Floor Statements

Mr. President, to advise those on the other side how Senator Domenici and I intend to divide our time, I have 15 minutes. I think what I will do is take 5 minutes right now and then defer to Senator Domenici for his 20 minutes. Then I will conclude. Of course, the majority will be fitting their time in there as well. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. President, resuming debate on the amendment which I offered, the amendment is very straightforward. It simply says that notwithstanding the tax increases, $28.6 billion in tax increases in the amendment pending on the floor, they shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that those tax increases will not increase retail gasoline prices or the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy.

The point of the amendment is to make it clear that sometimes tax increases on business can be passed on to consumers. If that happens in this case, we are going to see higher gasoline prices at the pump, not lower prices. One of the concerns many of us have with the underlying bill is it doesn't produce any new energy. Yet it spends $28.5 billion. To make up for that spending, it taxes an additional $28.6 billion.

Somebody has to end up paying that tax. Most people in America know that when you put a tax on a business, that gets passed on to the consumers who buy the product--in this case, gasoline. So instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill, if the underlying amendment passes, is going to add to the cost of gasoline.

Yesterday I mentioned a Heritage Foundation study that confirmed that what I was saying was not simply my opinion but the facts as a result of a study that the Heritage Foundation had done. I would like to expand on that a little bit because we actually have the figures for two States, the State of the chairman of the committee, Montana, and my State of Arizona, to illustrate the point.

The study projects that gas prices in Montana, for example, in May averaged at $3.17 per gallon. They would be $3.48 per gallon next year as a result of the Energy bill before the Senate. A Montana taxpayer would see spending on gasoline increase by $1,632.95 next year, as a result of the bill.

In Arizona, we are paying about $3.09 per gallon. That would go up to $3.40 next year as a result of this bill, so Arizona taxpayers will see spending on gasoline increase by $1,140.51 next year as a result of this Energy bill. That is a huge increase in consumers' payment for gasoline. When we realize that for many people driving is not a luxury, it is a requirement--to get to work or perform work--it is clear we are costing the American consumer a huge amount of money that is important for our economy and for them to make a living. That is an unintended consequence of the tax increases embodied in this bill but real nevertheless.

What we are saying is, if that is the result of tax increases, then those tax increases would not go into effect. I think that is an important principle for us to establish.

I would like to respond to a couple of points made by opponents of my amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee argued the tax increases in the underlying bill are simply loophole closers, but that is not true. The largest tax increase in the bill is a brandnew tax. It is not a loophole closer, it is a new 13-percent tax on new oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. How is that going to help bring down gasoline prices? I suggest it is not. It will help to raise prices.

The second largest tax increase in the bill raises the corporate tax rate. That is not a loophole closer either, it is simply needed to pay for the other costs of the bill, so it was a ready source of revenue that they decided to tap.

This is a raise in the corporate tax rate for oil and gas companies, which would then make it higher on those companies than others in manufacturing--something we were trying to promote when we passed the bill 2 years ago.

Raising the corporate tax rate is obviously not a loophole closer. I suggest when you raise marginal tax rates, you either get less production or higher prices--more likely, both--not good results from raising taxes.

Finally, the Senator from Oregon argued yesterday that with oil over $55 a barrel, oil companies should not need incentives to drill for new oil and gas. I certainly agree with that; they do not need any new incentives to drill for oil and gas. I have always been against those kinds of targeted incentives or taxpayer subsidies for any form of energy. But imposing a new tax or raising the corporate rate is not the same thing as repealing targeted incentives, which is what we should be doing. Moreover, with oil over $60 a barrel right now, renewable energy companies should not need any further taxpayer subsidies either. The market is providing all the incentives necessary to produce hybrid cars and advanced fuels.

These tax increases are not necessary. They are going to be counterproductive to our economic growth. They are going to hurt our producers vis-a-vis foreign producers, they are going to further increase our dependence on foreign oil and, most importantly, they are going to raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for American consumers.

All my amendment says is if that happens, then these tax increases should not go into effect. If it doesn't have that effect, then the tax increases would go into effect.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would be happy to take half of my time right now and then let the Senator from Montana close, and I will close after that.

Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the arguments that have been made. First, I do appreciate the candor of both the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Iowa. Rather than arguing that these tax increases are loophole closers, as has been suggested, they candidly acknowledge the reason for the tax increases is to pay for the costs of the bill. As the Senator from Iowa said, we want to avoid offsets, but we can't. We have to pay for the costs of the bill. So, so much for the argument that these tax increases are loophole closers. They are, very plainly, necessary to pay for the cost of the bill, so they are tax increases. I appreciate that.

Another bit of candor: The Senator from Montana quoting--or paraphrasing, anyway--the former chairman of Exxon Oil Company, essentially argued that it is OK to add these taxes on oil companies because they make too much money, and they make too much profit, so we are justified in taxing them.

I am not going to argue with that theory. If they make too much money,

we are going to tax them, if that is the argument for imposing these new taxes. All I say is as long as it doesn't raise the price of gasoline for American consumers, then I guess the question would be: Who cares? But if they do raise the cost of gasoline for American consumers, then I think we should care. That is all this amendment does. It says: If it doesn't raise the cost of gasoline, go ahead and impose the tax. If these oil companies are making too much money, go ahead and tax them. But if the result of it is not just to hurt the oil companies but to hurt the American consumer, then Congress says: Wait a minute; not so fast. We are not going to allow that to happen. That is all this amendment does. So we don't say you can't tax. What we say is, you can't tax if it has a negative impact on the American consumer.

Now, there was a question about the Heritage study. I noticed there was no attack on the numbers, no refutation of the numbers, just: Well, who paid for the study? I don't know who paid for the study. I presume Heritage paid for the study. It is their study. What does it say and why is it such a burr under the saddle of those who oppose my amendment? Well, it found that the tax provisions in this bill, setting aside the other mandates, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents per gallon over the next 8 years, and taking all of the provisions of the bill together, it can increase the price of regular unleaded gas from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon in the year 2016, over the next 10 years. That is a 104-percent increase.

If that is the case, even if it is only half that much, it is a huge hit to the American consumer and we shouldn't even be thinking about that kind of a hit on the American consumer.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America. It is dated June 20, 2007.

This is a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who makes the point that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the tax increases in the bill and supports the amendment which I offer, which would condition that tax increase on not hurting American consumers.

He says:

This amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to

certify that the tax provisions included in H.R. 6 will not

lead to increased reliance on foreign oil or higher gasoline

prices for American consumers.

As a result, they support the amendment, and I believe they will key it as a key vote.

He goes on to say:

The Chamber strongly opposes the tax title of this bill

because it contains many proposals that amount to little more

than a modern-day Windfall Profits Tax. When that tax was

enacted in 1980, it resulted in higher prices for consumers,

long waits at gasoline lines, and increased consumption of

foreign oil.

That is what we are concerned about here. If the tax increases don't have that effect, then nobody has to worry about it. But if they do have that effect on the American consumers, they would not go into effect.

My penultimate point is the argument that we have to do something to wean ourselves from OPEC, so what do we do? We slap a new 13-percent tax on the production of new oil. How does that help wean us from OPEC? What it does is to say to the producers of oil: You go out and find some, and by the way, if you do, we are going to hit you with a new tax. This is a perverse incentive, not a proper incentive.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Americans For Tax Reform I expect will also key vote the Kyl-Lott amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in closing the debate on this amendment, I will respond to the point that both the Senator from Vermont and the chairman have just made, and that is the need to promote renewable energy and to give incentives to those producers. That is a fine sentiment, but my amendment has nothing to do with that. My amendment doesn't affect these incentives one iota. It doesn't speak to them at all. So that is a straw man, just as it is a straw man to argue that we ought to have the right to sock it to the oil companies because they are making huge profits. I am not arguing that proposition. In fact, yesterday, I offered an amendment to eliminate a real loophole in one of those subsidies that one oil company is going to be taking advantage of, and both of the Senators whom I mentioned voted to support that subsidy. I voted to eliminate it.

I am not trying to protect the oil companies, obviously. I am trying to protect the American consumer. My amendment says if the American consumer comes out OK, tax the oil companies. My amendment says if the American consumers are going to lose, then we say no, and then there are unintended consequences to these sentiments of socking it to the oil companies, creating subsidies for renewable energy producers and so on, fine. But if it adversely affects American consumers and increases our dependency upon foreign oil, then does anybody argue that we should do this? Wouldn't they instead try to find another way to achieve the objective? I think the answer is yes.

My amendment says: Do what you want to do here, but if it adversely affects the American consumer or increases our dependence on foreign oil, that is where we say no, we need to find another way to do this.

My amendment doesn't affect the underlying subsidies and doesn't say that you cannot impose additional taxes. These arguments are straw men. All I say is, if the American consumers end up being the losers, as they sometimes have been with our tax policies, if these are the unintended consequences and we become more dependent upon foreign oil, then we say no. That is all this amendment does.

I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I hope they will support my amendment. We are going to vote on it right now, but first I think the chairman wants to raise a point of order. I yield the floor at this time for him to do that.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable points of order with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. President, the Baucus amendment from the Finance Committee would extend the tariff on imported ethanol for 2 more years. The Gregg amendment properly repeals the tariff.

Now, why do I say properly? Because the ethanol tariff acts as a tax on U.S. consumers at the gasoline pump. It increases the cost of gasoline because the cost of ethanol is increased due to the tariff. If Americans want anything out of this Energy bill, it is a reduction in gasoline prices.

In fact, in a recent Associated Press poll, 60 percent of the respondents said that gas prices--which, by the way, are currently around $3 a gallon--are causing them hardships. Now, it is one thing to maybe have to pull back a little on your family vacation this summer, but an awful lot of people have to drive to get to work and have to drive as part of work. Clearly, when over half of Americans are caused hardships by the current high level of gasoline prices, Congress has the responsibility to do something about that.

We should act. One of the few ways in which we can directly impact the price of gasoline at the pump is to eliminate the tariff of 54 cents per gallon on ethanol that is brought into the United States. Nothing else in this bill will directly bring down gasoline prices. In fact, there are several provisions that will actually have the effect of increasing gasoline prices. Promoting a competitive market for ethanol will help bring down gasoline prices because it increases the supply that is available and provides, therefore, access to lower cost ethanol.

