Floor Statements

Madam President, how much time is it remaining on our side?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided in the following way: Senators Sessions for 3 minutes, Senator DeMint for 2 minutes 45 seconds, and Senator Hutchison for 2 minutes, and that each be notified of their time when they come to that limit.

Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Madam President, we passed a bill in 2001 that actually started lowering the death tax for a 10-year period, and then it will come back in full force. When it comes back in full force, we are going to have up to a 55-percent tax on estates that are over $1 million.

What does this mean? It means that if someone owns a farm where the property has appreciated but they cannot possibly produce enough on that farm to pay one lump sum on its value--55 percent of it--we would be breaking up family farms and ranches all over this country. That is what the death tax has been doing for years.

In fact, America has the highest death tax in the world. We say we are a country of small businesses, of family-owned businesses, entrepreneurs who have started with nothing and built something, and yet we do the very thing that hurts those small businesses. In fact, they cannot pass to the next generation. Thirty percent of family businesses today pass to the second generation; 13 percent make it to the third generation. That is because the property owned in a business is worth much more in value than it produces.

The death tax walks away from the American dream. The American dream is if you come to this country, if you work hard, you can give your children a better chance than you had. The American dream is that you can start with nothing and you can build something if you work hard and you have a good idea. But the death tax walks away from that because it breaks up that family business, it breaks up the ability to accumulate wealth, it interferes with freedom and the free enterprise in this country today.

I hope we will not throw people out of jobs, as Senator DeMint just mentioned; that we will not prevent people from giving their kids a better chance than they had. Please vote for cloture today so that we can do the right thing for our country and promote small farms, family- owned businesses, and entrepreneurship once again.

Mr. President, I had originally thought I was going to have 5 minutes to speak. As I understand it, we are kind of running behind. I wondered if there is a 5-minute window that I could have perhaps after Senator Ensign speaks or at some point in this debate. Would 5 minutes be OK now?

Would there be any time between now and the vote?

I will not ask for that time. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we have been debating for the last 2 weeks a bill that is going to change the course of our country. The debate has been good. We have had the ability to offer amendments. Yet, the bill has not changed to the degree it needs to change, to do the job that we must do to assure that we secure our borders. This bill has not yet changed to ensure that we have a temporary worker program that works, that does not discriminate against American workers, and that is fair. If this bill had gone through that process, we could then start dealing with the people who are here in a fair and responsible way.

Mr. President, we have benefitted from the immigrants in our country for hundreds of years--people who come here legally and work hard. They make better lives for themselves and their families, and they contribute to our country in the process. They have assimilated into America the ``E Pluribus Unum'' motto: Out of many, one. That has been the factor that has brought us together for all of these years.

In the last 10 years, we have watched as millions have ignored our laws. They have come into our country illegally, leaving those who have waited their turn, who have waited for the legal process to work, to wonder if, in fact, they would ever be rewarded for their correct behavior.

After 9/11, we all knew that our security was at risk. We have been forced to reexamine the laws of our country as they relate to our borders. Yet nearly 5 years after our country was attacked by people who came in through a porous border, we still have a porous border. We need immigration reform, and we must do it right.

There are some good points in this bill. Securing our borders is a part of this bill. I voted against the Budget Act point of order yesterday because I want to spend the money on border security, and it is going to cost money. But that is not the only part of this bill. The rest of the bill has caused an imbalance that cannot stand if we are to look at the big picture for our country.

Edwin Meese, the former Attorney General of the United States, warned in a New York Times editorial op-ed that we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of 20 years ago when Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, granting amnesty to those who were in this country. We are in danger of making the same mistake today.

Temporary workers are very important for our country. They provide U.S. companies with labor that keeps our economy thriving, and the workers have the opportunity to make better lives for themselves. We also need to make sure that we have some path for people who want to work in this country, but do not want to be citizens. It is important that we balance the rights of American workers' as we take this major step.

The Hagel-Martinez guest worker program does grant amnesty, and it forces guest workers into a citizenship track after 6 years, even if that is not what the worker wants or what they intended. In the polls that I have seen, most of the people coming to this country to work do not want to give up allegiance to their home countries, and they still love America. They don't have hostility toward America because they are not citizens. The arguments that I have heard indicating that we want every temporary worker to be a citizen so that they will be loyal to our country, I believe does not hold water. You can be friendly to our country, appreciate and respect our country but not have to go into the citizenship track to do that. People have been doing it for a long time.

We do not have the capability in this bill that I tried to put in it yesterday with my amendment that would allow another choice--a choice for people who do want to work in our country, go home, and who do not want the citizenship track.

