Floor Statements

Mr. President, next week, on June 2, Ms. Nancy Jean Price will retire from my office having served the people of South Carolina for over 30 years as a congressional constituent liaison. I rise today to recognize the outstanding service and dedication she demonstrated throughout her extensive and distinguished career.

A native South Carolinian, Jean is the daughter of Mr. Joe B. and Mrs. Trula W. Price. She graduated from Lander University in Greenwood and began her career as a congressional staffer in the office in the officer of former U.S. Representative Butler Derrick, who represented South Carolina's Third Congressional District from 1974 to 1994. Jean wore many hats for Congressman Derrick in his Anderson, SC, district office. Whether working as a constituent liaison, a special events coordinator, a caseworker, or even as a manager, Jean went above and beyond what was required to address any task or challenge she confronted.

Following Congressman Derrick's retirement in 1994, I was elected to Congress and was fortunate Jean accepted a constituent services position in my Aiken office. After my election to the Senate in 2002, I promoted Jean to low-country regional director, and she helped establish our office in Mt. Pleasant.

In the 12 years Jean has worked on my staff, she has consistently and selflessly served constituents, answered questions, and solved countless problems. In doing so, Jean has garnered the personal and professional respect and admiration of her friends and colleagues. She is an upstanding member of society. She represents the very finest in Christian values dedicating much of her free time to church and community work in various leadership and service positions. But above all, Jean has been dedicated to her family.

While well deserved, Jean's retirement is a great loss for me and the State of South Carolina. Her service heart will serve as the gold standard for all staff that follow behind her. I will miss Jean, but I wish her a prosperous retirement and great success and happiness in the future.

Mr. President, I think this has been a very good debate. Why is the Chamber opposed? Why are the groups backing the bill opposed? Do they want just anybody and everybody? Some probably do. I don't believe that is what motivates the authors of the bill.

We are trying to marry up needs, and the numbers we are picking do change because of the politics and because of projected needs.

What I would say to my good friend from New Mexico is, if you think you are helping, you are not. I am not questioning your motives. I will never question the motive of any Senator who votes differently than I do because they are all intelligent people, and I don't claim to know more about any particular area than any other of my colleagues. But what we are doing is trying to create order out of chaos because we live in a chaotic world when it comes to immigration. The numbers change every time the bill changes.

Hagel and Martinez was a new proposal, a new idea that broke people into different groups. The 2-to-5 year group of people was treated differently. Senator Bingaman was right, we tried to exclude that. Whether it is 290,000 or 600,000--whatever, what I don't want to do is artificially deny my country the ability to assimilate hard-working people I think we need.

The fundamental disagreement between me and the Heritage Foundation and Senator Bingaman is I believe that immigration is going to be regulated by the needs of our economy. When our economy gets to the point that we can't tolerate more people, the numbers are going to change. The Heritage Foundation assumed escalations in numbers apart from supply and demand. To my good friend from New Mexico, the 11 million to 12 million--whatever number it is--have already been assimilated into our workforce without damage to our workforce because we have historically low unemployment, and the economy is humming, from a Republican sound bite point of view. This is about as good as it will ever get.

When you change the formula, when you introduce the family element of having to choose between family status and work status in a different kind of way than the base bill, then you are going to create a chaotic political event, a chaotic assimilation event.

What I am trying to urge my colleagues to do is let us not create disorder in a way that just doesn't reflect what we want to be as a society. We need the workers. I think we need more than 290,000. But when you start looking at counting the children and family members and they are not workers, you are hurting our business community, and you are putting a burden down the road on people. That just really makes me feel uncomfortable.

I respect Senator Bingaman's approach to this problem. He has limited the number of people that can come in. I fundamentally disagree with him. I think 5 years from now we are going to need more people, not less. Japan is our model in this regard. The Japanese demographics have changed. There are more older people there than younger people. They have a closed society. They don't assimilate people from outside their culture, and their gross domestic product has slowed down. Their workforce needs are being unmet.

Whatever number we pick--and we can all talk about what the right number is--to make this change at this stage in the proceedings to introduce family status versus work status is a new concept, something we haven't all thought about and worked through before. That does more harm than good.

I hope we can march forward, work with the numbers based on what we think the economic needs of the country will be in a way that is fair to people.

We have changed the bill fundamentally from Hagel-Martinez. We are trying to accommodate business needs; we are trying to accommodate the needs of our society in terms of people violating the law.

But this idea that we are going to flood America with people who can't add value to America, my colleagues, is contrary to what this bill is about.

If you come here under this bill, whether you are a future flow or you are with the 11 million, you will have to prove to us over time that you are worthy of staying here. You will have to earn your way into working in this country and staying in this country. You are not getting anything for free. As a matter of fact, the future flow people and the 11 million people are going to be asked to do more than any generation that has ever come to this country.

I think there is a point in time where we need to stop and try to have assimilation rules that bring about order, not chaos.

I hope that we will reject this attempt to change the bill in the eleventh hour because it will create political and economic chaos.

I yield the floor.

This amendment is important in this regard. When is it enough? When does the punishment fit the crime and when does it go too far? What role should tax policy play in punishing a violation of the law, whether it be a misdemeanor or a felony? I can tell you the role the Tax Code plays when it comes to felonies. If you are a drug dealer and you have been convicted and you are on probation or in jail, once you get out or off probation, you are not denied the earned-income tax credit. If you are a convicted child molester, the Tax Code doesn't change because of your crime.

I would argue that for the crime we are dealing with, coming across the border illegally, jumping in line, a nonviolent offense, we need to have some reasonable punishment and not go too far. If we change the Tax Code because they violated our law, then how do we look people in the eye in the category of illegal immigrants and tell them that they are being punished through the Tax Code in a way a rapist, murderer, or drug dealer is not? That is not proportional.

It is a misdemeanor under our law to cross the border illegally with no specified crime, a maximum of 6 months in prison. I have been a prosecutor. Senator Sessions has been a prosecutor. I can assure you, there are people who do really bad things that don't have to go through what the illegal immigrants are going to go through to earn their way back into our good graces. They have to pay a fine consistent with a misdemeanor offense. They have to learn English. If you have committed a felony outside of immigration law, you are not eligible to get in the program. If you have committed three misdemeanors outside of immigration violations, you are not eligible to get in the program. If you fail the English test, if you are out of work for over 45 days, you are subject to being deported.

What is left will be hard-working people who are trying to pay their debt back to society and, on top of all that, have to pay all of our taxes. And they should. It would be great if everybody working in America paid their fair share of taxes. It would be unfair, after you try to pay your debt to society by making it right after violating the immigration laws, which is a misdemeanor, to throw on top of that Tax Code treatment that no other felon would get.

There is a point in time here where we are going to not just punish people for a violation of the law but declare war on who they are. I don't want to cross that line as a nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I don't know how to say it other than just to say it. We are beginning to take tax policy focusing on one group of people and tying it to criminal behavior disproportionate to the crime, and we are beginning to set the stage for a different kind of America. Not only is it ill-conceived, it is dangerous. You can rape someone, you can murder someone, you can be a convicted child molester, and our tax laws allow you to get a refund.

What kind of crime are we talking about here? Coming across the border illegally, breaking in line to try to get ahead, because here you can do really well and on the other side of the border you do really poorly. I am sorry people did that. They need to pay for their crime of coming across the border, which is a misdemeanor with no specific fine set, with a 6-month cap on punishment.

But what are we going to do to those people who come here and we have allowed them to sit here--not sit here, work here, for our benefit, doing things we don't want to do for years--we are going to say to the children who are American citizens, You are an American citizen as much as I am, but when it comes to your parents who came across that border for you and your future, we are not going to just punish them, we are going to take the whole Tax Code and turn it upside down and do to your parents what we don't do to a drug dealer or a rapist or a murderer.

To my good friend from Nevada: Enough is enough. You have gone way too far. We need to get a grip on who we are as people. Punishment, yes. Revenge, no.

You want to talk about fairness? I have been a prosecutor, I have been a defense attorney, and I know you have to pay your debt, but this is a place where you can start over--at least it used to be. It is a place where you have a chance to right your wrongs. Under this bill, you do pay a fine; you do go through a very long process to earn your way back into our good graces. It is a misdemeanor. You pay a fine. You have to learn English. If you are out of work for over 45 days, off you go. If you commit a felony or misdemeanor unrelated to immigration, off you go. We need the workers. We don't need bad people. We need good people.

Every now and then, good people do bad things. At least I have found it to be so. Count me in that category. I hope you will forgive me if I do a bad thing, because I have done plenty of bad things. It is because people have seen the good in me, allowed me to start over and do right. That is why I am in the Senate today, because people saw in me some things I didn't deserve to have seen. So yes, let's give them punishment, make them do right, make them learn our language, make them pay taxes and pay a fine, make sure they don't commit crimes. But once you pay taxes, let's don't turn the Tax Code upside down just to kick you around after you have done what we have asked you to do.

Please vote no. I yield back.

Earned Income Credit

Mr. President, my very good friend from Nevada is driven by what he thinks is fair and right. I have a totally different view. Here is what I think is fair and right: Punish people appropriate to the crime; don't take tax policy and connect it to criminal law.

What we are saying people right now is: pay your taxes, learn English, pay a fine. But let's not come up with tax policy for one group of people who are now legal and say: You have to pay, but you don't get what anybody else in the country legally gets, and we have made you legal.