The bottom line is this: When there is a supply of potential fuel out there and our companies are trying to find that supply so they can bring it into the United States to meet the demand of consumers, but they have to pay 54 cents a gallon on part of that supply, they are either going to buy the supply at 54 cents a gallon and pass the cost on to the consumer or they are not going to be able to do that, thereby reducing the supply of gasoline available. What happens when you have more demand and less supply? The cost goes up anyway. Either way, having this tariff in place causes an escalating cost of the price of gasoline because it reduces available supply to the American consumer.

We have a mandate now to use ethanol. That is required. That mandate means the companies that provide the gasoline to consumers have no choice but to acquire ethanol. If much of that ethanol is abroad, and we are charging 54 cents a gallon for it, obviously, you can see it is going to increase the cost of gasoline for the American consumer. Americans are a competitive people who know how the free market works.

I need an additional 30 seconds, Mr. President.

One way we know the free market can work better is if we don't have artificial prices on a product which the American consumer needs in order to work. That means we can reduce the cost of gasoline by eliminating this costly ethanol tariff.

Mr. President, once-terminal diseases such as leukemia, aplastic anemia, cerebral palsy, and sickle-cell anemia are now treatable, if not curable, by using stem cells derived from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. Early this year, scientists at Wake Forest University School of Medicine found stem cells in amniotic fluid. These stem cells are particularly exciting for their pluripotency--the characteristic that enables the stem cell to turn into multiple bodily tissues and thereby be useful in a variety of medical treatments.

In the last few weeks, just as the House was engaging in a partisan effort to pass this bill that the President rightly vetoed, scientists discovered that human skin could one day be used to create limitless lines of stem cells that are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells in their characteristics. Already such newspapers as the Washington Post are glowing with reports about how this discovery could ``revolutionize stem cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade.'' At the same time, the highly trumped benefits of stem cells derived from the destruction of a living embryo have yet to be demonstrated, despite considerable private and public funding.

All members of this body share a desire to find cures or successful treatments for horrible illnesses. Fortunately, such an opportunity has been presented in the way of adult stem cells. Even with all of the tremendous potential that adult stem cells hold for treating serious medical conditions, some of my colleagues are unwilling to support legislation that funds the development of ethically acceptable and medically beneficial adult stem cell research. This body should recognize the

fundamental differences--not just between Senators--but among the American people, over the appropriate use of taxpayer funding for stem cell research that destroys a living embryo. We may never move beyond this impasse, but that should not stop us from encouraging non- controversial and highly productive medical treatments.

While S. 5 contains provisions which are morally unacceptable to many people, S. 30, the ``Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act'' or the ``HOPE Act,'' which the Senate passed, is an opportunity for Congress to support highly-productive adult stem cell research free of ethical defects. S. 30 would specifically direct the Department of Health and Human Services to seek alternative sources of stem cells and study the possibility of establishing an amniotic and placental stem cell bank, similar to the bone marrow and cord blood stem cell bank, while reaffirming a policy that prohibits research that destroys human life. This goes far beyond the current policy in the extent to which it supports adult stem cell research.

Right now, as Senators prepare to consider an override of the President's veto of S. 5, there are millions of Americans suffering from serious illnesses who are waiting for the potential treatments offered by adult stem cell research. Rather than wasting precious time debating ethically divisive funding for stem cell research that destroys living embryos, the House should take up and pass S. 30. It is disappointing to see partisanship trump science and patients' hopes.

I applaud the President for issuing his Executive Order today, implementing many, but not all, of the key provisions of S. 30. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm opposition to S. 5 by upholding this justified veto, and to think twice about trying to add S. 5 or similar provisions that would promote embryo-destructive research onto other bills, including annual appropriations bills. Such a move would justify the veto of that legislation as well.

Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I wish to ask the chairman of the committee, is it not correct that at this time there is agreement to have a debate--40 minutes equally divided--on this particular amendment, and the vote to be set at a later time, but we would try to conclude the debate at this time?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, this amendment is designed to get back to the original intent with regard to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in relation to a very specific, rather narrow provision, but an important provision, that provided a $1 per gallon credit for renewable diesel. The idea was to encourage the creation of new technologies for renewable diesel. The idea was primarily to try to get products, such as cellulosic products, that could eventually be added to or be turned into a fuel that could be burned as diesel fuel. As a result, that $1 per gallon credit was deemed an important way to create a new kind of product.

Well, as entrepreneurs will do, a couple of very bright people figured out they could take an existing product, which is already used--namely, animal fat--and put that in with diesel fuel, in effect-- I am simplifying the process--and, voila, it all burns the same, but it would qualify as renewable diesel, biomass under the credit and, therefore, they would get the $1 per gallon credit for doing something that adds essentially nothing to the process and uses animal fat-- primarily, tallow--which is already used by the oleochemical industry, which is seeing the price skyrocket because of the interpretation these oil companies have gotten IRS to agree to that they could actually use this animal fat in their diesel and, therefore, get the credit for producing a new kind of diesel.

That was never the intent. The intent was to find some new kinds of biomass processes that could be converted to a diesel fuel and have it be a renewable diesel fuel--something truly new--not to take existing diesel and take an existing product that is already used by a very green industry.

By the way, the oleochemical industry is an industry that gets no subsidy, and uses this animal fat--something that is good to dispose of--to make plastics, cleaning products, home cleaning products, some rubber kinds of products, and most especially soap. The basic ingredient in soap is tallow. There is a finite market for that. The soap people buy all the stuff that is on the market, but they found that the cost has gone up 100 percent in the last 6 months because of this interpretation that tallow could be bought up by, primarily, one big oil company, Conoco oil company, which has figured out they can get the advantage of this $1 per gallon subsidy.

That is wrong. It was never intended for that. If they want to go out and invent a new process with the big tax credit we have given them, that is great, but not to use the tax credit to do something that can be done anyway and which has the effect, the unintended consequence, of hurting an industry that employs at least 4,000 people. By the way, if that industry is not able to buy the tallow--the animal fat that is being used here--then the only alternative is to produce things like soap in foreign countries that have alternative supplies to what we have in the United States.

So the unintended consequence of this is not just that somebody gets to take advantage of a $1 per gallon tax credit that is very generous-- and not producing anything new--but they are also driving out of the United States an important industry which does use this waste animal fat, and uses its very productively, without any subsidy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the chief executive officer of the National Biodiesel Board, who wrote to me on June 20.

Here is what the letter says:

The National Biodiesel Board supports your efforts to

promote sound energy policy by ensuring that renewable diesel

produced through petroleum co-processing does not qualify for

the $1.00 per gallon renewable diesel excise tax credit.

In a time of budget deficits and rising fuel prices due in

large part to limited domestic refining capacity, the NBB

questions the wisdom of directing tax benefits and limited

feedstock--

That is the animal fat--

to subsidize existing oil refining operations at the expense

of free-standing producers of biodiesel and renewable diesel.

Under your amendment, vegetable oils and animal fats co-

processed with petroleum would not qualify for the $1.00 per

gallon renewable diesel tax credit, but would continue to

qualify for a 50 cents per gallon credit that is provided

under current law. The NBB believes that your amendment

represents balanced energy policy and is consistent with the

goals of the underlying legislation.

And so on.

We are not eliminating the tax credit. We are not eliminating this other credit. All we are doing is getting back to the original intent, which was not to provide this additional $1 per gallon credit for something that could be done anyway. We want you to go out and invent something new here using biomass for biodiesel, not using something that can already be done.

According to the testimony of the company that is primarily going to be doing this, this has not resulted in any major expenditure on their part. I will quote from ConocoPhillips' 2005 annual report. They have ``conducted a successful test that converted vegetable oil into high- quality renewable diesel fuel . . . , and can be produced with existing refinery equipment with minimal incremental capital investment.'' In other words, this is not something that requires some new investment that requires the American taxpayers to subsidize it.

As I said, they are taking something they can do right now, and they are simply taking advantage of a tax break we did not intend to be used by a company like that.

Now, in anticipation of this boondoggle--and it has gotten quite a bit of press--there has been a suggestion: Well, we can limit it to taxpayers with 60 million gallons of production. The problem is, in the Finance Committee mark that was changed from ``taxpayer'' to ``facility.'' So now a company can have 20 different facilities, each one producing 60 million gallons, and they are right back in business. It is no limitation at all.

So my colleagues should not be hornswoggled--to use the old phrase my grandfather used to use--that somehow there is some kind of limitation on this. Very cleverly, the Conoco folks were able to get in this legislation that it applies per facility; and by having multiple facilities, there is, in effect, no limitation.

Mr. President, I will be happy to give those who want to speak in opposition to this amendment an opportunity to try to refute what I have said, but I think this is very straightforward. There is no sense in rewarding what I would consider to be behavior that was never intended by this Congress in providing this kind of a tax credit.

When we are going to take a tax benefit--in effect, using taxpayer dollars--to promote something, we want to make sure we are promoting something that is in the best interest of the American taxpayer, not just a way for somebody who knows how to make a buck to use it to make a buck, especially if it has a negative consequence on an existing industry, the oleochemical industry, and, in particular, the soap makers of this country.

Mr. President, may I be informed as to how much time remains on this side?

Might I take a little bit of time, then, before the other side speaks again on this issue?

I respect my colleagues who have spoken, but I have not really heard an argument that, to me, anyway, argues against the specific amendment I am offering. Remember, I am not doing away with the credit. The arguments that have been raised here make it sound as if we are trying to do away with the credit. That is absolutely not true. The credit remains. What we are trying to do is essentially reverse an IRS ruling, which I submit was made in error, with respect to the application of the tax credit. They said you could actually apply it to a process to which it was never intended to be applied.

A letter to the Secretary of Treasury at the time this legislation was originally considered makes that crystal clear.

Congressman Blunt wrote:

It has been brought to my attention that some taxpayers are

suggesting to the Department of Treasury that section 1346 of

the Act, the renewable diesel provision, could be broadly

interpreted to include traditional processes. This is not

what we intended in the provision, and neither the statute

nor the associated JCT estimate of revenue implications in

any way support such a reading.

What he is saying is this: Two years ago when this tax credit was created, it was designed to incentivize the creation of a new product so that we didn't have to continue to explore for oil or export it from foreign sources; we could begin to make renewable diesel out of biomass. That was the idea. We have all of this waste product of biomass. We have cellulosic products we can create here, and that will create a new renewable fuel source.