Mr. President, I will not be able to vote for the bill before us today, but I do hope I can vote for a bill that comes out of conference committee, one that will be balanced and one that represents the interests of the American people, as well as treating fairly the foreign workers who come to our country.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I wish to take 10 minutes and then be notified when I have taken 10 minutes so I can reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, there is something missing from the debate that we have had so far. I do think that this debate has been productive. I think it has been civil. I think our differing views have been aired. And I think there has been a fair consideration of the bill on the floor of the Senate. But no one is talking about the underlying cause of the problem of illegal immigration in our country. What can we do about the root cause of the problem?

Most of the people who are coming here--not counting the criminals-- the people who come here to do criminal acts, such as drug dealers and human traffickers, people who come into our country surreptitiously to become a part of a movement that would harm our citizens, those people are in a different category. They are criminals. They intend to be criminals. And one of the reasons we are trying to secure our borders is to keep people like that out of our country. But the vast majority of people who are coming across our borders are not people who wish to do us harm. They are people who come here to work, to do better for their families. They want a better life. They are people who want jobs. Their countries do not provide the number of jobs to absorb them into the system. So they go to a neighboring country--our country--to seek those jobs.

Is this good for our country? I would say when people have to risk their lives to come here, it is not good for our country. Is it good for Mexico? It is certainly not good for another country to have a mass out-migration, especially because the people who want so much to work and to do better for themselves are the enterprising people of this society. If they had training, education, and opportunity, they would be able to add even more to the economy of Mexico. As it is, their U.S. earnings are the second largest economic producer in Mexico, second only to tourism.

We need to start talking about how we can address the issue of jobs in our country, address the issue of illegal immigration as we protect our borders and as we protect the economy of our country, but also to try to do what is right for the people involved in this issue.

I rise today, joined by my colleague, Senator Bond, to offer an amendment that is called the Secure Authorized Foreign Employee Visa Guest Worker Program. I am going to call it the SAFE visa. It is for people who want to work in our country but do not wish to be citizens of the United States. It is modeled after the Canadian guest worker program with Mexico that has been in place for over 30 years.

Our amendment creates an additional guest worker program available to workers from NAFTA and CAFTA nations. It is a pilot program. It does not displace the guest worker program in the Hagel-Martinez bill. It is another option. It would be one that could be expedited to meet the demand of more workers in certain fields. It would also be something the employers would know is safe for them to hire based on this visa.

The amendment seeks to create a new visa category for those individuals who want to enter and work in our country legally but do not seek a path to residency or citizenship in the United States because they want to remain citizens of their country of origin. They would be able to take the money that is earned here and use it to improve their living conditions and the living conditions in their country of origin.

Any legislation addressing immigration must firmly address the safety and security needs of the United States. In a world where terrorists continue to seek to harm Americans, we must protect our citizens. We have every right to know who is in our country, who has crossed our borders, the nature, purpose, and length of the visit. We are negligent if we do not know those things.

Everyone in the Senate and everyone with whom I talk with wants to secure our borders. I have visited with many of the Hispanic leaders in my home State. I have visited with my Hispanic-American supporters and friends. They all want to secure our borders. They are Americans. They are loyal Americans. They want to secure our borders. I have supported amendments throughout this debate to help secure our borders and to pay for these measures.

When I came to the Senate 12 years ago, I started the process of doubling the Border Patrol because we had never sufficiently manned the border. We are still in the process of doing that. We are not nearly where we need to be. We must have a sovereign nation and control our borders.

My proposed amendment will not strike any of the provisions of the underlying bill. It will not eliminate the H-2C visa program that has been put into the bill. Instead, it would be adopted so that workers and employers have a choice. The SAFE visa would be tamper proof so that an employer could look at this card, test it, and know it is valid. It would have either a fingerprint or an eye matrix that could not be duplicated, that immediately would let the employer know he or she is able to hire this person because that person is legal.

The tamper-proof card enables us to have something employers could count on which is not the case today. Today, an employer is at peril because the employer will look at a Social Security card. It may look perfectly valid, but we all know there are many fraudulent cards out there in the market. The employer cannot be the policeman. There are employers who are doing the wrong thing who should be charged with doing the wrong thing, but there are many employers who try to do the right thing, but we do not have a tamper-proof visa that allows them to do that.

Here are the guidelines in my amendment. All SAFE visa applicants would be required to apply while in their home countries. This would be a program generated in the home country. A guest worker would be subject to appropriate background checks and required to present proof of secured employment before receiving the SAFE visa. The employer would be responsible for withholding all standard payroll deductions so that all employees are on an equal footing. You would not put the foreign employee under the American employee, thereby giving an advantage to the foreign employee.

Medicare withholdings for SAFE cardholders would go into a fund to pay for emergency health care provided to foreign workers. The SAFE visa holder would not be eligible for Medicare, and therefore the money that goes from the Medicare deduction would go into a fund to pay for uncompensated health care that would be provided to foreign workers in our country.

This has been an issue for hospitals all across our country that are serving the illegal aliens in our country. They are not compensated. It is a burden on these hospitals which we can relieve with this program.

