Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon to follow up on my remarks of last evening about concerns I have involving the immigration process that is ongoing in the Senate and what Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, has indicated he plans to do.

I absolutely believe a framework exists for us to develop comprehensive immigration reform that can be worthy of the American people, to create a lawful system of immigration that will work. It will be difficult in a number of areas, but we can do that. A framework is being discussed, I know, because I have seen the PowerPoint presentations and some of the other discussions about it. A framework exists that could lead to effective immigration reform. There is no doubt that this Nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. The legal system is an embarrassment to us as a nation and a source of frustration to the American people. They rightly are concerned about it, and politicians don't seem to be. That is why we have had a problem for so long, and frustration and anger gets built up. People sometimes call in to radio stations and say things they shouldn't say that are unkind. A lot of it is a direct response to a failure of the Congress and the executive branch to do what is required to create a lawful system of immigration. For Heaven's sake, don't we all agree with that concept, a lawful system of immigration?

What interests should it serve? It should serve the national interest, the American interest. I asked Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security and Secretary Gutierrez of Commerce at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee not long ago, what should a lawful system of immigration do? Should it not serve the national interest? They said: Yes, sir.

Professor Borjas, a Cuban refugee, at Harvard has written a book on immigration. He said: If you tell me what interest you wish to serve, I can help you draft an immigration policy that will work. For example, if you say it should be the national interest, I can help you achieve that. If you want to serve the interest of poor people around the world, I can help achieve that. He basically said in his book ``Heaven's Door,'' we could serve poor people around the world by just letting them all in. That would be in their interest. We know that. In 2000, we had 11 million people apply for 50,000 lottery slots. The names are drawn out of a hat randomly. Only 50,000 are drawn out a year. We had 11 million apply for those slots.

We have to look at the basics. More people want to come to this country than we can accept, and those whom we accept should be based on what is in our interest. How much more simple can it be than that? I submit that is a moral and legitimate basis.

We always have a humanitarian component to immigration. I would not reduce that. About 16 percent of those who come, thereabouts, are for humanitarian reasons. I think we will always want to have that available for people who are persecuted or otherwise need humanitarian relief. Fundamentally, the rest of our program ought to serve the national interest.

This is what has happened. There are supposedly bipartisan discussions going on--and I know they are going on--to try to take the framework that has been agreed on by the President, Cabinet members, and some Members and to flesh that out and develop an immigration policy. That hasn't reached fruition. I understand some of the leaders on the Democratic side have walked away. They are not prepared to follow through on the overall agenda item for a given area, this framework. When you start writing down the words that will actually effectuate what you promise to do, then people start backing off.

I have said a number of times on the floor that we have a great deal of interest in immigration reform, except that we need a lawful system which will work. If it is a system that will actually work, we find immediately people start objecting.

Senator Reid has said these negotiators--I sometimes want to call them masters of the universe; I don't know who selected them--are meeting here and they are deciding the fate of American immigration. I want to say, well, let's see what they produce. I have told my constituents I hope they will discuss it, and maybe some agreement can be reached, one I could support. But I

promised my constituents--and every Senator ought to make this commitment--that I am going to read that bill. Just because people have great sounding words, if you don't read the words carefully and what they will actually mean in the effort to enforce immigration law, then you don't know what you are going to get. You are going to end up as we did in 1986, with a program that was an utter failure. The one we had last year would never have worked. It would have been a disastrous failure. It had no chance of being successful or ever achieving the ideas it purported.

Senator Reid apparently is unhappy. He has the power, as the Democratic leader, to call up any piece of legislation he wants to call up. He has said: I am not happy with the speed of this. He has said he is going to call up, under the power of the majority leader under rule XIV, last year's bill, and that this will be on the floor. Then he will want the negotiators to continue to negotiate, and maybe they will figure out what would be better. Then he might substitute this newly negotiated bill that hasn't been written yet--nobody has seen a word of it--and then we will vote. That will make everybody happy.

Let me say this, with all sincerity: The American people know immigration is a big issue. It is an important issue; it really is. It says a lot about the nature of this country. Are we going to be a country that the world knows has laws that are never enforced, that our immigration policies make a mockery of the law, as they do today? Will we continue to see people all over the world get the idea in their heads--correct today, basically--that if they can just get into America, sooner or later we will make them citizens and give them everything, even if they came illegally? Is that the kind of message we want to send?

Senator Reid has said he is going to bring up last year's bill. He also indicated that after last year's bill is introduced and maybe a compromise would be reached. Maybe they would substitute this compromise as a new bill which we have never seen before, nor the words in it.

Let me tell my colleagues, an immigration bill is not an itty-bitty thing. An immigration bill consists of a lot of pages. A group of us, about 15 of us, wrote to the majority leader and asked that we have 7 days--I thought that was way too short--to read the bill. Isn't that pathetic? The immigration bill last year was 700-plus pages. Seven hundred pages. This never before seen compromise version may be longer. At least last year's bill came out of the Judiciary Committee, and we had a chance to argue over it in there, although the train ran right through the Judiciary Committee and it ran through--basically through the floor of the Senate. But we began to read it before it was over, and I remember making a speech down here, several speeches, pointing out 17 loopholes in that bill, fatal flaws in the legislation. But anyway, it passed, but the House refused to even consider it.

Based on what was in the New York Times and Rollcall or The Hill or one of the publications, the plan would then presumably be for Senator Reid to bring up last year's bill, which is unthinkable, in my view. It was fatally flawed. We will stay on that bill for some time, and then perhaps they will plop on it a substitute and take out all or parts of last year's bill and substitute an entirely new bill, 600, 700 or 800 pages, and then we will vote on it. That will be good for the masters of the universe, you see, because when you do that, there would not be time for the American people or for Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh to find out what is in it and to tell the American people what is in it so they can get mad about it. That is basically what it is about. They want to slide it through with the least possible time to discuss it. I think that is irresponsible. It is wrong.

We should spend plenty of time on this legislation. We should go to the American people with honesty and integrity and tell them: Some of the things you want to do, Mr. and Mrs. America, we can't do. We are not going to be able to make immigration come out exactly like you would want it or exactly like I would want it. We are going to have to reach a compromise, but we understand we have a commitment to you, and that commitment is to create a system that will work in the future.

But I am worried about it because from what I am hearing, the system seems to be moving in a way that is going to create an opportunity to vote on a completely unseen immigration bill--nobody has read it except a little group--and move it through this Senate. Now, remember, the bill that passed last year was a bad piece of legislation, but it did pass this Senate. People thought it would die in the House, and sure enough, it did die in the House and it was never considered. They wouldn't even look at it. But I am not sure that is going to happen this time.

So we may have this plan in the works, and it will work something akin to this: Well, we spend 2 or 3 days talking about immigration, burning time and filibustering, filing cloture on a motion to proceed, and we get on the bill for a day or two and then all of a sudden a new bill comes on and in a day or two, it is passed. Hardly anybody knows what is in it or has had a chance to read it. Then it goes to the House of Representatives, where the Democratic majority now has a 15 seat, 16 seat or so majority over there; some of the Republicans would clearly be in favor of whatever passed out of the Senate. They don't have any way to delay votes over there, so the bill could be brought up and passed, the same bill, without any amendment. That could happen. Then it goes to the President and he signs it and then we will find out 2, 3 or 4 years from now whether it works.

I don't think it is going to work. I am worried about it. I am worried about it. I am worried there is not a commitment among the executive branch to enforce the immigration laws.

Anybody who would like to be elected President--the new executive branch leader has a commitment to ensuring a lawful system of immigration. That is all the American people want. They are not saying they don't want any immigrants in America.

So I am saying this because I am concerned this is where we are headed. I think it is unhealthy for the Senate. If we do that, we would have failed in an august responsibility. This is the body that is supposed to let the passions cool, where Senators look over important issues, think them through, and then make a decision on them. Also, the delay and the slowdown that goes on in the Senate is helpful so the American people can be advised on what their representatives are actually doing. So I am worried about it, and Senator Reid's strategy is frightening to me.

So let me repeat: I believe the framework that has been mentioned for the drafting of a comprehensive immigration reform bill actually has the potential to be successful. But based on my experience in the 10 years I have been in the Senate and the debate we have seen on immigration, I am inclined to believe they will have positive-sounding words on the headlines in big print, but the real language will not effectuate the promises they make or the goals they set. We could end up with no progress whatsoever. We could end up with amnesty and no enforcement in the future.

That is what happened in 1986. If you remember, in 1986, they said there are probably a million people in the country illegally. The system was not working. We had to do something, so we should grant amnesty to the people who came illegally, contrary to law, and then we would develop a new system in the future so that this would be the amnesty to end all amnesties. There would be no more amnesties. Well, 3 million people showed up to take advantage of it rather than 1 million people, and in the 20-plus years--21 years--since, we now have found in our country an estimated 12 million to 20 million people here illegally. So now we want to, I guess, give amnesty again on a promise that we will have a system that will work in the future. But the American people, you see, are cynical about it. They are not comfortable with us anymore on this subject, and frankly they are right to be cynical. Because there are a lot of special interests out there who are asking for what is in their interests but not what is in the national interests. It is time for us to consider what is in the national interests and do the right

thing on immigration. I firmly believe we will do a better job of writing a bill that will work, a bill that will serve our national interests, that will create a lawful immigration system, if the American people know what is going on, because that is what they want.

The American people have been consistently right on this issue. Their instincts have been right consistently. Oh, there are some nutty folks out here who are mean spirited, there is no doubt about that, but they represent a very small number. The basic feeling of the American people is sound on immigration and has been. It is the Congress and the executive branches that have failed them for 50 years. We don't have to continue to fail the American people. We have a responsibility to make it work, and I am hopeful that in the discussions for the first time with Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez helping behind the scenes to develop some plans that would actually work, we might even get this thing done. There is some possibility. I wouldn't have believed it, but now I am beginning to think it is possible.

But if at the last minute the special interest groups who seem to have dominated last year get their way, we would not be able to pass the bill we can be proud of. We would not pass a bill that will work, and we will be back in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now, dealing with another crisis.

So I will not go on anymore about it. I will mention what the framework, as I understood it, contained, that these PowerPoint presentations that were shown around and got leaked to the press, it has real improvement in border enforcement. We need that. That is essential. If you are serious about immigration, you want border enforcement. It set up as a goal a very effective job workplace enforcement, something that could actually work, using biometric identifying cards, helping the businesses and telling them exactly what they need to do so they can't be prosecuted or sued for doing something wrong. They are told exactly what to do and what will work. We can make the workplace cease to be the magnet for illegal jobs. That is very important, and it can be done. We need to deal compassionately and realistically with the people who are here illegally, but I don't believe that someone who broke the law in our country should be given every single benefit that we give to those who come lawfully. We will have to wrestle with that, and nobody is going to be happy, I am sure, with the way that comes out. That is the way it is with any big piece of legislation.

We need a genuine temporary seasonal worker program that is separate and apart from the program that would allow people to come into the country on a citizenship track. On the basic entry, citizenship entry into the United States, we need to be far more similar to Canada, which has a merit-based, skill-based system that evaluates applicants on what they bring to Canada: Do you speak English? Do you have an education? Do you have skills that Canada needs? It is a skill-based point system. It is objective and fair, and it serves the Canadian interests, and they are very happy with it. So is Australia, so is New Zealand, and I think the United Kingdom is also moving forward in this direction. A merit-based point system can actually be a framework for success. I understand that is being discussed. We do not need to promote such a framework, and then vote on a bill that doesn't create the merit-based point system when you read the fine print. That would be a failure.

So those are my concerns, and I will object with every ability I have, I will utilize every tool I have to ensure that whatever bill hits this floor, that Senators and the American people have time to evaluate it and an opportunity to know what is in it. But there are ways that this time and opportunity can be denied if the leadership is determined and can get the support. We could deny the American people that right, and it would be wrong to do so.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I hope we are not moving forward with a plan that would introduce the immigration bill we considered in the Senate last year. That is what I am hearing. I believe there are talks ongoing today--bipartisan talks--talks in which the White House and other members of the President's Cabinet are participating where they are at least talking about a framework of a comprehensive immigration reform of which we could be proud.

The bill that was introduced last year was fatally flawed. It was not the kind of legislation we should have passed. If it had been passed, it would never have worked and would have been an embarrassment to the Senate. I cannot say how strongly I believe that to be true. There was no way we could repair that bill by amendment. I talked about that last year. It was important that we start over with a new piece of legislation. We worked on it, and a majority of the Republicans in the Senate, last year, voted against the bill. The House refused to even consider it. They would not take it up. Four Democrats voted against the bill last year.

So the only way to enact comprehensive immigration legislation is to start over and write a new bill on which both the Democrats and a majority of Republicans can agree. Until this week, I had hopes that was ongoing. I have not been in the detailed negotiations, but I have been briefed on some of the framework for reform that, to me, is very consistent with what I pleaded with my colleagues last year to do.

Now, over the past several weeks, up to 10 Members of the Senate have been actively meeting to write a new bill. They started with the principles laid out by the White House in a 23-page Powerpoint that promptly got leaked. Maybe they wanted it leaked. I don't know. Those Powerpoints just have one or two lines. They do not have fine print. But they do set fourth agenda items and principles.