What damage are we going to do? We are going to take the tax law and turn it upside down and focus on one group and kick them around after they do everything else that everybody else has to do. That is not the best of this country. That is not consistent with the punishment versus the crime. Why would we ask somebody to pay their taxes and then say: Thanks for the money; you don't get any other benefits in the Tax Code. Rapists, murderers, and thieves go to jail, but they get refunds if the Tax Code says so. The only people who are not going to get a refund after they pay the taxes is this group of people working hard? That is not right.

I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding. I will try to add a little bit different perspective.

Senator Kennedy is right. If you look at the chart with the numbers, the revenues taken in at a point in time from the immigrant legislation exceed the outlays, and that is what CBO says. My good friend Senator Coburn and others dispute that. I think CBO is something you use when you agree with them and something you run away from when they disagree with you. Their methodology is probably flawed when I agree with them and it is probably flawed when I disagree with them.

What I am trying to bring to the table about the economic impact of this debate is that there are more people involved than just the Federal Government. It does seem as if, from a Federal Government perspective, it is probably good business to get people to pay taxes and get them legalized versus having them undocumented. That is one of the economic conditions we are dealing with, is how do you sign up people, who are here to work, in a regularized fashion so we will know who they are and they will contribute to social programs, not just take away, and they will not have to live in fear, and they can help through their tax contributions.

It is true some of them withdraw services from programs set up for people who are on economic hard times, but generally speaking, I would argue the 11 million people we are talking about assimilating and the future flow people we are talking about coming here work very hard. We all have impressions of this group. My impression of the undocumented workforce we are talking about is it is not a group of people sitting around wanting something for nothing. They are doing five and six jobs a day, working very hard, and economically there has to be room in America for somebody like that. If there is no room in America for somebody who is willing to do the hardest job in America from sunup until sundown, then America has changed.

We have 4.7 percent unemployment nationally. I am a Republican. I am going to take credit for it, along with my President, and share it with my Democratic colleagues. Whatever we are doing or failing to do, one thing I can tell you for sure: the economy is as good as it is ever going to get in your lifetime--4.7 percent unemployment. The GDP growth is over 4 percent. There is wage growth over 4 percent and an 11,000 stock market.

One thing for sure is that the 11 million undocumented workers have assimilated into our economy and are not a drain because it is humming. That is just a fact. We can't issue a press release on Monday taking credit for the good economy and talk about a workforce that has been here for years and say it is going to kill the economy because it has not yet, nor will it ever.

Our biggest problem in America from an employer point of view is how do you sign people up, knowing who is legal and who isn't. Let's fix it. Because you really don't know. What do employers tell me more than anything else? I need workers, particularly in the construction business, tourism business, agricultural business. I advertise within the native population, and I can't get enough workers. Our bill requires proof that an American has not been put out of a job, a native American citizen hasn't been put out of a job because of someone coming out of this pool of undocumented workers.

The truth is, colleagues, we need these workers.

A few years ago, Japan crossed a demographic line of having more older people than younger people. We are getting there. It is going to be impossible, because of the demographic changes in our country, to fill all of the jobs we need to keep this economy humming without assimilating more people. How do you do that?

That is what this bill is about. The economics of assimilating hard- working people, who believe in hard work, who want to play by the rules, raise families, and join the military, is a net positive. You will never convince economists that the people we are talking about are a drain on our society. They have jobs that do not pay a lot right now, but they have a heart and a mindset that makes America a wonderful place to live. Just watch them go and watch them grow. Some of the children of this illegal immigrant, undocumented workforce are now in college, in military academies, and fighting our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, just like every other group that came to America. You start on the bottom, and people around you don't really appreciate you at first, but you eventually work your way up. That is going to happen here.

The budget impact of assimilating this undocumented workforce into our economy needs to be looked at in terms of dynamic scoring. That is what Senator Kennedy is calling for--dynamic scoring--because that is what he is basically saying.

You need to look at all the things they do and not just at the services they take. You need to look at the economic needs of our economy for workers. We are short of workers. Let us not drive away people who are willing to work. Let us punish people who broke our laws but punish them proportionate to the crime.

There are several avenues in the bill as to how you can come to America and work, but there is one thing in common for every approach to solving the illegal immigration problem. Here is what is in common: You have to work to stay. We are not letting people come here and just sit on the corner and suck us dry. In the underlying legislation, if you are out of work for over 45 days, you are ineligible for the program. You have to learn English, as part of this bill. You just can't come here and not assimilate. You have to take a civics class. You have to hold a job. You cannot break the law, and you have to assimilate into our society. An economic benefit will be gained if we allow that to happen. A social benefit will be gained if we allow that to happen. The cost of doing nothing is catastrophic.

And how do you score it? How do you score the cost of having a border that is a joke? How do you score the cost of having a legal system nobody knows how to apply? How could you score the cost of having millions of people living around you who are scared to death?

What I hope my colleagues will look at when it comes to the budget is not only what the Congressional Budget Office says but the reality of where we are as a nation. We need good, honest, hard-working people, decent people who will get up early and stay late to keep this economy humming. And they are here among us. Make them pay a just and fair debt for getting here by cutting ahead of the line, but do not ruin our economy in the process.

I hope that when we look at the economic condition that this bill will create in America for our budget and our society, we will look at it in a dynamic way, in a realistic way, and come to grips with the idea that in 2006, America has assimilated these 11 million people who are working very hard. What do we do with them now? They are here. How do we control those who want to come after them?

I am all for employing people on our conditions--not theirs--of regularizing, legalizing, making people pay a debt, pay fines, pay back taxes and future taxes, pay your way the best you can. But I am very confident that the net benefit to our country and our society by assimilating a needed workforce in a humane fashion is a budget winner and a winner for our society as a whole.

I gladly will vote against this budget point of order because while you look at the dynamics of the economic condition of our country and the value the immigrant workforce has now and in the future, it is a plus for our country. And doing nothing is the consequence of this bill falling or failing. What will be the cost for the next generation of politicians to do something we can't do among ourselves now? It will be more, it will be harder.

Let us do it now. Let us get it right the best we can and realize that America needs honest, hard-working, decent people now more than ever. They are among us, and let us figure out a win-win.

Mr. President, how much time remains, 2 minutes 58 seconds?

Mr. President, what I have to say is not worth arguing about, but I appreciate the opportunity to say it.

My good friend from North Dakota and I have worked together on protecting the American workforce from unfair pressure. The American workforce is under assault from unfair trade practices. The truth is that America needs all the decent, hard-working people she can lay her hands on.

In my State, the tourism industry, the construction industry, and the agricultural industry are very dependent on the new blood of migrant workers. And we have a system where people come in and can't be documented. There is no control. To sunset the temporary worker program would create havoc for our economy. From South Carolina throughout this land, these 11 million have assimilated into our workforce. They are doing a darned good job. They are important to our economy.

Unemployment is 4.7 percent. It will never get any lower. Wage growth is over 4 percent. Gross domestic product growth is at 4.5 percent, and the stock market is at 11,000.

The truth is, we have already assimilated these workers, and they are adding value to our country and our economy. The demographics in this country are relevant and won't change. Japan is faced with this. They have a culture that is closed to outside influences, and there are more older people in Japan than younger people. We are about to get there.

We need new people now like we did in the 19th and 20th centuries-- good, honest, hard-working people--to keep our economy humming.

If you sunset this provision of the bill, you are bringing sunset to a problem that is overdue to be solved. Let's not let the sun go down on the problem of immigration any longer.

I know what the Senator is trying to do. I respect it, but this would kill this bill.

We should have done this many sunsets ago. We have been derelict in our duty to control immigration, and we are about there. We need those workers.

I yield.

Mr. President, just to put this debate in perspective for myself and myself alone, I wish I could speak an additional language. It would make me a better person. I think I would enjoy that experience. I know enough German just to be dangerous. I lived 4\1/2\ years in Germany, and I picked up a little of the language, but I was always somewhat embarrassed that all my German friends probably spoke better English than I, and several other languages. It would be great for our country if our young people could learn additional languages because we live in a global economy and a global world, and it would make America a better place.

However, what makes America a special place and what is the key to success in America, from an economic and social perspective, is to master or be competent in the English language. While I personally would like to be able to speak another language--I think it would make me a better person, it would change my life for the better--when it comes to our Nation, it is important that we focus as a nation on those things which unify us, and our common language is English. We need to understand that and promote that because if you are coming to America or you are here now, your life will be tremendously enhanced if you are fluent in the English language. Opportunities will exist for you that will not exist otherwise.

I know there are many people in this body from different places in the world, and some have parents or grandparents who came here not speaking a word of English. Some may have died not speaking a word of English, and their lives were just as valuable as anybody else's life, but we are trying, as a Government to make a policy statement here--it is a policy statement--but not change the law at the same time.

The goal of this amendment is to say English is the national language of the United States. That is true. I would encourage every American to learn another language, get your kids enrolled in taking Spanish or some other language because they will be more successful in a global economy. From an individual level, we would be better off if every American could master additional languages other than English. But from a national perspective, to make sure we maintain our national unity and our common sense of being one nation, it is important that we emphasize the need to assimilate into America by mastering the English language. Senator Inhofe is making a statement that needs to be made. I congratulate him.

