005 [Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Biden] and S. 2560--Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 [Specter, Biden, Hatch, Grassley].

III. Matters: S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration resolution [Hatch, Feinstein, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Graham, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Specter].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 2006, for a joint hearing with the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to hold a hearing titled ``VA Data Privacy Breach: Twenty-Six Million People Deserve Answers''. The meeting will take place in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, May 25, 2006 from 10.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen G50 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 25, 2006 at 1 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The Consequences of Legalized Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia'' in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list will be provided when it becomes available.

Panel I: Members of Congress TBA.

Panel II: Julie McMurchie, Portland, OR; Hendrick Reitsema, Eck en Wiel, The Netherlands; Jonathan Imbody, Senior Policy Analyst, Christian Medical Association, Ashburn, VA.

Panel III: Wesley Smith, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute, Castro Valley, CA; Kathryn Tucker, Director of Legal Affairs, Compassion and Choices, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA; Rita Marker, Executive Director, International Taskforce on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Steubenville, OH; Ann Jackson, Executive Director, Oregon Hospice Association, Portland,

OR; Diane Coleman, President, Not Dead Yet, Forest Park, IL.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a field hearing regarding ``Congress' Role in Federal Financial Management: Is It Efficient, Accountable, and Transparent in the Way It Appropriates Funds?''

That would be correct.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I am very interested in and supportive of the concept embodied in the Hutchison amendment. A few weeks ago Senator Specter and I met with President Uribe in Colombia and with officials of the Dominican Republic. President Uribe and the Dominican Republic said they didn't understand this controversy. They have a good guest worker program. Both of them apparently had a guest worker program with Spain and Canada. Under those programs, the workers would sign up. I am not sure whether it was with the Colombian Government or the Canadian Government. They would be given a visa to work for so many months with the clear understanding that they would be able to come home to their families when they finished work and be able to sign up for the next year unless something significant changed. They were both very happy about that. To my knowledge, we have really nothing like that in our legislation in the main part of the bill. I ask Senator Hutchison, is this something similar to what you are proposing? If so, you definitely have support from those two countries.

Any of these guest workers that at some point decide they wish to become a citizen or become a permanent resident wouldn't be prohibited from applying under that provision of the bill that we would pass that would allow them to get in that track, correct?

One of the problems is that people come into the country and they feel bound. If they come illegally, as they come today oftentimes, they don't feel free to go back and forth. Then there is pressure on them to try to bring their family. Whereas if they had a card such as you propose and they could come and go and leave their family at home and just work for so many months like so many Americans do, they work in different cities and towns all over America and come back home to their families, wouldn't that be a positive offering for people who wanted to come work and not a demeaning thing?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado. He is a senior member of the Budget Committee. He is capable and does, in fact, help us monitor spending in this body. I am pleased that he shares my view, and I hope our colleagues will listen to the discussions we have that indicate that this bill, indeed, is a tremendous budget buster. There is very little doubt about that in any fashion whatsoever. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that it busts the budget in the first 10 years. And they conclude, without much analysis at all, frankly, because the numbers are so much worse in the second 10 years, that it clearly will break the budget in the next 10 years. They generally do their studies on a 10-year basis.

This is a matter that is tremendously important. It is one of the reasons the legislation before us today is considered such an important matter. It has importance beyond immigration. It has great importance toward the financial stability of this Nation in the future, our ability to make ends meet and not spend more than we take in. You have heard it said, and I have talked to some fine economists and they have it in their minds--well, let's say not a lot of them because most of the economists we have heard testify here have the view that I share. But a lot of people seem to think if we just bring in more people, that will then raise revenues and that will then help us balance the Social Security default we are in. That is one of the myths that are out there. It is a very powerful myth, and it is an appealing myth.

First of all, these kinds of pieces of legislation tend to get worse rather than better. I just point out that the Congressional Budget Office study they gave us a few days ago--we have a response to it today to update it. It adds 4 million more people to their estimate in the amnesty section of the bill than they estimated a few days ago. That is a 33-percent increase, a third more than they estimated. These numbers are hard to estimate. We know that in 1986, they predicted that a little over 2 million would be eligible for that amnesty, and 3 million showed up, a 33-percent increase. These are the kinds of numbers we are dealing with.

Further, I note, very troublingly, that until we got the initial report from CBO on May 16, nobody had presented a cost estimate on this piece of legislation, and nobody really has today. In fact, the CBO score just goes out 10 years. They don't attempt to deal with the second 10 years, which is

where the extraordinary growth in costs to our Government will occur.

So I challenge my colleagues. We will hear some talk, but I would like to really see how any increase in revenue the Government might have would have an ability to overcome the huge costs in the future. I think it will be, in 20 years, clear that this amnesty bill--if it goes in like it is today--will add more in costs and will absolutely not help us pay for Social Security, and it will absolutely leave us in a weaker fiscal condition than we are today.

Mr. President, how much time have I used? And I ask to be notified at 12 minutes.

Mr. President, according to the budget point of order the Senator from Colorado has raised, he will be focusing on, I believe, the second 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that the first 10 years are net losers. They say that direct spending in this bill authorizes $54 billion. There will be $66 billion in revenue, and discretionary spending will be $64 billion, for a net cost in the first 10 years of $52 billion. That is really significant. The numbers are far worse in the outyears.

Those of us who have watched this Congress operate over the years and have been in it a few years realize that we make some of our biggest mistakes when we jump into programs that sound good at the time and we have not calculated the long-term costs to our country, and we wake up wondering how it ever happened. Sometimes we need to go back to look at precisely how it occurred.

Robert Rector has done some serious number-crunching for the second 10 years. He was a chief architect of America's welfare reform bill. He is a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a very well respected group in town. These are some of the things he says about that. He believes--let me tell you--that the numbers could be $50 billion to $60 billion per year in the second decade. This is one of his quotes:

In the long run, this bill, if enacted, would prove the

largest expansion of Government welfare in 35 years.

The largest expansion of Government welfare in 35 years. He estimates that the bill's provisions that put illegal aliens on a direct path to citizenship will result in $16 billion per year of net additional costs to the Federal Government for benefits given to the amnestied individuals alone. This is just the group that is in the first amnesty. This will be in the amnesty of those who are already here. That will cost $16 billion per year.

He also points out that the fiscal impact of the cost to the Treasury caused by the Senate bill will extend far beyond the benefits given to the individual aliens, those who are here seeking amnesty. Once those aliens receive legal permanent status--that is the green card, and that is what they will receive under the bill before us--they have an automatic guaranteed right to bring their spouses and minor children into the United States even if this had not been one of their strong desires to begin with. Now they have an automatic right to do this. So that will greatly expand the total number of people ultimately granted citizenship under this bill's provisions. It is not just the people who are here.

Undoubtedly, the welfare estimate of $16 billion per year will increase. That is a low estimate. Once an illegal alien becomes a citizen, they have an additional unrestricted right to bring their parents in. Many of these parents will be elderly and need medical care. The Heritage Foundation report points out that parents under the Medicare system could cost as much as $18,000 per person. They estimate that even if 10 percent of the people who are provided citizenship--we are talking about getting into the second 10 years because it will take about that long to go through the process of getting a green card under the restrictions of the bill and under their request for citizenship. You can bring your children and your wife with a green card. If you have a green card, you can bring them. If you become a citizen, you can bring your parents and your brothers and sisters, and they can bring their children. But he estimates that would be $30 billion a year in the outyears.

