Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy LTC Fitzhugh Lee, be granted floor privileges during the first session of the 110th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask Senator Specter, may I be recognized?

I thank the Chair.

To my colleagues who have participated in this debate, I think it has been a once-in-a-lifetime experience, I hope for all of us, because if we did this every week, the Senate would fall apart because this is tough politics, there is no question about it.

I do not pretend to know that I am on the wrong side or the right side of the American people. I can tell you what polls say--that once you tell people what is in this bill, about border enforcement, employer verification, merit-based immigration, the temporary worker program, it is 2 to 1 in about every poll I have seen. I guess you can get the poll to respond to the way you ask the question.

What I am trying to do is provide a solution to a problem that affects the American people. Here is the formula for this problem to be solved: bipartisanship.

To my friends on this side, if you think you can ignore Democrats, good luck. They exist. There are a bunch of them over there. Yes, raise your hand if you are a Democrat. Why don't you all leave? Well, they are not going away. Now, there are a bunch of us over here. Good luck ignoring us.

I would like to secure the border. How many Democrats would? Everybody raises their hand, right? Wouldn't you like to have an employer verification system where an employer would know the difference between somebody who is illegal and legal?

Enforce the current law. To my friends who call me endlessly and say, ``Just enforce the current law, Lindsey,'' well, here is Lindsey's response: I have looked at it. It is unenforceable. You can get a job in America based on a driver's license and a Social Security card being presented. What did all the hijackers on 9/11 have in common? They all had fake ID cards. They all had fake driver's licenses. I can get you a Social Security card. To my good friend from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, we can go to the Jockey Lot in Anderson, and I can get both of us a Social Security card by midnight with whatever name you want, whatever number you want.

Until we address that problem, we are never going to solve illegal immigration because it is about jobs. Current law is a failure. The public should be cynical. Are we helping them when we fail? We are at 20 percent approval, and we deserve it. We do not deserve our pay raise. But who are the 20 percent? What do you like about this Congress? I cannot believe there are 20 percent of the American people who like what we are doing up here because we are doing nothing but talking about what we will not do, and we are playing a game that the American people do not understand, like the other side does not exist.

You are never going to deal with this issue until you embrace the 12 million. No Democrat is going to let you build a fence and do all the things we want to do without addressing the 12 million. That is never going to happen.

I want to address the 12 million. The reason I want to address the 12 million, it bothers me there are 12 million people here that we do not know who they are and what they are up to. I wish they would go away, but they are not. It is a problem America has to deal with, and we want someone else to do it because we are afraid if we do a plea bargain it is amnesty. We are afraid that the people who don't want to deal with the 12 million will come and take our jobs away. This is about our jobs.

Well, this is bigger than my job. The 12 million will be dealt with. They are not going to be ignored. They will be dealt with firmly and fairly eventually. They are not going to be deported. They are not going to jail. They can't be wished away. So we need to come together in a bipartisan manner and have principled compromise where we deal with the 12 million, we deal with broken borders, we get a temporary worker program.

To my Republican friends, remember this day if you vote no. You will never, ever have this deal again. There will never be a merit-based immigration system such as we have negotiated because President Bush has helped us. To my friends on this side who say President Bush would sign anything, you don't understand what is going on here. President Bush has given us as Republicans things we will never get without

him being President. We have lost the majority, but we have a good deal because we have hung together. A temporary worker program and a merit- based immigration system is a good deal for this country. If we say no today, good luck of ever getting it again.

The 12 million stay here on our terms. They have to learn English. They have to pay fines. They can't be citizens unless they go back and start over. This is as good as it is going to get.

Now, if we lived in a perfect world where the Republicans could write this bill, it would be different, and I can assure you, my Democratic friends would have written a different bill. All I can tell you is, the American people have a low opinion of us because we can't seem to do the things we need to do----

Because we are too worried about us and not them.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Madam President, my colleagues have been very kind to me in passing on their condolences from the people of their States regarding Charleston. I publicly acknowledge all the kindness they have shown to me and Senator DeMint regarding the loss of the firefighters in South Carolina. It was a huge blow to the community of Charleston. Nine very brave souls lost their lives trying to protect their fellow citizens. Senator Kennedy spoke very eloquently of the life of a firefighter. Senator Dodd and so many people have offered their condolences.

There will be a memorial service tomorrow in Charleston. I will be going with other members of the delegation, and we will have a resolution before the Senate tomorrow honoring these heroes.

I learned, talking with Senators Kennedy and Kerry, that there were six or seven firefighters lost in Worcester, MA, not that long ago. I have been told the Charleston fire was the largest loss of life among firefighters since 9/11.

Those who have been to Charleston, SC, know what a wonderful, beautiful community it is. It is one of the most open, welcoming communities in the country. To the families, we grieve with you. We can only imagine the pain you are going through. I hope you do realize you have so many people in your corner saying prayers for your well-being and deeply appreciative of the sacrifice your loved ones made.

It is human nature for most people to run away from fires. Only firemen run into them. Thank God people are willing to do that, go off and serve in the military, be policemen, EMTs, many of the other jobs that require self-preservation to take a backseat to the common good. Self-preservation is a strong instinct. I know parents would do anything for their children, and that is a very understandable emotion, taking care of your loved ones and your family. That probably trumps self-preservation--most of the time, anyway. Doing it for somebody you don't know makes you a hero. When you are willing to give your life, risk your life for someone you don't know, that is where the term ``hero'' applies.

To the families who have lost loved ones, I do hope you have some comfort knowing that what your loved one was doing was so important. In this case, there was a belief that a civilian was left in the warehouse unaccounted for, so the firemen went back in to look for this person. Unfortunately, the worst happened. The building collapsed on them, and there was a tremendous tragedy.

There are so many ways to thank firemen, and I am very inadequate in that regard.

Similar to most young kids, I thought being a fireman was about the top of the pyramid. It seemed like the neatest job in the world. But as you get older, you realize how dangerous it is. It is one of those occupations, such as being a policeman or other occupations--but particularly firemen--that every day is a real risk you take.

To the people of Charleston, SC: I know you are banded together. I know you are mourning together. You have the wishes of this body. All the Senators--Republicans and Democrats--very much have you in their prayers.

