Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Baucus- Tester-Sununu-Leahy-Akaka-Collins amendment to strip the references to the problematic REAL ID program from the underlying immigration bill.

We may agree or disagree about the merits of the actual REAL ID program, but as hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being ready for primetime. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has not even released final regulations directing the States on REAL ID implementation. With 260 million drivers in this country, I do not see how we could have the massive national databases required by REAL ID and this immigration bill up and running by the 2013 deadline set in this bill.

In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID is an unfunded mandate that could cost the States in excess of $23 billion. Opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to the left. A large number of States have expressed concerns with the mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions in opposition. Georgia, Washington, Oklahoma, and Montana have gone so far as to indicate that they intend to refuse compliance with it. The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association have expressed concerns about the costs imposed on the States. The reaction to the unfunded mandates of the REAL ID Act is a good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes itself rather than working to create cooperation and partnership.

On top of that, even though they are not even in production yet, REAL ID cards are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card--since they will be needed to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and now workplaces all across the country. In my opinion, REAL ID raises multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges could delay final implementation for years.

For any new immigration measures to be effective, they must be well designed. Forcing employers, employees, and the States to use this troublesome national ID card will slow down the hiring process, stifle commerce, and not serve as an effective strategy. As a result, we should not jeopardize the future success of the immigration reforms sought in this legislation by tying REAL ID too closely to it. I do not see how it is possible for all of the States to have their new license programs up and running by the 2013 deadline called for in this bill. Thus, I think that instead of mandating REAL ID in this bill, we should support the Baucus-Tester amendment to strip REAL ID from this bill and put together a workable employment verification system that does not needlessly burden every legal job seeker in this country with the onerous and problematic requirements of REAL ID.

I wish to speak briefly about the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia.

The federation is a nonprofit grassroots organization that organizes and monitors the extensive network of coffee growers throughout Colombia. Since 1927, it has worked to build an economically and environmentally sustainable coffee culture, strengthen community networks of coffee growers throughout the country, and promote exports of Colombian coffee worldwide. The federation will celebrate its 80th anniversary on June 27 and should be commended for its accomplishments.

Coffee is grown today in more than half of Colombia's 1,098 municipalities, employing some 2 million people comprising 566,000 families. Many of these people live and work in small towns and rural areas, not unlike the farmers of my own State of Vermont. In fact, several Vermont companies, including Green Mountain Coffee and Coffee Enterprises, sell coffee produced by Colombian coffee growers who are supported by the federation.

In a country where everyone has been affected by the armed conflict and the economic and social disruption it has caused, the Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia has focused increasingly on supporting the social aspects of coffee growers' lives. The federation has worked to bring trained teachers, schools, health clinics, roads, electrification, and other infrastructure to coffee-growing communities. It has provided technical training and the benefits of federation-sponsored research and development to coffee growers to help them improve yields and quality and to market their product. The results speak for themselves. Today, Colombia is the world's second largest coffee exporter by value, totaling $1.677 billion of coffee exported in 2006.

The Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia should be recognized and commended for the 80 years that it has contributed in important ways to the well-being of the Colombian people.

Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues in the Senate the accomplishments of several Vermont entrepreneurs.

Each June, the Small Business Administration honors the best and brightest of each State's small business community. The entrepreneurial spirit in Vermont breeds many successful small businesses, and today I would like to congratulate the 2007 Vermont Small Business Person of the Year,

Jack Glaser, president and cofounder of MBF Bioscience in Williston. Jack is one of the Green Mountain State's wonderful success stories, a University of Vermont graduate who worked with his family, especially his father, Dr. Edmund M. Glaser, to create and grow a successful business in Vermont.

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Jack and everyone at MBF Bioscience. I ask unanimous consent that a Burlington Free Press article about Jack and the other 2007 Small Business Champions of the Year in Vermont be printed in the Record to commemorate their achievements.

Madam President, In the opening days of the war in Iraq in 2003, before ground forces moved into the country, I received an e-mail at a particularly suitable moment. Just when I was about to step into a meeting with President Bush at the White House, in came a message from my friend and colleague, then two-star Rear Admiral Barry Costello.

Admiral Costello was in command of Cruiser-Destroyer Group One, based in the Persian Gulf. Its flotilla, including the aircraft carrier USS Constellation, was launching cruise missile and air strikes, while its contingent of over 7,000 marines waited to move into the country. Barry poignantly said, ``we are in the forefront--and are working hard to make America proud.''

I showed that note to the President. He and I disagreed on pretty much everything in the runup to the war, but at that moment we had a shared pride in Barry and the men and women under his command. The expertise, dedication, and sheer patriotism on display there in the gulf was beyond question. That moment crystallized the depth of gratitude that not only we elected leaders in Washington but also every Vermonter and American feel for our Armed Forces.

Barry Costello has recently retired from the Navy after a stellar 36- year career. At every stage, before and after his command during the second Iraq war, professionalism and pure competence have been deeply etched in Barry's career. Whether in postings on the Joint Staff or on the USS Elliot, which he commanded, Barry has impressed those above and below him in the chain of command. His knowledge of the Navy--its organization, its mission, its capabilities is unrivaled.

