Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to introduce a simple, but I think an important piece of legislation which, if enacted, will affect just two positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Under Secretary for Health and the Under Secretary for Benefits. My bill would abolish the 4-

year term limit on service in each position and remove the requirement that a search commission be assembled to identify candidates for either of the positions if a vacancy in the position occurs.

As some of my colleagues may know, VA has thirteen positions in its central office for which Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation are required. There are seven Assistant Secretaries, a General Counsel, three Under Secretaries, a Deputy Secretary, and, of course, a full Cabinet level Secretary. Only the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits are given statutory terms of office. All of the other positions, two of which are superior offices and one of which is a fellow Under Secretary, serve at the pleasure of the President.

In addition, under current law, if a vacancy occurs in either one of the two offices I have just mentioned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must establish a commission made up of various interested individuals to recommend not less than three persons to the President for the job. If the President does not care for the list of persons provided by the commission, the President may request that the commission recommend additional individuals from which he can choose a nominee.

I believe the two changes I am proposing are warranted and deserve my colleagues' support for a number of reasons. First, and most important to me, is that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to nominate and with advice and consent of the Senate, appoint Officers of the United States. There is no requirement that any of the candidates be identified, vetted, or recommended by an extra- constitutional commission. In fact, recommendation and vetting is the power granted to the United States Senate through our advice and consent role.

I find it interesting that the President today can choose a nominee for Chief Justice of the United States, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the Court of St. James and other incredibly important high offices of this government without a statutorily required search commission. Yet these two Under Secretaries at VA must go through this vetting process before even being identified to the President for his consideration of a nomination.

I believe that it is our responsibility as elected representatives of the people to determine who is suitable for an appointment to a high office of public trust. The people, rightfully, hold us accountable for the performance of appointed officials. They do not hold commissions accountable. Certainly, the President and Senators are free to seek out the views of any number of interested parties before deciding whom to nominate or whether to vote to confirm that person. But those outside consultations should be encouraged and welcomed, not obliged by law.

The second reason I believe my colleagues should support this bill is that the language of the statute with respect to the commission and the term limits is at best unclear and at worst confusing.

The law requires the Secretary to establish a commission to identify potential nominees when ``a vacancy in the position occurs or is anticipated''. The law also allows the President to reappoint the current office occupant for like periods. This raises the vexing question of whether there is an anticipated vacancy, requiring the appointment of the search commission to identify potential nominees, just because a term is expiring. If the answer is yes, then I ask if that answer is different if the President intends to nominate the current office occupant for an additional term?

Clearly, it seems absurd to me to require a search commission to identify a suitable candidate for nomination if the President has already identified the current office occupant as his chosen nominee. Still, more confusing is what occurs if the President nominates the current office holder prior to the expiration of his or her term but then the term expires before the Senate has had the opportunity to act on the nomination. This scenario is actually not an absurd legal ``what if'' but an actual current problem.

Just a few weeks ago, the President nominated Daniel Cooper to serve a 4-year term as Under Secretary for Benefits. Mr. Cooper was already the Under Secretary at the time of his nomination. Thus, there was no vacancy in the office and none was anticipated since he was being offered as his own replacement. So, no search commission is required under law.

Yet, now Mr. Cooper's term has expired and the Senate has yet to act on his nomination. So, technically, there is now a vacancy requiring a search commission to identify a nominee. But, as I have just explained, the President has already nominated someone. So, with the concurrence of my ranking member, Senator Akaka, I advised the White House that there was no need for a search commission. But, the fact that the conversation had to occur shows the need for a change in this law. Of course, my preferred course would be to just eliminate the law as I am now proposing.

Mr. Cooper's nomination has actually brought to light another reason that I believe we should eliminate the term limits on the positions. That is that the term adds a huge political element to the process of attempting to keep on a successful officeholder as in the case of Mr. Cooper. While not revealing any confidences or singling out individual Senators, I do not think my colleagues would be surprised to hear that since being nominated for an additional term Mr. Cooper has been subject to some political bargaining by Senators who seek to have him take some actions in his official capacity before they will vote to keep him on in his job. I understand that happens often around here. And I don't begrudge it in general. But, I think the opportunities for such actions should be minimized to the extent possible, especially when there is no question as to the nominee's qualifications or successful performance in office. If he or she is doing well, then, under my bill, the President would presumably retain his or her services. If not, then he or she should be removed, immediately. Not at the end of a term.

That brings me to my final reason for this legislation. I simply believe that senior governmental officials should serve in those positions only so long as they hold the confidence of the President of the United States. If the President loses confidence in any of his senior leadership, he or she should remove those individuals from those posts.

I understand that there are those who believe that this action would make the positions inherently political. I offer two thoughts to those who hold this belief. First, in 1988, when VA was elevated to cabinet level status through Public Law 100-527, the law required that the President appoint individuals to these two offices ``without regard to political affiliation or activity and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability.'' I am not proposing to change any of those requirements. Even if I was proposing such a change, certainly the Senate could impose such a condition prior to any confirmation.

Second, I firmly believe that some political responsibility also leads to greater performance by officeholders and accountability to Congressional oversight. I think you all know that improved performance and bureaucratic accountability at VA are annual demands of our Veterans service organizations. I believe this change will move us one step closer to addressing their concerns.

Mr. President, as I said at the outset of my statement, this is a simple bill. But, just like the old saying that if you watch the pennies the dollars will take care of themselves, I believe that if we make the simple, but necessary improvements to VA's operations and management structure, the entire system will improve on its own. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as one step towards overall improvement.

Mr. President, today I wish to introduce a simple, but I think an important piece of legislation which, if enacted, will affect just two positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Under Secretary for Health and the Under Secretary for Benefits. My bill would abolish the 4-

year term limit on service in each position and remove the requirement that a search commission be assembled to identify candidates for either of the positions if a vacancy in the position occurs.

As some of my colleagues may know, VA has thirteen positions in its central office for which Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation are required. There are seven Assistant Secretaries, a General Counsel, three Under Secretaries, a Deputy Secretary, and, of course, a full Cabinet level Secretary. Only the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits are given statutory terms of office. All of the other positions, two of which are superior offices and one of which is a fellow Under Secretary, serve at the pleasure of the President.

In addition, under current law, if a vacancy occurs in either one of the two offices I have just mentioned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must establish a commission made up of various interested individuals to recommend not less than three persons to the President for the job. If the President does not care for the list of persons provided by the commission, the President may request that the commission recommend additional individuals from which he can choose a nominee.

I believe the two changes I am proposing are warranted and deserve my colleagues' support for a number of reasons. First, and most important to me, is that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to nominate and with advice and consent of the Senate, appoint Officers of the United States. There is no requirement that any of the candidates be identified, vetted, or recommended by an extra- constitutional commission. In fact, recommendation and vetting is the power granted to the United States Senate through our advice and consent role.

I find it interesting that the President today can choose a nominee for Chief Justice of the United States, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the Court of St. James and other incredibly important high offices of this government without a statutorily required search commission. Yet these two Under Secretaries at VA must go through this vetting process before even being identified to the President for his consideration of a nomination.