The program would be structured for a maximum of 10 months per year of work. The person would then go home for 2 months and would be able to come back and renew his or her job on an annual basis. It would be like a driver's license but annually renewable.

A SAFE visa holder could remain in the program as long as they continue to meet the qualifications. The visa would be terminated if the worker is unemployed for 60 or more consecutive days. The SAFE visa worker would not be eligible for Social Security Programs such as welfare or unemployment compensation. They would be able to take what is deducted from their paychecks for Social Security home with them when they retire from the SAFE visa program.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Bond.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4101.

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

I yield 5 minutes to the cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Bond.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, I have 5 minutes remaining on my time which I wish to reserve for any rebuttal, and then I will be finished.

No. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time until the Senator is finished with the rebuttal so I can close on my amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate that very much. I will yield to the Senator from Missouri to use the 5 minutes from the Senator from Massachusetts, and then I will wait if the Senator wishes to continue any kind of rebuttal, and then I will reserve my time until he is finished so I can close on my amendment.

Mr. President, let me just clarify that the remaining amount of Senator Kennedy's time would go to Senator Sessions for questions, and then I would have 5 minutes after that to close; is that correct?

Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Alabama, and then I will use the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, that is what is missing from this bill. Many countries have temporary worker programs with other countries that have worked very well. Many other countries even come across the ocean for temporary work. In many places you have temporary workers who go back and forth across international boundaries every day to work. In some countries it is considered that those workers are an underclass. I disagree with that. Having the ability to go back and forth, a circularity, is healthy. We want commerce with Mexico and Central and South America. We want to have the ability for people to work 3 months and go home for 2 weeks and then come back and work 3 months, whatever the employer and employee can work out, as long as it is basically 10 months here and 2 months at home. You can have exactly what Senator Bond just said. You can have the money going into the country of origin which Mexico wants. They want the ability for their people to work in the United States. But I don't think Mexico wants their good people to leave and become citizens of our country. Some will want to. That is available to them. But not every one of them wants to. And why should we force that, or why should we encourage it? If they want to go into the citizenship route, that is available.

In fact, one of the arguments that was made by the Senator from Massachusetts is, are we going to create a permanent underclass of citizens? As long as you have the citizenship route, there is no underclass because the people who abide by the laws and decide to learn English and to do the things required for citizenship can get into the citizenship track. There are many people who might not want to do that, who would like to work but take their money home, maybe have their nest egg with them when they retire to start a business at home or to pass on to their children.

We should have more options. That is what this amendment does. We should have a guest worker program in this bill that creates another option that is not now in the underlying bill.

Absolutely. If they decided to go into the SAFE visa program, they would make the decision they are not going on the citizenship track, but if they change their mind, they can withdraw from the SAFE visa program, take the Social Security that has been deducted from their salaries home with them, go back to their home country and get in line for the citizenship track.

It is so important that we have the different options. It is important that we give the opportunity to people not to disrupt their families, to be able to go back and forth, if that is the option they would choose. Maybe they want to contribute in their home country, and they want to remain citizens. As long as you have the citizenship route for people who want the rigorous test of citizenship that goes with our country, then you should have two options on the table and people can choose. This is a country of entrepreneurs who want to have options, and we need programs that work.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for letting us have the colloquy. It is so important that we recognize that we are in a system that does not work right now. We have 11 million people living under the radar screen. That is not good for them, and it is not good for our country. Since we had 9/11 and the wake-up call, we now know that we must secure our borders first. We must also not ignore the invaluable contributions made by immigrants. We are a country of immigrants, of course. Many of us in this body had parents or grandparents who were immigrants, who were the first to come to this country. They have known hardship. They have assimilated. That is a good thing.

Why not have another option for people who would not want to go the citizenship route but who could work. Some of these temporary worker permits in the underlying bill are limited to 3 years or 6 years. The SAFE visa is not limited at all. As long as the person still qualifies and there is a willing employer, the employer can train someone and know that they will come every year and be able to keep that training. It is a 10-month program, but any employer can figure out that they

would hire one group of workers in January and another in March, so they would have a full year employment if they don't have a seasonal business and the jobs they need to fill are not filled by Americans, which is also part of the amendment. But you could have people in this program for 10 years. They could then take their nest egg back home with them. They would be trained workers for the employer. So it is a win for everyone.

If we are going to have a system that works, with secure borders, with a guest worker program that allows people to work and not seek citizenship, not be able to go into the social programs of our country, but people who will be well paid, well treated, and be able to build their nest egg with their Social Security deductions, we should offer that kind of opportunity side by side with the opportunity for citizenship which is a longer track. That is a system that can work for the long term.

We cannot make the mistake of 1986, when we passed an amnesty bill and said: This is the last one. In 1986 we didn't provide a guest worker program going forward that worked. As a result, we have millions of people under the radar screen not having the protections of the American system. That is not good. It is not good for them, and it is not good for us.