The principles laid out in that Powerpoint are much closer to a bill I could support and I think the American people would be willing to support.

This is what they included in that presentation. Although I am not involved in the details, I think it is what Members are discussing at this moment--have been discussing, at least. Apparently, people periodically walk away from the discussions, and they say this isn't good enough or I don't like this, but that is negotiation, hopefully, and we can work forward with it. Let me just tell you some of the things that are in this bill that were not in last year's legislation.

There is an enforcement trigger. Before any new immigration programs or green card adjustments could begin, the principles in the Powerpoint would require an ``enforcement trigger'' to be met. Senator Isakson from Georgia offered that. He basically said: We are not going to trust you this time--the American people are not. We want to see that you follow through on the things that are critical to a lawful immigration system before we pass the green card adjustments and deal with those other issues.

It also requires that the Border Patrol be increased to the numbers agreed upon--with a total of 18,300. It is one thing to say we are going to authorize 18,000 Border Patrol agents, which I think is a minimum, really not sufficient to cover the border--but it is an increase of significance. We are not going to go forward with the bill until you actually hire them and put them on the payroll and train them and they are out there.

Also, 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing must be constructed. We talked about that, and I offered the amendment. It passed several times and eventually was passed last year.

The catch and release at the border must be ended. This idea of catching people at the border who have violated our immigration laws and have come into the country illegally--they are being taken inland, taken before some administrative officer or judge and released on bail and asked to come back. Well, 95 percent are not showing up. That is what they wanted to do: to be brought into America. They were released on bail. Nobody ever went out and found them or looked for them. It is just a broken system. It is not working. Those are things that are part of the trigger as to what has to be fixed before we go forward with the legislation. That would be in the principles.

The future flow of temporary workers is critical. As to the future flow temporary worker program, the so-called Y visas--the principles outline a new program for truly temporary workers. The White House plan would admit new workers for 2 years and could be renewed three times, for a total of 6 years.

Between each 2-year period, workers would be required to return to their home countries for 6 months. Workers could not bring their spouses or their children but could return home to visit them if they choose. They would be able to go back and forth as often as they liked. There is no cap specified in the White House plan, but the plan envisions an annual cap set by the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, depending on American needs.

Workers would be eligible to apply for green cards through regular channels. Regular channels are adjusted to a more merit-based system. It would include a merit-based system. I think this is a great improvement over last year's legislation. But I have to tell you, I am concerned about people coming to stay more than 1 year because I think it becomes more and more difficult for them to leave. They are less likely to leave. Many of them are more likely to violate the law and just embed and stay. I think a 1-year plan would be far better. But those are things that are being talked about which would be substantially better than last year's legislation.

There is a seasonal worker program that makes much more sense than what was in last year's bill. The principles also contain a ``new and improved'' seasonal worker program that would combine the current agricultural--the H-2A plan--and unskilled--H-2B--seasonal worker programs. We combine those two programs, as they should be combined, because they are each for temporary workers.

Workers could remain in this country for 9 months at a time, under this proposal, and would be required to return to their home countries for 3 months in between. This is a temporary worker program that appears to be actually temporary, unlike last year's legislation, in which the temporary guest worker program in last year's immigration bill said an individual could come to this country temporarily, but they could bring their wife and children. They could come for 3 years. That 3 years could be extended again and again and again. And they could apply for citizenship within the first year they got here. That was the temporary worker program last year. How broken was that? It would never have worked. People bring their children, they get settled in the country, a decade goes by. Who is going to be able to ask them to leave? What kind of painful scene would that be? Teachers, preachers, family members, neighbors--they have gotten to know people. They have a whole new mindset, an incorrect mindset.

The bill, last year, said ``temporary guest worker program,'' and this is what it was. It was really a permanent entry into the country for very extended periods of time where it could be difficult for people to leave.

Under this plan, the outline that is being discussed, they could actually work--and it is what I suggested last year--and spouses and children would remain in the worker's home country.

Renewals under the seasonal program would be unlimited, which may be problematic. We would need to discuss that some.

But these workers would also be eligible to apply for green cards under regular channels, if they are willing to compete against others on a merit-

based basis to see whether or not they could come.

Then the principles focus on a more merit-based entry policy into the United States. The principles I hear being discussed would eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery and some chain migration categories, such as brothers and sisters and adult siblings of U.S. citizens.

Green cards that have been given out for those individuals would be transferred over to a point system which selects legal permanent resident applicants based on merit. So I am concerned that the White House plan also appears to increase the total number of green cards available each year. Page 21 of the Powerpoint indicates that 1.4 million green cards would be available each year. We are at about 1 million now. That would be a 40-percent increase. I want to look at that carefully. But I like the idea of the entry being based on a more meritorious program.

They have a plan to clear the current backlog of green card applications, which also has dangers in that it could substantially increase the number of people who would come. I am not sure comprehensive immigration reform is designed to increase--at least the American people have an idea that it is designed to increase dramatically the number of people who come legally today. I don't think that is what most people have in mind when they think about immigration reform.

What about the population that is here today illegally? This plan that is being discussed would have given legal status to illegal aliens currently in the country through a new ``Z'' visa, which would be renewable indefinitely. Those holding Z visas will be eligible to apply for green cards through regular channels after they go back, ``touchback,'' across the border. But regular channels are adjusted to a more merit-based system. So they would have to compete with people who have other qualities and merits that may make them less likely to be admitted.

If these principles are the ones that form the framework for a newly drafted, bipartisan bill, then I think it is possible that we could successfully enact immigration reform this year.

Now, I cannot tell you that I am going to be able to vote for this plan in the end because I intend to read the fine print. That is what I learned last year. The rubric, the caption in the bill last year was ``temporary guest worker program'' in big print right in the middle of the bill. Then, when you read it, what did you find? We found that the individuals came here for 3 years, with their family, and they could reup, reup for 3 years, time and time again, and, frankly were never going to leave this country.

It was not a temporary guest worker program at all. It was a scheme to confuse the American people about the real meaning of it. In fact, I think it confused Senators. I think they thought it was a temporary worker program, and it absolutely was not. It would never have worked. But the people who wrote it--I think that was their plan. They never wanted it to work to begin with. That is the true fact about it. So the fine print could contain things that will not work.

So I think the framework, the outline, if we are honest and serious, could be the basis for a historic reform of immigration that could actually work, that we could actually be proud of. It is possible. But there are forces, special interests that are driving this process, and they do not respect the views of the American people. They want to ram it through on their terms, and they want to have it say what they want it to say.

This is what the news reports are saying, and I am getting very concerned about it. It is now being reported that instead of being patient and waiting for this new bipartisan bill to be completed and actually written up so people can read it, the majority leader, Senator Reid, is forcing the immigration bill to this floor Wednesday, May 9, the day after tomorrow. According to Roll Call, this morning:

According to an aide to Reid, the Majority leader is

expected to bring up the . . . package passed by the

Judiciary Committee last year . . . if negotiations produce a

deal he will allow lawmakers to propose it as a substitute

amendment. . . .

Now, this plan is not a wise approach. Why do we want to bring up a piece of legislation that is fatally flawed, that should never, ever become law? I see no reason. I have one idea, though, or one suspicion I am going to discuss.

It puts undue pressure, an artificial timeline, on those who are trying to work through this extremely complex and important piece of legislation we do not need. We don't have to set that kind of deadline. What we need them to do is to spend the necessary time to produce a strong, thoughtful, bipartisan product that will actually work. That is what we need to do. Then we can vote for it with pride instead of trying to sneak it through this Senate without anybody knowing what is actually in it. As I said last week when I heard about this plan, the Democratic leadership acts as if this is another piece of everyday legislation, but it is not. The immigration bill is one of the most important to come through the Senate in the decade I have been here. I believe that. I think the American people understand that. So this option is not new.

In April, we heard news reports that the Democratic majority would be abandoning efforts to write a new bill and would be starting with the fatally flawed bill produced by the Judiciary Committee last Congress.

``Immigration Daily,'' an online immigration law publication, reported:

There is good reason to believe that the CIR--that is the

Comprehensive Immigration Reform--

Language will finally be introduced on the Senate floor

within 2 weeks or less. What will the CIR language look like?

CIR begins with S. 2611, the McCain-Kennedy bill which

cleared the Senate last year.

The New York Times reported a similar story:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has abandoned efforts to produce

a new immigration bill and is proposing using legislation

produced last March by the Senate Judiciary Committee as the

starting point for negotiations this year. Mr. Kennedy

dismissed the notion that his efforts to produce a new

immigration bill had failed. He said he had decided that the

committee report was the best starting point.

We have had extensive hearings on the essential aspects of

this bill,

Mr. Kennedy said.

We are effectively ready to mark up and for going to the

floor.

I am very disappointed--beyond disappointed--to hear those news reports. I have been pleased, I guess, today that so far these plans haven't come to fruition, that the majority has begun to engage or has continued to engage Republican Senators and the White House in a real effort to write a good bill. I hope that is what the majority will continue to do.

I hope the majority will abandon last year's fatally flawed bill, not start with it. It cannot be amended and an effective bill created. It means this cannot be the starting point to come to the floor with a new bill this Congress. I implore our leadership to continue trying to write a bill that a majority of Republicans could support, that is possible if we follow through on the real principles people are talking about and saying they can agree to.

It is not a question of the principles we are dealing with. The question is: Will we write the bill in such a way that the principles are carried out? That is the key thing. It was not done last year. In 1986, it was to be the amnesty to end all amnesties. They had 3 million people--I think they thought there were 2 million people--here illegally. They created amnesty for them and they promised we would pass a new law and that this new law would be such that we wouldn't have to do amnesty again. That was in 1986, 20 years ago. We had, it turned out, 3 million people who claimed the amnesty.

What has happened since? Now we have 12 million people here illegally--maybe 20 million--who knows for sure. So why wouldn't we learn from that? Why wouldn't we understand this is not a political football to be kicked down the field? This is important legislation that ought to be passed and written correctly, so 5 years from now, we can go to our constituents and say: We did something good. It is working as we promised you it would work. Why not?

Well, I will tell my colleagues what appears to me to be happening. By bringing up the old bill, last year's bill, which many people in this Senate voted for and probably still believe is good legislation, though it certainly is not, they can start it--they can start it and go forward with this bill that perhaps they never intend to be offered as the final legislation. You burn the time

on the motion to proceed to the bill for the bill to be discussed, and they can go past that and move to proceed to the bill, and then file for cloture on the bill, and then offer a substitute, 700, 800 pages. That is how many pages it was last year--over 600. If they write this one well this year, it should be more than that. They drop a 700, 800- page bill and substitute the old bill, and there is no time to debate it, and they slide it right through, railroad time. I am telling my colleagues, that appears to me to be what it is about. That would be an abrogation of our responsibility.

The American people care about this legislation. The American people are not unengaged. They know something compassionate is going to have to be done about the 12 million people, but I think most people agree with me that someone who came here illegally should not be given every single benefit we give to somebody who comes here legally. We need to set a principle that we are not going to reward illegal behavior in the future. So you work something out on that, and you work something out on these other complex issues, and we set up a policy of immigration for the future that reflects some of the principles Canada has: its point system, its merit-based system. That was never discussed last year. Not one hint of it is in the bill Senator Reid is apparently intending to bring up on Wednesday.

How can we possibly talk about comprehensive immigration reform and never consider a merit-based immigration system? Isn't America based on merit? Don't we know far more people want to come here than can be accepted? Don't we know Australia does that, New Zealand does that, the United Kingdom is looking at that--all developed and highly sophisticated nations committed to humanity and civil rights, world leaders in that regard. Are their proposals somehow immoral and unfit? Of course not. Those ideas were not even discussed in last year's bill. So they say we might have something such as that in this legislation. Well, let's see it. Let's see what the words say. What is it going to say? Is it going to be like last year when it said ``temporary guest worker,'' and that was nothing but a sham when you read the fine print under it? Is that what we are going to get this year, a bill they ram through at the last minute, burning the time for debate so we have only the most minimal time to debate? Is that the plan? I hope the American people are keeping their eye on this one. They deserve more. The American people are concerned about immigration. It is an important issue. It is a very important issue to us.

We had a group from Ireland testify at the Judiciary Committee last year and they told us only 2,000 people got into our country from Ireland last year. We had over 1 million come in legally. What is this? How do we create a system that does not give people throughout the world an equal chance, an opportunity to apply to come to America? We need to work on that. We can do it. There is a framework here that, if fleshed out with good legislation, good language, enforceability, we can be proud of.

I am afraid that is not what we are doing. I am afraid there is an attempt here to move a fast one. I am afraid the masters of the universe who run this place, some on both sides of the aisle, don't want the American people to know what is in the bill. They don't trust them to be in on the negotiations. They want to do it and slide it through.

