Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Senate earmark transparency rules that have not been implemented after so many months. As my colleagues know, we passed two new Senate rules back in January that would shine some light on the earmarking process. It would require us to be open and honest about how we spend American tax dollars.

Unfortunately, these Senate rules, which have nothing to do with the House of Representatives, have been held hostage so they can be gutted in secret when no one is looking. That is right; there are some in this Chamber who don't want to disclose their earmarks, don't want to certify in writing that they will not benefit financially from their earmarks. There are some who want to be able to continue the practice of adding secret earmarks to our bills in closed-door conference committees.

The earmark disclosure rule was originally offered this year as an amendment to S. 1, the lobbying and ethics reform bill. I offered this amendment because the disclosure requirements the majority leader included in his ethics reform bill only covered 5 percent of earmarks that we pass every year. I believed then, as I do now, that disclosure of only 5 percent of our earmarks is not reform and represents business as usual.

As my colleagues know, the leadership on the other side of the aisle originally opposed my amendment and actually tried to kill it. They said it was too broad and that the language, which came directly from Speaker Pelosi in the House, was rushed and therefore flawed.

The majority leader said on January 11:

. . . the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has

said this is exactly like the House provision. I say to my

friend that is one of the problems I have with it because I,

frankly, do not think they spent the time we have on this.

The same day Senator Durbin said:

But the DeMint language is actually unworkable because it

is so broad. . . . Frankly, it would make this a very

burdensome responsibility.

Fortunately, the Senate refused to table the amendment and the Democratic leadership was forced to support full earmark disclosure. To save face, the other side came with a slightly modified version that they said was better than the House language because it required 48 hours of notice on the Internet of all earmarks. We all agreed to this language and passed the Durbin Amendment 98 to 0.

The Democratic leadership immediately changed their tune once the bill was passed. The majority leader said on January 16:

In effect, we have combined the best ideas from both sides

of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, to establish the

strongest possible disclosure rules in this regard.

Senator Durbin said:

I am pleased with this bipartisan solution. . . . I believe

it reflects the intent of all on both sides of the aisle to

make sure there is more disclosure.

Later in the debate, the Senate unanimously accepted an amendment prohibiting the practice of what we call airdropping earmarks in conference; that is, adding earmarks that were not included in either the House or the Senate versions of the bill. Again, we all agreed to this language and accepted it unanimously.

Unfortunately, that is when the public eye turned away from this issue and when the bipartisan support for earmark reform ended.

I came to this floor on Thursday, March 29--70 days after we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules--and asked for consent to enact them. But a Senator on the other side objected. The reason for his objection, according to several news reports, was that the other side of the aisle was caught off guard and was not properly notified.

Well, that sounded somewhat plausible, so I came back to this floor on Tuesday, April 17--89 days after we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules which, again, have yet to be enacted. A Senator on the other side still objected. But this time it was Senator Durbin who objected--the very Senator who worked with me to author the new earmark disclosure rule. He objected to his own amendment being enacted. He said he did so because he didn't believe we should enact ethics reform in a piecemeal way.

But then the majority immediately announced it would self-enforce some of the new earmark transparency rules in a piecemeal way. They said they would allow each committee to decide if and how to disclose their earmarks.

The Congressional Research Service recently provided me with a review of all earmark rules being used in the Senate committees. The analysis shows that the rules have not been applied in many committees, and even those that have been created informally cannot be enforced on the Senate floor. According to CRS, only 4 out of 18 committees have even created an informal rule.

This shows what we all know to be true: The rules are being implemented in a piecemeal way, which is exactly what the other side said they wanted to avoid. It is clear we need a formal rule in place that applies to all committees. That is what we voted for at the beginning of the year when we wanted to show Americans we were going to address the culture of corruption in Washington, and that is what we need to do now.

I came down to this floor shortly before the July 4 recess to talk with the majority leader about these earmark rules. He wanted to go to conference with the House bill, S. 1, the ethics and lobbying reform bill, and I wanted to get his personal assurances that these earmark rules would not be watered down or eliminated behind closed doors. Unfortunately, the majority leader told me he could not give me those assurances, which was a clear sign that the folks working on this bill had plans to weaken the earmark transparency rules we adopted in January.

I tried again to get consent to enact these rules on Thursday, June 28, 161 days after they had passed, and again the other side objected. The reason this time, which was a complete departure from what they said before, was that the other side planned to work with the House to change the rules and that it was unreasonable for me to demand that they be protected.

The majority leader said:

There will be some things that will wind up being a Senate

rule. Some things will wind up being a House rule. That is

part of what the conference is going to work out. No one is

trying to detract from anything that the distinguished

Senator from South Carolina wants. But just because you want

something doesn't mean that you are necessarily going to get

it.