You say that cannot be. Well, all I know is Members of this body debated for years welfare reform. The people who opposed welfare reform and opposed it steadfastly--and President Clinton vetoed it several times--said it was going to increase poverty. The others argued: No, it will help lift people out of poverty. What has happened? Welfare rolls have dropped by more than 50 percent, and the number of children being raised in poverty is lower than it was at that time. Who said that would happen? Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation. He was proven correct in that debate. I submit that he is one of the more brilliant students of public life today, of welfare and all of the related issues. He said it will be $50 billion to $60 billion a year in the next decade. That is a lot of money. That is really a lot of money. Over 10 years, that amounts to a half trillion dollars.

So we have to think about this. I suggest to my colleagues that we have not thought this through. We don't even have an official CBO score on the second 10 years. We are asking the country, the American taxpayer, who lifts the burdens and pays our fat salary and takes care of us and everything else in this Federal Government, to just take a walk with us in the hope that something good might happen. I don't think so.

I urge my colleagues, if you are concerned about this and other aspects of the bill, to cast a vote against waiving the Budget Act. Our chairman has said: Well, we don't deny the Budget Act is being violated, we don't deny spending increases more than it is supposed to under the Budget Act, but with 60 votes, we want to waive it, and we will move right on and pass something and send it to conference.

We have made some progress on the bill. We have had some good debate in the Senate. It is still not fixed, in my opinion, in a number of ways. What really needs to be done is the bill pulled down and seriously talked about.

I ask unanimous consent to have 2 more minutes.

Mr. President, that is what we are talking about. This is not a technical matter. I don't believe any study is going to show that these numbers are fundamentally incorrect. I don't believe any numbers will show that the approval of this bill will not be a net cost to the Treasury of the United States. One of the reasons that is sadly so is because so many of the people who are here illegally do not have a high school education. That means they have less opportunity to succeed than if they had come here with higher abilities and skills and were in areas in our country where we really needed them. That could make them be more successful.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor and yield back whatever time is remaining.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for the concern he has expressed in a heartfelt way. I believe all of us have the potential of reaching an agreement on comprehensive legislation that we could actually support. I would think the Senator would agree with me that good enforcement and a good workplace enforcement system would be critical.

According to an article in yesterday's paper, Mr. T.J. Bonner, who heads the Border Patrol union and has always been correct fundamentally, I believe, on these issues, is very dubious that even the House plan is sufficiently effective on enforcement in the workplace.

The next thing we would want to do is to figure out some way to treat the people who are here illegally in a fair way. Most of them would want to stay here. Most of them have been here for over 5 years. We need to develop a system to allow people to stay here in a legal way, to come out from the shadows. I think that is a worthwhile goal, and I support that goal. But they do not need to be given every single benefit that we provide to people who come to our country legally, people who have waited in line to have their shot to come to our country. We should not give them every single benefit that a person gets who comes here legally. So we have to worry about that.

What happens when we give them a complete amnesty package is they are put on a guaranteed path to citizenship and then they automatically become eligible for these programs, with huge costs. They didn't ask for that when they came to our country. That was not why they came here. They came just to work and make some extra money and, for whatever reason, they stayed.

We have to think this through. We cannot be operating on simple feelings alone, but we should analyze it in a fair and objective way and even consider what they want. A lot of them don't want to stay and become permanent residents.

Then, finally, we ought to develop a system of immigration that provides more incentives. Why shouldn't a young high school valedictorian in, say, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, or the Dominican Republic, who already has learned to speak English, has had some college, have an advantage of coming into our country over someone who is elderly and would have a guaranteed right under the bill to come in under the parents provision, as Senator Allard suggested? That is what gets us in trouble. We have to think about this. It has real financial consequences.

I reiterate what the Heritage Foundation found. They found that without any change in the current law, 9.5 million individuals would enter the country as legal permanent residents over 10 years. CBO acknowledges that 11 million illegal immigrants currently are residing in the United States and over 10 years will be given legal permanent residence as a result of the bill, and an additional 7.8 million new legal immigrants will come into the country under this bill.

Not only do we provide legal status for that large group of people here illegally, we start a new system that allows very substantial increases in legal immigration. According to the Congressional Budget Office numbers, over 28 million individuals, therefore, will obtain legal permanent residence over the next 10 years if S. 2611 passes, which is three times the current level that would occur under current law.

People say this is just a bill to take care of people and to confront some issues we have to confront, work on the border, and deal with the future flow of immigration. It increases it, according to him, three times in the next 10 years. That is almost 30 million people. That is about 10 percent of the existing population of the United States of America.

Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that the real number would be higher. That is just an estimate. And I note, it does not account for people who come here illegally. If we give amnesty for the second time, we are going to have a lot of people believing if they can just get here illegally, somehow they also will be allowed to stay in the country eventually. So we are going to have a substantial number of illegal people. Remember, they are entitled, once they

get on this automatic path to citizenship, to bring in their parents, presumably elderly parents, and presumably they will seek, as they have a right to, health care in America which could be $30 billion per year, and they have the option, although it does have to come in under the caps, of also bringing brothers and sisters into the country.

I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, just to drive home these numbers, according to the Congressional Budget Office report under the refundable tax credit--and these are primarily the earned income tax credit provisions--the Joint Tax Committee estimates that the bill would increase outlays for refundable tax credits by $29.4 billion, the largest direct spending effect in the bill over the first 10 years. That is a really huge number. For the earned income tax credit, I have an amendment that will try to reduce that number. But ultimately it is going to be a cost because as a person becomes a citizen, they will be entitled to it. I personally am of the belief that this amount of money is not necessary to be provided to people who transfer from illegal to legal status prior to citizenship, and I will offer an amendment. They weren't getting it before and they don't need to get it now. So I wanted to mention that point.

I would recall what Robert Rector said in a press conference yesterday. He referred to S. 2611 as a ``fiscal catastrophe.'' This is a man who, I submit, knows more about welfare and health care benefits in America than probably anybody; he is certainly one of the top few in this country.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not want to impose, but if I might have 3 additional minutes.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to say, nobody is talking about ending immigration if this bill does not survive this amendment. The 1 million people who are allowed to enter our country every year will continue to be able to come in under current law. So it is not so to say a vote to pull this unwise and flawed bill, and send it back for further review, is an effort to end immigration, for Heaven's sakes.

We are going to pass, sooner or later, I believe, a bill that will increase immigration, and I will be pleased to support that. However, this one is about three times what the current rate is, and I think that is higher than we ought to approve. So we need to talk about that.

I talked to the Congressional Budget Office people today. They only did a 10-year score. Do you know why the first 10 years look better than the second 10 years? Because under the bill, you basically do not get citizenship until the 11th year, and you become entitled to all the benefits our country can give you in the 11th year, including that you have a right to bring in your aging parents. If 1 out of 10 bring in their parents--1 out of 10--according to Mr. Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation, that will be $30 billion a year. He also estimates that the basic welfare medical cost for the people who will be given amnesty will be $16 billion. So it is $46 billion. He actually said, in his opinion, it would probably be between $50 billion and $60 billion. That is what he said.

And we do not have a CBO score, people, for the second 10 years. We do not have one. So we have here moving through this body one of the most significant pieces of legislation in decades, and we have no idea what the score is. That is how we get in trouble with spending. The entitlements for the benefits under the bill will not really kick in, in big numbers, until the second 10 years.