Everybody said: That is a great idea. To get it promoted, let's have a dollar-per-gallon tax credit for the production of that. It was not intended to apply, as the Congressman from Missouri pointed out, to include traditional processes for refining and producing fuel. In other words, it was designed to promote something new.

So when these folks found that they could take animal fat, essentially, to greatly simplify it, and add it to their

existing stocks, voila: a biomass renewable fuel that qualified for a generous tax benefit, that was never intended. All my amendment does is to say that interpretation is not correct; you can't do that. The underlying dollar-per-gallon credit exists. The other 50-cent-per- gallon credit exists. We don't take away any of that. All we do--and the primary person or company that is affected by this, I acknowledge, is Conoco Oil Company. They have figured out, with minimal new investment, as they themselves wrote in their annual report, that they could take advantage of this tax credit by using the animal fat.

Now, again, I suppose it wouldn't matter that much if a big oil company is taking undue advantage of a tax credit we create. That is probably done all the time. I don't like it. That is why taxpayers are, frankly, sometimes upset with Congress that we pass these great, generous subsidies and sometimes they are utilized by people who shouldn't be utilizing them, not to create a new kind of diesel fuel in this case but to keep using the same old diesel fuel.

The other unintended consequence, though, is one that affects another industry, a clean industry, an industry that is using the waste fat, the vegetable oil and animal fat, the waste product of turkeys and chickens, for example. It is utilized today in a variety of these oleo chemical products which are products we use every day--house-cleaning products, soap, as I said.

The problem is that because these existing refineries are buying up these waste products, they are driving up the cost. There is only so much of this animal fat around. It is a finite amount. When the demand is increased by having these oil refineries buy it all up so they can put it into their diesel fuel so they can get an extra credit, that is driving up the price which, as I said, has gone up 100 percent in the last 6 months.

If that continues, these soap companies are not going to be able to afford the primary feedstock for the soap, and they are going to have to produce it abroad, another great unintended consequence of what started out to be a good idea but didn't turn out to be such a hot idea.

This is a very parochial issue. I submit, except for the chairman and ranking member of the committee, primarily the opponents of this are from places that take advantage of this provision. I cannot object to their fighting for their local industries, but I think it is important for us to recognize that as a national energy policy and as a national tax policy, we have to look at it in nationwide terms. When we have created a credit to produce something new, and it ends up not being used to produce something new but to produce something that currently exists by existing refineries and uses up the feedstock of another important industry, driving the cost of that industry way up, we better pay attention to that. The fix doesn't hurt anybody, except primarily, as I said, this one big oil company because it leaves the credit in place, it leaves the 50-cent credit in place. It doesn't do anything with those credits. It doesn't say they are not extended. All it does is say we go back to the way it was prior to this IRS ruling that said they could take advantage of this provision for the existing refiners.

I will conclude. We don't need to subsidize existing oil-refining operations at the expense of freestanding producers of biodiesel and renewable diesel. That is who this tax credit was designed to help, the freestanding facilities, the ones that were actually producing something new.

A key component of rising fuel prices in this country is a lack of refining capacity in the United States. We all know that. Freestanding biodiesel and renewable diesel producers have both fuel and refining capacity. We ought to be encouraging them, and that is what the $1-per- gallon credit was designed to do.

By contrast, coprocessed renewable diesel adds no new net fuel and no new refining capacity to the diesel pool. This was not intended to help the existing refiners. They are already in business, they are already making money, and we don't need to give them $1-a-gallon credit for doing something we don't need to have them do.

Finally, as I said, the availability of feedstock, such as animal fat and vegetable oils, is essentially fixed, and this $1 renewable diesel credit is the motivation for integrating the oil companies to engage in coprocessing. This will clearly increase demand for the feedstock needed to produce biodiesel and increase costs. It is not wise tax policy to drive tax policies and limited feedstock to support existing refinery operations at the expense of biodiesel and freestanding renewable diesel production.

The economic benefits associated with freestanding biodiesel production could be lost if this $1-per-gallon renewable tax incentive is directed to support operations in existing oil refineries.

I ask my colleagues to please keep this in perspective and take into account that those who say this amendment is bringing the end of the world, no, it is not. It doesn't change existing law at all. All it does is say to go back to the original intent and apply this very generous tax credit for the purpose we originally intended: to produce something new, not to use existing refineries and give them a tax credit for doing something they are already doing.

I hope when the amendment is called that my colleagues will see through some of the smokescreen that has been presented, not in the Chamber but on the outside with regard to this amendment, and will agree that national policy dictates that we take care of taxpayers' dollars carefully, that we set our energy policy carefully, and that we not let people take undue advantage of it in ways we did not intend.

Mr. President, I will be happy to do this on my time because I am going to yield back my time on this amendment in any event. I am happy to have the vote on this amendment stacked with the Inhofe amendment at whatever time that will occur.

With regard to the second amendment, which I am going to propose, I am not at liberty to do that right now because there are numerous people who wish to speak. I assure the chairman that as soon as I have that list and know how much time it is, I will let him know that.

Madam President, this amendment very simply changes an IRS interpretation of the 2005 Energy bill that provides a $1-per-gallon tax credit for creation of biodiesel. An interpretation by IRS said that if you take animal fat and add it to the biodiesel--or add it to diesel, you have biodiesel and then get the $1-per-gallon credit. That was not what was intended when this was created.

What has happened is all of the animal fat used to do this was already being used by the oleo chemical industry. Folks, for example, who make soap and detergents and the like, are finding the cost of the animal fat, their feed stock, has skyrocketed 100 percent this past year because of the way this has been done. As a result, we are simply changing the interpretation IRS put on it that big oil companies can take advantage of what was not intended to be a tax credit for them, people who are already refining diesel fuel. But rather, those who would create legitimate new diesel fuel from legitimate biomass, the credit remains; nothing changes for that. It simply means the oil companies taking advantage of the credit in an improper way would no longer be able to do so.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 1733, and would ask that it be called up at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I will speak for one minute and then yield about 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky who will begin the discussion. Actually, I would like to read the entirety of this amendment. It will take me about 10 seconds. It explains what the amendment does.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this subtitle, the

amendments made by this subtitle shall not take effect unless

the Secretary of Energy certifies that such amendments shall

not increase gasoline retail prices and reliance of the

United States on foreign sources of energy.

What this amendment does very simply is to say that the $28.6 billion in tax increases called for by this bill will be allowed to go into effect as long as the Secretary of Energy can certify that it would not raise gas prices or cause further dependence on foreign oil. The reason for the amendment, obviously, is to make a point. It is going to be very difficult to have $28.6 billion in tax increases on oil producers not reflected on our gasoline cost at the pump. I predict Americans will pay more for their gasoline because of the tax increases in this legislation.

I will have more to say about the three different kinds of tax increases, why I believe that is the case, why I think it is a bad idea for us to increase our dependence on foreign oil and increase the cost of gasoline to consumers as a result of the tax increases embodied in this bill.

At this time, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Madam President, unless the chairman of the committee would like to speak next, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I have offered, No. 1733, be modified to reflect that it is a second- degree amendment to the Baucus amendment No. 1704.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the comments my colleagues made to remind everyone many of the dire predictions, including the ones of my good friend from Oregon, are a little beside the point.

If you look at the actual wording of my amendment, it does not say anything about subsidies to big oil companies or anything of the like. Maybe I better read it again:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this subtitle--

And those are the tax increases on oil companies, as well as the other tax increases in the legislation--

the amendments made by this subtitle shall not take effect

unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that such amendments

shall not increase gasoline retail prices and the reliance of

the United States on foreign sources of energy.

That is all it says. There isn't any more. There isn't anything about subsidies to oil companies or anything of the like.

What the Senator from Oregon might be saying is that the provisions of the bill are not going to go into effect because it is true that the tax increases will, in fact, raise prices for American gasoline consumers and will increase our dependency on foreign oil. If, as the chairman of the committee said, that is not true, there is no relationship--in fact, his exact words were: It is fallacious to argue that these new taxes in the bill will raise fuel costs. If that is true, then there would not be any effect. The argument of the Senator from Oregon then falls. But if it is true the taxes in this legislation will raise prices for oil consumers or gasoline consumers and will further our dependence on foreign oil, then the Senator from Oregon at least has a point to argue because one provision out of the three major tax provisions relates to the general subject that he and I have worked on in the past and that he was talking about, which is the royalties that should be paid by offshore oil companies.

One of two things is true, but they can't both be true. It might be true the tax increases in this legislation are going to raise the cost of gasoline to American consumers and increase our dependency on foreign oil, and then at least one of the things the Senator from Oregon talked about would at least come into play.

Or it could be, as the Senator from Montana said, there would not be any effect because this would not raise gasoline prices, in which case the Senator from Oregon is simply incorrect when he says that the effect of my amendment is to provide subsidies for oil companies. They can't both be true.

What is the probability? I think the probability is that the tax increases in this legislation will raise prices for American consumers and will increase our dependency on foreign oil. And that is just not my guess, although it is fairly intuitive if you understand anything about economics. If you tax something, more generally the producer of that product is going to reflect the prices in what he charges to consumers, and the price, therefore, paid at the pump, in the case of gasoline, goes up.

A recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that the tax provisions alone in this legislation, setting aside the other mandates in the Energy bill, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents per gallon over the next 8 years. Taking all of the provisions together, the Energy bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon by the year 2016, a 104-percent increase.

For comparison, current policies will lead to gas prices climbing from $3.14 to $3.67 in the year 2016. And in just the next year alone, consumers can expect to pay between $3.16 to $3.79 due to the impact of this bill.

During the next decade, between now and the year 2016, due to this bill alone, consumers can expect to spend an average of $1,445 more per year on gasoline. Again, that is not just speculation. It is obviously the law of supply and demand. It is the law of economics. If you are going to impose this tax, it is going to be passed on by the people who pay the tax. So American consumers can expect to pay a lot more for gasoline at the pump.

I don't think anybody would argue that our dependence on foreign oil is going to decrease. In fact, because of one of the three provisions of this bill, the foreign tax credit tax increase, it is obvious our oil producers are going to be put at an economic disadvantage vis-a-vis those abroad, and it is obvious we are going to have to be more dependent on foreign oil, not less.