What does this amendment do, and what is it intended to do? This amendment says:

The Government of the United States shall preserve and

enhance the role of English as the national language of the

United States of America.

That is a good policy statement. From an individual perspective, we should learn as many languages as possible, but from a national perspective, we need to promote assimilation in our society. The best way to assimilate into our society is not to abandon your native tongue but to also learn English.

I certainly will.

I will be glad to answer. That is a great question. Here is the way I view what we are trying to do. Please, others, speak up.

Even though we are trying, in this amendment, to promote the idea that English is the national language and the Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America, there is something else we are trying to avoid doing. The truth is that a variety of Government services are authorized and provided by law in languages other than English. That decision has been made in the Voting Rights Act. There are a bunch of incidences in our law through court decisions, statutory schemes, maybe regulatory schemes, that would authorize a service to be provided by the U.S. Government in a language other than English. My goal is to make sure, in trying to bring us together, focusing on English as an essential part of who we are, not to disturb that legal setting.

So if in the example of the Senator of someone who is needing translation in court because they are not competent in the language, the English language, and they can't understand the proceedings--if a judge determines that or there is a statute which requires that person be provided translation, interpreting services, nothing in this amendment would override that.

Yes.

Right.

Right.

Go ahead.

Let's go back to the original question and incorporate it into the answer. The Senator asked me if I know of a case where the American Government provides a service in some language other than English that I find unjustified? The answer is overwhelmingly no. We do provide, at the Federal level, bilingual ballots and other services outside of English for a reason, and I think those reasons are good.

The Senator from Oklahoma gave an example. I believe it is a Federal statute that makes sure that due process rights of people not sufficiently trained in understanding English are preserved. At some point in time--in 1978 or whenever it was--Congress came along and said: There will be services provided in a language other than English in a court setting. Not only do I think that is just, but I want to preserve it.

Here is the ultimate answer to the Senator's question. If there is an example of an injustice in the Senator's mind as an individual Senator, where the Government of our country is providing a service not in English, this will not remedy that injustice.

That is what I am trying to say. Passing this amendment, voting for this amendment will not remedy that injustice. If you find one, you would have to come to the floor of the Senate and introduce a bill--a regulation--because this does not do that.

What Senator Inhofe said is absolutely right. The reason I am going to vote for this is because I think it tries to unite us without taking off the table exceptions to English or services provided other than English. It doesn't disturb the legal situation in this country by a statute, regulation, court decree or an Executive order conferring rights of people to receive services other than English. If I thought it did, I wouldn't vote for it.

Mr. President, I will give the Senator my answer and then yield to anyone. I know we need to wrap this up.

In my opinion, the phrase, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law,'' we would preserve that service. Simply stated, that language to me is intended to make sure that whatever service is provided in a language other than English, our Federal Government is not disturbed. If you want to disturb it, you would have to come back and do something else.

May I suggest why I think we need to do this and why I support Senator Inhofe. We have gone through a great debate in this country, which is long overdue. What does it mean to be an American? And what role unites us and what divides us? I think it is time for this body to say two things: We will continue to provide services other than English out of a sense of justice and fairness, and we are not going to disturb that because I think there is a goal for that in our society.

But as we debate how to assimilate 11 million people, we need to make it clear that it is the policy of our Government not to change the law but is the goal of our Government to enhance our common language, English. To me, that is a good thing to say because when the demonstrations are in the streets with Mexican flags, they have the right to fly any flag, but some of us have to respond to that. I am supporting the bill, but I am not going to sit on the sidelines and watch demonstrations that destroy national unity. I am trying to bring us all together, and I want the individuals who are here and undocumented to be documented by taking civics classes and taking an English proficiency exam.

Why do we ask them to do that? Why is that part of the pathway to citizenship? We all know if they don't become proficient in English, they will never achieve their own individual value and will be hurting our country. And we are trying to reinforce that without doing it in a way that would deny services already provided in languages other than English. That is why it is important to me. That is why I will vote for it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a debate which you wonder why you are having it the more we talk about it. How did we get here from where we started?

Let me suggest that what Senator Inhofe was trying to do here is important. Senator Bingaman, my good friend from New Mexico--I disagree with him that this is not that big a deal in terms of its importance to the bill or the debate. I think it is a very important part of the debate. I appreciate Senator Inhofe putting it on the floor of the Senate. We will talk about what I think the amendment does and does not do. Let's talk about why it is important to the debate.

One thing we have to remember is that the underlying bill that came out of Judiciary, the McCain-Kennedy concept as changed by Hagel- Martinez, which I support and I think is a good solution for a real problem for America, has as one of the provisions that if you will come out of the shadows and you raise your hand and say: Here I am, I am undocumented, the bill allows you a path to citizenship with several requirements before you can ever apply for citizenship. One of those requirements is that you come out of the shadows, and for a 6-year period you can work here, and you have to pay a $2,000 fine. I think that is fair. I don't think that is being oppressive. That is making people pay for violating the law. It is a punishment that is consistent with a nonviolent offense.

Another condition is that you must learn English. Why did we make that a condition of coming out of the shadows? I think Senator Kennedy and every other person on that side of the aisle--the Democratic side of the aisle--understands that to require an illegal immigrant to learn English is not unfair. If we thought it was unfair, we should not have put it in the bill. Why did we put it in the bill? We realize as a body the best you can do for people coming out of the shadows is challenge them and help them learn English so they can be value added to our country and they can survive in our economy.

It is true that the Inhofe amendment doesn't provide any resources, nor does the Salazar amendment. The reason neither one provides resources to learn English is that we have already done that with my good friend, Senator Alexander from Tennessee. We put a requirement on the undocumented illegal immigrant to learn English but in a true American fashion. We have put some resources--a $500 grant--on the table which will help meet that obligation.

Here is the important point. If you fail to pass the English proficiency exam, you will be deported. Under the bill, if you fail to pass the English proficiency exam--and I am probably the worst advocate in the country for the English language--you can be deported. That is not unfair. That is not too hard. That is just. So if you are willing to make everybody come forward and learn English, and if they fail you are going to deport them, why can we not say as a body that the Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America? If we are willing to deport people for failing to learn English, surely we should stand behind the concept as a nation that it is in our best interest for people to learn English.

Now, as to the unintended consequences, I have looked at this all day, and I am of the belief that this amendment, as written, preserves every legal opportunity avenue available for the Federal Government to interact with the people of the United States by issuing forms and documents in languages other than English. The purpose is to say publicly that English is our national language and that the Government shall preserve and enhance the role of English without having the legal consequence of rolling back laws that are already on the books that allow the Government to interact with its people, provide services in other languages. That is why the term ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law'' is there. That means, simply put, if there is a law on the books--a case decision, a regulation, an Executive order, you name the source of law--or a constitutional provision that would allow the Federal Government to interact with its people in a language other than English, it is not affected by this amendment, nor does it prevent in the future the Government expanding those services in a language other than English. It says, also, there is no entitlement to a service from the Federal Government in a language other than English, unless authorized by law. That is just a simple, commonsense concept.

We do business in this country at the Federal level. We have programs at the Federal level that allow languages other than English to be utilized, including the Voting Rights Act, which allows bilingual ballots, and the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, which provides for translations or interpretations of other languages in Federal court. There are a lot of laws that allow the Federal Government to provide services in languages other than English, and this amendment protects those laws; it doesn't change their status at all.

Now, to read this amendment to say that some State flag has to be changed--I will be honest with you, that is not even an honest, fair interpretation of the words as printed on the paper. It is not the intent of anyone. It is something being said that is not rationally related to the words or the intent of the author or the way the bill works. We are trying to preserve whatever legal rights there are to do business in languages other than English that are in existence today, and maybe tomorrow, and we are trying to reinforce the role that English is our national language. If we don't do that, if we back off of that concept, what signal are we sending to the people we are willing to deport if they fail to learn English?

We cannot have it both ways. We need to take a strong stand for a couple of principles. If you want to assimilate into American society, it is important that you learn English. How have we stood for that principle? If you come out of the shadows and you fail the English exam, you are going to get deported. We are giving people money to help them pass that exam, but we are not going to waive the requirement that you learn English to be assimilated for the 11 million undocumented workers. I think it would help everybody in this country if the Senate went on record and said that the policy of this Government will be to preserve and enhance the role of English in our society, and do it in such a way that understands that speaking other languages, having a different culture, is not a bad thing but a good thing. There is nothing in this amendment, in my opinion, that does away with any laws that already exist or might exist in the future for a language other than English.

Mr. President, I would like for a moment to showcase the staff of all Senators involved who have been working for hours to try to get this right. It is important to get this right. For me, this is sort of the model for where we go from here as a Nation and how we address immigration issues. Senator Kennedy and his staff have been terrific.

The goal, as Senator McCain said, was to make sure that our country is assimilating people who potentially add value to our country. If you are a thug, if you are a crook, if you are a murderer or a rapist or a bunco artist or a felon, you don't really add any value, and the only person you can blame is yourself. So I have no sympathy for your cause because your misconduct, your mean, hateful, cheating behavior has disqualified you--and too bad. You don't add value.

With three misdemeanors, as defined in the bill and as we have it under Kyl-Cornyn, you have had one chance, two chances, and the third time you are out. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

I think every Democrat and every Republican should come to grips with the idea that when we give people a second chance--whatever you want to call this process we are about to engage upon--there are certain people who do not get that second chance based upon what they did, either once or three times.

