Floor Statements

Mr. President, on May 24, I voted for H.R. 2206, but I am disappointed that it took so long to complete work on this legislation, while we have troops deployed and under fire fighting against an enemy that, as few others have in history, seeks our total destruction.

For 108 days, the majority held up vital funding for our troops' equipment and training. All this time, the majority was playing politics with this funding, even sending to the President a bill that they knew would be vetoed. And this is not my analysis; we know this through the Democrats' own words. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said, ``We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.'' And ``well, it doesn't matter what resolution we move forward to. You know, I can count. I don't know if we'll get 60 votes. But I'll tell you one thing, there are 21 Republicans up for reelection this time.''

So, with that in mind, we finally received the final version of the security supplemental at 8 p.m., the last night before the Memorial Day work period. While Democrats finally decided to listen to our generals and not MoveOn.org and yielded to Republicans' demand to exclude an arbitrary withdrawal date, this bill still has serious flaws. A policy that would potentially restrict the very economic reconstruction funds that are necessary to achieve the political and diplomatic solution General Petraeus says we need represents bad public policy, to say the least.

What's more, I am disappointed to see, yet again, that the majority would use the needs of our troops as leverage to include extraneous, and in many cases ill-conceived, spending and policy provisions. Among these are a raise in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; $22 million in Corps of Engineers funding specifically earmarked for Long Island and Westchester County, and certain areas of New Jersey; $40 million in agriculture assistance specifically earmarked for certain areas of Kansas affected by the recent tornadoes; $10 million for radios for the Capitol Police; several new provisions to give certain labor unions and Continental and American Airlines relief from their employer pension plan contribution obligations; and a provision that mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services approve a state's request to extend a waiver for the Pharmacy Plus program, making Wisconsin the only state to benefit from this provision.

The delay in passage of the security supplemental caused by the majority party created significant disruptions for the Department of Defense and for our men and women deployed in the war against terrorists.

Since the emergency request was submitted by the President, the Department of Defense has realigned significant funds internally and submitted to Congress approximately six reprogramming requests driven by the delays in the supplemental.

Secretary Gates stated in an April 11 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, ``[i]t is a simple fact of life that if the . . . [supplemental] is not enacted soon, the Army faces a real and serious funding problem that will require increasingly disruptive and costly measures to be initiated--measures that will, inevitably, negatively impact readiness and Army personnel and their families.''

Then, Secretary Gates in a May 9 letter to Senator McCain wrote:

[i]n submitting the FY07 supplemental request in early

February, the Department planned on these funds becoming

available by not later than mid-April. Accordingly, starting

in mid-April, the Department began a series of actions to

mitigate the impact of the delay in the supplemental on our

deployed forces by slowing down spending in less critical

accounts. In addition, funds budgeted for fourth quarter Army

operations and personnel costs have been or are in the

process of being moved forward and expended to partially make

up the shortfall.

These actions have resulted in the Army having to take a

series of steps including deferring repair of equipment and

restraining supply purchases. In short, these steps, while

necessary to account for the delay in the supplemental, have

already caused disruptions within the Department.

Mr. President, here are just a few specific examples of disruptions that have occurred within the Army:

Facility maintenance and purchases for barracks, mold

abatement projects, and dining facilities has been deferred.

As a result, there is a risk of troops returning from combat

tours to sub-standard barracks and facilities that had been

scheduled for renovation or updates while soldiers were

deployed;

Orders of supplies have been reduced. Deferring orders for

major repair parts and unit level maintenance items creates

system lag and an accumulation of backlogged orders waiting

to be placed. Units can sustain operations for only a limited

time by consuming existing inventory.

In his May 9 letter to Senator McCain, Secretary Gates also made clear that these disruptions would have effects on the war effort:

[T]he lack of timely supplemental funds has limited the

Department's ability to properly contract for the

reconstitution of equipment for both the active and reserve

forces. This situation increases the readiness risk of our

military with each passing day should the nation require the

use of these forces prior to the equipment becoming

available. In other cases, the funding delay negatively

impacts our forces in the field by needlessly delaying the

accelerated fielding of new force protection capabilities

such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle

and counter-IED technologies developed and acquired by the

Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). Finally, the ongoing

delay resulted in the depletion of funds necessary to

accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces.

Multinational Force-Iraq spokesman, Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, on April 4 said, ``At the current moment, because of this lack of funding, MNSTC-I--Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq--is unable to continue at the pace they were in the developmental process of the Iraqi security forces . . . It is starting to have some impact today, and will only have more of an impact over time.''

While I firmly believe that the manner in which Democrats managed this legislation reveals their misplaced priorities, it is absolutely necessary that we get this funding to the men and women on the front line without further delay. That is why I voted for this supplemental. Having forced our troops to wait 108 days for this needed funding, there is no other choice but to accept this legislative blackmail.

I would also like to speak to a larger point, Mr. President. My friends on the other side of this issue in both houses talk about a failed strategy, and about a war that is lost. How do they know the Petraeus strategy has failed? It isn't even in place yet. The fifth brigade of the surge isn't there yet, and the fourth has only just arrived.

Even commentators like Joel Klein of Time magazine, no friend of this administration or this policy, have been forced to admit that progress is being made. While pointing out the many struggles that remain, Mr. Klein said:

There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes

from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the

Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in

recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has

been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign

fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me--confirming

reports from several other sources--that there have been ``a

couple of days recently during which there were zero

effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the

province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one

round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and

opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young

men to serve in the police and army units there.'' The

success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-

dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for

similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as

Time's Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the

Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda

as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like

a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi

insurgency.

What is now happening is an attempt to reconsider the vote of four years ago

when, by large bipartisan majorities in both chambers, we authorized this war. In an effort to appease far left-wing groups, some are attempting to distance themselves from their votes to authorize this policy, and from their own statements acknowledging what the intelligence information told us: Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to America's national security.

What they're not doing is talking about the consequences of defeat. It is clear from respected national security figures like General Anthony Zinni that ``This is no Vietnam or Somalia or those places where you can walk away. If we just pull out, we will find ourselves back in short order.''

Additionally, even the Brookings Institution released a study that argues:

Iraq appears to have many of the conditions most conducive

to spillover because there is a high degree of foreign

``interest'' in Iraq. Ethnic, tribal, and religious groups

within Iraq are equally prevalent in neighboring countries

and they share many of the same grievances. Iraq has a

history of violence with its neighbors, which has fostered

desires for vengeance and fomented constant clashes. Iraq

also possesses resources that its neighbors covet--oil being

the most obvious, but important religious shrines also figure

in the mix. There is a high degree of commerce and

communication between Iraq and its neighbors, and its borders

are porous. All of this suggests that spillover from an Iraqi

civil war would tend toward the more dangerous end of the

spillover spectrum.

We cannot forget that Iran and Syria are fostering instability in Iraq. Al-Qaida and Hezbollah are both active there as well.

As I have mentioned before, but have not heard answered from the critics, we know that chaos in Iraq could draw in others in the region. For example, Saudi Arabian officials have threatened ``massive intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.'' A Kurdish secession would likely cause Turkish intervention.

Does anyone in Congress disagree that failing in Iraq would be a dramatic setback in the war against terrorists? Iraq must not be divorced from its context--the struggle between the forces of moderation and extremism in the Muslim world. After all, al-Qaida has been in Iraq since before the U.S. invaded and has dedicated itself to fomenting sectarian violence there. Osama bin Laden referred to Iraq as ``capital of the Caliphate,'' arguing that ``[t]he most . . . serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War . . . [that] is raging in [Iraq].''

Terrorism expert Peter Bergen has told us that a:

[U.S. withdrawal] would fit all too neatly into Osama bin

Laden's master narrative about American foreign policy. His

theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate

body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President

Ronald Reagan's 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from

Lebanon and President Bill Clinton's decision nearly a decade

later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from

Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness

among his jihadist allies.

Failure in Iraq will encourage further attacks against the United States and provide a base from which to plan and train for attacks.

I will remind my friends who pushed so hard for this legislation, and who cheered for votes on an immediate withdrawal, and the passage of the first security supplemental which the President correctly vetoed, if you are going to advocate a strategy for failure or a precipitous withdrawal, you have the responsibility to tell the American people what the consequences would be, and to tell them how you would respond. These are the burdens of leadership.