To the families: Tomorrow will be a difficult day. It will be a very touching day. It will be a day of remembrance and mourning. It will also be a day of celebration, celebrating the lives of those brave firefighters who represent the best of my State and the best of humanity.

I would like to end this statement with the understanding that there is nothing we can do to replace your loss. But we can and we will be there by your side as you move forward.

God bless.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on June 18, 2007, in the face of blazing fire, sacrifice and duty overcame fear and surrender. With great sadness and the utmost respect, Senator DeMint and I mourn the tremendous loss of nine of our finest firefighters, as well as the immeasurable loss experienced by their families and loved ones. As the flames engulfed the building, the brave men and women of the Charleston County Fire Department rushed into the collapsing building as others were running out, fleeing for their lives. May this extraordinary courage and sacrifice forever reflect the spirit of South Carolina, as well as that of our great Nation.

We extend our sincerest condolences to their families, their colleagues, and their friends. You give your loved ones to us to serve and protect our communities, putting public service above personal comfort. Our gratitude is boundless and our respect infinitely deep. We grieve beside you, and we take pride in and are humbled by this ultimate display of service and valor. In the midst of grief and devastation, may you find comfort in knowing that the memory of your loved ones will be forever etched in the minds of South Carolinians as the true embodiment of an American hero.

The United States has not experienced such a devastating loss of firefighters since the horrific events on September 11, 2001. May the Charleston County Fire Department, led by Chief Rusty Thomas, as well as emergency personnel around the country, forever fill this massive void with the legacy left behind by these brave fallen firefighters. Let their legacy not be engulfed by flames and reduced to rubble but rather let it embolden and encourage others to serve in their honor and continue their mission to public service. There is no higher call than to serve, and to the fallen, their families, and those that will fill their shoes, we are forever indebted to you for your noble sacrifices.

Will the Senator yield?

For those who are worried about this, on the issue of families, you should be worried about this. Is it not true that in this bill, in terms of family reunification, the way we have accomplished or dealt with the bill, families will be reunified decades earlier, and those who are waiting to join their families under this bill--those who have done it right--will be together no later than 8 years; is that correct?

So if you want to be the person who keeps families apart, bring this bill down. I assure families will not be reunified under the current system like they are here, that we will have a dramatic increase in green cards to get these families reunited. We go up to 74 percent. If you want to keep families apart, bring this bill down and let the current system survive.

Secondly, when it comes to families, there are 12 million people here illegally. Is it not true that their families, under this bill--if they will do the right thing--will never live in fear again?

To my good friend from Arizona, I say this: If you are concerned about the 12 million people who are living in fear, subject to exploitation, then this is the best chance you will ever have in my political lifetime to fix it. If you want to bring this bill down, the one thing I can assure you is that the 12 million, or however many there may be, will not only live in fear, they are going to live in more fear because we have stirred up a hornets nest in this country.

I argue, if you care about people who have families not being afraid anymore, if they get themselves right with the law, help us pass this bill. In the future, after everybody has been accommodated who has a reasonable expectation, we are going to allow families to be part of the new immigration system.

Could the Senator tell me again, in the future, what percentage of visas will be given to families?

Would the Senator acknowledge that is twice the family component of other nations with whom we are competing?

Mr. President, the bottom line, I say to my good friend from Arizona, is we would have no bill without him. He stepped to the plate and said I am willing to look at the 12 million anew; I don't believe we are going to deport them, and I don't believe we are going to put them in jail; So I am going to give them a chance to identify themselves, come out of the shadows and do things that will make them valuable to our country and will be fair and humane.

We have accomplished that. We couldn't do it last year. We are going to reunite families who have been waiting for decades to get into this country. We are going to expedite family reunions in an 8-year period for some people because they would not live long enough to get back with their families.

In the future, we are going to have a new system. There is going to be a strong family component, but I make no apologies about this, in the future we are going to have immigration based on the global economy and merit. We need to start looking at where we are in the world and making sure people come into our country under a merit-based system. Neither one of my parents graduated high school. There is a way forward for the semiskilled and low-skilled workers to come into our country in the future. But the family component in the future will be spouses and minor children, freeing up thousands of green cards for merit-based employment. They are not going to bring in their adult children unless they have a way to get in on their own. They are not going to bring in their third cousin. Nobody else does that. They are going to come in as a nuclear family, and we are going to do it based on merit, and merit is not a degree.

Under this bill, if you come in with a strong back and a strong heart and a desire to get ahead, you get points for getting a GED, you get points for an apprenticeship, you get points for doing the things that make you a better person. So I reject completely the idea that the merit-based system excludes hard-working people.

I end with this one thought. If we don't get it right now and correct the flaws in our system which led to the 12 million which will make us globally noncompetitive, then who will? When will they do it? There are a million reasons to say no to something this hard, there are 12 million reasons to say yes, and there are many reasons in the future to say yes because our country cannot survive with a broken immigration system that makes us noncompetitive.

This is a national security issue. This is a global economic issue. Now is the time to understand we will never have a perfect bill but to do something that will be good for America.

I thank my good friend, Jon Kyl, and Senator Kennedy for getting us this far.

Mr. President, I think it is very appropriate you be occupying the Chair during this moment in this debate. My good friend from Illinois says to those who have worked so hard to get this bill to the point it is at: Nothing personal, but I can't live with this provision.

Bipartisanship is music to the American people's ears. When you are out there on the campaign trail, you are trying to bring us all together. You are trying to make America better. Why can't we work together? This is why we can't work together because some people, when it comes to the tough decisions, back away because when you talk about bipartisanship, some Americans on the left and the right consider it heresy, and we are giving in if we adopt this amendment.

The 12 million who have lived in fear for decades, my Republican colleagues and a majority have told our base we are not going to put them in jail and we are not going to deport them. No matter how much you scream, no matter how much you yell, we are going to make them right with the law, we are going to punish them, but we are not going to play like they don't exist, and we are going to do things differently in the future.

If you care about families under this bill, people are united in 8 years who would be 30 years getting here. If you care about families wanting to wake up one morning and not be afraid, this bill does it.