But I asked CBO about it. Their 10th year was $10 billion. You figure, if that just continued without an increase for the next 10 years, the second 10 years, under the CBO score, would be over $100 billion. Then, I asked a CBO guy, referring to the Heritage Foundation numbers: Well, do you think it would be worse in the second 10 years? This is the direct quote of what the CBO person told me: Very much so.

Shouldn't we know that? Shouldn't the sponsors of a bill that purports to be comprehensive, that is going to fix immigration problems in America, be able to tell us what the cost of the bill would be in 20 years? The budget point of order goes out 40 years. Through 2056, CBO says this will be a negative. This will be spending above $5 billion, and the budget point of order lies for any of those.

All I am saying to my friends is: We need to stop. We need not to run forward and go off on a bill that costs an extraordinary amount of money without giving it a great deal of thought. We haven't even considered it. Until I received this report on May 16 about what the cost was, nobody even had given any figures on the cost, none. Isn't that how we get in trouble, good friends? Isn't that how spending gets out of control?

I urge my colleagues to understand that this bill has a direct and discretionary spending increase in it of $110 billion over 10 years, that tax revenues come in at $66 billion, which is not countable as a matter of law, but we will count it as a matter of practicality, leaving a total net loss to the Government in the first 10-year window of $52 billion. That is where the budget point of order lies. We ought to sustain it.

We have made progress in making this legislation better since it has been on the floor, but the flaws are so significant and the issues important to immigration have been so little addressed in many key areas that we ought not to go forward. We should pull the bill and get a better one.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the brave men and women of the United States Coast Guard who came to the rescue of the citizens of the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. On May 12, 2006, in one of the largest awards ceremonies in Coast Guard history, 95 Coast Guard members received medals for their heroic efforts while rescuing thousands of victims stranded along the central Gulf Coast. The awards ceremony highlighted the Aviation Training Center near the Mobile Regional Airport. The center served as the staging base for more than 50 helicopters conducting rescue operations along the central Gulf Coast and--along with Sector Mobile personnel--is credited with saving more than 4,700 lives in the two weeks after Katrina.

The highest of the four awards presented--the Legion of Merit--went to Capt. David Callahan, commanding officer of the Coast Guard Aviation Training Center, and Capt. James Bjostad, commanding officer of Coast Guard Sector Mobile. They received the award for their outstanding leadership in the aftermath of Katrina.

The Distinguished Flying Cross--the second highest award presented at the ceremony--went to 19 local Coast Guard personnel Commander Michael McCraw, Commander Patrick Gorman, Commander James O'Keefe, Lieutenant Commander Brian Hudson, Lieutenant Commander Jacob Brown, Lieutenant Commander William Sasser, Lieutenant Commander Mark Vislay, Lieutenant Commander Scott Langum, Lieutenant Gregory Houghton, Senior Chief Aviation Survival Technician Christopher Walker, Chief Aviation Survival Technician Martin Nelson, First Class Aviation Survival Technician Timothy Fortney, First Class Aviation Survival Technician John Williams, First Class Aviation Survival Technician Jason Shepard, Second Class Aviation Survival Technician Brian Doolittle, Second Class Aviation Survival Technician Joel Sayers, Third Class Aviation Survival Technician Mitchell Latta, Third Class Aviation Survival Technician William Lawson and Third Class Aviation Survival Technician Jason Leahr.

The Meritorious Service Medal--the third highest award presented--was pinned on 13 Coast Guard members Captain Edwin Stanton, Commander Barry Compagnoni, Commander Mark Hemann, Commander Jason Fosdick, Commander Bradley Bean, Commander Melvin Bouboulis, Commander Thomas Tardibuono, Commander Ronald Cantin, Lieutenant Commander James Elliot, Chief Warrant Officer Four Thomas Milligan, Chief Warrant Officer Three Kenneth Hardenbrook, Senior Chief Aviation Maintenance Technician Robert Gagliano and Chief Aviation Maintenance Technician Scott Corner.

The Air Medal was awarded to 61 Coast Guard members Lieutenant Commander Christopher Chase, Lieutenant Commander Christopher Conley, Lieutenant Commander Robert DeCoopman, Lieutenant Commander David Edwards, Lieutenant Commander Christian Ferguson, Lieutenant Commander Eric Gleason, Lieutenant Commander Mark Hiigel, Lieutenant Commander Thomas McCormick, Lieutenant Commander Edward Sandlin, Lieutenant Commander Patrick Shaw, Lieutenant Commander Thomas Swanberg, Lieutenant Thomas Bailey, Lieutenant Karen Cagle, Lieutenant Steven Cerveny, Lieutenant Cornelius Cummings, Lieutenant William Dronen, Lieutenant John Druelle, Lieutenant Thomas English, Lieutenant Todd Fisher, Lieutenant Mark Graboski, Lieutenant Wendy Hart, Lieutenant Brian Hopkins, Lieutenant Joseph Klatt, Lieutenant Richard Nameniuk, Lieutenant Stephen Priebe, Lieutenant Michael Rasch, Lieutenant William Strickland, Lieutenant Keith Trepanier, Lieutenant Charles Webb, Lieutenant Martin Simpson, Lieutenant Donnis Waters, Senior Chief Aviation Maintenance Technician John Burns, Senior Chief Aviation Survival Technician Jeffery Tunks, First Class Avionics Electrical Technician Ronald Jester, First Class Avionics Electrical Technician Jon Schroeder, First Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Anthony Johnson, First Class Aviation Survival Technician James Dix, First Class Aviation Survival Technician Blain Elkins, First Class Aviation Survival Technician Jeffrey Galbraith, First Class Aviation Survival Technician Dustin Skarra, Second Class Aviation Survival Technician Jason Edmiston, Second Class Avionics Electrical Technician Benjamin Berman, Second Class Avionics Electrical Technician Charles Lowmaster, Second Class Avionics Electrical Technician Stephanie Sera, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Robert Bradley, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Stevenjohn Conrad, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Stephen Fruzan, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Gabriel Grise, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Michael Lewis, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Karl Williams, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Daniel Hoffmeier, Second Class Aviation Maintenance Technician David Villarreal, Second Class Aviation Survival Technician William Johnson, Second Class Aviation Survival Technician James Farmer, Third Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Richard Amelio, Third Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Joshua Nichols, Third Class Aviation Maintenance Technician Mathew Quiggle, Third Class Aviation Survival Technician Keric Allen, Third Class Aviation Survival Technician Sara Faulkner, Third Class Aviation Survival Technician Jeff Lowe, Third Class Aviation Survival Technician Jonathan Ptak and Third Class Aviation Survival Technician Aaron Raines.

Mr. President, these awards are a small token of the appreciation and thanks that are owed to the dedication to duty and self sacrifice these helicopter crews, technicians and support personnel displayed. The impact of the brave and tireless efforts of these 95 personnel directly impacted the rescue

of 50 times their number. These individuals deserve our gratitude, our praise and most importantly our continued support as they conduct on a daily basis, vital rescue and relief missions for the citizens of the Gulf Coast. Thank you for a job well done and for continuing to support our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I am going to take some time tonight to inform my colleagues about some of the problems with the legislation before us. It is worse than you think, colleagues. The legislation has an incredible number of problems with it. Some, as I will point out tonight, can only be considered deliberate. Whereas on the one hand it has nice words with good sounding phrases in it to do good things, on the second hand it completely eviscerates that, oftentimes in a way that only the most careful reading by a good lawyer would discover. So I feel like I have to fulfill my duty. I was on the Judiciary Committee. We went into this. We tried to monitor it and study it and actually read this 614-page bill, and I have a responsibility and I am going to fulfill my responsibility.