Mr. President, unless the Senator from North Dakota wishes to briefly respond to Senator Specter, let me speak for 3 or 4 minutes.

I join Senator Specter in urging our colleagues to defeat this amendment. This is simply a light version of the amendment we defeated a couple days ago that would have eliminated the temporary worker program.

The problem here is twofold. First, there has been a basic agreement that even though Republicans generally did not want to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and, in some situations, be permitted to stay

here for the rest of their lives, if that is their desire, and even get a green card and ultimately become citizens, there was an understanding that certain tradeoffs had to occur if we were going to get legislation. Part of the legislation does enable some 12 to 15 million people to have that right, as well as immigrants whose applications are pending, many of whom have no reasonable expectation of being able to naturalize, to actually be able to come here and get green cards and naturalize, perhaps some 4 million people.

If we have a temporary worker program, which is part of what Senators such as myself were proposing to relieve our labor shortages, if that program is only in existence temporarily but these other benefits are conferred permanently, you can see that you have a significant imbalance in the legislation.

Somebody said: What is mine is mine, and what is yours is up for grabs. In other words, one side pockets the ability of all the illegal immigrants to stay here, to get citizenship rights if they go through all of the process that enables them to do that, but the temporary worker program, which is desired by many in the business community and many foreign nationals who want the opportunity to come here and work, is only going to be temporary, and that might go away. That is not a fair way to proceed to the legislation, to have what you like is permanent, what I like is only temporary.

But there is a deeper problem. The whole point of having a temporary worker program is to ensure we are going to meet our labor needs in the future. We don't know exactly what those labor needs are, but they are going to be substantial. If you cannot plan with certainty that you know you can expand your business, you can make the capital investment in whatever the business is--let's say a meatpacking plant--that you are going to need some foreign nationals to come here on a temporary basis with a temporary visa to meet the employment needs because you found in the past that there are not sufficient Americans who have applied for that kind of work in the past, so you know you are going to need the temporary worker program, but you don't know whether that program is going to be in existence in 5 years, are you going to make the capital investment necessary? Are you going to be able to provide more tax base, more employment opportunities for Americans, as well as others, provide for more consumer choice in the country if you don't know you are going to have the labor force necessary to meet your needs?

Having a temporary worker program is not going to meet our long-term needs. As a result, I suggest that for planning purposes, for being able to know that labor pool is going to be available if we need it, we are going to have to have this temporary worker program. Therefore, there is not very much difference between simply eliminating the program now and saying in 5 years it is going to evaporate unless we take steps to reinitiate it.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. We defeated an amendment a few days ago. This is a killer amendment. Everybody knows that if this program goes away, it undercuts the entire program we tried to craft in a bipartisan way. We have to relieve the magnet of illegal employment in this country. That magnet is jobs that Americans won't do. As long as there is an excess of labor demand over supply, that magnet for illegal immigration is going to continue to pull people across our borders. That magnet is demagnetized when we have a temporary worker program that says we now have a legal way for you to meet your labor needs. It can be done within the rule of law. It is based on temporary workers. We need to keep that in this bill. It cannot be subject to some kind of a sunset so that it disappears 5 years from now and we have no idea at that point how to meet our labor needs.

I urge my colleagues, as we did 2 days ago, to reject the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``Remembering Victims Key to Death Penalty, Executing Justice: Arizona's Moral Dilemma,'' by Steve Twist, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have 1 minute of comments to make on the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, and then I wonder if we can proceed with the possibility of three amendments being disposed of in quick order so that then the Senator from New Hampshire can begin with his amendment.

Let me make my comments about the amendment offered by Senator Graham. I support this amendment because it provides a deterrent to future illegal immigration. While there are a great deal of statistics I would like to cite, in the interest of time, let me make this point.

There is a very interesting operation going on right now in the Del Rio, TX, sector, in something called Operation Streamline in which they actually have the jail space available to detain, for up to 180 days, illegal immigrants caught coming across the border. This has been in operation now since 2005. Anyone caught entering the United States illegally faces prosecution under this particular operation unless for humanitarian reasons they need to be released. It has proven very effective in reducing the number of crossings in that area. The word has spread very quickly to people in Mexico that if they try to cross in this sector and they are caught, they are not just going to be returned home, they are going to spend time in jail. That totally disrupts their lives. They cannot afford not to be back working someplace, either in their own country or in the United States. As a result, the word has spread quickly: Don't try to cross in that sector or you are going to go to jail.

As a result, I think the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina is very well taken. It will provide a deterrent for future illegal crossings into the United States. And that is what this legislation should be all about, the stopping of illegal immigration. So I support his amendment.

Mr. President, if I may address the Senator from Massachusetts, would it be possible at this point to address three amendments that have been offered and dispense with them?

Mr. President, in order to take the next 10 minutes or so, my understanding is that Senator Cornyn will be ready in a few minutes, but in the meantime, a couple of people have been waiting patiently to speak for maybe no more than 5 minutes or so. I think the Senator from Tennessee would like to do that.

Mr. President, if I could interrupt my colleague to give a couple of bits of further information, the next opportunity for an amendment should be from the Democratic side. Senator Cornyn is ready to proceed with an amendment, and also Senator Hutchison has an amendment I think that is cleared on both sides that we could do by voice vote, when that is appropriate. But the next amendment should come from the Democratic side.

My suggestion would be, while we are deciding the immediate future ahead of us, that Senator Alexander be allowed to proceed on a matter that is unrelated, and then we could go to the Democratic side.

Mr. President, up to 5 minutes for Senator Alexander.

Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I certainly concur with several of the comments he made, about the need to secure our borders, about the need to have a workable immigration system, and the need for reform that ensures the rule of law is restored in the United States.

Where I differ with him is in his belief that we can actually achieve these goals if we have no ability for temporary workers to come to the country. His amendment would eliminate the temporary worker program from this bill.

Now, there are several reasons why a temporary worker program, within certain constraints, is a good idea. The first reason is because it will help to relieve the magnet for illegal immigration. This is one of the things President Bush has talked about frequently.

The reason most of the people are crossing our border illegally is to get employment. There are jobs available for them. Some people say this is work Americans will not do. That is actually not true. In all of the different work areas, whether it be construction or landscaping or working in a hotel or motel, whatever it might be, roughly half the people working in those industries are American citizens. But there are not enough American citizens to do all of the work that needs to be done. So naturally the law of supply and demand sets in here. People come across the border illegally, and they take that work. What we want to do is both close the border, secure the border of the United States, but also eliminate the magnet for illegal employment here, because the reality is desperate people will always try to find some way to get into the country.

It would be nice if, instead of having to rely strictly on fences and Border Patrol agents, we also relieved the pressure so American employers would have the workers they need and there would be no opportunity for illegal workers to come into the United States. Another way we have done that, by the way, is to have a very good employee verification system put into this legislation.

But the key here is to, in effect, have a pressure cooker safety valve. When there is too much employment need here to match up with the number of workers, then we let off the pressure by allowing some visas or temporary

workers to come here temporarily. In the bill they either come 10 months out of the year--that is the seasonal workers--and then return home, or they can get a 2-year visa, which enables them to come here and work for 2 years, then go home for a year. They could reapply. They could reapply twice for a total time of 6 years. But in between each 2- year time period working in the United States, they would have to return to their home country for a year, in order to try to prevent the situation in which they put down a stake in the United States and believe after a period of time they are entitled to stay here, thus raising the same kind of problem we have had in the past where a group of people come here and then do not want to go home, and somehow America doesn't have the will to enforce its law, in this case to require them to go home.

That is why the program was set up the way it was. The concept here is if you relieve that pressure for employees, by having an opportunity for people to temporarily come here as the guests of the United States to work here under our conditions and our rules and then go back home, that will both serve our needs and serve their needs. That is the rationale for a temporary worker program.

Now, why wouldn't you want to immigrate all of the people here as legal permanent residents? Well, obviously you are talking about millions of people, as the Senator from North Dakota said, in addition to the quotas we currently have. But, secondly, you need to have some ability to adjust. Let me mention the construction industry in my home State of Arizona as a good example of this.

Two or three years ago we could not find enough workers to build homes in Arizona. The reality is, the Home Builders Association was candid in saying this, that if they had to guess, they would guess about half of the people building homes in Arizona were illegal immigrants. They had the legal papers, but we all know that is a joke. That is why we have to have a workable employee verification system, which we have put into the bill we are now debating. But the law currently is not good in terms of verifying employment documents.