It was interesting that the Senator from Montana started out his argument saying the purpose of this bill is to get more energy, especially from renewable fuels. It is true the purpose of a good energy bill should be to get more energy. The problem is, this bill doesn't provide any more energy. It does focus some subsidies on renewable fuels, and the only way we are going to get more renewable fuel energy, obviously, is by subsidizing those particular energy sources. But the bill itself provides not a drop of new oil. Yet somehow or another it costs $28.5 billion, and that gets to the second point the Senator from Montana made.

He said this is not a tax-increase bill; this is a tax-decrease bill. But then he lets the cat out of the bag by saying: Of course, we must still pay for what we are doing. Well, indeed. We do have to pay for what we are doing, and what we are doing is spending $28.5 billion. So the bill raises taxes by $28.6 billion. That is the estimate the Congress must use. That is what the Finance Committee is required to use, $28.6 billion in new taxes. The reason: to pay for what we are doing, for what the bill spends.

Granted, some of the spending in the bill is in the form of tax breaks, such as the last tax break we talked about. Unfortunately, my amendment was not adopted, so a tax break is going to be misused, and we are going to be paying billions of dollars because of that misuse. But I think there is no question that the tax increases that are provided for in this bill will be seen as tax increases.

Mr. President, has my time expired?

That is the end of my time. I will resume this argument tomorrow morning and remind my colleagues why it is that I think we don't want to pass the tax increases in the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain in support of this resolution to acknowledge the athletic achievement of a tremendous group of young women. On June 6, the University of Arizona women's softball team won the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Softball Championship. By defeating the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers 5 to 0, the Wildcats claimed their 8th title since 1991.

The victory was a team effort that was marked by a number of special accomplishments. Taryne Mowatt, pitcher for the Wildcats, set a Women's College World Series record by pitching 60 innings and was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player. Centerfielder Caitlin Lowe had a record-tying 4 hits in the national title game. Shortstop Kristie Fox tied the record with 12 hits in the series. On 4 occasions Fox faced the best pitcher in the country, Tennessee's Monica Abbott. Second baseman Chelsie Mesa can take credit for hitting a 3-run home run off Abbott to break open the game and send the Wildcats to victory. Taryne Mowatt, Kristie Fox, Jenae Leles, and Caitlin Lowe were selected to be on the all-tournament team because of the skill they demonstrated during the tournament. Other Wildcats making important contributions include Adrienne Acton, Sarah Akamine, K'Lee Arredondo, Callista Balko, Sam Banister, Cyndi Duran, Lauren Erb, Samantha Hoffman, Jill Malina, Lisa Odom, Danielle Rodriguez, and Laine Roth.

The team's success was guided by their coach, Mike Candrea, who just completed his 22nd season as coach of the University of Arizona softball program. A highly decorated coach, Candrea has won 18 coach- of-the-year honors. He boasts a 1,131 to 228 overall win-loss record. In 2004, Candrea took a

year off to coach the USA Olympic softball team, which went on to take the gold medal.

Senator McCain and I introduce this resolution today so that this body can send a well-deserved congratulations to the University of Arizona Wildcats and their coach for the hard work and skill they demonstrated in winning the championship.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would prohibit the sale or provision of caller ID spoofing services. This bill would enact a legislative proposal that was made by the Justice Department in a letter to members of this committee. To facilitate commentary on this bill, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter from the Justice Department be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would prohibit the sale or provision of caller ID spoofing services. This bill would enact a legislative proposal that was made by the Justice Department in a letter to members of this committee. To facilitate commentary on this bill, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter from the Justice Department be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Bingaman amendment relating to the renewable portfolio mandate. The Bingaman amendment would impose a 15-percent portfolio requirement for a limited number of so-called renewables by 2030. I oppose this amendment as I have opposed such proposals in the past because it is an egregious example of Federal command and control of the marketplace.

Renewables have been and will continue to be an important part of our energy mix. Hydropower, solar, geothermal, wind, municipal solid waste all make substantial contributions to our energy needs. These and the other power types--nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas--succeed in the market because they are cost-effective, not because the Federal Government has required them to be bought.

Congress has long supported renewable energy. That is one thing-- Federal mandates are another. Fundamentally, I oppose Federal command and control of the marketplace. I have no doubt that any requirement that a particular percentage of electricity generation by renewables can be met. During World War II, through a tremendous expenditure of money and effort, we developed nuclear weapons when no one thought it was possible. During the sixties, no one thought it was possible to send a man to the Moon, but we did. A renewable portfolio mandate of any percent, be it 15 percent as proposed here or even 50 percent, is achievable--whether it be through actual generation of energy or through the purchase of credits from the Federal Government. But at what cost? What cost in terms of electricity rates to be paid by American consumers, estimated at over $100 billion by 2030, at what cost in terms of stifling technological advancement into other alternative sources of energy? Over the past 20 years, renewable technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, not because we ordered industry to generate more renewable power but because we gave incentives to generate new renewables. The Bingaman approach turns that on its head. Under the Bingaman amendment, renewable producers will gravitate to low cost, existing renewable sources. They will have no incentive to innovate and bring their costs down. The power generated will be sold almost regardless of cost.

The Bingaman amendment is nothing more than the Government deciding which type of energy is politically in favor and which type is politically out of favor. Right now, the wind industry is the big political winner. It is lower in cost than most renewables, currently gobbles up 95 percent of available tax credit, and has the largest lobby for the Bingaman amendment.

Wind-generated power has significant environmental problems we need to address. First, wind turbines take up lots of space to generate any significant amount of energy, making them poor for urban environments and problematic for landscape viewsheds, especially near our Nation's national parks. They are also dangerous for wildlife. The National Academy of Sciences stated in a report released this year that bats are at considerable risk in the Southwestern United States and elsewhere, where reliance on wind power has been growing. The wind-power turbines generate sounds and, possibly, electromagnetic fields that lure the acoustically sensitive creatures into the spinning blades. In addition, local bird populations are also at risk. NAS also stated that local bird populations, especially peregrine falcons and other raptors that are attracted to windy areas where the generators are likely to exist, are at risk and called for additional study. Raptors ``are lower in abundance than many other bird species, have symbolic and emotional value to many Americans, and are protected by federal and state laws.'' Besides these environmental impacts that must be looked at, the fact is, wind just doesn't blow enough in most parts of the country for this to be a viable source of energy for utilities across the country to rely on.

I believe the kind of energy utilities use to generate electricity should be based on the free market and consumer choice. If consumers want to buy the kind of renewable energy mandated by the Bingaman amendment, they are free to do so. Likewise, if they want to spend their money on something else, they should be free to do that too. Consumers are better able to decide what is in their own interest than government. Why should a family of four struggling to meet its monthly bills, to educate the kids, or help elderly parents be required--due to Federal political correctness--to purchase high-priced energy instead of meeting family obligations?

Over 20 States have already adopted their own renewable standards, including my home State of Arizona. They each did so, presumably, because those States decided it was in their citizens' best interests. I have long believed that decisions affecting people's lives and livelihoods should be made at levels of government that are closest to the people, not by bureaucrats in Washington.

Let's look at the problems with a Federal renewable portfolio mandate. First, as I said before, it picks certain politically favored renewable energy types for special treatment, ignoring what States have already decided to do on their own. The supporters of the amendment will tell you that is not the case and that State programs can continue, but that is only true if the State picked the same favorites this amendment does. For instance, what about Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania took a look at its energy availability and determined that coal to liquids made sense given its vast coal reserves. So coal to liquids counts toward meeting its State RPS. Under the Bingaman amendment, Pennsylvania would not be able to count this source toward the Federal mandate, in effect gutting its State RPS program and increasing the costs to consumers.

This example brings me to a basic problem with a Federal renewable mandate. Some regions of the country are blessed with abundant renewable resources, while others are not. The renewable mandate will create stupendous transfers of wealth from renewable-poor States to renewable-rich States. This means that consumers in New York City will send their hard-earned dollars to wind generators in Minnesota. Think about it. Consumers in New York City will pay for renewable electricity they don't even get. That is not fair. If the purpose of the renewable mandate is to lessen our dependence on foreign energy, there are better ways: nuclear power, clean coal, and oil and gas from regions of the United States that have been put off limits.

Let's face it, we have to have reliable sources of energy to meet the ever increasing consumer demand for electricity. However, the primary sources of energy that will be necessary to meet this mandate, wind and solar, are intermittent sources. What happens when the wind doesn't blow or the Sun doesn't shine? As we learned in economics 101, there is no such thing as a free lunch; consumers will pay. They will pay for the renewable energy and they will pay for the backup capacity that will come from what we know are reliable sources of energy--nuclear, coal and natural gas--to keep the lights on.

Mr. President, let me return to my fundamental concern about the renewable mandate. The Bingaman amendment gives the Federal Government the power to micromanage the marketplace with a one-size-fits-all mandate; I want States to determine the best mix to meet their energy needs and allow the free market to work. Thus, I will vote no on the Bingaman amendment.

Madam President, I wish to share in the comments of my colleagues who have spoken in favor of this legislation in expressing concern that we were not able to proceed tonight to the final steps for its consideration, but also to express appreciation to the majority leader and others who have expressed a willingness to continue to ensure that legislation can move forward as quickly as possible.

We should not here this evening cast any blame for our failure to move it forward tonight. In a sense, all of us who were supporters didn't do a good enough job of ensuring all of the process could occur that Members properly insist on in order to vindicate their rights to debate and have amendments to get the job done. By the same token, those who oppose the bill need to appreciate that at a certain point, there is adequate consideration of their amendments.

The majority leader expressed this evening the view that we hadn't quite reached that point. And reluctantly, because of that, I joined those who decided to vote to keep the debate moving forward, which at this point means the majority leader has, at least temporarily, set it aside. But it shouldn't be too hard to get about a dozen amendments of Members considered. That is why I say we all share some responsibility, because that shouldn't have been that hard of a task. I hope our leadership will ensure that once we get that list available and ready for consideration, we can quickly take up the legislation again and finish it in this body so it can move forward to the other side.