I think that is a good addition to this bill. It expands the base bill, and Kyl-Cornyn has done a good service to the body in that regard. But there is another side of this story. It is a group of people who haven't committed crimes other than violating immigration laws--nonviolent crimes or who, as Senator McCain said, is one step ahead of a death squad in some bad part of the world and have come here to start a new life.

On the civil side, there is a group that split--the absconders. If you have been given an immigration deportation order and you just ignore it, then you are not subject to being eligible either because you have had your day in court. You lose and there is no use retrying your case.

However, if you fall into a category of people who had no knowledge or notice of the order for deportation, then it is not fair to hold you accountable to comply with something you didn't know about. So we are going to look at that case anew.

Within that population of people who have been issued deportation orders, some of the people we are talking about come to our country one step ahead of death squads or repressive governments. A humanitarian argument could be made in a few cases that we are going to listen to. For that small group of people, we will have a waiver requirement. We will waive the ineligibility if to deport you would reenforce a system that would have led to a tragedy.

If you had not gotten into the program using fraudulent documents--if I had to choose between my family's demise or forging a document to get away from a oppressive government, I would forge the document. I am willing to give those folks a chance to make the case that they add value.

On the humanitarian side, if you have a child or a member of a family who is an American citizen and you receive a deportation order, I am willing to allow a case to be made that it is not in the best interests of this country or justice to break up that family. There is a limited class of cases. That is just as important to me as dealing with the criminal because if you can't deal with hard cases that have some a sympathetic element, then you have hardened your heart as a body.

I don't mind telling a criminal: Too bad, you have nobody to blame but yourself. But I am proud of the body listening to people who deserve to be listened to and creating a waiver process that will bring about a just result and to allow people to add value to the country if they can prove they can.

Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn have been great to work with. I hope we get nearly 100 votes. I say to Senator Kennedy's staff, it would not have been possible without you.

This body should be proud of this product because you break people into groups because of what they did in their individual circumstances. To me, that has been part of immigration reform. One size does not fit all.

Mr. President, quickly, while Senator Vitter is speaking for a lot of people who believe we should not do this together, we should have border security and come back and look at a different way of doing this with 11 or 12 million people, that does not mean you are hateful, that does not mean you don't understand there is a problem. They have a problem with the citizenship path, and I understand that.

I agree with the President, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, 70 percent of the American people--we have to do both. We are not going to put everybody in jail. That is off the table. It is not going to work. We are not going to deport 11 million or 12 million people. What do we do? Of these 11 or 12 million people, how many have children who are American citizens? How do you get them out of the shadows effectively to get control of the problem?

If we want to control the borders, control employment. If we do not control employment, we can build the biggest fence in the world, and it will not work. People will keep coming here until we get a grip on employment.

How do you control employment? Make sure you know who is being employed, and punish employers who cheat. Give them a chance to participate in the system that will work. The way to control employment is get people out of the shadows, sign up for a system we can control.

If you make them felons, they are not going to come out of the shadows. If you deport the parents and leave the children behind, they are not coming out.

If you think it is silly not to beef up the border, you are right. If you think it is wise to separate these issues and have a system where no one will participate by punishing people for coming out of the shadows, you are dead wrong. You can punish them in a fairminded way after they come out of the shadows, with an incentive for them to come, put them on probation. We are talking about a nonviolent offense.

We need the workers. We have 4.7 percent unemployment. We have 11 million people here working. They are not putting people out of work; they are adding value to our country. Some

will make it to citizenship, some won't. Those who make it will have learned to speak English and will always have a job for 45 days. They will have a hard road but will have earned it if they get to the end. And some will not make it.

To deny they exist and to have a solution that will not get control of employment is just as irresponsible as not doing something about the border. That is why the President has chosen to get involved with a comprehensive solution that does two things at once--controls the employment and does something about the 11 million in a fairminded way--and also controls the border. If we separate these issues, we will fail again as a country.

I look forward to passing a bill that does both--deals with the employment problems, the border problems, and treats people fairly, punishes them fairly, and makes them pay their debt to society fairly. But I believe deep in my heart that some of the 11 million people will make it and some won't. They can add value to my country. And my friend from Florida is a value to my country, and he was not born here.

Mr. President, for the record, I would like to compliment our staff because most of the hard work in this place goes on in some back room with our staff people trying to work through the problems of the bill. They have done a great job for Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and McCain. I am proud of what my staff has done, and particularly Senator Kennedy's staff. We have all gotten good staff support on this issue.

Very clearly, succinctly, to the point, if you are a criminal, if you have committed a felony, if you have committed a crime or three misdemeanors, you don't get a second shot. Off you go. That, to me, is important.

Under the bill, we are trying to give people a pathway to citizenship that would be earned and that would add value to our country. Senators Kyl and Cornyn have made this a better bill because the one thing we should all be able to agree on here is you are not adding value to the country when you openly admit people who are criminals, who are mean and hateful, and who keep breaking the law.

There is another group of people who are subject to deportation on the civil side. I think it is very fair that in a limited class of cases, we will allow people on the civil side subject to deportation a chance to make their case anew in terms of being eligible for a future guest worker program that may become our Nation's law based on the base bill.

Who are these people? If you are in a civil deportation hearing and you can demonstrate that you never received the order to leave, then we are going to give you a second shot. It is hard to comply with something you don't know about. That happens on occasion.

Second, we are going to allow you, on the civil side receiving a deportation order, to make an argument about how it would affect your family and take the human condition into consideration.

There is a unique group of people who come to this country--not by illegally crossing the border and overstaying their visa--who are one step ahead of a death squad in some foreign land. It could be Haiti or other places, it could be Cuba, with an oppressive Communist regime, and the only way they can get out of that country to come here is it make up a story that would keep them from being killed. What we are saying is, if you come into our country through an inspection system and you have to save your family from an oppressive government or ahead of a death squad, we will let you tell us about that. We will sit down and figure out if it makes sense to make you part of this program.

There are not that many people, but we don't want to leave anybody behind that has a meritorious case to be made on the civil side. If you are a criminal, forget it. You have had your chance, and you have blown it. This, to me, makes the bill better, whether it is the underlying bill or not. This is a concept that is uniquely American.

If you believe in playing by the rules, as Americans do, and you hurt people, you are not going to get a second shot at hurting people again in our country. If you got caught up in a legal system that sometimes is complicated and you have a meritorious argument to be made and you have never hurt anyone, we are going to listen to what you have to say.

I am proud to be part of it. Senator Kennedy has been very helpful. I hope we can get close to 100 votes. This is something that should bring us together. Senators Kyl and Cornyn demonstrated the best of this body, reaching out, even though Members may not agree with the base bill, to try to find a way to make this part of the bill better.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the H-Prize Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the H-Prize Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of North Augusta, SC. Preceded by the settlements of Hamburg and Campbelltown, North Augusta was founded on the north bank of the Savannah River in 1892 by James U. Jackson, whose development company planned the city's original layout. Officially chartered a town on April 11, 1906, North Augusta remained small and mostly residential until the early 1950s when the Savannah River Site was built. Thereafter, the town tripled in size, becoming a city. During the next half century, as new subdivisions were constructed around the city, commercial development flourished. Today, North Augusta is known for its first-class recreational facilities, community league sports teams, and caring people. It is a city that prides itself on responsive government and a strong sense of community. With a healthy respect for its past, an emerging riverfront, and careful growth, the city's future is bright.

Mr. President, I have been involved, along with many other people, trying to work hard. And if this were an easy problem, we would have solved it many years ago. As a nation, in 1986, we offered amnesty under Ronald Reagan, and 3 million people have turned into 11 million people. We can argue rightfully about what is punishment, what is amnesty. But what we can't afford is to take broken borders and combine them with a broken Senate.

America needs something to work around here on immigration. The House has spoken. I don't agree with their conclusion, but at least they spoke. The President is speaking. The Senate is trying to speak. We have reached a bipartisan compromise that enjoys support on both sides but also enjoys fair criticism. If it begins to be the rule that you can't offer an amendment if you oppose a bill, that is probably not a good policy for our friends in the minority.

We want to be able to tell America why we differ with each other and in some constructive way vote on what our differences are. Three amendments on a bill this important is unfair to our colleagues who disagree with what we are trying to do. Some of them are trying to make the compromise better. I was in the Judiciary Committee. It has been a heck of a place to reside. If I had known going in what it was about, I don't know if I would have accepted the job. But I have thoroughly enjoyed it in this sense: We have taken very important issues, and we talked about them and we voted. We spent days on this bill. We had dozens of votes, Senator Sessions. Nobody said you couldn't vote. We worked through it, and we came out with a bill that some like and some don't. Now we are on the Senate floor.

Everybody who is not on Judiciary deserves at least a shot to have a say about this bill. As much as I like being on the Judiciary Committee, I don't

think we should take over the whole Senate. So what we are trying to do is give people on the committee and not on the committee a chance to revisit this legislation in some orderly process.