Senator Schumer echoed their desire to change the rules by saying:

. . . maybe there are things that other people might add;

maybe there will be the kinds of legislative tradeoffs that

will make a stronger ethics bill. We all have no way of

knowing . . . To get 90 percent or 95 percent of what is a

good package, most people would say yes.

And Senator Durbin sought to belittle my effort to protect the earmark rules, saying:

It would seem that the Senator from South Carolina is

carping on a trifle here.

And I was carping on his bill. There are three words to describe what is going on here, Mr. President: business as usual. This is one of the worst flip-flop reversals I have ever seen. Even the Senator from Illinois, the very person who had previously praised the new rules, minimized their importance and supported efforts to change them.

I realize the other side never liked these rules to begin with. After all, they did try to kill them. But I thought they had come around and were now supportive. I thought we agreed that earmark transparency was a reasonable step to begin changing the way we spend American tax dollars and to end business as usual. It now appears I was mistaken.

Mr. President, 172 days have now gone by since we passed the Senate earmark transparency rules, and yet a few in the Chamber still refuse to enact them. Instead, these objections offer more excuses--excuses that keep changing as time passes.

First they said the rules were too broad and the House wrote them incorrectly. Then, after the Senate leadership revised the rules to their liking,

they support them. But now, after 6 months have passed, they are saying the rules need to be fixed again, and this time by the House. I am sorry, I realize this may seem like a joke, but I am not making it up.

What we have here is obstruction, pure and simple. It has been 172 days since we passed these earmark transparency rules, and the majority will still not allow them to be enacted. Several Senators on the other side are determined to block these rules and prevent them from ever being implemented. They have now publicly acknowledged that they intend to change the rules behind closed doors and, according to several media reports, the majority leader is even willing to cancel the entire August recess to force those of us who want earmark reform to capitulate. He wants us to stop fighting for the American taxpayers. That is not going to happen. So the quicker we end the obstruction of these earmark reform rules, the quicker we can get on to other business.

I intend to fight for these rules even if it means staying here every day in August. In fact, that might mean the best outcome of all. We need to have a national dialog in this country about how Congress spends Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. I think it would be good for those in this Chamber to explain to the American people why they don't want to be transparent in how we spend their money. That is a discussion we need to have here.

I am now going to seek consent one more time to enact these important disclosure rules. And I ask the majority, if they don't like the language they developed, then make suggestions of how they want to change it. But in the meantime, I think we should go to conference on this lobby and ethics reform bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now to proceed to S. Res. 123 and S. Res. 206, the earmark disclosure resolutions, all en bloc; that the resolutions be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask that the Senate then proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2316, the House-passed ethics and lobbying reform bill; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1, as passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees at a ratio of 4 to 3.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Mr. President, this immigration bill has become a war between the American people and their Government. The issue now transcends anything related to immigration. It is a crisis of confidence between what the American people believe our Government is and should be, what it is to them now, and what they perceive it to be.

This vote today is really not about immigration. It is about whether we are going to listen to the American people and realize we need to proceed more carefully, in a more sensitive manner, and appear to be listening to the concerns of the American people.

The allocation of time, as we approach this vote, is very symbolic of where we stand. The supporters of this bill, out of an hour's time, have allocated 10 minutes to the opinion of the American people. I think we should listen to the American people. I hope all of my colleagues will decide not to move ahead with this bill and vote against cloture today.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, one of the most encouraging parts about this debate--there is a silver lining--is it has reengaged the American people and shown us that we are truly a government of the people. They have spoken and they have spoken loudly. Our phones have been ringing off the hooks. We have received e-mails and letters. People are trying to get in touch with us. Even now, they are calling in such numbers that it has crashed the telephone system in the Senate.

My question to the Senate today is: What part of ``no'' don't we understand? We need to vote no against cloture and stop this process that is alienating the American people from what we do, and then enforce the laws that are on the books and prove we are a nation of laws and that we will enforce the laws that have been passed by this Congress.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Madam President, earlier this year, the Senate took a major step in being more transparent with the earmarking process. We worked together. We passed within the lobbying/ethics reform bill transparency and rules that would keep us from adding secret earmarks when we go to conference. I have asked repeatedly on the Senate floor that we accept that as a rule. I had asked the majority leader to amend his unanimous consent request to go to conference to include Senate acceptance of the rules we have already passed. That way we would have the comprehensive work we have all planned to have. I understand from the majority leader they are not willing to accept that, and they want to go to conference where it is our belief it will be significantly changed.

