Floor Statements

Mr. President, today we will vote on the motion to proceed to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. This legislation was passed by the Indian Affairs Committee on March 9, 2005. The bill is similar to a bill reported by the Committee during the 108th Congress that was not brought before the full Senate.

S. 147 was developed to provide Native Hawaiians with a mechanism for self-governance and self-determination, which the bill's sponsors believe would protect from legal challenges a variety of programs and services currently in place for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. To achieve this goal, the bill would establish a process that would permit Native Hawaiians to organize a sovereign entity that would have a legal relationship with the United States similar to that which exists today between the United States and federally recognized Indian tribes.

I recognize that this legislation has been offered in response to many legitimate concerns expressed by the members of the Hawaii delegation and the State's Governor. The leaders of the State of Hawaii are attempting to ensure that a longstanding agreement between the Federal Government and Hawaii will not be jeopardized by litigants determined to undermine certain aspects of that agreement relating to Native Hawaiians. That does not change the fact that I have serious doubts about the wisdom of this legislation.

The sponsors reached an agreement in the 108th Congress that they would be afforded an opportunity to bring the bill to the Senate floor during this Congress. To fulfill that agreement, in my capacity as the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I have worked to ensure that the legislation would be reported by the committee. I will also support the motion to proceed to the bill's consideration because of the agreement that was reached in the last Congress. I would like the record to reflect clearly, though, that I am unequivocally opposed to this bill and that I will not support its passage should cloture be invoked.

Again, I do know how important this legislation is to the Senators from Hawaii and certainly to the very capable Governor of the 50th State. I am very much aware that one of the purposes of this legislation is to insulate current Native Hawaiian programs from constitutional attack in the courts, and I am sympathetic to that purpose. I commit to the Senators and the Governor that I remain willing to work with them to address the fundamental legal concerns facing their State. I also recognize the efforts made by Senator Akaka to address some of the criticisms that have been leveled at this legislation. However, I still have a number of significant concerns with this measure.

Foremost among these concerns is that, if enacted, S. 147 would result in the formation of a sovereign government for Native Hawaiian people. I am sure that the sponsors have good intentions, but I cannot turn away from the fact that this bill would lead to the creation of a new nation based exclusively--not primarily, not in part, but exclusively--on race. In fact, any person with even a drop of Hawaiian blood would qualify to vote on the establishment of this new, legislatively created entity that would then negotiate with the Federal Government of the United States and the State of Hawaii on potentially unlimited topics.

As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights stated in its recent report recommending against passage of S. 147, this bill would ``discriminate on the basis of race'' and ``further subdivide

the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.'' This is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable, I am sure, to most other citizens of this Nation who agree that we must continue our struggle to become and remain one people--all equal, all Americans.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment, CHOICE, Act of 2006. This bill would encourage broadcasters and cable companies that own cable channels to sell their channels individually to subscribers. It would also promote cable programming distribution over the Internet.

For almost 10 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as a la carte, to provide consumers with more control over the viewing options in their home and their monthly cable bill. Cable companies have resisted this and have continued to give consumers all the ``choice'' of a North Korean election ballot. There is only one option available: buy a package of channels, whether you watch all the channels or not. The alternative is to not receive cable programming at all. Why have cable companies and cable programmers refused to give consumers the ability to buy and pay for only those channels consumers watch? Simply because they do not have to. They are the only game in town. But not for long, I hope.

Telephone companies have realized that consumers want more and are poised to provide consumers across the nation with an alternative to the local cable company. Many of these telephone companies, including AT&T, are also ready to offer consumers the ability to purchase channels a la carte. Such companies will offer two crucial benefits to consumers: more competition in the video service provider market, and more options for programming packages. Together, these two offerings will allow consumers to have greater control over the content that enters the home and the ability to manage their monthly cable bills.

According to a Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, in communities where there are two cable companies competing for customers, cable rates are 15 percent less than in communities without any competition. A subsequent GAO study suggests that in some markets the presence of another cable competitor may reduce rates by an astounding 41 percent. Unfortunately, today less than 5 percent of communities have two companies competing to provide consumers cable television service.

The CHOICE Act would help bring competition to the cable television market. Choice in cable television delivery is long overdue for consumers who have suffered steep rate hikes year after year. Since 1996, cable rates have increased 58 percent or nearly three times the rate of inflation. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has found that rates increased 7 percent in 2001 and 2002, and 5 percent in 2003. The FCC's most recent report found that rates again rose 5 percent in 2004, double the rate of inflation, but only 3.6 percent where the local cable company faced competition. I can only imagine the savings consumers could reap if presented with a choice of providers of cable service and a choice of channels. For this reason I call on Congress to pass the CHOICE Act.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans would like to buy cable channels individually and an AP/Ipsos poll found that a remarkable 78 percent of Americans would like to do so. According to Nielsen Media Research, households receiving more than 70 channels only watch, on average, about 17 of these. Consumers know that they could have greater control over their monthly bill if given the ability to choose their channels. This was recently confirmed by the FCC. This year the FCC found that consumers could save as much as 13 percent on their monthly cable bills if they could buy only the channels they want.

Mr. President, consider the situation of a senior citizen on fixed income living in Sun City, Arizona, who watches only a few news and movie channels, but continues to pay for high priced channels such as ESPN, Fox Sports, and MTV--channels that other consumers enjoy, but channels that certain seniors may not want and possibly cannot afford. In fact, the general manager of the Sun City cable system has told my staff that he has tried to drop several expensive music video channels from the company's channel lineup to make room for channels his viewers want to receive and to decrease costs, but the owners of the music video channels have forbid him to do so without serious repercussions. So the residents of Sun City continue to subsidize the cost of these channels for viewers around the country. That is why AARP, representing 35 million senior citizens, supports the ability for viewers to buy channels on an a la carte

basis. But again, cable companies don't have to listen to these 35 million viewers because there is no real threat of losing them. They have nowhere to turn.

The CHOICE ACT, Mr. President, is not a mandate on cable providers. Instead it is designed to encourage choice and competition by granting significant regulatory relief to video service providers, such as telephone and cable companies, that agree to both offer cable channels on an a la carte basis to subscribers and to not prohibit any channel owned by the video service provider from being sold individually. In exchange, video service providers would receive the right to obtain a national franchise; would be permitted to pay lower fees to municipalities for the use of public rights of way; would benefit from a streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' for the calculation of such fees; and would gain a prohibition on the solicitation of institutional networks, in-kind donation, and unlimited public access channels.

In addition, broadcasters that have an ownership stake in a cable channel would get the benefit of the FCC's network non-duplications rule if the broadcaster does not prohibit the channel from being sold individually. The FCC's network non-duplication rule provides exclusivity for broadcasters by not allowing another broadcaster with the same network affiliation from broadcasting in the same community. The bill would also modify Section 616(a) of the Communications Act that currently prohibits video service providers from using coercion or retaliatory tactics to prevent cable channels from making their services available to competing companies to extend this provision to distribution over the Internet.

For example, if Time Warner Cable offered CNN, a cable channel it owns, on an a la carte basis to its cable subscribers and allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute CNN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Time Warner Cable would be eligible for a national franchise and other regulatory relief. If Disney, which owns ESPN, allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute ESPN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Disney's ABC broadcast stations would have the benefit of the FCC's network non- duplication rule.

Mr. President, contrary to what some might want the American people to believe, the CHOICE Act does not force video service providers or broadcasters to do a single thing. It is their choice whether to act or not act. The bill provides them with such a choice even though they currently don't provide meaningful choices to their customers. This bill is incentive-based legislation that would encourage owners of cable channels to make channels available for individual purchase and would do nothing to prevent cable companies from continuing to offer a bundle of channels or tiers of channels.

The cable industry regularly touts the value of its package of channels, noting that it costs less than taking a family of four to a movie or professional sporting event. However, watching cable television is not always a family event. Several channels have programming that consumers find objectionable or that parents believe is unsuitable for young children. Complaints about indecent cable programming have increased exponentially in recent years. In 2004, the FCC received 700 percent more cable indecency complaints than it received in 2003. Most of the cable programs about which indecency complaints have been filed with the FCC aired during hours when many children are watching television.

Cable and satellite companies currently provide subscribers with a variety of methods of blocking the audio and video programming of any channel that they do not wish to receive. However, subscribers are still required to pay for these channels that they find objectionable. The ``v-chip'' does not effectively protect children from indecent programming carried by video programming distributors. Most of the television sets currently in use in the United States are not equipped with a v-chip; of the 280 million sets currently in United States households, approximately 161 million television sets are not equipped with a v-chip. Households that have a television set with a v-chip are also likely to have one or more sets that are not equipped with a v- chip.

Again, Mr. President, I am aware that not all consumers want to block and not pay for certain channels, but shouldn't all consumers have the choice to do so? Cable programmers and broadcasters have started offering individual television programs for download on the Internet. This is the purest form of a la carte--where one can watch and pay for only specific programs they choose. In addition, many of these same broadcasters and cable programmers make their channels available for individual purchase in Hong Kong, Canada, and other countries. Why do these cable programmers treat the American cable subscriber differently than a subscriber in Hong Kong or Canada or an Internet user? It remains unclear.

Lastly, Mr. President, I know that the cable programmers and broadcasters will not be the only group that may have some concerns with this bill. Many of my friends in local government are also likely to be interested in the reduced ``rights of way'' fee and streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' under this bill. Cable companies pay these fees to municipalities to use the right-of-way land under sidewalks, streets and bridges to reach customers' homes and then pass these fees on to subscribers. However, these fees often surpass the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land, and municipalities use these funds for other expenditures. Just last month at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Michael A. Guido, Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, confirmed that these fees are often used to pay for other city expenses, such as emergency vehicles.

In 2004, State and local governments collected approximately $2.4 billion in these fees, slightly more than $37 per year from every household subscriber. Americans for Tax Reform believes that the ``franchise fee is just a stealth tax on our consumption of the cable television,'' as do other economists and taxpayer advocacy groups. To this end, the legislature in my home state of Arizona just recently passed a bill to reduce such fees and taxes on cable television subscribers.

The Phoenix Center, a non-partisan legal and economic think tank, has found that the introduction of competition to cable companies could allow the fee to be lowered ``significantly without doing any harm to local governments.'' Based upon this research, the CHOICE Act would reduce the fee from 5 percent to 3.7 percent for eligible video service providers and allow local governments to petition the FCC for a higher fee if it is necessary to cover the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land. I believe this would provide some real cost savings to cable subscribers.

I remain open to working with municipalities on this issue and look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that American consumers receive greater options for affordable and acceptable television viewing. Mr. President, I hope the introduction of the CHOICE Act furthers the debate on the issue of a la carte channel selection and I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment, CHOICE, Act of 2006. This bill would encourage broadcasters and cable companies that own cable channels to sell their channels individually to subscribers. It would also promote cable programming distribution over the Internet.

For almost 10 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as a la carte, to provide consumers with more control over the viewing options in their home and their monthly cable bill. Cable companies have resisted this and have continued to give consumers all the ``choice'' of a North Korean election ballot. There is only one option available: buy a package of channels, whether you watch all the channels or not. The alternative is to not receive cable programming at all. Why have cable companies and cable programmers refused to give consumers the ability to buy and pay for only those channels consumers watch? Simply because they do not have to. They are the only game in town. But not for long, I hope.

Telephone companies have realized that consumers want more and are poised to provide consumers across the nation with an alternative to the local cable company. Many of these telephone companies, including AT&T, are also ready to offer consumers the ability to purchase channels a la carte. Such companies will offer two crucial benefits to consumers: more competition in the video service provider market, and more options for programming packages. Together, these two offerings will allow consumers to have greater control over the content that enters the home and the ability to manage their monthly cable bills.