That thoroughgoing command of his surroundings, that superb ability to contribute to the larger organization made him a natural to serve as a legislative liaison here in the Senate and Congress as a whole. Whenever I or any of my colleagues had a question about some program, however obscure, Barry could answer it or get us answer in pretty short order. He was a strong conduit in the other direction too, providing insights to the senior Navy and Department of Defense leadership about the concerns of Congress. In short, he was the perfect liaison.

It was fitting that Barry capped his career with command of the Navy's Third Fleet, based out in San Diego. One of the most powerful forces in our military's arsenal, the Third Fleet established itself with distinguished service under the legendary ADM William

F. ``Bull'' Halsey. Barry's leadership combines the steadfastness of Halsey and the eagle-eye vision of a Nimitz. At the Third Fleet, he showed himself a Navy officer's officer.

At 56, Barry still has ample contributions to make to our country, whether in industry or further public service. He has already served as an inspiration to the Navy and Vermont, and I have no doubt that he will continue make enormous strides on behalf of others in whatever endeavors he pursues.

I know I will run across Barry very soon, but I want to congratulate him, his loving wife LuAnne, and their two sons Brendan and Aiden. The Senate, Vermont, and the country join me in expressing our deep gratitude. Thank you.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I will vote against the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental conference report. Although there are many sound and worthy provisions in this bill--such as assistance for Afghanistan and other countries, and additional funds not requested by the administration to help address the backlog of equipment for the National Guard--the inescapable fact is that this legislation would not reverse this administration's disastrous Iraq policy. I simply cannot vote in favor of a bill, containing tens of billions of additional dollars for the President's policy in Iraq, that does not begin to bring our troops home.

As one of the 23 Senators who opposed authorizing this war, I believe it is vital that we send a strong signal that Congress is going to exercise its article I constitutional powers and end our central involvement in Iraq's civil war. Every Senator--for or against this military adventure--must take a stand on whether to continue the status quo or change course. That, at the end of the day, is what this vote represents.

Congress had a workable and I believe widely acceptable plan in the original version of this supplemental bill. Taking a page from the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the plan was to end the military mission in Iraq as we currently know it. We would reduce American forces to the contingent necessary for limited Iraqi troop training, counterterrorism operations, and protecting remaining American personnel.

I and others joined with Senator Feingold in an effort to strengthen that position by ensuring that no funding could go toward deployment, beyond those narrow purposes. About a month ago, we all saw the President veto the supplemental bill. Then last week, the President muscled his congressional allies to vote against the stronger Feingold- Reid-Leahy provision.

So what we are left with is this new version of the supplemental--the status quo, more of the same old stay the course. The reality is that this new conference report does nothing to stop the President's open- ended escalation. It will not force the Iraqis to make the difficult political compromises which they need to make. Nor will it begin a redeployment of American forces. The final legislation drops the mandatory timetable for planning and commencing redeployment with a targeted completion date. Beyond some reporting requirements, there is no limitation on troop levels.

What the legislation does do is limit our aid to the Iraqi government if actions toward reconciliation are not taken, although the President may waive these limitations.

I agree that we should tie our aid to the Iraqi government to clear benchmarks. But that alone is not sufficient. The reality is that despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, the violence has increased. We all know that the trends are going in the wrong direction. This piecemeal approach assures that our troops will remain in the middle of harm's way for the foreseeable future.

And when it comes to changing the dynamic in Iraq, it is troop levels that matter. The introduction of more forces through this open-ended escalation that the President calls the surge is sending the wrong signal to the Iraqis and to countries in the region that have interests there. It says they do not have to make the tough decisions because the American forces are there to do the dirty work, to spill their blood and to contain sectarian militias or deal with unwelcome foreign fighters.

Rory Stewart, a perspicacious observer with hands-on experience in Iraq, rightly pointed out in a recent public forum that our presence there is fundamentally undermining Iraq's political system, ``infantilizing'' Iraq politics, to use his phrase. He notes that Iraqi politicians are far more capable of making deals and reaching compromise than we think, but that our troop presence allows them to play hardball with each other. ``Were we to leave,'' Mr. Stewart says, ``they would be weaker and under more pressure to compromise.''

As I have said, there are many aspects of this supplemental that I support. We have, for example, included $1 billion in unrequested funding to help rebuild our National Guard, which is suffering from dangerously low equipment stocks because so much of the Guard's equipment has been sent to Iraq. We have funded the Marla Ruzicka Fund to aid innocent Iraqi civilians who have suffered casualties, and a similar program to aid civilian victims of war in Afghanistan. There is other funding for refugees and humanitarian assistance in Africa and the Middle East, as well as for Kosovo. I am gratified that we have been able to include funding for elections in Nepal, to support reintegration of former combatants in northern Uganda, and to begin the clean up of dioxin-contaminated sites in Vietnam and for health programs in nearby communities.

These are just a few of the things carried over from the original, vetoed version of the bill that I support and for which I have worked hard. I thank Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and our counterparts in the House, Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf, for working together in a bipartisan way to allocate the foreign assistance funding in this bill.