So you have a construction boom that is occurring in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, and other cities in the Southwest, and we need workers desperately. About 6, 8 months ago, the market began to taper off, and today we are in a situation where we have an excess of workers for the jobs available. The market has not tanked completely, by any means, but there is clearly a downturn in the housing construction industry in Arizona. So we do not need nearly as many workers now. Now that is depressing wages.

The Senator from North Dakota is correct in one respect here with regard to wages. If you have a greater supply of labor than you have jobs available, you will depress wages. That indeed has happened in some sectors of our economy, particularly in some low-skilled areas. But the reason is because you have a glut of workers. The workers who came here illegally find it very difficult to go home. Moreover, they will undercut the wages of American workers or depress those wages. They are here and they are depressing wages. Wouldn't it be better to have a temporary worker program, where everyone is working within the law so when we need the temporary workers to build houses, for example, we issue more of these 2-year visas, but when we don't need them, we stop issuing the visas? When those visas run out, we wait until we need more workers. Then we issue more visas. That is the way the temporary worker program is designed to work.

The alternative some people want--well, there are two alternatives. Either you allow the illegal situation to continue, which nobody wants--that is not a solution--or you adjust all of the quotas Senator Dorgan was talking about and let everyone come in as a permanent worker.

That totally upsets our immigration quotas, for one thing. Secondly, you do not have the flexibility of moving up or down depending upon what the labor requirements or demands are. Again, in housing, if we had let all of these workers come in as green card holders, as legal permanent residents, they are here and there is no ability to send them back where they came from. They have a legal right to be in the United States for the rest of their lives. That is why you do not want to try to deal with temporary, especially low-skilled worker categories, with extra green cards. That is why you have a temporary worker program, in addition to relieving the magnet for illegal employment.

Let me make a couple of other points here. The Senator from North Dakota says even the temporary worker program will depress wages. Well, there are two reasons why that is not true. The first is it is adjusted based on the labor needs. So at least ideally you never have a glut of workers, an oversupply of workers compared to the demand. The market works to set the wages at the proper rate.

If you have green cards, for example, you can easily get a depression in wages, because you never can adjust that downward once the workers are here. Secondly, in order to get a temporary worker under this bill, you have to advertise at a wage which, in effect, is the average wage that is being paid in that area in that industry. Now, you have to do that to be fair to American workers, because otherwise what would happen is you say: Hey, I have got a construction job; it pays $8 an hour. Well, there are not very many Americans who would do heavy construction for $8 an hour, so nobody shows up.

Then the employer goes to the Department of Labor and says: Well, gee, I could not get an American to take the job. Let me have some temporary workers. You cannot do that. If it is a carpenter--I am not sure what the wage is; maybe it is $18 an hour, maybe more. If he says I need 10 carpenters, he has got to say the wage I am paying is $18 an hour. Then if American workers are out of work and want to work for that wage, that is the average wage in that industry in that place, and they can come in and work with the knowledge that they are not receiving a depressed wage.

If you have Americans willing to do the work, then there is no temporary worker. But if there is not an American to come do the work, the temporary worker comes in at the same wage that is paid to everyone else, so there is no wage depression under this temporary worker program. I think that argument is not an argument to eliminate this program.

Finally, the Senator from North Dakota began his argument with something that is absolutely true. He made the point that we cannot allow everybody in the world to come to a better place, to come to the United States. That is absolutely true. We have got a big heart, but we have only got so much room.

As a result, we have an immigration system that tries to establish quotas, and it establishes areas of immigration in which we will allow people to come here: countries from which they can come; some family immigration; some work visas; asylum, and all of the other categories we have. Then we draw a limit. We say that is it, except for certain categories, except for the nuclear family.

A temporary worker program allows us to remain true to that general immigration philosophy we have always had in this country. That is to say, when we need more workers temporarily, we will bring them into the country, but when we no longer need them here, they return home. That way you are not, as the Senator from North Dakota said, opening your doors to all of the people in the world who want to come here. I agree with him; we cannot do that. But when we have a need that is not being satisfied and we have advertised the job for the same wage Americans are earning, and we cannot get an American to do that work, then it is appropriate to say to a foreign national: If you want to come here and work under our conditions, abiding by our rules, we will allow you to do that and, of course, when you are done, you will return home.

That is the essence of the temporary worker program here. It is a good program. I hope my colleagues will appreciate that there are strong reasons for including it in this legislation, as I said, starting with the proposition that it will eliminate the magnet for illegal employment that exists today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me comment a little bit on the same points Senator Kennedy made.

This is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. The American people--certainly our colleagues in the Senate--need plenty of time to digest and debate and discuss it. It is certainly nobody's intention that this would be rushed. That is why the majority leader made comments earlier this evening that assures all of the Members of this body that not only will we have this week to debate and perhaps amend the legislation, but that upon our return from the Memorial Day recess, we will take up the bill again and, as he indicated, would have another week, if we needed it, to continue work on the legislation.

While it is true the legislation did not go through the committee process, I assure my colleagues it was never anyone's intent that there not be the fullest opportunity for discussion and debate. That will in fact occur. We are now on the bill formally. It is also my understanding that technical changes from the draft legislation will be completed tonight and the first amendment will be the amendment of that substitute version. If the distinguished chairman of the committee has any other point on that, perhaps he could make it. But that would then put before the body the exact language we would begin the debate and discussion on.

I have about another 5 minutes of comments unless Senator Kennedy wants to say anything else.

It would be in order to thank Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez for their work in helping us in the Senate to craft this bipartisan consensus legislation. So much of the enforcement of the legislation will depend upon action by the administration. They had to help us ensure this was a bill that could be enforced in the future.

I know during the last election so many of my constituents asked the question: Why should we create a new law for you to enforce when the current law is not being enforced? That is a good question. So one of the things we tried to do in drafting this legislation was to put together a bill that actually would and could be enforced, and the administration has helped us by providing expertise in what it would take for Homeland Security and other departments to actually provide the enforcement the American people so desperately want.

There was general agreement that return to the rule of law was the central component of any bipartisan compromise, starting with securing the border, working right up to more enforcement in the interior of the country, and especially at the workplace, to make sure nobody in the future would be hired unless it could be established they were entitled to be hired. That is one of the critical changes in this legislation from the previous law which was not enforceable and, as virtually everybody who knows this subject appreciates, the law is not being assiduously enforced particularly at the workplace. So that is a critical component of what we have talked about doing.

There are a great many other things that will be discussed as we proceed with the legislation. Referring back to my recent campaign, the voters in my State of Arizona, which is being overrun by illegal immigration, had one message loudly and clearly: Do something about this problem of illegal immigration. So I was returned to the Senate by my constituents with an obligation to do my best to get in and do as much as we could to secure the border, return to the rule of law, ensure that only people who are eligible to work here are permitted to do so, deal with the people who are here illegally in a humane and just way, and try to set up a temporary worker program for temporary workers only, rather than to recreate the problem we have today with a great deal of foreign-born workforce that isn't legal in the United States and is now demanding to become legal.

In order to get engaged in that process and do something about it, it was important to sit down with people of the other side as well as the administration. Of all the criticism I have received for being one of the sponsors of this legislation, the one I don't quite understand from my constituents is, why would I sit down with Senator Kennedy? What I have tried to tell them is, I understand your anxiety about sitting down with Senator Kennedy, but on the other hand, in a body of 100 Senators who are supposed to try to work together to find solutions to problems, do you not at least acknowledge that every now and then you have to sit down and talk to each other, even when you are on the other side of the aisle? Senator Kennedy right now happens to be in the majority, in addition.

As a result, it is, in my position, important to sit down, articulate what the people of Arizona have told me they would like in any immigration reform, and do my best to try to see that those principles, as much as possible, are included in this legislation. If I didn't sit down with Senator Kennedy, I doubt he would include very much of what I wanted in the legislation he could otherwise draft. So what we have done, in a bipartisan fashion, is to get Senators on both sides of the aisle, with many different views, agreeing to try to put together something that can pass this body, pass the House of Representatives, and be signed into law. I know every one of us will stand up here and say: This is not the bill I would have drafted if I were king of the world or queen of the world. There is a lot in this bill I don't like very much. But I know that in order to get something, you have to give something. At the end of the day, in order to do something about the problem of illegal immigration that is hurting my own State of Arizona in ways I can't begin to describe, we have to try our very best to work together to get something that will actually pass the Senate. That means an agreement with the administration, with Democrats, and with Republicans.