I remember last year we offered--someone offered a good amendment, I think it was the Isakson amendment, on a trigger, and one of the Senators said: Oh, we can't accept that amendment. Why not? We can't accept it because it would upset that delicate balance of negotiations with the parties who put this bill together. So I asked: Who were they? Who are these parties who put the bill together? Where did they meet? Did they have votes? Did people elect them to go in this caucus to write this piece of junk that was the bill last year? Who was that? Oh, they wouldn't talk about who actually wrote the bill. They wanted to ram it through, and nobody could amend it because it would upset their delicate compromise. Well, phooey on that. We need to do this in the light of day. We need to stand up and explain to our constituents and ask them to support a good bill, and we need to stand up and oppose a bill that is a bad bill. We are going to live with it, as we have lived for over 20 years now with 1986, that failed piece of legislation that had so much promise and people were so happy about when it passed, and it never worked.

There are several reasons we need to be cautious. You can put in a piece of legislation an authorization to add a bunch of Border Patrol officers or workplace enforcement rules, or you can put in an authorization to spend money to create a computer system that will actually work, and it can. We can create a system that will work, but authorizing doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean anything. You have to come up with money, and the money comes up in the years to come. If this Congress isn't serious about what it is doing and we pass a bill that authorizes a bunch of provisions that could actually help and be worthwhile and we never come up with the money to do it, the system is going to collapse as badly as it is right now.

We need a national debate, a national consensus on a good piece of legislation. The President needs to be committed to leading instead of undermining the enforcement of laws. They are getting a little better in the White House now, but Presidents in the past have had no interest whatsoever in seeing immigration laws passed. If they did, they would have come to Congress and said: We need more border enforcement, we need fencing, we need more Border Patrol, we need an end catch and release. They never came to Congress and said the law was not being enforced. American constituents talk to Members of Congress and the Members of the Senate and explain about the plain as day illegality that is going on, and the Congress is trying to make the system be enforced. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, is a former U.S. attorney. The President, the executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law, not the Congress. What do we know about how to catch all these people. They ought to be asking us for the laws. They should be telling us what is needed. But no, no, because nobody, not any President since 1986, has ever taken his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States seriously as they apply to immigration. So that is what we have.

I have points I will not go into tonight that detail the incredible flaws that existed in last year's bill.

Senator Specter offered a bill that I didn't favor, but it was better--he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee last year--it was better than the other two that arose. After he offered it in Judiciary Committee, we went on in a day or so, or two or three, and we had this deadline. Like Senator Reid, Senator Frist said: I have to have the bill out Monday. If you don't bring it out Monday, I am going to introduce another bill--a pretty good bill, actually, which was an enforcement-oriented bill. Also, the Judiciary Committee got in a flutter, and we ran around, and Senator Kennedy offered the substitute--Kennedy-McCain. The Specter bill was gone, and an entirely new Kennedy-McCain bill was on the floor. Then the controversial AgJOBS portion of immigration that had been floating around here and had been blocked over the years was offered up as an amendment to Kennedy- McCain, and it was added with no debate. We voted this out and it was on the floor, and the next day we were debating this 600-page bill.

That is not the way to do business in the Senate. My chief counsel here studied this legislation, and we read the fine print, that 600 pages, and when we looked at it, we were shocked at the loopholes it contained. We identified--and I spoke here several hours on it--17 loopholes in that legislation. It began to lose steam. We found out just, for example--mind you, Senator Reid, I understand from the New York Times and others, is talking about introducing the Judiciary Committee bill. This is what the Judiciary Committee bill would have done last year, the one that passed out of the Committee, the so-called McCain-Kennedy bill. Under current law, over the next 20 years, this Nation would issue 18.9 million green cards--quite a substantial number. Under the Kennedy-McCain bill passed out of committee last year--hold your hat--it would have been, at a minimum, 78 million over 20 years to

as many as 200 million. That is two-thirds of the current population of the United States of America. They tried to move that bill without amendments. I cannot recall the gymnastics they went through, but they were even denying Senators Kyl and Cornyn amendments they wanted to have, and Senator Reid wanted no amendments.

Finally, we began to have amendments. Senator Bingaman offered two amendments, eventually, as time went by. It was brought back the third time. They brought those numbers down from 78 million and 200 million to 53 million, almost 3 times the current rate of immigration.

So Senator Reid, as I understand it, according to a news report, is talking about bringing up the Judiciary Committee bill. This is not the 53 million people being brought in here permanently with a green card-- permanent residents--but we would go back to the 78 million to 200 million. How amazing is that?

So I am just flabbergasted by the way this matter is being treated. There is only one way to do it; that is, we stand up like real Senators and we write a bill and work out a bill, and we give the Members of the Senate the time to read it, time for the American people to understand what is in it, and see if it can be amended and made better, and make sure it will actually work, not just be a political show--not some political sham but a piece of legislation that would actually work, and then we would pass it. We would be responsible to our constituents for a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote because we do need to pass comprehensive reform. I said that many times last year. Of course, we need that.

The whole system is broken. Nothing about it works. Of course, we need to reform it from the ground up. But the legislation last year is no place to start. We don't need to be using some gimmick to get the bill up, with last year's language, and then substitute new language that nobody has read and ram it through the Senate. The American people should not be happy with that.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his patience and those who listened to my remarks. I believe we can do something better. I support real and genuine reform of immigration in America. I will support legislation that provides a compassionate solution to the people who have been here for years and have been dutiful, law-abiding people except for their illegal presence. We can work through those things.

We need a future flow system, much more like Canada's, much more like New Zealand's. We need a temporary worker program that is really temporary. We need a workplace enforcement system that the average employer will have no problem in following. We need a biometric, identifying cards for immigrant workers so they cannot be illegally forged. That is all possible to do if we want to do it--unless the people who are driving this bill, the architects of this, just want to go through the motions of creating an immigration system that would work, unless that is their plan, to just go through the motions and pass a bill that has no chance of being successful, just like we did in 1986, and 8 or 10 years later, they can say: We are heartbroken; we thought it was going to work.

I think we can do it, and I think we ought to do it. I hope the majority leader will not bring up the last year's bills--any one of them--and that he will bring up the bill that was drafted through this compromise process because I think it at least has some possibility to be a bill we could support, unlike the one last year, and then we can study it and debate it. The American people could be engaged in it, and we ought to stand up and vote and do the right thing for America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and make some remarks today about a very valuable asset to the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the entire State of Alabama--Ice Hockey Head Coach Doug Ross, who is retiring after 25 years of coaching the UAH Chargers hockey team.

Coach Ross began his coaching career at Ohio University in 1976 where he coached for one season, and then at Kent State University for 2 years. He came to UAH in 1982. The hockey team at that time was a top team and the only NCAA hockey team south of the Mason-Dixon line. Under his leadership, the team has had great success, reaching NCAA Division I status. Quoting Coach Joe Ritch, his predecessor at UAH. ``Doug brought UAH championships, unique notoriety, and national respect in the collegiate hockey world. We all owe Doug Ross a debt of gratitude for his commitment to UAH and hockey for this state.''

The team went to the NCAA Regional Tournament this year where they played the third longest game in NCAA Regional Tournament history. In a thrilling game with top-ranked and top-seeded Notre Dame, the Chargers lost 3-2 in double overtime on a power-play goal. If winning it all could not happen, this game was one on which to cap a career.

Coach Ross is known for recruiting top notch student athletes to UAH. Following their success on the ice, many of his players are active alumni, living in the Huntsville area and actively involved in the community.

Thank you, Coach Ross, for bringing NCAA hockey to the forefront in Alabama and for your loyalty and support for the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Your legacy is a great one and I join with UAH, the Huntsville community, and the State of Alabama in wishing you the very best in your retirement.

Mr. President, I rise and send to the desk a bill entitled the ``Fair Arbitration Act of 2007.'' This bill continues the legislative process that I started several years ago with the introduction of the ``Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights'' and the ``Arbitration Fairness Act of 2002.'' The purpose of the Fair Arbitration Act of 2007, like my earlier proposals, is to improve the Federal Arbitration Act so that it will remain a cost- effective means of resolving disputes, but will do so in a fair way. The Fair Arbitration Act will provide procedural protections to everyone who enters into a contract with an arbitration clause. This bill ensures that consumers, employees, and small businesses that enter into contracts covered by the Federal Arbitration Act will have their disputes resolved in accordance with fundamental principles of due process, and in a speedy and cost-effective manner.

Congress originally enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served us well for over three-quarters of a century. Under the Act, if the parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in court. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to a contract to agree not to take their disputes to court, but to resolve any dispute arising from that contract before a neutral decision-maker, generally selected by a nonprofit arbitration organization, such as the American Arbitration Association or the National Arbitration Forum. The parties can generally present evidence and be represented by counsel. And the decision-makers will apply the relevant State law in resolving the dispute. Arbitration is generally quicker and less expensive than going to court.

In recent years, there have been some cases where the arbitration process has not worked well, but thousands of disputes have been fairly and effectively settled by arbitrators. Such a system is even more important because of skyrocketing legal costs where attorneys require large contingency fees. Accordingly, I have opposed piecemeal legislative changes to the act. Instead, I believe that the Senate should approach the Federal Arbitration Act in a comprehensive manner.

The approach of reforming arbitration rather than abandoning the arbitration process provides a better solution in several respects. Arbitration is one of the most cost-effective means of resolving disputes. Unlike businesses, consumers and employees generally cannot afford a team of lawyers to represent them. And their claims are often not big enough so that a lawyer would take the case on a 25 percent or even a 50 percent contingent fee. In a 1998 article in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Lewis Maltby, then the Director of the National Task Force on Civil Liberties in the Workplace of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Director of the American Arbitration Association, explained how court litigation is often just too expensive for most employees:

Even if the client has clearly been wronged and is

virtually certain to prevail in court, the attorney will be

forced to turn down the case unless there are substantial

damages. A survey of plaintiff employment lawyers found that

a prospective plaintiff needed to have a minimum of $60,000

in provable damages not including pain and suffering or other

intangible damages before an attorney would take the case.

Even this, however, does not exhaust the financial

obstacles an employee must overcome to secure representation.

In light of their risk of losing such cases, many plaintiffs'

attorneys require a prospective client to pay a retainer,

typically about $3,000. Others require clients to pay out-of-

pocket expenses of the case as they are incurred. Expenses in

employment discrimination cases can be substantial. Donohue

and Siegelman found that expenses in Title VII cases are at

least $10,000 and can reach as high as $25,000. Finally, some

plaintiffs' attorneys now require a consultation fee,

generally $200-$300, just to discuss their situation with a

potential client.

The result of these formidable hurdles is that most people

with claims against their employer are unable to obtain

counsel, and thus never receive justice. Paul Tobias, founder

of the National Employment Lawyers' Association, has

testified that ninety-five percent of those who seek help

from the private bar with an employment matter do not obtain

counsel. Howard's survey of plaintiffs' lawyers produced the

same result. A Detroit firm reported that only one of eighty-

seven employees who came to them seeking representation was

accepted as a client.

Without arbitration, consumers and employees are faced with having to pay a lawyer's hourly rate, which may amount to several thousand dollars to litigate a claim in court. If that is what consumers and employees are left with, many will have no choice but to drop their claim. That is not right. It is not fair. Thus, Professor Stephen Ware of the Cumberland Law School stated in a paper published by the CATO Institute that ``current [arbitration] law is better for all consumers [than an exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act] except those few who are especially likely to have large liability claims. . . .''

Thus, while some have argued that the Congress should enact exemptions from the Federal Arbitration Act for different classes of contracts from automobile franchise contracts to employment contracts to chicken farmers, such exemptions would not help the overwhelming majority of the people who could not afford a lawyer to litigate in court. This is where arbitration can give consumers and employees a cost-effective forum to assert their claims. Thus, before we make exceptions to the Federal Arbitration Act for special interests with friends in Washington, I think it is our duty to consider how we can improve the system for everyone.

We can improve the arbitration system, but we must take a balanced approach. In such an approach, we must protect the sanctity of legal contracts explicitly protected under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. In any contract, the parties must agree to all the terms and clauses included in the contract document. This includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the basic premise of the Federal Arbitration Act for over 75 years.

Unfortunately, however, in certain situations consumers, employees, and small businesses have not been treated fairly. That is what the Fair Arbitration Act is designed to correct.

The bill will maintain the cost savings of binding arbitration, but will grant several specific ``due process'' rights to all parties to an arbitration proceeding. The bill is modeled after consumer and employee due process protocols of the American Arbitration Association, which have broad support. The bill provides the following rights:

1. Notice. Under the bill, to be enforceable, an arbitration clause would have to have a heading in large, bold print, would have to state whether arbitration is binding or optional, identify a source that the parties may contact for more information, and state that a consumer could opt out to small claims court.

This will ensure, for example, that consumers who receive credit card notices in the mail will not miss an arbitration clause because it is lost in the ``fine print.'' Further, it would give all parties a means to obtain more information on how to resolve any disputes. Finally, the clause would explain that if a party's claims could otherwise be brought in small claims court, the party would be free to do so. Small claims court, unlike regular trial court, provides another inexpensive and quick means of dispute resolution.

2. Independent selection of arbitrators. The bill grants all parties the right to have potential arbitrators disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and employment. All parties to the arbitration will have an equal voice in selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company who sold a consumer a product will not select the arbitrator itself, because the consumer with a grievance will have the right to nominate potential arbitrators, too. As a result, the

final arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both parties to the dispute. This helps ensure that the arbitrator will be a neutral party with no allegiance to either party.