This amendment in the name of making the bill better says that bipartisanship doesn't have the ``bi'' in it. It means everybody over here who has walked the plank and told our base you are wrong, you are going to destroy this deal. And that is exactly what it is, a deal--a deal to make America more secure, to give people a chance to start their lives over again and to have a new system that has a strong family component but will make us competitive with the world because some people don't want to say to the loud folks: No, you can't have your way all the time.

Let me tell you, this is about as bipartisan as you will get, Mr. President. Some of us on the Republican side have been beat up and some on the Democratic side have been beat up because we have tried to find a way forward on a problem nobody else wants to deal with.

To my friend, Senator Kennedy, thank you for trying to find a way, as much as we are different, to make this country better, more secure, to treat 12 million people in a way they have never been treated and, in my opinion, deserve to be treated, to have a chance to start over.

What a sweet idea it is to have a second chance in life. Well, they are not going to get it if this is adopted, and America will be all the worse for it. What a great opportunity we have as a country not to repeat the mistakes of 1986, by having a merit-based immigration system that has a strong family component but frees up some green cards so we can be competitive.

So when you are out on the campaign trail, my friend, telling about why can't we come together, this is why.

Mr. OBAMA addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues who worked to put this bill together, they know what this does. The deal is that in 8 years people will be reunited as families who never would have seen each other for maybe 30 years. We have united families in 8 years. The Z visa people have a chance to start over, but only after the backlog is cleared.

The merit-based system is the vehicle to be used after 8 years so they can come into our system and maybe one day be a citizen and get a green card. If we sunset the merit-based system at 5 years, there is no vehicle left, and to us over here, what would my colleagues say if we sunsetted the Z program in 5 years? My colleagues would walk, and they should.

This is not right. This does not help us as a country.

This destroys the vehicle to solve a problem that has been neglected for 20-something years.

I ask my colleagues to vote no for the sake of the country.

Mr. President. I am very pleased to help recognize Senator Ted Stevens as the longest-serving Republican in the history of the U.S. Senate. Senator Stevens has represented the Last Frontier for nearly 40 years, during which he has become one of the most respected lawmakers and gentlemen in Congress. For a large majority of his time in Congress, Senator Stevens served with my predecessor, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, the Senate's previous longest-serving Republican. Now that the record is broken, I am certain Senator Thurmond would be pleased to know his good friend, Ted Stevens, will carry on the great tradition of service to our Nation. I am honored to serve alongside Senator Stevens and congratulate him on this momentous occasion.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment 1173.

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

Mr. President, as we try to repair a broken immigration system and replace it with a new system that learns from the mistakes of the past, I believe it is time for this body and this country to get serious about enforcing border security violations. After 9/11, the immigration debate has taken on a different tone. After 9/11, it is no longer about economic and social problems associated with illegal immigration. It is about national security problems associated with illegal immigration. In the Fort Dix, NJ, case, there were allegations made that six people were conspiring to attack Fort Dix. Apparently, three of those people came in illegally as children or crossed the southern border, and three of the people charged with crimes overstayed their visas. So it is more than securing the border. That is a central concept to this bill.

Democrats and Republicans are rallying around the idea that the current system is broken in many ways. The borders are not secure. When it comes time to verify employment, fraud is rampant. The way you get a job now is to produce a Social Security card. I could take a Social Security card out of my wallet and have it faked by midnight. We are talking about replacing that kind of fraudulent system with tamperproof identification, which would be a great change in terms of understanding who is here and why they are here and employing people on our terms, not theirs.

In the future, after we begin to control our borders, Senator Isakson's amendment says you can't bring new people into the country in a permanent fashion until you meet border security triggers. The employment verification trigger is a great idea. Here is the question I have: After we do all this, after we spend all this money to secure our borders and replace fraudulent systems with tamperproof systems, what do we do to people who try to come across illegally in the future? What message do we send them and the world?

Here is the message: If you come across our border illegally in the future, you violate our border security, you are going to jail. No more catch you and send you back. My amendment would require a mandatory 60- day jail sentence for the first illegal reentry, up to a year but mandatory 60 days. If you come back again illegally, no less than 2 years. So everyone needs to know that America is changing its immigration laws, and we are going to be serious about enforcing them. If you break our laws, you do so at your own peril, and you will lose your freedom. That will help us dramatically make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

There is another group of people we need to deal with in terms of illegal reentry that is bone chilling. The amendment would create mandatory jail time for people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States, illegal immigrants who have committed violent offenses, nonviolent offenses, who have served jail time, that if you get deported--and you are required to be deported after you serve your sentence--and get caught coming back into this country, you are going to go to jail, not be deported again.

Let me give an example. Angel Resendiz is known as the railroad killer. Let me tell you the story of this criminal. In August 1976, he came across the border illegally. In September 1979, he was sentenced to a 20-year prison term for auto theft and assault in Miami, FL. He was paroled within 6 years and released into Mexico as a result of deportation. Over the next 10 years, he was apprehended and tried in Texas for falsely claiming citizenship. He did an 18-month prison term. He was arrested for possessing a concealed weapon in 1988 in New Orleans and received another 18-month prison term. Every time he was sentenced, he was deported and came right back to commit another crime. He got 30 months for attempting to defraud Social Security in St. Louis. He pled guilty to burglary charges in New Mexico that gained him an 18-month prison term, and he was paroled in 1992. He was apprehended in the Santa Fe rail yard for trespassing and carrying a firearm in 1995.

On June 2, 1999, he was apprehended by the Border Patrol for crossing illegally. Due to a computer glitch, they let him go. Every time he committed a crime and served a sentence, he was deported, only to come right back and commit another crime. Once we caught him, all we did was deport him. He wound up killing two people within 48 hours of being released by the Border Patrol. If this amendment had been in place for people such as this guy, once he was found back on our soil after he served his prison term for a violent crime, he would not have been deported. He would have gotten a 20-year jail sentence with a mandatory minimum of 5 years.

So there are people who have been convicted of rape and murder within the United States who have illegally come across the border, committed a crime, served their time, been deported, who have come right back, committed another crime, and nothing happens.