In light of our inability to come up with agreement that would include earmark disclosure, I object.

Will the leader yield for a question?

Will the leader yield for a question?

I thank the leader, and I appreciate his perseverance. I would just like to ask why the part of this bill that applies only to the Senate--it does not need to be conferenced with the House because it is our rule about how we deal with earmarks, how we deal with the conference of out-of-scope earmarks. Why can't we just accept that part here and go to conference with all of these other provisions in which you know our Members are interested?

I have no objection to going to conference, but there is no reason to conference with the House on rules that apply only to the Senate.

Madam President, may I respond?

Will the Senator allow a response?

I thank the Chair.

I am very surprised to hear earmark reform referred to as a trivial issue. More than anything else, the things that you were just talking about, the corruption, are all earmark related, where Congressmen have sold earmarks for bribes. A big part of the corruption here is earmarks. To respond in a more detailed way, the House has passed its own rules package. It didn't relate to us. They did not send it to conference. They didn't need the Senate to advise. They adopted their own rules. We know, if I could speak through the Chair to Senator Durbin, that if we send this to conference, nothing will be done this year. This conference will work for months. We will not have earmark reform during this year's appropriations process. That is exactly what this is intended to do.

For that reason, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, again, that the rules be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123 and S. Res. 260; that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Yes, sir.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator for the comment. You are exactly right. If this was just what I wanted, I would not hold up anything. This is something you voted for. Every Senator voted for this earmark reform as a Senate rule, not as something we are going to debate with the House but as our rule. All I am asking is that we adopt the rules for the Senate that we have already passed. I do not want to hold up this conference.

Madam President, will my Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Reserving the right to object, the amendment is not yet ready. I would request that the leader keep us in morning business for the next hour. I object.

Mr. President, as has been noted, I control 10 minutes of the last 15 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Vitter be allowed to control the time of the remaining 5 minutes on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I think it would be a good idea that we create a national warning system to tell Americans when we decide we need to do something, even if it is wrong. A few weeks ago, we decided we needed to do something about immigration. A few of the Senators announced on a Thursday that we had reached this delicate compromise and nothing could be changed from this bill. We all found out a few days later that the bill had not been written yet, but over the weekend one version was written, and by Monday, another version had been written. We were told we needed to vote on that bill by Friday.

This bill has been a moving target since it began. It is hard to tell on any given day what is actually in the bill. We were able to convince our leadership to at least go to a second week. But when many of us came down to offer our amendments, consistently there was objection to bringing up additional amendments. When finally the

original bill came to its final day, there were three cloture votes that failed. This bill was put down.

Now we have brought it back. We brought back a bill, just yesterday, a new bill in which we have already found significant flaws the writers didn't know were there. We have problems in the underlying bill, and yesterday we were all waiting down on the floor to get this new amendment, this amendment that is almost as big as the original bill, 373 pages. We were all waiting, and we received it later in the afternoon.

What actually happened was, when we asked that the amendment be read, we had to recess the Senate and go finish writing the bill. But we finally got the bill. It was warm from the copier, 373 pages, after a couple of hours of delay.

When we asked that it be read so we would understand what was in it, we finally got the majority leadership to agree we could have the night to review it, which we greatly appreciate.

Now we have come to the floor, got here at 10 today because we understood the majority leader was going to divide this amendment in this grand clay-pigeon procedure to divide this amendment, only to find out the amendment is being changed, but it hasn't been written. We are waiting on the floor again to get a new version of this amendment, but we don't know what is going to be in it.

It is amazing that something so important that has been talked about on the floor of the Senate, something we have to do, is continuously being revised and rewritten every day. Instead of stopping and getting this amendment in some form we can work with, we continue to press the whole process forward.

Some of us who are critics have been called obstructionists because we don't think this process is fair or that the underlying bill is right for America. We have been called a lot of names, but we can't even get started with a fair process, and we can't start to fix it with amendments if we don't even have it written yet. It is hard to know what the amendments should even be if we don't see what is actually in the bill.

So here we are again. It is going to be offered sight unseen, just as yesterday, when not one Member of the Senate had read it when it was offered. We are going to get a new amendment, probably 400 pages today, that not one Member of the Senate will have read, that we will be expected to bring up and to vote on.

Mr. President, I wish to ask a couple unanimous consent requests. First, we need to stop this moving target and know what we are working with. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to order the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. President, then maybe it would be fair to ask unanimous consent that after Senator Reid modifies the amendment, that the modification be read.

That is a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, it is extraordinary that we are using Senate procedures to actually keep a 400-page amendment from being read.