3. Choice of law. The bill grants the non-drafting party, usually the consumer or the employee, the right to have the arbitrator governed by the substantive law that would apply under conflicts of laws principles applicable in the forum in which the non-drafting party resided at the time the contract was entered into. This means that the substantive contract law that would apply in a court where the consumer, employee, or business resides at the time of making the contract will apply in the arbitration. Thus, in a dispute arising from the purchase of a product by an Alabama consumer from an Illinois company, a court would have to determine whether Alabama or Illinois law applied by looking to the language of the contract and to the place where the contract was entered into. The bill ensures that an arbitrator would use the same conflict of laws principles that a court would in determining whether Alabama or Illinois law would govern the arbitration proceedings.

4. Representation. The bill grants all parties the right to be represented by counsel at their own expense. Thus, if the claim involves complicated legal issues, consumers, employees, or small businesses would be free to have their lawyer represent him in the arbitration. Such representation should be substantially less expensive than a trial in court because of the more abbreviated and expedited process of arbitration.

5. Hearing. The bill grants all parties the right to a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer or employee. This would prevent a large company from requiring consumers, employees, or small business owners to travel across the country to arbitrate their claim and to expend more in travel costs than their claim is potentially worth.

6. Evidence. The bill grants all parties the right to conduct discovery and to present evidence. This ensures that the arbitrator can have all the facts before making a decision.

7. Cross examination. The bill grants all parties the right to cross examine witnesses presented by the other party at the hearing. This allows a party to test the statements of the other party's witnesses and be sure that the evidence before the arbitrator is correct.

8. Record. The bill grants all parties the right to hire a stenographer or tape record the hearing to produce a record. This right is key to proving later whether the arbitration proceeding was fair.

9. Timely resolution. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitration proceeding completed promptly so that they do not have to wait for a year or more to have their claim resolved. Under the bill, a defendant must file an answer not more than 30 days of the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days after the answer to hold a hearing. The arbitrator must render a final decision within 30 days after the hearing. Extensions are available in extraordinary circumstances.

10. Written decision. The bill grants all parties the right to a written decision by the arbitrator explaining the resolution of the case and his reasons therefor. If the consumer or employee takes a claim to arbitration, he deserves to have an explanation of why he won or lost.

11. Expenses. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in the interests of justice and the reduction, deferral, or waiver of arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship. It does little good to take a claim to arbitration if the consumer or employee cannot even afford the arbitration fee. This provision ensures that the arbitrator can waive or reduce the fee or make the company reimburse the consumer or employee for a fee if the interests of justice so require.

12. Small claims opt-out. The bill grants all parties the right to opt out of arbitration into small claims court if that court has jurisdiction over the claim and the claim does not exceed $50,000.

The bill also provides an effective mechanism for parties to enforce these rights. At any time, if a consumer or employee believes that another party violated his or her rights, the consumer or employee can request and the arbitrator may award a penalty up to the amount of the claim plus attorneys fees. For example, if a defendant party failed to provide discovery to a plaintiff party, the plaintiff could move for an award of fees. The amount of the fee award is limited, as it is in court, to the amount of cost incurred by the employee in trying to obtain the information from the company. This principle is taken from Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After the decision, if the losing party believes that the rights granted to him by the Act have been violated, it may file a petition with the Federal district court. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the losing party's rights were violated, it may order a new arbitrator appointed. Thus, if a consumer, employee, or small business has an arbitrator that is unfair and this causes him to lose the case, the plaintiff can obtain another arbitrator.

This bill is an important step to continuing a constructive dialog on arbitration. This bill will ensure that those who can least afford to go to court can go to a less expensive arbitrator and be treated fairly. It will ensure that every arbitration carried out under the Federal Arbitration Act is completed fairly, promptly, and economically. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that consumers, employees, and small businesses who agree in a contract to arbitrate their claims will be treated fairly under the Federal Arbitration Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise and send to the desk a bill entitled the ``Fair Arbitration Act of 2007.'' This bill continues the legislative process that I started several years ago with the introduction of the ``Consumer and Employee Arbitration Bill of Rights'' and the ``Arbitration Fairness Act of 2002.'' The purpose of the Fair Arbitration Act of 2007, like my earlier proposals, is to improve the Federal Arbitration Act so that it will remain a cost- effective means of resolving disputes, but will do so in a fair way. The Fair Arbitration Act will provide procedural protections to everyone who enters into a contract with an arbitration clause. This bill ensures that consumers, employees, and small businesses that enter into contracts covered by the Federal Arbitration Act will have their disputes resolved in accordance with fundamental principles of due process, and in a speedy and cost-effective manner.

Congress originally enacted the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. It has served us well for over three-quarters of a century. Under the Act, if the parties agree to a contract affecting interstate commerce that contains a clause requiring arbitration, the clause will be enforceable in court. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to a contract to agree not to take their disputes to court, but to resolve any dispute arising from that contract before a neutral decision-maker, generally selected by a nonprofit arbitration organization, such as the American Arbitration Association or the National Arbitration Forum. The parties can generally present evidence and be represented by counsel. And the decision-makers will apply the relevant State law in resolving the dispute. Arbitration is generally quicker and less expensive than going to court.

In recent years, there have been some cases where the arbitration process has not worked well, but thousands of disputes have been fairly and effectively settled by arbitrators. Such a system is even more important because of skyrocketing legal costs where attorneys require large contingency fees. Accordingly, I have opposed piecemeal legislative changes to the act. Instead, I believe that the Senate should approach the Federal Arbitration Act in a comprehensive manner.

The approach of reforming arbitration rather than abandoning the arbitration process provides a better solution in several respects. Arbitration is one of the most cost-effective means of resolving disputes. Unlike businesses, consumers and employees generally cannot afford a team of lawyers to represent them. And their claims are often not big enough so that a lawyer would take the case on a 25 percent or even a 50 percent contingent fee. In a 1998 article in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Lewis Maltby, then the Director of the National Task Force on Civil Liberties in the Workplace of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Director of the American Arbitration Association, explained how court litigation is often just too expensive for most employees:

Even if the client has clearly been wronged and is

virtually certain to prevail in court, the attorney will be

forced to turn down the case unless there are substantial

damages. A survey of plaintiff employment lawyers found that

a prospective plaintiff needed to have a minimum of $60,000

in provable damages not including pain and suffering or other

intangible damages before an attorney would take the case.

Even this, however, does not exhaust the financial

obstacles an employee must overcome to secure representation.

In light of their risk of losing such cases, many plaintiffs'

attorneys require a prospective client to pay a retainer,

typically about $3,000. Others require clients to pay out-of-

pocket expenses of the case as they are incurred. Expenses in

employment discrimination cases can be substantial. Donohue

and Siegelman found that expenses in Title VII cases are at

least $10,000 and can reach as high as $25,000. Finally, some

plaintiffs' attorneys now require a consultation fee,

generally $200-$300, just to discuss their situation with a

potential client.

The result of these formidable hurdles is that most people

with claims against their employer are unable to obtain

counsel, and thus never receive justice. Paul Tobias, founder

of the National Employment Lawyers' Association, has

testified that ninety-five percent of those who seek help

from the private bar with an employment matter do not obtain

counsel. Howard's survey of plaintiffs' lawyers produced the

same result. A Detroit firm reported that only one of eighty-

seven employees who came to them seeking representation was

accepted as a client.

Without arbitration, consumers and employees are faced with having to pay a lawyer's hourly rate, which may amount to several thousand dollars to litigate a claim in court. If that is what consumers and employees are left with, many will have no choice but to drop their claim. That is not right. It is not fair. Thus, Professor Stephen Ware of the Cumberland Law School stated in a paper published by the CATO Institute that ``current [arbitration] law is better for all consumers [than an exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act] except those few who are especially likely to have large liability claims. . . .''

Thus, while some have argued that the Congress should enact exemptions from the Federal Arbitration Act for different classes of contracts from automobile franchise contracts to employment contracts to chicken farmers, such exemptions would not help the overwhelming majority of the people who could not afford a lawyer to litigate in court. This is where arbitration can give consumers and employees a cost-effective forum to assert their claims. Thus, before we make exceptions to the Federal Arbitration Act for special interests with friends in Washington, I think it is our duty to consider how we can improve the system for everyone.

We can improve the arbitration system, but we must take a balanced approach. In such an approach, we must protect the sanctity of legal contracts explicitly protected under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. In any contract, the parties must agree to all the terms and clauses included in the contract document. This includes the arbitration clause. This is basic contract law, and the basic premise of the Federal Arbitration Act for over 75 years.

Unfortunately, however, in certain situations consumers, employees, and small businesses have not been treated fairly. That is what the Fair Arbitration Act is designed to correct.

The bill will maintain the cost savings of binding arbitration, but will grant several specific ``due process'' rights to all parties to an arbitration proceeding. The bill is modeled after consumer and employee due process protocols of the American Arbitration Association, which have broad support. The bill provides the following rights:

1. Notice. Under the bill, to be enforceable, an arbitration clause would have to have a heading in large, bold print, would have to state whether arbitration is binding or optional, identify a source that the parties may contact for more information, and state that a consumer could opt out to small claims court.

This will ensure, for example, that consumers who receive credit card notices in the mail will not miss an arbitration clause because it is lost in the ``fine print.'' Further, it would give all parties a means to obtain more information on how to resolve any disputes. Finally, the clause would explain that if a party's claims could otherwise be brought in small claims court, the party would be free to do so. Small claims court, unlike regular trial court, provides another inexpensive and quick means of dispute resolution.

2. Independent selection of arbitrators. The bill grants all parties the right to have potential arbitrators disclose relevant information concerning their business ties and employment. All parties to the arbitration will have an equal voice in selecting a neutral arbitrator. This ensures that the large company who sold a consumer a product will not select the arbitrator itself, because the consumer with a grievance will have the right to nominate potential arbitrators, too. As a result, the

final arbitrator selected will have to have the explicit approval of both parties to the dispute. This helps ensure that the arbitrator will be a neutral party with no allegiance to either party.

3. Choice of law. The bill grants the non-drafting party, usually the consumer or the employee, the right to have the arbitrator governed by the substantive law that would apply under conflicts of laws principles applicable in the forum in which the non-drafting party resided at the time the contract was entered into. This means that the substantive contract law that would apply in a court where the consumer, employee, or business resides at the time of making the contract will apply in the arbitration. Thus, in a dispute arising from the purchase of a product by an Alabama consumer from an Illinois company, a court would have to determine whether Alabama or Illinois law applied by looking to the language of the contract and to the place where the contract was entered into. The bill ensures that an arbitrator would use the same conflict of laws principles that a court would in determining whether Alabama or Illinois law would govern the arbitration proceedings.

4. Representation. The bill grants all parties the right to be represented by counsel at their own expense. Thus, if the claim involves complicated legal issues, consumers, employees, or small businesses would be free to have their lawyer represent him in the arbitration. Such representation should be substantially less expensive than a trial in court because of the more abbreviated and expedited process of arbitration.

5. Hearing. The bill grants all parties the right to a fair hearing in a forum that is reasonably convenient to the consumer or employee. This would prevent a large company from requiring consumers, employees, or small business owners to travel across the country to arbitrate their claim and to expend more in travel costs than their claim is potentially worth.

6. Evidence. The bill grants all parties the right to conduct discovery and to present evidence. This ensures that the arbitrator can have all the facts before making a decision.

7. Cross examination. The bill grants all parties the right to cross examine witnesses presented by the other party at the hearing. This allows a party to test the statements of the other party's witnesses and be sure that the evidence before the arbitrator is correct.

8. Record. The bill grants all parties the right to hire a stenographer or tape record the hearing to produce a record. This right is key to proving later whether the arbitration proceeding was fair.

9. Timely resolution. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitration proceeding completed promptly so that they do not have to wait for a year or more to have their claim resolved. Under the bill, a defendant must file an answer not more than 30 days of the filing of the complaint. The arbitrator has 90 days after the answer to hold a hearing. The arbitrator must render a final decision within 30 days after the hearing. Extensions are available in extraordinary circumstances.

10. Written decision. The bill grants all parties the right to a written decision by the arbitrator explaining the resolution of the case and his reasons therefor. If the consumer or employee takes a claim to arbitration, he deserves to have an explanation of why he won or lost.

11. Expenses. The bill grants all parties the right to have an arbitrator provide for reimbursement of arbitration fees in the interests of justice and the reduction, deferral, or waiver of arbitration fees in cases of extreme hardship. It does little good to take a claim to arbitration if the consumer or employee cannot even afford the arbitration fee. This provision ensures that the arbitrator can waive or reduce the fee or make the company reimburse the consumer or employee for a fee if the interests of justice so require.

12. Small claims opt-out. The bill grants all parties the right to opt out of arbitration into small claims court if that court has jurisdiction over the claim and the claim does not exceed $50,000.