I think the things I am saying tonight ought to disturb people. They ought to be unhappy about it. It ought to make them consider whether they want to vote for this piece of legislation that, in my opinion, should never, ever become law.

I would also just point out I will be offering tomorrow, or soon, an amendment to deal with the earned-income tax credit situation that is raised by this legislation, focusing on the amnesty in the bill and what will happen after amnesty is granted, before they become a full citizen. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the earned- income tax credit will pay out to those who came into our country illegally $29 billion over 10 years. The earned-income tax credit has been on the books for some time. It is a good bit larger than most people think. The average recipient of it receives $1,700. Lowerincome people get a larger amount. Over half the people who we expect will receive amnesty are without a high school degree. They are receiving lower wages. They will be the ones who will particularly qualify for this. This is a score that has been given to us by the group that is supposed to score it--$29 billion will be paid out.

If they go all the way and become a citizen they will be entitled to this like any other citizen, and they will be entitled to get it under my amendment. But I do not believe we should award people who have entered our country illegally, submitted a false Social Security number, worked illegally--I do not believe we should reward them with $29 billion of the taxpayers' money. That is a lot of money.

I will also be offering a budget point of order, I or one of my colleagues will, in the next day or so. We have been working on that. We asked for a report. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the budget point of order lies in the first 10 years of this bill. It also concludes that it lies under the long-term provisions of the budget points of order for expenditures in the outyears. They didn't give us those numbers, but they said, without much work--they didn't have to do much work--the numbers are going to be much worse in the outyears. It clearly would be a detriment to the Government and these figures would exceed the budget, and a budget point of order would lie.

At the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Robert Rector, who is the expert who dealt with welfare, studied this. He was the architect of welfare reform who has done so much to improve America's welfare system and improve incomes for low-income families. It really worked beautifully. He was the architect of it. He says this bill represents the greatest increase in welfare in 35 years. With the provisions and benefits that will be in it, he estimates that year 10 through year 20, the cost could be $50 to $60 billion a year to the taxpayers because it takes some time for the people who are adjusting and becoming citizens and/or legal permanent residents to really begin to make the claims.

CBO admits the numbers are going to surge in the outyears. He says it is $50 billion a year. If that is so--and he is not exaggerating the numbers, because that is based solely on the amnesty provisions, not the provisions that will allow 3 times to 4 times as many people to come into the country legally in the next 20 years as come in today, and many of them will go on welfare because that whole system is not based on identifying people with skills and educational levels that would indicate they would be more than low-wage workers--so it could really be more than that. But $50 billion a year over 10 years is $500 billion. That is a half a trillion dollars, and that is why Mr. Rector said this legislation is a fiscal catastrophe. This is a man whose opinions and ideas and research this Congress, and particularly the Republicans, utilized to hammer away, time and time again, year after year, to get welfare reform.

It finally happened. It worked just like he said. The predictions of disaster made against his recommendations proved to be false.

He is saying that about this. So this is not a technical point of order. It represents an attempt to save the fiscal soundness of the budget of the United States.

I want to take some moments here to deal with some problems with the legislation. The American people are suspicious of us. They were promised in 1986, after years of urging the Government, the President and the Congress, promised to fix our borders and end illegal immigration. In exchange for that they acquiesced and went along with amnesty in 1986. They said there were a million, 2 million here who would claim it. It turned out 3 million claimed amnesty after 1986. That ought to give us some pause about the projections that we would have. We have 11 million people here now and only 8 or so will seek amnesty under it. That ought to give us some pause there. It may well be above the number.

So the American people are suspicious and they are dubious and they are watching us carefully, and they should. Let me tell you some of the things that are in the legislation that indicate a lack of respect for the American people, really. Some of these are some of the reasons I said the other day the Senate should be ashamed of itself, the way we are moving this bill.

My staff, working up some of these comments, came up with a title-- maybe at my suggestion--``Sneaky Lawyer Tricks'' that are in the bill. I will let you decide if that is a fair description of what is in it. I will go down through some of the matters that are important. There are others I could complain about for which we will not have time.

First, the legislation talks about title IV of the bill. That title IV of the

bill defines the new H2-C program as a temporary guest worker program. Those are in big print in the bill: Temporary guest workers.

That sounds like a temporary worker, doesn't it? It sounds like a guest, like somebody who stays in your bedroom for a weekend, a guest, temporary guest.

Interesting, section 408 sets out the temporary guest worker visa program task force. So a little further down it has what is called a temporary guest worker visa program task force. So you would think they are writing in this section, would you not, something about the task force. But this, down in that section, this task force establishes the number of H2C visas that may be issued annually and subsection (h) is where the writers of the bill hid the provision that actually transforms these so-called temporary workers into legal, permanent residents. OK? So all the big print, ``temporary guest workers,'' ``temporary guest worker task force,'' and then you read in that section down there that it effectively converts them from temporary workers to legal permanent residents, granting them a green card.

It is tucked away in a title that has nothing to do with substance of that matter. So I am pleased that my staff and others who have been reading the bill have discovered that. It wasn't discovered early on in the process.

Family members of H-2C visa holder need not be healthy. Under current law, aliens must prove that they are admissible and meet certain health standards. Many times, visa applicants must have a medical exam to show that they do not have a communicable disease. They have to be up-to- date on immunizations, and cannot have mental disorders. Spouses and children of H-2C visa holders, however, are not required to have a medical exam before receiving a visa. I have an amendment to fix this that I hope is accepted.

The work requirement for a blue card can be satisfied in a matter of hours. Under the AgJOBS component of the substitute, illegal alien agricultural workers who have worked 150 ``workdays'' in agriculture over the last 2 years will receive a ``blue card,'' allowing them to live and work permanently in the U.S. However, because current law defines an agricultural ``workday'' as 1 hour of work per day--the bill language restates that definition on page 397--an alien who has worked for as little as 150 hours--there are 168 hours in a week--in agriculture over the last 2 years will qualify for a blue card.

Blue card aliens can only be fired for just cause, unlike an American citizen worker who is likely under an employment at will agreement with the agricultural employer.

No alien granted blue card status may be terminated from

employment by any employer during the period of blue card

status except for just cause.

Because blue card aliens are not limited to working in agriculture, this employment requirement will follow the alien at their second and third jobs as well. The bill goes as far as setting up an arbitration process for blue card aliens who allege they have been terminated without just cause. Furthermore, the bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator. American citizens do not have a right to this arbitration process, why are we setting up an arbitration process for blue card aliens paid for by the American taxpayer.

Regarding free legal counsel, the AgJOBS amendment goes further than paying for arbitrators, it also provides free legal counsel to illegal aliens who want to receive this amnesty. The AgJOBS amendment specifically states that recipients of ``funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act'' shall not be prevented ``from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for adjustment of status under this section.'' Interestingly, page 414 of the bill requires the alien to have an attorney file the application for him. Not only will AgJOBS give amnesty to 1.5 million illegal aliens, it would have the American taxpayer pay the legal bills of those illegal aliens. This is unbelievable and unacceptable. We should not be rewarding illegal aliens who break our laws with free legal counsel and a direct path to citizenship.