I believe that it is our responsibility as elected representatives of the people to determine who is suitable for an appointment to a high office of public trust. The people, rightfully, hold us accountable for the performance of appointed officials. They do not hold commissions accountable. Certainly, the President and Senators are free to seek out the views of any number of interested parties before deciding whom to nominate or whether to vote to confirm that person. But those outside consultations should be encouraged and welcomed, not obliged by law.

The second reason I believe my colleagues should support this bill is that the language of the statute with respect to the commission and the term limits is at best unclear and at worst confusing.

The law requires the Secretary to establish a commission to identify potential nominees when ``a vacancy in the position occurs or is anticipated''. The law also allows the President to reappoint the current office occupant for like periods. This raises the vexing question of whether there is an anticipated vacancy, requiring the appointment of the search commission to identify potential nominees, just because a term is expiring. If the answer is yes, then I ask if that answer is different if the President intends to nominate the current office occupant for an additional term?

Clearly, it seems absurd to me to require a search commission to identify a suitable candidate for nomination if the President has already identified the current office occupant as his chosen nominee. Still, more confusing is what occurs if the President nominates the current office holder prior to the expiration of his or her term but then the term expires before the Senate has had the opportunity to act on the nomination. This scenario is actually not an absurd legal ``what if'' but an actual current problem.

Just a few weeks ago, the President nominated Daniel Cooper to serve a 4-year term as Under Secretary for Benefits. Mr. Cooper was already the Under Secretary at the time of his nomination. Thus, there was no vacancy in the office and none was anticipated since he was being offered as his own replacement. So, no search commission is required under law.

Yet, now Mr. Cooper's term has expired and the Senate has yet to act on his nomination. So, technically, there is now a vacancy requiring a search commission to identify a nominee. But, as I have just explained, the President has already nominated someone. So, with the concurrence of my ranking member, Senator Akaka, I advised the White House that there was no need for a search commission. But, the fact that the conversation had to occur shows the need for a change in this law. Of course, my preferred course would be to just eliminate the law as I am now proposing.

Mr. Cooper's nomination has actually brought to light another reason that I believe we should eliminate the term limits on the positions. That is that the term adds a huge political element to the process of attempting to keep on a successful officeholder as in the case of Mr. Cooper. While not revealing any confidences or singling out individual Senators, I do not think my colleagues would be surprised to hear that since being nominated for an additional term Mr. Cooper has been subject to some political bargaining by Senators who seek to have him take some actions in his official capacity before they will vote to keep him on in his job. I understand that happens often around here. And I don't begrudge it in general. But, I think the opportunities for such actions should be minimized to the extent possible, especially when there is no question as to the nominee's qualifications or successful performance in office. If he or she is doing well, then, under my bill, the President would presumably retain his or her services. If not, then he or she should be removed, immediately. Not at the end of a term.

That brings me to my final reason for this legislation. I simply believe that senior governmental officials should serve in those positions only so long as they hold the confidence of the President of the United States. If the President loses confidence in any of his senior leadership, he or she should remove those individuals from those posts.

I understand that there are those who believe that this action would make the positions inherently political. I offer two thoughts to those who hold this belief. First, in 1988, when VA was elevated to cabinet level status through Public Law 100-527, the law required that the President appoint individuals to these two offices ``without regard to political affiliation or activity and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability.'' I am not proposing to change any of those requirements. Even if I was proposing such a change, certainly the Senate could impose such a condition prior to any confirmation.

Second, I firmly believe that some political responsibility also leads to greater performance by officeholders and accountability to Congressional oversight. I think you all know that improved performance and bureaucratic accountability at VA are annual demands of our Veterans service organizations. I believe this change will move us one step closer to addressing their concerns.

Mr. President, as I said at the outset of my statement, this is a simple bill. But, just like the old saying that if you watch the pennies the dollars will take care of themselves, I believe that if we make the simple, but necessary improvements to VA's operations and management structure, the entire system will improve on its own. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as one step towards overall improvement.

Mr. President, it is an interesting time on the floor of the Senate. We just heard the most fascinating speech about fingerpointing I have heard in decades--fingerpointing from the other side that is trying to suggest they are blameless, absolutely without blame, because the Senate is stalled in its attempt to gain a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

This is one Republican Senator who, several years ago, stepped across the aisle and stood with Senator Ted Kennedy in a clear recognition that something had to be done to deal with illegal foreign nationals in our country in a just, reasonable, humane, and legal way.

To suggest that the Democratic caucus has not had conflict behind closed doors over the last week is, in fact, a false statement because today we see this veneered front. To suggest that they are without blame because the Senate for 1 week has stood still doing nothing because they would not allow amendments on the comprehensive bill? May I say shame on you? I am saying that because the veneer doesn't fit. It is paper thin like the front page of the legislation before us.

The Senate Judiciary Committee worked its will, and it brought forth a bill to this floor. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best they could do? Absolutely, yes. Did they work hard? You darn bet they did. Does it have all the components in it that we would want for tough border security and control to contain our borders, to secure them? It must have that, and it does have that. Because I don't care how good the legislation is that I think I have created with a coalition of over 500 groups of Hispanics and labor and agriculture over the last 5 years, as good as my legislation is, known as AgJOBS, it is not going to work if the border isn't secure. You have to stop the flow of illegals, and we do that. But we don't do it by pointing a finger at all of them and saying: You are all felons. We cause them to earn, in the course of years of hard work, the right to continue to work and, if they choose-- if they choose--to become an American citizen by another lengthy process. Is that unfair? Is that irresponsible? It is absolutely not. Was that created by Republicans? Yes, it was. By Democrats? Absolutely.

So let me suggest that when the assistant minority leader stands up and says: No, not me, not us, not ours, that simply is not true. Yes, the Republican side is conflicted. Yes, we have differences. Yes, there were amendments. But those amendments, as would be the normal process on the floor of the Senate after a bill came out of committee, have been denied by that paper-thin veneer you have just heard this morning from the other side.

Immigration has been and will always be a bipartisan issue. It must be. It should be. Is it to our advantage to make it partisan? Absolutely not. But some are now playing that game, and that in itself is most dangerous.

I will continue to work with all of my colleagues to resolve this issue. It is fundamentally important to America that we do.

Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, I said: America, turn and look at yourself in your mirror, and you will find a multiethnic, a multinational image. We as Americans are the phenomenal mosaic of the world, and we are because we have historically had an orderly, responsible immigration policy that didn't point fingers and didn't play partisan politics and worked its will. I must tell you there have been and there always will be those who got here yesterday who don't want those coming tomorrow. Yet America's great energy is simply that we continue to bring people from around the world who become Americans in search of the great American dream, who live under our constitutional structure, who embody it because of the new energy as a free citizen they employ. It is in itself the only Nation in the world that has been able to do that.