I ask unanimous consent that when the amendment is modified, when it is broken into these clay-pigeon pieces, that I be recognized to request the yeas and nays on that amendment.

I am asking for votes. Let's not say later on that we are trying to stop votes.

I also ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill, the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and that all the filed amendments be called up en bloc and that the Senate then return to the consideration of the Reid amendment.

Mr. President, what I have done in these requests is to show that there is no intent to let this body actually see what we are voting on, which is incredible with such a complex bill; that we are going to bring up an amendment we haven't read, and when we ask that it be read, that request is denied. When we ask for a vote on the underlying amendment, that is denied. When we ask for the yeas and nays, which means you can't voice it, that means eventually we are going to get a vote on the amendment that will be offered today, that is denied.

I wish to make it clear that those of us who don't think this process is fair or that this bill is good for this country, that we have not wanted it to be voted on. But the intent is for these to be modified, just as they have been throughout this process. All these 26-some-odd amendments will be modified minute by minute, hour by hour, so when we come to vote on these amendments, nobody is actually going to know what is in them.

I heard Members say, it is like what we were talking about a couple weeks ago, but we found out this morning when we asked questions about the new amendment that it isn't like what we were talking about a few weeks ago. In fact, there were important amendments that were passed that we were told would be in this bill which have been eliminated by the amendments that have been offered.

We can talk more about this as the process goes forward, but right now I wish to reserve the remainder of my time and yield to Senator Vitter.

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

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, I would like to yield my time to other Senators. I will give 1 minute to Senator Vitter and 4 minutes to Senator Sessions.

I yield the final 2 minutes to Senator Sessions.

Reserving the right to object, is it my understanding we will be in morning business or on the amendment?

I ask I be included in the time.

Five minutes.

Reserving the right to object.

Parliamentary inquiry: Do I not have the right to reserve the right to object? How many rules are we going to change?

There are not many rights. I object.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a request?

I object.

Will the leader yield for a question?

I thank the leader. I would just ask that I have the opportunity, as you did, to read the letter that I wrote, along with a number of other Members, in response to your response to us. It is just a few paragraphs. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to put in the Record our particular response to what you read.

Thank you.

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your response to our letter regarding your

unprecedented efforts to bring the immigration bill back to

the Senate floor after it was rejected three times by the

full Senate. We are writing to address several of the issues

you raised.

First, you said the Senate was not allowed to complete its

earlier debate on this bill because some of us objected to

your calling up further amendments. This is untrue. You

repeatedly objected to Republican amendments being offered

and insisted on selecting our amendments for us and for the

entire Senate. Consequently, we objected to all amendments

until we could get a full and fair debate. We did not believe

you had the right to hand-pick amendments then, and we do not

believe you have that right now.

Second, you said the abuse of Senate rules during this

debate is justified because it allows you to ``overcome the

tactics of a small number of Senators.'' This is also untrue.

We hope you realize that over 60 Senators voted against

cutting off debate because they opposed the substance of the

bill and the process you used to debate it. This is not a

small group.

In addition, your unprecedented abuse of the rules and

precedents of the Senate will negatively impact every Senator

by fundamentally reducing their rights to debate and to offer

amendments in the future. We believe you understand our

concern because just two years ago you said, ``the Senate

should not become like the House of Representatives, where

the majority manipulates the rules to accommodate its

momentary needs.'' If you go forward with this plan, history

will show that your decision not only impacted the ever-

growing number of Senators who oppose this immigration bill,

but hundreds of Senators in the years to come who wish to

make their voices heard.

Third, you repeatedly defended this process for debate by

blaming the Senate Republican leadership and the President

himself. While their cooperation may give you comfort, it

does not justify your actions. As Senate Majority Leader,

only you can execute this abusive practice. Only you can set

up a process that guarantees consideration of a hand-selected

group of amendments to buy support for a bill while at the

same time blocking all other amendments. You may want

Americans to believe this is a Republican bill, but your

willingness to use your office to force it through the Senate

shows precisely how much you support it and the extent you

are willing to go to pass it.

We respectfully ask you to reconsider your plan to force

this bill through the Senate. The American people do not

support this legislation and they do not support the heavy-

handed tactics being used to pass it.

That is signed by Senators Vitter, DeMint, Sessions, Elizabeth Dole, and I think several others on another page.

I thank the majority leader for allowing us to read the letter.

I object, Mr. President. We just received the substitute.

Mr. President, I object.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes about a couple of bills that are going to be offered this week. There are two bills that probably make a good point about where we are as a Senate, and particularly I think where my Democratic colleagues are. We have one bill that takes away almost a sacred right of American workers, and then we have a second bill that will be offered tomorrow that gives new rights and benefits to non-Americans who came to this country illegally.