Yet there is a central fact that we must meet head on. This war has been a costly disaster for our country. Our ability to fight terrorism, pursue our larger national security and foreign policy goals, and secure the welfare of every American has been diminished because of it. Thousands of our troops have lost their lives or suffered grievous, life-altering injuries. Tens of thousands--and possibly hundreds of thousands--of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives. We have opened a gaping wound in the Middle East and severely damaged our image and our influence. This war has been a foreign policy failure of epic proportions.

It is time to bring our troops home. It is time to show the Iraqi people that they cannot expect us to make these sacrifices if they won't make the hard decisions that are spread before them. I regret that this legislation whitewashes what was a reasonable, good faith effort to bring real pressure to bear in Baghdad and beyond. I cannot in good conscious vote for it.

defense subcommittee funding

Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate may not consider the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act,'' the OPEN Government Act, S. 849, before it adjourns for the Memorial Day recess. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bipartisan bill. We have filed a committee report on this important legislation. Regrettably, an anonymous Republican hold is stalling this important Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, legislation, needlessly delaying long-overdue reforms to strengthen FOIA and to protect the public's right to know.

It is both unfortunate and ironic that this bipartisan bill, which promotes sunshine and openness in our government, is being hindered by a secret and anonymous hold. This is a good government bill that Democrats and Republicans alike, can and should work together to enact. I hope that the Senator placing the secret hold on this bill will come forward, so that we can resolve any legitimate concerns, and the full Senate can promptly act on this legislation.

The OPEN Government Act is cosponsored by 10 Senators from both sides of the aisle. This bill is also endorsed by more than 100 business, public interest, and news organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including, the American Library Association, Conservation Congress, the Liberty Coalition, OpenTheGovernment.org, the Sunshine in Government Initiative, the Republican Liberty Caucus and Public Citizen.

I thank all of the cosponsors of this bill and commend Senator Cornyn as our lead Republican sponsor. I also thank the many open government organizations that are working tirelessly to encourage the Congress to enact this bill this year. This measure is cleared for passage on the Democratic side. It should be passed without further delay.

The OPEN Government Act promotes and enhances public disclosure of government information under FOIA, by helping Americans to obtain timely responses to their FOIA requests and improving transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process. During the recent hearing that the Judiciary Committee held on this legislation, we learned that, although FOIA remains an indispensable tool in shedding light on bad policies and government abuses, this open government law is being hampered by excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance. Today, Americans who seek information under FOIA remain less likely to obtain it than during any other time in FOIA's 40-year history. This bill would help to reverse this trend and to restore the public's trust in their government.

Senator Cornyn and I both know that open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American issue. It is in this spirit that I urge the removal of the anonymous hold placed on this bill. I also urge all Members of the Senate to join me in supporting this important open government legislation.

We have received numerous letters of support from such organizations as the American Library Association, the National Press Club, Pubic Citizen, Sunshine in Government Initiative and OpenTheGovernment.org. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support sent to the majority and Republican leaders of the Senate and endorsed by more than 100 organizations from across the political spectrum be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask the Senator from Texas to do me the courtesy of allowing me 1 minute to take care of something that is going to be accepted, and that is going to modify an amendment that is to be accepted.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1165.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Casey and Schumer be added as cosponsors.

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

Madam President, this modification is required by the authors of the bill in order for dairy provisions to be accepted into this bill. I have attempted through this language to ensure as best we can that our Nation's dairy farmers have adequate access to labor in the future. This amendment only deals with prospective immigration and is focused on dairy only.

Dairy is a year-round operation where interruptions to a farmer's labor force can have significant consequences--the H-2A provisions as they exist in the bill now do not adequately address the unique needs of dairy because they permit only 10-month terms of work. This sort of interruption does not work for dairy farmers, who need year-round, dependable employees.

In the AgJOBS legislation that this body passed last year and that we reintroduced this year, I supported a much broader provision to address the unique needs of the dairy industry. That provision had the overwhelming endorsement of America's family dairy operations. Unfortunately, there were objections from the Bush administration and the authors of the bill now pending, so I have worked with the managers of this bill to craft this compromise.

This modification would enable dairy farmers to have multiple avenues to employ legal workers in the future. First, under the H-2A program, dairy farmers would have the ability to hire workers for a 3-year period after which time the workers would return home. Second, this amendment would refine the H-2A program to allow dairy farmers to more easily obtain workers under the normal H-2A time frame of 10-month work periods. In combination with available opportunities under the Y visa program, these changes should provide significant opportunities for America's dairy farmers to obtain future legal workers to meet their needs. I urge support for this modified amendment to ensure that essential changes for dairy farmers become part of this legislation.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his courtesy.

Mr. President, words and numbers are often used on this floor to describe the ongoing war in Iraq. In recent weeks, we have found ourselves debating the policy decisions that created the current climate in Iraq, the current strategy in Baghdad, and the policy shifts that need to occur to bring our men and women home. We frequently cite the fast-rising numbers of military fatalities and injuries and the growing number of innocent civilian deaths.