I am not going to talk about the substance of the legislation tonight. I do want to thank those who worked so hard on its behalf on both sides of the aisle. The Senator from Colorado who has just spoken was an incredible inspiration in getting it done. The work Senator Kennedy did throughout this effort to ensure that he drove us to a conclusion that was one that didn't satisfy anyone 100 percent, but which all of us at the end of the day found we were able to support-- without his leadership, it wouldn't have been possible. My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, with whom I have worked on so many things, made some very difficult decisions and in that, as always, I respect the way she provided her leadership. On our side, colleagues such as Senator Mel Martinez, who is on the floor now, my colleague John McCain from Arizona, Lindsey Graham, and Senator Specter who spoke, and all of the others who helped so much on this legislation, we are committed to seeing it through to the end. Another one of our colleagues on the Democratic side, Senator Cantwell, who also was a help in moving part of this along, said this is a marathon, and she is right. We are not quite to the finish, but we are going to finish.

I know there are those out in America who think this is not a good bill. If you want to criticize the bill, there are a hundred ways to do it. I could point out all the flaws, and there are plenty. But you cannot solve big problems without trying. We have tried hard. We have produced an imperfect product, but a product that is the best to come along yet. In the amendment process we can make it better, and in the rest of the legislative process, hopefully, we can approve it. Hearing from the American people, we have put many of their suggestions into the mix here to help improve it. But if we don't try, this problem that has bedeviled us for years will continue.

As so many others have said, failure is not an option. We have a big problem in this country that needs solving, and I respect those who have put their shoulder to the wheel to solve it in the face of great opposition and misunderstanding in some respects from some of our constituents. But if you don't try, you don't reach these tough solutions. We came here to solve the tough problems.

I will conclude with comments that have always inspired me by Teddy Roosevelt, who was not afraid to get in a dusty arena and fight it out. He said the thing he most appreciated about his opportunities in life was the opportunity to work on work worth doing. This is work worth doing.

Madam President, Senator Craig Thomas was a wonderful friend to all of us. He was an accomplished Senator, and he was a true cowboy. It is that spirit that won't be replaced in the Senate, and it is that spirit that I would like to remember today. Craig's record in the Senate will reflect his significant accomplishments, and I wish to honor the quality of the man who achieved them.

I had a special affinity for Craig. Not only did he and I come to the Senate at the same time, we had also served in the House of Representatives together. Craig came to the House in 1989, 2 years after I did, when he won a special election to replace our current Vice President, Dick Cheney, who had been made Secretary of Defense.

We, of course, were also fellow westerners, and I admired the manner in which he embodied the values of the West: the self-reliance, grit, and quiet determination of pioneers that shape Americans still today.

These values were impressed into Craig as he grew up on a ranch near Cody, WY. Those values of the American West, instilled by the rugged landscape of Wyoming, would serve him well in the Marine Corps and in the Senate.

Craig did not talk a whole lot, but he always meant what he said. He communicated in a way that didn't require a whole lot of ``jibber- jabber,'' as he would say. Everyone appreciated this quality in him. You never had any doubt about where Craig stood, something our public officials could learn from today.

Craig understood that words and rhetoric easily vanish from our memories. He recognized that honor is not won by keeping up appearances but by working hard and accomplishing what you set out to do. He understood that the best way to accomplish difficult things was to get busy doing them. To Craig, this was common sense, but oftentimes common sense is all too uncommon.

In his commonsense manner, he served the people of Wyoming who overwhelming elected him to the Senate on three occasions. Craig let the interests of the State guide his work in the Senate. He never let his ego get in the way of doing what was best for Wyoming and the country.

My wife Caryll and I grieve with Craig's wife Susan and their family. But, in our grief, we also celebrate his life. There is much to celebrate not only in Craig's accomplishments--whether on behalf of our national parks, farmers, or rural families, to name only a few of his legislative priorities--but also in his character. He was a humble servant for Wyoming who stood up for the people of his State. Even in his illness, he never wavered from his duties as a legislator.

The values of the American West are the commonsense values that make self-government possible. Craig Thomas, the cowboy and statesman, embodied these values that made this country what it is and are needed to sustain it in years to come.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, since it is important that, prior to a meeting we have at 5:30, to speak to an amendment offered by Senator Menendez.

I want to be clear that we have a side-by-side amendment that we will also be voting on, which I think goes to the heart of what Senator Menendez is trying to get at here, but it does so in a way that will not upset the bipartisan consensus that has been worked out on the legislation.

I think the Menendez amendment has been discussed in the past. It is an amendment that would, in significant ways, change the basic agreement that has been made by some of the Senators. Therefore, it would be very problematic were it to pass. There is a budget point of order against the Menendez amendment, and that point of order will be raised. Because of the extra cost that would be imposed by additional immigrants being permitted to come into the country over time, in fact, I think there is more than one budget point of order because of those increased costs. The general proposition is that some have said the bill is not family friendly and that we need to do more for families. I want to try to dispel that, Mr. President.

We start out with the proposition that somewhere between 12 million and who knows how many million illegal immigrants who are in the United States, for the most part, are going to be able to stay. If everything that can be expected of them is accomplished, they have the ability to apply for a green card and eventually potentially become citizens of the United States of America. That is a tremendous benefit for people who came illegally.

One of the reasons some of us have been willing to accommodate that is people have come here with families or have created families here, and we do not want to disrupt those families.

Secondly, there are family visas that historically have been issued by the United States. This bill doesn't in any way affect the ability of any legal permanent resident or citizen to bring

into the United States their spouse or minor children. That is the so- called nuclear family.

In addition, 40,000 parents per year can be brought into the United States, and there are extraordinarily liberal visitations for parents beyond that 40,000 number. We have said the so-called nonnuclear family--the extended family--in the future is going to compete the same as workers are going to compete, so that we can get in balance with some of our competitors in the global economy, where more of the visas are reserved for work purposes and fewer for family purposes. But in the meantime, some 4 million people, roughly, who have applied for a family visa--extended or nonnuclear family--are going to be allowed to immigrate to the United States, and instead of taking 30 or 40 years, in some cases, it is going to all happen within an 8-year period of time. That is extraordinarily helpful to families and family reunification.

Now, it is true, if somebody has come here illegally and their family is still outside the country, we don't permit that family to come. But the object, obviously, is to try to encourage that individual to go back with his family. That would be family reunification.

But the problem the Menendez amendment poses is, instead of allowing those people who have applied for visas for extended families who have a reasonable expectation to come to the United States, he would change the date that measures their eligibility in such a way as to allow a lot of people--thousands, hundreds of thousands, actually--to immigrate to the United States who, today, under current law, have no reasonable expectation they would ever make it to the United States. What we have tried to do is to be fair and say, if you have a reasonable expectation you will be permitted to immigrate to the United States, we will allow you to come in, and we will do it within a very short period of time--8 years, or perhaps less than that period of time, as opposed to the perhaps 20 or 30 years it may have otherwise taken. If you didn't have a reasonable expectation to get in, then you are not going to come.

The reason the date was drawn where it was in May 2005 is that represented a compromise. I believe the original date was March or July of 2004--the time when people who were in line but had no reasonable expectation--that their application was going to be processed and were notified by the U.S. Government. Basically, the Government said: For the time, we are not going to be processing these numbers anymore because the backlog is too long. The backlog numbers are truly astounding. There are people in Mexico, for example, who have no reasonable expectation of getting here. For example, if you are the brother or sister of a U.S. citizen, and if you are a Mexican national and you recently filed to become a legal permanent resident of the United States, you have an expected wait of about 80 years. So even if you are 21 years of age, at the time when you can expect to get here you would be 101 years of age. That is not a reasonable expectation you will be allowed into the United States.

I went to Senator Menendez and said: I think you have a point because we have drawn an arbitrary deadline. Remember, the date at which they were told we were no longer going to be processing, temporarily, these applications was in 2004. But in order to be more liberal, we moved the date to May 2005. His argument was, there may be some people who still had an expectation because they filed last year, and maybe they had an expectation they could make it.

I said: You know, there may be some such people, so let's take a look at it and see if we can redo this so everybody who had a reasonable expectation they could get here will be allowed to be here, no matter when they applied--whether it was 2 years ago, last year, 2 months ago, or 10 or 12 years ago--if they had a reasonable expectation of getting in.

We have crafted an amendment that I offered to Senator Menendez, but he preferred to go forward with his amendment. But the side-by-side that I will be proposing is an amendment that stretches the date out to 2027. It says: If you had a reasonable expectation, based upon your category of immigration, the country you are from, the lines that currently exist with that country, if you had a reasonable expectation within the next 20 years you could have made it into the United States, then you get to come in under a family visa. That is extraordinarily liberal--everybody who really had an expectation that they could make it. Like I said, if you are this Mexican national, and you are the brother of an American citizen, and you were 21 years of age when you applied, you would be over 100 years old today. That is not a reasonable expectation. So you would not be permitted to come into the United States. You never had a reasonable expectation that you could make it.

The effect of my amendment and the Menendez amendment is almost identical in terms of the number of people who would be allowed to come to the United States. There is only a 3,000 difference out of about 600,000 people. So we are not reducing the number of people. We are making it accurate as to who can actually come.

There is also a general notion that somehow we are being unfair to families. As Senator Kennedy has frequently pointed out, after this legislation is passed, for a period of 8 years, the total family percentage coming into the United States will be 74 percent. And you add another 15 percent for humanitarian visas, and there is only 11 left for the employment visas. Today, 65 percent are family visas. In subsequent years, families will still be the majority of immigrants to the United States--51 percent. Then you add to that another 17 percent for asylum seekers and other humanitarian visas; 17 percent of the total is a very humane number for the United States. We can still be very proud of our tradition of allowing the poor, hungry, and downtrodden to come to this country, and we will still have a majority of family-based visas in this country.

Yes.

That is exactly correct. Instead of waiting 20, 30 years, they will have to wait no longer than 8 years.

Mr. President, to me, that is one of the main features of the bill. Today, we have people who are being exploited, people against whom crimes are being committed, but they are afraid to report it to the law enforcement authorities. They are not being paid adequate wages and their working conditions are poor. Frankly, they are being taken advantage of. As long as they are in this gray status, that will continue.

This bill offers them immediately an opportunity to begin a process by which they are playing by the rules and, as a result of that, they can have the freedom and the assurance of being protected by the laws of the United States.

The answer I give the Senator is that family visas alone are 51 percent--a majority--and another 17 percent is humanitarian.