I say, when I am out in Idaho and around the country, is it possible for you to become Japanese if you are not born one? Absolutely not. Or to become an Italian if you are not born one? You

can't become that. But you can become an American. Why? Because this great country was never one nationality, never one religion; it was the place the world came to find freedom and to be able to use its individual energies underneath the framework of a constitutional system that established laws.

What are we attempting to do here today? We are attempting to clarify a law, to strengthen a law, to make sure that the wonderful process we have seen throughout our history continues to be orderly and just and responsible.

Who is to blame here? The U.S. Senate, the Congress of the United States, when, in 1986, they passed a law about immigration, but they didn't recognize in doing so that they were creating a natural magnet and they didn't control the border, dominantly to our south; and then again in 1996 we did the same thing and we didn't control the border. This great economic engine of ours became the magnet for the downtrodden to come to work, to earn a little money, to improve themselves. We took advantage of that, hopefully in a positive way, hopefully in a humane way--not always, but we did take advantage of it. Then, after 9/11, we awakened to this phenomenal reality that there were millions in our country who were illegal, and some of them were bad guys bent to do us harm. Now we are playing political games on the floor as to who is on first and who is on second on this issue. Shame on us. Because the veneer on the other side is just that: paper thin.

This has been and will remain a bipartisan issue, it is an American issue, and it is responsible for this Senate to deal with it. It is right and proper under our rules that if someone has an amendment in disagreement to what I have done--and now I see my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, who worked with me and introduced into the committee mark a very valuable component as it relates to American agriculture. We didn't play the partisan game. We came together because she has in her State and in the great San Joaquin Valley, which is, without dispute, the greatest agricultural valley in the world, a true need to stabilize and build a legal workforce; and in Idaho, at the peak of our labor season, I have anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000 illegals. She has more illegals in one county in California working than I have in my entire State. Still, Senator Feinstein and I understand one thing very appropriately: that what we do must be legal, that American agriculture cannot build its strength on an illegal foundation, and it knows it, too. That is why we have worked with them to solve this problem.

We think that within the committee bill, there is a solution. There are some on my side and on the other side who probably disagree with that, and there are amendments over here that would change what Senator Feinstein and I have proposed, and that is within the committee mark. I think I can defeat those amendments. I am certainly willing to debate them. It would be appropriate under the rules of the Senate that some of those amendments would be offered, but that has been denied. I am disappointed in that.

I hope that over the course of the next 2 weeks, calm heads will prevail. I hope the idea of finger-pointing goes away. We all have a responsibility here, not only to our home States but to our Nation, to develop a comprehensive immigration reform policy to secure our borders for the sake of our Nation's security. That is what this Senate has attempted to do, and that is what we are now being denied. I don't believe that is the appropriate position for any of us.

Immigration reform has been--let me repeat--and will always be and must be a comprehensive approach, a bipartisan issue where we work together to resolve what is in itself a major national issue of the day. Our citizens have asked that we do this. While they are divided by our effort in every way, we attempt to bring together that division in what we hope is a comprehensive, responsible, legal approach that first embodies national security and secondly, and as importantly, though, represents a balance for our economy, a reasonable and responsible approach toward humanity for those who come to work and for those who want to be citizens. In my opinion, that is a responsible position.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, would the chairman yield for a question?

Let me first thank the chairman for his due diligence. There is no question that he has focused on this for a good many months and has tried to work us through a process of time and issue. The Senator is so right in talking about all of the complications involved: the types of labor, qualifications, and all that is necessary to deal with this in a responsible way, and to contain our borders and to control them. And without that, no orderly process will ever happen effectively.

As the chairman knows, I have spent a good deal of time on this issue, somewhat focused on a segment of our economy in agriculture. To your knowledge, as it relates to the compromise you are talking about that may be struck and has taken form here in the last 24 hours, is the agricultural provisions that we--myself, working with a member of your committee, Senator Feinstein--worked to put in the bill that came out of committee, is that still the provision that is in place as we know it and as we would vote on it?

I thank the chairman for that response. Every employment sector is unique, and what we have found, and I think what the committee has found, is that agriculture, because of the type of labor involved, is kind of the entry door many of our migrant laborers come through, legal and illegal, and from that, if you will, learn and move to other segments of the economy.

So we tried to reflect that in the structure of the Feinstein amendment to the bill, recognizing that other portions of the bill would be different, and that the compromise that is being talked about, in my opinion, makes some sense as it relates to seniority and time and place to work in a fair and responsible way. At the same time, it makes sure that we don't effectively damage these segments of the economy Americans will not work in, choose not to work in, and that we find foreign nationals can and will and are very effective in their work there.

I thank the Senator very much.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn.

Madam President, I would like to take a minute only. I would like the record to reflect I am speaking as in morning business for that minute.

Mr. President, let me talk about the business at hand, and that is the most important debate that I think this Senate has held in a good many months, on S. 2454, the comprehensive national immigration bill. In this immigration reform discussion, I have stood here to emphasize our imperative duty to guard our borders and strengthen our national security. I have spoken about the provisions within S. 2454 that deal particularly with the agricultural economy that I have focused on now for a good many years. I presented my colleagues with alternatives and approaches toward resolving the issue of illegal foreign nationals working in the agricultural economy.

Today I want to talk about another component of the immigration debate. I am concerned about some of the comments being flung around as we address this critical issue. Certainly, this is a topic that awakens America's emotions, but I cannot help but reflect on what those comments reveal about us as a Nation. It is as though America doesn't want to face the mirror and look at herself. She doesn't want to see what she is and what that means. But for her own good, she has to. She must look in her mirror. She is a blend. She is a wonderful mosaic. She is English. She is German. She is Italian. She is Polish. She is Irish. She is Asian. She is African. And, yes, she is Hispanic. She is multiracial, multiethnic, and diverse in every aspect of her national life. That is why she is admirable. That is why she has prospered, and that is why she is strong.

What is true in science is true in sociology. Mixing results in achievement and strength--we ought to think about that. We ought to evaluate some of the conceptions we have regarding immigrants and measure them against the realities to see if they hold true.

Immigration is a phenomenal national challenge. It always has been. But immigration is a challenge, it is not a threat. Quite honestly, immigrants represent solutions to many of our Nation's problems, both currently and in the future.

(Mr. VITTER assumed the chair.)

Mr. President, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a shortfall of 10 million workers in this country by 2010. The reason is quite simple: Our workforce is growing older, and as it grows older, it shrinks.

That is true in Japan, a great Nation 30 years ago, 20 years ago, suggested to be the economic force of the world, and 12 years ago, it quit growing and began to die. Why? Because her workforce grew older.

On the other hand, immigrant labor is behind the significant economic growth this country has experienced in different areas in recent years. These are the economic necessities of today in a growing economy. Can we recognize this? Do we see that foreign nationals are cleaning up New Orleans and binding her wounds? Do we know that the Pentagon was rebuilt by Hispanic muscle?