The first bill has been given lots of names today. I think it is S. 1041. Some call it card check. I call it the ``Worker Intimidation Act.'' One of the most central parts of our whole free society, whether you are talking about local school board elections, elections to Congress, or where workers decide whether to become part of a union, has always been the secret ballot. The very fact that this Congress is considering eliminating that secret ballot should give all of us pause as to where we are as a country.

The very thought that we would call this in some way worker protection is amazing, and that we are saying this bill will somehow help unemployment in this country, when we know it would not. Unions have been declining for years in the private sector because, in an age of lean manufacturing, continuous quality improvement, and just-in-time inventories, it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a third- party decisionmaker involved in that whole process.

I spent years consulting for continuous quality improvement, and it is hard enough, with your customers and workers and your company, to figure out how to make that dynamic work profitably. But when a third party is involved with collective bargaining in decisions about how your operations work it is almost impossible to make a company competitive in this global economy.

We have seen in our own country the companies and industries we are proudest of--our auto industries, and we have seen it in the airlines where, basically, unionization and the union contracts have brought these companies either to bankruptcy or close to it.

There is a reason that unions are not prospering in the private sector. The only place they are prospering is in government. As the government grows, it doesn't have any competition. The inefficiencies are very well known, the incompetencies. Third-party decisionmaking does nothing but make us more and more inefficient and inept as a government, which we see in everything from Katrina to almost everything we do.

As we look at this other bill that we are going to bring up, where we add 128,000 new border agents who will be unionized and part of collective bargaining, we will continue to see dysfunction at the border. We are not helping workers when we take away their right to vote as to whether to become a union. We have heard a lot of explanations of what this bill does, but it is really a desperate attempt to try to salvage unionization and union bosses in this country. It is just not right to tell a worker they can be intimidated to join a union, and that is basically what it comes down to.

So I am here to encourage all my colleagues to vote this bill down tomorrow. I am very surprised the majority leader is even willing to bring it up.

That brings me to the second bill where, on one hand, we are willing to take rights away from American workers--and I think America is increasingly concerned as it sees our laws and justice system seeming to work against them. It seems to work for the criminals rather than the victims. It tends to take rights away from Americans and give them away and send our money overseas. I hear that from everyone I talk to. But one of the most emotionally charged issues of our day is this immigration bill, which many call the amnesty bill, that will also be brought up.

We all know there are millions of people all over the world who have been waiting years to come to this country and work legally, to be a part of this country and to share our values. At the same time, we also know for many years, millions and millions of folks have snuck in illegally and continue to be here to this day, and the bill we are talking about this week is going to reward those who came here illegally while basically putting at a disadvantage those who have been trying to work the system legally for years.

All of us in Congress have tried to help people for many years, whether it is to get their passports or green cards, to try to get their citizenship, or to help people who want to get visas to come here because industry needs them to come, and it is difficult working within this legal system. We make it so

hard for people to come here legally, and we have made it easy for them to come here illegally.

We have talked about--during the debate today and we will a little more tomorrow--how back in 1986 we saw we had a problem with 2 or 3 million illegals who were here, and we passed a bill that was going to secure our borders and get a verifiable worker ID system, and we were going to grant amnesty to those who were here but then no more. We were just going to do it that once. But what we did was send a signal all over the world that if you can get here illegally, we are eventually going to make you legal. And so here we are again, except this time with 12 to 20 million illegals who have come to this country, breaking our laws as their first act of coming across our border.

This bill--and I know there are a lot of good intentions behind it-- is holding hostage the reforms we need to secure our borders, to develop a workable immigration system. We are holding that part hostage, which we really need, to this whole idea of amnesty. They are telling those of us who want to make a system that works to get in the guest workers our farmers and hotel operators need, to get in the skilled workers in our high-tech industries, that in order to do that and to develop an enforcement system to make that work, we have to give 12 million people who came here illegally permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship.

I don't buy that grand bargain, and I don't think America has either. In fact, I know America hasn't. Our offices have had thousands of calls from all over the country from people who are desperate and wondering why we are not willing to enforce our laws. And what would make them think we are going to enforce this new law if we have not even shown an inclination to enforce the laws that have already been passed--not just in 1986 but last year we passed a stronger border enforcement bill than is in this current amnesty bill. Yet we have done very little to move ahead with it. We are holding it hostage to this brandnew amnesty program.

It is not fair to Americans because the American worker will have to pay for this in their taxes. We know these illegals who are here are going to continue to use government services: health care, and emergency rooms, free education for children, day care, free lunch programs, housing programs, and eventually Social Security and Medicare. We don't even know how we are going to keep these promises to our own citizens. Yet we are being asked to give permanent legal residency and a path to citizenship to those who came here illegally.