It furthermore sends a signal that if you come here illegally, you will be able to eventually become legal through amnesty. That is not an ordered system. An ordered system would be one in which we secure our borders, we have temporary worker programs that work, some with the citizenship track, some without, and then you deal with the people who are here illegally one time. You do it in a rational and responsible way, but you know you have a system in place that is going to work for the future.

I don't expect to carry this amendment. I do expect that the airing of this view should have an impact on the conference committee that will meet to create a bill that I hope all of us will be proud to support. It will not be the bill that is going to leave the Senate floor this week. This is not the bill that will provide a long term solution. It is not the bill that is going to assure that we have economic viability in our country as well as safety and security and protection for American workers. We can get a good bill, but that bill will have to come out of conference. I hope that the Senate speaks with a strong voice that this should be part of the solution, that we should have an option for people who could get into the system within a year, who would have a tamper-proof visa, that they would be safe and the employer hiring them would be safe to trust, and that they would be able to make a living wage and go home and keep the citizenship of their country of origin, if they choose to do that.

This is an option we should have. I hope we have a strong vote in the Senate so that this will become part of the solution to this issue that we must reach to get control of our borders and create a strong economy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for my amendment from the American Farm Bureau be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this amendment is a pilot program which is based on the Canadian guest worker program with Mexico. It has worked successfully for over 30 years. It would provide a safe, tamper- proof visa for people coming into this country to take jobs that Americans are not filling. The guest worker would retain citizenship in his or her own country. It doesn't replace anything in the bill. It is in addition to what is in the bill.

The American Farm Bureau supports this.

I hope that we will get a good, solid vote. This is something that could be part of an overall balanced solution to the problem we are facing. It is another option for people who want to work but do not seek citizenship in our country.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It could be part of the final solution to a good bill that we would all like to support.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Improving Financial Literacy in the United States.''

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at 10 a.m. on price gouging.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 23 at 10 a.m.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the National Research Council Report, ``Managing Construction and Infrastructure in the 21st Century Bureau of Reclamation'' and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Report, ``Managing for Excellence: An Action Plan for the 21st Century.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a Business Meeting on May 23, 2006 at 9:30 am to consider the following agenda:

S. 2735 To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to reauthorize the national dam safety program, and for other purposes.

S. 2832 The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2006.

S. 2430 Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2006 with amendment.

S. 1509 Captive Primate Safety Act.

S. 2041 Ed Fountain Park Expansion Act.

S. 2127 To redesignate the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge in the state of Virginia as the ``Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge''.

S. Res. 301 Commemorating Audubon Society's 100th Anniversary with amendment.

S. 2781 Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2006.

S. 2650 To designate the Federal courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South Carolina, as the ``Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. Federal Courthouse.''

S. 801 To designate the United States courthouse located at 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida, as the ``John Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse.''

S.__ Great Lakes Coordination and Oversight Act of 2006.

S. 2023 To amend the oil pollution act of 1990 to improve that act, and for other purposes.

GSA Resolutions: To authorize the majority of the General Services Administration's FY 2007 Capital Investment and Leasing Program; To authorize seven new courthouse construction projects.

Army Corps Study Resolutions: Committee Resolution on Cedar River, Time Check Area, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Committee Resolution on Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay, and Watch Hill Cove, Rhode Island and Connecticut; Committee Resolution on Kansas River Basin, Kansas, Colorado, and Nebraska; and Committee Resolution on Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California.

Nominations: Molly O'Neill to be an Assistant Administrator--EPA; Dr. Dale Klein to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Dr. Gregory Jaczko to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and Dr. Peter Lyons to-be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Encouraging Economic Self- Determination in Indian Country''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed mark-up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Perspectives on Patents: Post-Grant Review Procedures and Other Litigation Reforms'' on Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at 2 p.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List: Panel I: Andrew Cadel, Managing Director, Associate General Counsel and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, JP Morgan Chase, New York, NY; Philip S. Johnson, Chief Patent Counsel, Johnson & Johnson, Newbrunswick, NJ; Nathan P. Myhrvold, Chief Executive Officer, Intellectual Ventures, Bellevue, WA; John R. Thomas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; and Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA.

Mr. President, today we mourn the loss of a great Texan and a true American hero. Lloyd Bentsen passed away this morning, and I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a great statesman.

Senator Bentsen served this Nation in numerous capacities. Everyone in Texas knew who Lloyd Bentsen was during all of the time that I was in my early years of public service. Many in this body also served with him and knew him well. He put his stamp on Texas, and he put his stamp on our country.

Lloyd Bentsen was born in Mission, TX, in 1921, in the southernmost part of our State. He attended public schools and graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1942. Upon graduation, he served in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. He flew more than 200 bombing missions to liberate Europe from the Nazi grasp. For his heroic service, he was awarded the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters, as well as the Distinguished Flying Cross for valor in combat. He retired with the rank of colonel from the Air Force Reserve.