Mr. President, that is almost exactly right. I know in the case of--in fact, I will give you the exact number. In Canada, it is 24 percent. If we have 51 percent, obviously, that is close to twice that number. In Australia, it is 27 percent. And, again, if we are at 51 percent in the future, that is almost exactly twice. But remember, that is only after 8 years. For the next 8 years, it is 74 percent because of what the Senator from South Carolina was pointing out.

Mr. President, I appreciate that from the Senator from South Carolina.

Let me make one final point. I know Senator Kennedy wishes to speak.

It was not easy for some people to agree to allow at least 12 million immigrants who came to this country illegally to stay here and eventually become citizens. That was not easy. One of the bases upon which we were able to do that was to respond to an argument that had frequently been made: Why should we let all those people, is the way it is described, become U.S. citizens and then chain migrate all their family--their uncles, cousins, grandparents, and so on? The answer to that question is we probably shouldn't. So that was ended in this legislation. That is what was stopped. That is part of the agreement that was reached, the consensus that was reached.

The adoption of the Menendez amendment would undo that. You can imagine how someone like me feels. I have taken a lot of heat for agreeing that the people who are here illegally should stay here, but I knew one of the reasons that was more palatable was because we had at least stopped the chain migration that would occur for anybody subsequently in the future, after we cleared the backlog of people who already applied.

Yes, I will be happy to yield. I was going to conclude and turn to Senator Kennedy. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Jersey that what he said, as far as he said it, is, of course, exactly correct. What I was talking about was the tradeoff that existed between the accommodation to the 12 million people and--by the way, I don't use that phrase ``those people.'' I hope the Senator understands that I was referring to the criticism of those who say we shouldn't allow the illegal immigrants in the country, especially if we chain migrate their families. We ended the chain migration.

We had to draw a time when applicants would be able to apply and their applications would be considered. We had it at one point. We agreed to move that date to accommodate the people on the Democratic side of the aisle. The Menendez amendment would move it to January 1 of this year, bringing in, I think, a total of well over 800,000 people. That, obviously, would undo the rather delicate balance of agreements that was reached that deals with this subject.

Recognizing, however, we wanted to make sure anybody who had a reasonable expectation of being able to immigrate should be able to do so, we have prepared an amendment that would, in fact, allow anybody with a reasonable expectation to be able to immigrate here. We put the date way back to 2027, and we say that if you could have reasonably expected to get here by 2027, you are in and you are in within an 8- year period from now.

I think that is very fair. The person who is excluded under our proposal is the person who, as I said, is the sibling of a Mexican national who is a sibling of a U.S. citizen who might be 101 years old when he gets to the United States of America. That is not a reasonable expectation.

I think our approach is reasonable. It is consistent with the underlying agreement we reached. I regret to say--and I appreciate the Senator from New Jersey has every right to raise a budget point of order on the underlying bill--we fully expected there would be points of order at the conclusion presumably of the consideration of the bill and we would have to vote on those. Obviously, it is a 60-vote point of order. We expected to have 60 people who would support the legislation, and we believe that to be the case. But if the Senator wants to bring the bill down, as the Senator from South Carolina said, by raising an amendment such as that which has been proposed or at this time trying to conclude the budget point of order, I don't think that is the best way forward.

As the Senator from South Carolina said, we have one good chance to get legislation passed. I don't think we want to blow that chance. Now is our time. We were sent here to do difficult

jobs. I hope, in the bipartisan spirit that has so far characterized our debate, we can move forward and continue to keep this bill as literally a beacon of hope for a lot of people who are counting on us.

Mr. President, if I might interrupt the Senator for a question. Would it be possible also to make sure Senator Domenici will be able to speak after the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. President, first of all, this is an amendment that would enable people to enter the United States and become immigrants, green card holders, and eventually citizens, who, under the current law, have no expectation of ever getting those rights because they are in categories or are from countries in which the waiting line is so long that they would never, ever be able, under existing law, to become a U.S. citizen.

In addition, because it would allow several hundred thousand immigrants to come into this country who would not otherwise be legal under existing law, there are three budget points of order, and, therefore, at the conclusion

of these remarks, I will be making a budget point of order. I hope my colleagues agree that we should not waive the budget under these circumstances.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment, No. 1194, to S. 1348, violates section 201, the pay-as-you- go point of order of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, could we have order?

Mr. President, I appreciate not waiving the budget in this last point of order. I will confess to you, I think that Senator Menendez had a point in saying we should only allow people who had a reasonable expectation to be immigrants, and those who didn't should not. The bill itself drew an arbitrary deadline. Senator Menendez drew a different arbitrary deadline. This side-by-side actually is constructed so that, under existing law, everyone who has a reasonable expectation of being allowed to immigrate under a family visa will be able to immigrate under a family visa. Only those people who never had any reasonable expectation would be denied.

What it does is to take it out to the year 2027, 20 years from now, and anyone who could have had a reasonable expectation of immigrating within that 20-year period would be allowed to immigrate under this amendment. It is a more precise and fair and just way to allow family members to come into the United States. The numbers are approximately identical to those who would be allowed to immigrate under the bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, might I just interrupt with a question to the Senator?

Mr. President, is it not true that under this amendment, this amendment would wipe out the difference between a citizen of the United States and a green card holder with respect to their right to immigrate the nuclear family? So there would be no distinction between a green card holder and a citizen's rights?

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending Clinton amendment, No. 1183, to S. 1348, violates section 201, the pay- as-you-go point of order of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I am going to have a statement printed in the Record, but I did wish to say something this evening before the evening is over about our colleague, Craig Thomas. Craig was a wonderful friend of all of us. In my case, being a fellow Westerner, I had a special affinity for Craig. He was a fellow I could talk to-- without talk. Particularly a cowboy such as Craig can communicate with you in a real Western way that doesn't require a whole lot of ``jibber- jabber,'' as he would say.

Craig was a man of the earth. He really was a cowboy, and a good one at that. He took that kind of set of Western values, of not talking a whole lot but meaning what he says and saying what he means, into the political life. When he came to the Senate, I think everyone appreciated that quality in him.

By the way, I would say he reminds me of my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, in that regard. You never have any doubt about where the Senator from Alabama stands and you never had any doubt about where Senator Craig Thomas stood. That is a quality we need in our public officials today.

Craig's wife Susan is a wonderful friend of mine and of my wife Carol. Our hearts go out to her and their family tonight. But she does have, at least, I think, the solace in knowing that people all over this country--not just from their home State of Wyoming--have tremendous respect for the achievements of her husband Craig and the way in which he handled himself as a Member of the Senate, never letting an ego take over what he understood to be his primary responsibilities.

He was quiet and he was humble. He was serious and he was very hard working. He stood up for the interests of the people of his State. He was a great patriot for the United States of America. But he never took himself so seriously that he gave even a hint of pomposity or being someone who didn't understand where he was grounded.

We will miss Craig Thomas immensely. We will never forget him as a loyal friend, a patriot, and someone who was quintessential in the way he represented his area of the United States and, in particular, his constituents in the State of Wyoming.

I thank the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado is here. He and I are in the unenviable position on a Monday evening of managing this bill for a little while. Senator Salazar will speak on behalf of the majority. I do think it is the majority's desire that no amendments be laid down this evening. We would like to get Members to come to the floor first thing tomorrow morning to begin laying down amendments, and we will work out an order for the amendments, voice votes and rollcall votes, and advise Members of when those will occur tomorrow. We hope to do that later this evening.

We wish to encourage our colleagues to bring their amendments to the floor and get them pending after this evening, so that we can work as much as possible this week in getting the bill concluded.

I have several things I would like to say in response to the Senator from North Dakota.

Let me yield at this point to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Colorado, who frequently during the very difficult negotiations over the last several months was able, because of his legal skills and sunny personality, to bring contending factions together. I could not agree with him more that, as responsible public servants, we cannot allow this problem to continue to fester. Surely, working together in a bipartisan way, committed to fairness, justice, and a solution, we can come up with a resolution of the problem that will work, as well as anything might work.

Our colleague from North Dakota said a moment ago that he disagreed with this bill and that we need to find a way, and he described pretty much what we are trying to find a way to do. He is right. Well, we have tried to find a way. It is just that not everybody agrees with exactly what we have come up with. One of the reasons for that is that if you are not part of the process of trying to reach a bipartisan consensus, you may have the idea you can get most of what you want without conceding anything to people who have a different point of view. The reality is that this is one of the most contentious, complex, emotional issues of our time, and no one is going to get 100 percent of what they think is the right solution. We are alleging we have to recognize that there are other points of view and that in order for us to be able to politically reach a decision, we might have to be supporting something that none of us like 100 percent, and that is certainly the case with me.

I wish to explain this evening a couple of things that came from my discussions with constituents during the time of the Memorial Day recess and why I agree with the Senator from Colorado that this is the time to try to tackle this very tough issue. I was asked by a reporter why I was doing this, especially since I voted against the bill last year. The answer is that last year I didn't have an opportunity to participate in the construction of the legislation the Senate voted on. By the time it came to the Senate floor, the die was essentially cast. We had several amendments we offered; some were accepted and some were defeated. It was not possible at that point to substantially change the legislation. I thought it was a bad bill and I voted against it.

It is also true that the situation in the United States, and in my State in particular, is getting worse every day. If you represent a State such as Arizona, on the border with Mexico, you simply cannot continue to ignore the problem, hoping it will go away or some magical solution will be developed that everyone can support. You realize you are going to have to get in there, fight like heck to do the best you can, and get the problems resolved, even though the solution is not going to be perfect from anyone's perspective.

Here is what is happening every day: Thousands and thousands more illegal immigrants are pouring across the border. We wish to stop that. We have crime and violence increasing at an unprecedented rate, much of it due to illegal immigration. The drug smugglers are using the illegal immigrants as decoys to try to get the agents to chase the illegal immigrants so they can bring the drugs across. Because the Border Patrol is getting much more effective at controlling the border now, the violence is increasing because the people smuggling immigrants and drugs are finding their territory is now being contested by the Border Patrol. They are fighting back. They are fighting back with weapons, including large caliber weapons. This violence is a scourge not just at the border but on our society as a whole. We had a shootout on the freeway between Tucson and Phoenix, where two rival gangs were fighting over a load of illegal immigrants. Why? Because those illegal immigrants represented more potential income for whoever controlled them. They are essentially kidnapped and ransomed, and their families back in El Salvador, Mexico, or wherever they are from, are contacted and are told if they want their relatives to be freed, they have to pay additional money. As a result, a lot of money is paid and there is a lot of violence. The harm perpetrated on the immigrants--and, frankly, the harm perpetrated by some of the coyotes and smugglers and other criminals crossing the border--is infecting our State to an unacceptable degree.