Under this bill a temporary worker is eligible for a green card if they, in part, maintained their H-2C status. In order to maintain this status the ``temporary'' worker may not be unemployed for a period of 60 continuous days. This means that a temporary worker only has to work 1 day in every 59 days to maintain status. This employment requirement only requires that they work about 1 day every 2 months.

In this bill, an alien who has been here between 2 and 5 years is not eligible for asylum if they have persecuted others on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. However, an alien here more than 5 years who has persecuted others on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion gets amnesty under this bill. There is no specific ineligibility for such conduct. Since it is included under the ``mandatory deferred departure'' section, a court will interpret this to mean we purposefully left it out of the ``earned amnesty.'' I cannot imagine why the drafters of this bill would allow persecutors to benefit from amnesty.

The bill's future flow ``guest worker'' program in title IV leaves no illegal alien behind--it is not limited to people outside the United States who want to come here to work in the future, but includes illegal aliens currently present in the United States that do not qualify for the amnesty programs in title VI, including aliens here for less than 2 years. Under the bill language, you can qualify for the new H-2C program to work as a low-skilled permanent immigrant, even if you are unlawfully present inside the United States today. The bill specifically says:

In determining the alien's admissibility as an H-2C

nonimmigrant . . . paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (7), (9)(B), and

(9) (C) of section 212(a) may be waived for conduct that

occurred before the effective date. . . .

By waving these grounds of inadmissibility, the new H-2C program is specifically intended to apply to illegal aliens who were already removed from the United States and illegally reentered.

The bill tells DHS to accept ``just and reasonable inferences'' from day labor centers and the alien's ``sworn declaration'' as evidence that the alien has met the amnesty's work requirement. Under the bill, the alien meets the ``burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the alien has satisfied the [work] requirements'' if the alien can demonstrate employment ``as a matter of just and reasonable inference.'' An alien can present ``conclusive evidence'' of employment in the United States by presenting documents from social security, IRS, employer, or a ``union or day labor center.'' The bill then states that:

It is the intent of Congress that the [work] requirement .

. . be interpreted and implemented in a manner that

recognizes and takes into account the difficulties

encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment due

to the undocumented status of the alien.

If these lax standards can't be met, the bill makes sure that the alien can get what they need by allowing them to submit ``sworn declarations for each period of employment.'' Putting these together the alien must prove it is more likely than not that there is a just and reasonable inference that the alien was employed. I don't know what this means other than DHS will have to accept just about anything as proof of employment.

Regarding in-State tuition for illegal aliens, current law provides that:

[A]n alien who is not lawfully present in the United States

shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a

State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary

education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United

States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount,

duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or

national is such a resident.

The DREAM Act would eliminate this provision and allow illegal alien college and university students to be eligible for in-state tuition without affording out-of-state citizen students the same opportunity. Thus, the University of Alabama could offer in-state tuition to illegal alien students while requiring citizens residing in Mississippi to pay the much higher out-of-state tuition rates.

Allowing all illegal aliens enrolled in college to receive in-state tuition rates means that while American citizens from 49 other states have to pay out-of-state tuition rates to send their kids to

UVA, people who have illegally immigrated to this country might not. Out-of-state tuition rates range from 2 to 3\1/2\ times the in-state resident tuition rate.

Regarding Federal financial aid for illegal aliens, while the Pell grants provision was removed from the bill, Stafford student loans and work study remains in.

Under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, legal permanent residents and certain other eligible non-citizens are eligible to compete with American citizens for certain types of higher education assistance.

The DREAM Act makes illegal aliens eligible for several types of higher education assistance offered under the Higher Education Act-- including Stafford student loans and work study programs.

There is another matter, another sleight of hand I suggest.

Amnesty both for legal aliens who have been here for more than 5 years, and those in the next category who are here from 2 to 5 years, don't really require that those aliens have to be continuously present in the United States. That is what it says in plain language.

It starts off that you have to be continuously present in the United States. But, once again, is that what it really means?

The bill allows these aliens to depart and to return after a brief departure. This allows illegal aliens who broke our laws by entering the United States and who have left and returned illegally perhaps multiple times--and each time violating our laws by entering the United States--to qualify for this amnesty.

I am not sure how these departures and illegal entries can be considered innocent since the illegal aliens broke U.S. laws by reentering. But it will absolve them from any of these multiple violations. That is a huge loophole.

This is even more important. An alien may not have had deep roots in our country. They may have spent a lot of their time away from our country. But they heard about this amnesty, and if they can get in the country, then they will say they have been here continuously, perhaps.

Somebody says: No. We found out you were back home.

He says: That was brief. I want my amnesty.

We object. I am going to take you to court, or you prove it, or I say I have been here. That is what I say. It is going to be very difficult to prove that.

There are provisions in the bill that deal with U.S. worker protections. The bill purports to protect U.S. workers from the flood of cheap labor that might occur by requiring employers to prove to the Department of Labor that good-faith efforts have been taken, first, to recruit U.S. workers for a job before they go out and hire someone from outside of our country. They ought to at least find out if there are American workers who want the job.

Then they are supposed to notify the Secretary of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security when one of these H-2C workers is ``separated from employment.''

I am quoting that--``separated from employment'' requires notice.

We heard defenders of the bill say: Well, if you are not continuously working, they will notify the Department of Labor and you have to leave the country.

Have you heard that? You have to be continuously working, you can't be not working, or else you are not entitled to the benefits of this H- 2C provision. The separation from employment notification is supposed to help the Department of Labor and Homeland Security know which people have been out of work, and if they are out of work under the bill for more than 60 days, their visas are supposed to be revoked.

OK. That is supposed to be a provision that makes sure people who come here are really working. Sounds good. But under the provisions of the bill, the term ``separation from employment''--you can find that on page 236. As defined, the term means virtually zero.

As defined, ``separation from employment is anything other than discharged for inadequate performance, violation of workplace rules, cause, voluntary departure, voluntary retirement, or expiration of a grant or contract.''

Furthermore, it does not include those situations where the worker is offered--even if they do not take it--another position by the same employer.

Is that what I just read to you? It is hard to believe--that you are supposed to notify them, except you don't need to notify them if they have left work, if they left work because they were discharged for inadequate performance, fired, or violation of workplace rules, or for just cause, or involuntary departure, involuntary retirement, or expiration of the contract. You don't have to notify them about those things.

What would you notify them for, pray tell? That is ``flabber'' written. I submit whoever wrote this bill--it was not the Senators, I can assure you of that--ought to be ashamed of themselves.

That was a deliberate evisceration of what on the surface sounds like a legitimate provision, totally unenforceable. There is no way under this provision DHS or the Department of Labor will be provided information about people who have been terminated from employment.

Protections for U.S. workers--that is one of the goals the bill says it reaches. Under the bill, employers must prove that hiring an H-2C worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States, and that they did not and will not cause separation from employment of a U.S. worker employed by an employer within the 180-day period beginning 90 days before this H-2C petition is filed.

Employers must also prove that they made good-faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers before they can hire an H-2C worker. That sounds good but, once again, things are not what they seem.

As defined on page 263 of the bill, a U.S. worker includes not only citizens, it includes legal alien workers. And, amazingly, it also includes aliens who are ``otherwise authorized under this act to be employed in the United States.''

In other words, this provision provides protection for those who have been given legal status under amnesty, over and above, and provides them the same protection we provide to American citizens who are supposed to be given some protection against the flood of foreign labor.