Here is what we propose. It really is about who to trust, and trust is pretty low around here. The country has lots of problems, but we have to be able to prove to each other we mean what we say. I hope I have proven this. I mean it when I say I am for a comprehensive bill. I have taken some votes that are not that popular at home. But I believe it is best for the country and the people of South Carolina to realistically solve this problem. Senator Isakson has a good amendment. Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn, there are a bunch of good amendments out there. Some of them I will vote against, but they deserve the right to be voted on.

What do we do in conference? Senator Frist has been a very good leader this week. He has taken a majority of his conference in a way they really didn't want to go, but they are now understanding it is better to get something done than nothing. And to get to the end of the tunnel, we are going to have to trust each other a little bit.

Senator Durbin has been terrific. You have been in every meeting I have been in, and I believe in your heart you believe it is good for the country to solve this problem. The only way we are going to get there from here is to have a little bit of faith. If at the end of the day this bill blows up, I don't expect you to accept that result, nor will I. But I am willing to give the process an opportunity to prove to each other that we can do what we said we can do.

I think we can deliver a bill with Republicans and Democrats that would honor the compromise we reached today, but we can't do it shutting out our colleagues. I know if we give this a shot, we will make it. But those who want to kill it, you need to be on notice. As long as I am in the Senate, we are going to be talking about this kind of problem. Every day we talk, people come across our border, and we don't know who they are. Some are doing good and some may not. We need to fix this problem.

To my colleague from Illinois, I know where your heart is, and I appreciate what you have done. But we need to move forward. America needs a better legal system when it comes to immigration. America needs secure borders. America needs to treat with dignity 11 million people who have committed a wrong but could be of great value to us in the future. But more than anything else, America needs a Senate that can work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Newberry College and its founder, Dr. John Bachman, on the occasion of the school's 150th anniversary. Since its establishment in 1856, Newberry College has become one of South Carolina's leading institutes of higher education. I am proud to recognize Newberry and honor Dr. Bachman.

Dr. Bachman originally came to South Carolina from New York in 1815. Settling in Charleston, he became pastor of St. John's Lutheran Church, where he served faithfully and honorably for 56 years. Dr. Bachman quickly became a pillar of the Charleston community. He baptized hundreds of locals into membership at St. John's during his tenure and is even known to have educated slaves as well as freemen of African descent. He helped found and served twice as president of the South Carolina Lutheran Synod from 1824 to 1833 and again from 1839 to 1840. As Synod president, Dr. Bachman took action that led to establishment in 1831 of a school to train Lutheran ministers, now known as the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary of Columbia, SC.

A seminal and active member of the ``Circle of Naturalists,'' Dr. Bachman had a keen interest in the natural history of South Carolina's Lowcountry. He is known to have discovered or described many birds and mammals previously unknown to science and frequently published letters and short articles about his natural history observations in local and regional publications including the South Carolina Medical Journal.

In December 1856, Dr. Bachman helped found Newberry College as a Lutheran-based liberal arts institution north of Columbia at Newberry. Dr. Bachman served as first president of the Newberry College Board of Trustees beginning in January 1857. During his tenure, he took many actions to assure the high quality of secular and religious education that has existed for 150 years.

Dr. Bachman was a true academic, devoted to his church and to God, to science and natural history, to his community and country, and to secular and religious education. He died at the age of 84 in February 1874, but Dr. Bachman's legacy is alive and well at Newberry College. On April 20, 2006, the Newberry Alumni Association will begin the school's Sesquicentennial Celebration with a major 4-day symposium entitled ``Nature, God, and Social Reform in the Old South: The Life and Work of the Rev. John Bachman.''

It is with great respect that I commemorate the life's work of Dr. John Bachman and recognize the rich history he inaugurated at Newberry College.

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

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

Mr. President, I would like to pick up where Senator McCain left off about the Alito nomination and what has changed between the Clinton administration and the President Bush 2 administration regarding judges.

The question I ask the body and really the country is, have the qualifications changed or are the people President Bush has chosen to nominate for the Supreme Court more inferior in terms of qualifications, temperament, and character than the people President Clinton nominated? As individuals, is there a major difference in their legal experience? Are there any character flaws with these two nominees that did not exist with President Clinton's nominees? If you can find an answer to the question other than no, I would like to hear about it. I would like someone to come to the floor and talk about how Justice Roberts and Judge Alito are not in the ball park as to qualifications, character, and disposition with Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg.

It is clear to me that President Bush picked two very well qualified people to serve on the Supreme Court when it came his time to choose a Supreme Court nominee. You don't have to take my word for it. Seven judges testified before the committee who served on the Third Circuit with Judge Alito. They were nominated by Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, really a hodgepodge of nominees in terms of their source. These judges had a universal belief regarding Judge Alito, and that belief was that he is a great colleague, a good man, a judge's judge. They came before our committee to his defense.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record excerpts of these judges' comments.

Mr. President, I have limited time, so I am not going to read them all. But I ask each Member of the body to look, if they can, at these short quotes, or if they want to listen to the whole testimony, they can certainly retrieve it and ask the question of themselves: Why would these judges from a variety of different philosophies be coming before our committee and testifying on behalf of Judge Alito if he truly was an ideologue or out of the mainstream, if he held positions on abortion or any other line of cases that were extreme in nature or outside the judicial mainstream of what a judge should do?

Why would the American Bar Association, after looking at hundreds of opinions and thousands of cases in which Judge Alito participated, come to the conclusion that he is a judge's judge, that he has the temperament, the disposition, and that there is no bias when you look at all the cases where he favors one class of Americans over another? Why would so many law clerks, as Senator McCain mentioned, come to the judge's aid if he was a person who exhibited a hard heart, for lack of a better way of saying it, a person who took the law and applied it to individuals in this country coming before him in a statistical manner, not a human manner?

I would argue that of all the records that have ever been amassed for a nominee Judge Alito's record is on par with Ginsburg, Breyer, and anyone else who has ever been nominated, in terms of being highly qualified--15 years on the bench and a good person.

Those who know him best, those who work with him when the cameras are not on and when nobody else is around all have the same view of Judge Alito: He is a good person who takes his job seriously. He follows the law, and he is conservative, but he is mainstream in terms of what we expect a judge to be.

Who is in the mainstream in America when it comes to judging? And who is to determine what the mainstream is? If you would ask me to judge a Democratic nominee as to whether they were in the mainstream of legal thought I would try to give you an honest answer. But if you wanted to ask someone other than me--I am a Republican--I would probably understand why you want to ask somebody other than me.

How do we determine if a person is in the mainstream of being a judge? Rather than asking a politician, maybe we should go to a source outside the political moment, outside a political body, who believes that this is a hugely important decision not only for the country but has political consequences.

The reason this is an important political decision is because special interest groups are watching our every move. Millions of dollars have been spent on advertising for and against Judge Alito. There are groups out there that have made it their reason for existing to deny this man a vote or to defeat him. There are groups out there that are bent on supporting him.

What do nonpolitical people say? What do people who have no political ax to grind say? What do the people who have sat with him a decade plus say, his fellow judges, African-American judges? They say he is not an ideologue, that he is a good judge.

What does the American Bar Association say? That he has a temperament--over 2,000 people were interviewed, I think it was; some amazing amount of interviews conducted--a temperament beyond question; that he approaches each case without a bias, but he tries to find the best he can, looking through his philosophy of judging, to get the right answer. Those who worked with him as a prosecutor, who have been his clerks, all have nothing but admiration for this man.

So why will he get, at best, five or six Democratic votes? Why did Justice Ginsburg get 96 votes? I would argue she deserved 96 votes, but she was no better qualified than Judge Alito. The same things that were said about Justice Ginsburg, in terms of her temperament and her legal abilities, are being said about Judge Alito.

Politics has changed. Some members of our committee openly said things are different now than they were then. This is replacing Justice O'Connor. The

country is more divided. All I can say is, don't start down a road that you will regret because Justice Ginsburg replaced Justice White, and if we are going to base our vote on Roe v. Wade, what somebody might do, then a pro-life Senator would have a very difficult time casting a vote for Justice Ginsburg because she openly embraced a constitutional right to abortion and supported public funding of abortion. That is a view held by many Americans. It is a legitimate view to have. But from a pro-life point of view, it was clear that she was going to probably be different than Justice White because Justice White dissented in Roe v. Wade.

If that is the only reason you were voting for Justice Ginsburg, you knew with a high degree of certainty the balance of power on the Court would change when it came to that one issue.

Somehow back then people of a pro-life persuasion set that aside and looked at her qualifications. She was never attacked, that I can find in the Record, for being the general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, a left of center organization, from a conservative's point of view, that embraces many causes with which I personally disagree. But people understood there was a difference between lawyering and judging.

I would argue forcefully that the unpopular cause needs the best lawyer. Instead of holding it against her for representing politically unpopular causes, causes with which I completely disagree, I would give her credit as a lawyer because the unpopular cause needs the best lawyers in the country. The more popular it is, the worse lawyer you can have because you are likely to win.

Something has changed, and I would argue that change is being driven by the political moment, not by the record, and it has huge consequences for this country.

The Presidency is a political office. To become President, you have to go through a lot--a lot of commercials are run and a lot of scrutiny. To become a Senator, you have to go through a lot--a lot of commercials are run against you, and you go through a lot of scrutiny. We sign up for the process knowing what we are getting into.