If this amendment becomes law, once you have been convicted of a violent crime and deported, if you are found in our country, whether you are committing a crime, that is a crime in and of itself, and you are going to go to jail for up to 20 years, with a minimum of 5 years.

Now that, to me, is what has been missing when it comes to our legal system and illegal immigration. It is now time to tell the world--our own citizens and all those who wish to come here--there is a right way to do it and there is a wrong way to do it. If you do it the wrong way in the future, you are going to go to jail.

We need to change the system that would allow nothing to happen to somebody who had been in our country illegally, who was convicted of rape or murder, who served their sentence and had been deported, who illegally comes back into our country. If they cross the border again, if they cross the border in the future, after committing a violent crime, they are going back to jail for serious jail time to protect us against them.

Now, I hope every Member of the body will understand this will make our effort to reform illegal immigration meaningful. If America does not care about enforcing its laws in the future, those who want to violate it will not care either.

So now is the time to start the clock over, learn from the mistakes of the past and make a national commitment to secure our borders and deal with those who violate our immigration law in the sternest fashion. Because this Nation is under siege. After 9/11, illegal immigration is not just about people coming here to work, it is about people coming here to commit crimes and do us harm.

So I am very hopeful this amendment will become part of the bill, and we can say, after this bill passes, we have taken a new approach, a tough approach, a long overdue approach, that we do care about the laws on our books and we are going to enforce them, and if you violate the law in the future by illegally coming across our border, you are going to jail.

Mr. President, I would like, if I could, at this time, to recognize my colleague from Georgia, Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, very briefly, and I will move to have this amendment voted upon, if that is the correct order of business.

To my very good friend Senator Kennedy, it is my understanding in terms of incarceration costs, the costs are paid by the Federal Government through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program about 90 percent--90 cents on the dollar. So the Federal Government does help the local communities almost fully to deal with the expense of people who are caught violating or who are put in jail.

In terms of leniency--is there any evidence our laws are too lenient--I would say there are about 12 million pieces of evidence that our laws are too lenient. How can you have 12 million people come across the border and the word not be out that there is not much of a downside to doing it? Now, if you get 12 million people violating the law, it must be common knowledge among that population and others there is not much going to happen to you.

Well, that needs to stop. We need to give people who are here a chance to assimilate. Legal paths, we have more legal paths than we have ever had through this bill.

The illegal part of it has to come to an end and will only come to an end if there is a downside to breaking our law, and this amendment is about mandatory jail time. I am not trying to make it easier on people; I am trying to make it harder on people who take the law into their own hands and violate our border security. That is why we have mandatory jail time. Prior misdemeanors, you are going to go to jail 1 year if we catch you here again. If you served jail time of 2\1/2\ years and we find you on our soil again after you have been deported, 2 years. If you got a sentence of 5 years and we find you on our soil again after you have been deported, 4 years in jail. If you are convicted of three or more felonies, 4 years in jail, if we find you here again. If you are convicted of a violent crime, no less than 5 years, and up to 20 years.

It is time to get serious. This is a serious amendment for a serious problem. I know this is going to send the right message and that we need to be tough, not just in words but in deeds.

I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator McConnell as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, very briefly, to respond to my good friend from New Mexico about some of his concerns, this is not about me feeling good; this is about having the law work in a way that will deter people from crossing our borders illegally.

I point to the Angel Resendez case, and if we had this law in effect where we had mandatory jail time for those who had committed offenses and caught on our soil. In a 10-year period he committed five crimes, got deported each time, and was able to come back and commit another crime. If this amendment had been in place, he would have been in jail for a longer period of time and maybe his murder victims would be alive today. This is a case not about me feeling good; it is about somebody with a great propensity to cross our border illegally and commit crimes and not being held accountable in a serious way.

After the Booker case, the sentencing guidelines are advisory. If we want to send a message that we are flexible when it comes to immigration law violations, we are doing a great job of it. People must believe we are flexible, because they are coming across our borders in droves. Flexibility is being taken as indifference. What we need to do is to make it a crime that will sting people when they come across.

The cost to this country of having laws that are ignored and are virtually a joke is huge. Look at where we are today with illegal immigration. Let's try something new. Let's try doing something that has worked over time: If you commit a crime, you do some time.

With that, I yield the floor and ask for passage.

I urge passage of the amendment.

That suggestion is well taken, yes.

Madam President, there is no objection on our side to this amendment.

Madam President, if I could request the indulgence of Senator Cornyn, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I call up amendment No. 1168 and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Madam President, I believe Senator Kyl has 19 minutes?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 8 minutes.

Madam President, we will put Senator Kennedy down in the ``undecided'' column on this issue, but I was very much persuaded by his argument.

The goal is to create a balance that will allow this country to move forward and not replicate the problems of the past, allow us to move forward and learn from our mistakes of the past, allow us to move forward in the best traditions of this country, and allow us to move forward in order to be competitive in a global economy.

The temporary worker program is one of the key elements of this bill. Why do we have 12 million people, plus, probably, here illegally? I think most of them came, hopefully they all came, not to destroy America but to earn more money here than they could in their home area. The problem is they are doing it illegally. They are subject to being exploited. There are no controls over how these people are being treated. There is no control over how they are paying taxes. It is a lose-lose. It is a losing situation for the economy and it is a losing situation for the worker.

If we do away with the temporary worker program, the only thing I can promise you for sure is the next Congress and the next generation of political leaders will look back on our time in shame. They will be cursing us because we failed to rise to the occasion and to logically deal with a problem that is crying out for a solution.

Providing a temporary worker program allows people from other parts of the world to make their life better on our terms. They will pay taxes. They won't be exploited. And before they get one of these jobs, we will have to advertise it in the area in question to American citizens. Only when an American citizen refuses to do a job in question can the temporary worker be hired, and at a competitive wage in order to take care of our people and also to take care of our economy.

This is a win-win. People from other places in the world can come through in an orderly process, get a tamperproof card, so we will know who they are. They will have a visa where they will never have to worry about being afraid of the law while they are here, as long as they obey the law. They can do jobs American workers are not doing at a competitive wage. That is a blessing to this country.