Tomorrow, we are going to bring up two bills. One is to take away a right of American workers to a secret ballot when it comes to whether they are unionized. The second is to give new benefits and rights to millions of people who disobeyed our laws, who came to this country illegally, and who jumped in front of those trying to obey our laws. Both bills should be voted down.

I encourage my colleagues to respond to the American people on this one, to show them we can listen, that we are not as callous as we appear. Their concerns go far beyond just this immigration bill or this secret ballot bill. They believe they are being sold out. They think they are being betrayed. They think we are just moving from whim to whim in the Senate, and we are refusing to go by the rule of law and enforce the laws we have actually passed in Congress. They are concerned at a level and alienated at a level I have never seen.

At a time when the trust and favorable ratings of Congress and the President are at historical lows, we have chosen to stick down the throats of the American people legislation they do not trust and they do not want.

I appeal to the President, I appeal to the leaders on the Democratic side and the Republican side to take this a step at a time and allow us to earn the trust of the American people, to show them that we will enforce our laws and secure our borders, to show them we will follow through on a worker ID program that is verifiable so we will know who is legal and who is not. And if we develop a legal immigration system that works, then the decisions about what to do with the illegals who are here will become easy because we will have a workable system we can work with.

To vote for the bill, the motion to proceed tomorrow on this immigration bill, is a vote to pass it. Every Senator here knows, regardless of how this bill ends up, that there are 51 Senators who will vote for it. So moving this bill along tomorrow by voting for this cloture motion to proceed is voting to pass this bill.

I have heard some say: I am going to vote for the motion to proceed, but I will vote against the bill. America will see through it because they are looking at this one. We did the same thing last week on the Energy bill, where some folks said: Well, I am going to vote for the cloture motion, but I am going to vote against the bill, when they knew if they helped pass cloture they were passing the bill. The same is happening with this immigration bill. There are some who think the American people will not notice they pushed this bill all the way to final vote. Even if they vote against the final bill, they voted to pass it.

Tomorrow will reveal who wants to listen, who is going to listen to the American people, by voting against this cloture motion to proceed. This bill has come up and been voted down three times already in the last month. It is unprecedented in Congress after a failure of that magnitude to bring a bill back in a couple of weeks and try to stuff it down the American people's throats again.

This is the wrong bill. It is a flawed bill. It is the wrong time to ask the American people to trust Congress when we have not proven to be trustworthy in the past. We need to take this a step at a time, and we need to stop this cloture motion tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to listen to the American people, to vote against the elimination of a secret ballot for unions, and to vote against the amnesty bill that will follow it tomorrow.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

I would just like a few minutes to look at the language.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes and that it count against my allocated 15 minutes on my amendment and that it appear in a separate place in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about my amendment which the Senate will be voting on a few minutes after 10 this morning. This amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against bills or amendments in the future that would raise the price of gasoline.

This amendment is very straightforward. It would require the Congressional Budget Office to score legislation to determine if it would increase the cost of gasoline. If the legislation would increase the cost of gasoline, a 60-vote point of order would lie against the bill.

This applies the same principle we use in the Congressional budget process to our energy policy. The traveling public is coping with the high price of gasoline every day. While there are many factors out of our control forcing up the price of gas, we can control what we do here in the Senate.

For all the time that has been spent over the last few weeks railing against big oil or the high cost of gasoline, little time has been spent to examine one of the leading causes of high prices of gasoline, which is the Congress. Too often the idea of a rational energy policy here in Congress is to create burdensome regulations, onerous mandates, and higher taxes, all of which directly translate into higher prices at the pump for American families. My amendment proposes to hold Congress in check by instituting a safeguard that encourages the Senate to take a ``do not harm'' approach when considering legislation affecting gas prices.

My amendment, again, is very straightforward and very simple. If the Senate wants to pass legislation that

will make it more expensive for American families to fill up their tank, we will be required to get 60 votes instead of 51 to pass the legislation. While this amendment is relatively simple, it is also vitally important, because, while many of the Democrats in this body like to tell the American people they are working to ``stick it to big oil'' and lower the price of gasoline, their legislative record shows something quite different.

The current bill is a perfect example. According to a study completed this week by the Heritage Foundation, the Energy bill we are currently debating could result in significantly higher prices for gasoline to consumers. A review of the legislation, including the new amendment dealing with tax changes, revealed the bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.15 per gallon, which is the May average right now, to $6.40 a gallon by 2016.