According to a Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, in communities where there are two cable companies competing for customers, cable rates are 15 percent less than in communities without any competition. A subsequent GAO study suggests that in some markets the presence of another cable competitor may reduce rates by an astounding 41 percent. Unfortunately, today less than 5 percent of communities have two companies competing to provide consumers cable television service.

The CHOICE Act would help bring competition to the cable television market. Choice in cable television delivery is long overdue for consumers who have suffered steep rate hikes year after year. Since 1996, cable rates have increased 58 percent or nearly three times the rate of inflation. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has found that rates increased 7 percent in 2001 and 2002, and 5 percent in 2003. The FCC's most recent report found that rates again rose 5 percent in 2004, double the rate of inflation, but only 3.6 percent where the local cable company faced competition. I can only imagine the savings consumers could reap if presented with a choice of providers of cable service and a choice of channels. For this reason I call on Congress to pass the CHOICE Act.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans would like to buy cable channels individually and an AP/Ipsos poll found that a remarkable 78 percent of Americans would like to do so. According to Nielsen Media Research, households receiving more than 70 channels only watch, on average, about 17 of these. Consumers know that they could have greater control over their monthly bill if given the ability to choose their channels. This was recently confirmed by the FCC. This year the FCC found that consumers could save as much as 13 percent on their monthly cable bills if they could buy only the channels they want.

Mr. President, consider the situation of a senior citizen on fixed income living in Sun City, Arizona, who watches only a few news and movie channels, but continues to pay for high priced channels such as ESPN, Fox Sports, and MTV--channels that other consumers enjoy, but channels that certain seniors may not want and possibly cannot afford. In fact, the general manager of the Sun City cable system has told my staff that he has tried to drop several expensive music video channels from the company's channel lineup to make room for channels his viewers want to receive and to decrease costs, but the owners of the music video channels have forbid him to do so without serious repercussions. So the residents of Sun City continue to subsidize the cost of these channels for viewers around the country. That is why AARP, representing 35 million senior citizens, supports the ability for viewers to buy channels on an a la carte

basis. But again, cable companies don't have to listen to these 35 million viewers because there is no real threat of losing them. They have nowhere to turn.

The CHOICE ACT, Mr. President, is not a mandate on cable providers. Instead it is designed to encourage choice and competition by granting significant regulatory relief to video service providers, such as telephone and cable companies, that agree to both offer cable channels on an a la carte basis to subscribers and to not prohibit any channel owned by the video service provider from being sold individually. In exchange, video service providers would receive the right to obtain a national franchise; would be permitted to pay lower fees to municipalities for the use of public rights of way; would benefit from a streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' for the calculation of such fees; and would gain a prohibition on the solicitation of institutional networks, in-kind donation, and unlimited public access channels.

In addition, broadcasters that have an ownership stake in a cable channel would get the benefit of the FCC's network non-duplications rule if the broadcaster does not prohibit the channel from being sold individually. The FCC's network non-duplication rule provides exclusivity for broadcasters by not allowing another broadcaster with the same network affiliation from broadcasting in the same community. The bill would also modify Section 616(a) of the Communications Act that currently prohibits video service providers from using coercion or retaliatory tactics to prevent cable channels from making their services available to competing companies to extend this provision to distribution over the Internet.

For example, if Time Warner Cable offered CNN, a cable channel it owns, on an a la carte basis to its cable subscribers and allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute CNN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Time Warner Cable would be eligible for a national franchise and other regulatory relief. If Disney, which owns ESPN, allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute ESPN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Disney's ABC broadcast stations would have the benefit of the FCC's network non- duplication rule.

Mr. President, contrary to what some might want the American people to believe, the CHOICE Act does not force video service providers or broadcasters to do a single thing. It is their choice whether to act or not act. The bill provides them with such a choice even though they currently don't provide meaningful choices to their customers. This bill is incentive-based legislation that would encourage owners of cable channels to make channels available for individual purchase and would do nothing to prevent cable companies from continuing to offer a bundle of channels or tiers of channels.

The cable industry regularly touts the value of its package of channels, noting that it costs less than taking a family of four to a movie or professional sporting event. However, watching cable television is not always a family event. Several channels have programming that consumers find objectionable or that parents believe is unsuitable for young children. Complaints about indecent cable programming have increased exponentially in recent years. In 2004, the FCC received 700 percent more cable indecency complaints than it received in 2003. Most of the cable programs about which indecency complaints have been filed with the FCC aired during hours when many children are watching television.

Cable and satellite companies currently provide subscribers with a variety of methods of blocking the audio and video programming of any channel that they do not wish to receive. However, subscribers are still required to pay for these channels that they find objectionable. The ``v-chip'' does not effectively protect children from indecent programming carried by video programming distributors. Most of the television sets currently in use in the United States are not equipped with a v-chip; of the 280 million sets currently in United States households, approximately 161 million television sets are not equipped with a v-chip. Households that have a television set with a v-chip are also likely to have one or more sets that are not equipped with a v- chip.

Again, Mr. President, I am aware that not all consumers want to block and not pay for certain channels, but shouldn't all consumers have the choice to do so? Cable programmers and broadcasters have started offering individual television programs for download on the Internet. This is the purest form of a la carte--where one can watch and pay for only specific programs they choose. In addition, many of these same broadcasters and cable programmers make their channels available for individual purchase in Hong Kong, Canada, and other countries. Why do these cable programmers treat the American cable subscriber differently than a subscriber in Hong Kong or Canada or an Internet user? It remains unclear.

Lastly, Mr. President, I know that the cable programmers and broadcasters will not be the only group that may have some concerns with this bill. Many of my friends in local government are also likely to be interested in the reduced ``rights of way'' fee and streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' under this bill. Cable companies pay these fees to municipalities to use the right-of-way land under sidewalks, streets and bridges to reach customers' homes and then pass these fees on to subscribers. However, these fees often surpass the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land, and municipalities use these funds for other expenditures. Just last month at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Michael A. Guido, Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, confirmed that these fees are often used to pay for other city expenses, such as emergency vehicles.

In 2004, State and local governments collected approximately $2.4 billion in these fees, slightly more than $37 per year from every household subscriber. Americans for Tax Reform believes that the ``franchise fee is just a stealth tax on our consumption of the cable television,'' as do other economists and taxpayer advocacy groups. To this end, the legislature in my home state of Arizona just recently passed a bill to reduce such fees and taxes on cable television subscribers.

The Phoenix Center, a non-partisan legal and economic think tank, has found that the introduction of competition to cable companies could allow the fee to be lowered ``significantly without doing any harm to local governments.'' Based upon this research, the CHOICE Act would reduce the fee from 5 percent to 3.7 percent for eligible video service providers and allow local governments to petition the FCC for a higher fee if it is necessary to cover the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land. I believe this would provide some real cost savings to cable subscribers.

I remain open to working with municipalities on this issue and look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that American consumers receive greater options for affordable and acceptable television viewing. Mr. President, I hope the introduction of the CHOICE Act furthers the debate on the issue of a la carte channel selection and I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the bill.

Mr. President, I understand I am recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I believe that the institution of marriage can serve its public purposes only when it is understood as being a union between one man and one woman. It is this understanding that offers public reinforcement to the vital and unique roles played by mothers and fathers in the raising of their children. It is this understanding that offers a foundation for principled objections to those who would pursue the imprudent agenda of dismantling an institution that has served us well, and replacing it with newer and more flexible understandings that are of questionable public value.

I also believe in the institution of republican government as described in the U.S. Constitution. This, too, is an institution that has served us well, founded upon the precept that the American people speak through their elected representatives, and these representatives remain at all times answerable and accountable to the people whom they serve. Today, on the question of marriage, we are told by advocates on both sides of the debate that

these two institutions, as they are currently understood, cannot be reconciled, and that one or the other must be changed. I do not agree, and thus I do not at this time support the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment.

The proposed amendment would establish in our Constitution a permanent resolution of a debate that is currently and properly being resolved in different ways, in 50 different States, by the people's elected representatives. Our system of federalism is not easily separable from our commitment to republican government, because it is driven by the idea that we are best governed when those who represent us live where we live, and share the values that we share. It is this understanding that has allowed us the strength, as a Nation, to time and again preserve our unity and confront our challenges in times of crisis, no matter how great our differences on issues that are the subject of heated public debate. The continued vitality of America's commitment to federalism and republican government offers a hopeful example to strife-torn areas of our world where conflicts are tragically settled with bullets rather than ballots. The constitutional value of federalism is doubly important in the area of family law, because power to legislate in this area has traditionally been reserved to the states, and because issues of family structure affect the fabric of the broader community, creating the opportunity for approaches that reflect the values of the States that form our Nation.

Most Americans believe, as do I, that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. Wherever the question of same-sex marriage has been put to the test of public approval, it has been decisively rejected. Presently, 19 States protect in their constitutions traditional definitions of marriage. In 2004, amendments to State constitutions preserving the institution of marriage exclusively as the union of a man and woman were placed on the ballot in 13 States. All 13 passed by substantial margins. Thus far, seven States have a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. There is little doubt they will all prevail. Proponents of an amendment to my State's constitution, which I support, are working hard to collect the required number of signatures to secure a place on the November ballot. If we succeed, I am certain Arizonans will adopt it overwhelmingly.

There can be little doubt that a sizeable majority of the American people, whatever their views on other questions involving the rights of homosexuals in our society, strongly support reserving the institution of marriage for the union of one man and one woman. That majority includes, I am confident, majorities in every State in the Union. It includes Americans of both political parties, whose voting habits and general political philosophy range from conservative to moderate to liberal.

It is obvious that there is a broad consensus in this country in support of the traditional definition of marriage. And when the American people are so decided in a public debate, their elected representatives will defend that consensus. Forty-five States have either constitutional protections or statutes on the books defining marriage in traditional terms. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows each State to deny within its boundaries the status of marriage to the union of a same-sex couple that may have been recognized in another State. To date, the Defense of Marriage Act has not been successfully challenged in Federal court.

The broad consensus in support of traditional marriage does not yet extend to support for the measure we are debating today, an amendment to the Federal Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I suspect that is because most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same- sex couples.

Obviously, the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling in 2003 effectively extended lawful marriage to same-sex couples even though it is apparent that a majority of Massachusetts residents do not support that change in the interpretation of the State's marriage laws. But there are political remedies to what, I believe, can be fairly criticized as judicial activism that ignored the will of the people and denied a State government its long established right to regulate marriage. In Massachusetts, more than 120,000 voters signed a petition to place on the ballot an amendment to the Commonwealth's constitution restoring the traditional definition of marriage. A constitutional convention to consider amending the Massachusetts constitution is scheduled to convene on July 12.

The Nebraska decision is under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which has already heard oral arguments in the case, and might issue a ruling as early as this summer. Most analysts, on both sides of the debate, believe the lower court's decision will be reversed, and the exclusive protections for traditional marriage that the people of Nebraska adopted in 2000 by a vote of 70 percent will be restored to their constitution. Nebraska's attorney General has not even felt it necessary to ask for a stay of the district court's decision pending the outcome of the appeal, which would almost certainly have been granted. I assume this is because Nebraska still has a defense of marriage law on the books, and there are no same-sex marriage cases pending in Nebraska courts or same-sex marriage legislation pending in the Nebraska Legislature.

I understand that the precipitous Massachusetts decision as well as the unlawful granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in a few localities outside Massachusetts, challenges to traditional marriage laws in other States, and the decision last year by the Federal district court in Nebraska that struck down an amendment to Nebraska's constitution restricting marriage to a man and a woman have added to the support for a Federal marriage amendment. While that support does not mirror the broad national consensus in support of traditional marriage, it is substantial and passionate. I understand that and I respect it, and I agree that marriage a uniquely important institution should be protected. But I do not agree that all the above circumstances have made it necessary to usurp from the States, by means of an amendment to Federal Constitution, their traditional role in regulating marriage. I'm reluctant to abandon the federalism that is part of the essence of conservative political thought in our country. And I am very wary of the unintended consequences that might follow from making an exception to our federalist principles for the sake of addressing a threat to the institution of marriage that may still, indeed, seems likely to be, defeated by means far less precedent setting than amending our Nation's Constitution.