You have heard the deal. You have heard it said that the people who come to get amnesty--this is almost humorous--have got to pay their taxes. That is part of some sort of punishment. They make it sound like, in some way, you earned the right to be forgiven of your crime by paying your taxes.

Everybody is supposed to pay their taxes. For heaven's sake, we are all supposed to pay taxes. This is nothing but doing what you would expect any American to do. But under the bill, things are, once again, not quite what their sponsors have said, or what the language might lead you to believe. You have to read it carefully.

Under the bill, an illegal alien who is getting amnesty only has to pay back taxes for the period of employment required in the INA, section 245(B)(A)(1)(d).

This is on page 347 of the bill, if people would like to look. These are actually just 3 of the 5 years between April 5, 2001, and April 5, 2002.

So the plain language of the bill doesn't require them to pay all their back taxes at all. They get an option to pick and choose which 3 years they want to pay their taxes. Presumably, they can forget and not pay the taxes for the high years. How silly is that?

This is really important. I think most Americans are pretty sophisticated. They know how the system works and the massive numbers we are talking about--the burden of proving payment of back taxes is on the Internal Revenue Service, pages 351 and 411. They have to prove it. How are they going to prove it? The IRS must prove that they owe the taxes. How will the IRS know if an illegal alien has worked off the books thereby avoiding paying any taxes?

This is really an utter joke. It is a promotion put forth by those in support of the bill that I have heard repeatedly--that somehow it is supposed to make us believe that people have earned their right to be forgiven for violating the law, and they only have to pay back 3 of the last 5 years in taxes.

What about American citizens? Do you think you can go down to Uncle

Sam, Mr. President, and have 5 years of income and then be able to pick and choose which years you pay and you only pay 3 out of your last 5 years? Why don't we let every American citizen have this benefit? Why do we only give it to people who entered the country illegally? You tell me.

What about background checks? The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to do them on illegal aliens. That is going to be exceedingly difficult. They are required to do it within 90 days. They have to protect our homeland. They have to handle all these provisions. I don't think it can ever be done. That may sound like something important is going to happen, that all the people here illegally will have their backgrounds checked promptly, but the truth is that is not going to get done in that timeframe.

How about fines? Let me state who they want to fine. A Federal agent, trying to do his duty to enforce the law and investigate fraudulent information provided by an illegal alien in their amnesty application, for law enforcement purposes, what happens to them if they take the amnesty application and actually examine it and find out it is fraudulent? What do they do? The agent would be fined $10,000. That fine, I note, is five times the amount the alien is able to post, $2,000, to get his amnesty from his illegal acts.

There is no reason in the world Federal law enforcement officers should be barred from investigating and utilizing amnesty applications to prosecute criminal activities in America. There is no reason this ought to be protected other than it looks to me that some clever lawyer has realized if they can get this in the bill people can file false amnesty applications all day and no one will ever be able to investigate. Isn't that horrible? That is what it looks like to me. Is that a sneaky lawyer trick? I ask you to make that judgment. It does not sound good to me.

Page 363 of the bill. Look it up.

How about the employers? They get tax amnesty. Employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status--amnesty--``shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such an alien.'' That means a business that hired illegal workers does not have to pay the taxes they should have paid. Why? This encourages employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the Federal Government. They are excusing these employers and giving them amnesty from not withholding taxes. That is a very bad thing. Every American business knows they have to pay their withholding taxes.

What about two small businesses, one hiring illegal aliens not paying Social Security, not paying withholding to the Government, and paying some low wage, and another one across the street doing all the right things, hiring American citizens, perhaps paying higher wages and withholding money and sending his Social Security money to the Federal Government, what message does that send to the good guy, to give complete amnesty to the guy who has manipulated the system and gotten away perhaps with tens of thousands of dollars in benefits that his competitor did not get?

You cannot play games with the law like this. You cannot pick and choose people and allow them unilaterally to not have to pay their taxes.

What about illegal alien protection? The alien and their families who file applications for amnesty ``shall not be detained, determined inadmissible, deported, or removed until their applications are finally adjudicated, unless they commit a future act that renders them ineligible with amnesty.'' With tens of millions of applications, this amnesty, this provision essentially guarantees an illegal alien years of protection in the United States, even if they do not qualify for the amnesty.

We hear they have to pay the fine, the $2,000 fine, but it is not due right away. For those in the amnesty program, illegal aliens are supposed to pay a fine of $2,000. However, the way the bill is written, many illegal aliens may not have to pay the fine for 8 years. The bill says that the $2,000 fine has to be paid ``prior to adjudication.'' It is not required at the first. If it is left the way it is, the illegal alien can live, work and play in our country and not pay a cent of his fine for years. Perhaps they may even decide they do not want to pay it at all. This puts a financial burden on local taxpayers for the health, education, and the infrastructure costs that are not reimbursed for about 5 or 10 years.

There are a number of other items. However, it is late; I will make these remarks part of the Record and will not belabor these points.

It is clear the people who drafted this legislation had an agenda and the agenda was not to meet the expectations of the American people. The agenda was to create a facade and appearance of enforcement, an appearance of toughness in some instances. When you get into the meat of the provisions and get into the bill and study it, tucked away here and there are laws that eviscerate and eliminate the real effectiveness of those provisions. It was carefully done and deliberately done. This is a bill that should not become law. It is a bill that will come back to be an embarrassment to our Members who have supported it. I wish it were not so. I know how these things happen. You do not always have time to do everything you want to do. You try to do something you think is right, but ultimately in a bill as important as this one that has tremendous impact on the future of our country and our legal system and our commitment to the rule of law, we ought to get it right. We ought not to let this one slide by. It is not acceptable to say, let's just pass something and we will send it to the House and maybe the House of Representatives will stand up and stop it and fix it. That is not acceptable for the great Senate of the United States.

I strongly believe we are not ready to pass the bill. We are not ready to give it final consideration. I strongly believe it is a horrendous violation of the Committee on the Budget and that it is, as Mr. Rector said, a fiscal catastrophe if passed, and as such we ought not to waive the Budget Act but pull the bill from the floor and fix it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the leadership of Senator Grassley. He spoke from the heart. He was here during the 1986 amnesty debate. I happened to go back and I saw a summary of that debate. The Members argued on one side saying it was a one-time amnesty; others said amnesty begets amnesty, that if this occurs, there will be more to come. In truth, we see which side has prevailed.

Chairman Grassley has given much insight and wisdom. I hope our Members will consider what he has to say. It is thoughtful, honest, and direct, as always.

I do remain troubled that the Senate is moving steadily, like a train down the tracks, to pass an immigration bill that is deeply flawed. It dramatically increases legal immigration and has no guarantee that significantly improved enforcement procedures will ever be carried out. In fact, the Senate rejected the Isakson amendment which would have conditioned amnesty on effective enforcement. Clearly, we have not comprehended the ramifications of rewarding those who have broken our laws with all the benefits we give to those who lawfully enter, thereby undermining, as Senator Grassley said, the rule of law in this country.

Further, this legislation, which claims to be comprehensive, provides a radical increase in future legal immigration almost with no discussion or consideration of what is good policy for our future. In addition, the legislation has been crafted in a way that hides and conceals, even misrepresents, its real effects.

Thus, I have said it should never pass. I have said that these actions are unworthy of the great Senate of the United States. I have said, and I think correctly, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

What should we be doing? What should the Senate of the United States be doing? We should be working openly and diligently on these issues and should have been for some time. We should be seeking the input of experts and carefully studying relevant data. Certainly we should be consulting with those who have hired us--at least for a term--the American people.