Traditionally, judges who come before the Senate, recommended by the President to the body, do not have to mount political campaigns and have traditionally not been subject to political campaigns. The reason being there has to be one place in America where politics is parked at the door. How many people want their case decided by a political judge? I don't; even if they agree with me I don't because that is dangerous. We are running with warp speed toward a day when the judiciary is politics in another form. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am not saying the Republican Party is blameless, but when it comes to evaluating Supreme Court nominees, I would argue there has been a change from President Clinton's term to the current time and that the model that Senator Hatch used with Justices Breyer and Ginsburg would be a good model for your vote on qualifications and where you do not take dissents and political attacks as the way to try to undermine the nominee.

I honestly challenge anyone in this body to say that in terms of legal ability, legal experience, and personal character, there is a dime's worth of difference between Roberts, Alito, Ginsburg, and Breyer. There is not. The record in Judge Alito's case and in Judge Roberts' case shows beyond any doubt they are well-qualified lawyers who have practiced before the Supreme Court, who have the admiration of their colleagues, their associates, and those they have opposed in court, and that they are without any doubt historically well-qualified nominees.

You can take a record and make it what you want to make it for political reasons. You can take anyone's life and snip and cut and cut and paste and make that life anything you want it to be in a 30-second commercial. It can happen to me, it can happen to you, Mr. President, it can happen to any American because if you have been involved in the law as long as Judge Alito, you can cut and paste his life as a lawyer, as a judge, and as a person. I just ask that we reject the politics of cut and paste and we look at the entire record and the complete person.

If we look at the complete person, we find a good father, a good husband, a good man who comes from a humble background and who has ascended to the highest levels of the law known in our country. If we look at his time as a judge, we will find someone respected by his colleagues who is serious as a judge, who is analytical in his thought process, who is, by no means, an ideologue. If we step back, we see in Judge Alito one of the most qualified conservative judges in the land.

I end with this thought. Elections do matter. President Clinton earned the right from the American people to make two selections. He picked people of known liberal philosophy and inclination to be on the Court. These are legitimate philosophies to embrace and to have. He picked extremely well-qualified people to be on the Court. They are on the Court now with an overwhelming vote.

President Bush and his nominees have been treated differently. I worry more about the future of the judiciary than I worry about President Bush because his time will come and it will go. He may have another pick. But what we are doing on his watch is going to forever change the way the Senate relates to the judicial confirmation process if we don't watch it.

For someone such as Judge Alito to be rejected by 80 percent of the Democratic caucus is not healthy for the country because, quite frankly, he has earned a better showing than that. He has lived his life well.

He has been a good judge. He is a good man. His record, his colleagues, his associates, and everything he has done as a lawyer, judge, and person needs to be considered in its entirety--not for political ends for the moment.

This vote we are about to take in the next few days is going to change the way the Senate works for a long time to come. My belief is it is going to change it for the worse.

I yield the floor.

I agree entirely. If I could add one thing on this point: perhaps the best evidence that the current Rasul system undermines effective interrogation is that even the detainees' lawyers are bragging about their lawsuits' having that effect. Michael Ratner, a lawyer who has filed lawsuits on behalf of numerous enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, boasted in a recent magazine interview about how he has made it harder for the military to do its job. He particularly emphasized that the litigation interferes with interrogation of enemy combatants. Ratner stated:

The litigation is brutal for [the United States]. It's

huge. We have over one hundred lawyers now from big and small

firms working to represent these detainees. Every time an

attorney goes down there, it makes it that much harder [for

the U.S. military] to do what they're doing. You can't run an

interrogation . . . with attorneys. What are they going to do

now that we're getting court orders to get more lawyers down

there?

When I read that quote, that for me was the last straw. I knew that something had to be done. On this issue, both the detainees' lawyers and the Defense Department seem to agree: involving enemy combatants in adversarial litigation in U.S. courts undermines effective interrogation of those detainees.

You are absolutely correct Senator Kyl. I must admit, I'm

a bit baffled by the assertion that our amendment is somehow internally inconsistent, that our provisions interfere with the McCain provisions in some way.

While we must ensure that detainees are treated humanely, and that is what we addressed so well with the McCain portion of our total package, directing our departments and agencies to refrain from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment; we also don't want to give these detainees the right to abuse our courts by going after our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines based on how we have decided to treat them. In fact, while it is true that some physical abuses have occurred, we know that members of al-Qaida are trained to claim mistreatment to manipulate public opinion of the war.

I would like to remind all of my colleagues of some of the most egregious cases that prompted our amendments. For instance, a detainee who threw a grenade that killed an Army medic, a medic--someone trying to render medical assistance, and who often treats our enemies on the battlefield as well as our own troops.

In any event, the detainee who threw the grenade that killed an Army medic in a firefight, and who comes from a family with longstanding al- Qaida ties, filed for an injunction forbidding anyone from interrogating him or engaging in ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading'' treatment of him.

Now clearly, our reaffirmation of America's policy against treating anyone in a cruel, inhuman, or degrading way tells the world that we are not like our enemy. We do not allow our departments or agencies to treat people like that. And if our people do abuse people, we prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

However, to allow a detainee access to our courts to contest every aspect of his detention, a person who has fought against the very system he now seeks to make use of, is ludicrous. And for anyone to say that somehow our provisions undermine the McCain provisions or our overall amendment is just as wrong.

Senator McCain, due to his service in our Nation's military, is uniquely qualified to take the lead on these issues. The McCain provisions are about us. How we behave. How we administer justice. It is another affirmative statement that the United States of America is that ``Shining City on the Hill'' President Reagan referred to. I am very proud to have been part of Senator McCain's effort to retake the moral high ground in the war on terror.

The Graham-Kyl provisions are about them, the detainees, and what rights they do and, most importantly, do not have. And I am proud of the provisions we have made for the detainee's status to be reviewed by the Federal courts on the one time direct appeal. We allow for a just process, in the form of military tribunals and boards and commissions, a process based on Supreme Court precedent, modeled on the tribunals we have used in the past and created in accordance with Geneva Convention requirements. That is the process we have established for determining the status of detainees.

But I have gotten a little far a field here, let's get back to the lawsuits. Here is another of the crazy lawsuits out there: there's a suit out there by a detainee accusing military health professionals of ``gross and intentional medical malpractice'' in alleged violation of the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and other, unspecified, international agreements. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but a detainee has no business in our courts suing the individual doctors and nurses that are making sure that that detainee is in good health.

Here is another one. There is one guy down there that we are trying to send home, and he's suing to keep us from sending him home. Imagine that, he is trying to stay.

One high level al-Qaida detainee lawsuit complains about the base security procedures, the speed of the mail, and his medical treatment. He is asking the courts to order the marines to transfer him into the ``least onerous conditions'' at Guantanamo and allow him to keep any books and reading material sent to him.

I think this one is the one that makes me the maddest. A high level al-Qaida member, who probably has the blood of 9/11 on his hands, complaining about the speed of his mail delivery. Complaining about how onerous the conditions are at Guantanamo.

With the McCain provisions of our amendment, we have, in addition to the President's order and other regulations already in place, directed the Department of Defense to treat him humanely. But under our provisions, he will receive the justice he deserves.

As you can see, these cases have nothing to do with cruel or inhumane treatment. They are abuses of our courts by the very people who are trying to kill Americans here and abroad. I don't know about you, Senator Kyl, but I believe that when you raise arms against the United States, you should not be surprised when you lose the privilege of our court system. As the McCain amendment provisions state very clearly, we are not going to treat people inappropriately. And, Senator Kyl, as our provisions state very clearly, we are not going to allow them to make a mockery of our courts, standing beside our own citizens at the courthouse door.

We have provided a fair alternative judicial process for the detainees with our provisions. In fact, we have been more than fair. We have given them more process than our own soldiers and marines would enjoy under the Geneva Convention. This in no way undermines the McCain provisions about how we will treat them and I would challenge anyone who thinks so to come to the Senate floor and debate us on that point.

And those are the only channels that have been created where the detainee himself can pursue a remedy on his own in a semi- adversarial forum. These complaints about conditions of confinement, these are for the military itself to enforce through its own procedures and systems of accountability for monitoring its soldiers. And we have no reason to believe that those systems are not adequate to investigate and remedy abuses. For all the attention to cases such as Abu Ghraib, one thing that deserves emphasis is that it was our own military that discovered, investigated, and punished those abuses. That is as it should be. These standards of treatment are important, but they need to be enforced through the military's internal systems of accountability and Congressional oversight, not through lawsuits and adversarial proceedings brought by detainees. The military's own accountability systems ultimately, I think, will be more effective in monitoring our detention centers and in remedying abuses. All that litigation would do--letting these detainees into court--is undermine intelligence gathering through interrogation.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments. I'd also like to say a word about the timing of this bill because we drafted this section very carefully and I want our colleagues to know exactly what they will be agreeing to. While our language does respond to the Rasul decision by effectively reversing the Supreme Court's decision in that case, we wanted to respect the courts' role in this by addressing two different considerations.

First, as we stated before, we wanted the CSRT process to yield decisions which will be reviewed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. And we wanted to be sensitive to the Rasul court's concerns about a process for the detainees. So, what we did was make the substantive provisions governing the CSRTs and ARBs apply to all cases, those pending on or after the enactment date. This was to ensure that every detainee was provided with the same protections and review.