Last year, over 10 percent of the illegal immigrants coming across the border from Mexico were criminals, people wanted for serious crimes. These are not just nice people wanting to work in the U.S., though that is far and away the majority of them. It is a national security problem. We don't know how many of these people may have terrorist inclinations. Many come from countries that are on the terrorist list. Again, between 10 and 13 percent, approximately, we know to be criminals. As a result, we have to do something about the problem.

I was mentioning to a reporter this morning--she said: What differentiates Arizona from a Midwestern or an Eastern State? Well, two things. The violence associated with this, first, has a deleterious effect, all the way from the people the violence is perpetrated on, to the court system which cannot handle it, to the jail system, to the social network that has to be established; all of this is enormously expensive and disruptive.

Secondly, I said, you have the problem of the environmental degradation, with thousands of people--millions over the years-- crossing through into our State, and the impact on the desert environment has been dramatic. We have national monuments, parks, game refuges, military bases, Indian reservations, as well as private land and national forests right on the border.

With this many people coming across with very little regard for the impact on the environment, they have left thousands of tons of trash. They have cut fences. They have let water run. They have let animals run loose. They have threatened, in some cases, to hurt individuals. They have burned property. They have trashed the properties, as I have said, and they cut literally thousands of trails which will take thousands of years to revegetate. That is the least of the problems. But one

can see it in my State of Arizona, and I think anybody who says we shouldn't try to do something to stop that simply has no sense of responsibility, especially if they are in a position to do something about it, as we in the Senate are. That is what has motivated me to do something about this problem as best I can.

One can sit on the sidelines and complain about how bad the legislation is. One could say, as some of my colleagues have said, we need to find a way to do something to solve this or one can try to find a way and work with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do their best to come up with a consensus that has a chance of passing and being signed into law. That is what those of us who have worked on this legislation have tried to do. Is it perfect? No way. Are there many provisions in it I don't like? Absolutely. Or that my friend Senator Salazar doesn't like? Absolutely. But that is the nature of attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus.

I next wish to talk about what my constituents have told me in the last couple of weeks. It is very interesting that the same question keeps coming up over and over. In my campaign last year, it was the same question: Why do you think a new law will be enforced when the existing law is not being enforced? And that is a very good question because the truth is, neither the current administration nor the previous administration nor Congresses working with the administration nor the bureaucracies and people responsible for enforcing the law have done a good job of enforcing the law. One can argue that in some cases there hasn't even been a significant attempt to enforce the law. When we do attempt to enforce it, a lot of roadblocks are thrown in the way.

So it is a legitimate question: Why do we think this new law might be enforced when the current law is not being adequately enforced? Unless you can answer that question, you can't really support some new proposal, as we have here.

Before I answer the question, let me say something else. It is absolutely wrong to accuse the people who ask that question, who are skeptical of our ability to enforce a law and, therefore, skeptical of this new law, and call them bigots or restrictionists or nativists or leftwing or rightwing nuts or people who simply want to obstruct the process. The reality is, these are hard-working, tax-paying Americans who believe in the rule of law and are extraordinarily upset that their Government has let them down, and that is exactly what has happened-- their Government has let them down. They have a right to be angry, and they have a right to ask the question: Why should we believe a new law is going to be enforced when the existing law is not being enforced?

Remember, I say to my colleagues, we work for them. They hired us. They pay our salary, and they pay the President's salary and all of the people who work in the executive branch. They have a right to answers to these questions rather than having people suggest that because they may oppose what we are proposing, somehow or another we think less of them. I think a great deal of them, especially those people who disagree with me agreeably, such as one of my constituents with whom I spoke today. She said: I trust you, but I don't like this new bill which has been proposed. I appreciate the question she asked, which was the same one: How are you going to enforce it? So let me try to answer that question.

First of all, we understood that the experience of 20 years ago with the amnesty bill of 1986 demonstrated that unless we took enforcement seriously, we would end up with something unenforceable. So we tried to do that in this new legislation.

The first thing we did was to ensure that several new actions will be done for enforcement before any of the benefits accrue to people who are here illegally. That is a way of ensuring that at least some enforcement gets done. What did we do? We applied triggers. We said that until the following things are done, no temporary visa will be issued to an illegal immigrant in the United States. What are those things?

No. 1, we are going to increase the numbers of the Border Patrol. By the way, this isn't the end of it. We said 18,000, and an amendment has been adopted that says take it to 20,000, and that is great, and we will need more than that. Do you know what 20,000 Border Patrol agents represents, Mr. President? It is half the New York City Police Department. So if they have about 39,000 people on the New York City Police Department--and I don't know how many square miles that is, but we have 2,000 miles of border to Mexico, not to mention our northern border--I think one can appreciate probably 20,000 Border Patrol agents is not enough, but we at least get to that mark before any of those triggers are pulled.

We do the same thing with fencing. We have authorized 700 miles of fencing. We are going to have at least 371 of those miles completed before the trigger is pulled. We are going to have over 300 miles of vehicle barriers.

Incidentally, on fencing, there is a rumor, a myth out in the land that we only have 2 miles of fencing. We have over 80 miles of fencing, and it is being built several miles a day. I have seen it being built on the border near Yuma, AZ.

We will have something like 70 more radars, maybe more than that. I have forgotten the exact number. We will have four unmanned aerial vehicles. We have over 26,000 detention spaces, so there will be no more catch and release of people who are detained.

These are some of the items which will actually have to be done before the trigger is pulled and a visa can be issued to an illegal immigrant, even a temporary visa.

In addition to that, we will have up and operating and ready to go the electronic employee verification system, or so-called EEVS. This was lacking in the bill in 1986. We had a requirement that employers check to verify the eligibility of employees. Mr. President, do you know what they had to check? A driver's license and Social Security card, which are counterfeitable and I think cost 30 to 35 bucks apiece, or about $60 for the two of them, and employers can't hold them up to the light and say: This is a counterfeit and that one is real. We cannot expect employers to do that, as a result of which they suspect a lot of the people on their payroll are illegal immigrants, but they have the documents to prove they are legal, and the U.S. Government very seldom comes to audit them to check to see whether the people they hired are legal. Of course, we preclude them from asking insensitive questions that might violate their legal rights, such as: Are you an illegal immigrant? So employers are stuck in a catch-22 situation. That is the situation today.

For those who say we don't like the bill, I say, fine, do you want the situation where today we have a totally unenforceable employee verification system or would you like to see something like that which is in this bill put into place? It is very effective. It will require the Government to do the validating, not the employer.

The Government will have two different items to validate. No. 1, it is going to clean up the Social Security system and the database, and when an individual applies for a job, that database is going to be accessed with algorithms developed to ensure that not only do you ensure that the number which has been issued is a valid number issued to that person on that date but that it hasn't been used by somebody else for employment purposes or the individual hasn't died and so forth. So they can determine whether the Social Security eligibility is real.

Second, you can determine who the individual is. There is a variety of ways to do this. If you have a U.S. passport, that is the gold standard because the information is typed in and the real passport that was issued will then be displayed on the computer screen of the employer. All the employer has to do is match that with the passport the prospective employee has given them and determine if they are identical. If the photographs are identical, it looks like the individual in the photograph, that is him. If they are not, then that situation is noted and the individual cannot be employed. If it is a driver's license, a REAL ID Act driver's license, it is the same thing--the photograph has to match.

There is a system, in other words, that will be put into place that this time will not rely on the employer trying to determine the validity of the

document but, rather, having that document checked through the database of the U.S. Government or States in the case of driver's licenses or birth certificates, and the employer is able to verify that, in fact, is a proper document.

There are very difficult sanctions. If an employer violates this law more than once, it is a $75,000 fine, as opposed to $250 for a violation today. This is serious. And I think employers want a legal way that doesn't impose too big a burden on them to ensure the people they hire are, in fact, eligible to be hired. I think they will appreciate the speed and the ease with which this new system will allow them to determine eligibility of their employees. This will work so that the combination of strong border security and the inability to get a job if you are here illegally will reduce, we believe right down to the bare minimum, the number of people who shouldn't be here but are. That bare minimum, of course, is the criminal element--absconders, gang or terrorist members, and those people who have committed crimes. They are here today, and it is going to be much easier to find and catch them tomorrow if they are the ones on which we can concentrate. Instead of having to concentrate on 100 percent of the people who are here illegally, we can focus on that 15 percent or so we really want to catch. This is the second way in which we have anticipated we need to enforce the law.

Third, amazingly, in the 1986 law, you couldn't even prosecute someone for fraud if they told you they had been here for longer than 3 years or 5 years and it turns out they hadn't been. Last year, there was an attempt to amend the bill to at least allow people who made such fraudulent claims to be prosecuted, and that amendment failed. Needless to say, the ability to prosecute fraud is in this legislation.

There are many other ways in which we have sought to ensure this legislation, unlike the past, will be enforced.

I conclude this part of my remarks with this statement. Let me answer in another way the question about whether the law will be enforced. If you are unhappy with the status quo, if you don't like the way things are today, then why would you oppose a change that at least offers the prospect that the new law will be enforced when we know the old law is not being adequately enforced? If you say: Let's just enforce the current law, I ask you, with regard to the employee verification system I just discussed, how can you enforce a law that is inherently not enforceable? You can't prosecute for fraud, you can't check the status of prospective employees, you cannot hold an employer liable because you can't prove that person knowingly hired the illegal immigrant. You can't enforce the existing law at the workplace. We have to change the law. That is the whole point of this legislation. I think you have to argue that the status quo is better than what this bill offers if you are going to oppose the bill.

Let me mention two other points since I see my colleague from New Mexico is in the Chamber. Like me, he appreciates the impact on our society of illegal immigrants who are imposing themselves, who are using social services, who are stressing our court system, and I appreciate the fact that the senior Senator from New Mexico has offered legislation to add judges so that we at least have enough judges to handle the cases that come before the courts.

A lot of our colleagues say that the problem with this legislation and the only reason they can't go along with it is that it represents amnesty. Of course, everybody has a different definition of what amnesty is. I don't think it is amnesty. It seems to me that arguing over whether something is amnesty or isn't amnesty is a dead-end argument.