I hope as my colleagues consider what we have put together, they will acknowledge you have to start somewhere, but that if there are amendments that go to the heart of this agreement and that break the agreement apart in substantial ways--not ways at the periphery or tangentially but that go to the guts of this agreement--that they can fully expect it will no longer enjoy the support of those of us who worked hard to put the agreement together. If you want to try to kill this legislation, go right to the heart of it and change any of the major pieces of it, you will find it will quickly lose support, including mine.

We fully expect Members to have a lot of amendments that deal with different aspects of the bill. There are a million different details, and that is all fine. But if we go to the guts of the legislation and that basic agreement is destroyed, then I think we will see support for it evaporate quickly, including mine.

I am looking forward to working with my colleagues and debating and discussing this legislation. But at the end of the day, I conclude there is no option of doing nothing, that our only option is to do something. That means sitting down, working together, and trying to get a good bill passed.

I appreciate the spirit in which all of my colleagues who have joined in this effort have worked toward this end.

Thank you, Mr. President. I compliment both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member, who both have to have the patience of Job to work with all of their colleagues--all of them who have a little different idea of how things should proceed. I appreciate the comments.

motion to instruct conferees

Mr. President, I send a motion to instruct conferees to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, let me take a few moments to discuss what this motion to instruct conferees embodies.

The subject is the death tax, the tax which requires millions of American families and small businesses to spend millions of dollars preparing against the possibility that they will have to pay very large amounts of money to the Federal Government upon the death of the person in the family who is responsible for that small business or who owns the property.

For a long time, there has been a bipartisan understanding that this death tax is not a good thing. The Gallup poll and other polls consistently show that at least 60 percent of the American people think it is an unfair tax, that we should not be taking money from people at the time of death. They have already paid income taxes on it, frequently capital gains and dividends taxes, and yet again they are taxed at the time of death on an amount of asset that remains.

But just as pernicious as that tax is the planning, and the expensive planning, that has to go into trying to prepare for the possibility that the tax will be imposed--if you have a very large estate, frankly, trying to avoid having to pay a large amount of taxes into that estate because that frequently means you have to sell the small business, the farm, in order to liquidate assets to pay the tax.

This is not a theoretical proposition. A good friend of mine from Phoenix, AZ, who was one of the great contributors to eleemosynary concerns in Phoenix--especially the Girls and Boys Clubs; he has one named after him--moved from New York City to Phoenix and with another person started a printing company. Years later, they had over 200 employees. They were a great printing company in Phoenix. When Jerry died, his family could not afford the death tax liability because most of the money in the business was in the equipment. In that business, you have to constantly get new equipment to stay up with your competitors. They took out a small amount each year in salaries, but the rest of it was tied up in the business. So he did not have the liquidity to pay the substantial death tax that would be required. The business was sold.

Interestingly enough, as to the argument that we have a death tax to prevent the concentration of wealth, it was sold to a big corporation. By the way, corporations do not pay death taxes. Also, this corporation has not contributed, as far as I know, a nickel to any of the great charity causes in Phoenix that Jerry contributed to every single year. It was really a shame when he died. More than the head of that household passed away at that time.

What we are trying to do is to permanently reform the death tax. Now, in the past we have tried to repeal it. What this motion to instruct conferees does is embodies concepts that have been agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans to reform the death tax so that most people do not have to worry about it, they just do not have to go to the lawyers and the accountants, the estate planners, they do not have to pay money for insurance to get around it because they know the way we have constructed it, they are not going to have to pay it. It is still there for the very large estates, but most people would be exempted from it.

Specifically, the motion to instruct conferees would call on Senate conferees to insist that the final budget

resolution provide for a reduction in revenues relative to the baseline sufficient to allow Congress to approve meaningful death tax relief, defined as follows: A top marginal rate of no higher than 35 percent with a lower rate for smaller estates, and an exemption level that is sufficient to shield smaller estates from having to file a death tax return. While the motion does not specify that amount, an exemption of $5 million per estate indexed for inflation is what is contemplated.

As I said, I think repeal of the death tax is the best option. I have been trying to find some agreement on reform since we haven't been able to get the votes for repeal. It is a nightmare for families now, and that is why I want to see if we can find a bipartisan way to do that this year. America's small business owners, farmers, and ranchers deserve this kind of certainty now.

I might say, this might be a bonanza for insurance companies, but I think they have plenty of other ways to offer products to us. There is plenty to insure against. They can still make a very comfortable living without putting us through the burden to invest without insurance to avoid paying much of the death tax. This concept, by the way, would be sufficient to accommodate the death tax reform similar to the proposal introduced by the senior Senator from Louisiana last year and which was endorsed by the junior Senator from Arkansas on his Web site.

I might say I have worked with other Members of the majority party now, and I thought last year we were very close to having an agreement that might have been achieved in a bipartisan way. In particular, the Landrieu bill provides for a $5 million exemption indexed for inflation, which is great, a family business carve-out, a top rate of 35 percent, as I mentioned, and it recaptures the benefit of the $5 million exemption for estates valued at over $100 million.

The motion to instruct does not specify any revenue offsets. We don't believe extensions of existing law should require that. Indeed, this would be a retreat from existing tax law. It would be less generous to taxpayers, and none of our provisions last year contemplated an offset. We don't offset extensions of existing mandatory spending, and we don't think this extension of tax relief should be offset either.

Some have said we should freeze the 2009 law in place. That provides for a $3.5 million exemption and a gift tax exemption that would be separate, a 45-percent rate, but a 45-percent rate means the Government takes almost half your property above the exempted amount, and that is frankly not acceptable to most small businesses or farmers. Forty-five percent is a rate most Americans deem to be unfair. So what we would suggest is a proposal that would be able to accommodate no higher than the 35-percent rate.

Now, a couple of final points here. We all know budget resolutions don't dictate policy of the Finance Committee. It would be my intention to work with the Senators whom I have mentioned here, in addition to Senator Lincoln, who worked very hard on this the last couple of years, and others, to craft an estate tax reform proposal that would provide for this $5 million exempted amount indexed for inflation, a lower rate for the smallest estates, and it provides for a top marginal death tax that is no higher than 35 percent. I would love to see it lower than that. The Joint Tax Committee tells us anecdotally that a rate any higher than 35 percent would drive families into aggressive tax planning to avoid the tax. That is what we are trying to avoid here, the extra expense of planning. I might add that the last study done that I know of determined that the amount spent on trying to avoid the payment of the death tax each year is almost exactly the same amount that is collected by the U.S. Government. So in effect, we have a double tax here. People are paying maybe $30 billion, roughly, in these taxes to the Government, and spending another $30 billion to try to avoid paying the tax. That is $30 billion that could be going to much more productive activities than paying lawyers, accountants, and insurance folks.

I conclude by saying it is important to provide the lowest rate for the smallest estates, because we don't want to have to have them go to the trouble of trying to protect their assets against the payment of the tax. We could accommodate that through a high exempted amount and a very low rate. That means they simply wouldn't have the incentive to go pay the money to the accountants and the lawyers.

There is much more I could say about this. Right now I know the distinguished chairman of the committee might have something to say.

I am happy to reserve the balance of the time on this side, subject to the ranking member's concurrence with that.

Mr. President, let me make three quick comments and then I would like the ranking member to respond as well.

It is true the budget already provides for some form of death tax relief. The problem is that form is a 45-percent rate--45 percent. Almost half of your estate would be paid to the Federal Government. I want a show of hands for everybody who believes that is fair.

Let the Record show one person in the Chamber raised his hand.

Second, the idea of the chart which the chairman pointed out showing the irrational treatment of the death tax, I totally agree with that. It is irrational, and there is a reason why it is irrational: because Democrats would not agree to cause the death tax relief to be permanent. All they would do is agree to the budget window, which at the time was a 10-year budget window. After that, it is done. That is why you have this crazy system where we have a declining rate. In the year 2010 it goes away, and in the year 2011 it comes right back again. We are all for making it rational by making it permanent. All in favor of that, raise your hands. The problem is, we can't get 60 Senators to vote for that, which is why we are stuck with this irrational system.