The bill also provides an effective mechanism for parties to enforce these rights. At any time, if a consumer or employee believes that another party violated his or her rights, the consumer or employee can request and the arbitrator may award a penalty up to the amount of the claim plus attorneys fees. For example, if a defendant party failed to provide discovery to a plaintiff party, the plaintiff could move for an award of fees. The amount of the fee award is limited, as it is in court, to the amount of cost incurred by the employee in trying to obtain the information from the company. This principle is taken from Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After the decision, if the losing party believes that the rights granted to him by the Act have been violated, it may file a petition with the Federal district court. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the losing party's rights were violated, it may order a new arbitrator appointed. Thus, if a consumer, employee, or small business has an arbitrator that is unfair and this causes him to lose the case, the plaintiff can obtain another arbitrator.

This bill is an important step to continuing a constructive dialog on arbitration. This bill will ensure that those who can least afford to go to court can go to a less expensive arbitrator and be treated fairly. It will ensure that every arbitration carried out under the Federal Arbitration Act is completed fairly, promptly, and economically. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that consumers, employees, and small businesses who agree in a contract to arbitrate their claims will be treated fairly under the Federal Arbitration Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

About the conference process, when an emergency supplemental is passed, even though it had language in it that I know the Senator opposes, and so do I, it would normally have to go to a conference committee of Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate. Sometimes it takes a good while, does it not, historically, for differences in the House and Senate bills to be worked out? It sometimes takes a good while; would the Senator agree?

Those conference committee appointments are decided by the leaders of the Senate for the Senate conferees and the leaders of the House, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, would appoint those conferees. If it were something they wanted to have done badly, that was high on her agenda, would not they have appointed conferees before we recessed almost 2 weeks ago so the conferees could have begun work during this interim period, staffs could have been working on these issues and been ready to move rapidly when the House comes back in session? If they had wanted to, couldn't they have done that?

Mr. President, what time remains on this side?

I thank the Chair.

I thank my colleague from South Dakota. I believe his National Guard per capita is one of the largest National Guards in the country. I know mine is, both on a per-capita and aggregate basis. We have soldiers in Iraq right now from our home States. I talked to the mother of a soldier who was recently killed, and this is a painful subject for us all. At this very moment throughout Baghdad, Al Anbar Province, American soldiers are walking those streets, working closely with Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi police officers, in an effort to create stability so that political agreements can be reached that could lead to a stable and successful Iraq. This is an extremely, deeply important matter. Now we are in a situation in which our leader in the Senate, Democratic leader, Senator Reid, has said they intend to fund our troops. They intend to provide the money the President needs to conduct this war, but at the same time they want to tell the generals how to conduct it. They want to say that on a given date we have to move troops in this direction or that direction, and we will begin to bring troops home 4 months from today, regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of what the military experts say, without any real thought, if you want to know the truth.

I have been to Iraq four times and will be soon going my fifth. Very few

people in the Senate have been there so often. I submit we don't know sufficiently how to direct the deployment of our troops. I don't know. Who knows the best? General Petraeus? This is his third full tour over there. He has studied insurgencies and written a Department of Defense manual on how to defeat an insurgency.

Who is the best qualified to make these decisions? This is not a little matter. We voted, over three-fourths of this Senate, to authorize military force in Iraq. Our soldiers are doing what we asked them to do--not what they want to do, what their duty is.

A father of a military Army officer told me right out here a few weeks ago--his son was about to go to Iraq--he said: Senator, they are watching you like a hawk. Our soldiers over there are watching what we in Congress do. They wonder what is going on.

They are putting their necks on the line for the policies we asked them to do, and they hear this kind of talk, they hear of this delay. We can't get even the emergency supplemental passed. It is very discouraging to me. I don't believe this is an action worthy of a responsible Senate. We know this Senate has the power, this Congress has the power to shut off funding for the war in Iraq and bring our troops home immediately.

But if we are not going to do that--and the Democratic leader said we are not going to do that, we are going to give them the money they need under this supplemental--if we are not going to bring them home, and we are going to give them the money, for Heaven's sakes, let's don't micromanage what they do, and let's don't demand commitments from the Commander in Chief he cannot agree to.

He cannot agree to 100 Senators telling him when and how to deploy the troops. What would General Petraeus think? What would his responsibility be to his general whom he asked to serve, who is serving, whom he told would be given responsibility to be successful in Iraq and bring stability there, with his whole effort focused on that?

I wish to share with my colleagues a deep concern that we not get into some sort of game of chicken with the President and the Congress. I must say, I am glad the Democratic leaders apparently said last night, after earlier saying no, now they will meet with the President at his request to discuss their differences.

But it is not just a political game of chicken between the Congress and the President; we have soldiers in the field whose lives are at risk this very moment. They need better support than that. Our allies need to know we are not going to be acting in a way this Senate resolution suggests. The enemy needs to know we are not going to be acting in that fashion, in my view.

We have a tough challenge over there, there is no doubt about it. General Petraeus committed, at my request, that if he thought what we were doing would not be successful, he would not hesitate to tell the Congress and the American people exactly that. I believe he will. Right now, he believes he can be successful. If we allow him to do so, I believe he will be.

Mr. President, I see others on the floor. I conclude by saying I believe we ought not to be in this posture of brinksmanship over this issue. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it places those soldiers we have sent at greater risk for their lives, and their mission is placed in a situation where it would be more difficult to accomplish. That is something we should not do. I hope cooler heads will prevail.

I am pleased to yield.

Mr. President, I could not agree with the Senator more. Having been in the Department of Justice a number of years as U.S. attorney and having had a few occasions to deal with this specific issue, money not appropriated by Congress cannot be spent by the Government. In fact, there is an Antideficiency Act that makes it a criminal offense for a governmental official to spend money that Congress has not appropriated.

So that is our responsibility: to fund or not fund. The Democratic leader said they are going to fund. It is not our responsibility to micromanage the war, however. So I would say we absolutely as a Congress--if we reach that decision--can shut off funding, and tomorrow the troops would have to be brought home, or shortly thereafter.

Mr. President, I say to Senator Thune, I agree, and will recall for our colleagues that--I believe it was postelection-- General Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army,

pleaded with us not to allow what happened last year to happen this year. He was referring to delaying passing the supplemental because it causes all kinds of problems.

A few weeks ago, he testified again, and he was passionate about this. It is his soldiers, predominantly, Army soldiers in Iraq. He pleaded with us not to delay this supplemental. He said you have to take money from all kinds of accounts, and time and effort the leadership in the Department of Defense needs to be spending helping the soldiers being successful has to be redirected to bringing money together in ways that are not easy to fund the effort. He described it as trying to walk through a marsh waste deep in water--those were his words--in the muck.

We are creating a political muck that makes it very difficult and adds additional burdens to our Defense Department when they have so many important things to do. We should not do that.

I thank the Senator for his eloquent remarks and his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and for his commitment to our soldiers and commitment to the United States of America and the good foreign policy we have had, we seek to accomplish.

Our foreign policy is a foreign policy designed to improve the Middle East. It is designed to improve the lives of the people in Iraq. It is not an imperialistic attempt to gain wealth or power at their expense. We want them to be successful. In the end, it will be successful for us. It will make us more safe. It will make the world more safe and can begin the end of some of the radicalism we are seeing.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

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

I wanted to ask my colleague if he will yield for a question?

I thank my colleague for the many hours of effort he has put into this to analyze the data that is out there about this important issue. It has been helpful to us. I know some people think it is an easy question for them. Senator Brownback has taken the road less traveled. He has been willing to dig into the issue because it does touch on real moral and ethical questions. It is not a light matter.

Let me ask the Senator a question. Is it true that the embryonic stem cells we are talking about here, if allowed to grow and mature, would be a human being, and that human being's height, hair, eye color, and all, would have been determined at that very moment when it was at that embryonic stem cell stage, how they would grow and mature?

So the life that is being proposed here, it is life, I think no one can dispute that. It is a living organism. This life, if allowed to develop, will be developed into a distinct human person?

So I think that implicates some questions to all of us. It is not a thing outside the realm of reason. Good people question whether we should experiment on that life. You had a number of children who were brought here, snowflake babies. I didn't get to be with you on that occasion, but it was reported to me. Would you tell us about those children you saw?

This very type embryo is what we are talking about experimenting with under the legislation that is before us.

With regard to this, we know good people can differ. I certainly believe good people can differ. I don't count myself morally superior to anybody on these questions. I am not a scientist. I certainly haven't studied it to the extent that you or other Members of this body have. Senator Coburn and Senator Hatch and others have studied it. Some have different opinions about it. I don't think it is an insignificant matter that this is a piece of life, a small embryonic life that would grow into a distinct human being. That is what we are talking about providing Federal funds to experiment with.

It is not a crime today for a private person or a university to experiment on this, even if it causes people moral and ethical problems, is it?

Private people are doing that today?

I guess in 2001, President Bush acknowledged there were embryonic lines available at that time and that any action we took at that moment against those lines did not implicate human life. He said those lines

would be available for embryonic stem cells for any university that would apply; is that correct?

I had heard at some point that those lines may not be continuing, but I am informed that in fact those lines do continue, at least some of them, and that there is a substantial number of embryonic cells available for research if they were asked for, but they haven't been all utilized; is that correct?

So when we get up to this line of experimenting with human life, one of the things I would ask myself is, is this medically necessary? Is this a matter about which we are debating that would prevent some sort of research? The way I see it, there are federally funded stem cells available for research today, as you have explained. Then there is no limit whatsoever on the number of stem cells that are available in the private sector, at our universities and our great research centers in the world and in the United States; is that correct?

I think that is important for you to share with us. Because decisions become easier when there is not a crisis. We deal with self-defense issues and moral issues a lot of times, but doesn't seem to me we are at that critical juncture in our scientific activity that would require the American people, through the expenditures of their dollars, to affirm this procedure. Would the Senator not agree if the American people fund this procedure, then it represents a national blessing of the procedure, in effect, an approval of this procedure as moral and legitimate?

I am uneasy about it. I don't claim to know all of it. I haven't studied it to the extent you have. I know entities of great augustness such as the Catholic Church have serious theologians and scientists. They are uneasy with it. I am not Catholic, but I understand that. People have invested a lot of time and effort and feel this is crossing a line that is dangerous for us to cross. From what I am hearing from your remarks, you don't think it is necessary to cross that line to do the kind of research that could actually save lives and that we all hope will save lives one day?

I will say this, I thank you for utilizing the free speech this great Senate allows us to raise questions that some perhaps just as soon would not talk about. I do think a decent respect for those millions of Americans who strongly believe this is not a good thing to do, that this is crossing boundaries we ought not to cross, and saying we are going to take your money in disrespect of your views and spend it on a procedure you strongly feel is not the right thing, committing our Nation officially as approving this procedure is not a bridge we have to cross. That is where I come down at this point. I do not claim to be all knowing, but that is what I would say.

I say to Senator Brownback, I would share with you a letter I received in March, just about a month ago, from a constituent in my State who e-mailed me in support of S. 5, and I sent back some of the thoughts my staff and I had put together on it. I got this letter. It is addressed to me, but it could probably be better addressed to you based on the work you and others have done. He had a child who had a recent four-wheeler accident and was a quadriplegic. This is his quote:

In our desire to see our son again have use of his limbs,

we allowed our opinions to be influenced by the media. You

were so kind to respond to our e-mail with a letter stating

your opinions and thoughts. After doing more research,

listening to the opinions of a long-time quadriplegic, and

praying about this issue, we are pleased with the position

you have taken against this legislation. We felt we owed you

an apology--

They certainly did not--

and thank you for your adherence to Christian moral

boundaries when voting on public policy.

I know a lot of people have different views on this issue, and some think everybody in the country has a certain view on it. But I think if more people understood the remarks you made, the great research that is ongoing that could actually cure or heal spinal cord injuries, could help with diabetes and Parkinson's and other diseases--if this were critical to the passage of this legislation, I think we would have a more difficult choice to make.

But I think, as you have explained it, at this point in history and in science, we are at a point where that research can continue. It is not stopped, and it is not necessary for us to make that final step to cross this barrier and begin to officially, as a nation, experiment with human life.

So I say to the Senator, thank you for your work. You have led me around to this position. I think I will not be supporting S. 30 and will be supporting S. 5. I think it is a better way--excuse me, which one is it, I ask Senator Brownback?

Yes, I think you are correct. I will be supporting S. 30 and voting against S. 5. And this has been an important debate. The American people have had the opportunity to hear some good arguments and a great deal of science and research. We are heading in the right direction, I believe, with the President saying he will not accept S. 5. I respect him for it. He stood up, absolutely. He has studied the issue, and he has firm views about it. Whereas the legislation may pass here, I am hopeful it will not finally become law.

Thank you very much.

Let me just interrupt you there because people miss this, perhaps. You are saying she was treated with adult stem cells?

So it was not necessary for her treatment to have embryonic stem cells?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Yes.

Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It is not related to partisan votes that we have been casting, but it is a technical amendment that amends the nature of the AMT patch.

The AMT patch is a huge tax reduction. It does eliminate about three- fourths of the people who would pay taxes under the AMT. My amendment is fairer. It would include 87 percent as many, but the way it would fix the AMT and give relief would be to allow families to utilize their personal exemptions and their children's exemptions under the AMT accounting. That is not done today. As a result, seven times as many families with children are caught by AMT as are single persons. It is definitely striking at children and families. I urge that this be adopted because it is fairer, and it would reduce costs and save $82 billion.