Immigrants are sweating it out across our country. They consistently have done it literally for centuries. In my home State, Hispanics were digging the mines in the 1860s. Mexican cowboys and ranchers were solid members of the pioneer communities even before my State became a State. Hispanics were mule packers in the 1880s, the mule trains that moved across the great West. They and the Chinese were building and maintaining the railroad systems of the American West throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, they are harvesting apples in Washington, peaches in Georgia, and oranges in Florida. They are gathering grapes in California, slashing sugarcane in Louisiana, harvesting potatoes in Idaho, and picking corn in Iowa. Their footprints are in agricultural fields across America.

Immigrants are hard workers. They work hard because they are grateful people and feel a sense of debt for the opportunity this country has given them. Contrary to what some believe, immigrants who have entered legally and illegally are not here to siphon services but to produce and to contribute. They are working hard and, in most instances, giving back.

The Idaho commerce and labor department reports that between 1990 and 2005, Hispanic buying power in Idaho rose more than twice as fast as total buying power across our State. Nationwide, the purchasing power of Hispanics will reach $1 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--in 4 years. Beyond their role in sustaining the country's labor force, immigrants make a net fiscal contribution to the U.S. economy.

The President's 2005 Economic Report, which uses figures that are most authoritative in analyzing to date the economic impact of immigrants, says:

The average immigrant pays nearly $1,800 more in taxes than

he or she costs--

The economy. Undocumented immigrants are believed to contribute billions of dollars to our Social Security system, billions of dollars they will not benefit from.

According to the President's report, the administration's earnings suspense file--that is a file within Social Security made up of taxes paid by workers with invalid or mismatched Social Security numbers-- totaled $463 billion in 2002.

While other nations of the developed world are aging, America still sees a youthful face reflected in that mirror in which she looks. Immigration renews the United States, and it keeps us young, while countries such as Japan, as I mentioned earlier, and Russia and Spain are facing problems because their populations are decreasing. America has the necessary arms to support its pension and its social programs. Therefore, a comprehensive immigration reform is in America's best self-interest.

Yes, we must contain our borders. Yes, we must, in any immigration program, make sure that it is controlled and managed so that those who come to America can, in fact, become Americans.

Understanding these realities erases some of the misconceptions bouncing around this Chamber and bouncing around America, misconceptions that sometimes smack of prejudice. Previous immigration waves have experienced it to some extent, but I believe that we, as a nation, are greater than that. When every one of us, except Native Americans, belong to a family that came from somewhere else, we should be careful not to erect mental borders, the type that keep people who are different from us at arm's length.

We are a nation that encourages new thinking and benefits from the growth that results from that new thinking. The American poet, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said it best when he said:

A mind stretched by a new idea never returns to its

original shape.

It expands. It grows. It broadens. Immigration is a source of new ideas of entrepreneurship and vitality. The meeting of cultures simply does not happen in a one-way street but in a bridge, where both sides give and receive.

When America looks at herself in her mirror, what will she see? She will see the very multicultural character she has always been. She will see that characteristic is her greatest asset.

So the debate on the floor of the Senate today is worthy of this Senate. It is worthy of all of us to make sure that a program that is broken, a national immigration program that has not had a caretaker for over two decades, now be given that responsibility, to be redesigned, to be shaped, to be brought under control, that our borders be secure and that America's multinational or multiethnicity continue to grow and prosper and bring the kind of strength and viability to our culture that it has always given us.

America will be greater because of what we do here, if we do it right; it will not be lessened by our actions.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will be brief. Obviously, Senator Sessions is on the committee and had been speaking prior to this interlude with our leaders.

I have worked 5 years to get a piece of this bill, and I have a piece of the bill that is currently before us. At the same time, I have voted consistently to allow my colleagues who disagree to have a vote on their issues. Senator Sessions and I rarely disagree on issues. On this we disagree.

He is very artful in casting certain provisions of it one way. I could argue it the opposite way. I suspect my arguments would sound nearly as logical as his. But what is important here is the final shaping of a very important piece of legislation.

Controlling our borders is an absolute must that we have denied ourselves for now two decades. Everybody talks about the 1986 act. It didn't work. No, it didn't work. It didn't work because we didn't realize, at least some didn't, that we were sending a signal out that if you could get here and wait your time, some day you might become legal. You might become a citizen. We didn't realize that we put a megaphone to the world and said: Come one, come all.

We also had an economy and job-creating environment in which there were jobs to be had. We didn't control the border. Again in 1996, a decade later, we attempted to tackle it again. Numbers had grown. We didn't control the border.

In 1999, I began to work on the agricultural issue. I worked a compromise over a period of 5 years now with a lot of different people. But in the heart of what I have done is a very important key: it is controlling the border. No matter how we write this legislation, if you cannot define the number and control the number, it is for naught. That is an absolute fact.

It isn't by accident that the first few titles of the committee bill are all about border control. I wish we would move much faster on border control. I wish nationally we could move tomorrow because what we have offered will take a few years to implement.

We have to train more Border Patrol men, 1,500 a year, and go on and on with beds of detention and all that. That is important and part of the control. We have to find the resources to do it. So all of that has to fit together.

At the same time, Americans are phenomenally frustrated about what we are doing and where we are. They know why we need to do something, and they know our borders ought to be controlled. Well, I am going to stand here and defend the right of my colleagues to offer amendments. I would like to think that on the issues I am passionate about, my arguments are more persuasive to a majority and I can defeat any amendment that might be proposed to change certain provisions. I don't know, but I am willing to take that risk because I have to guarantee this process.

The attitude of shut out and deny has never worked in this Senate. We always shape it a little bit, but we never deny it. Yet for a week now it has been denied and it will not stand or the bill will fall. That would be wrong for the American people not only to see but to understand because in it are the ingredients to solve a problem, if we have the heart and the will to implement it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I come to the floor to recognize the retirement from my staff of Mike Tracey, my director of communications. Mike started working for me 10 years ago. When I first met him, he said: ``Finally someone works here with less hair than me.'' Mike's head shines pretty brightly on a clear day.

Mike is always fond of saying that his job is not rocket science. It is not science, he is right. It is art--and Mike Tracey is a master at the art of communications. He is a man who finds a challenge and tackles it head-on.

His tenacity is legendary. When he heads into a battle with me, Mike is always out on the front line with the flag flying high. He is a man who loves America and is not afraid to let people know it. When you are around Mike, you cannot help but be boosted by this man's passion.

I am sad to see Mike Tracey leave my staff, but he goes on to a new challenge, and I know he will tackle that challenge with the same tenacity he approaches life and has for 10 years approached the job he does for me. I wish him the best of luck and thank him for his service to me, to the State of Idaho, and to America.

Mike Tracey, have a great life in your next job, as I know you will.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Akaka in introducing legislation that would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to the rates of disability compensation provided to our Nation's disabled veterans and to the compensation provided to survivors of veterans and servicemembers who died, or who will die, as a result of military service. Every year since 1976 Congress has enacted an annual COLA adjustment for veterans with disabilities and survivors. The regularity of Congress's action on COLA legislation underscores its importance. Without it, inflation would erode the purchasing power of millions of beneficiaries.