A central element of this picture and of this discussion should always be the sacrifices and the suffering of the families at home. Vermont, small State that we are, bears the burden of the highest fatality rate in the country, with more deaths per capita in Iraq than any other State. These losses have left dozens of families searching for comfort as they mourn their loved ones.

But in the darkest and saddest of times, a new Vermont family has emerged, brought together by the efforts of students at Norwich University, the Nation's oldest military college, which calls Northfield, VT, its home. ``Vermont Fallen,'' developed and produced by students at Norwich for a media course, profiles the journeys of families from across our State as they grieve the loss of their sons, fathers, husbands, and friends. Many of these families, brought together by community screenings of the documentary, now are able to turn to each other for comfort.

With this remarkable project, these students from Norwich University--many of whom have friends, family, and colleagues serving on the front lines of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--have given a great gift to these families and to us all. They have honored in this special way those from Vermont who have fallen and they have offered a glimpse into the searing and highly personal grief and mourning that have touched thousands of American families and scores of American communities, across Vermont and across the country. They have produced a tribute that speaks directly to each human heart.

NBC's ``Today'' recently aired a segment about ``Vermont Fallen.'' I ask unanimous consent that the transcript be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 879, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007, or NOPEC. The Judiciary Committee today reports that bill favorably, with an accompanying committee report. This is not the first time the committee has reported this legislation, but it ought to be the last. Indeed, the Senate Judiciary Committee under three different chairmen has now considered and recommended this legislation for passage. It is long past time for this bill to become law.

NOPEC will hold certain oil producing nations accountable for their collusive behavior that has artificially--and drastically--reduced the supply and inflated the price of fuel. It authorizes the Attorney General to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, for price fixing and artificially limiting the amount of available oil.

Just this morning, I read in the Washington Post that the Energy Department declared that ``gasoline prices last week came within a half penny of tying the modern era's inflation-adjusted record set in March 1981,'' and that the nationwide average price at the pump is $3.218 a gallon. That is a rise of more than 11 cents a gallon just in the last week, according to the Energy Information Administration. These increases in price have led to renewed calls for investigation into their causes, but we already know well one significant cause: anticompetitive conduct by oil cartels.

While OPEC actions remain protected from antitrust enforcement, the ability of the governments involved to wreak havoc on the American economy remains unchecked. If OPEC were simply a collection of foreign businesses engaged in this type of behavior, they would already be subject to the antitrust laws.

I am disappointed that the administration recently announced it would oppose this bill and recommend that the President veto it. When entities engage in anticompetitive conduct that harms the American consumers it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute. It is wrong to let OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of national governments.

Americans deserve better, and it is time for Congress to act. With the summer months approaching, there is no end in sight to the rise in gas prices. I am hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass this legislation in June. I thank Senator Kohl for his leadership on this important issue.

Madam President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the majority leader's motion to proceed to a comprehensive immigration reform bill, I continue to have concerns about the proposal announced last week. But I wish to commend Senator Kennedy for working so hard over the last several months to revive a bipartisan bill. He worked closely behind the scenes with Senator McCain for several months. When those efforts failed, he didn't give up. In fact, he was not deterred, as many who supported this process before went the other way. On the contrary, he spoke to a number of Republican Senators who had actively worked with us last year. When they wouldn't join him in a bipartisan effort, he continued on and joined the process Secretary Chertoff had begun with opponents of last year's bill. In extended discussions he and others have had, they have now come forward with a proposal. I commend Senator Kennedy's commitment and his efforts.

I would also like to thank the majority leader. He had intended to set aside 2 full weeks this month for Senate consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. When the informal discussions were not completed on time, he gave those discussions more time. He was right that this issue warrants a significant commitment of the Senate's time, and I am glad to work with him to make sure that consideration is fair and comprehensive.

Now, I am going to support the motion to proceed and the majority leader's cloture petition to go to the bill in order to allow the Senate the opportunity to work its will on the matter. Obviously, that doesn't presuppose how I will vote on the final product. Many of us have said that the bipartisan proposal, the Kennedy-Kyl-Chertoff proposal, represents a starting point for consideration.

As the authors of the proposal know, this Senator from Vermont feels very strongly about the provisions that affect dairy workers and the circumstances of that important industry. But I also take a particular interest in the provisions that affect seasonal workers for the hundreds of Vermont businesses that require them, as well as the needs of our leading high-technology companies, many of which have significant operations in Vermont. The diverse coalition that put the AgJOBS bill together recognized that certain sectors of agriculture require special circumstances.

It is really a shame that the AgJOBS legislation which Republicans and Democrats worked so hard to produce and which had gotten strong bipartisan agreement will not be fully respected. I believe that is a significant mistake and one I will consider in my final determination of how to vote. Notwithstanding that mistake, I will continue to work with the bill's authors to make sure our Nation's dairy farmers have a viable temporary worker program for the future.