Of course, while I disagree that the current constitutional structure provides insufficient mechanisms for ensuring that the public meaning of marriage is not tampered with by activist judges, it would be disingenuous to argue that those who support the proposed amendment have no grounds for their concern. In recent decades there have been too many occasions on which the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, have forgotten their proper role, and abandoned the virtues of federalism and republican government in favor of imposing their own policy preferences in the guise constitutional interpretation. Decisions such as Roe v. Wade continue to distort the democratic process in ways large and small to this very day. It is a telling commentary on those who seek to change the longstanding public meaning of marriage that in many instances they have chosen to pursue their agenda through the courts rather than taking their case to the people. Those who wish to engage the issue in good faith should reject out-of- hand attempts to read into the Constitution a right to same-sex marriage, because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and because the longstanding traditions of American society have defined legal marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Indeed, yet another reason I am reluctant to support the proposed amendment at this point in time is that I do not accept the proposition that the current Constitution could ever reasonably be read to contain a supposed ``right'' that it plainly does not contain.

It is just not clear to me that threats to the institution of marriage that have arisen in recent times have become a permanent breach of State authorities' traditional role in regulating and defining marriage as the people of their States and their elected representatives see fit. My confidence that the public meaning of marriage will be decided in the context of federalism and republican government rather than by judicial fiat is strengthened by the recent confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, and I hope that future appointments to that State and Federal courts give us judges who share a similar understanding of the courts' proper role in our constitutional system.

However, if I am wrong, and the Nebraska decision were to be upheld on appeal; or were other challenges to State marriage laws made and upheld; or if majority sentiment and legislative remedies in affected States fail to overcome peremptory judicial intrusions into the political process of defining marriage; or if the Supreme Court were to reject the Defense of Marriage Act, then, and only then, would the problem justify Congress making the momentous decision to amend the most enduring and successful political compact in human history as the only recourse means to restore the public's right to define, according to the values and concerns of our communities, a critically important foundation of our society.

Let me pose a hypothetical situation to illustrate why we should be reluctant to impose a constitutional remedy to a problem that will probably be resolved in an ordinary, State by State political process, consistent with the respect for federalism we Republicans have long claimed as one of our virtues. Those of us who consider ourselves pro- life would welcome the Supreme Court's reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision that found a constitutional right to an abortion. The result of that reversal would be to return the regulation of abortion to the States, where the values of local communities would be influential. Now, further suppose that abortion rights advocates held majorities in both houses of Congress, and rather than argue State by State for liberal abortion laws, they decided to usurp the States' authority by means of a constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Wouldn't we who consider ourselves federalists loudly protest such a move? Wouldn't we all line up on the floor to quote Mr. Madison from Federalist Paper 45, that:

The powers reserved to the several states will extend to

all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs,

concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people,

and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the

State.

Yes, we would, Mr. President, yes, we would.

I believe that in the ``ordinary course of affairs,'' the American people's clear preference to retain intact the institution of marriage, defined according to the values of our communities as the union of one man and one woman, will prevail, and that attempts to ignore the people's will, either by judicial fiat or by the occasional enterprising politician will, in due course, be overcome. I might be wrong, and I respect the concerns of Americans who believe current circumstances urgently require the constitutional protection of traditionally defined marriage. But I do not believe that recent developments yet pose a threat to marriage that cannot be overcome by means short of a constitutional amendment.

While I will vote in opposition to this amendment, I believe its advocates should be reassured that if in the future the public meaning of marriage is taken from the hands of the people and altered by judges who claim falsely to speak before all others for the people's constitutional ideals, then it will be the people, acting through their elected representatives in this Chamber, who will at that time have the final word. Until then, however, I will trust in the American people and the elected representatives closest to them to pass and enforce laws upholding the institution of marriage in accord with the values of their communities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed 5 minutes in opposition.

Mr. President, I rise, obviously, in strong opposition to the amendment. The Senator from New Mexico just made my arguments for me. He wants us to be like other countries in the world--maybe France, maybe Germany, maybe those countries where there has been no assimilation, no ability to become part of the society and therefore they have ended up with serious situations--riots, car burnings. It is clear he wants to be like other countries in the world.

He also made my argument in that he pointed out there are lots of ways for highly skilled workers, highly educated people to come in. There is virtually no restraint on them. So he is going to focus on the lower skilled workers. Those are the ones on whom we are going to put the cap. Right.

The overwhelming number of people who have come to this country have started out as low-skilled workers, I remind my colleague from New Mexico, and have worked their way up the economic ladder. If you are rich and educated and highly skilled, come on in. There is no problem with you coming to the United States of America. But if you are low skilled, we are going to make sure that not only you but your children are not admitted.

My parents had three children. I am glad we didn't have that kind of proposal for my family--either I or my sister or my brother may have stayed someplace else, if my parents were immigrants. This is against family. This is against everything that America stands for.

I point out to my colleagues, this is just one in a series of amendments that basically would restrict people's ability to come to this country to not only work but also, over time, raise families and become part of our society. The Bingaman amendment clearly discriminates against people who are low skilled. He wants us to be like every other country in the world. I tell the Senator from New Mexico, I don't want America to be like every other country in the world. He made my argument against his own amendment. I don't want us to be like that.

Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. If the Senator from

New Mexico--by the way, this amendment is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and the majority of the unions and certainly by every major Hispanic and immigrant group in the United States of America. The Senator from New Mexico may prevail. But lately these amendments have, obviously--they have a tenor and an effect that I don't think is healthy for this country and I don't think is good for America.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. President, here we go again. We have before us another amendment that says legal workers under this bill must play by our rules--by our laws--but they will not be allowed to live by those same rules.

I know that my colleagues know that illegal immigrants are ineligible for the earned-income tax credit. The legislation before us does not change that fact. But this amendment incredibly--incredibly--would deny the earned-income tax credit to taxpayers who will be working in this country legally as a result of this legislation. Remarkable.

I want to point out again, it would deny an important tax credit to some low-income workers who have legal status who are playing by the rules, meeting all the requirements of the legislation, who might otherwise be eligible for the earned-income tax credit.

Some things are within a certain area that I can probably understand the rationale behind it and legitimately respect and argue against. But what is the rationale behind saying people who have attained a legal status here, who are living by all our other laws and rules and are paying taxes--sales taxes, Social Security, et cetera, every other tax--are going to be denied a tax credit that is available to all other persons? We are not saying in the legislation that anyone who is here illegally would make themselves available to that. We are only talking about people who are here in a legal status.

The legislation is designed, rightly, to ensure that legalized workers and new guest workers would largely be taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens. If they have attained a legal status, then clearly they should pay the taxes. They would pay payroll taxes, income taxes, excise taxes. They would pay back taxes for the period of time they had been working in this country prior to the enactment of this bill. Payment of back taxes is a very important part of this bill.

The CBO and Joint Tax Committee estimate that bringing these legal immigrants into the Federal tax system would substantially increase Federal revenue collections overall. It is patently unfair to make them abide by our tax rules yet deny any legal workers equal treatment under these same rules.

I am having a hard time understanding amendments as this which

would really impose an indefensible double standard on legalized workers. What is next? Are we going to say work-authorized immigrants have to ride in the back of the bus? Some of these amendments are sending a very troubling message to the American public about what direction we want our country to go. We need to be going forward and not backward.

I wonder, do some of my colleagues really think there is an underground movement afoot plotting and scheming plans for how foreign workers can gain legal work status solely so they can freeload off of the taxpayers? These people are here to work, and they are doing jobs that most of us do not have the will to do. These are workers. They are not risking their lives to come into this country with the goal of freeloading off of us. They are here to earn a wage for the betterment of themselves and their families, the same reason our forebears came here to this country. They aren't looking for a handout. They are looking for a chance, a chance for a better life. And they are willing to work harder than most of us to have just a few of the opportunities most of us take for granted.

This amendment, if adopted, would result in highly inconsistent treatment of legal workers--legal workers. On the one hand, they would be subject to income and payroll taxes in the same manner as other workers, but on the other, they would be denied the use of a key element of the U.S. Tax Code that can mean the difference of whether or not food gets put on a child's table.

About 98 percent of the earned-income tax credit goes to working families with children. Census data shows that the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other Federal program. This amendment to deny the EITC to legalized workers would harm children, including many children who are U.S. citizens. Many of the children in these low- income families are citizens who live in families that experience hunger and other hardships.

This amendment, if adopted, would mean that a large number of children would be thrust into, or deeper into, poverty. An Urban Institute study found that 56 percent of young, low-income children of immigrant parents live in families that experience hunger or other food-related problems. It seems to me there is an issue of humanity here on this issue.

We have spent a week and a half debating amendments to this bill. Most of the amendments that were designed to alter substantially the comprehensive approach to immigration reform have failed. But they were debated on and voted on. I think that has been a good showing for the Senate. I think we have shown we can debate honestly and openly and reach conclusions. Some of these issues have been complex and some fairly simple. We have been conducting business the way the place is meant to have it conducted.

I hope that after all this effort, we will not now adopt such a questionable amendment to a bill that provides a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system--a solution that is based on sound judgment, honesty, common sense, and compassion.

Mr. President, I really, on this one, would like to see not just victory in this vote but a significant signal that we would not engage in this kind of treatment of people who have come to this country and are in a legal status.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time for Senator Specter.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, as I understand the remarks of the Senator from Alabama, these people are not mistreated, as others in our society have been mistreated. Wouldn't an objective observer view mistreatment as giving someone legal status in the United States, forcing them to earn citizenship, a whole program to bring people out of the shadows, and yet say you are ineligible for perhaps the most important tax incentive for the poorest of Americans, called the earned income tax credit? I call that mistreatment,

Mr. President. I would call that mistreatment.

We are going to make you pay a fine, we are going to do a background check, we are going to make you work for 6 years before you can get a green card and, yet, while you are doing that--and most of you are low- income people--we are going to deprive you of the benefit that was absolutely designed to help low-income families. That is what it was all about. If you have a lot of children, I am sorry, but this benefit that was specifically designed for low-income people, which is the majority of the people we are talking about, just as all of our forefathers who came here were usually at the lowest wrung of the ladder, and we are going to say you cannot have that benefit.

Why? Why is that? Then what we are really saying is that we are going to give you legal status, but not really, because under a Republican administration, a way to try to help low-income families was designed, instead of a handout to give them a credit, instead of welfare to give them some extra income, but we are not going to give that to you. We may cause your children to go hungry because you are low-income people. I don't get it.

It is mistreatment by any objective view. It is mistreatment. As the Senator from Alabama said, this is an important issue. Maybe for the first time since we have debated this on the floor I agree with him. I totally agree that this is an important issue. It has a lot to do with what kind of country we are.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Perhaps the Senator from Alabama would grant the Senator some time.

Mr. President, after several weeks of extensive debate and consideration of numerous and complicated amendments, the Senate is about to move to final passage of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. This legislation addresses comprehensively one of the most important and complex issues facing our country. Our Nation's immigration system is broken. I don't think there was one Member of the Senate to argue that fact. Without enactment of comprehensive immigration reform as provided for under this bill, our Nation's security will remain vulnerable.

That is why we must pass this bill and reach a meaningful final product through conference deliberations. Our failure to produce a final comprehensive measure is an unacceptable proposition.