Second, regarding the modification of the jurisdiction of those courts currently hearing individual habeas or other actions that have been filed by the detainees, we wanted those cases to be recast as appeals of their CSRT determinations. We believe that is the best way to balance between allowing the detainees to challenge their status, and still allowing effective detention and interrogation techniques. As we all know, a court either has jurisdiction to hear a case or it doesn't. Jurisdiction doesn't attach for all time when the case is filed.

This is really no different than transferring a case from one court to another. But in this case, given the change in the substantive law as well, we were required to extinguish these habeas and other actions in order to effect a transfer of jurisdiction over these cases to the DC Circuit Court and substantive legal change as well.

Yes, that is correct. But we do still allow some types of judicial review to go forward--those cases asking for review, in accordance with section 1405, of military commissions or CSRTs. And the very last paragraph of section 1405--I believe that it is paragraph (h)(2)--adopts a compromise of sorts. It states that the bill's authorization for limited DC Circuit review of CSRTs and military commissions shall apply to pending cases. Obviously, no pending case seeks judicial review in the DC Circuit pursuant to section 1405. What this paragraph means is that, at the same time that the courts like the DC district courts kick these cases out of their courtrooms, they can also tell them where they should go next. And if, for example, a habeas action currently is in the DC Circuit, that court can simply construe that action as a request for review of the detainee's CSRT pursuant to subsection (e) of 1405, and allow that claim to go forward in that form.

Yes, I assume that they will do so. No sense in kicking out a detainee's current habeas action in the DC Circuit just so that he has to refile a section 1405 review request--it would be better to let the current case go forward as a 1405 review request, as appropriately amended.

Mr. President, if Senator Kyl would be so kind, could he explain how our amendment will affect ongoing litigation? Specifically, my understanding is that the Supreme Court granted certiorari recently in a case.

And we are confident that McCardle still is good law?

So once this bill is signed into law, you anticipate that the Supreme Court will determine whether to maintain their grant of certiorari?

Let me address another issue. As we worked through this language in conference, we received a lot of comments from our colleagues who were concerned not only about the frivolous cases being filed by al-Qaida terrorists at Guantanamo, but by people detained by our forces in Iraq.

I believe there are several cases that have been filed by those held in Iraq challenging their detention by American forces. Our language does not address these cases, and let me tell you why.

The Rasul v. Bush decision that we have talked so much about worked two significant changes in prior POW or detainee law. Prior to Rasul, the Eisentrager line of cases had governed whether foreign combatants had access to our courts. In 1950, the Eisentrager court held that a Federal district court lacked authority to hear habeas cases for some German POWs held by U.S. forces outside the U.S. These Germans had been tried and convicted of war crimes by an American military commission headquartered in Nanking, and then put in jail in Germany.

The Court stated six reasons for its decision. The German prisoners were: (1) Enemy aliens who (2) had never been or resided in the United States, (3) were captured outside U.S. territory and there held in military custody, (4) were there tried and convicted by the military (5) for offenses committed there, and (6) were imprisoned there at all times.

The Eisentrager line of cases is the reason the Bush administration chose to locate the al Qaida and Taliban holding facility at Guantanamo. The Bush administration relied upon the Eisentrager line of cases so as to prevent exactly what we have seen happen since Rasul: terrorists with lawyers. Now I'm a lawyer myself, and I think we can all agree that that is a bad combination.

In fact, if my colleagues will permit me a quick aside, I would remind them again of the statement by one of the lawyers for some of these terrorists, Michael Ratner. Mr. Ratner boasts about the fact that this litigation has undermined intelligence gathering in the war on terror. In an interview published in May of this year Mr. Ratner stated:

The litigation is brutal for the United States. It's huge.

We have over one hundred lawyer now from big and small firms

working to represent these detainees. Every time an attorney

goes down there, it makes it that much harder for the U.S.

military to do what they're doing. You can't run an

interrogation with attorneys. What are they going to do now

that we're getting court orders to get more lawyers down

there?

Now that is what we are facing. Terrorists with lawyers. I am pretty sure the American people expect more from their government than that.

But getting back to what I was saying about Eisentrager. The Bush administration relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Eisentrager when they located the detainees at Guantanamo, reasoning sensibly, at least I think it was sensibly, that since the al-Qaida and Taliban members were enemy aliens who were being held by U.S. forces outside the United States after being captured on the battlefield, that they would not have access to Federal courts.

But then the Supreme Court held in Rasul that the detainees could have access to our courts to challenge their detention. Would my colleague from Arizona care to comment on the Rasul decision?

Yes, my friend from Arizona is correct, our language applies only to Guantanamo just because

we understand that the Supreme Court only extended the jurisdiction of the courts over the detainees held at Guantanamo. And since the Rasul decision was based on the habeas statute in the U.S. Code, I am very comfortable amending that statute as a proper congressional response to the Court's decision.

As I stated repeatedly to a number of my colleagues, we did not want to deprive the courts of jurisdiction to hear cases filed on behalf of detainees in Iraq because we are confident that, as the law stands now, those cases are already barred by previous Supreme Court decisions, which the Rasul decision left in place.

We should always be careful when dealing with our co-equal branches. Just as we do not appreciate it when they stray into our areas of constitutional responsibility, we should always be willing to refrain from straying into theirs unnecessarily. As I read the Rasul decision, these other cases from other parts of the world are still subject to the Eisentrager opinion and will not be considered by U.S. courts.

And so, our language is limited to Guantanamo. To my friends who counseled that we should extend our jurisdiction modification to those cases being filed on behalf of Iraqis held in accordance with the Geneva Convention, I would just counsel them to be patient. I cannot imagine the Court extending its jurisdiction halfway around the world to involve what is almost exclusively an executive branch function. However, should that become necessary, I am perfectly willing to modify our courts' jurisdiction again to ensure that does not happen. But again, in truth, especially after our very robust action here today, I cannot even conceive of such a decision by the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I would also like my esteemed colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to address the misunderstandings that seem to have made their way into the press. For instance, when I returned from Iraq this morning, I was surprised to see the New York Times editorial page making some fundamental mistakes about what our legislation does.

Mr. President, I would also request unanimous consent to have the New York Times editorial entitled Ban Torture. Period. from December 16, 2005 entered in the Record.

The first sentence reads, ``It should have been unmitigated good news when President Bush finally announced yesterday that he would back Senator John McCain's proposal to ban torture and ``cruel, inhuman or degrading'' treatment at United States prison camps. Nothing should be more obvious for an American president than to support a ban on torture.'' I agree, nothing should be more obvious. And I'd like to applaud the New York Times for finally endorsing the actions President Reagan took when we signed the Convention Against Torture on April 18, 1988, and the Senate ratified the Convention on October 21, 1994.

But since they appear to be laboring under some confusion, I would like to clarify how and when our antitorture statutes apply. First, torture has been illegal for quite some time. Indeed, Section 2340A of Title 18 of the United States Code specifically provides for the prosecution of people who torture overseas. And most of the techniques of torture, beatings, improper imprisonment, and threats have long been part of the criminal code of the United States.

I strongly supported Senator McCain's amendment each and every time it came up. I am extremely pleased it passed. But, make no mistake, it does not make torture illegal. Torture has long been illegal. What the McCain language does is make a very clear statement that we will treat people humanely while we have them in our custody. The McCain amendment is a very clear policy statement that is in accord with the best of American tradition. But it does not ban torture. Accordingly, the Graham-Levin-Kyl provisions do not equivocate in any way regarding torture. The Times editors, regrettably, for I appreciate the place the Times holds in our public discourse, do not appear to understand what they are talking about.

I would like to address one other statement the Times makes. They state, and I quote, that ``What is at stake here, and so harmful to America's reputation, is the routine mistreatment of prisoners swept up in the so-called war on terror.'' Now I take great exception to this baseless smear of our soldiers and marines. It is said off-handedly, almost as if everyone takes it for granted that the fine men and women of our armed services routinely mistreat our prisoners.

Well I will tell you, I for one don't take it for granted that the fine people who are putting their lives on the line to protect our Nation routinely mistreat the prisoners in their care. I believe they follow the orders that their superiors give them, orders based on such policy statements as Senator McCain's or the Army Field Manual, and they follow them to the best of their ability.

Now, are there going to be bad apples? As a former JAG prosecutor and defense counsel, I can tell you affirmatively, yes, there will be. And they will be arrested, tried, convicted, and will serve long sentences. Those few individuals who do not live up to the high standards of the vast majority of our honorable service members, will be held accountable for their actions.

Our troops do not deserve such a slander, and I call on the New York Times to take back the vile assertion they have made against the people who exemplify the best our Nation has to offer.

I was pleased to support this legislation and work toward its enactment from the beginning. Under section 1402, our troops now have one standard--the Army Field Manual--for their interrogations. In section 1403, we close the loophole in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said, ``those standards, as a technical, legal matter, did not apply abroad. And that is what Senator McCain, in the second section of his legislation, wanted to address--wanted to make clear that those would apply abroad. We applied them abroad as a matter of policy; he wanted to make sure they applied as a matter of law. And when this legislation is adopted, it will.'' I agree that these sections do not create a new private right of action, but that they are binding on the executive and may be applicable to actions brought under other statutes.

Mr. President, today I rise to comment upon the recently passed Defense authorization bill. That bill contained a Graham-Levin- Kyl amendment which dealt with the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay. I was very pleased to join with Senators Levin and Kyl and others to offer this amendment, and I want to thank them for working so hard on this issue.