Beyond these provisions, I have a number of fundamental concerns I hope the Senate will address in the days and perhaps weeks ahead. In his radio address of May 12, President Bush restated that comprehensive reform must ``treat people with dignity.'' He said we must ``honor the great American tradition of the melting pot'' and that we must help immigrants ``embrace our common identity as Americans.'' I agree with President Bush. I believe part of that common heritage is our welcoming of immigrants and families.

America is a land in which families matter, in which our values call for us to provide not just for ourselves at the cost of severing family ties but for our families. As the Statue of Liberty proclaims, America is a country that welcomes the poor and those yearning to breathe free, not just the well-educated and those who already speak English. It welcomed my grandparents who did not speak English and were not wealthy. We never know who among those immigrating to our shores will turn out to be the next great military leader, the next great entrepreneur, the next great inventor, the next to lift this Nation to greater heights.

I want the bill we pass to recognize the best of America and our values and the best of our traditions as a land of immigrants, the land that brought my grandparents and my parents-in-law to this country. I also want it to be practical and workable.

The so-called triggers in the White House proposal do two things. First, they appear to put off implementation of most immigration reform to the next President and the next Congress. Somehow, I don't understand that, why we can't face up to it ourselves. Second, they require absolute faith in the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration. Given the record of this administration, I see little basis for such faith.

When this administration's representatives say to us that in the next 18 months they will secure the borders and they will devise and implement identification verification measures and they will do that without fail, I remember the last 24 months in which they failed the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf States. I see an administration that has ignored immigration enforcement for years. I see an administration that does not deal realistically with the northern border. I see an administration that has all but destroyed the Justice Department and severely undermined its traditions as a neutral law enforcement agency above politics. I see an administration that denied global warming, disregarded science and, most egregiously, has disregarded the realities of its current disastrous engagement in Iraq.

I say this because we are called upon to just put total faith in the administration. Some of us believe very much in the slogan President Reagan made up for the Russians when he said, ``Trust, but verify.'' In that regard, I am a Reaganite.

I have urged the President to invest himself in the process and work with Congress. I did so on the first day of this Congress and at the one Senate hearing held on this matter in February. The path chosen by the administration was not one I recommended. Instead, the administration remained on the far right of the immigration debate and has pushed the bill and the debate in that direction.

We have before us a measure that is the product of closed-door meetings between the administration and Republican Senators, which was then put to Democratic Senators as the framework from which any further negotiations could proceed. Senator Kennedy has done his best. He has made improvements in the proposal. He deserves our thanks. But whether the proposal is where it should be is what this debate will begin to determine.

The substitute bill the administration endorses creates a temporary worker program with no opportunity to pursue the American dream. This bill risks the creation of a permanent, revolving underclass of workers with limited rights. A temporary worker program with no opportunity to share in the promise of America creates an incentive for overstays and risks creating a new population of undocumented individuals, just as we work hard to bring millions of people out of the shadows of our society. I also worry that the temporary worker program included in the bill doesn't effectively serve the needs of American employers. I am worried that it is unrealistic. This part of the proposal is opposed by a wide array of interests and constituencies, including organized labor, business, and advocates for immigrants. I hope we listen carefully to their concerns as we proceed.

The substitute bill also erodes our traditional commitment to family unity by removing whole segments of family-based immigration. No longer will certain family members be allowed to be sponsored by their loved ones in the United States. Instead, proponents seek to create a supposedly merit-based green card system subject to a point system, where family ties are de-emphasized, and immediate contributions through education and job skills already attained are valued. I recognize that we may benefit in the short run from a more highly- skilled foreign labor pool, but I have grave concerns about doing so at the expense of our traditional commitment to family unity and fostering strong families. Where are the family values here?

The substitute bill also will require all Americans--not just foreign workers--to verify their citizenship before obtaining a job. Like the REAL ID Act that was forced on the American people outside the normal legislative process, this requirement is yet another example of the Administration's consistent denigration of Americans' rights, including the right to privacy. The Administration is telling all Americans that we can no longer trust you--that Big Brother will control hiring for all jobs in America. From America's country stores to our largest corporations, employers will now be de facto immigration officials, and potential employees will be presumed illegal until they prove themselves citizens. I hope we can reconsider this ill-conceived program, which cuts so hard against the presumptive decency and honesty of American citizens. America's democracy works because law-abiding Americans choose to comply with our laws, pay their taxes, and participate in our civil society.

I am pleased that significant parts of AGJOBS have been included in this bill. The legalization provisions for currently undocumented farm workers will go a long way toward helping farmers and removing the cloud of fear from so many workers. I commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig for their work in this regard. But the bill also rejects parts of the monumental compromise reached between farm workers and agricultural employers in the AGJOBS bill, which provides much needed reforms for America's farmers, dairy operators, and farm workers. I am extremely disappointed that American dairy farmers who want to hire future legal foreign workers end up losing out to the talking point that ``temporary means temporary.''

The bill also neglects the real needs of the high-tech community, which has been vigilant in seeking reliable sources of high-skilled workers. Instead of adding sufficient H-1B visa numbers to allow companies to stay competitive and remain the world's leaders, the bill creates a green card system that doesn't truly address the technology industry's needs and removes hiring decisions from the company and places them with the Federal Government. It says: Trust us; we are from the Federal Government; we can make a better decision for you. Some of us are skeptical.