Finally, the most irrational thing of all, the idea--and this is an odd concept if you stop to think about it. The Government takes citizens' money in taxes, and then if we decide to let people keep more of their hard-earned money, they have to pay for that. We decide you should be able to keep more of your money because you know how to spend it better than Washington, but this odd concept on the other side of the aisle is: We can't let people keep more of their own money unless they ``pay for it.'' Pay who for it? Pay Washington for it. In effect, we are going to raise your taxes in some other way to make up for the relief in taxes we are providing here. That is what the American people are stuck with under the Democratic budget's idea of a good time, of what is fair. That is not good policy, and it is not fair. When we decide it is good policy to let the American people keep more of their hard-earned money, they shouldn't have to ``pay Washington an equivalent amount in some other kind of taxes.''

We wish to instruct conferees to pass a budget that can accommodate real relief from the death tax. I think the way we have laid this out is the best way to provide that kind of relief, as evidenced by the fact that several of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have joined with us in proposing precisely that.

Mr. President, I have one last comment regarding the ``whopper,'' as the Senator put it. It is absolutely true that Republicans were in charge when we passed the lower tax rates for Americans to help Americans out. We had 55 votes at the top amount; to make tax policy permanent, we needed 60. We could not get enough of our Democratic friends--not even six or seven of them--to join us to make the tax policy permanent; we could not get 60 votes so we could eliminate that irrational system.

So it wasn't a ``whopper'' that I told; it was the truth. Republicans were in charge. If we had about seven more votes, we could have had a rational tax system rather than the one we have today.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCain to introduce the Las Cienegas Enhancement and Saguaro National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2007. This legislation directs a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and the Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC in southeastern Arizona. A similar bill was introduced last year, and it passed the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to pass it before the session ended.

We can turn this disappointment into a success. The bill we introduce today adds to the exchange a highly sought after private parcel, the ``Bloom Property.'' The Bloom Property would be added to Saguaro National Park. State and local officials, conservationists, and other stakeholders have worked together to include the Bloom Property in this bill and to structure an exchange that is fair and in the public interest.

Let me explain the details of the exchange. The land to be transferred out of Federal ownership, approximately 1,280 acres, is referred to as the ``Sahuarita property.'' This property is BLM-managed land south of Tucson near Corona de Tucson. The land is low-lying Sonoran desert and has been identified for disposal by the BLM through its land-use planning process.

The private land to be brought into Federal ownership consists of two parcels. The first parcel is approximately 2,392 acres of land referred to as the ``Empirita-Simonson property.'' This property lies north of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area managed by the BLM. The Empirita-Simonson property lies within the ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District'' established by Public Law 106-538, which designated the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. The act directed the Department of the Interior to acquire lands from willing sellers within the planning district for inclusion within the conservation area. The idea was to further protect lands with important resource values for which the national conservation area was designated.

The second parcel, the Bloom Property, is approximately 160 acres of land that was identified for inclusion in the Saguaro National Park during a boundary study conducted by the National Park Service in 1993. In 1994, using the data from the study, Congress enacted legislation expanding the park and changed Saguaro's designation from monument to park. At that time, the Bloom Property did not have a willing seller. I am pleased to say circumstances have changed, and we are able to include it in this exchange. The Bloom Property, which lies just south of the Sweetwater Trail in Saguaro Park West, is a prime example of Sonoran desert important to maintain corridors for wildlife like the mountain lion.

Although this bill is centered on the land exchange I just described, it also accomplishes two other important objectives: addressing water withdrawals at Cienegas Creek and providing road access to a popular recreation destination, the Whetstone Mountains controlled by the Forest Service.

Let's talk about water. Arizonans understand that protecting our water supply is crucial to the State's future. For this reason, we continually seek ways to promote responsible use of our limited water supply. This bill promotes responsible use. There is a prior claim to a well site on the private land that will be exchanged. That prior claim would allow a developer to withdraw 1,600 acre-feet of water a year. Pima County and the community at large are concerned about the future of Cienegas Creek and the entire riparian area if these water withdrawals occur.

To address this concern, the land exchange is conditioned on Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC conveying the well site to Pima County and relinquishing those water rights it controls. The net result is a water savings of 1,050 acre-feet per year. This is a significant benefit to this riparian area.

Overall, this bill allows us to accomplish important environmental and conservation objectives while managing our development. It is a bill with broad support that includes Pima County, the city of Tucson, and many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me to approve this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCain to introduce the Las Cienegas Enhancement and Saguaro National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2007. This legislation directs a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and the Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC in southeastern Arizona. A similar bill was introduced last year, and it passed the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to pass it before the session ended.

We can turn this disappointment into a success. The bill we introduce today adds to the exchange a highly sought after private parcel, the ``Bloom Property.'' The Bloom Property would be added to Saguaro National Park. State and local officials, conservationists, and other stakeholders have worked together to include the Bloom Property in this bill and to structure an exchange that is fair and in the public interest.

Let me explain the details of the exchange. The land to be transferred out of Federal ownership, approximately 1,280 acres, is referred to as the ``Sahuarita property.'' This property is BLM-managed land south of Tucson near Corona de Tucson. The land is low-lying Sonoran desert and has been identified for disposal by the BLM through its land-use planning process.

The private land to be brought into Federal ownership consists of two parcels. The first parcel is approximately 2,392 acres of land referred to as the ``Empirita-Simonson property.'' This property lies north of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area managed by the BLM. The Empirita-Simonson property lies within the ``Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District'' established by Public Law 106-538, which designated the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. The act directed the Department of the Interior to acquire lands from willing sellers within the planning district for inclusion within the conservation area. The idea was to further protect lands with important resource values for which the national conservation area was designated.

The second parcel, the Bloom Property, is approximately 160 acres of land that was identified for inclusion in the Saguaro National Park during a boundary study conducted by the National Park Service in 1993. In 1994, using the data from the study, Congress enacted legislation expanding the park and changed Saguaro's designation from monument to park. At that time, the Bloom Property did not have a willing seller. I am pleased to say circumstances have changed, and we are able to include it in this exchange. The Bloom Property, which lies just south of the Sweetwater Trail in Saguaro Park West, is a prime example of Sonoran desert important to maintain corridors for wildlife like the mountain lion.

Although this bill is centered on the land exchange I just described, it also accomplishes two other important objectives: addressing water withdrawals at Cienegas Creek and providing road access to a popular recreation destination, the Whetstone Mountains controlled by the Forest Service.

Let's talk about water. Arizonans understand that protecting our water supply is crucial to the State's future. For this reason, we continually seek ways to promote responsible use of our limited water supply. This bill promotes responsible use. There is a prior claim to a well site on the private land that will be exchanged. That prior claim would allow a developer to withdraw 1,600 acre-feet of water a year. Pima County and the community at large are concerned about the future of Cienegas Creek and the entire riparian area if these water withdrawals occur.

To address this concern, the land exchange is conditioned on Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC conveying the well site to Pima County and relinquishing those water rights it controls. The net result is a water savings of 1,050 acre-feet per year. This is a significant benefit to this riparian area.

Overall, this bill allows us to accomplish important environmental and conservation objectives while managing our development. It is a bill with broad support that includes Pima County, the city of Tucson, and many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me to approve this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, my two Texas colleagues and I would like to talk about the Democratic response to high gas prices. Given the fact I believe we have about 12 minutes, we may just have a colloquy instead of each giving presentations.

Let me begin by making a couple of points. The press reported yesterday that U.S. average retail gas prices rose to an overall alltime high, breaking $3 a gallon. I know I paid $3.04, and this is up just about 20 cents a gallon over the last 2 weeks. Every family feels this pinch.

Now, Democrats understand this, and that is why last year--and I know because I was going through a campaign at the time--they attempted to capitalize on a similar spike in gas prices. They held press conferences all across the country pledging to lower gasoline prices.

Let me read one of the headlines that resulted from this publicity blitz from the New York Times. It says: ``Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices.'' This is an April 21, 2006, article, which reported, and I am quoting:

The recommendations of a memorandum sent by Democrat

campaign officials to Democratic candidates include holding a

campaign event at a gas station where you call for a real

commitment to bringing down gas prices.