I want to first thank the President for his leadership on this issue. The President's speech to the Nation last week, which I thought was inspired, was greeted by 74 percent of the American people overnight favorably, including his absolute determination to see the Congress send him a bill which has a comprehensive approach to the issue which we as a Congress and a Federal Government have ignored for too long.

I also commend the Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to ensure that the Senate address this important issue and give us more than adequate time for a thorough debate.

I think this is a proud moment for the Senate, as we have conducted good work and returned to orderly traditions of the legislative process as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

I also again recognize Chairman Specter for his work in leading us to this point in the legislative process. He and all the members of the Judiciary Committee deserve our appreciation for the considerable effort they have taken on this issue during this Congress.

Of course, I commend Senator Kennedy, who is perhaps the leading expert on this difficult issue. He and I spent many months working to develop a comprehensive, reasonable, workable legislative proposal, much of which is contained in the bill before us.

I also thank Senators Brownback and Lieberman and Graham and Salazar, Martinez, Obama and DeWine for their shared commitment to this issue, in working to ensure this bill moves successfully intact through the legislative process.

Throughout this debate we were reminded that immigration is a national security issue, and it is. It is also a matter of life and death for many living along the border. We have hundreds of people flowing across our borders every day, coming here only in search of better lives for themselves and their families. They come to fill the vacant jobs at businesses and farms that struggle with real labor shortages that impact our economy negatively.

This Nation is calling for our borders to be secure, for an overhaul of our immigration system, and that it be done in a humane and comprehensive fashion. Vote after vote after vote taken in this body reaffirms that fact.

The new policies as provided for in this legislation will increase border security and provide for a new temporary worker program to enable foreign workers to work legally in this country when there are jobs that Americans will not fill, and will acknowledge and address in a humanitarian and compassionate way the current undocumented population.

As many have noted, there are over 11 million people in America today who came here illegally. They live in our cities and towns and rural communities. They harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants, and clean our houses. They came as others before them came, to grasp the lowest rung of the American ladder of opportunity, to work the jobs others won't, and by virtue of their own industry and dreams to rise and build better lives for their families and a better America.

Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up, and send them back to the country they came from. I don't know how you do that, and I don't know why you would want to. Yes, in this post- 9/11 era America must enforce its borders. There are people who wish to come here to do us harm, and we must vigilantly guard against them, spend whatever it takes, devote as much manpower to the task as necessary. But we must also find some way to separate those who have come here for the same reasons every immigrant has come here from those who are driven here by their hate for us and our ideals.

We must concentrate our resources on the latter and persuade the former to come out from the shadows. We won't be able to persuade them if all we offer is a guarded escort back to the place of hopelessness and injustice that they have fled.

Why not say to those undocumented workers who are working the jobs the rest of us refuse: Come out from the shadows, earn your citizenship in this country. You broke the law to come here, so you must go to the back of the line, pay a fine, stay employed, learn our language, pay your taxes, obey our laws, and earn the right to be an American.

SSgt Riayen Tejada immigrated to New York from the Dominican Republic. He came with two dreams, he said, to become an American citizen and to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. He willingly accepted the obligations of American citizenship before he possessed all the rights of an American. Staff Sergeant Tejada, from Washington Heights by way of the Dominican Republic, father of two young daughters, died in an ambush on May 14, 2004. He had never fulfilled his first dream, to become a naturalized American citizen. But he loved this country so much that he gave his life to defend her.

Right now, at this very moment, there are fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers whose parents are not yet American citizens but who have dreamed the dream that their sons and daughters risked their lives to defend. They should make us proud to be Americans. These people have come for the very same reason immigrants have always come to America. They came to grasp the lowest rung of the ladder, and they intend to rise. Let them rise. Let them rise. We will be better for it.

For America--blessed, bountiful, beautiful America--is still the land of hope and opportunity, the land of the immigrant's dreams. Long may she remain so.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ``illusions deliberately and systematically created'' by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

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

I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his leadership, along with that of my friend from Massachusetts, on this issue. They have done a great job in the last few days. Hopefully we are winding down.

I pay special attention and appreciation to my colleague from the State of Florida who is the embodiment of the American dream, as is my colleague on other side of the aisle, Senator Salazar, from Colorado. They have provided the experience, the knowledge, the background and the motivation to continue our efforts to see this bill passed.

Let's be clear. It is not a practice of mine to waive budget points of order. I believe the circumstances surrounding the validity of the point of order and the actual intent of its sponsors warrants my support to the waiver.

First, I take issue with the Senators over the misinterpretation and editing of the CBO score of this bill. If one were actually to read the text of that report, one would see that the CBO study also finds that the impact of the compromise bill would actually be moderately positive for the Federal Government during the next decade. Legalization would actually produce an increase in Federal revenues between 2007 and 2016 of $66 billion, mostly through increased collection of Social Security and income taxes but also from fees and fines.

Remember, we have at least a $2,000 fine being paid. That has been raised a couple of times already through amendments. Spending would go up by an accumulative $54 billion, but the surplus would be $12 billion. In reality, this program has the possibility of producing a net gain for the Federal budget.

However, putting the argument about the numbers aside, we have to get down to the fundamental question of whether or not we really want a bill. We have voted several times over the past week and a half to affirm the intent of this Senate to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It is clear to me that the Senators from Colorado and Alabama are not nearly as interested in saving money in our budget as they are to sink the bill because we know that if this budget point of order were passed, it would take the bill down--as the Senator from Alabama articulated in his press release, relating to this point of order, ``to derail'' the bill.

So your vote on this amendment should be clear. Do Members want an immigration bill or not? I understand there are Members in this Senate who will answer that question with a resounding no. However, I believe that is not the true intent of the majority of this Senate.

This Nation is calling for our borders to be secured and an overhaul of our immigration system, and that it be done in a humane and comprehensive fashion. Vote after vote after vote has indicated that. The President's speech to the Nation last week, which I thought was inspired, was greeted by 74 percent of the American people overnight favorably, including his absolute determination to see the Congress of the United States send him a bill which has a comprehensive approach to this issue which we as a Congress and a Federal Government have ignored for 40 or 50 years.

We will not be deterred from this effort. We will not be deterred from this effort. I tell my colleagues that the cloture vote indicated the support for this bill. More importantly, the American people want us to act. And the American people, driven fundamentally by Judeo- Christian principles, want this issue handled in a humane fashion, taking into consideration the highest priority, which is our national security. No one believes that simply by enforcing the border we will be able to solve this issue.

I thank my colleagues again for their efforts. I hope this may be the last poison pill we have to fight off, but it may not be. Again, I appreciate the overwhelming support of my colleagues on this issue as well as the cloture vote which I think sends a clear message.

I yield back the remaining time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, first I would like to say I appreciate very much my friend from North Dakota, with whom I have had the great privilege and pleasure of working with on many issues. He is an articulate and impassioned advocate of the American worker, and his view of what is best for

the American worker I not only agree with, I respect.

But let's have no doubt about what this amendment is really all about. This amendment, if we would sunset the temporary worker program, which is going to take a long period of time to get set up and functioning, obviously would be a killer for the legislation. If we tell people that after 5 years what is designed to be an ongoing and continuing program is going to be sunsetted, and the other parts of the legislation obviously are not, we all know what the effect is.

I want to just make an additional comment about 1986. My colleagues keep coming back and coming back to the failure of 1986. I am the first to admit that 1986 was a failure. But why did it fail? That was because there was no enforcement on employers that hired people illegally. An integral and vital part of this legislation--which we now have the technology in order to construct--is for these tamperproof documents, biometric documents, and no employer can hire anyone else unless they have that. That way it is easy when you go to find out whether the employer is employing someone legally or illegally.

When the word gets out south of the border or north of the border that you can't come here and work unless you have that one required document, then those illegals are going to stop coming illegally.

I think it is important to recognize that the difference between 1986 and this bill is, No. 1, there is an enforceable guest worker program on both employers as well as employees, and there is a hard path to citizenship. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle who are advocates for these people say this is way too harsh. I understand that it is harsh and it is difficult, and there will be many who fall by the wayside for a variety of reasons.

I worry that we have raised this payment so high now that we may be disqualifying people and their families under that system. We have raised it from $2,000 I think, now, to over $3,500.

It is long and it is hard and it is a tough road. It is because they broke our laws, even if it is for the best of motives. An integral part of it is a guest worker program which has to last as long as we are willing to accept the premise of the temporary worker program. If we are not, then let's take it out of the bill. But to say after 5 years that it is going to sunset obviously is a totally unrealistic approach.

I know my time is about to expire, but, again, I appreciate the passionate and articulate comments and statement which I think present a cogent point of view on the part of my friend from North Dakota. I just happen to fundamentally believe that a temporary worker program is a vital part of this comprehensive approach to immigration reform. Being without it--after 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years--would obviously destroy the whole concept behind this carefully crafted compromise.

I believe my time has expired. I yield the floor.

I rise in support of this amendment. It is an important amendment.

I point out that I appreciate very much the efforts of Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl to have a respectful debate on this issue. We have honestly held views, and I am very appreciative of the level of this debate and our discussion not only in the Senate but in the cloakroom as we have worked out a number of differences we have had in a mutual effort to come up with legislation which is appropriate to the future of America.

The language in the amendment is identical to what we passed last night, only this amendment adds an additional paragraph giving the alien more of an opportunity to prove their current work status. If we allow people to gain permanent residency, we want them to be hard- working, upstanding individuals. The amendment allows illegal immigrants to prove, through the use of valid government documents--we would be more than happy to define ``valid government documents'' more carefully in report language or in additional amendments--they should have, we believe, an opportunity with secure, government-issued documents that they can prove they are eligible.

This is an important right they should be given. It releases them from the possibility of the bondage of an employer who would like to keep them in the status of which they are. That would only apply to a few, but this is a necessary addition.

The original Cornyn-Kyl amendment does not mandate that the employer attest they will employ this individual in the future, only that they employ them currently. This is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time for the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Ensign amendment. Under current law, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Social Security benefits which I think is entirely appropriate. But we all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy.

According to Stephen Goss, the Social Security Administration's chief actuary, three-quarters of illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes. These payments generate approximately $8.5 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes each year. In fact, according to a 2005 New York Times article, the Social Security Administration records these payments in a so-called earnings suspense file, which grew by $189 billion in the 1990s and continues to grow by over $50 billion each year, generating up to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. According to the article, most of these payments come from illegal immigrants.

The Ensign amendment would undermine the work of these people by preventing lawfully present immigrant workers from claiming Social Security benefits that they earned before they were authorized to work in our country. If this amendment is enacted, the nest egg that these immigrants have worked hard for would be taken from them and their families.

It pains me to disagree with my good friend from Nevada on this matter, but I believe the amendment is wrong. It is fundamentally unfair to collect taxes from these workers and then disqualify the taxes paid once the workers achieve legal taxes. I believe instead of supporting the amendment, we should stand for the principle that people who worked and paid into the Social Security system for years should be able to depend on their retirement income to which they contributed.

The amendment compounds the unfairness by ignoring the underlying legislation that already calls for payment of all back taxes and a $2,000 fine. So what we are asking the immigrants to do is pay all back taxes and, at the same time, forgo the taxes they already paid into the Social Security trust fund. It is fundamentally unfair.

As soon as I finish my statement, I will be glad to yield to my friend from Nevada.

I point out to my colleagues a recent Los Angeles Times article that indicates tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants are already lining up to pay current and back taxes. They want to do that because they want to play by the rules. So we are going to tell them there is one set of rules for them to pay their back taxes, but the taxes they have already paid they will receive no benefits for.

What about the fiscal consequences of the amendment? I submit that if Social Security is not available in the future for immigrants, that when they retire or become disabled, then State and local governments and potentially the Federal Government will be forced to absorb significant costs as the Federal Government has refused to provide services and supports paid for by tax dollars of millions of legal immigrants. This amendment would simply continue this trend.