After the war, Lloyd Bentsen returned home to his native Rio Grande Valley. There he began his career as a public servant. As everyone who worked with him will attest, Lloyd Bentsen was a natural. His first office was county judge of Hidalgo County. He was then elected to represent Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1948, serving 6 years before leaving Congress to go into business. He moved to Houston and started a business that was very successful, and after some number of years in business, he decided he wanted to do what he liked doing best, and that was to have an office and serve the public. He was elected to the Senate in 1970.

I have to say that is when I really got to know Lloyd Bentsen a little bit because I was a cub news reporter at KPRC-TV in Houston, and I covered that race. It was the battle of the titans. This was a race between George H.W. Bush and Lloyd Bentsen for the U.S. Senate seat in 1970. I remember me and all the reporters saying at the time that this is what a Senate race should be. These are two high-quality individuals. They are the kind of people you would want in public service, and certainly the kind of people you would want elected to public office. Lloyd Bentsen won that race for the Senate. But George H.W. Bush also had an illustrious career to follow.

Lloyd Bentsen stayed in the Senate and became a leader. He was here for 22 years. Everyone in Texas knew him, but he was also a national figure. Lloyd Bentsen ran for President in 1976. He was the Democratic candidate for Vice President in 1988. His illustrious public career concluded with his service to our Nation as Secretary of the Treasury. He served under President Clinton from 1993 to 1994. It was then that I was able to run for and win the seat that he had held.

I have to say that when I was covering that Senate race in 1970, it would never have occurred to me that I would succeed the man who won that seat. I do remember that he came to my swearing in ceremony, which I thought was very gracious of him, and I thought it was so nice of him to wish me well. He wanted also to make sure I felt comfortable here, which, of course, I did. I have gotten to know Lloyd and B.A. Bentsen, his beautiful wife, who has been by his side all of these years--in the good days of public service when he was one of our country's great leaders, and during the time that he was so ill for so long. I saw B.A. at his side every time I saw Senator Bentsen, either in Houston or Austin or someplace in Texas.

He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on August 11, 1999. Later today, I will introduce a joint resolution with Senator Cornyn honoring the life and legacy of Lloyd Bentsen.

When people think of Lloyd Bentsen, if you talk to anybody on this floor who served with him, or if you talk to anybody in Texas who was one of his friends, or someone he knew, they always describe him as a gentleman, a person of the highest quality, exactly the kind of person you want in public service--someone with integrity, always there doing the right thing as he saw it, and always spending the time to do a great job for our country.

Our thoughts and prayers go out today to B.A. Bentsen and to Lloyd Bentsen III and Lan Bentsen, the two sons of this great American. We will introduce a resolution later today to pay tribute to him. I want his family to know that our thoughts and prayers in this Senate are with him and with them today.

Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished manager if I, along with Senator Cornyn, could be added as cosponsors to Senator Leahy's amendment since it applies to both the northern and southern borders?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important legislation. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for bringing us this bill. It was hard-fought. Tax cuts always are. There are always those who will say: Oh, this only helps the rich. There are always those who will say: This is going to increase the deficit. Let's talk about what this bill in fact does.

This is a bill which will continue the tax cuts we passed in 2001 and 2003, the tax cuts that have spurred the growth in our economy, that have created jobs, the tax cuts that caused the stock market to immediately turn from being stagnant or worse to being on the brink of record highs for the history of the stock market. If we don't pass the extensions that are in the bill before us today, it would be like telling Wall Street and telling the investors: We are going to increase your taxes; we are reserving that right. That would immediately put a freeze on this economy, and it would stop the incredible prosperity we are seeing in our economy today.

We can look at what has happened to our economy since September 11, 2001, when our tourism industry was severely impacted and our entire airline

industry was shut down. Commerce was affected. We had a huge hit to our economy in 2001. Then we have had the war on terror, trying to keep terrorists who attacked our country in 2001 from being able to come back and hurt Americans again, and that has caused us to have to spend billions of dollars more. Then we were hit with Katrina, the worst hurricane in dollar damage in the history of our country, and Rita following that. We have had huge hits on our economy. Now we have gasoline prices and energy prices that are going through the roof. But our economy is strong. Our economy is strong for several reasons, one of which is that we have kept taxes low, particularly on dividends and capital gains.

So when someone says these are tax cuts for the rich, the fact is these are tax cuts for small business. These are tax cuts which have allowed them to start hiring people again and have spurred our economy to new highs. With this bill, we will prevent the egregious reach of the alternative minimum tax on our middle class by extending the higher exemption levels we approved last year. We also make an incredible investment incentive for the younger people in our country with the ability to convert Traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs.