In rising today, I address one particular section of our amendment, the requirement that the tribunals consider whether evidence was coerced. In drafting this section, we were compelled to recognize three basic facts.

First, we were compelled to recognize the impracticality of importing domestic criminal protections into a forum constructed to administer what are essentially enemy soldiers; combatants for a very unique enemy, an enemy without uniforms, capitals, or cohesive command structures, but combatants nonetheless.

Second, we were forced to address the necessity of relying on evidence without a complete picture of how it was obtained; evidence that might be obscured by the fog of war, derived from battlefield intelligence, from classified sources, or even through unknown circumstances.

Lastly, we were required by our constitutional responsibilities to err on the side of protecting the American people. In instances where there is some doubt as to the evidence or the status of the detainee, the benefit of the doubt must go to the government as it seeks to discharge its first duty, providing for the common defense of our people.

In our efforts to balance these interests, we initially included an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained through ``undue coercion.'' We felt that the term ``undue coercion'' reflected the reality that, in the national security context, there is some level of coercive interrogation that is acceptable. We also understand that, at some point, the reliability of the information can be questioned as a result of the methods used to obtain it. I believe Guantanamo Bay serves a unique and necessary purpose in the war on terror, but we need to ensure that we are holding the right people.

However, upon reconsideration, we came to believe that the term ``undue coercion,'' being a new term without legal precedent, might not be as instructive as we required. Furthermore, a number of the military judge advocates we consulted were concerned that the exclusionary rule could limit them from considering evidence tainted by only an allegation of mistreatment.

Therefore, after much consultation with legal professionals, we decided to eliminate the ``undue'' qualifier. Unfortunately, striking the qualifier also eliminated the consideration of whether the information was obtained by acceptable sources and methods. Accordingly, we decided to refrain from mandating the exclusionary rule. Instead, our language requires, for the first time, the panels to consider the source of the information and the information's reliability. I am very confident our language provides for the proper consideration.

Now, to be sure, our language also provides for the benefit of the doubt to go to the government. In granting this benefit, however, we recognize that we are fundamentally different from our adversaries. Though we may fail at times, we strive to be fair and just and honorable. And because our military men and women exemplify those values, we can trust them to fairly administer this process. In the end, we must remember that this is a military administrative process, and, with the proper congressional and judicial oversight provided by our amendment, we must trust our professional military officers to do their jobs.

In our amendment as a whole, we sought to protect our national security while still striking the proper balance between aggressively interrogating detainees and providing a competent military administrative process for their status determination. I am confident that this new evidentiary standard serves that goal.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, this last hour is a good example of what we have come to as a Senate and a Nation. I come to the Senate to support Senator Levin's statement and Senator Warner's statement. We have had a knockdown drag-out over the authorization bill. Everyone gave and we got a product the country can be proud of.

What has happened, as Senator Levin has described, we cannot survive politically if this is allowed to stand. A lawyer in private practice could get disbarred for doing something such as this.

My understanding of what has happened--and if I am wrong, I apologize, and I hope Senator Levin will correct me if I am wrong-- there was a matter added to the conference report totally unrelated to defending our Nation that has a major policy decision--which I happen to support, by the way, but not under these circumstances--that basically changes the entire political process if it is allowed to stand. None of us are safe. Our word means nothing and our signature means nothing if you can change the document after everyone agreed to a certain set of facts.

This is a defining moment for the Senate and the House. If we do not fix this now, it is going to eat at us all and our country will suffer.

If the Senator will yield, I wish every American knew what was in the Defense authorization bill. In the Defense authorization bill are provisions to allow guard members and reservists to get health care for themselves and their families. They need it now more than ever. They are authorizing bonus programs for people who are serving worldwide now who are overtasked and underpaid.

To take this bill that will authorize much-needed relief to the troops in the field, that will keep our equipment modern, will allow us to aggressively deal with the war on terror, capture the moral high ground with the McCain language, do the habeas reform package we worked on--to have that come down by inserting something after the fact is a low blow. It will eat away at the heart of this body.

Mr. President, I rise to echo what Senator Sessions just said. I have tried to be involved with this detainee issue in as balanced a way as I can. I don't want my country to go down the road of adopting the tactics of our enemy. That has never been the issue. We have had some people who have done some bad things, and they have been prosecuted. But when you get editorials from major papers such as the New York Times saying our troops routinely abuse people, that is ludicrous. There have been thousands of people detained in this war. Some have been mistreated. We are prosecuting those people. We can do better, but we will do better. We are trying to get a grip on our policies so that we cannot only live up to who we are as a people but defend ourselves, too.

This enemy knows no bounds. This enemy is a ruthless enemy. They train each other to allege abuse. That is part of the al-Qaida manual. They will say anything. We want a process to make sure that real allegations are dealt with honestly and that mere accusations do not require us to let these people go and not be able to defend ourselves.

This editorial refers to the so-called war on terror. That is a mindset we need to reject. This is not a so-called war.

I just got back from Iraq. It is a real war. Five minutes before the polls opened, they lobbed a shell over where we were staying. One marine was injured. It is a real war to him and to all the other people who have been wounded and to the families who have lost their loved ones. It is a real war to the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and their families. It is a real event. We are at war.

I am insistent that my country live up to its obligations under treaties, the law of armed conflict. I am equally insistent that our law reflect we are at war.

Senator Sessions is a former U.S. attorney.

We are not fighting crime here, we are fighting a war or terror. The PATRIOT Act is not about prosecuting people who are involved in criminal enterprises. The PATRIOT Act is about preventing the infiltration of our country by a foreign enemy who wants to blow us up and kill Americans.

During World War II, the War Powers Act was passed, and that makes this bill look like the ACLU. There were some very strong measures taken after Pearl Harbor, and they worked. The Germans and Japanese infiltrators were caught and our country, for the most part, was not infiltrated. The FBI and other organizations did a marvelous job protecting us against ruthless enemies, the Nazis and the Japanese.

This enemy is just as ruthless. We don't have to pick and choose between abandoning the rule of law and civil liberties. We don't have to choose between letting people go or anything goes. That is not the choice. The PATRIOT Act is a balance. Here is what I worry the most about: As we try to straighten out past mistakes, as we try to come up with new policies, I worry that we are slowly but surely losing the idea that we are at war. That is beginning to fade, and we are approaching this problem we face called terrorism as if it were a domestic criminal event. If we do that, our enemy will have opportunities they do not deserve. Our people will suffer.

So count me in and sign me up for adhering to the law of armed conflict and for maintaining the moral high ground. But I reject an effort to criminalize what I think is world war III.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. CHAMBLISS assumed the Chair.)

I appreciate the compliment. I don't want to defame the Army. I am in the Air Force. I have been in the Air Force as an Active- Duty Reserve lawyer for 20-something years. By no means am I an international expert, but I feel as though I am going to get a master's degree in this type of law when this is all over. The bottom line is, I have a general understanding of how the law of armed conflict works versus domestic criminal law because that is what I used to

do. That is what I kind of still do. I understand the difference between defensive measures. Keeping an enemy from infiltrating a country is a different need than trying to domestically control the behavior of your own citizens. Sometimes your own citizens jump sides and join the enemy. When they do that, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. So we have a different task at hand.

This is not regulating U.S. domestic criminal enterprises. This is trying to stop an enemy that is hell-bent on coming back. And they are coming. They are here. Thanks to fighting them hard, we have stopped them for 4 years. But it is inevitable that we are going to hit again.

Yes.

I thank the Senator for the question. I think we have come to the conclusion, after $3-a-gallon gas, oil and gas prices are also good domestic politics because we all got our heads handed to us at home. Everybody is upset. If you are working in South Carolina making $7, $8, $10-an-hour and gas is $3 a gallon, it really hits home. What we came together on is trying to find a political solution to the domestic problem. What Senator Sessions indicated is that we came together on the fact that if we are this dependent as a Nation on Mideast oil, fossil fuels, 10 or 20 years from now, we have done our Nation a disservice because our national security interest is best served when we can be independent from forces we cannot control. We should, as a Nation, a long time ago have become more energy independent. It is a national mistake, from a security perspective, to have this much dependence on fossil fuels from a region that is this volatile. It weakens our ability as a Nation to protect ourselves.

In that regard, some Republicans and Democrats have come up with a proposal to be aggressive to wean us off Mideast foreign oil because it really does hurt our national security interest. We should not be this beholden to any region of the world for everyday functions in this country.

A final thought about the PATRIOT Act. Those who oppose it, I respect you for standing up for the American way, civil liberties. But there has to be a balance here. When I go to the library, I don't want to be bothered. Let me tell you, if there is a reason to believe somebody is going to the library or using everyday life in America as a tool to infiltrate our country and do damage, I think we have to have a balance because they are here. The Presiding Officer knows better than I that they are here. The hijackers of 9/11 had multiple driver's licenses. They know how to game the system. They know how to get access to our technology and our science. If we don't have the common sense to have a balanced approach to get ahead of them, and if we play this game that this is crime and not a war, we are going to empower them beyond what is reasonable.

If we leave as a body and let this act expire because we cannot find common ground, then I think we have done the country a great disservice, and the enemy would appreciate that.

I yield the floor.