The Senator from Nevada has argued that his amendment is about combating identity theft and that the bill before us says identity theft is OK. That is inaccurate. I don't know one Member of the Senate who would say: I support identity theft. Not one. In fact, the Senate Commerce Committee has been working to approve legislation, which I have cosponsored, to combat this egregious crime.

Identity theft is a serious issue. In fact, the highest rate of identity theft occurs in the State of Arizona. It happened to me and my wife. But this immigration bill isn't drafted to comprehensively address identity theft, and the amendment before us isn't going to do a thing to fix this problem. Maybe we should add the Commerce Committee legislation to the bill. I assume other Members may not be agreeable to doing that, but I stand ready to work with the Senator from Nevada, and I suspect the Senator from Massachusetts would be willing to join us in pushing legislation to combat identity theft in a meaningful, comprehensive way.

Now I will be glad to respond to any question the Senator from Nevada might have. I understand the patience of our manager is somewhat limited. Please go ahead.

The Senator is aware of that. When their employer pays them, the taxes are withheld.

As is true of anyone else who works in the United States.

The intent of the amendment is that they must pay and the legislation--I will be glad to state--must pay all backs taxes, a-l-l.

I am aware of that.

Under this legislation, we allow the illegal immigrants a path to citizenship which, if they are convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, according to an amendment, then they would be ineligible to embark on that path to earn citizenship.

The Senator is aware that when people come here illegally, obviously, they do not have citizenship, so, therefore, any Social Security number they use, whether it belongs to someone else or is entirely invented, is not valid. But I also know, if I can complete my answer to my friend, their taxes, part of their earnings are going into the Social Security fund, and that is a fact that it is theirs and their employers.

Mr. President, very briefly, of course, they didn't expect to receive benefits they had to pay into the system because they were here illegally. The whole thrust of this legislation is to give them not only Social Security benefits but, as importantly, the protections under the law, as they now live in the shadows and are exploited and mistreated in many cases. Of course, they didn't expect to. That is why we are going through this process of letting them earn citizenship.

The amendment of the Senator from Nevada will let you earn citizenship, but what you have paid into a system, you will not only not receive the benefits but on top of that is a $2,000 fine.

This is not about administrative costs. The fact is that each year the Social Security trust fund continues to grow by $50 billion, generating up to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. So as to the Senator's argument that this could cost money administratively--yes. But the fact is that when these people came here, of course, they accepted--because they came here illegally and broke our laws--of course, they accepted the fact that they probably wouldn't get Social Security or Medicare or protection of our laws against exploitation and mistreatment and all of the protections that citizens have. We are trying to give them a path to earn that. Yet under the Senator's amendment, they would be ineligible for the same benefit of citizenship which we, under this legislation, are trying to make them earn.

I apologize to the Senator from Pennsylvania for taking additional time, and I understand the pressing time issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. It undermines both the intention and the spirit of this bill. The amendment would not only treat future workers as less than American workers, it would treat them as less than all other immigrant workers.

The real issue is--I will get right to it--after many long months and weeks and hours of negotiation, we had a proposal that passed through the Judiciary Committee and then a compromise, thanks to Senators Hagel and Martinez, basically establishing the framework for a compromise in the Senate. If this amendment should pass, that whole compromise is destroyed because a fundamental part of that compromise was that those who have been here for 2 to 5 years, after having gone back to a port of embarkation, would then be eligible for temporary work under the temporary worker program, and then over time be eligible for green card status and citizenship. This amendment would destroy that compromise. I understand very well why the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Alabama on the floor of the Senate, and others, have been opposed to this bill from the beginning. I understand that and I appreciate it and I respect it. But let's have no doubt about what this amendment would do. It would destroy the entire carefully crafted compromise.

Now, the Senator from Texas has an interesting theory about people who would want to come here and only work and then go back, or maybe not go back, but not have any opportunity for citizenship. We have examples today in Europe of the situation that the Senator from Texas and my colleague from Arizona would want to create, which is having people living in your country with no hope to ever be a part of that society.

I would remind my colleagues of what happened not long ago in France. There were thousands of young Muslims who were burning cars everywhere and rioting and demonstrating because they had no hope and no opportunity. Why is it that all over Europe you find these enclaves of foreign workers who are totally and completely separate from society? Because they are in the situation which this amendment would dictate: No hope, no job, no opportunity, no future, but we will let you work.

This is not what we do with highly skilled workers. That is not what we do under various other programs, and especially for those who have already been here between 2 and 5 years under this very carefully crafted compromise, the Hagel-Martinez compromise, as it is called, embodied. I understand why the Senator from Texas or the Senator from Arizona would oppose that. They oppose the very principles upon which the legislation was based and the Hagel-Martinez compromise was shaped.

The Senator from Alabama is on this floor constantly against virtually every aspect of the bill. I understand that.

But I want my colleagues who are voting to understand that if this amendment would pass, this whole compromise and this whole legislation collapses because it removes a fundamental principle of this legislation, which is that we give people an opportunity to earn citizenship, which is exactly what the 2- to 5-year part of the compromise under the Hagel-Martinez proposal represents. If you are here between 2 to 5 years, you have to go to a port of embarkation, you come back, you take part in a temporary worker program, and then over time you obtain eligibility for a green card, and ultimately citizenship. That is what America has been all about: people coming here and having the opportunity to obtain citizenship.

So we have a fundamental disagreement. I hope all of my colleagues will recognize that passage of this amendment would cause the entire bill to collapse, which we have been working on now for a week with excellent debate and good votes, and I think the way the Senate should function. So I hope that everybody understands exactly the implication of this amendment, and I understand and respect the view that is held by my colleagues who support this amendment. But I want all of my colleagues to understand the impact of passage of this amendment. It undermines not only the principles of the bill but, in my view, the principles of what this Nation should be and is all about today.

We have talked many times about people who live in the shadows, the people who don't have the benefits of our citizenship, or an opportunity to become citizens, these 11 million people who are living in the shadows. If this amendment would pass, I can assure you we would keep several million in the shadows because they would never come out of the shadows because they would never want to return to their country and never be able to be on a path to citizenship. So from a principled viewpoint and, frankly, from a practical viewpoint, this amendment is unacceptable.

I know the hour is late. I know a lot of my colleagues are not paying as much attention, perhaps, as they would at other hours of the day, but I hope we make it very clear that the passage of this amendment would cause the entire legislation to implode, and we would then be obviously in a position where we could probably not pass meaningful legislation that would entail comprehensive immigration reform, which is what the President has espoused and what I believe the overwhelming majority of the Senate has proved in numerous votes this week that we support.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time on both sides?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. President, will the manager yield for a question?

How soon does the manager anticipate voting on Kyl- Cornyn?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to point out that we spent the better part of yesterday negotiating with Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn, along with Senator Kennedy and others, a group of us. We have been trying to modify the original Kyl-Cornyn amendment so that it would be broadly acceptable. I think we have succeeded, thanks to the goodwill of all parties concerned.

Fundamentally, the purpose, which we are all in agreement with, is we don't want people who are convicted felons or criminals guilty of crimes to be eligible for citizenship in this country. We have enough problems without opening up that avenue. Yet, at the same time, we didn't want to go too far to exclude people from eligibility for citizenship who, frankly, may have committed incidental crimes or the crime was associated with their attempt to enter this country.

For example, in order to obtain asylum, when people flee oppressive and repressive regimes in which their lives are at risk, and they had to use a bogus or counterfeit document in order to expedite their entrance into this country, of course, we don't think that should make them ineligible for citizenship or application for citizenship.

I think we have reached a careful balance. There are categories of people under conditions of extreme hardship or danger who are seeking asylum and would be exempted, but at the same time the thrust of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment, which is the prevention of people who have committed felonies and numbers of misdemeanors and other crimes would not be eligible for a path to citizenship as outlined in the legislation that would apply to the others who have not committed crimes.

I am aware there is some concern about this on both sides of this issue. I want to assure everyone that this is the product of a long, arduous series of negotiations and discussions among all involved in this issue.

I hope there is an understanding that we have come up with what most of us think is a reasonable compromise to address very legitimate concerns on both sides. People who are fleeing oppression may have used a bogus document, and on the other side of the coin, obviously, someone who has committed

serious crimes or a series of misdemeanors we would not want to have them eligible for citizenship.

I thank Senators Kyl, Cornyn, Kennedy, and others who have actively negotiated and come up with what we agree is a reasonable compromise.

By the way, that is the trademark of the progress of this legislation. That gives me optimism that we will be able to successfully conclude it in a reasonable period of time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, in a moment of seriousness, what is the parliamentary situation? How much time on either side?

Then I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes, taken from the time of the opposition to the amendment, which is the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Louisiana. Of course, it is not amnesty. Of course, it is not amnesty. I urge my colleagues, as well as specifically my colleague from Louisiana--next time up, I am going to bring a dictionary out here to confirm the definition of the word ``amnesty.'' The definition of the word ``amnesty'' is forgiveness. We did that in the 1980s and it didn't work. And to call the process that we require under this legislation amnesty, frankly, distorts the debate and is an unfair interpretation of it. I might add that the President of the United States, in a very powerful statement to the American people, called it what it is, and that is earned citizenship.

Now, I understand why the opponents of what we are trying to do would call it amnesty. That is a great idea. Call it amnesty. Call it a banana, if you want to. But the fact is that it is earned citizenship. The reason why the opponents of this legislation keep calling it amnesty is because they know that in poll after poll after poll, the majority of the American people say let them earn their citizenship. And when it is explained to the American people what we are requiring: A criminal background check, payment of back taxes, payment of a $2,000 fine, 5 or 6 years before getting in line behind everyone else in order to get a green card and then another 5 years or more, depending on how this legislation comes out, before eligibility for citizenship, it is a perversion of the word ``amnesty.'' Frankly, I am growing a little weary of it. I am growing a little weary of it. We ought to be debating this issue on its merits and only on the merits and not by labeling it something it is not.

Again, the definition of amnesty is forgiveness--forgiveness. We are not forgiving anything. We are trying to

find the best option--the best option--for an untenable situation bred by 40 or 50 years of failed Government policies.

What are the options we have with these 11 million or 12 million people? What are the options? One is the status quo. No one believes that the status quo is acceptable, to have 11 million or 12 million people washing around America's society with no protection of our laws, no accountability, no identity. It is terrible for America and our society. I believe the sponsors of this amendment and those of us who vehemently oppose it, because basically it guts the entire proposal, including the fact it is in direct contradiction to the leader of our party, the position of the President of the United States on it--but having said that, the status quo, I think my friend from Louisiana would agree, is unacceptable.

So what is the other option? The other option is to round up 11 million people and find some way to transport them back to the country from which they came. Many of them have been here since yesterday. Some of them have been here 50 or 60 years. Some of them have children who are fighting in Iraq. I am not interested--I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana is interested--in calling a soldier in Iraq and saying: By the way, while you are fighting today, we are deporting your parents. I don't think we want to do that. I don't think we want to do that.

And by the way, the columnist George Will pointed out the other day it would take some 200,000 buses from San Diego to Alaska in order to transport these people at least back to Mexico, and then I don't know how you get them back to other places.

So here we are with the option of the status quo, rounding up 11 million or 12 million people, or making it very clear that because they have broken our laws, they must pay a very severe penalty--a very severe penalty. And according to the Hagel-Martinez compromise, those people who have been here less than 5 years will have to go back. And in the case of 2 to 5 years, they will have to go back to a port of embarkation. If they have been here since January 1, 2004, then they have to go back completely--completely. If they have been here more than 5 years, then obviously we have given them a way to earn citizenship.