I guess you can say: That was then, this is now. Now that the Democrats are in charge, the question is, What have they done about the problem they were all too quick to exploit back during the campaign? As far as I can tell, the answer to that question is, exactly nothing. In fact, they tried to and to some extent did prevent Republicans, when we were in control last year, from initiating a series of reforms that would have actually done something about the problem and might have prevented some of what we see now. We were finally able to get legislation passed to open the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration to bring more supply on line--that was a very positive development--but when we tried to do other things, we were stopped by the Democrats.

I think it is important for us to challenge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were very interested in the American public having to pay high gas prices back during the campaign last year. Well, you are in charge. What have you done about it? The answer, so far, appears to me to be, exactly nothing.

Let me say to my colleague from Texas that I know a lot of our problem is because of regulations that inhibit oil refineries from improving their capability to refine more oil and gas or building new refineries. It is very sensitive to what happens at the refineries. My recollection is that there was a recent fire at one of the Texas refineries.

Is it the case that we could do some things--and tried last year to do some things--to make it easier from a regulatory standpoint for oil refineries to increase their capacity? And isn't this one of the ways Republicans have tried to ensure we have a larger supply, which would, therefore, reduce the price of gasoline to our consumers?

Mr. President, I think my colleague from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, can certainly answer that question, but first allow me to make a few additional comments.

News reports suggest that increased gas prices can be linked to production shortages at a time of increased demand. More directly, the problem can be traced to a continuing lack of refining capacity and unexpected outages at the Nation's oil refineries. A series of recent outages, largely for maintenance, have reduced the supply of domestic gasoline.

The price of a gallon of oil is still $10 below last year when prices spiked: however, demand has increased 2.3 percent from the same period last year. Existing refineries are unable to meet the ever-rising demand for gasoline. The system also cannot handle unexpected outages, for example, the recent fire in Texas. The U.S. saw the strain on refinery capacity during Katrina when prices nationwide went up 45 cents in 1 week due to refinery damage in the region.

Because of high costs, regulatory redtape, and public opposition, refiners haven't built a new facility since 1976--30 years ago. The system is under such strain that any outages or disruptions are quickly felt in the market in the form of increased prices.

The lack of domestic refining capacity also increases our reliance on foreign sources of refined gasoline. America now imports about a million barrels of gasoline every day--that means that about one of every ten gallons of gas Americans get at the pump is refined in a foreign country.

Regulations requiring a variety of new regional gasoline blends also increase the price and make it difficult to address shortages by moving supply from one area of the country to another.

Last year, Republicans saw the strain on the existing system, and we tried to do something about it. We passed legislation that opened new areas in the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas exploration to bring more supply on line. Republicans recognize that it is in our national security interest to increase domestic supply, including ANWR, and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

I also introduced legislation to ensure that oil companies pay their fair share for the oil and gas they produce from public lands. And I introduced legislation to remove the 54 cent import tariff on ethanol, to lower the price consumers pay at the pump.

Republicans also tried to address the lack of domestic refinery capacity. We introduced legislation to streamline permitting to build new refineries, and we were blocked by Democrats. Republicans introduced legislation to incentivize building new refineries, and we were blocked by Democrats. Republicans introduced legislation to reduce the number of boutique blends of gasoline, and we were blocked by Democrats.

Now the Democrats have to do more than block legislation--they have to solve problems.

The Democrats will talk about price gouging legislation and say that is the solution. The FTC looked at this last year after Hurricane Katrina and did not find evidence of price gouging. More hearings will not reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline since there are already laws in place to prosecute price gouging.

The Democrats will talk about conservation and higher CAFE as well. We all support conservation as a long-term solution, but we also need to take action to address our near-term problems and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We need to increase domestic production and increase our refining capacity.

The theme that I think we see developing here is that the Democrats campaign rhetoric is catching up with them, and now they must prove they can govern and solve people's problems. They are 0 for 7 in '07 with their agenda. Gas prices are only the most recent example of failure. We still don't have a comprehensive energy policy. We still haven't taken steps to improve health care. Democrats campaigned on big ideas, but they are playing small ball.

The Washington Post wrote in an article this weekend entitled ``Democrats Momentum is Stalling,'' which stated that: ``Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the `do nothing' tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.'' That was the Washington Post, May 5, 2007.

I hope the Democrats will work with us for real solutions to people's problems, including reducing gas prices.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain in introducing the Arizona National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Arizona Trail as a national scenic trail. In 1968, Congress established the National Trails System to promote the preservation of historical resources and outdoor areas. National scenic and historic trails may be designated only by an act of Congress.

This is not a new proposal. Senator McCain and I have been working on legislation relating to the Arizona Trail since the 108th Congress. Past legislation focused on conducting a feasibility study to determine whether the trail is physically possible and financially feasible. A feasibility study is generally the first step toward national trail designation, but such legislation was not successfully enacted. In the meantime the Arizona Trail Association and its State and Federal partners have continued to develop the trail with national designation in mind. Senator McCain and I believe a feasibility study is not necessary. Let me explain: the Arizona Trail already exists. It extends over 800 continuous miles and is over 90 percent complete--clearly, it is physically possible. It is also financially feasible, as this trail does not require a single land acquisition, and commitments already exist to manage the trail and complete the remaining few miles of trail construction. This trail is ready for designation. In fact, the Arizona Trail is farther along than many national scenic trails that have already been designated by Congress.

The Arizona Trail is highly deserving of national designation. The trail is a roller coaster ride through the wide range of ecological diversity in the State. The trail corridor begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and winds some 800 miles, ending on the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. Between these two points, it invites recreationists to explore the State's most renowned mountains, canyons, deserts and forests, including the Grand Canyon and the Sonora Desert. This trail is unique in that it maximizes the incorporation of already existing public trails into one continuous trail to showcase some of the most spectacular scenery in the West.

Over 16 Federal, State and local agencies, as well as numerous community and business organizations and countless volunteers, have cooperated to develop and sustain the trail as a recreational resource for future generations. Designating the Arizona Trail

as a national scenic tail will help streamline its management, boost tourism and recreation, and preserve a magnificent natural, cultural, and historical experience of the American West. I urge my colleagues to enact this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain in introducing the Arizona National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Arizona Trail as a national scenic trail. In 1968, Congress established the National Trails System to promote the preservation of historical resources and outdoor areas. National scenic and historic trails may be designated only by an act of Congress.

This is not a new proposal. Senator McCain and I have been working on legislation relating to the Arizona Trail since the 108th Congress. Past legislation focused on conducting a feasibility study to determine whether the trail is physically possible and financially feasible. A feasibility study is generally the first step toward national trail designation, but such legislation was not successfully enacted. In the meantime the Arizona Trail Association and its State and Federal partners have continued to develop the trail with national designation in mind. Senator McCain and I believe a feasibility study is not necessary. Let me explain: the Arizona Trail already exists. It extends over 800 continuous miles and is over 90 percent complete--clearly, it is physically possible. It is also financially feasible, as this trail does not require a single land acquisition, and commitments already exist to manage the trail and complete the remaining few miles of trail construction. This trail is ready for designation. In fact, the Arizona Trail is farther along than many national scenic trails that have already been designated by Congress.

The Arizona Trail is highly deserving of national designation. The trail is a roller coaster ride through the wide range of ecological diversity in the State. The trail corridor begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and winds some 800 miles, ending on the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. Between these two points, it invites recreationists to explore the State's most renowned mountains, canyons, deserts and forests, including the Grand Canyon and the Sonora Desert. This trail is unique in that it maximizes the incorporation of already existing public trails into one continuous trail to showcase some of the most spectacular scenery in the West.

Over 16 Federal, State and local agencies, as well as numerous community and business organizations and countless volunteers, have cooperated to develop and sustain the trail as a recreational resource for future generations. Designating the Arizona Trail

as a national scenic tail will help streamline its management, boost tourism and recreation, and preserve a magnificent natural, cultural, and historical experience of the American West. I urge my colleagues to enact this legislation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make permanent a provision of our tax that was enacted in 2006 as part of the Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, but expires at the end of 2008. The controlled-foreign corporation (CFC) look-through provision allows U.S.-based multinational companies to better compete with foreign companies by enabling them to be more flexible in their overseas operations. In this age of global competition, I hope my colleagues will agree that the United States needs to maintain a business climate that encourages U.S.-based companies to grow and succeed. The CFC look-through provision is an important part of that effort.