Mr. President, after working together with Senator Feinstein, I am pleased to help introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007. I have worked to take the lead in protecting consumers specifically as it relates to the sale and distribution of controlled substances over the internet and holding liable those who do so via unregistered online pharmacies. I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership on this issue and look forward to working with her to pass this important piece of legislation.

This bill would prohibit the distribution of controlled substances by means of the Internet without a valid prescription and provides for the legitimate online distribution of those drugs in certain circumstances. This past January, Attorney General Gonzalez testified to the Judiciary Committee that abuse of controlled substances is being fed by ``the proliferation of illicit Web sites that offer controlled substances for sale, requiring little more than a cursory online questionnaire and charging double the normal price.'' Gonzales further testified that ``[w]e must preserve legitimate access to medications over the Internet while preventing online drug dealers from using cyberspace as a haven for drug trafficking. I look forward to working with the Congress to ensure that controlled substances are dispensed over the Internet only for legitimate medical purposes.'' The sale and distribution of controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet of great concern because is gives those who abuse drugs the ability to circumvent the law, and sound medical practice. This bill would go a long way in addressing the concerns expressed by Attorney General Gonzalez by reigning in a practice that has gone unregulated for far too long.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the number of online pharmacies that provide controlled substances to users without valid prescriptions. Most illegal drug abuse involving prescription drugs is associated with Internet purchases, where users are given a prescription without ever seeing a doctor. The most prominent abuse occurs with regard to controlled substances such as Hydrocodone, Valium, Xanax, OxyContin, and Vicodin.

A 2006 study reported that ``a staggering 89 percent of sites selling controlled prescription drugs have no prescription requirements.'' According to the study, 15.1 million adults admitted to abusing prescription drugs, including 2.3 million abusers between the ages of 12 and 17. Currently, there is no way to police this illegal activity.

The ease with which consumers may purchase controlled substances from online pharmacies without a prescription is shocking. Often consumers can obtain a prescription from physicians employed by the online pharmacy by simply filling out a brief questionnaire on the pharmacy's website. Most online pharmacies have no way to verify that the consumer ordering the prescription is actually who they claim to be, or that the medical condition the consumer describes actually exists. Thus, drug addicts and minor children can easily order controlled substances and prescription drugs over the internet simply by providing false identities or

describing non-existent medical conditions.

In 2001, Ryan Haight, a California high school honors student and athlete, died from an overdose of the painkiller hydrocodone that he purchased from an online pharmacy. The doctor prescribing hydrocodone had never met or personally examined Ryan. Ryan simply filled out the pharmacy's online questionnaire, and described himself as a 25-year-old male suffering from chronic back pain. Ryan's death could have been avoided. I believe that Congress is in the best position to help prevent teenagers from purchasing controlled substances and prescription drugs from online rouge pharmacies.

I also believe that Congress has the ability to help prevent adult prescription drug abuse by making it harder to purchase these drugs online without a valid prescription. The Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act would: (1) provide criminal penalties for those who knowingly or intentionally (unlawfully) dispense controlled substances over the Internet, (2) give state attorneys general a civil cause of action against anyone who violates the Act if they have reason to believe that the violation affects the interests of their state's residents, and (3) allow the Federal Government to take possession of any tangible or intangible property used illegally by online pharmacies.

The Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act would also require online pharmacies to: (1) file a registration statement with the Attorney

General and meet additional registration requirements promulgated by him/her, (2) report to the Attorney General any controlled substances dispensed over the Internet, and (3) comply with licensing and disclosure requirements.

The Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007 takes a substantial step towards plugging a loophole in our drug laws by regulating the practice of distributing controlled substances via the internet.

By holding unregistered online pharmacies accountable for their activity, we are ensuring that those who seek to purchase prescription drugs by using the internet are protected from those engaged in reprehensible business practices.

Once again I thank Senator Feinstein for her leadership in addressing this serious issue. I commend this bill to my colleagues for study and I urge them to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, after working together with Senator Feinstein, I am pleased to help introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007. I have worked to take the lead in protecting consumers specifically as it relates to the sale and distribution of controlled substances over the internet and holding liable those who do so via unregistered online pharmacies. I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership on this issue and look forward to working with her to pass this important piece of legislation.

This bill would prohibit the distribution of controlled substances by means of the Internet without a valid prescription and provides for the legitimate online distribution of those drugs in certain circumstances. This past January, Attorney General Gonzalez testified to the Judiciary Committee that abuse of controlled substances is being fed by ``the proliferation of illicit Web sites that offer controlled substances for sale, requiring little more than a cursory online questionnaire and charging double the normal price.'' Gonzales further testified that ``[w]e must preserve legitimate access to medications over the Internet while preventing online drug dealers from using cyberspace as a haven for drug trafficking. I look forward to working with the Congress to ensure that controlled substances are dispensed over the Internet only for legitimate medical purposes.'' The sale and distribution of controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet of great concern because is gives those who abuse drugs the ability to circumvent the law, and sound medical practice. This bill would go a long way in addressing the concerns expressed by Attorney General Gonzalez by reigning in a practice that has gone unregulated for far too long.

Recently, there has been an explosion in the number of online pharmacies that provide controlled substances to users without valid prescriptions. Most illegal drug abuse involving prescription drugs is associated with Internet purchases, where users are given a prescription without ever seeing a doctor. The most prominent abuse occurs with regard to controlled substances such as Hydrocodone, Valium, Xanax, OxyContin, and Vicodin.

A 2006 study reported that ``a staggering 89 percent of sites selling controlled prescription drugs have no prescription requirements.'' According to the study, 15.1 million adults admitted to abusing prescription drugs, including 2.3 million abusers between the ages of 12 and 17. Currently, there is no way to police this illegal activity.

The ease with which consumers may purchase controlled substances from online pharmacies without a prescription is shocking. Often consumers can obtain a prescription from physicians employed by the online pharmacy by simply filling out a brief questionnaire on the pharmacy's website. Most online pharmacies have no way to verify that the consumer ordering the prescription is actually who they claim to be, or that the medical condition the consumer describes actually exists. Thus, drug addicts and minor children can easily order controlled substances and prescription drugs over the internet simply by providing false identities or

describing non-existent medical conditions.

In 2001, Ryan Haight, a California high school honors student and athlete, died from an overdose of the painkiller hydrocodone that he purchased from an online pharmacy. The doctor prescribing hydrocodone had never met or personally examined Ryan. Ryan simply filled out the pharmacy's online questionnaire, and described himself as a 25-year-old male suffering from chronic back pain. Ryan's death could have been avoided. I believe that Congress is in the best position to help prevent teenagers from purchasing controlled substances and prescription drugs from online rouge pharmacies.

I also believe that Congress has the ability to help prevent adult prescription drug abuse by making it harder to purchase these drugs online without a valid prescription. The Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act would: (1) provide criminal penalties for those who knowingly or intentionally (unlawfully) dispense controlled substances over the Internet, (2) give state attorneys general a civil cause of action against anyone who violates the Act if they have reason to believe that the violation affects the interests of their state's residents, and (3) allow the Federal Government to take possession of any tangible or intangible property used illegally by online pharmacies.

The Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act would also require online pharmacies to: (1) file a registration statement with the Attorney

General and meet additional registration requirements promulgated by him/her, (2) report to the Attorney General any controlled substances dispensed over the Internet, and (3) comply with licensing and disclosure requirements.

The Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007 takes a substantial step towards plugging a loophole in our drug laws by regulating the practice of distributing controlled substances via the internet.

By holding unregistered online pharmacies accountable for their activity, we are ensuring that those who seek to purchase prescription drugs by using the internet are protected from those engaged in reprehensible business practices.

Once again I thank Senator Feinstein for her leadership in addressing this serious issue. I commend this bill to my colleagues for study and I urge them to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, today Senator Murray and I are pleased to introduce the Striving Readers Act, for the eight million middle and high school students across this country who are not reading well enough to

succeed in school. I thank Senator Murray for her longstanding leadership on this issue, as well as the Alliance for Excellent Education, the International Reading Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. I also thank my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, who have agreed to cosponsor the bill Senator Cochran, Senator Kerry, Senator Lott, Senator Akaka, Senator Burr, Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Lincoln. I thank them for their support and for demonstrating that improving reading and writing in every grade is something we all can get behind.

This important bill will help schools in every State ensure our adolescents read and write well enough to learn in school, graduate on time, and succeed in college and the workplace. Better literacy is the cornerstone to improving student achievement in all subjects, lowering dropout rates, and ensuring students do well when they go on to college or the workforce. A recent study by the American College Testing Program (ACT) found that students with better literacy skills in high school do better in their math, science, and social studies courses both in high school and in college.

The Striving Readers Act marks an important effort to improve reading for the older student. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 billion for the Reading First program available for every State to ensure children read by the third grade. That was an important step, and we have seen 4th grade reading scores rise nationally because of it. However, research shows that many readers who test well in 4th grade do not carry that knowledge into upper grades. We must not risk squandering the investment Congress has already made for younger students.

Seventy percent of our middle and high school students read below grade level. That means we must continue our support for ongoing programs that reflect the needs of the older student for more advanced vocabulary and comprehension skills. All students, throughout their K- 12 educational experience, deserve adequate support to ensure they graduate on time with appropriate skills and knowledge that meet the demands of the 21st century.

To be sure, some problems with the Reading First program have surfaced. Let me assure you that the Striving Readers bill addresses those problems to ensure the law and its implementation are fair, transparent, and driven by research, not special interests. Interestingly, many in my State have told me that the law is good and showing results; the problems have come with poor implementation.

Low literacy skills don't just cost the student; they cost our economy because students don't learn what they should in school. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 53 percent of undergraduates require remediation. One-half of these students required a remedial writing course, and 35 percent took remedial reading. That means community colleges spend $1.4 billion every year catching kids up to where they should have been when they graduated. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports an estimated $16.6 billion in remediation costs to the U.S. economy each year. This means that America's businesses and colleges are spending $16.6 billion teaching high school graduates skills they should have learned in high school.

America's declining competitiveness in the global economy is due in part to sub-par literacy skills. International comparisons of reading performance placed American 11th graders close to the bottom, behind students from the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other developing nations. Our high school graduates continue to lag, as employers move jobs overseas, not for the low-cost labor alone, but also to tap into the highly literate, motivated, and technologically skilled workers that other nations can offer them.

The Striving Readers Act will help our Nation raise its literacy levels and compete in a global arena. We can do this. Research shows that adolescents with lagging literacy skills can master college material if they receive good literacy instruction in school.

Specifically, the Striving Readers bill would do the following:

Help States create statewide literacy initiatives, share data on student progress with parents and the public, and improve teacher training and professional development in literacy so that all students receive high quality instruction.

Help districts and schools create plans to improve literacy, including targeted interventions for students far below grade level, top notch assessments for all students, training for teachers in every subject to incorporate literacy strategies, and regular data to improve teaching and learning.

Allow districts and schools to hire and place literacy coaches, train parents to support the literacy development of their child, and connect learning inside the classroom with learning that takes place outside the classroom.

Ensure States, districts, and schools participate in a rigorous evaluation that demonstrates student progress.

Require the Federal Government to complete an overall evaluation of the program to determine its impact on the Nation's middle and high schools.

I am proud to say that my State has been working on this issue for a long time. In 1998 Alabama launched the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), a statewide program designed to ensure every student in grades K to 12 is proficient in reading. We provide ongoing, research-based training to teachers in all subjects so that every educator can help students struggling to read. Fortunately, the Alabama Reading Initiative is now in every elementary school in the State. Unfortunately, fewer middle and high schools have been able to take part, due to limited funding. This is true in other States as well.

For those schools in the program we have seen great gains. ARI schools have made great progress, and those that have had the benefit of additional funding from the Federal Reading First program have shown even more rapid, dramatic gains. Many of you have heard of the outstanding impact of the Alabama Reading Initiative, primarily for younger children. It is time for us to develop new methods to meet the needs of students in the upper grades who are reading and writing below grade level. I applaud Alabama's leadership on this important issue as they work to expand the Alabama Reading Initiative into middle and high schools, and I am honored to offer legislation to promote this effort on the national level. I would like to thank Governor Riley for his commitment to the Alabama Reading Initiative, and Dr. Katherine Mitchell, whose enthusiasm and hard work has made the success of ARI a reality for Alabama's children. Alabama has become a model for the Nation, and I am so proud of the progress they have made.

The Federal Government cannot and should assume the responsibility for education from the States. But we can develop research, supply seed money, and provide leadership to help States make advancements, without unnecessary mandates. We can leverage success in places like Alabama to shine a light for others.

We know that, given the right instruction and opportunity, children can learn to read and write well and use that knowledge to achieve at higher levels of education. I hope that our colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Murray and me in supporting the Striving Readers Act. And I hope we will authorize Striving Readers as part of No Child Left Behind so that children in every State have the reading skills they need to succeed in school, college, and the workplace.