We passed an amendment that we supported that was the Kyl-Cornyn amendment, supported by me and Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy and others, that would prevent felons from ever being on the path to citizenship. So what does that say? What this proposal now says is anyone who came here innocently, who came here to work, which is the reason why the overwhelming majority of them did, will have a chance to earn their citizenship. And every time--every time--that the word ``amnesty'' is mentioned, I am going to try to get back on the floor and refute that because the description in no way fits the word.

So here we are now with a comprehensive approach to immigration reform which, probably, according to at least most polls, the American people are, overall, supportive of, and a President of the United States who gave what I think is one of the finest speeches of his presidency on this issue, and we are now considering an amendment which would fundamentally gut the entire proposal.

I want to quote from the President, again:

It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of

people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send

them across the border. There is a rational middle ground

between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every

illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That

middle ground recognizes that there are differences between

an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and

someone who has worked here for many years and has a home, a

family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal

immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay

should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law:

To pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job

for a number of years. People who meet these conditions

should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would

not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind

those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I

have described is not amnesty. It is a way for those who have

broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate

the character that makes a good citizen.

I could not say it better than what the President of the United States says.

Fundamentally, Americans are decent, humane, wonderful people, and they recognize that these are human beings. They recognize that 99 percent of these people came here because they couldn't work, feed their families and themselves where they came from. As former President John F. Kennedy wrote, we are a nation of immigrants. We are all a nation of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the words that were written back in the early 1960s by then-President Kennedy and that apply to the world today. It has a unique and very timely application. I intend to read from it as we proceed with the consideration of this bill.

I understand that there are differing viewpoints about how to handle this issue of illegal immigration. There is no State that has been more burdened with the consequences of illegal immigration than mine. We have broken borders. We have shootouts on our freeways. We have safe houses where people are jammed in, in the most inhumane conditions. We have the coyotes who take someone across the border and say: Tucson is right over the hill. And more and more people every year are dying in the desert. We understand that. That's why we understand that there has to be a comprehensive approach to this issue and only a comprehensive approach will reach the kind of resolution to this issue which has plagued our Nation and, frankly, my State of Arizona, for a long period of time.

I hope my colleagues will understand that this is basically an eviscerating amendment we are considering. Have no doubt about it. If you agree with the President of the United States and the majority of Americans--poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that we should allow people who are here illegally, after a certain period of time, to earn their citizenship--then you will vote against this amendment. If you believe that the only answer to our immigration problem is to build a bigger wall, then I would argue you are not totally aware of the conditions of the human heart and that is that all people, wherever they are, who are created equal, have the same ambitions for themselves and their families and their children and their grandchildren that we did and our forebears did. Our forebears, whether they came with the Mayflower or whether they came yesterday, all have the same yearnings to breathe free.

I hope my colleagues will understand the implications of this amendment. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will understand the implications for the Republican Party of this kind of an amendment. Because what this is saying to millions and millions of people who have come here is: I am sorry, you are leaving.

I hope we can appeal to the better angels of our nature and turn down this amendment and move forward with a comprehensive solution to this terrible problem that plagues our Nation.

I believe my time has expired.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on the amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to tell my colleagues that we had some

good-faith negotiations with Senator Cornyn. I am sorry I was unable to talk to him before this vote. I know he had a previous engagement down at the White House. But the Kennedy amendment will probably be a side- by-side since there are still areas of the Cornyn amendment we have difficulty agreeing to.

So I wish I could have talked with Senator Cornyn since I think our differences are minimal, but we still have not resolved them.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. President, I begin by thanking the Senator from Pennsylvania for his continued leadership and incredible effort on this issue. He has invested thousands of hours, and I continue to appreciate the great job he is doing.

I also congratulate the President of the United States for his remarks last night. It is pretty obvious that his remarks were well received. He gave an outstanding depiction not only of the situation in the United States but the need for us to act. As he said near the end of his remarks:

Tonight I want to speak directly to Members of the House

and Senate. An immigration reform bill needs to be

comprehensive because all elements of this problem must be

addressed together or none of them will be solved at all.

The President's comments are exactly right:

All elements of this problem must be addressed together or

none of them will be solved at all.

He went on to say:

The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should

act by the end of the month so we can work out the

differences. . . .

The Senator from North Dakota, my friend, keeps talking about how the 1986 amnesty didn't work. It obviously didn't work. The reason it didn't work is because there wasn't a guest worker program, which is exactly what the Senator from North Dakota is trying to remove from the bill which then would give us 1986 all over again. More importantly, there are certain realities in America today that we are trying to address. Among them, that the American population is growing older. The baby boomers are retiring and leaving in their wake a number of jobs that need to be filled. Restaurants are locking their doors because there is no one to serve the food or clear dishes. Today, fruit is rotting on the vine and lettuce is dying in the fields because farmers can't find workers to harvest the crops.

Why do we need a viable guest worker program? So that we can stop the flood of illegals from coming across our borders, so we can make the present incentive that brings people to cross our borders illegally come to a halt. How do we do that? Our proposal says if an employer advertises a job for 60 days over the Internet, in a broad variety of ways, and no American comes forward to take that job, then a willing worker and a willing employer can join together in a contract that that person can come and work and fill that job that it has already been proven an American won't take. If that person continues to work in the United States, he is allowed to remain in the United States under our proposal.

An equally important aspect is that those who are now south of our border or anywhere else in the world will recognize that even if they cross our border illegally and are able to do so, there will be no job for them because the person who has entered into that contract has a tamper-proof biometric visa, and that is the only document that will be recognized as a valid document in order for someone to obtain employment.

So if someone does cross our border illegally, gets a job--one, he shouldn't get it because he doesn't have that contract but, two, if an employer hires that individual, then, of course, that employer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

It is not an exact parallel, but let me remind colleagues, about 15 years ago we declared a war on drugs. All of us, we were going to stop the flow of drugs from coming across our border and destroying America. Any objective observer will tell you that our progress has been limited, if at all successful. Why? Because there is still a demand for drugs, and they are coming across our borders. People are using them, and there is still a demand.

There is a demand for workers in this country. And these people are coming across our borders, both northern and southern--we seem to concentrate so much of our attention on the southern border, but they are coming across both borders--to feed themselves and their families which they can't do where they are. I would be glad to discuss the failure of the Mexican Government to enforce their border, including their southern border, the need for us to work more cooperatively, the corruption problems, all of the issues that are associated with the issue of people coming across our border. But I predict, even if we had the best cooperation from the Mexican Government, people who can't feed themselves and their families where they are would still try to come to this country to get jobs. And if you can prove that there are jobs that no American will take, why not have a process, a system where someone can come and take it and work?

There are very few of my colleagues who would deny that the overwhelming majority of people who come to this country are honest, God-fearing, hard-working people, some of whom, by the way, have died in the desert in an effort to come, a larger number every year in the Arizona desert. Their only desire is to better themselves and provide better lives for themselves and their families. There are all kinds of other benefits associated with this, as well. One of the reasons why workers come to this country today and stay is because it is so difficult to move back and forth to the families and the homes they came from. If they have a tamper-proof visa, then, of course, on their vacations or even at the completion of their work, they would feel comfortable in returning to the place where they came from. But now, with the difficulty of crossing back and forth over the border, more and more of them remain here, and sometimes there is a criminal element.

Let me make another point. With illegal immigration, with transportation of people across the border who are coming across illegally, terrible things are happening. We have the coyotes who mistreat them, the coyotes who sometimes hold them captive and demand more and more money. There are shootouts on our freeways in Arizona. No State in America understands how terrible this issue is more than the citizens of my State because over half of the people crossing the border illegally are coming across the Arizona Sonora Desert. It is terrible what is going on. The exploitation and the mistreatment of these people who are honest, who are God's children, is terrible. If we could have a viable guest worker program, one that we could enforce, then you would lose this incredible attraction that draws people illegally into our country and, of course, all of the associated bad aspects of it that the citizens of my State of Arizona are so intimately familiar with.

Of course, it frustrates citizens. Of course, it frustrates the citizens of my State to have so many hundreds of millions of dollars in uncompensated health care costs, to have law enforcement requirements and expenses go up, to have all of the problems associated with illegal immigration. But to say somehow that we are not going to satisfy what is clearly, primarily economic immigration--by the way, the Border Patrol statistics say 99 percent of those attempting to cross our Nation's border illegally are ``economic immigrants''--then we are going to be faced with a problem. No wall, no barrier, no sensor, no barbed wire will ever stop people from trying to do what is a basic yearning of human beings all over the world, and that is to have better lives for themselves and their families.

I hope and believe we will reject the Dorgan amendment. As the Senator from Alabama said, he wants to go back and start over. There are a number of us who have invested years in this issue.

I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his continued leadership.

By the way, all of us are very grateful that he survived a very serious aircraft emergency recently. We are glad that he is well and with us.

I hope we will reject the amendment. I hope we will then move on to other amendments and within a relatively short period of time resolve most of the controversial aspects of this legislation.

Finally, I thank the President of the United States for what was greeted, as we know from the overnight polls, very favorably by the American people, his support of a comprehensive resolution of this terrible issue that afflicts our Nation, that of illegal immigration.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response to my friend from Massachusetts, the Kennedy-McCain bill was a subject of long negotiations. And for more than a year, many of these issues were discussed with us and others. We felt that one of the most important aspects of this legislation was the protection of workers. One of the reasons why illegal immigration is so evil--one aspect you don't hear so much about is the terrible treatment and exploitation by cruel people of innocent people. A year ago last August, I believe, a policeman in Phoenix opened the door of a horse trailer and 73 people were packed inside, and one was a 4-month-old child.

Often, the Senator from Massachusetts and I have discussed what it is like to die in the desert. Every year, every summer more people die. They are not coming--99 percent of them, according to the Border Patrol--to do evil things but to work. Why are there jobs? Because there are jobs that Americans will not fill.

My response to the Senator from Massachusetts is that no one should be under the misunderstanding that this is another Bracero Program. The Bracero Program died because of the abuses associated with it. This gives them a status not of citizenship but of equal protection under the law. Any human being who resides in the United States should not be subject to exploitation and cruelty. That is the nature of America. We don't say in America that only citizens have the protections of our laws. We say anyone who comes to our country does, too.

So, finally, I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts that this is a fundamental part of this legislation, as he knows. If you take this out, you will then be face with the exact same economic pressures that we have been experiencing in the past. And as much as I believe in technology and as much as I think walls are important and UAVs and all that, there has never been a case in history where you have been able to stop people from doing something that has to do with their very existence. That is the way many people feel who come here.

I agree with the Senator. Interestingly enough, if I can mention again, the President of the United States, having served as Governor of the State of Texas, understands this issue very well. He made a very important point last night because all elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all. The President is exactly right. None of these problems can be solved unless we have a comprehensive approach to this legislation.

Again, Mr. President, I say to my friend from Massachusetts, briefly, that we still have a terrible problem of drugs flowing across our border. If we had the guest worker program that we have talked about in this legislation, then there would be people who are coming for jobs, and we could focus our effort and attention on the drug dealers who are now corrupting America's youth. I thank the Senator and, again, I hope my colleagues realize the implication of this vote because if we did take it out, then obviously--at least in the view of most experts that I know--the rest of the reforms would not be either applicable or enforceable.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Kyl and Cornyn for this amendment. I thank them for the intense discussions and negotiations for which we have been able to get widespread support for this amendment; also, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, on the other side of the aisle.

Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl have focused attention very appropriately on one who is convicted of a crime, who would more likely, obviously, commit another crime. That is not what this bill is all about. I think these efforts bear fruit in this amendment, and they seek to bar the potentially dangerous criminal alien from taking advantage of this program.

The amendment specifically addresses individuals who have been convicted of one felony or three misdemeanors. It also addresses those who have just ignored our laws and thumbed their nose at our judicial system. But thanks to these negotiations, we allow individuals who may have been caught up in an unjust and unfair system to apply for a waiver and possibly have their cases reconsidered.