That is an increase of over 100 percent. The point of order my amendment proposes could not be used against this bill because it cannot take effect until the bill is enacted. But my amendment could be used to stop similar legislation in the future. If this Congress is willing to consider legislation that would raise the price of gasoline by over 100 percent, as this bill may do, we need to put some commonsense safeguards in place.

I know some of my colleagues may in the future support policies that would raise the price of gasoline. That would cause the point of order I am proposing to lie against the bill. But I would encourage even those to support this amendment. If their policy goal is so important, then we can overcome the point of order and we can get 60 votes to pass their legislation.

We should adopt this commonsense proposal that ensures that at the very least the Senate is less likely to increase the cost of gasoline. After all the concerns we have heard from my Democratic colleagues about the price of gasoline, this seems the least we can do.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator's remarks. I think the remarks were very instructive. It is clear that many of things we do in the Senate actually do result in increased gas prices.

Most of the discussion and a lot of the initiative and motivation of the bill we are working on is to lower gas prices. The fact is, in the past, though, we have not been honest and transparent with the American people. Many times we are talking about our good intentions, things we are going to do here, and we do not expose the fact that what we are doing is going to increase the cost of gasoline. I think that is a fair part of the debate. If we want to increase our national reserves of oil, then it is fair in that debate to make it clear to the American people that if we do it, it may increase the cost of gasoline to them at home, so all of us who are considering the issue can balance it.

If some aid program to Nigeria is going to increase the cost of gasoline here at home, the American people should know that, so we cannot claim to be doing something for people without them realizing it is costing them more and more money.

I understand the objections to procedural hurdles here. Actually, that is the way the Senate was designed so that we do not do things in a knee-jerk fashion, without openness and debate, so we actually do figure out the consequences of what we do in advance of passing legislation.

We have not done that in the past. Many of our rules have created different boutique, different fuel requirements in many States, a lot of environmental concerns--a lot of things that are good actually increased the cost of gasoline a significant degree.

It is important that we include that in our debate. While we may be resistant to procedural hurdles, much of the bill we are debating creates multiple procedural hurdles to increase new gas supplies, oil, natural gas. It creates new mandates, new taxes. We create a lot of hurdles for the energy business to create more supply so we can lower the price of gasoline. This amendment exposes us for what we are and what we are doing. If we are going to propose things in the Senate related to energy, the Congressional Budget Office, as my amendment says, in consultation with the Energy Information Administration and other appropriate Government agencies, can help make a determination if what we are doing is going to raise the price of gasoline. That is a fair part of an honest debate.

To snuff this out and to come down to the Senate floor and make great claims about what we are going to do to help the American people while all the time hiding from them that we are the ones raising their gas prices--it is not big oil, it is not necessarily even OPEC, it is us. We add lots of costs to gasoline every time we pass an energy bill. This Energy bill is no exception.

While my amendment doesn't affect this bill, it does create a point of order in the future. You can call this a hurdle, but if 60 people in the Senate cannot decide that it is more important to increase the size of our national reserve, even though it might increase the cost of gasoline, if 60 of us are not for that, then perhaps we should hesitate before we increase the cost of gasoline again to the consumers.

This is one of the rare simple bills that come to the Senate. It is just a couple of pages. All it does is say that when we introduce a bill that increases the cost of gasoline for American consumers, we have to get 60 votes instead of 51 to pass it. It is a reasonable proposal. If we are willing to come here and talk every day about what we are doing to help the consumer and at the same time we want to hide from them that the things we are doing are actually increasing the cost of gasoline, then shame on us.

This amendment is simple. It is about transparency, openness, and honesty to the people. That is exactly what they deserve.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that the majority will seek to defeat my amendment by raising another point of order against it. This demonstrates exactly how much the Democrats dislike this amendment. It proves that they have additional plans in the works to raise gasoline prices on the American people. Why else would they be fighting it so hard? I also believe this effort to deny the Senate a clean up-or-down vote on this amendment shows that some in this body are more interested in defending the jurisdiction and rights of a Senate committee than they are in defending American consumers. If the other side raises a point of order against my amendment, I encourage my colleagues to ask themselves which is more important: protecting Americans from high gas prices or protecting the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee?

I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the Budget Act. If the other side tries to kill my amendment and stick it to the American people at the pump, I encourage Members to vote against such an effort.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about some real heroes

and their real sacrifices this week. Late Monday, a horrible blaze in Charleston, SC, claimed the lives of nine local firefighters. Details are still being investigated, but what we know now is these heroes died trying to save lives. We fear most were caught under a collapsed roof in the quick-spreading flames.