In my view, the American people have been right from the beginning. They have rejected an immigration system that makes a mockery of law, a system that rewards illegal behavior, while placing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the face of those who dutifully attempt to comply with the law. In the decades before the 1986 amnesty and after, they have urged and pleaded with the powers that be to end the illegality, to secure the border, and to develop a system based on the commonsense interests of our Nation. The American people have been arrogantly ignored by the executive branch and by the Congress.

We have failed to fulfill our responsibilities, in direct opposition to the legitimate and clearly stated will of the American people.

In every way, the American people have been correct. They have been motivated by the highest of American ideals, despite what the critics say. They have sought a lawful, wise system of immigration. It is unfair to ascribe to the good American people the words of some frustrated and extreme person whose anger overflows--the talk show callers and the like. That is not the heart of the American people, just because someone mis-spoke on a talk show or in a conversation. What they are saying is legitimate, principled, and consistent with the American ideals. We have not responded to it. We did not respond to it before 1986. We did not respond to it in 1986. We have not responded to it since.

The American people will support a fair and generous immigration policy for the future, and they will support compassionate and fair treatment of people who have come here illegally. They are not asking that they be prosecuted, locked up, or that every one be hauled out of America. That is not so. No one is proposing that in any serious way.

Make no mistake, we cannot treat lightly and it is a grave step to concede, to admit, that the laws of the United States will be ignored and not enforced. During the 1986 amnesty debate, it was argued that amnesty would be a one-time event. People argued that if that were done, it would weaken the rule of law and encourage more people to enter the country illegally, confident that at some day in the future, amnesty would be available to them, too. I ask my colleagues, who was right 20 years ago?

Senator Grassley just told us who was right. He said he believed it was a mistake when he voted for it. Not many Senators have the gumption to come to the Senate and admit they made a mistake. While amnesty just 20 years ago created a legal route to citizenship for 3 million people not here legally, today we are expecting, 20 years later, 11 million and perhaps 20 million people could benefit from this amnesty.

We must acknowledge that when you play around with the rule of law in a nation that expects to be treated seriously, you have done something quite significant. It cannot be altered or undermined without real consequences. Life has consequences. If you pass a law and then turn around and admit you cannot enforce it, with a promise that we are going to enforce it in the future and we are going to allow everyone who violated a law a free pass, what does that say about the future? These are not light matters. If we could do it like that, if we could make this kind of 180-degree turn without consequences, it would be one thing, but life is not that way. We are supposed to be a mature branch of Government of the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth. Surely we know that. Surely we know we cannot do this lightly. I am afraid some have not given enough thought to that.

I wanted to share those remarks at the beginning because we are dealing with huge numbers of people who will be legalized. We will be dealing with a fundamental expansion of immigration, a massive amnesty, large increases in governmental expenditures, and an enforcement promise I am not sure we will ever see occur because enforcement was promised in 1986. It was

faithfully and honestly guaranteed by supporters of that bill in 1986, and it was never accomplished.

I will introduce four amendments this afternoon. The four amendments are, first, a numerical limit amendment, an amendment to cap the immigration increases caused by this bill. The numbers CBO and the White House say we should expect include 7 million and their dependents under amnesty. Additionally, CBO and the White House estimate that under this bill 8 million new immigrants will flow into the country above the current level 10 million over the next 10 years. Got that? What my amendment will do is cap green cards at 7 million for amnesty, plus we are going to add 8 million to the current flow in the future.

We think the numbers are higher than that. But that is what the CBO says the numbers are. That is what the White House has trumpeted as the numbers. So at least, I suggest, this Senate should make clear those are the numbers, and let's pass it, so we will not have this danger that the bill will spin out of control or in fact will be much more generous to immigration than some are currently suggesting, even CBO.

Another amendment will be the earned-income tax credit. This would be an amendment to eliminate the earned-income tax credit for illegal aliens and those who have adjusted status under this bill. Once illegal aliens become citizens, they will once again be eligible for the earned-income tax credit. But it is a huge expense, maybe over $20 billion over 20 years.

I will have an amendment to deal with chain migration which has to do with provisions that are continued in current law but are not principled and do not serve our Nation well. If we want to admit more skill-based immigrants, we must reduce the right of immigrants to bring in certain categories of relatives, regardless of skill, regardless of ability to perform.

We will work on those four amendments, and I hope we will be able to get a vote on them. I know people are saying: No, no, we need to move this bill on. We can't go another day. We have to finish this debate. You guys have had your little amendments. The train is moving. Get off the track. We are going forward. And I am already hearing that we are moving in that direction: The debate is going to be limited, and we will have to curtail our legitimate amendments.

I submit to you, the amendments I am offering here are legitimate amendments that go to real issues of national importance, not some technical thing.

My amendment that deals with the total number of immigrants into the United States comports with the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office which has run these numbers. I thought they were low, but that is what they say, and the White House has jumped right on it and said: These are the numbers, and Sessions and the Heritage Foundation are all wrong. Their numbers are not good. These are good numbers, so let's just have a vote on it and let's make it law.

They estimate that a total of 7 million illegal aliens and their dependents will be granted status under the bill. Of the 11 million, they say 7 million will be granted status.

Additionally, the CBO and the White House estimate this bill will increase current immigration levels--which are now about 1 million a year legally--by about 8 million over a 10-year period, making total immigration into the United States over the next 10 years nearly 18 million instead of the currently expected 10 million, setting aside those who get amnesty.

Under various provisions of current law, the United States issues just under 1 million--approximately 950,000--green cards every year to people coming through immigration channels legally.

In 10 years, if this law remains the same as today, almost 10 million people will join the United States. Over 20 years, it would be about 18.9 million people--just under 20 million--under current law.

Under this bill that is on the floor today, we have been shocked to find the breadth of the numbers.

Almost 2 weeks ago, my staff and the Heritage Foundation did separate extensive analyses to determine the total number of people who would be coming into America under this bill, if it passes.

At a press conference last Monday--the first time anybody had even discussed it--Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, joined with me to reveal the results of our studies and to shed some light on the future immigration policy changes in the bill.

According to my projections, the bill would have increased the legal immigration population by 78 million to 217 million over the course of the next 20 years. I would note, the current population of the United States today is less than 300 million. So 100 million would be a one- third increase in the population by immigration; 200 million, of course, would be two-thirds of an increase in the population.

Mr. Rector's estimate was within the range I projected--coming in at 100 million over the course of 20 years. I just tried to figure out what the low numbers could be and the high numbers could be. He focused on what he thought the number would turn out to be. He found it to be 103 million people over the next 20 years--one-third of the current population of the United States of America.

So the day after those numbers were released, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman--I see him on the floor today-- which is, I think, perhaps, the most significant amendment we have adopted to date, that capped the number of people who could come into the country under that bill's new H-2C temporary guest worker program at 200,000 per year, not 325,000. And it ended this 20-percent automatic escalator clause.

I say to Senator Bingaman, I thank you for your effectiveness on that amendment. And it ended up having a pretty nice vote. But until that time, we had not begun to discuss on the floor of the Senate anything other than enforcement at the border and amnesty provisions. We had not even thought about it. How did they put this in there? How did they come up with an automatic 20-percent increase in immigration for a low- skilled provision of this bill? Who wrote that in there? Did anybody even know it was there?