Everybody in the world doesn't want to come here to get a green card. There are a lot of people who want to come for a temporary period of time and improve themselves and go back and improve the country from whence they came. If we want to be competitive, we need to have the workforce vis-a-vis the rest of the world to make us competitive. If you take the temporary

worker program out of the mix, then you are going to ensure in the future more illegal immigration. If you don't have a temporary worker program that is regulated, you are going to ensure exploitation.

From the economic side and the humanitarian side, we need to do this. If this amendment would somehow pass, then we will have repeated the fundamental mistake of the past. We will not have fixed a thing, and we will have ensured that more people will come here illegally, because the magnet will still attract them. We will ensure they get exploited, and we will hurt our economy because we can't regulate this workforce.

The Y card will be tamper proof. People will have to give a fingerprint; they will have to sign up; they will be regulated in terms of how they are treated; they will be paid a competitive wage, and we will know where they are and what they are up to; and we will allow them to work here and go back to where they came three different times, 6 out of 8 years, to better themselves. If they want to be a citizen, they can apply for a green card. The more points they earn during their temporary worker period, the more competitive they will be.

If they go to school at night, as my good friend Ken Salazar has suggested, if they get a certificate in an employment area and learn a skill, they will get points. If they get a GED, if they work hard during the day and improve themselves at night, then they get rewarded. Let me tell you about the individuals we are talking about. They work hard. Neither one of my parents graduated high school. They started a small business, a restaurant, where they opened before the sun was up and closed at 10 o'clock at night. They worked like dogs. When they were sick, they went to work, because there was nobody there to take their place.

The people we are talking about here are coming from other parts of the world and who are good workers. I am confident they will have a chance to prove their worth to our country, add to our economy, and make us a better nation. Some of them will want to become citizens, and they can. We need the Ph.Ds from India and other places, but we also need people like my parents, who will come and work hard, play by the rules, better themselves, and find a niche in our economy. Without a temporary worker program, we are going to ensure people come here in fear, live in fear, get exploited, and don't contribute to our economy.

This bill is as balanced as I know how to make it. I am always openminded to better ideas, but I am close-minded when it comes to destroying it. A temporary worker program is the key to not repeating the mistakes of the past, which is exploitation, not controlling who comes here, not having economic control over your workforce, and leaving people to be exploited. If it stays a part of this bill, we all can hold our heads up high and say we created a win-win situation that says to the hard-working person, who looks to America as a place to start a new life, to learn a skill, to improve themselves, there will be a place for you. Those who want to stay after their temporary worker period is over, you can get points to stay, and the more you do, the more you better yourself, the better chance you will have.

To me, it is exactly what we have needed for years. My good friends, Senator Kennedy and Senator Salazar, and so many others, have sat down and tried to make this temporary worker program meet our economic needs and be humanitarian in its application. I think we have done a darned good job. For the sake of this country and all we stand for, let us keep this bill moving forward.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

What is the status of the time allocation?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes, and afterwards I add to that Senator Martinez be recognized for 10 minutes.

Madam President, that would be fine. My 10 minutes will come from Senator Kennedy's time. Is that OK?

Absolutely.

Madam President, I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Martinez.

I am in the fifth year of my first term, and we are finally dealing with an issue I think the country would love to have dealt with years ago. We are on the verge of doing something big and important. There are many reasons why you never do the big things and the hard things. That is why they stay unresolved.

The country is running out of time on this particular issue to think of reasons why we won't solve this problem. Before 9/11, I would argue illegal immigration was a social and economic problem. After 9/11, I would argue it is a national security problem. We have millions of people in our country roaming around and we do not know who they are or what they are up to. The good news is most of them are here, unfortunately illegally, to work and to try to make something of themselves and add value to our country.

It is clear from Fort Dix, NJ--and maybe other things to come--some people are here illegally who are up to no good. They want to hurt us. The hijackers on 9/11--all of them came here. Most of them overstayed their visas. They did not come across the border. They had four or five fake drivers licences. It should be a wake-up call to this country we have people in our midst and we do not know who they are and there is no way to find out who they are.

One thing every Member of the Senate, I hope, will agree upon is that if you wanted to, you could get a Social Security card made by midnight tonight somewhere that would pass for the real thing. When you drive by a construction site, and you see people working who are Hispanic or other folks you think are here from outside the country, I bet you every employer has documentation on file that appears to be legal. It is almost a nightmare for employers to comply with the current system.

People tell me, enforce the law. If you can enforce this law, you are doing better than anybody since 1986. There is a reason this has happened. Why do 12 million people come here? Because we do not have a way to bring people here legally so they can work in a legal status. There are not enough Americans doing these jobs. Unemployment is below 5 percent. It is illogical to say this illegal workforce has driven Americans out of work. We are at historically low unemployment. We need workers. But what we need more than anything else is we need to be able to secure our border, control who comes, on our terms, and have verifiable information about what status you are in. Because if we do not do that, then what happened on 9/11 is more likely to happen again.

So there are many reasons to say no to this bill. There are many reasons to say no to someone else's proposal. But there is no good reason to not solve this problem. I do hope those who come down on the floor to amend this bill, to make it better, will lead us to a better solution. Those who come down on the floor with a goal of taking this bill down, I hope you feel some obligation to substitute it with something else that could pass.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. When I was at my State convention, a lady told me: I don't like compromise. I said: Well, don't run for office. Because this is all about compromising. Isn't it, Senator Kennedy? It is. What I like about my country is that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents historically have been able to do the hard things to make us a better nation.

I say to my friend from Florida, Senator Martinez, you have been a delight to work with.

Breaking the law is something that has occurred in large proportion when it comes to immigration. The reason people have been breaking the law to this extent is the rest of us have not been that excited about enforcing it. I think the rest of us have sort of looked the other way and allowed the illegal immigration problem to grow because we have not asked the hard questions about: Where are all these people coming from? And what are they doing?

There are lots of people, to their credit, who have been very upset about this issue for a very long time. I think many people in this country have gotten the benefit of this illegal workforce in terms of the labor and have sort of turned their eye, and now everybody is looking at it anew.