For several years now, I have been encouraging my colleagues to recognize that our tax system puts many of our best U.S. employers at a competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign-based companies. Many foreign countries only impose tax on income earned within their borders; the United States taxes U.S. companies on their worldwide income.

The general rule is that income from a foreign subsidiary is not taxed by the United States until those earnings are brought back to the U.S. parent, usually in the form of a dividend. Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code sets forth a number of exceptions to this general rule, imposing current U.S. tax, instead of allowing deferral of taxation, on subsidiary earnings generally when that income is passive in nature. One exception to the general deferral rule imposes tax on the U.S. parent when a foreign-based subsidiary receives dividends, interest, rents or royalties from another subsidiary that is located in a different country. If the two subsidiaries are in the same country, however, U.S. tax is generally deferred until the income is repatriated to the U.S. parent.

In 2005, I introduced legislation to extend this ``same-country'' treatment, the CFC look-through provision, to payments between related foreign subsidiaries that are located in different countries, and I was pleased that the 2006 tax reconciliation bill included this provision. Today, I am introducing legislation to make the CFC look-through permanent.

Today's global economy is significantly different from the environment that existed when the subpart F rules were first introduced in 1962. As the global economy has changed, the traditional model for operating a global business has changed as well. In today's world, it makes no sense to impose a tax penalty when a company wants to fund the operations of a subsidiary in one country from the active business earnings of a subsidiary in another country. For example, to operate efficiently, a U.S.-based manufacturer could establish specialized manufacturing sites, distribution hubs, and service centers. As a result, multiple related-party entities may be required to fulfill a specific customer order. Before the CFC look-through was enacted last year, U.S. tax law inappropriately increased the cost for these foreign

subsidiaries to serve their customers in a very competitive business environment by imposing current tax on these related-party payments, even though the income continues to be used in active operations in the foreign market.

In another example, financial institutions have established foreign subsidiaries with headquarters in a financial center, such as London, and branches in multiple countries in the same geographic region. This permits an efficient ``hub and spoke'' form of regional operation; however, this efficient business model made it difficult for the same- country exception to be met for payments of dividends and interest.

Before the CFC look-through was enacted, American companies were at a real and significant competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign- based companies. U.S.-based multinationals were penalized for responding to market or investment opportunities by redeploying active foreign earnings among foreign businesses conducted through multiple subsidiaries. To remove this impediment, Congress amended subpart F to provide a general exception for inter-affiliate payments of dividends, interest, rents or royalties that are generated from an active business.

Congress was right to apply look-through treatment to payments of dividends, interest, rents and royalties between subsidiaries. If the underlying earnings would not have been subject to subpart F, the payments should not be subpart F income. Look-through treatment for payments of dividends, interest, rents and royalties should be permitted as long as the payments are made out of active business, non- subpart F, income. Look-through principles are already well developed for other purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, a look- through approach to the characterization of foreign income is used for purposes of calculating foreign tax credits. A consistent application of look-through principles simplifies the interaction between subpart F and the foreign tax credit rules.

If we want to keep U.S.-based multinational companies, which employ millions of workers here at home headquartered in the United States, we must modernize our tax rules so that our companies can be competitive around the globe. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation to make permanent this modest change in the law that will enhance the position of U.S.-based employers trying to succeed in competitive foreign markets.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make permanent a provision of our tax that was enacted in 2006 as part of the Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, but expires at the end of 2008. The controlled-foreign corporation (CFC) look-through provision allows U.S.-based multinational companies to better compete with foreign companies by enabling them to be more flexible in their overseas operations. In this age of global competition, I hope my colleagues will agree that the United States needs to maintain a business climate that encourages U.S.-based companies to grow and succeed. The CFC look-through provision is an important part of that effort.

For several years now, I have been encouraging my colleagues to recognize that our tax system puts many of our best U.S. employers at a competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign-based companies. Many foreign countries only impose tax on income earned within their borders; the United States taxes U.S. companies on their worldwide income.

The general rule is that income from a foreign subsidiary is not taxed by the United States until those earnings are brought back to the U.S. parent, usually in the form of a dividend. Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code sets forth a number of exceptions to this general rule, imposing current U.S. tax, instead of allowing deferral of taxation, on subsidiary earnings generally when that income is passive in nature. One exception to the general deferral rule imposes tax on the U.S. parent when a foreign-based subsidiary receives dividends, interest, rents or royalties from another subsidiary that is located in a different country. If the two subsidiaries are in the same country, however, U.S. tax is generally deferred until the income is repatriated to the U.S. parent.

In 2005, I introduced legislation to extend this ``same-country'' treatment, the CFC look-through provision, to payments between related foreign subsidiaries that are located in different countries, and I was pleased that the 2006 tax reconciliation bill included this provision. Today, I am introducing legislation to make the CFC look-through permanent.

Today's global economy is significantly different from the environment that existed when the subpart F rules were first introduced in 1962. As the global economy has changed, the traditional model for operating a global business has changed as well. In today's world, it makes no sense to impose a tax penalty when a company wants to fund the operations of a subsidiary in one country from the active business earnings of a subsidiary in another country. For example, to operate efficiently, a U.S.-based manufacturer could establish specialized manufacturing sites, distribution hubs, and service centers. As a result, multiple related-party entities may be required to fulfill a specific customer order. Before the CFC look-through was enacted last year, U.S. tax law inappropriately increased the cost for these foreign

subsidiaries to serve their customers in a very competitive business environment by imposing current tax on these related-party payments, even though the income continues to be used in active operations in the foreign market.

In another example, financial institutions have established foreign subsidiaries with headquarters in a financial center, such as London, and branches in multiple countries in the same geographic region. This permits an efficient ``hub and spoke'' form of regional operation; however, this efficient business model made it difficult for the same- country exception to be met for payments of dividends and interest.

Before the CFC look-through was enacted, American companies were at a real and significant competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign- based companies. U.S.-based multinationals were penalized for responding to market or investment opportunities by redeploying active foreign earnings among foreign businesses conducted through multiple subsidiaries. To remove this impediment, Congress amended subpart F to provide a general exception for inter-affiliate payments of dividends, interest, rents or royalties that are generated from an active business.

Congress was right to apply look-through treatment to payments of dividends, interest, rents and royalties between subsidiaries. If the underlying earnings would not have been subject to subpart F, the payments should not be subpart F income. Look-through treatment for payments of dividends, interest, rents and royalties should be permitted as long as the payments are made out of active business, non- subpart F, income. Look-through principles are already well developed for other purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, a look- through approach to the characterization of foreign income is used for purposes of calculating foreign tax credits. A consistent application of look-through principles simplifies the interaction between subpart F and the foreign tax credit rules.

If we want to keep U.S.-based multinational companies, which employ millions of workers here at home headquartered in the United States, we must modernize our tax rules so that our companies can be competitive around the globe. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation to make permanent this modest change in the law that will enhance the position of U.S.-based employers trying to succeed in competitive foreign markets.

Mr. President, speaking on the same matters addressed by both the majority and minority leader, I remind our colleagues that last week this body passed by a very narrow margin what amounts to a strategy for defeat in Iraq. This course of action was not a surprise. After all, the majority leader had announced to the world that the war was lost. This, of course, was news

to people in Iraq, our soldiers in the field included.

For example, SGT George Turkovich was quoted in the Las Vegas Review- Journal, saying:

We're not losing this war. Unfortunately, politics has

taken a huge role in this war affecting our rules of

engagement. This is a guerilla war that we're fighting, and

they're going to tie our hands. So it does make it a lot

harder for us to fight the enemy, but we're not losing this

war.

This is from a 24-year-old a half a world away.

I suspect the announcement that we had lost the war was also a surprise to General Petraeus. Remember, we confirmed him unanimously in this body. We knew what his strategy was. He has testified about it when he came here for his confirmation hearings. In fact, he had written a book about it.

Many in this body, I fear, have forgotten what he said. In a Pentagon briefing, last week, when he returned from the theater to brief us on the status of the conflict, he reminded us:

[A]s I noted during my confirmation hearing, military

action is necessary but not [a] sufficient [condition]. We

can provide the Iraqis an opportunity, but they will have to

exploit it.