If I were only 35 years old, I would be so excited because I would know that under the provisions of this bill I could provide for my own retirement security through the use of the Roth IRA. The Roth IRA has been limited in use with a salary cap of $100,000 for conversions. If you make more than that, you can not convert from a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, which allows you to put money in and then earn interest tax free until your retirement, and you can take it out tax free. That is a nest egg which could make every American self-sufficient because you can just put in the $3,000 or $4,000 every year, and once it is in there it is tax free, expanding its scope, interest rates going back into the pot, and then you can take it out without paying taxes. The traditional IRAs are not that way; you do have to pay taxes. This bill allows people who have started a Traditional IRA to convert it to a Roth IRA without income limitations. That is going to help the young people of our country because any of them, if they are working or if they are married, will be able to do this.

Tax cuts have created 5 million new jobs since they were last passed in 2003.

Mr. President, I hope we will pass this bill. It is a good bill for our country, a good bill for our economy, and it is going to put money in the pockets of the people who are earning it instead of sending it to the Federal Government.

Mr. President, a lot has been said about the Texas model, which is the bill that we are considering today. I wanted to talk a little bit about what the Texas situation was before 2003 when significant medical malpractice reform was enacted.

According to the Texas Department of Health, 24 counties in Texas had no primary care physicians, 138 counties had no pediatricians, and 158 counties had no obstetricians. Texas ranked 48th of the 50 States in physician manpower. Why were we having such trouble? Because the cost of doing business in Texas before 2003 was unsustainable due to increased litigious activity. Insurance rates were driving our doctors out of Texas, or they were going out of business and not even practicing medicine anymore.

In 1991, Texas averaged 13 claims per 100 physicians. Yet by 2000, Texas averaged over 30 claims per 100 physicians. Of these claims, there was a disproportionate growth in noneconomic damages, damages such as pain and suffering, loss of consortium. This growth was in contrast to awards of economic damages such as lost wages and medical care costs. In 1991, noneconomic damages averaged only 35 percent of total verdicts. By 1995, they were 65 percent of total verdicts.

From 1999 to 2003, the Texas Medical Liability Trust, which covered about one-third of the State's doctors, increased rates by 147 percent. In the Rio Grande Valley, physicians in general surgery and OB/GYNs ranked sixth and seventh, respectively, in the Nation for highest premium rates in 2002. Naturally, all of these costs were passed on to consumers. The impact on litigation in the Texas health care system was undeniable and unsustainable.

In 2003, Texas made bold changes to the tort system in an attempt to restore access to health care, and we have seen a dramatic change. Texas has gained more than 3,000 physicians since passing liability reform. After a net loss of nine orthopedic surgeons in our State from 2000 to 2003, the State has experienced a net gain of 93 orthopedic surgeons since 2003. After a net loss of 14 OB/GYNs from 2001 to 2003, Texas has had a net gain of 91 since 2003.

We have also added 273 anesthesiologists, 24 neurosurgeons, 24 pediatric cardiologists, 14 pediatric oncologists, and 10 pediatric surgeons since passing liability reform.

Claims in most Texas counties have been cut in half. Prior to the reforms, statewide claims averaged close to 400 per month. After the reforms, claims have averaged 200 per month in our State.

Prior to reform, Texas had five liability carriers. Since reform, Texas has added 3 new rate-regulated carriers and 13 new unregulated insurers. The five largest insurers announced rate cuts last year, with an average premium reduction of 11.7 percent.

Anecdotally, I have talked to doctors who are coming back into practice, doctors who have said they have seen as much as 40 percent cuts in premiums for medical liability.

Medical liability reform works. Lawsuits are down, insurers have returned to the State, rates are down, and physician numbers are up. This means better health care for the citizens of our State.

The bills before us that we will be voting on today are modeled on the Texas plan. Damages for pain and suffering are allowed, but not at such exorbitant rates that doctors are taken out of our health care system. Since 2003, Texas has seen an increase in the quality of health care for our citizens because more physicians are coming back to the State.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Year after year, we have tried to reform medical malpractice in this country, and the Senate has been the stumbling block. Let's do something good for health care and access to health care for our citizens, and let's start debating malpractice reform.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I, too, concur with this assumption with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Domenici. I appreciate their support and work on this important provision.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak for 5 minutes on the amendment.

If the 3\1/2\ minutes is not taken on our side, I will ask unanimous consent for that time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator Gregg's amendment. I appreciate the job Senator Gregg has done in his position as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which has done so much to try to beef up our borders. Senator Gregg has been a leading proponent of strengthening control of our borders with Mexico and Canada.

I think this amendment is a very positive and productive one, adding $1.9 billion to homeland security and trying to do the things that would make access through our borders more secure. The US-VISIT Program, which sometimes stifles legitimate commerce on our borders will be provided $60 million. This will be used to integrate the biometric databases so they will work better and we will know who is in our country and to allow people who are legitimately in our country to be able to go back and forth. It adds funds for Customs and border protection. It adds money for construction of new stations, checkpoints and tactical infrastructure, Immigration and Customs enforcement.