According to its fiscal year 2007 budget, VA estimates that it will provide disability compensation to 2,867,013 veterans with service- connected disabilities in the upcoming fiscal year. Among the veterans estimated to receive such compensation are 5 World War I veterans; 335,180 World War II veterans; 160,889 Korean-conflict veterans; 992,360 Vietnam-era veterans; and 762,230 veterans of the Persian Gulf war era. The COLA legislation will also benefit an estimated 348,479 survivors.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that inflation, at the close of this fiscal year, will be at 2.2 percent as measured by the consumer price index published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Once the actual inflation level is known, this legislation would adjust payment rates in effect on November 30, 2006, and be applied to payments made to veterans and survivors effective December 1, 2006. CBO also estimates that the legislation will increase direct spending by $530 million in fiscal year 2007. Again, because of the importance accorded to annual COLA legislation, all of this spending is assumed in the budget baseline and, thus, requires no offset.

In summary, this legislation is critical to the lives of over 3 million beneficiaries who have served our country well and faithfully. I ask my colleagues for their continued support for our nation's veterans. And I ask for their support of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Akaka in introducing legislation that would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to the rates of disability compensation provided to our Nation's disabled veterans and to the compensation provided to survivors of veterans and servicemembers who died, or who will die, as a result of military service. Every year since 1976 Congress has enacted an annual COLA adjustment for veterans with disabilities and survivors. The regularity of Congress's action on COLA legislation underscores its importance. Without it, inflation would erode the purchasing power of millions of beneficiaries.

According to its fiscal year 2007 budget, VA estimates that it will provide disability compensation to 2,867,013 veterans with service- connected disabilities in the upcoming fiscal year. Among the veterans estimated to receive such compensation are 5 World War I veterans; 335,180 World War II veterans; 160,889 Korean-conflict veterans; 992,360 Vietnam-era veterans; and 762,230 veterans of the Persian Gulf war era. The COLA legislation will also benefit an estimated 348,479 survivors.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that inflation, at the close of this fiscal year, will be at 2.2 percent as measured by the consumer price index published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Once the actual inflation level is known, this legislation would adjust payment rates in effect on November 30, 2006, and be applied to payments made to veterans and survivors effective December 1, 2006. CBO also estimates that the legislation will increase direct spending by $530 million in fiscal year 2007. Again, because of the importance accorded to annual COLA legislation, all of this spending is assumed in the budget baseline and, thus, requires no offset.

In summary, this legislation is critical to the lives of over 3 million beneficiaries who have served our country well and faithfully. I ask my colleagues for their continued support for our nation's veterans. And I ask for their support of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Health Care Coverage for Small Business: Challenges and Opportunities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Saving for the 21st Century: Is America Saving Enough to be Competitive in the Global Marketplace?''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

I. Nominations

Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Steven G. Bradbury, to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; Timothy Anthony Junker, to be United States Marshal for the Northern District of Iowa.

II. Bills

S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act, Alexander, Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatcher;

S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005, Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer;

S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent charges, Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein, Biden;

S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, Specter;

S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, DeWine, Graham;

S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, Schumer.

III. Matters

S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment, Allard, Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback;

S. Res. 398, A resolution relating to the censure of George W. Bush, Feingold.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Orphan Works: Proposals for a Legislative Solution'' on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 2 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Panel I: Jule L. Sigall, Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office, Washington, DC; Victor S. Perlman, Managing Director and General Counsel, American Society of Media Photographers, Inc., Philadelphia, PA; June Cross, Documentary Filmmaker, Visiting Professor, Columbia University, New York, NY; Brad Holland, Founding Board Member, Illustrators' Partnership of America, Marshfield, MA; Maria Pallante-Hyun, Associate General Counsel and Director of Licensing, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (Guggenheim Museum), New York, NY; Thomas C. Rubin, Associate General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, VA; Rick Prelinger, Board President, Internet Archive, San Francisco, CA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 6, 2006, for a committee hearing to examine the VA's 5-year capital construction plan. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet tomorrow, April 6, 2006, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``The Effectiveness of the Small Business Administration.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 6 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to recent testimony on the following bills: S. 1510, a bill to designate as wilderness certain lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado; S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, bills to provide for the preservation of the historic confinement sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World War II, and for other purposes; S. 1957, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey to the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. certain Federal land associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in Nebraska, to be used as an historical interpretive site along the trail; S. 2024 and H.R. 394, bills to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to evaluate the significance of the Colonel James Barrett Farm in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and assess the suitability and feasibility of including the farm in the National Park System as part of the Minute Man National Historic Park, and for other purposes; S. 2252, a bill to designate the National Museum of Wildlife Art, located at 2820 Rungius Road, Jackson, WY, as the National Museum of Wildlife Art of the United States; and S. 2403, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to include in the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park land and interests in land of the Grand Teton Park subdivision, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Navy shipbuilding in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2006, at 3:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on military space programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Ocean Policy Study be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Offshore Aquaculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 435, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I become very frustrated when it is evident that nobody wants to do what is the will of the Senate. It is a historic responsibility when you bring a piece of legislation to the Senate, which is to allow Senators, Democrat and Republican, to work their will with offering amendments that are, hopefully, germane and responsible to be debated and voted on.

Why would I want any amendments? I have all I want in the bill. The Judiciary Committee included agricultural jobs, a guest worker revised program, and a program that will deal with illegal undocumented workers already in country that relate to agriculture in the bill.

Would I want anymore amendments? In fact, the Senator from Georgia has already offered an amendment against me. One of my colleagues on this side of the aisle has openly said he wants to kill the AgJOBS provision in this bill, and he has a multiple of amendments he wants to offer. I am willing to let him offer them. I am willing to debate him. I think I can defeat him. I hope I have the prevailing argument.

But what is at hand here is a very important piece of work done by the Judiciary Committee, S. 2454. I am not going to suggest it is perfect in every way. The amendment process does refine and direct the will of the total Senate instead of the will of a single committee.

I suspect the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would be hard pressed to say this bill is flawless, it is perfect, it is without reproach. That is not what my phone calls are saying. That is not what the public is saying. In fact, the public in many instances disagrees with the provisions I have put in the bill.

What is important is exactly what the other Senator, Senator Isakson, said. This is one of our major domestic issues. It is an issue of national security. It is an issue of border control. It is an issue of recognizing the diverse economies of our country and the need for an employment base that is legal, documented, and controlled. It is a matter of immigration.

To suggest we are going to play games with who is on first and who is on second about who makes an amendment, who offers an amendment--why is the other side so nervous and frightened that somehow this bill might be changed a little bit? Better or worse, I don't know.

I think all who have spent time on this issue and know the issue are certainly willing to debate it or we wouldn't be with the issue. We would simply be running politically away from it as this Congress has done for a good number of years.

But the American people, in frustration, in anger, in fear, are now saying deal with it, control your border, our border, our Nation's border. Define and prescribe, background check, inspect those who cross it, at the same time, recognize that a certain type of employee is critically necessary in American agriculture to do the tough, hard, backbreaking work in the fields of America or to change the beds in our resorts or to work in certain forms of manufacturing or in oil patch.