Now, I mention this because the majority leader and others have quoted General Petraeus as saying this war can only be won politically, not militarily. What General Petraeus actually said was: ``Military action is necessary but not sufficient.'' He has pointed out over and over that the political compromises and decisions and agreements that need to be made cannot be made in the context of the violence and instability that exists in Iraq today.

Let me quote him again. He said:

The situation is, in short, exceedingly challenging, though

as I will briefly explain, there has been progress in several

areas in recent months despite the sensational attacks by al

Qaeda, which have, of course, been significant blows to our

effort and which cause psychological damage that is typically

even greater than their physical damage.

He said:

And I again note that we are really just getting started

with the new effort.

He concluded by saying:

Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and

sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity for the all-

important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-

term solutions to Iraq's many problems. Because we are

operating in new areas and challenging elements in those

areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier.

He predicted this. He said, likely we will have more casualties as we ramp up our efforts because the fighting will be more intense, and that is a necessary precondition to creating the peace and stability which we hope to achieve by this increase in our activity.

So it is mystifying to me those on the other side of the aisle can say we should withdraw now because the war is lost and that the only solution is a political solution, but we are going to pass a bill denying the President and General Petraeus, the State Department, and others much of the economic reconstruction funding we need to achieve the political solution. As the majority leader noted, there is still much to be done in Iraq, other than on the military side of the equation, just getting things up and running there.

But this is the bill sent to the President, after months of delay, including 2 weeks when the other body was in recess. There, of course, was no recess for our troops, nor for the Pentagon, which, according to Secretary Gates, in an April 11 letter to Congress, told of the disruptions already taking place.

Let me describe what some of those disruptions from this lack of funding are: reducing Army quality-of-life initiatives, including routine upgrade of barracks and other facilities; reducing the repair and maintenance of equipment necessary for deployment training; curtailing the training of Army Guard and Reserve units within the United States, reducing their readiness levels.

This may be just the beginning of what is to come if this supplemental funding is further delayed. The National Journal, this morning, reported: ``Democrats have set a Memorial Day deadline to send Bush a reconstructed supplemental.'' Memorial Day--a month away. Why the further delay, when everyone knows the detriment to the training and equipment availability for our troops that has resulted already from the delay in funding? This would be dangerously irresponsible, and the impacts will get only more significant over time.

Here are some of the additional results that will occur: reducing the pace of equipment overhaul work at Army depots, which will likely exacerbate the equipment availability problems facing stateside units; curtailing training rotations for Brigade Combat Teams currently scheduled for overseas deployment. Such a step would likely require the further extension of currently deployed forces until their replacements were judged ready for deployment. The self-fulfilling prophecy that would result from the lack of funding is: Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we are going to have our troops have to be in theater a longer period of time. Answer: Yes, if you continue to deny the funding, that is exactly what will happen.

It will also delay the acceleration of additional modularized Army brigades necessary to expand the Army unit rotational pool and reduce the stress on existing units. This must be what GEN Peter Schoomaker, who is the Army Chief of Staff, meant when he stated, the Army ``will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our Soldiers and their families.''

These political delays are keeping much needed lifesaving equipment out of the hands of our troops as well. I supported the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Delaware to add an additional $1.5 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, the so-called MRAPs, which, on top of the $1.83 billion for the services the President requested, would get these vehicles into the field now. As the senior Senator from Delaware said:

MRAP could reduce the casualties in vehicles due to IED

attack by as much as 80 percent.

So why would we further delay the funding to get these vehicles into the hands of our troops? Delaying this all the way to Memorial Day simply means further delays in getting this equipment to the troops.

Meanwhile, though we cannot get this funding to the troops, the majority is feverishly at work adding unrequested, nonemergency spending to the bill--all in an apparent effort to try to cobble together enough votes to actually pass the bill, since the underlying surrender date is so unpopular.

The bill includes over $21 billion in unrequested items--$21 billion. Among them is title V, which provides $3.5 billion in emergency agricultural assistance--things such as $60 million for salmon fisheries. The bill also includes provisions such as--and by the way, neither the Senate nor the House put these provisions in the bill; they were added in the conference committee--such as an extension of the Pharmacy Plus program in Wisconsin. Now, I am on the Finance Committee, and we did not consider this in the Finance Committee. It is, obviously, not an emergency, but, apparently, there were some folks from Wisconsin who could be brought along in support of the vote if this was added to the bill.

These provisions have no place in the bill. They should not return in the final bill after the President has exercised his veto tomorrow and the majority decides to get serious and pass legislation which the President can actually sign.

My recommendation to the President, if they are included, is to veto the bill. The military troops should not be forced to carry the pork of Members on their backs. This bill should be vetoed both because of the surrender date and because of the pork. It is time to end wasteful Washington spending, especially when it is being carried on the backs of our troops in an emergency supplemental bill.

I saw the items: the spinach farms, the peanut storage, the tropical fish, bailouts for sugar beets. Let these provisions go through the normal channels. If they have merit, their sponsors should be able to carry the day and get them supported. If not, then we should not be supporting them anyway. But let's not slow down the money for the troops just in the name of some special parochial earmark.

One thing that has been lost, I would add, in the race to enact this strategy for defeat is the consequences for this premature--this setting a deadline for

surrender. Remember, this is the first time ever in the middle of a war we would set a date and say: At this time we will be out of there. The message it sends to the enemy is--well, it is unthinkable. But think about the message it sends to the Iraqis who have fought along our side and to our troops and their families. It would be a nightmare for the Iraqi people were we to leave. As President Bush said:

[T]o step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi

government, tear the country apart, and result in mass

killings on an unimaginable scale.

Do we want to be responsible for that in this body, the mass killings that would result--exactly what we criticized Saddam Hussein for when he was in power? It would not end with an American withdrawal in Iraq, either. As General Anthony Zinni said:

This is no Vietnam or Somalia or those places where you can

walk away. If we just pull out, we will find ourselves back

in short order.

Failing in Iraq would set back the entire region. The Brookings Institution--no big supporter of the President, I would add--argues, in their study, that:

Iraq appears to have many of the conditions most conducive

to spillover because there is a high degree of foreign

``interest'' in Iraq. Ethnic, tribal, and religious troops

within Iraq are equally prevalent in neighboring countries

and they share many of the same grievances. Iraq has a

history of violence with its neighbors, which has fostered

desires for vengeance and fomented constant clashes. Iraq

also possesses resources that its neighbors covet--oil being

the most obvious, but important religious shrines also figure

in the mix. There is a high degree of commerce and

communication between Iraq and its neighbors, and its borders

are porous. All of this suggests that spillover from an Iraqi

civil war would tend toward the more dangerous end of the

spillover spectrum.

We know Iran and Syria are fostering instability in Iraq. Al-Qaida and Hezbollah are both active there as well. Chaos in Iraq could draw in Saudi Arabia, and Saudi officials have threatened ``massive intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.'' Kurdish succession could well cause Turkish intervention in the region.

Failing in Iraq would be a dramatic setback in the war on terror. Iraq must not be divorced from its context--the struggle between the forces of moderation and extremism in the Muslim world.

Al-Qaida has been in Iraq since before the United States invaded and has dedicated itself to fomenting sectarian violence there. Much of the violence between Shia and Sunni is a result of prodding by al-Qaida, starting primarily with the blowing up of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

Osama bin Laden himself referred to Iraq--I am quoting him--as the ``capital of the Caliphate,'' arguing that ``The most . . . serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War . . . [that] is raging in [Iraq].'' Those are not my words. That is what Osama bin Laden said.

One of the terrorism experts, Peter Bergen, said this:

[U.S. withdrawal] would fit all too neatly into Osama bin

Laden's master narrative about American foreign policy. His

theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate

body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President

Ronald Reagan's 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from

Lebanon and President Bill Clinton's decision nearly a decade

later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from

Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness

among his jihadist allies.

Failure in Iraq will encourage further attacks against the United States and provide a base from which to plan and train for attacks.

I must remind my friends, if you are going to push this legislation through, the strategy for defeat, you have a responsibility to tell the American people what the consequences will be and to tell them how you would respond. These are the burdens of being in the majority. These are the burdens of making the difficult decisions we make in this body.

I urge my colleagues to work together to develop a supplemental appropriations bill that President Bush can quickly sign, that will get the funding to our troops and enable us to give the strategy a chance to succeed so that the horrible consequences I have described will not be the result of our actions.