I think this is an issue everyone in America is absolutely behind. We want to have control of our borders. I have had meetings with Hispanic- American leaders, and I have had meetings with small business people who are on the border, as well as throughout our country. Everyone believes that as a sovereign Nation and for the security of our country, we need to control our borders. We had 160,000 other-than- Mexican illegal aliens entering our country from all over the world last year through the Mexican border. This is unacceptable for a sovereign country not to know who is in our country, particularly when al-Qaida puts out the word that if you want to penetrate America, go through the southern border.

It is not good for Mexico. Mexico knows there are people coming through their southern border, all the way through Mexico, sometimes as a criminal element, and they are doing so to get to the United States.

So it is very important that we pass the Gregg amendment. What is different about the Gregg amendment from the Reid amendment is that it is offset, it is an agreed-to offset, with a reduction in spending in other parts of the bill, in order to pay for this effort to secure our borders, and strengthen our national security.

I think it is so important that we are focusing on the Coast Guard to upgrade their patrol aircraft, their ships, and their patrol boats. The whole Gulf of Mexico is a very vulnerable area, and we need to secure the coast, as well as the land border areas.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the fully offset Gregg amendment that will beef up our border security at a time when we all know this is a first priority.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the Akaka amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, the amendment is on behalf of myself and Senator Burns. This second-degree amendment basically says that the funds available in the Akaka amendment would only be expended if the President requests of Congress such an emergency expenditure.

I certainly understand that the veterans need to have all of the money that would cover their legitimate health care costs. That is exactly what we have done in the underlying appropriations bills from last year and this year. In fact, the Veterans' Administration, after we put $1.5 billion in emergency spending in the health care account last year, is 4.3 percent below last year's spending level. That is because they now have better modeling for what is forecast to be needed in the medical care-medical service area.

In the mental health area that is covered by the Akaka amendment, there is already $2.8 billion from the 2006 budget which is $386 million over the 2005 level. The 2006 medical care account has $31 billion, and that is $1.1 billion over the 2005 level. We have also added supplemental expenditures over the 2006 budget.

I think the prudent thing for us to do is to allow this money to be made available only if the President and the Veterans' Administration request it, and that is exactly what my amendment does.

I ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. President, let me answer the Senator from Hawaii by saying I commend the President and Secretary Nicholson for coming forward after the letter that had been written during our regular appropriations process and saying they did need extra money. And, Congress stepped right up to the plate. We worked together with the Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from Washington, and my colleague Senator Feinstein to provide that money. We always will do that. We will never skimp on veterans' care and, in fact, it is now acknowledged that it is the best health care system in America.

This money Senator Akaka has proposed will be available, if needed, if the President asks for it. It will certainly be there. I ask for the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate in the Senate. Senator Cornyn is going to respond in a little more detail. Honestly, it is very important we address the energy issue in a way that suggests what we can do. The people of America are not interested in Democratic charges against Republicans and Republican charges against Democrats. They want more resources so the price of gasoline at the pump will come down.

In my hometown of Dallas, there are shortages now in addition to the high prices. We need to do some things that diversify our resources so we depend on our own resources for oil and natural gas. That means drilling for oil in our country and trying to make sure we have conservation and alternative sources of energy, which is exactly what Congress has been trying to do. We have been held up in doing it.

I appreciate very much this opportunity. I am very pleased to work with my colleague, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to talk about Gray Miller. Senator Cornyn and I are dividing this time because we are both responsible for nominating this incredible person to serve on the Federal district bench from the southern district of Texas in his hometown of Houston.

Senator Cornyn and I have a process. We have a committee made up of Republicans and Democrats, geographically diverse, lawyers respected in their fields, who interview all of the nominees for Federal benches. There were quite a few nominees, probably 15 to 20, for this particular bench. They rank them. Senator Cornyn and I then talked to the top 3 or 4 nominees. It has been a great system. We have gotten extremely qualified judges on the

district benches in Texas doing it this way.

I appreciate the input of Senator Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee, because he has been attorney general of Texas. His input is very valuable and our system has produced a quality judge in Gray Miller.

Gray Miller is a senior partner at Fulbright & Jaworski. Gray has headed the firm's admiralty department, starting in 1997. In fact, he is widely considered one of the leading maritime lawyers in the world and was included in Euro's Money Guide to the world's leading maritime lawyers. Included in his many professional honors are accolades as a Texas superlawyer by Texas Monthly Magazine and recognition as one of the best lawyers in America.

Gray Miller is one of the most honorable, hard-working Americans I have ever known. From 1969 to 1978 Gray worked his way through undergraduate and law school as a Houston police officer. He and his wife raised their two children during this time. While he has obtained exceptional skills and qualifications as a lawyer and with the admiralty specialty, which is a big part of the practice in Houston, his experience of serving as a Houston police officer brings a unique perspective to the Federal bench.

He was appointed by the Governor of Texas to serve on the board of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Retardation. He is a lifetime member of the 100 Club of Houston, an organization that assists the families of police officers and firefighters who are killed or injured in the line of duty.