Mr. President, today Senator Murray and I are pleased to introduce the Striving Readers Act, for the eight million middle and high school students across this country who are not reading well enough to

succeed in school. I thank Senator Murray for her longstanding leadership on this issue, as well as the Alliance for Excellent Education, the International Reading Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. I also thank my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, who have agreed to cosponsor the bill Senator Cochran, Senator Kerry, Senator Lott, Senator Akaka, Senator Burr, Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Lincoln. I thank them for their support and for demonstrating that improving reading and writing in every grade is something we all can get behind.

This important bill will help schools in every State ensure our adolescents read and write well enough to learn in school, graduate on time, and succeed in college and the workplace. Better literacy is the cornerstone to improving student achievement in all subjects, lowering dropout rates, and ensuring students do well when they go on to college or the workforce. A recent study by the American College Testing Program (ACT) found that students with better literacy skills in high school do better in their math, science, and social studies courses both in high school and in college.

The Striving Readers Act marks an important effort to improve reading for the older student. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 billion for the Reading First program available for every State to ensure children read by the third grade. That was an important step, and we have seen 4th grade reading scores rise nationally because of it. However, research shows that many readers who test well in 4th grade do not carry that knowledge into upper grades. We must not risk squandering the investment Congress has already made for younger students.

Seventy percent of our middle and high school students read below grade level. That means we must continue our support for ongoing programs that reflect the needs of the older student for more advanced vocabulary and comprehension skills. All students, throughout their K- 12 educational experience, deserve adequate support to ensure they graduate on time with appropriate skills and knowledge that meet the demands of the 21st century.

To be sure, some problems with the Reading First program have surfaced. Let me assure you that the Striving Readers bill addresses those problems to ensure the law and its implementation are fair, transparent, and driven by research, not special interests. Interestingly, many in my State have told me that the law is good and showing results; the problems have come with poor implementation.

Low literacy skills don't just cost the student; they cost our economy because students don't learn what they should in school. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 53 percent of undergraduates require remediation. One-half of these students required a remedial writing course, and 35 percent took remedial reading. That means community colleges spend $1.4 billion every year catching kids up to where they should have been when they graduated. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports an estimated $16.6 billion in remediation costs to the U.S. economy each year. This means that America's businesses and colleges are spending $16.6 billion teaching high school graduates skills they should have learned in high school.

America's declining competitiveness in the global economy is due in part to sub-par literacy skills. International comparisons of reading performance placed American 11th graders close to the bottom, behind students from the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other developing nations. Our high school graduates continue to lag, as employers move jobs overseas, not for the low-cost labor alone, but also to tap into the highly literate, motivated, and technologically skilled workers that other nations can offer them.

The Striving Readers Act will help our Nation raise its literacy levels and compete in a global arena. We can do this. Research shows that adolescents with lagging literacy skills can master college material if they receive good literacy instruction in school.

Specifically, the Striving Readers bill would do the following:

Help States create statewide literacy initiatives, share data on student progress with parents and the public, and improve teacher training and professional development in literacy so that all students receive high quality instruction.

Help districts and schools create plans to improve literacy, including targeted interventions for students far below grade level, top notch assessments for all students, training for teachers in every subject to incorporate literacy strategies, and regular data to improve teaching and learning.

Allow districts and schools to hire and place literacy coaches, train parents to support the literacy development of their child, and connect learning inside the classroom with learning that takes place outside the classroom.

Ensure States, districts, and schools participate in a rigorous evaluation that demonstrates student progress.

Require the Federal Government to complete an overall evaluation of the program to determine its impact on the Nation's middle and high schools.

I am proud to say that my State has been working on this issue for a long time. In 1998 Alabama launched the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), a statewide program designed to ensure every student in grades K to 12 is proficient in reading. We provide ongoing, research-based training to teachers in all subjects so that every educator can help students struggling to read. Fortunately, the Alabama Reading Initiative is now in every elementary school in the State. Unfortunately, fewer middle and high schools have been able to take part, due to limited funding. This is true in other States as well.

For those schools in the program we have seen great gains. ARI schools have made great progress, and those that have had the benefit of additional funding from the Federal Reading First program have shown even more rapid, dramatic gains. Many of you have heard of the outstanding impact of the Alabama Reading Initiative, primarily for younger children. It is time for us to develop new methods to meet the needs of students in the upper grades who are reading and writing below grade level. I applaud Alabama's leadership on this important issue as they work to expand the Alabama Reading Initiative into middle and high schools, and I am honored to offer legislation to promote this effort on the national level. I would like to thank Governor Riley for his commitment to the Alabama Reading Initiative, and Dr. Katherine Mitchell, whose enthusiasm and hard work has made the success of ARI a reality for Alabama's children. Alabama has become a model for the Nation, and I am so proud of the progress they have made.

The Federal Government cannot and should assume the responsibility for education from the States. But we can develop research, supply seed money, and provide leadership to help States make advancements, without unnecessary mandates. We can leverage success in places like Alabama to shine a light for others.

We know that, given the right instruction and opportunity, children can learn to read and write well and use that knowledge to achieve at higher levels of education. I hope that our colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Murray and me in supporting the Striving Readers Act. And I hope we will authorize Striving Readers as part of No Child Left Behind so that children in every State have the reading skills they need to succeed in school, college, and the workplace.

Mr. President, I would note as I begin how much I appreciate Senator Voinovich and his passion for America in trying to introduce responsibility in spending and taxes. We don't always agree on everything, but he is a man of principle and dedication to his country.

Mr. President, the amendment I will be asking my colleagues to consider tomorrow deals with a growing problem that we have in America. It has to be confronted completely before long. It is the alternative minimum tax. This is a tax that after you figure what you owe on your income tax return and you have taken all your deductions, you have to calculate your taxes again and you may have to file under the alternative minimum tax and pay more taxes. That was an idea conjured up before I came to the Senate to capture rich people who weren't paying enough taxes. Maybe it had some resonance to it, but it has fallen very hard now on the middle class, and it is very dramatic.

We in this Congress have become addicted to the money the alternative minimum tax brings in. We have decided, though, that we can't allow millions of middle-class people to be burdened with a new and higher tax, so we have tried to fix it. We did what was called the AMT patch-- a patch. It wasn't a complete fix, it was a Band-Aid, and it would do a lot. Actually, it has done considerable. Without a patch next year, about 23 million people will be subjected to the tax, but with the patch, 17 million of those will not. They will be dropped out of AMT. Seventeen million people will be saved from that.

I just want to say, first of all, the real solution, as everyone knows, is tax simplification. We need to do that, but we have no real momentum at this moment in the Congress in either House or in either party or by the President. Those of us not on the Finance Committee sometimes wonder why we don't have more proposals for tax simplification, but we don't. It is going to happen sometime, sooner rather than later.

So the patch helps. It raises the AMT exemption level, the amount of money, the floor to which you get caught with, and that has helped some. But the real truth that I must share with my colleagues is that the result has not been fair. It is not a principled way to deal with the people being caught by the alternative minimum tax.

In 2006, for example, 7.4 percent of married people with children paid higher taxes under the AMT, while 1 percent of singles paid the AMT. Think of that. This tax, the way it is calculated and the way it is put together, it has fallen incredibly hard, over seven times as hard, on married people with children as it does on single taxpayers. Why is that so? Well, when you calculate your alternative minimum tax, you can't use your personal exemptions. You can't use that personal exemption of $3,400, and you can't claim your children as exemptions.

So I would first say one of the most valuable things this country has are the parents out there, some single moms, working their hearts out every day to raise and educate the next generation of young people who are going to lead this country.

So the alternative minimum tax I have believed for some time has penalized people with children. We have had a marriage penalty and now we see with the AMT, we are actually taxing children, making it even more expensive for young families to have children.

So I think my amendment does the right thing. It achieves a very similar result as the patch but is more principled, more cued to what is in the national interests, and more fair.

First, it treats children and personal exemptions correctly. You still get your personal exemption under the AMT and exemptions for your dependents in your household. Under this plan as I have offered it, 87 percent as many people will not have to file an AMT return as would under the patch--almost the same, 13 percent less, but very close to the same number. But astoundingly and importantly, it costs a lot less. It would save in terms of tax revenue lost $82 billion over 5 years. It would be a lot less expensive in terms of tax cost.

This $82 billion could help us contain the deficit. It could help us fund the expiring tax cuts that have allowed us to have a low-tax economy that has led to such terrific growth in our economy, would provide some of the money we could use for that, and it would be good for the economy in a way that I am afraid this unprincipled approach to patching the AMT does not. There would be less focus on high income, high tax States. I come from a lower tax State, a poorer State, a poorer State with a lower average income than the average in the United States. We are doing a lot better, and I am proud of that, but we still are below the national average in a number of different ways. Our State would not benefit much at all under the patch.

Let me show my colleagues this chart. This is a rather astounding chart. These are the percentage of taxpayers who paid the AMT by State in 2005. In my home State of Alabama, it was 0.8, eight-tenths of 1 percent. Less than 1 percent paid any AMT. But in New York, with a good bit higher average income, 6 percent paid--6 percent of the people paid it. The numbers are high in other States. Mississippi is low at .9, and the Dakotas are .8 and .6. Indiana is 1.0; West Virginia, .9. The lower income States are not going to benefit as much under the kind of patch we are talking about. Most of the benefits of the patch will be transferred to only a few States for a lot of different reasons. One is because they have higher taxes which cannot be deducted under the AMT.

So I would say what we need to do is to do better. By having the exemptions allowable under the AMT calculation, we would benefit people more fairly around the country, although not a complete fairness. It is still going to be a tax that dramatically shifts benefits to higher income, higher tax States. There is no doubt about that. But this is at least a step in the right direction, and it helps real people. My excellent staff person, Dr. Andrew Barrett, talks about a professor he knows, Christopher Wolfe, who has 10 children. He is getting whacked by the AMT.

I think a person who is pouring his heart and soul into raising a large family and trying to do the right thing by them should not lose their tax exemptions and have to pay a higher tax than somebody who didn't have that.

I hope we can have a good vote on this tomorrow. I think it is the right thing. As we go forward, we are going to have to talk about this more. The more I study it, the more convinced I am that this is not a good way to handle tax policy in America, this AMT.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Orrin Hatch be listed as a cosponsor on that legislation.

Mr. President, I will sum up. I am a member of the Budget Committee. One of the things you see as you watch these budgets go through here and we discuss them and debate them and it sounds like a lot of politics and hot air and partisanship. But the real truth is that a budget is a defining instrument for a party. A budget tells what your priorities are, what direction you want to take the country in. I am not sure we have ever had a budget since I have been here--well, maybe a few in the beginning but certainly not in the last several years of my tenure--that was passed on anything other

than a party-line vote, at least in the Budget Committee.

Once again, the budget that came out of this Budget Committee, now that we have a Democratic majority, passed with all Democratic votes and no Republican votes. Last year, the budget that passed out was passed by all Republican votes and opposed by all Democrats. But they were in the minority at that time. I used to think, well, why can't we just get together and work these things out. Perhaps we can at some point. Perhaps we will have a break in this cycle. But right now, it seems that the budget defines us and our differences. What is it we agree on? What is it we disagree on? Where do we want to take the country? And where does somebody else not want to go?

Let me mention a few things about this budget. It is a spending budget. The President proposed a rather substantial increase in discretionary spending; but our Democratic colleagues passed a budget that adds $18 billion more in nondefense discretionary spending than the President asked for. It brought it up to a total increase in nondefense discretionary spending of over 6 percent--I think it is 6.1- percent growth in spending.

Well, what is the cost of living? What is the CPI, the inflation rate? It is about 2.3 percent. So this budget increase, in a time of war, in a time when entitlements are raging out of control, is not a frugal budget; it is a spending budget. You should not be spending almost three times the inflation rate if you want to have any kind of responsibility in spending. We don't have to spend three times the rate of inflation to keep the country from collapsing. The country is not going to collapse if we had a flat budget or if we cut 3, 4, 5 percent, if you want to know the truth. The Republic will still be standing.

But, no, we have to fund these programs, these ideas, and these visions that utilize money and runs up the total. So they have shoved through a budget that increases it substantially. Last year, we passed, on a party-line vote, a proposal that would have contained, by about 1 or 2 percent over 5 years, the growth in entitlement spending. Senator Judd Gregg worked this in. He believed in it passionately. He believed we could now, early on, before we reach a fiscal disaster in the future, control some of these spending programs. He had a modest cut in the growth--growth only--of Medicare. I think it was like 45 percent growth to 46 percent growth. How about that? Do you think we can sustain that? It got to the floor and all of the Democrats opposed it and several Republicans opposed it, and it failed. We could not even contain the growth by 1 percent.

So all last year, in this last election, my Democratic friends, were out railing at President Bush for spending wildly. They claimed that Republicans were irresponsible on spending, and here they go coming back with this budget. Did it have any effort or did it display any movement whatsoever to contain the growth of entitlement spending? Zero. It didn't attempt to confront that issue. I think that is a mistake. We have had a lot of complaints that we have to do something, but when it came down to the time to produce a budget, over the objection of Senator Gregg and others, they had no interest in that.