Now, that is at that level of work, and that is an entry-level job, and it is critical to our economy that we have them. Americans, on the large part, have chosen not to do that kind of work anymore. But I recognize the need to recognize American citizens who do, and in my AgJOBS reform of the H-2A program, we create a national labor pool and recognize, first, if someone who is an American citizen is seeking that kind of employment, we make sure they are eligible and eligible first. It is Americans first in this instance, as it should be.

At the same time, there must be a clear recognition that there are now millions in this country, yes, here illegally, but all of them working, and working hard, and paying taxes, and not getting the benefit of those. Why?

Naturally, they are not citizens. We understand that. They probably ought to go home when they are through working, and 90 percent of them want to go home. But the irony is, as we continue to control our border, we create an impenetrable line, as we should, and those who have moved back and forth across that border historically no longer can do that.

Well, it is an interesting thing. It is an interesting issue. The House tried to deal with it in one way--I do not think appropriately, I do not think responsibly. I am not suggesting it is not responsible to control the border. We are doing that in this bill. But I believe we are doing it in a much more sensitive and humane way.

The border has to be secured or what we do here will not work. You cannot try to control and identify and direct employment traffic, if you will, in this country if you cannot control the flow of the traffic. That is part of what we are all about in trying to deal with this issue.

There are those who would say: Round them up and throw them out-- round up 8 million, round up five times the size of the population of the State of Idaho and somehow identify them and treat them as legally as you have to under the law and get them out? We cannot do that, will not do that. It is impractical to do that. That is what this bill has struggled to accomplish.

But let's stop and suggest that if this is the issue we all believe it is, why are we fearful of amendments? Why has the other side sleepwalked us for the last 2 days? We ought to have voted on 3, 5, 8, 10 amendments by now. What are we fearful of?

I have my provision in the bill, but let Senator Chambliss amend it. Let him try. Let us debate it. Let us see the differences between what he believes and what I believe. We both agree on so many things as it relates to the agricultural employment base, but we disagree on some things. There is nothing wrong with that kind of healthy debate. I do not fear it. I will not fear it.

And I must say to my colleague from Illinois, when you tried to make the straw person the Senator from Arizona, there is an expression south of the Mason-Dixon line that is simply said: That dog don't hunt. Find a new straw person. This one does not work.

I yield the floor.

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

You are really going to suggest that the last 2 days of effort are called heavy lifting? Shouldn't we redefine what work in this body is all about?

You did not use that term; I just did. But you have suggested we have been at great industry here over the last 2 days?

Does that have to do with basketball?

Mr. President, now that we are back on the immigration bill, I thought I might for a few moments discuss in general some of the provisions in it that I think are extremely important and that are being discussed by a good number of my colleagues. I understand the Senator from Colorado wishes to discuss in general an amendment he will offer later. I hope no one would object to that because it does not actually offer the amendments but allows the debate to move forward while the chairman and the ranking member are determining the schedule of events here.

I yield for that purpose.

With the understanding following that the Senator from Colorado will be recognized? Does that fit his schedule?

Mr. President, for at least a few moments this morning, we have an order to continue discussion on this critically important legislation. Let me say in general that S. 2454, attempting to be a comprehensive reform of national immigration law, setting forth very strict border control efforts, authorizing tremendous expenditures for the purpose of controlling our borders, is a bill that finally is awakening the Senate. Some of us have been engaged in the debate on immigration for a good number of years, but many of my colleagues have, for whatever reason, chosen not to be. They are busy. But there is no question in my mind and I think the minds of almost every Senator today that the American people have said immigration reform is a priority, border control is a priority: Congress, get with it. We no longer can, nor should we, tolerate within our boundaries whatever that number is-- 7 million, 8 million, 9 million? If you want to listen to Lou Dobbs on television, he will say it is 20 million. Lou Dobbs doesn't know, nor do we know, exactly how many undocumented foreign nationals are here.

We do know some fundamental basics. If we do not control our borders, if we do not control in-migration, in time we can lose our character as a country. We are a nation of immigrants and we are proud of it. We are, as has been said by many, over a historic period of time, a melting pot of the world. It has proved us as a nation to be unique. It has given us our strength. It makes us something no other nation is. How many people can become Japanese? How many people can become an Italian? How many people can become a German? Any one of those nationalities can become an American. Why? It is the uniqueness of our country.

But in becoming an American, we have always put parameters around it. We have always said you had to study, you had to learn, you had to move yourself into the American culture and the American dream. You had to have, and we allowed, an assimilation. What we have lost in the last two decades by not controlling our borders is that very assimilation in the style with which it operated in the past.

Many of us, and most Americans, wish to regain that. It isn't that we deny our heritage; we are tremendously proud we are a nation of immigrants. We want to continue that tradition. It is our strength. But in doing so, you control your borders, you control the in-migration, and you do so in an orderly fashion.

If we control our borders, if we are successful in shutting them down and only allowing to move through that which is legal, in an orderly fashion, what do we do then? With the unknown number of some 8 or 10 million foreign nationals who are here illegally, what do we do with them? Mr. President, 99 percent of them are hard workers. Many have been here for years. They are a part of our economy. They are a part of our lifestyle. Most of them are contributors. Very few of them are detractors.

A few are. A few are criminals, and they ought to be arrested, if we can find them, and they ought to be thrown out of the country. But what do we do if we take all the rest and toss them out? Who fills those jobs? Who meets those demands? Who does the kind of work about which the average American citizen today says, ``I won't do that,'' yet it is critically important--for the food on the supermarket shelves of America, for the beds in the resorts and the hotels, for the landscape, for construction, for the oil patch. You name it. Illegal foreign nationals are everywhere in our economy today whether we like it, whether we are willing to admit it. They are here in part because of our negligence, but they are also here because they have been needed, because our economy asked them to come and there were no restrictions for them to gain entry other than to walk across a border that was unguarded and uncontrolled.

In that act they broke the law, our law. This bill tries to fix it. I can't tell you on face value it does. What I do know is it will take billions of dollars and a lot of trained personnel to go job site by job site to secure those who are illegal and to move them through a process toward legality or out of the country. I am not sure we are prepared to do that yet.

I am convinced of one thing: We can control the borders and we should.

Starting nearly 5 years ago, I recognized this in American agriculture because American agriculture came to me. I have worked with them closely on a variety of issues. And they said: Senator, nearly 70 percent of our workforce is illegal and we know it, and it is wrong and we want to fix it because we don't want to be operating on a shaky base. We need these people to pick the crops, to harvest the crops, and to process the crops. We need them on a timely basis. They need to be reliable. The current system is broken and it doesn't allow it. It only identifies 40-some thousand legal agricultural workers a year, and there are 1.2 million that are necessary. The system is broken.

I began to work with them. We worked collectively and came up with a bill. We worked with Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate. We worked with Hispanic groups, we worked with labor unions, we worked with the farm organizations, and we produced a bill known as AgJOBS. We looked at all of the compromises that had to be made. We tried to recognize those who had been here illegally but had been here for a long while, and those who were just coming and going--the day laborers on the Mexican-Arizona-California border who come across to work for the day and go back across at night to their homes.