But there are some good aspects of the bill. It incorporates the DREAM Act, a bill I have long supported. It has provisions that can move millions of undocumented people in this country on a path to citizenship, if not unrealistically delayed by the so-called triggers.

Regrettably, it currently includes a provision to require immigrants to return to their home country before applying. In my view, that is unrealistic in many circumstances, and it is inflexibly harsh in others. Those who struggled to get here--who escaped oppressive and dysfunctional governments--should not be required to repeat that journey to share in the promise of America. This provision is driven by ideology, not by an American sense of fairness, and it should be revisited in our legislative process.

I am also encouraged that we may be past the anti-immigrant opposition that stalled our efforts last year. I hope that we are past trying to make criminals out of undocumented immigrants. I hope that we are past trying to make criminals out of the clergy and advocates that try to help hard-working immigrants seeking a better life for their children. I hope we are past trying to build fences and walls around America and the American dream. I hope that we are past the anti- immigrant rhetoric and the anti-Hispanic slurs that accompanied the debate and electioneering last year.

We need to keep working to make sure our legislation is one that takes a commonsense, realistic approach to this situation. I will continue working to produce legislation that treats people with dignity and respects our great traditions as a welcoming nation. We have much work to do before this bill becomes worthy of the Senate and of our great history and tradition as a nation of immigrants, a nation that brought my grandparents and my great-great-grandparents and my parents- in-law to this country.

I will vote to support the Majority Leader's effort to proceed to debate on comprehensive immigration reform. I hope that as we move through amendments and debate, the Senate will work toward making this a better bill. We all know that had we insisted on taking up the Senate-passed bill of last year, we would not have the votes to proceed. Many who voted for last year's Senate's bill were prepared to abandon their support. The Majority Leader has demonstrated his good faith. I hope that Senators will join together and work together to produce a bill of which we can be proud and that will honor our parents and grandparents as well as our neighbors and grandchildren.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this weekend we witnessed an act of senseless violence in Moscow, ID, the home of the University of Idaho, where someone reportedly laid siege to a courthouse, killing a police officer and

wounding a sheriff's deputy and another person. The gunman then retreated into a church, where he apparently killed a church sexton and then took his own life.

The attack at the courthouse in Idaho is another reminder of the need to provide resources and protections crucial to our Federal and State courts. It was 2 years ago when the mother and husband of Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago were murdered in their home. Judge Lefkow's courageous testimony in our committee hearing in May 2005 is something none of us will forget. Later that year a Georgia State court judge was killed at a courthouse in Atlanta and there was an attack on a State judge in Nevada.

Last month, by a vote of 97-0, the Senate passed S. 378, the bipartisan Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I introduced this measure in January along with Senator Specter, the majority leader, Senator Durbin, Senator Cornyn and others. House Judiciary chairman John Conyers introduced an identical measure in the House also with bipartisan support.

Among the bill's many protections are provisions expanding the access of State courts to grant programs for their security. The additional resources provided by this bill may not have prevented what occurred this weekend, but we must do what we can. I wish this legislation had been enacted last year. Despite our efforts, despite Senate passage of this measure twice last year, the House last Congress did not take up and pass these measures to improve court security. I expect that the new House soon will take up and pass S. 378 in this Congress. It should not be a struggle to enact these measures to improve court security.

Our Nation's Founders knew that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the political branches of Government, those rights and privileges would not be preserved. The courts are the ultimate check and balance in our system. We need to do our part to ensure that the dedicated women and men of the Federal and State judiciary have the resources, security, and independence necessary to fulfill their crucial responsibilities. This weekend serves as another tragic reminder that we owe it to our judges and those protecting our courthouses to better protect them and their families from violence and to ensure that they have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a joint resolution that would grant the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, IEMAMOU compact. This joint resolution would formally approve of the IEMAMOU compact, a mutual emergency assistance agreement entered into by the New England States, including my home State of Vermont and several Canadian Provinces, who are our neighbors to the north. This mutual assistance compact, which has been agreed to and operating in principle for more than 5 years, allows for cooperation between emergency responders in the United States and Canada during natural disasters and other serious emergencies. This compact is an extraordinary example of the international cooperation and good will which makes our countries more secure and our citizens safer. Congress should pass this joint resolution to give this vital compact the full force of law.

We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or manmade disasters, or from technological hazards or civil emergencies. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada. Together with our Canadian neighbors, we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms over the years that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. At times, we have also suffered the misfortune of responding to serious accidents, such as train or plane crashes. Of course, our concerns for safety surrounding nuclear powerplants and other industrial sites warrants extensive planning and preparedness for even the possibility of technological disasters. During these events, we turn to our first responders and our emergency management professionals to provide assistance and secure public safety no matter how grave the danger, and no matter how challenging the task.