Well, what about taxes? We didn't have any savings on the spending side. We had an increase on spending. What about taxes? They say this is not a raising-taxes budget, that it doesn't raise taxes, don't worry about that. We have not voted to raise taxes. Let me tell you what they did do. They created a system and a mechanism--or at least the majority did when they passed this budget--that is going to put us in a position where we are going to raise taxes, and I am going to explain it to you as simply as I possibly can. The budget adds four points of order. A point of order calls for a supermajority vote to carry out some act. They said you cannot have tax cuts unless several things occur, and the only way you can have those tax cuts, if those things don't occur, is override a budget point of order, and that takes 60 votes, not 50. So what about the existing tax cuts--the capital gains reductions, the marriage penalty elimination, the dividends reduction? What about reducing the tax rate for the lowest income workers who pay Federal taxes by 33 percent, from 15 to 10 percent?

Well, they came up with a proposal that says you cannot even extend those tax cuts that have been in place for a number of years and begin to expire in the next couple of years. Those cannot be extended without being able to overcome the budget points of order. To do so, the most logical thing is to cut spending. So if you cut spending enough to pay for a tax reduction, a tax reduction that is already in place--and some have been in place for over 5 years--if you don't cut spending sufficient to ``pay for the lost revenue,'' according to these estimates, then you cannot undo it without 60 votes.

When we passed those tax reductions, it was virtually party line, although several Democrats, including Ben Nelson, voted with us, but one time it was a tie vote. Another time it was one or two votes. These were razor thin, the low fifties. By putting in a 60-vote point of order, it is not going to be possible to extend the existing tax cuts, the reduction of the rates, capital gains. They estimated, for example, that capital gains reductions would cost the Treasury $5 billion. As it turned out, capital gains, after being reduced, have resulted in increases to the Treasury of $133 billion. If you sell a piece of property and you have to pay 20 percent on the profit, you might not do it. If you are thinking about selling stock and you say, wait a minute, it has grown in value and you are going to have to pay a 20 percent tax on that, you may say I will just hold it. At 15 percent, people say, OK, I will pay that.

We have had an interesting time of more sales of property and assets subject to capital gains, and we increased revenue after the tax rate was reduced. I wish to say to you that this budget has put us in a position that I don't see how it is possible that we can extend even the existing tax reduction. Those tax reductions have spurred this economy. They were enacted during a time when we had difficulties. It is important to note that when President Bush took office, the Nasdaq, the high-tech stock market, had fallen 50 percent. The first quarter he took office was negative growth. In fact, the last month of President Clinton's term was negative growth. President Bush inherited an economy in serious trouble. Then 9/11 hit and we were in a recession. It could have been a long one, but it turned out not to be. It bounced back quickly, and a big reason is he reduced taxes; the economy grew and picked up the slack and began to grow.

Two years ago, the revenue coming into the U.S. Treasury increased 15 percent over the previous year. Last year, the revenue coming in--this is money actually in the Federal till--went up 12 percent over the 15 percent. This year, they are predicting that revenue to the Federal Treasury will be up almost 10 percent over last year's 12 percent. That is fabulous growth. What should we do? We ought to contain Federal spending. We ought to keep those tax cuts in place, not to make somebody rich, not just to let them keep more money--money that they earned--but because it is good for our economy, because we are a free market economy, and we are a group of people who believe in individual responsibility--not like the Europeans, who are semi-Socialist, if not Socialist, who deeply believe in higher taxes, more regulation, bigger government, and more social welfare.

That is not our heritage. We have a heritage of free, responsible, individual Americans, whose goal and ideal is to take care of ourselves, but we will help those who need it when they need it.

I wish to say this budget defines a lot of who we are. I think it defines a different vision for what is best for America. It has been that way for most of the time I have been in the Senate, and it looks like we are at it again this year.

I feel strongly we ought not to go and slide and move toward the big government, high taxes, and social welfare system of the Europeans. They say: Well, it has not made the taxes go up; we have a budget and the Finance Committee can fix this and they can do whatever they want to do. They have a lot of freedom.

But with the points of order in the budget, I submit to you that we have a problem. I submit to you this Democratic budget that came out of the

committee is similar to this torpedo on this chart.

Democrats can say they have not raised taxes yet, but they have launched that torpedo right at this thriving, vibrant American economy. The torpedo is named ``tax increases'' and they are on the way. That is a fact. I don't see anything that is going to intercept that torpedo because the vote tomorrow will put us on a road we cannot get out of. It is going to put us in a situation where the votes will not exist to cut taxes, and we are going to allow even existing tax reductions to phase out, and taxes will jump, and it will amount to the largest tax increase in American history, from what the experts tell us.

It is late. This is an important point and an important time for our country. When we pass a budget, it doesn't do a whole lot. A budget basically has a couple of things it does. It sets the total level of spending. That level has been raised over what the President has asked for. It creates a mechanism that could allow us to extend tax cuts for less than 60 votes, or do other revenue changes for less than 60 votes. But the budget we are passing is going to put us into a situation where we will increase spending and we will be put on a road to increase taxes.

I think that is a wrong direction for our Nation, and I doth protest.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just briefly on this next amendment, I

think it is a defining vote on the question of whether we intend to extend the current lower tax rates. The budget resolution that is before us has four points of order against tax cuts, but the way it is written, it even includes continuing our current income tax rates beyond 2010 because that would be defined under this budget as a reduction in taxes. This means that this proposed budget resolution would require 60 votes to extend the currently existing lower rates beyond 2010. I believe that is a mistake. These reduced rates include the $1,000 per child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty, the adoption tax credit, capital gains and estate tax repeal.

I urge my colleagues, let's not put a burden on our economy and on our constituents by allowing these current tax rates that are low now to surge upward when they expire at the end of 2010. Do not put a 60- vote requirement to extend current rates.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

We have people pointing out a flaw in the current bill that we did pass, that the Senator acknowledges is there, and I acknowledge is there. People cite potential abuses from the system. But as the Senator was speaking yesterday on his amendment, a hypothetical came to mind. He has been in the Senate a long time. He is one of the great lawyers in the Senate. He has been on the Judiciary Committee for many years.

Let's assume this hypothetical: A President of the United States believes strongly that the Federal gun laws should be enforced, that the Federal immigration laws should be enforced, that the Federal death penalty should be enforced. He or she nominates a person who shares those general philosophies to be U.S. attorney. Under the Feinstein amendment, if this Senate were a liberal Democratic Senate that didn't share those views and did not confirm that U.S. attorney within 120 days, it would then fall to a district judge in some district to make that appointment. Would the Senator agree with that?

The Feinstein legislation would have the judge make that appointment.

Federal judges I have practiced before had philosophical views. Some of them have been pretty activist Federal judges. Some of them think there are too many gun prosecutions in Federal court, too many drug prosecutions, maybe too many immigration prosecutions. They could, under that power, appoint someone who would not follow the policies of the President who was elected to set prosecutorial policy; is that not correct?

That is correct also. I suggest this is an odd thing we are doing. This is an executive branch appointment. That is what has been contemplated since the founding of the Republic, and that is what we have done since the founding of the Republic.

I was a U.S. Attorney for 12 years. It was always considered an oddity, if some vacancy occurred and the confirmation did not occur within the required time, that a Federal judge would be involved in appointing an executive branch appointment. But that is what the statute was. It worked to some degree, and we went on with it over the years.

But it was never a thoughtful, principled approach to how the executive branch of the Government should be operated because I am not aware of any other appointment in the executive branch of Government for which if it is not filled in a timely basis, the Senate--a coequal branch--can up and fill that appointment, nominate and fill it; nor am I aware of any other office in the entire Government where a Federal judge would fill it if the Senate did not act properly or the President did not nominate and follow through properly.

I want to say I think Senator Kyl's solution to this problem is thoughtful. The more I considered it, the more I believed he was on the right track. Truthfully, if our colleagues who are concerned about the difficulty in the statute would pay attention to what he has said, you would want to support the Kyl amendment because it goes beyond President Bush. He has less than 2 years left in his term. There will be another President, and this law could be in effect for hundreds of years.

So what is the right, principled approach to the appointment of U.S. attorneys? The right approach is that it should be done by the executive branch because it is an executive branch function. I was the attorney general of Alabama. The court did not appoint me. I was elected by the people in a political race. Most attorneys general are elected in political races around the country.

Prosecutors are accountable to policies. They are responsible for effectively utilizing limited resources to effect appropriate and just policies of the United States. Presidents and the people of States who elect them elect them to execute certain policies. They usually understand that and make commitments to that as a political candidate, or the President asks if they will support his policies before he appoints them.

Now, I want to say this very clearly. Every U.S. attorney who is worth 2 cents understands they did get their office through some sort of political process. Confirmation in the Senate is a political process. A lot of the talk we have had about U.S. attorneys has been more politics than substance in the last few days. It is a political process.

But what is absolutely critical is that U.S. attorneys remember the oath they took. That oath is to faithfully enforce the law, whether it involves a Republican, a Democrat, a rich person, or a poor person; that no matter what their station in life, they treat everyone fairly and objectively. They must comply with that. They have been given the chance to do the job, like any attorney general is who runs and gets elected. But their oath, their responsibility, their duty is to do it correctly.

You get pressure all the time. They say: Well, somebody tried to pressure a U.S. attorney. It should not happen from Congress, in my view. I do not believe that. I would not call a prosecutor to suggest that I know more than they know about a case that is before them. But sometimes newspapers write editorials: You are not prosecuting this case. Sometimes local mayors and politicians say: You should not be investigating this case. You are under pressure all the time. If a person is not strong and is not committed to integrity and the right principles and doing the right thing, they are going to be a sorry U.S. attorney. That is the bottom line. It is not a job for the cringing or the weak, I will tell you. I had to make some tough calls. In one case where I prosecuted against two judges, I remember one of the legal aid lawyers who testified on my behalf--his client did--he told me during the trial: Jeff, if these guys are acquitted, both of us are going to have to go to Alaska. It is tough business. You have to do what you think is right and proceed with the case.

Now, if Senator Kyl's amendment is not accepted, I have an amendment I think would help. I hope Senator Feinstein would not be maybe even opposed to it, although I am not sure she is comfortable with it at this point. But I would point out to my colleagues and ask them to consider this amendment as an appropriate step.

My amendment would make a very limited modification to the underlying Feinstein bill, if it moves forward without the Kyl amendment, to ensure that only qualified candidates will be appointed by judges to serve as interim U.S. attorneys. The amendment allows district judges, under this statute, if it becomes law, to appoint only those individuals who are qualified and have proper background checks and security clearances.

Under my amendment, a district court can only appoint an interim attorney if they are a current DOJ, Department of Justice, employee or a Federal law enforcement officer, employee, who is already authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law.

This effectively places the same limitations in effect to which the Department of Justice adheres when making interim appointments on district judges. According to the Department of Justice, in addition to the full field investigation, background check conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation--when you are appointed to be U.S. attorney, they conduct a full field investigation by the FBI to see if you have any skeletons in your closet, to see if you are worthy of the office and if you can be trusted. That is done for every interim U.S. attorney, too.

Further, the Department of Justice reviews matters under the jurisdiction of the Department's Office of the Inspector General, Office of Professional Responsibility, and the General Counsel's Office at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys to see if this Department of Justice employee has problems, to see if there are complaints, deficiencies, ethical complaints about the person. That can also keep them from being appointed.

So even if the candidate is a qualified DOJ employee or Federal law enforcement officer, a district court would not be allowed to appoint them if the court learns they are under investigation or have been disciplined by the DOJ or other Federal agencies such as the inspector general or the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Finally, the amendment requires a district judge to confidentially inform the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, of the identity of the person they expect to name 7 days before the appointment so these checks can be made.

I think this has two saving graces. It will eliminate some examples we have had of judges appointing people who should not have been appointed, who were not qualified to examine the cases in the office because those cases required security clearances, as all grand jury testimony does, for that matter. They did not have those security clearances. That is important. Also, since the prosecution of criminal cases is an executive branch function, the appointment being from the Department of Justice would at least be making it an

appointment from the executive branch of the United States.

Both of those, I think, are healthy policies. I join with Senator Kyl in saying, let's do this thing right, if we are going to do it. It is going to be there maybe for 100 or more years. Let's set a policy that would be principled and consistent with the separation of powers that has served us so well and we can be proud of, and not focusing on this specific set of events that led us to these ideas.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, am I recognized under the agreement for 1 minute?

Mr. President, this is a friendly amendment to the Feinstein amendment. It would simply eliminate the difficulty that has occurred over the years when Federal judges, given the power of appointment, have appointed individuals who do not have security clearances and aren't able to function in the office, aren't able to participate in sensitive cases.

I would note that in recent years, U.S. attorneys have been given substantial responsibility against terrorism.

In every U.S. Attorney's Office today, there are the most highly secure telephones. They are wired into the most serious terrorism situations that might occur, and they become a coordinating officer in many instances. This would eliminate the danger of a judge appointing someone not qualified to participate as an effective member of that team because they lack the security clearance. It would require appointing someone with law enforcement experience and security clearance. This is a technical amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.

This is a technical but important amendment that guarantees that any appointee to the office of U.S. attorney, a critical component in our law enforcement and terrorism matters, will have the required security clearance.

I yield the floor.