If my fine staff had not been digging into it, I am not sure it would have been found. Well, the Heritage Foundation also dug into it, but awfully late. The bill had been tried to be pushed through this Senate about a month ago without any debate, without any amendments. They were just going to move that through. So it was a good improvement.

We now expect, after this however, that the numbers are still huge. I project the expected numbers in the next 20 years will be between 73 million and 92 million. Robert Rector has estimated that it will be 66 million over the next 210 years. He didn't include H-1B in his calculations.

So without any growth in the H-1B, the high-skilled visa program, we come in at 73 million. Under the maximum growth, we would come in at 92 million. Current levels, under current law, would be 10 million. Now, that is a big, big deal. It represents a serious policy decision of the people of the United States. And how many American people know we are talking about that? And 92 million is over four times the current rate of immigration in this country--five times really. From where did that come?

So even after Senator Bingaman's effective amendment, it is important to remember that both the Heritage Foundation's--Mr. Robert Rector's-- projections and mine calculate the bill will still increase current levels of immigration three- to fivefold over the next 20 years. The realistic estimate, I think, is four times the current rate. Is that what we need? Maybe it is. But we sure have not talked about it. Have you heard the American people consulted on that? We already have a pretty generous immigration system, I submit. It brings in a million people a year.

People say: Well, you have lots of illegal immigrants too. That would be 50 percent more, maybe 500,000 a year, as estimated. That is not three, four, five times the current rate.

Last Tuesday, the CBO released its final score of the Senate immigration bill. They estimated that if it passes, it would result in an 8 million person increase in the population over the first 10 years. The precise estimate is 7.8 million, which can be found on page 4 of the CBO score.

This estimated 8 million increase accounts for only future legal immigration caused by the bill. It does not include an estimate for the number of illegal aliens. We are not going to take that to zero, surely. Surely, we will make some progress to reduce illegal immigration, but it is not going to zero.

The CBO estimate for how many in the illegal alien population would benefit from the bill's amnesty provisions is contained in a separate calculation on page 22. On page 22, CBO estimates that 1 million illegal aliens will be adjusted under the AgJOBS provisions, and that two-thirds of the 6 million illegal aliens here for more than 5 years, and 50 percent of the 2 million illegal aliens here between 2 and 5 years, will adjust status under the bill's provisions.

So according to CBO, a total of 6 million illegal immigrants will become legal permanent--permanent--residents under the bill and be placed on an automatic path to citizenship.

Now, the White House, last Thursday, in a press release, entitled ``Setting the Record Straight''--OK--wholeheartedly embraced the CBO report and claimed that the 8 million future immigration estimate by CBO is ``consistent with most research on immigration issues.''

The White House press release also embraced the CBO estimate on the current illegal alien population but stated it a little differently. According to the White House, CBO estimated that about one-third of illegal immigrants eligible for legalization under the bill are unlikely to become legal permanent residents. Therefore, the logical conclusion of this statement is that two-thirds of the eligible illegal alien population will likely become legal permanent residents.

The White House press statement directly implies that the White House does not expect more than two-thirds of the illegal alien population to become legal permanent residents under the bill.

If 10.3 million people have been illegally present for more than 2 years, two-thirds of that number would mean approximately 7 million people now living here illegally will benefit from the amnesty provisions. This estimate--7 million--is 1 million higher than the way CBO lays out the numbers on page 22 of their score.

As the press statement points out, these estimates are much lower than the estimates that Robert Rector or my staff, after extensive review, came up with.

Although I highly doubt we have true numbers from the CBO, I sincerely hope they are accurate, and not mine. It is imperative that the American people, however, be able to trust their Government-- particularly those agencies that enforce these laws--when discussing issues such as these. My amendment will adopt the CBO and White House estimates as the realistic result of S. 2611's increases in immigration.

Under the amendment we are offering, the number of green cards that CBO and the White House estimate will be needed will be made available for the adjustment of status provisions and future immigration levels caused by the bill.

First, the amendment limits the number of green cards available under the bill's amnesty provisions to two-thirds of the qualified illegal alien population of about 10.3 million--a total of 7 million green cards.

Second, the amendment limits the increase in future immigration to 8 million above the current level of 10 million over 10 years. Under the amendment, the total number of green cards issued shall not exceed 18 million over any 10-year period, starting with the 2007-2016 10-year period.

Because real numbers of current immigration levels would only reach about 9,500,000 in 10 years, an additional 500,000 green cards are added to the White House's estimate in this amendment.

It is important that we limit the bill's effects to the numbers being used to justify the bill's passage, at least. The American people are much more accepting when they know the numbers we are asking them to believe in. And they are asking us to make sure we tell them truthfully, and that we comply with it. Though I am not in favor of granting amnesty to those who break the law, I believe it is important to hold the administration to its word when enacting a comprehensive reform bill.

My amendment limits the number of illegal aliens who can be granted amnesty under the bill. This limit will in turn limit the potential for fraudulent adjustments of status. It would also say if there were more claiming for green cards under amnesty than projected, and they met all the qualifications, they would get those green cards, but the future flow numbers would be reduced to cover that. Unlike the bill as written, my amendment would allow for a controlled increase in legal migration by placing a cap on the number of green cards that can be issued under the bill's other provisions. The fact is, we cannot admit everyone who wants to come to our country. Unlimited immigration will put a strain on finite resources. Therefore, in addition to properly enforcing our laws and securing our borders, we must put reasonable limits on the number of people who can enter permanently.

Under my amendment, future immigration will be increased by--hold your hat--80 percent, but not as much as the current bill allows, 300 to 500 percent. Eighty percent is too high. We haven't had the evidence to justify that, but I am saying, let's put this up for a vote so when this bill goes through here, we will at least know what the top level is.

This amendment is sensible and responsible. I ask my colleagues to vote for it. Later, I hope to have the opportunity in the debate--I see others, and I won't utilize any more time--to talk in more detail about the earned-income tax credit amendment, the need to reform in a significant way the unprincipled chain migration provisions of the bill, and the H-2C green cards future flow cap for H-2C green cards to be issued.

I thank my colleagues for their time. I urge each one of us to spend some serious time in analyzing the impact of this hugely important piece of legislation that the American people care about, and rightfully so. It is our responsibility to get it right. We don't want to be back here, as Senator Grassley has done today, and say we have made a mistake in 2006.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Kentucky will yield for a question, just a few years ago, not long after 9/11, we had the Brookwood mine disaster in Alabama, where 13 miners lost their lives. Basically, like the firemen in New York, they were responding to help someone in need, another miner that they believed needed help in an emergency, and lost their lives in a rescue attempt. It was a very emotional time for me and the families and

the town. We were joined on that occasion at the Brookwood mine area by the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao. I want you to know how proud I was of her that night. She went over to the union hall.

She had to be up at 5 o'clock the next morning to catch a flight. But she stayed there almost 2 hours meeting and talking with the victims of that disaster. I was able to call just Friday several family members and others who were involved in that to tell them of the passage of this piece of legislation out of committee. They were very excited about it--a lawyer for the union official, families of people who were killed in that disaster. As the Senator said, the price of coal is up. The demand for energy is up. We are going to be doing more mining. This legislation will clearly be a step forward into making those mines safer. I thank him for those comments. I hope we can move rapidly.

Mr. President, I certainly agree with that. I just ask that when the Senator gets home tonight, he thank the Secretary of Labor for the good work she has given to the committee in helping us pass this legislation.