I believe that ultimately this amendment makes the bill better and our country safer.

I wish to again thank Senators Kyl and Cornyn for their willingness to negotiate some questions that we had about a very small aspect of this bill. I think it preserves the very important intent of the Kyl- Cornyn amendment--that we will never allow people who have committed felonies or crimes to be eligible for citizenship in this country. I thank them for their efforts in this direction. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will have a chance to examine this amendment overnight, and perhaps we could dispense with it early in the morning.

There are a number of amendments on our side. I am told there are a number of amendments on the other side. I think we have made good progress today in addressing some of the major issues, but obviously we need to move forward. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will see fit to have a vote as quickly as possible so we can move on to other amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Suicide Prevention Programs and their Application in Indian Country.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

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

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object if the Senator from Louisiana will add to that unanimous consent request that this will be the last amendment considered?

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this amendment would strike $74.5 million for grants to States based on their production of certain types of crops, livestock, and dairy products, which were not included in the administration's emergency supplemental request.

Let me point out again a statement of administration policy where it says:

The administration is seriously concerned at the overall

funding level and the numerous unrequested items included in

the Senate bill that are unrelated to the war or emergency

hurricane relief needs.

Obviously, this and others have been put into this bill in a very unacceptable fashion. It has been a longstanding policy in the Senate to prohibit the practice of adding authorizing language to an appropriations bill. Nevertheless, this bill includes a massive $3.94 billion agricultural assistance program. None of this funding under this agricultural title is included in the administration's supplemental request.

Interestingly, this nearly $4 billion add-on, title III of the underlying bill--remember, this is a $4 billion add-on--received a one- paragraph mention in the entire committee report accompanying the bill; one paragraph to describe 31 pages of legislative language with a $4 billion price tag.

Let me read it for the benefit of my colleagues.

The committee recommends $3.944 billion for emergency

agriculture disaster assistance. These funds will help

farmers and ranchers in States affected by recent hurricanes,

drought, flood, wildfire and other natural disasters recover

from resulting production losses. These funds will also

assist in the removal of debris from watersheds in order to

minimize the threat of flooding from future storm events. In

addition, the funds will provide economic assistance to

producers to compensate for high energy costs relating to

agricultural production.

That last sentence is interesting. This will help farmers who have high energy costs related to agricultural production. I wonder what we are doing for the airlines, the trains, the American automobile owner, any other industry in America. We aren't doing anything for them in this emergency supplemental, but we are going to give the farmers nearly $4 billion additional.

I am all for helping the appropriate farmers and other victims battered by hurricanes, but the agricultural assistance added in this bill is far more expansive than merely offering to help areas hit by the 2005 hurricanes, and at least the limited report language doesn't hide that fact. As my colleagues know, the USDA currently has a range of disaster assistance programs, including crop insurance programs, that are already available. Yet this bill is going to add nearly $4 billion on top of the existing programs. In my view, the agricultural assistance funding is being used more as a vehicle to fill a voter wish list than it is to meet the urgent needs of the victims of the 2005 hurricane season. Taxpayer dollars are being allocated for agricultural subsidies and bailouts which in some cases have nothing to do with hurricane recovery.

This recovery would strike an earmark which provides $74.5 million in agricultural assistance for grants to States, based not on the hurricane damage, not on any emergency, but based on their production of ``specialty of crops, livestock and dairy products.''

Why is this necessary? Have the hurricanes wiped out the specialty crop industry? What even is a specialty crop, and why does it need $74.5 million of taxpayer funding? I hope that a specialty crop is a money tree because that is what is going to be needed to pay for this bill.

My colleagues may be interested to know that the bill defines specialty crops as anything but wheat, feedgrains, oilseeds, cotton, rice or peanuts--anything but. Why do we exclude those commodities from receiving this funding? Is sugarcane made ineligible? Are my colleagues aware that the USDA already has a specialty crop block grant program which was authorized in 2004? Under the existing program, specialty crops are defined as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops including floriculture. The program is funded at $17 million for the current fiscal year, and it provides for $100,000 for each State that applies. Is there a problem with that program that I am not aware of that gives it just cause to providing it with an emergency supplemental appropriation to the tune of more than 1,000 percent above its annual appropriation?

This bill provides $74.5 million that is to be used to award grants based on ``the share of each State's total value of specialty crop, livestock, and dairy production of the United States for the 2004 crop- year, multiplied by $74.5 million. That means the more you produce, if your crops have not been hit by a natural disaster or flooding or drought, the more money you get. That is the polar opposite of what the USDA disaster assistance programs are about.

Doesn't that fly in the face of what an emergency supplemental is for? An emergency supplemental is supposed to be about addressing needs and not about providing rewards for productivity. More importantly, why is what obviously is designed to be a nationwide agricultural funding assistance program, a program not requested by the administration, singled out in the statement of administration policy as objectionable, being included in a must-pass emergency spending bill that is supposed to address the global war on terror and hurricane recovery?

My colleagues may be interested to know that under this legislation, States can use the grant to ``promote the purchase, sale or consumption of agricultural products.''

I am not making this up. I am not making this up. Under this emergency supplemental bill, States can use the grant to ``promote the purchase, sale, or consumption of agricultural products.'' Last week, I mentioned that Federal dollars had been used to paint

salmon on airplanes. Maybe that $74.5 million will be used to paint vegetables on airplanes or maybe a pretty flower.

Upon closer reading of the legislative language, I notice that the bill actually creates a $100 million program for specialty crops. In addition to the $74.5 million that this amendment addresses, it provides for $25.5 million to make grants to ``the several States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to be used to support activities that promote agriculture.''

I would like to repeat that for my colleagues: ``$25.5 million to make grants to the several States, the District of Columbia. . . .''

I admire and respect the District of Columbia enormously. I know of no agricultural enterprise--well, maybe an illegal one, but I never knew of an agricultural enterprise in the District of Columbia. But they are going to be eligible for grants to be used to ``support activities that promote agriculture.'' As I say, I am not making this up.

I hope the sponsors of the legislation will correct me if I am wrong. I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. I am confident they will. But it appears that with respect to the $25.5 million funding, the bill provides that all 50 States will each receive $500,000 of that money, while Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia each will receive $250,000. What specialty crops are grown in the District of Columbia? What specialty crops are grown here? What kind of campaign should we expect?

The funding is not needed. It should be noted that, according to OMB, ``In 2005, many crops had record or near record production, and the U.S. farm sector cash receipts were second highest ever.'' Can an unrequested $74.4 million grant program truly be sold as an urgent emergency spending needed at this time? I know my colleagues have the highest hopes for the success and safety of our troops and for the speedy recovery of the hurricane-ravaged gulf. But when the American people hear of these special interest riders, they are going to question their priorities, and rightly so.

Again, I would like to refer to this poll. A 39-percent plurality of Americans, in a poll the day before yesterday, say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents. This amendment certainly fits that concern that Americans have.

I was going to come back and talk before we voted on this bill. I am sure this amendment will be voted down, again, because others have that are similarly outrageous. But I want to say, we are sending a very bad message to the American people. I saw recent polls showing our approval rating at around 22 percent. I am glad to see that there are now some candidates who are running for office against pork barrel projects and earmarks and museums, taking that out of highway funds.

They are sick and tired of seeing their children's futures mortgaged by this rampant, out-of-control spending.

I will vote against this bill. When the President vetoes it, which I am reasonably confident he will, I will vote to sustain his veto.

I believe that once the President vetoes this bill, the American people will strongly support that veto and that the American people will demand that we bring some kind of sanity to this system where, in the name of recovery from hurricane damage, and in the name of funding the war in Iraq, we spend billions--not millions, not hundreds of millions but billions--on unwanted and unnecessary products.

I want to assure my colleagues that I will support anything to help repair the damage caused by the hurricanes. I will do what is necessary to spend my taxpayers' dollars to fight and win the war in Iraq, which I still strongly believe is a noble cause, but I cannot go back to my constituents in Arizona and say that this is anything but a shameful exercise we are engaged in by taking their tax dollars in the name of an emergency and spending them on those projects, many of which we have discussed and debated at some length.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I thought maybe we had done enough pork barreling for one bill, but apparently there is never enough around here, never enough. I would ask the Senator from Hawaii, when is it enough? Another $1.9 million, that is all, just $1.9 million. We are already, for hurricane recovery, $7.7 billion above the President's request; emergency agricultural disaster assistance, $3.9 billion above the President's request; drought emergency assistance, $12.5 million; port security enhancement, $650 million; general provisions, $36 million. It goes on and on and on.

We are going to do something else for the State of Hawaii so we can win the war in Iraq and so we can respond to the hurricanes. One of these amendments is to provide assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of waters in the State of Hawaii--a million bucks for assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of the waters in the State of Hawaii, provided that the amount under this is designated an emergency requirement. What is it that is going on in the waters of Hawaii that designates it as an emergency?

Then we have a $900,000 earmark, all for Hawaii, for assistance with assessment of critical reservoirs and dams in the State of Hawaii. I know something about that. We have a few reservoirs and dams in my State. I have yet to see an emergency that had to do with the war in Iraq and hurricanes that required that, but we are going to give them another $900,000. The sad thing about this is, they will probably get it. I am going to force a recorded vote on both of these amendments, but they will probably get it. Then in conference, there will be more money for Hawaii. And then in the next appropriations bill, there will be more money for Hawaii.

My constituents live in Arizona. A lot of us are getting sick and tired of this--sick and tired, sick and tired.

I ask unanimous consent to ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments and separate votes.

I object. What is the regular order?

Reserving the right to object, why can't we go on with the next vote, the regular order, I ask the distinguished Democratic leader?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I would like to say that Senator Inouye and I have been friends for many years. I believe the process we are doing--obviously, when I see billions and billions of dollars added to an emergency supplemental--is inappropriate and, of course, I in no way would want to--in no manner would I want to offend my friend, Mr. Inouye. If my remarks did so, I apologize for doing so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3617. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this amendment would strike the $6 million earmark for sugarcane growers in Hawaii, which was not included in the administration's emergency supplemental request.

I would again remind my colleagues of the Statement of Administration Policy which was issued on April 25, obviously on the legislation now being considered. Again, this has been repeated several times in the Chamber, but I think it is important to again quote from the administration's statement, saying:

The administration is seriously concerned with the overall

funding level and the numerous unrequested items included in

the Senate bill that are unrelated to the war or emergency

hurricane relief needs. The final version of the legislation

must remain focused on addressing urgent national priorities

while maintaining fiscal discipline. Accordingly, if the

President is ultimately presented a bill that provides more

than $92.2 billion, exclusive of funding for the President's

plan to address pandemic influenza, he will veto the bill.

The administration statement goes on to say:

The administration strongly opposes the committee's

agricultural assistance proposal totaling nearly $4 billion.

The 2002 farm bill was designed, when combined with crop

insurance, to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster

assistance. In 2005, many crops had record or near record

production and the U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the

second highest ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of

assistance is excessive and may overcompensate certain

producers for their losses.

So the administration is pretty clear about this issue of these add- ons which have ballooned this bill from $92 billion to $105 billion or so.

I also point out for my colleagues' benefit that the American people are growing very weary of this earmarking process. Last Thursday, there was a poll published in the Wall Street Journal, which is an NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll, and it was interesting in that it says:

In particular, Americans who don't approve of Congress

blame their sour mood on partisan contention and gridlock in

Washington. Some 44 percent call themselves ``tired of

Republicans and Democrats fighting each other.'' Thirty-six

percent say nothing seems to get done on important issues.

Further, 34 percent cite corruption among lawmakers. Among

all Americans, a 39 percent plurality say the single most

important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is

curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain

constituents.