The IEMMOU compact was created in response to the devastating ice storm of 1998. In January of that year, an unprecedented 3-day ice storm paralyzed portions of the northern New England States and the adjacent Canadian Provinces causing massive damage to the electrical and transportation infrastructure. Millions were left in the dark for days and even weeks, leaving more than 30 dead and shutting down normal activities in large cities like Montreal and Ottawa. Following this devastation, the governors and premiers of those regions affected recognized the need for greater cross-border emergency cooperation, and they directed their emergency management leaders to develop and create a memorandum of understanding on these issues that benefit all parties north and south of the border. The IEMAMOU compact was the result of this collaborative, international process, and now stands as a model compact for cross-border mutual emergency assistance.

The compact allows for international sharing of resources and expertise in times of extreme emergency or disaster. For example, rural States, such as my own, may need to call upon specialized resources found in other larger States or neighboring Provinces to respond immediately to events, such as chemical disasters or mass transit accidents. With natural disasters, such as prolonged, severe winter storms, the areas affected may be so vast, stretching across several States or Provinces that no single jurisdiction alone could respond fully to the crisis. There are also events that occur along or near our border with Canada which require the immediate response and full cooperation of States and Provinces in both nations. The IEMAMOU compact meets these needs with a thoughtful and forward-looking outline of how to address issues that face first responders and their managers in times of cross-border emergency.

This international compact provides a legal framework for cooperation and mutual assistance between the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Canadian Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The compact requires each participating member, whether State or Province, to formulate plans and programs to facilitate international and interstate or provincial cooperation in case of natural or manmade disaster, technological hazard, or civil emergency. The compact also provides for the temporary suspension of statutes or ordinances in each jurisdiction that may impede the implementation of these plans. For example, under the compact, government officials and law enforcement authorities from one member State or Province can officially work in other jurisdictions during times of emergency, a circumstance that would not be permitted otherwise.

The compact also creates a formal mechanism for making assistance requests from one state or province to another, and encourages frequent consultation between the emergency management leaders to develop free exchange of information and resources across borders. In addition, the compact provides a Good Samaritan provision, which gives liability protection for emergency responders who act in good faith in providing assistance in a legal jurisdiction outside their own, and creates reciprocal workers compensation and other benefits to emergency responders who may get injured in responding to an emergency under the compact. Finally, the compact allows for reimbursement between members States or Provinces for losses or damages incurred in responding under the agreement.

All members of this compact have agreed to its terms and join in requesting Congress's consent for the agreement. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have joined the IEMAMOU compact, and many of these States have passed legislation adopting the compact under State law. The Premiers of Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have similarly approved of the

compact. The IEMAMOU compact has been functioning in principle for more than 5 years, as the emergency management leaders from each member State and Province meet twice a year. Planning among the constituent members of the compact is also ongoing. This compact works well and should be supported by Congress.

The IEMAMOU compact is an international agreement between States and a foreign power, and it cannot have the full force of law without the formal approval of Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires that ``[n]o state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power'' unless with the ``consent of Congress.'' U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10, cl. 3. The joint resolution introduced today provides this necessary consent, and would give legal force to the compact. Congressional approval of this compact would also provide jurisdiction for Federal courts to resolve any disputes under the agreement.

This joint resolution is vitally important to the New England States and our Canadian Provinces to the north. Congress should support their cooperative, international leadership in creating and implementing this unique emergency management compact. The Governor of Vermont supports this joint resolution as do the leaders of the North East States Emergency Consortium, which represents each of the New England States in the compact.

This is not the first time I have supported this joint resolution. In 2001, this joint resolution was introduced by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Robert Smith, and I joined him as a cosponsor along with Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Chafee, and Gregg. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I moved the joint resolution through Committee where it passed by unanimous consent on October 31, 2001. With my support and that of other Senators, the joint resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 20, 2001, in the last month of the Democratic majority in the 107 Congress. Unfortunately, the House never came to consider the joint resolution, and it failed to become law. Since then, under the Republican leadership of the 108 and 109 Congresses, the joint resolution has only been introduced once and has not moved beyond referral to committee.

It is time to take action and pass this joint resolution without further delay. The IEMAMOU compact provides invaluable international cooperation and mutual assistance in times of natural disaster and extreme emergency. This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation across this country. It is a crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities in New England and eastern Canada, and we can wait no longer for it to become law.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a joint resolution that would grant the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, IEMAMOU compact. This joint resolution would formally approve of the IEMAMOU compact, a mutual emergency assistance agreement entered into by the New England States, including my home State of Vermont and several Canadian Provinces, who are our neighbors to the north. This mutual assistance compact, which has been agreed to and operating in principle for more than 5 years, allows for cooperation between emergency responders in the United States and Canada during natural disasters and other serious emergencies. This compact is an extraordinary example of the international cooperation and good will which makes our countries more secure and our citizens safer. Congress should pass this joint resolution to give this vital compact the full force of law.