The question is, What would you like to see done so it isn't what you don't like? I argue this: If merely allowing the illegal immigrants to stay here is amnesty, which is what a lot of my constituents have said they believe, then the status quo is amnesty because we are letting them stay here and we are not doing anything about it. So if your definition is the mere fact you allow them to stay here is amnesty, then I say, fine, you, too, are for amnesty. I am just trying to do something about it.

What are we trying to do about it? The first thing is that what we want to do is to ensure the people who came here illegally will appreciate that they did something wrong, they are going to have to pay a penalty for it, and for them to continue to stay, they are going to have to meet serious conditions of probation. They are going to have to say: I came here illegally; if you find I committed fraud or if you find I am ineligible for the benefits of this program in any way, I waive my right to contest that, in effect, and I am going to pay a fine, and I am going to be on probation, I am going to have to not violate the law, I am going to have to continue to work, if you are the head of the household. If you violate any of those conditions, you are going to have to go home, and so are your family members. If you want to stay here permanently, you are going to have to go home and apply like everyone else. You are going to have to get in line. You are going to have to pass an English test. And that is all simply to get a green card. After that, of course, if you want to be a citizen, you have to wait the 5 years and do the things necessary to become a citizen. That deals with the second point.

To me, one of the definitions of amnesty is this automatic path to citizenship. We have done away with that. In addition, we have established a merit-based system for green cards for those people who want them who are here illegally.

Finally, one of the benefits of amnesty is the ability to chain migrate your family. We have eliminated that in this legislation. You no longer have the right to chain migrate your family. By that, what we are talking about is to bring in the nonnuclear family, someone other than your spouse and minor children, simply because you are a green card holder or a U.S. citizen. We say: no longer. When this bill goes into effect, once the current backlog is cleared up, there will be no more chain migration of this nonnuclear family.

Incidentally, there was an error made in the description of our bill by one of our colleagues. The visa that will be issued to people illegally here today does not allow chain migration. In fact, it doesn't even allow the migration of your nuclear family, your spouse, or minor children, if they are in another country.

The last thing I want to talk about is the matter of the amendments we will have to deal with during the course of this next week. There will be a lot of amendments, some of which improve the bill. I know the Presiding Officer has an amendment which I think is a good amendment, and it doesn't in any way disrupt the basic agreement that was reached on a bipartisan basis but strengthens the bill. There will be many other amendments that either do or do not strengthen the bill, and we will have a chance to vote on them. We also understand there are some amendments which go right to the heart of the negotiation that occurred, to the agreements that were reached, and there are some Members in the Senate who, frankly, want to see them adopted because they do not want to see the bill passed. They know they are killer amendments, and they have been so dubbed, and I wish to illustrate what I mean.

We have a temporary worker program. We worked very hard to make sure it gave people an opportunity to come here temporarily to work and to return home. Any amendment that would allow them to morph into legal permanent residency and citizenship would convert that from a temporary worker program to a permanent worker program, and that would violate the basic understanding of the bill. We already have a permanent worker program.

Now, speaking of that, we were very careful to try to balance that permanent worker program, the so-called green card program, legal permanent residence, based on worker visas. We carefully calibrated that with family visas and the need for high skills versus low skills. We developed a merit-based system that establishes points for that and allocated the different visas for different groups. It would be a deal killer, a killer amendment, a breaking of the bipartisan agreement here if that is substantially altered. There is an amendment out there that would in fact substantially alter it by increasing by something

like 300,000 per year the number of green cards that would be provided for employers to dole out to their prospective employees, as a condition of employment, basically. This is not a green card applied for by the individual. This is a green card the employer applies for and says to a prospective employee from another country, if you will come work for me for 5 years and take substandard wages, I will give you a green card at the end of that 5-year period.

I remember studying in school the concept of indentured servitude. You come and work off your debt for 7 years and then you get to stay in the United States of America. It is not the same thing, but it is analogous. What we say here is we are going to make visas available for both the employee to apply for and the employer, and we are going to substantially increase the number of those visas. But we are not going to substantially increase it and then add another 300,000 on top of that. That would break the deal.

Moreover, that particular amendment goes right to the heart of some other reforms, reforms that I support, that the Presiding Officer supports, and would, frankly, undercut what we have tried to do here in terms of worker rights. To be real clear about it, we already have 150,000 green cards per year, most of which will go to skilled workers because of the merit-based system we have. In addition to that, we have created another 107,000 per year to clear up what we believe is a 5- year backlog for those high-skilled workers, those so-called H-1B workers, and we add another 240,000 at the end of 8 years when they are no longer needed for family purposes. We have a merit-based system, as I said, that will pretty much ensure these green cards go to the best and the brightest, the high-skilled people who will bring with them the kinds of things we need to compete in the global economy.

Another killer amendment has to do with the nonnuclear family migration, the so-called chain migration. We have decided that, even though some people would literally never get to this country with a family visa because the backlog is too long, we are going to allow about 4 million people to come into the country over an 8-year period. This is extraordinarily generous, and let me mention one country where I believe the backlog for our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is 176 years. You cannot argue that you have a reasonable expectation you are ever going to get a visa granted and get to the United States and have anything left of your life if the timelag before you could get it is 176 years. It is also long for many other countries. Nevertheless, we said if you had applied by May of 2005, you would be able to come into this country within an 8-year period. We had originally said 2004, because I believe in March of that year, the Department of Homeland Security sent a letter to everybody who was pending and said, look, we have stopped processing these applications because there is no reasonable expectation we are ever going to get to them. So if you applied after that date, especially if you are from one of these countries that has a long backlog, forget it, you are never going to make it here. Nevertheless, we said, we will allow you to come in during this 8-year period.

Well, there is an amendment that would move that date from May of 2005--remember, we moved it from March of 2004, in the spirit of compromise, to May of 2005--this amendment would move it 2 years forward to today, basically, for another over 650,000 applicants. These people have no reasonable expectation of ever coming into the country.

Finally, there is an amendment that deals with spouses and children. Both legal permanent residents and citizens are enabled to bring in spouses and legal children. If you are a legal permanent resident, there is a cap and there is some waiting period. It is not substantial, but it is a waiting period. This amendment would eliminate that difference between citizenship and legal permanent residence for the sake of bringing the nuclear family in. I think it is very important for us to retain the distinction. Citizenship has to mean something in this country, and one of the key things we think it means is being able to bring your spouse and minor children into the country when you want to do that.

My point in discussing these amendments is to make the point that as anxious as I am to solve this problem by getting legislation passed that we believe does offer the opportunity for enforcement to end illegal immigration, to end the employment of illegal immigrants, and to ensure that from now on people who are here are playing by our rules rather than someone else's rules, as much as we want to ensure this legislation can pass the Senate and the House and be signed by the President, we also appreciate the fact that it represents a consensus based upon an extraordinary amount of negotiation.

I go back to the point I made starting out. Nobody got 100 percent of what they wanted. We all made sacrifices in the sense that we agreed to things we didn't like. The end result was a bipartisan bill which I believe can pass. But if any of these other amendments are adopted, then many of us have made the commitment that we will no longer support the legislation. I certainly will not support the legislation, and I would do everything I could to get it defeated.

It seems to me unless there is a bipartisan consensus that represents a balanced bill that can pass both Houses and that the President will sign, we are simply engaging in an exercise in futility, and perhaps worse. So I want my colleagues to appreciate the fact that I am very anxious to support some of their amendments, that I will oppose others, but they need to come down and get their amendments pending so we can get them voted on.

Again, there are some things which go right to the heart of this bargain, and many of the people who will support those amendments know that. I am sad to say one of the reasons they will be supported by some Members is precisely to kill the bill. I don't want to see the bill killed. I want to see the bill passed. As a result, I hope my colleagues will keep this in mind when we consider these various amendments.

Mr. President, I think there are other people here now who wish to speak to the bill, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Colorado. He has correctly pointed out that there are moral, humanitarian, judicial, and fairness dimensions to this debate. The stories of people dying in the desert are well known to Arizonans because we are coming into the hot time of year. That is when it begins to hit home that there are people who, because of desperation on their part, seek to cross the desert, which is difficult under the best of circumstances, and they are frequently ill-prepared. The coyotes take advantage of them. They take their money and send them on their way without adequately preparing them to cross. The stories are heartbreaking, and there is a great deal of other crime--sexual assaults and other kinds of crime-- that is perpetrated on people and has to stop. The best way to stop it is to get the border secure, find a legal way for people to come here, and help them to realize their dream.

People say we are a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. One thing that distinguishes us from other countries is that we have respect for law. I always use the example of the intersection on the street. When you have a green light and you drive through, you don't think about it. You know that because other people respect the law, you can drive through the intersection without worrying that someone else is going to run the red light and hit you. It is very rare that happens. Because we understand and respect law in our society, when we see law that is not enforced, we begin to wonder whether we are a society of law, and some people decide it is OK for them to begin to break the law in little ways. It is corrosive, when you drive down the street you see people whom you presume to be illegal immigrants congregating around a hardware store, looking for work in the morning, or you hear stories about people being picked up.

It is, frankly, hard to fool the American people. They know there are millions of illegal immigrants employed in the country today, and they don't like it. They don't like the fact that we can't control the border. It is corrosive to respect for the rule of law.

They say: Gee, it is nice not to be able to pay your taxes. Maybe I would like not to pay my taxes, too.

You don't want American citizens beginning to think the Government doesn't care about enforcing the law and that they should begin to disrespect and therefore not abide by the law. Yet that is exactly the kind of attitude that crops up when the Government is not careful about enforcing the law in a fair and just way.

Unfortunately, we have a law today that is not easy to enforce. It requires employers' cooperation in ways that make it very difficult. One of the reasons we need to work our hardest to pass a new bill is so that we have a law that can be enforced. It will be up to us and to the administration, whatever administration is in power, to see to it that it is enforced, but at least it has to be something we can work with.

When those who say: Let's just let the situation be by enforcing the laws today, that is the answer to the problem, my response is, the law today is very difficult to enforce and, as a result, we have to change it. That is one of the reasons for adopting a new law. Getting back to respect for the rule of law and recognizing the humanitarian aspects of this are two of the things that are not discussed enough.

I appreciate the Senator from Colorado bringing them up.