If there is ever a bill that would emphasize the frustration Americans have felt, it is this legislation that is before us.

A worthy cause, although I intend, along with others, to stop this business of continuing to fund the war in Iraq, which has been going on now a number of years now, the ``emergency supplemental,'' it is long overdue and time to focus on the normal budgetary process because we know we will be spending money on Iraq, unfortunately, for a long period of time. But this vehicle in itself is a violation of the normal procedures of the Senate because it should be authorized and then appropriated. But this vehicle is then, of course, used to load up unnecessary, unwanted, unfortunate, and sometimes outrageous additional spending.

For example, in this bill, which is not subject to this amendment, we have $15 million to the USDA Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program. This program already exists and is meant to assist with lamb breeding stock needs, not hurricane recovery; $400,000 goes to the Rio Grande Valley sugar growers for assistance with sugarcane storage and transportation costs to the port of Baton Rouge, LA. Among the many sugar growers nationwide, why are we providing an earmark to this particular group?

There is $120 million for sugarcane and sugar beet disaster assistance in Florida. Rather than using existing USDA disaster assistance programs, this legislation would establish a special program that caters directly and solely to Florida sugar. By the way, it is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in America today.

There is $6 million to compensate owners of flooded crop and grazing land in North Dakota. Hurricanes in North Dakota? North Dakota is one of the nation's top producers of, you guessed it, sugar.

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would strike an earmark in the bill that provides $6 million to sugarcane growers in Hawaii. Obviously, the Hawaiian lands were not anywhere near the path of the 2005 hurricanes. Certainly it is appropriate that any farmer impacted by a natural disaster can seek Federal assistance which, as I already said, is why there are existing USDA disaster recovery programs authorized under the 2002 farm bill. But in this case the appropriators are establishing a special program that caters directly to Hawaiian sugar growers via a must-pass emergency appropriations bill.

I think it is important that we continue to go back, as we argue the merits or demerits of these earmarks, to the fact that this is the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery.'' Hawaiian sugar growers do not fit in any of those categories.

According to this bill, according to the legislation before us, the Secretary shall use $6 million to ``assist sugarcane growers in Hawaii by making a payment in that amount to an agricultural transportation cooperative in Hawaii, the members of which are eligible to receive marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments.''

What does that mean? I can only assume this funding will be directed to the Hawaii Sugar and Transportation Cooperative, the only entity that received $7.2 million from a nearly identical provision in last year's, guess

what, military construction appropriations. This same entity has already got $7.2 million out of a MilCon bill. I am informed the members are the Gay and Robinson Sugar Company, the island of Hawaii, and the Hawaiian Commercial Sugar Company, the island of Maui. These are producer-owned sugarcane mills that own the land.

Let me repeat. The same cooperative got a bailout a year ago. Are we now going to start providing these two companies with annual supplemental appropriations bailouts? I urge my colleagues to question what we are doing.

Let me quote from the administration's Statement of Administrative Policy again:

In 2005, many crops had record or near record production

and U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the second highest

ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of assistance is

excessive and may overcompensate certain producers for their

losses.

What are we trying to do with this bill? We are trying to tell our farmers, no matter where you are or what you farm, don't bother with crop insurance because come next year's supplemental, we will dole out far more than you need.

As Secretary Mike Johanns said:

I have spent the last week studying the bill to try to get

an understanding of the mechanics of the bill, but taking it

a step further, trying to get an understanding of what we

have done for disaster relief in the last year. And what is

the agricultural economy like that may lay the foundation for

somebody to say we need disaster relief.

He said for the 2005 and 2006 crop years, despite pockets of weather problems, ``Every year you see them. For a country this big, it is unusual not to have some weather issues out there.''

But despite pockets of problems, production and yields set records or near records recently.

Johanns' conclusions, after getting answers to his questions: ``I got all that data and evidence, and that got me thinking, `What are they trying to do with that bill?' '' He is talking about the supplemental bill before us. ``So I studied the bill and I must admit, my forehead started wrinkling.''

Well, as noted in Saturday's Washington Post editorial, ``Should Farming Be the Nation's Only Risk-Free Enterprise?'' perhaps the intent in providing this $6 million to the Hawaiian sugar growers is to prop up a sugar industry which has fallen on hard times. With rising diabetes and child obesity rates which have more than doubled since 1977, maybe sugar isn't in demand as in previous years. Maybe the efforts by parents to have soft drink machines stripped from public schools is having a prolific effect on sugar production. If only that were the case. In reality, consumption of sweeteners in the U.S. has risen from 113 pounds per person per year in 1966 to around 142 pounds per person per year in 2004. At that rate Americans consume the equivalent of about 1 teaspoon of sugar per hour every 24 hours, 7 days a week.

The U.S. News & World Report compared our sugar fix to other, more nutritious agricultural commodities and found that Americans ate an abysmal 8.3 pounds of broccoli a year in 2003, something I can understand.

Again I question the need to spend more taxpayer dollars on sugarcane. Didn't we just vote last week not to fund a $15 million marketing program for seafood? Certainly less than a week later we are not going to turn around and vote to fund marketing to support this effort.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be brief.

I understand Hawaii experienced severe flooding this winter. It should be pointed out that the heavy tropical rains did not lead to a Presidential disaster declaration. Surely the flooding impacted a broad range of agricultural commodities in Hawaii, not just sugarcane growers, and the Secretary of Agriculture is providing assistance under existing USDA disaster recovery programs. These programs will help farmers with noninsured crops, debt management, emergency loans, infrastructure repair, and farmland rehabilitation. Do we really need an additional earmark of $6 million for Hawaiian sugarcane growers on top of the assistance already offered by the USDA?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a USDA factsheet that contains the programs that are available: Emergency Conservation Program, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, Disaster Debt Set-Aside Program, and the Emergency Loan Program.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the editorial contained in the Washington Post on April 29 basically saying:

There are, no doubt, farmers who have suffered severe

losses this year. Isn't that what crop insurance--government-

subsidized crop insurance, to the tune of $4.2 billion this

year--is supposed to be about?

The administration is right to oppose this provision;

They are talking about the provision of $4 billion in disaster payments to farmers as part of the emergency spending bill--

the Senate ought to show enough discipline to take it out.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, if the Senator yields for a question, then he maintains the right to the floor. I by no means want to deprive him of that.

Is the Senator from Oregon concerned that he is not going to get a vote on this amendment? Because it seems to me if the amendment is proposed and it is in order, at some point, after disposing of the pending amendments, unless there is something I don't understand, the amendment of the Senator from Oregon would then be subject to a vote. As the Senator from Oregon knows, there are several other pending amendments that we think are important as well, particularly having to do with earmarks.

I note this morning in a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, the No. 1 concern of Americans is earmarks. I find it very interesting that they are sick and tired of the absolutely incredible stuff we have loaded into this bill. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have an amendment about seafood marketing. The Senator from Oregon, I am sure, probably remembers that last year they spent some half a million to paint a giant salmon on a 737. The same money would go to that same outfit in this bill that is supposed to be for the war in Iraq.

I am sorry for the long question. I apologize to my friend from Oregon. Is it his concern that he will not get a vote on this amendment or that he needs a vote now? Perhaps for the rest of us who are waiting to offer amendments, he could clarify. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his courtesy.

If I may, if the Senator will yield for an additional question.

My understanding from talking to the floor staff, I say to the Senator from Oregon--and the distinguished chairman can probably help

out on this--is we have a number of amendments in order which are going to be voted on, I think by an agreement between the two leaders, which is the general procedure around here.

Nothing is more outrageous, as the Senator from Oregon pointed out, than these things that are stuffed into conference reports. But this isn't a conference report. This is an initial bite at an appropriations bill. I hope that perhaps we could work out something so we can continue with the amendment process and set a time for votes on all amendments, with the amendment of the Senator from Oregon in order following the others, as is the normal procedure. Maybe the Senator from Oregon could ask for that again, we could move forward. We all know that everybody's time is limited.

I thank the Senator for responding to my question.

Mr. President, I come in support of the amendment. I know that we don't have too much time since the distinguished managers would like to get this bill moving, but let me just say that this is $15 million to be used, and I quote from the bill: ``Seafood promotion strategy,'' which is Congress's attempt to sell consumers pork masquerading as a fish.

Similar to other appropriations in this bill, this $15 million is not limited to marketing seafood from the gulf coast region or other areas that were affected by Hurricane Katrina.

For example, the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board likely anticipates a payout from these appropriations. We have come a long way from an emergency supplemental. The board has received--this Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board--has received over $30 million from the Federal Government since 2003 from similar provisions in appropriations bills. Last year, this board used a half million dollars to pay Alaska Airlines to paint a giant salmon on a 737. We called it the ``salmon- 30-salmon,'' proving that fish do fly, thanks to the American taxpayer.

According to a recent survey by Harris Interactive, 73 percent of all Americans say they eat seafood at least once a month, and 47 percent of all Americans consume more seafood now than they did 5 years ago. These record consumption levels were achieved without a pricey marketing campaign financed by American taxpayers. It appears that Charlie the Tuna and the Chicken of the Sea mermaid are doing their jobs just fine, without any help from the Federal Government.

Additionally, a recent CRS report states:

The marketability of catch from the gulf coast appears

little affected by contamination from storm runoff or

consumers' concerns.

Mr. President, let me save the American taxpayers $15 million right now by telling all Americans now to eat seafood. Eat seafood. It is good for you. There we go. C-SPAN has millions of viewers, and they have heard the message. So the marketing campaign is complete. With the Federal budget deficit forecasted to reach $477 billion this year, I doubt the American taxpayer would approve of Congress spending $15 million to promote the consumption of seafood when Americans are already consuming record amounts of seafood.

Lastly, the CRS report also found that prior to Hurricane Katrina, the gulf coast commercial shrimpers had been losing market share to ``competition from less expensive foreign imports and domestic harvesters for several years.'' Therefore, this $15 million marketing campaign seems to be targeted more toward stemming the success of less expensive imports than assisting the gulf coast region's economy.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to strike the fishiest smelling pork in this bill.

Let me just make one additional comment, if I could. It is clear--it is very clear--that what we have here is a broken process. Any defense money that we are taking out should have been part of the normal budgetary process. I want to tell my colleagues that I and others have embarked on an effort to bring the emergency supplemental that pays for the Iraq war into the normal budgetary process. We have been at war for 3 years. This is the fourth year. There is no reason to do business like this. It bypasses the authorization process, it bypasses any scrutiny by the proper committees, we then bring it to the floor, and it is filled with items such as this ridiculous $15 million for a seafood marketing campaign, and it grows and grows and grows.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, there is a poll. It says: ``Republicans sag in new poll.'' I found it very interesting that in describing the poll, in particular, Americans who don't approve of Congress blame their sour mood on partisan contention and gridlock in Washington. Some 44 percent call themselves tired of Republicans and Democrats fighting each other. Among all Americans, a 39-percent plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents.

I want to repeat that, Mr. President. A 39-percent plurality of Americans are sick and tired of the earmarking process that is going on. Now, when are we going to respond to the American people? Everyplace I go, every town hall meeting I attend, my constituents tell me they are sick and tired of this. And, now, according to a Wall Street Journal NBC poll, a 39-percent plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents.

This is a graphic example of what the American people are sick and tired of.

By the way, immigration reform ranks behind earmarks in congressional action that is desired by the American people. It concludes by saying:

Americans take dim views of both parties, giving Democrats

a positive rating of just 33 percent and Republicans 35

percent.

We are at an all-time low in the favorable opinion of the American people. This is an example. This $15 million is a very small but compelling example of our need to change the way we do business. If we vote again to keep this in this bill, we are sending the message to the American people that it is business as usual.

I yield the floor.