We must all do our best to prepare for the most serious emergencies that can harm our communities. These crises may arise from natural or manmade disasters, or from technological hazards or civil emergencies. As those who live in the Northeast know, extreme weather is not uncommon in New England, or in the eastern Provinces of Canada. Together with our Canadian neighbors, we have endured catastrophic blizzards and ice storms over the years that have closed roads and highways, shut down power for extended periods, and stranded travelers and rural residents for days, or longer. At times, we have also suffered the misfortune of responding to serious accidents, such as train or plane crashes. Of course, our concerns for safety surrounding nuclear powerplants and other industrial sites warrants extensive planning and preparedness for even the possibility of technological disasters. During these events, we turn to our first responders and our emergency management professionals to provide assistance and secure public safety no matter how grave the danger, and no matter how challenging the task.

The IEMMOU compact was created in response to the devastating ice storm of 1998. In January of that year, an unprecedented 3-day ice storm paralyzed portions of the northern New England States and the adjacent Canadian Provinces causing massive damage to the electrical and transportation infrastructure. Millions were left in the dark for days and even weeks, leaving more than 30 dead and shutting down normal activities in large cities like Montreal and Ottawa. Following this devastation, the governors and premiers of those regions affected recognized the need for greater cross-border emergency cooperation, and they directed their emergency management leaders to develop and create a memorandum of understanding on these issues that benefit all parties north and south of the border. The IEMAMOU compact was the result of this collaborative, international process, and now stands as a model compact for cross-border mutual emergency assistance.

The compact allows for international sharing of resources and expertise in times of extreme emergency or disaster. For example, rural States, such as my own, may need to call upon specialized resources found in other larger States or neighboring Provinces to respond immediately to events, such as chemical disasters or mass transit accidents. With natural disasters, such as prolonged, severe winter storms, the areas affected may be so vast, stretching across several States or Provinces that no single jurisdiction alone could respond fully to the crisis. There are also events that occur along or near our border with Canada which require the immediate response and full cooperation of States and Provinces in both nations. The IEMAMOU compact meets these needs with a thoughtful and forward-looking outline of how to address issues that face first responders and their managers in times of cross-border emergency.

This international compact provides a legal framework for cooperation and mutual assistance between the States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the Canadian Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The compact requires each participating member, whether State or Province, to formulate plans and programs to facilitate international and interstate or provincial cooperation in case of natural or manmade disaster, technological hazard, or civil emergency. The compact also provides for the temporary suspension of statutes or ordinances in each jurisdiction that may impede the implementation of these plans. For example, under the compact, government officials and law enforcement authorities from one member State or Province can officially work in other jurisdictions during times of emergency, a circumstance that would not be permitted otherwise.

The compact also creates a formal mechanism for making assistance requests from one state or province to another, and encourages frequent consultation between the emergency management leaders to develop free exchange of information and resources across borders. In addition, the compact provides a Good Samaritan provision, which gives liability protection for emergency responders who act in good faith in providing assistance in a legal jurisdiction outside their own, and creates reciprocal workers compensation and other benefits to emergency responders who may get injured in responding to an emergency under the compact. Finally, the compact allows for reimbursement between members States or Provinces for losses or damages incurred in responding under the agreement.

All members of this compact have agreed to its terms and join in requesting Congress's consent for the agreement. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have joined the IEMAMOU compact, and many of these States have passed legislation adopting the compact under State law. The Premiers of Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have similarly approved of the

compact. The IEMAMOU compact has been functioning in principle for more than 5 years, as the emergency management leaders from each member State and Province meet twice a year. Planning among the constituent members of the compact is also ongoing. This compact works well and should be supported by Congress.

The IEMAMOU compact is an international agreement between States and a foreign power, and it cannot have the full force of law without the formal approval of Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires that ``[n]o state shall . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power'' unless with the ``consent of Congress.'' U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10, cl. 3. The joint resolution introduced today provides this necessary consent, and would give legal force to the compact. Congressional approval of this compact would also provide jurisdiction for Federal courts to resolve any disputes under the agreement.

This joint resolution is vitally important to the New England States and our Canadian Provinces to the north. Congress should support their cooperative, international leadership in creating and implementing this unique emergency management compact. The Governor of Vermont supports this joint resolution as do the leaders of the North East States Emergency Consortium, which represents each of the New England States in the compact.

This is not the first time I have supported this joint resolution. In 2001, this joint resolution was introduced by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Robert Smith, and I joined him as a cosponsor along with Senators Lieberman, Jeffords, Chafee, and Gregg. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I moved the joint resolution through Committee where it passed by unanimous consent on October 31, 2001. With my support and that of other Senators, the joint resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 20, 2001, in the last month of the Democratic majority in the 107 Congress. Unfortunately, the House never came to consider the joint resolution, and it failed to become law. Since then, under the Republican leadership of the 108 and 109 Congresses, the joint resolution has only been introduced once and has not moved beyond referral to committee.

It is time to take action and pass this joint resolution without further delay. The IEMAMOU compact provides invaluable international cooperation and mutual assistance in times of natural disaster and extreme emergency. This compact works well for New England and the eastern Canadian provinces, and it stands as a model for emergency management planning and cooperation across this country. It is a crucial element of the security and safety planning for all communities in New England and eastern Canada, and we can wait no longer for it to become law.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Gallagher, a detailee to my staff from the Department of Homeland Security, be given floor privileges for the duration of debate on the comprehensive immigration reform bill.