To those who have been shouting from the rooftops that the immigration system is broken, you have done us a great service. To those who believe illegal immigration is a national security threat, an economic threat, and a social threat, you have done us a great service. But you are not going to do us a great service if you only shout about the problem. I want you to do more than tell me it is broken and it needs to be fixed. I want you to do more than just say: Lindsey Graham and Ken Salazar have it wrong. I want you to do what we have done. That is the only thing I ask of any of my colleagues: Sit down with a Democrat and Republican and try to fix it--and good luck because it is hard.

You are right to come here and amend this bill and change it, and to take the floor and tell us why we have it wrong. I will listen. If we can fix it, we will. But do more than just tell me where I am wrong. Do more than just tell the American public we have to do something about this illegal immigration problem. Do more than just shout

``amnesty.'' If you think saying ``amnesty'' absolves you from having to participate in this debate, you are wrong. This debate is about the future of the United States when it comes to our national security, our employment needs, our ability to compete with the world for the labor force that exists. At the heart of this debate, it is about who we are as a people.

Now, tomorrow, I am going to read a report issued by the Government about immigrants. Some of it is very tough. Let me give you a preview:

As a class, the new immigrants are largely unskilled

laborers coming from countries where the highest wage is

small compared to the lowest wage in the United States. They

bring little money into the country and they send or take a

considerable part of their earnings out. More than 35 percent

are illiterate as compared with less than 3 percent of the

old immigrant class.

The new immigration movement is very large. There are few

if any indications of its natural abatement. The new

immigration coming in in such large numbers has provoked a

widespread feeling of apprehension to its effect on the

economic and social welfare of the country. They usually live

in cooperative groups and crowd together. Consequently, they

have been able to save a greater part of their earnings, much

of which is sent or carried abroad. Moreover, there is a

strong tendency on the part of the unaccompanied men to

return to their native countries after a few years of labor

here.

These groups have little or no contact with American life,

learn little of American institutions, and aside from the

wages earned, profit little by their stay in the country.

Unquestionably, the hordes of immigrants that are coming

here have a good deal to do with crimes against women and

children. You will notice these particular crimes are done by

fellows who can't talk the English language.

Now, this is a Government report about the effect of immigrants, the new immigrants, on our country. These quotes were taken in 1910 from the Dillingham Report, and one of the Senators on that commission was from South Carolina. It went on, and I will talk more about it, to talk about how these immigrants are ruining America. They live among themselves. They have disease. They won't learn our language. They commit crimes. They are a burden on society, and we need to do something about it. The report was begun in 1910, it was finally issued in 1913. The people they were talking about became the ``greatest generation.''

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have 30 minutes; is that correct?

Would the Presiding Officer let me know when 10 minutes have passed?

The President will veto this measure. He should. It is one of the worst ideas to ever come out of the Congress in the history of warfare that the United States has been engaged in. It sets a date for withdrawal. I think it is October. It intrudes on the President's Commander in Chief role. It is letting the enemy know exactly what they have to do in terms of date and time to win in Iraq. Everyone who dies waiting on the time to pass, what have they died for? What have they been injured for?

What I would like to point out is that we should talk about those who have lost their lives in Iraq wearing the uniform, and civilians included, who have been serving our country. But we shouldn't use their deaths as a reason to withdraw from a war we can't afford to lose--and we have not lost. We should be honoring their service and their sacrifice, their ultimate sacrifice, because they are standing for our national security interests. Why do they serve? Why do they go to Iraq? Why do they keep reenlisting in the Iraqi theater and the Afghan theater at a higher rate than the military as a whole? What do they see about Iraq that people here in the Senate are blinded to? Why would they keep going back to a war they believe is lost? Why would they go three and four times? Why would they enlist at levels beyond any other group in the military?

Because they know after having gone that if we win in Iraq, their children, their grandchildren, the Nation as a whole is more secure. And if we lose in Iraq, the war is not over, it just gets bigger, and the likelihood of their children being involved in a war in the Middle East goes up, not down. So that is why they go. That is why they are not withdrawing. That is why enlistments are up, not down, because they get it.

The Senate doesn't get it. The Democratic leadership doesn't get it at all. Blinded by a dislike of this President, they can't see clearly what is going on in Iraq. Whether we should have gone or not is over; we are there. There are other people who are there who would like to win this war. Al-Qaida is there in large numbers, trying to kill this infant democracy, because they know if a democracy can flourish in Iraq, their agenda has taken a mighty blow.

How are they trying to drive us out? By killing civilians and coalition forces in as large a number as they can muster.

So is it going to be the foreign policy of the United States when it comes to fighting terrorism that if they can kill enough of us-- whatever that magic number is--we leave? You win? Do you think for one moment declaring Iraq lost makes us safer? There is sectarian violence in Iraq, but there are plenty of people of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish persuasions that want the same thing for Iraq that we want. There are Shia extremists who want to align with Iran. There are Sunni extremists who want to come back in power and have the good old days of Saddam. They are in the minority. There is not open civil war in this country. There are extremists groups representing the Sunni and the Shia sects that are trying to change Iraq for their purposes, bend Iraq to their will, against the majority of Iraqis, and in the middle of these sects is al-Qaida. In the middle of these sects is Iran.

Why is Iran playing so hard in Iraq? The biggest nightmare to this Iranian theocracy would be a democracy on their border, where different groups would live together, where a woman could have a say about her children, where people could vote for their leaders, not be dictated to from on high. That is why they are playing in Iraq. That is why al- Qaida is there.

The question is, Why do we want to leave? It is tough to watch young Americans killed and maimed in war, but we didn't start this war. War is inevitably about young people getting hurt and getting killed. That is why the world--after so many thousands of years, it seems as if mankind would have learned that war is not the way, but we haven't learned that lesson as mankind. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, there will never be a surrender document negotiated with them.

Iraq was about replacing a dictator who was trying to make a joke of U.N. inspections, trying to make the world and his neighbors believe that he was acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

It was a dictatorship that was sending money to suicide bomber families in Palestine. It was a dictatorship that was making everything in the Middle East harder. It was a dictatorship that was shooting at American airplanes every day in violations of U.N. agreements. It was a dictatorship that is now in the ash dump of history. From this dictatorship we are trying to do something new and different for the Mideast, and it will inure to our benefit greatly as a nation: create the ability of different people from different backgrounds to vote for their leaders, to live under the rule of law, and not the rule of the gun. That makes us safer. It changes the Mideast, and it is a great blow to the terrorists. That is why they enlist. That is why they keep reenlisting. That is why they are dying.