I am honored to recommend Gray Miller. He meets the high standards to which we hold all judicial nominees. He has an impressive record of service. He has great judicial temperament. He shoots straight. He has an experience that is so diverse, from being an on-the-ground police officer who is dealing with the criminal aspect in our society--we do not have enough people with that background on the Federal bench--to admiralty, which is an intellectual contract, and international law, part of the responsibility in the southern district of Texas.

With this array of experience and the integrity he holds, we have an outstanding nominee. I urge all of my colleagues to support the nomination of Gray Miller.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to comment on what has happened over the last 2 weeks on a very important bill--maybe the most important bill for the future of our country that we will take up this year, and that is immigration reform.

I was very disappointed that we were not able to have a vehicle on which we can have amendments in the normal course of action that we have on the floor of the Senate. I cannot think of a more complicated, comprehensive issue that we could amend and make a better bill that would have the support of the vast majority of the Senate. Yet we have spent 2 weeks and were only able to have three amendments.

There are many differing views on what to do with the 12 million illegal immigrants that are in our country. But I think there is a consensus that we need better control of our borders, that we need security measures to know who is in our country, and that we need a guest worker permit program that would allow people to come into our country legally to work and earn a living for their families, contribute to the economy of the United States, and perhaps become citizens, if they decide to, or not become citizens if they wish to remain citizens of their home country.

However, the issue of what to do with the 12 million people was not able to be discussed, debated, or refined on the Senate floor. I think that is a mistake, and I think we have missed a very important opportunity. The negotiations got down to allowing 20 amendments--20 amendments--on one of the most complicated bills that we will take up this year. We take up appropriations bills that have 70 amendments. We take up authorization bills that have 40 amendments. The negotiation was down to allowing 20 amendments, and we were not able to get the consent of the minority to take up 20 amendments to try to refine a bill that would allow the Senate to speak with an overwhelming majority, or at least to have all the voices heard so that we could start beginning to craft a bill that would help with an issue in our country of security and economics.

Mr. President, I am very disappointed. I think we have missed an opportunity. I hope very much that, as we go home for a 2-week break, we will think about how we can come together, come back here and not give up on having an immigration reform bill that secures our borders, that creates a guest worker program that will be productive for the participants and for the economy of our country, that will not displace American jobs but will welcome the immigrants who seek to come here, as we have done for over 200 years in our country on a regularized basis.

I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I know he is going on to very important work. I hope that we can address this issue when we return, and I hope the minority will work with the majority not to block future amendments that would make this a better bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there have been times that we, as a nation, have become so accustomed to successful space shuttle launches that we barely heard about them on the evening news. One hundred and fourteen successful missions have provided a wealth of information and research results that are seen and felt in our everyday lives. Yet few of us could identify these as having resulted from Space Shuttle research.

Today, the Space Shuttle is viewed by many as an over-aged relic of the past and the vehicle whose two failures in the past 24 years of its service cost the lives of 14 brave astronauts. As tragic and unforgettable as the Challenger and Columbia accidents were, we must honor the memory of their crews by honoring the task for which they gave their lives. I am proud that our Nation has chosen to learn everything possible from those tragic losses to minimize the risks that will always be present in human space flight and to move forward to keep the dream of spaceflight alive.

It is appropriate today, as we consider House Concurrent Resolution 366, to reach back to the very beginning of space shuttle nights to the day, 25 years ago next week--April 12, 1981, at 7 a.m. eastern time. On that morning, the space shuttle Columbia lifted off on her maiden voyage, carrying two brave and intrepid explorers, Commander John Young and Pilot Robert Crippen. They orbited the Earth 36 times in two days, six hours and twenty minutes, landing in California at Edwards Air Force Base on April 14, 1981, at 1:20 p.m. eastern time. This first mission of a reusable spacecraft marked the beginning of a new era in human spaceflight.

This era also provided the Nation and the world with new and incredible views of our Earth as seen from orbit. It also provided a continuous stream of important microgravity research that has found its way into medical devices, treatment procedures, computer enhancements, communications technologies, and a host of other practical applications that generally go unnoticed. The Great Telescopes, such as Hubble, Chandra and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, were all made possible by the Space Shuttle. In the case of the Hubble, its inestimable value as a research tool was both rescued by the Space Shuttle and extended by servicing missions not possible without the Space Shuttle.

In the next several years, as the Space Shuttle completes the mission for which it was designed--completing the assembly and outfitting of the International Space Station--we will move into a new era of human spaceflight. We will experience new firsts and enter new names into the history books of those who accomplish the important milestones along our way to the Moon, Mars and beyond.

None of that would be possible, however, without the service of those who have gone before, and especially those two heroes we honor and recognize today. These two men took a vehicle never flown before on a journey of over a million miles. By any standard, that is an impressive first step.