This is a phenomenally complicated issue. S. 2454 is the bill that I and others crafted known as AgJOBS.

For just a few more minutes, I will walk you through one portion of it. It is a two-part bill.

It deals with those who are currently here working in agriculture, and then it goes over and reforms the H-2A guest worker program, to streamline it, to take out the bureaucracy, to make it function in a way that is the kind of program that many are talking about today, a seasonal worker, guest worker program, to come to work, to go home but to recognize the need to treat those folks humanely, to offer to them the jobs that Americans won't do, to assist where we can, to recognize that our economy needs them and they ought to be dealt with appropriately.

How do we then deal with this 8 million? Let me talk to you this morning not about 8 million but about 1.2 million, just a small window but I believe an opportunity while looking through that window to see what the rest of America is like and in part what those 8 million illegals might be like. It is to recognize them, it is to identify them, it is to have them come forward if they have been here 3 years-- since 2003--working and can demonstrate that they worked for 150 days in agriculture and then to allow them to earn the right to stay by continuing to work in agriculture for another 150 days up to 5 years.

It is a pilot program. It allows only 1.2 million during that 5-year period. It allows them to adjust and to gain a blue card--legal working status.

Is it amnesty? Well, somebody will call it that. Others have already called it that. I call it earning a status. They have to pay a fine. They have to pay a $500 fine. They have to have a background check. If they have a legal record of misconduct and criminal conduct, they don't qualify. They will have to be deported.

So there is a true tightening of the relationship with these workers, but it is a clear understanding that those workers are needed and necessary in the workforce. Agriculture, like no other business, is what it is at the time it is. By that I mean when the fruit is ripe, you pick it. If it isn't picked, it rots on the vine.

Much of what we do in agriculture is hand labor. It is intensive, hard work, backbreaking in the hot Sun kind of labor. The average American citizen says: I don't do that kind of work anymore but, oh, do we love the abundance of the supermarket shelf.

There are people who will do that work. Many of them are here as migrant workers, illegal foreign nationals doing just that work. They see it as an opportunity because any job in America is better than an entry job in Mexico. They come here, earn money, and 90 percent of them want to go home after they have earned their money. They go back to their nation, Mexico. They can live better than they have

ever lived because of the money they earned in America--in the United States. But 90 percent of them say: We don't want to become American citizens. We want to come and work. We are Mexicans. We like being Mexicans. We are proud of that.

The story goes on and on. I will spend more time on the details of this issue.

There are those offering amendments to change the AgJOBS provision. Some may pass, I don't know. I believe we have a quality product that has been years in the making, not only before the Judiciary Committee but Democrats and Republicans alike. Farm workers and farm organizations and American agriculture have been meeting for 5 years to try to identify the problem and to correct it. That work effort is here in this bill. It is a quality work effort. It is one that ought to be defended. It is one that clearly recognizes all of the differences in the American economy today and the uniqueness of agriculture.

Let me close with this thought. The average illegal in our country today will say when asked--and they have been asked by people they trust--how long do you stay in an agricultural job? It has been said by some--and I believe it is true because it has been said by those who are here in those jobs--they say: We see agriculture as the door to entry. We stay there a couple of years. We learn the ropes. We get to know your country a little better, and then we go out to other jobs-- construction, home building, the service industry and oil patch, and a variety of other areas across the country where day laborers, backbreaking labor, hard labor is required as the uniqueness of that particular place of employment.

So agriculture is kind of the window, the door of entry that many come and work in before they go elsewhere. That is why it is important, no matter what we do, that we try to get this right, to control our borders, to begin to identify where the borders are controlled, where people go, and what our needs are and what their needs are and to treat them appropriately and humanely.

That is the essence of a part of the bill. Other amendments will come as we work through this bill in the coming hours and in the coming days.

To all of my fellow citizens who are listening and watching, the Senate is now focused. You have asked us to deal with immigration in one form or another. There are 100 different ideas on how we get it done, some very Draconian and some very forward-looking. I think AgJOBS kind of fits in the middle. I think it kind of sorts out the problem. It is a realistic, practical approach to identify how the fruit of America literally gets picked in a reasonable, responsible fashion while at the same time treating those who do that work in a humane and appropriate way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty Crop Competition Act of 2006.'' This bipartisan legislation co- sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the U.S. agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each segment of the industry.

Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and other ornamental plant production, which our bill recognizes.

The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to 54 percent of the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to some is that my State of Idaho is a top producer of specialty crops. Idaho proudly boasts production of cherries, table grapes, apples, onions, carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of course one of our most notable specialty crops, potatoes.

Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a prominent role in reversing the obesity trend.

The ``Specialty Crop Competition Act'' will also provide a stronger position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. This legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases both native and foreign that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this bill seek improvements to federal regulations and resources that impede timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions.

This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, diverse, and secure supply of food.

Although we near the end of the 109th Congress, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to consider this comprehensive and necessary legislation as we begin to discuss new initiatives for the 2007 Farm Bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty Crop Competition Act of 2006.'' This bipartisan legislation co- sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the U.S. agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each segment of the industry.

Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and other ornamental plant production, which our bill recognizes.

The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to 54 percent of the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to some is that my State of Idaho is a top producer of specialty crops. Idaho proudly boasts production of cherries, table grapes, apples, onions, carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of course one of our most notable specialty crops, potatoes.

Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a prominent role in reversing the obesity trend.

The ``Specialty Crop Competition Act'' will also provide a stronger position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. This legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases both native and foreign that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this bill seek improvements to federal regulations and resources that impede timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions.

This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, diverse, and secure supply of food.

Although we near the end of the 109th Congress, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to consider this comprehensive and necessary legislation as we begin to discuss new initiatives for the 2007 Farm Bill.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to participate in what I believe is a fundamentally important, if not historical, debate about national security and border control and immigration and local law enforcement, of a magnitude and an importance that this country has not seen in a long while.

This afternoon, I want to focus on border control because border control is synonymous with national security. If there is one responsibility our Government has--it is, in fact, a constitutional responsibility--it is that of national security.

It is crucial, for observers, citizens, listening in, watching, trying to understand this debate--and oftentimes frustrated by it--to understand that while there are many contentious issues that will be discussed and debated over the course of the remainder of today and tomorrow and next week--and that the news media may well focus on only segments of it, attempting to dramatize it, attempting to suggest there are great divisions amongst Members of the Senate and the Congress as a whole, and the citizens as a whole--Congress will start and end with legislation that serves, first and foremost, the national security interests of our country.

The bill that is now before us includes provisions that are unique and important and truly address those kinds of concerns that Americans have been speaking out about ever since 9/11, ever since we were thrust upon the issue of immigration and a reality that we had anywhere from 8 to 12 million foreign nationals, undocumented people within our country, and that some of them, while but a few, were intent on doing us harm, were intent on attacking our citizens and not here to work and to benefit themselves and their families. So it is appropriate that we start this discussion by looking at a critical element of national security, and that is simply border control.