Now, our majority leader, Senator Reid, who is a fine fellow, and I have enjoyed working with him, has made a colossal mistake for the ages by declaring this war lost. Not only does it run against the grain of the way Americans feel about combat when our Nation is at war, it runs against the reality of the consequences of having declared the war lost. To me, it shows a lack of understanding of what that statement means because when you say the war is lost, the next question to ask is, if we lost, who won? In war, there are winners and there are losers, and if the majority leader has declared us the loser, then the question needs to be asked by the world and this country: Who won that war in Iraq?

Well, I will tell you who will claim credit for winning the war in Iraq--al-Qaida. They will put on their Web site and in their propaganda to anybody who will listen: We won in Iraq. I guarantee you, if we lost, they won. Do you feel comfortable with that as a Senator representing the United States of America? I don't.

Who else won, if we lost? The Shia extremists who are trying to turn Iraq into a theocracy aligned with Iran. Does that satisfy you as a United States Senator? Is that OK with you? It is certainly not OK with me. The Sunni extremists, they won, the ones who are trying to take Iraq back to the good old days of Saddam.

Who are the biggest losers beyond us? We know who the winners are, the extremists in Iraq and al-Qaida, the ultimate extreme group. If you believe giving these groups Iraq makes us safer, you know nothing about human behavior or history as a whole.

This is not Vietnam, I say to my colleagues. This is the 1930s all over again where we have world leaders trying to appease a tyrant--give him Czechoslovakia, give him one more country, him being Hitler. Did that satisfy his appetite? The moral of the story is that when we let tyranny go unchecked, when we give into the dark forces of humanity, when we allow people who slaughter the innocent to win wars, we don't end their desire, we whet their appetite.

We have not lost this war. We will never lose this war as long as we have the will to win. If we have half the political courage as those who reenlist and go back three and four times, or the physical courage, there is nothing we can't accomplish in Iraq.

Some people worry about their next election, and they are trying to get right with the polls. My focus is on those who reenlist time and again and who are literally sacrificing everything they have to offer to their family and to their country.

So when we mention the death of someone wearing the uniform in the service of our Nation as a reason to withdraw from a war we cannot afford to lose, shame on this body. This bill will be vetoed. This new general, General Petraeus, is committed to winning, has a plan to win, and the question is, Are we going to undercut him?

If you passed the legislation and this legislation went to the President's desk and he did not veto it, then you would be cutting the legs out from under General Petraeus. You would be making everything that he is doing impossible to accomplish because you would change the dynamics on the ground so he would have no chance. And, yes, it is working. Violence is part of the 21st century. Israel lives with this every day. They don't let suicide bombers define the fate of Israel.

Are we going to let suicide bombers define the foreign policy of the United States? If we give them Iraq, you better double the size of the military because we are going to go back with a bigger war, not a smaller war. So I hope once the President vetoes it, we will understand that this new general with a new strategy is our best chance for success--with no guarantee because we have made so many mistakes in the past.

The biggest mistake was not having enough people to secure the country. If we want political reconciliation, which we know we have to achieve to win in Iraq, how can we have it without security? Why don't we have security? We let the country get out of control. We didn't have enough troops on the ground or enough capacity to train and fight.

We are doubling the size of the combat capability in Baghdad, and it is working. Mr. President, 16 of the 21 sheiks in Anbar Province have rejected al-Qaida and aligned with us. Six months ago, Al Anbar Province, where the Sunnis live, I would have written off. But now it is the greatest success story of the new strategy. We are still losing people in Anbar, but we are fighting along with the sheiks to combat al-Qaida because they have seen what al-Qaida holds for them and they have said, no, they don't want to live under the al-Qaida banner. They have tasted it and it doesn't taste well. They are coming our way.

Four thousand marines in Anbar province are making a huge difference. The sheiks, the tribal leaders, called for the young people of Anbar Province to join the police--before, we could not get anybody to join the Iraqi police--and they came in such large numbers that hundreds were turned away because we could not process them. Diyala is a result of success in Baghdad. Al-Sadr left Sadr City because we are in there now and are going to places we have never gone before. The mayor of Sadr City aligned with us, and they tried to kill him. He is in the hospital clinging to life. He tasted what the Shia extremists had for his people, the Shia, and he said no.

The only people I know of right now who seem to believe walking away from the fight in Iraq doesn't have severe consequences for the world are the ones in this body. I cannot envision a failed state in Iraq leading to a more secure United States. I cannot envision walking away from Iraq, declaring the war lost, not empowering al-Qaida beyond any other single event that we have engaged in since 9/11. The consequences of destroying General Petraeus's chance to be successful are enormous for the national security interests of this country.

Declaring a war lost by the Senate majority leader is unprecedented, ill-advised, and it is something we need to quickly correct because if we have lost, the people who will claim victory are our worst nightmare. We will be sending young men and women back to the Middle East to fight extremism in other countries as far as the eye can see or we can give this new general a chance to be successful, give him the time, the money, and the resources he needs to be successful, honor each death as a noble sacrifice for the cause of our freedom--for our own freedom, for the alignment of moderation against extremism--or we can let the car bomber and the suicide bomber drive us out of Iraq. We can let them dictate our foreign policy.

If we do that, we can come back home thinking we are safe, but we will have unleashed Pandora's box. The Gulf States are next if we lose in Iraq, and then eventually Israel. The consequences to our national security interests could not be greater.

Americans understood what it was like to live without freedom 200 years ago. That is why they died for it. There are people in the Mideast getting a taste of it. Let's side with those who believe in freedom against those who want to take us to the dark ages.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Dr. Gerald E. Harmon, MD, on the occasion of his retirement from the South Carolina Air National Guard, SCANG. A native South Carolinian, ``Gamecock Doc'' joined the military in 1973 as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force, USAF after graduating from the University of South Carolina USC. He began studying medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina through the Air Force Health Professions Scholarship Program achieving his M.D. in 1976.