My heart goes out to the families, friends, and coworkers of these firefighters. These were courageous public servants. We will miss them dearly. They paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. In the aftermath, our State's low country must deal with the shock and sorrow of these losses. Our job as citizens is to never forget what they did and to try to turn the shock and sorrow into solemn remembrance and a commitment to help their families.

I also want to mention two other Charleston leaders who are struggling with this situation on the ground: Fire Chief Rusty Thomas, and city of Charleston Mayor Joe Riley. According to news reports, Chief Thomas stayed up Monday night meeting with many of the families of the victims. He was on the scene all night.

The police chief, Greg Mullen, said:

Chief Thomas is a true leader.

I could not agree more. Mayor Riley is no stranger when it comes to dealing with disaster. His leadership during the trying aftermath of Hurricane Hugo was instrumental in our quick recovery. His leadership will greatly aid the Charleston Fire Department now as they attempt to move forward.

Firefighters represent the best our country has to offer. I will never forget these hometown heroes and the tremendous sacrifice they made this week. For the families of those who lost loved ones in Charleston, our words are feeble comfort for them, but we will always honor the memory and sacrifice of these heroic public servants of South Carolina.

For the families and friends of firefighters who remain on

the job today, we pray for them as the Psalmist did, that God

would be their ``refuge and strength, a very present help in

time of trouble.''

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1546. It is pending.

I understand the amendment is pending.

Madam President, my amendment will make it harder for this body to enact legislation that increases the price of gasoline. That may sound unneeded in a debate where the whole purpose is to supposedly relax the price of gasoline in this country, lower the price for our consumers. The whole bill is supposedly aimed at providing stable and affordable energy, including gasoline for all American citizens; however, I am disappointed that this bill actually does nothing to reduce prices and may very well show that Congress will propose policies that would raise the prices of gasoline in the future.

Specifically, there is nothing in the bill to ensure Congress will not enact legislation that actually increases the

cost of gasoline. At the very least, this Senate should take a ``do no harm'' approach to legislating and enact safeguards to ensure that we do not increase the cost of gasoline for American consumers. My amendment will do just that. It is very straightforward. It would require that the Congressional Budget Office evaluate legislation and determine whether it would increase the cost of gasoline. If the legislation does increase the cost of gasoline, a 60-vote point of order would lie against the bill. This applies the same principles we use in the congressional budget process to energy policy.

The traveling public is coping with high prices of gasoline every day, and while there are many factors out of our control that are forcing up the cost of gasoline, we can control what we do in the Senate.

I know some of my colleagues may support policies that would raise the price of gasoline and, consequently, raise the point of order that I am proposing, but I encourage them to amend this bill anyway. If the policy they are proposing is important enough, then this body will come together with more than 60 votes to pass their bill.

We can adopt this commonsense proposal which ensures that at the very least, the Senate is less likely to increase the cost of gasoline as we seek to improve the Nation's energy policy.

I thank the Chair for this time. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. I will yield back to him immediately.

Mr. President, quickly, I wish to make a request of the chairman. I understand the current amendment will not be finished until tomorrow. I wanted to get one amendment pending. I ask unanimous consent to send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I am speaking on behalf of Senator Grassley, who I understand last night got an agreement that he could bring up 10 of his amendments this morning. I am not here to speak on them but just to give the numbers and to bring them up, as was agreed last night.

Mr. Presdient, if I can request from Senator Kennedy that I just read off those amendment numbers.

I thank the Senator. Senator Grassley understood that these could be brought up before the cloture vote. I will certainly defer to our leadership to work these in, but our commitment to him is that we bring them up before cloture.

Madam President, I believe there is enough frustration to go around. I appreciate all the managers of the bill, those on both sides who have worked to come up with a constructive solution. I feel compelled to object to this process because our side has not been able to bring up the amendments we want. They have been carefully selected by the other side, which ones we are going to vote on. It appears this whole scene has been choreographed. We had a cloture vote a few hours ago. We are going to have a few more votes.

Then we are going to have another cloture vote, with, I imagine, the statement that now they have accommodated us on our amendments. I have colleagues on the floor who have waited a week to bring up an amendment.

They have not been able to do so. I believe what we should do is to submit the amendments we want to bring up en bloc.

I do object.

I object.

I think it is important that we decide what amendments are going to be brought up on our side. I certainly know folks on our side have been working on this. I don't know about this particular group of amendments, if they have been selected on our side or yours. Perhaps there is no problem. But at this moment, I am going to object to those and then confer with our side to see what the big plan is. At this point, instead of doing this a little at a time, I think it is important we know before the next cloture vote that we are going to be able to bring up the amendments we have been waiting on. Until that time, I am going to object to additional action on the floor.