I must tell my colleagues, that is as difficult, if not more difficult than attempting to address, understand, and identify some 11- plus million undocumented foreign nationals who are now in our country. Why? Because we have phenomenal borders. The United States has 7,458 miles of land borders and over 88,600 miles of tidal shoreline. We cannot possibly build a fence that long, that high, and that deep everywhere to accommodate with absolute surety that those borders are impenetrable.

I grew up with this as a very common statement amongst most Americans. When you read the history books and the government books of my day, while I was in the sixth and seventh and eighth grade and in high school and college, America was tremendously proud that it had literally thousands and thousands of miles of northern border and southern border that were unguarded, that we were a peaceful nation. And the nation to our north, Canada, and the nation to our south, Mexico, were peaceful nations. We didn't have to have guarded borders, and we didn't guard them. It was not only impractical in that day, it was simply unnecessary.

We realize the world has changed significantly and that clearly establishing workable security policies that act in many ways as a fence or a border must be called a virtual fence, a virtually impenetrable border because it won't be just building the fence where many propose it ought to be built. It goes well beyond that. It truly is a policy that works, that allows, that identifies, that controls, that shapes the relationship of our border so that while we want to stop those who may do us harm and control those who want to cross the border undetected, we must also recognize that we have to allow and we must allow movement of innocent citizens and commercial traffic. That is the nature of a border--to control, to shape, to clarify, to identify those who move across our borders.

In the last 5 years, we have increased funding for border security by 60 percent. For those who say you have done nothing, you are just flat wrong. This Congress, understanding from 9/11 to today the responsibility of controlling our borders, has invested dramatically the resources of the American taxpayer. We now have some 10,000 Border Patrol agents along the southwestern border and 1,000 along our northern border. Our border protection agents have removed more than 4.5 million people, of whom some 350,000 have criminal records. In fiscal year 2005 alone, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 1.19 million people attempting to enter our country illegally. Through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Congress has provided more than $4 billion to State and local governments to help with the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. It isn't just making sure the border is impenetrable, but when they cross the border making sure that we at the local level can bring about the kind of law enforcement that apprehends at least the criminal element and incarcerates them and holds them for future prosecution.

Last year's emergency supplemental funding bill contained an amendment by Senator Robert Byrd and myself reprogramming funds from other programs to make an immediate and substantial downpayment on increasing Border Patrol as well as adding hundreds of other law enforcement agents and nearly 2,000 more detention beds for illegal immigrants the law requires to be held for criminal activity. We didn't even have space, once arrested, once apprehended, to put the criminal element or those we felt might be engaged in criminal activity.

However, even as we have increased border enforcement, net illegal immigration continues to be estimated at 400,000 to 500,000 people a year. We were all stunned last week at the report that undercover Federal agents managed to smuggle radioactive material through security checkpoints at the border. For all the billions we have invested, while there is no question the border is tightening, it is still penetrable in an illegal way.

Clearly, despite the resources we have poured into the border, and with many successes, there is still much left to be done. The legislation before us, incorporated in a much broader immigration policy, is the kind of legislation that ought to go first, coupled with a responsible national immigration policy.

Both bills before the Senate today contain numerous provisions aimed at improving our border security. They will increase the number of Federal officers policing our borders and improve their training. These bills will clean up

Federal laws addressing criminal aliens, increasing the penalties for alien smuggling and gang violence and illegal entry and reentry, and expanding the definition of aggravated felony that is the basis for removing aliens or denying them entry in the first place.

These bills support the President's decision to end the catch-and- release program. Can you imagine, that is exactly what we have been doing. You catch an undocumented worker, you file it, you release them. Why? We didn't have the capacity to detain them and hold them, to process them appropriately and make sure they were returned to the other side of the border. Clearly, that is now in here, instead of requiring detention of all aliens caught illegally across the border until they could be formally removed. We couldn't handle that. Now we are increasing the number of ports of entry and provide for improvement of existing ports.

There is much more to improve border security in this legislation. I thought I would refer to a few of the other areas of enforcement policy. The bill authorizes 250 new Customs and border protection officers, 200 new positions for investigative personnel to investigate alien smuggling, and 250 additional port of entry inspectors annually from fiscal 2007 to fiscal 2011. It also increases the number of Customs enforcement inspectors by 200 in section 5203 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It authorizes 2,400 additional Border Patrol agents annually for 6 years, adding an additional 4,400 agents to the border over 6 years to the 10,000 already added by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, for a total of 14,400 new Border Patrol agents by 2011.

If America says nothing is being done, then America, listen up: This Congress is as committed as you are concerned about border control and building that fence. But it will not be a steel and concrete fence stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of California and the west coast. It will be a virtual fence of electronics, of surveillance flights, of the recognition of new ports and people, personnel, because the other is, at best, impractical and, at worst, once done, unworkable. That is why what we are doing now, many of us who have studied and worked with this issue for a good number of years believe, is the right approach.

Technical assistance and infrastructure: The bill authorizes such sums as are necessary in the acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, poles, sensors, and other kinds of technology to achieve operational control of the borders and to construct all-weather roads and add vehicles and vehicle barriers along the borders.

It requires the Department of Homeland Security to replace damaged primary fencing and double- or triple-layered fencing in Arizona's population centers and on the border, and to construct at least 200 miles of vehicle barriers and all-weather roads in areas that are known transit points for illegals who traffic the border. Is this nothing? This is a phenomenal, historic investment in building that virtual fence that is necessary and appropriate at this time.

It is safe to say that nobody in Congress, House or Senate, believes our job is done until we have acted to increase security for America's citizens, knowing that those who cross the border cross it legally and that those who cross are not a criminal element, are not putting our citizens at risk. None of us believes our job will be done until the border is closed but open to legal entry, open to those who have a right to come across because we have so designated them, so recognized them for the purpose they would come--to work in our economy to provide for themselves and their families, to come here to work, to go home, to someday become an American citizen if they choose and if they stand in line and make the application and make the effort to become just that.

I have been very outspoken about agriculture and agriculture's need for foreign national workers. American agriculture needs some 1.2 million workers annually. Many will be foreign nationals, as they have been in the past. Without them, it is possible that we could collapse American agriculture. If we cannot find the workforce for American agriculture to come here to work, then American agriculture's investment will go elsewhere to fill the supermarket shelves of our country with the quality of plentiful food that American consumers have grown and expect to be there. What American consumers have not recognized is that over the last 20 years, most of that food has been harvested by illegal foreign nationals.

Next week, I will talk in detail about changes in policy that are embodied within this legislation to improve our immigration policy, to recognize those who have come who deserve to be treated fairly. But today, tomorrow, and clearly throughout the week, I hope Americans understand that first and foremost our effort is to gain control of our borders, to make them secure, to make Americans feel comfortable that we have done our very best to take the thousands and thousands of miles of border, both land and sea, and to secure them for the sake of our Nation's security.

I yield the floor.