Dr. Harmon completed his family practice residency at Eglin AFB in Florida. After fulfilling several USAF flight surgeon assignments in Texas and South Carolina, he transferred to the SCANG to serve as the commander of the 169th Tactical Clinic at McEntire Joint National Guard Base. Under his leadership, his unit was twice awarded the SCANG Outstanding Unit award and received ``Excellent'' evaluations by the USAF Inspection Agency.

In 1992, President George H. W. Bush recognized Dr. Harmon for his medical humanitarian work in Africa, and both in 1998 and 2003 the South Carolina General Assembly recognized him as the Doctor of the Day for his unselfish duty and devotion to the medical profession. Dr. Harmon was also a recipient of the American Heart Association Research Grant at the USC School of Medicine and was recognized as the Air National Guard's 1993 National Physician of the Year.

Over the last 7 years, Dr. Harmon served as the Air National Guard Assistant Surgeon General for the USAF providing critical advice and information on Air National Guard medical activities to the United States' Surgeon General. Part of his responsibilities included coordinating medical policies, plans, and programs for the Air National Guard. Dr. Harmon is the first South Carolinian to serve as the Air National Guard Assistant Surgeon General.

Dr. Harmon is currently a family practitioner the Waccamaw Medical Center on Pawleys Island, where he and his wife of 35 years reside. He is also President-elect of the South Carolina Medical Association having served on its board directors for many years.

A true patriot and a fine American, Dr. Harmon formally retired as a major general with over 700 flying hours on February 16, 2007. His military career will forever be marked by his extraordinary vision, sacrifice, and community spirit. I wish Dr. Harmon the very best in his retirement and ask that the Senate join me in thanking him for his service.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 118, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

I have no objection. I wish to make a request. Is it possible for me to speak for 5 to 10 minutes before 2:30, after the Senator from California speaks?

Absolutely.

Madam President, this bill is moving along very fast, and I compliment the majority and minority leaders for allowing the process to move forward in a quick fashion, because we understand the outcome. The bill most likely will pass in its current form, maybe with some changes, but at the end of the day, it will be vetoed.

I was listening earlier in the day to Senators Hagel and Webb discuss an amendment they had proposed. I am not sure whether it is germane, but the two Senators, who do deserve the respect of everyone in this body because they have been in combat, they have been in harm's way, had an amendment talking about force structure, how you would change the rotations, and the concerns this war has placed on the military. Well, those concerns are real, and I understand what they are trying to achieve there.

The reason I wanted to speak before we went to final passage is I know why the veto is coming. There are two components to this bill that the President should veto the bill over: No. 1, the restrictions we are placing on our military, and the deadlines and the timelines and the benchmarks all add up to making it impossible for the new

strategy of General Petraeus to be successful, if it became law. This is a constitutional encroachment upon the power of the Commander in Chief which I believe is unprecedented. There is an honorable path for Congress to take; that is, just stop funding a war that you think is lost. But the combination of deadlines, benchmarks, timelines, and micromanaging troop rotations all adds up to Congress really taking over wartime activity in a way that was never envisioned before. I don't think any other commander is going to have to go through what General Petraeus would have to go through if we did pass this bill and it were not vetoed.

I have been a military lawyer for 20-some years. The combat folks in here have been in harm's way. As a military lawyer, I have had some clients who wanted to kill me, but that is about it. So my hat is off to the warfighters. I have been in a support role, and there are thousands of doctors and nurses and lawyers and other support personnel serving in Iraq, and they are very much needed. There is no front line in Iraq or Afghanistan, so my hat is off to all of them. But the warfighter's point of view is what we need to be thinking about.

From the commander's point of view, General Petraeus has been assigned to a mission. He has come up with a new doctrine. Even the worst critic cannot say it is not something new. It is clearly something new. Whether it works I can't promise, but I think it has a good chance and there are early signs of success. It is making up for past mistakes.

The President is going to veto this bill because Congress has come up with a constitutional construct that, if allowed to exist, I believe would create dangers for future Commanders in Chief and future wars that are just unnecessary. I know the political moment for Iraq is not popular. I know people are frustrated and upset and we have made tons of mistakes, but the biggest mistake would be to throw the constitutional balance we have enjoyed for 200 years out of kilter and try to take over this war in a way we are not built to take over as a Congress.

There is a way to cut off this funding. We just haven't chosen to go down that road, and I don't know why. If you think it is lost, then that is the road to go down.

The second part of the bill that has met with objection is the number of projects unrelated to the war--for lack of a better word, porkbarrel spending. And it may not be porkbarrel spending. Some of these projects are probably very worthy. I just don't believe this is the way to fund them.

The emergency supplemental appropriations process for the war is needed, but we shouldn't have an emergency appropriation. This war has been going on for 4 years, so hopefully next year we will not find ourselves in this spot. If we do not get the funds over to our commanders and into the DOD pipeline, then readiness is hurt, the ability to prosecute the war is compromised beginning April 15, and every month thereafter, it gets more difficult.

So the President is going to veto the bill for two sound reasons. The construct Congress has created is taking the Congress in an area we have never gone before that I believe would be devastating to future wars. It would undermine General Petraeus' ability to be successful in his mission. The spending practices this bill embraces is what has put Congress in such low standing with the American public.

Republicans lost for a reason. We didn't treat the process in a respectful way. Our Democratic friends, with some Republican help, are making the problem worse when it comes to fiscal matters. So I do hope that once the veto is rendered we can find a way to get the money to the troops who are desperately in need of it over time, and we can find a way to come together and give General Petraeus a decent opportunity to turn Iraq around.

I end on this note. What drives my thinking and what makes me disagree with Senator Webb and Senator Hagel--people who have experienced combat--is that I believe the outcome in Iraq is part of the overall war on terror. If we lose in Iraq--and I think this bill would ensure a loss if it ever became law--the ripple effect is catastrophic; the war gets bigger, not smaller. A failed state in Iraq is a huge loss in the war on terror. It compromises our national security for decades.

That is the way I see it, and I will take every vote in this body viewing Iraq as a central battlefront in the war on terror, one we cannot afford to lose.

I yield the floor.