Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act includes a subtitle known as AgJOBS, a bill that has long been championed by Senator Craig, Senator Kennedy, and a broad bipartisan group of Senators. I strongly support this bill because it will help both farmers and farm workers in Vermont and around the Nation.

AgJOBS contains a package of reforms that are badly needed in the seasonal agricultural worker program, called H-2A visas. AgJOBS was negotiated with the full participation of agribusiness and farmworkers' unions, and it reflects a fair and thoughtful balance of the needs of both farmers and workers.

The version of AgJOBS contained in S. 2611 protects business by ensuring a steady flow of legal workers. It assists agricultural workers by preventing wage stagnation in a growing economy and by providing labor protections. It helps both business and labor by giving trained and trusted foreign agricultural workers a path to permanent immigration status if they meet the requirements in the bill, such as paying fines and taxes, keeping a clean criminal record, and working the requisite number of hours.

The Chambliss amendment is an attack on wages for agricultural workers who are among the lowest paid laborers in America. By unfairly favoring the growers over foreign workers, the Chambliss amendment would upset the careful balance on wages and labor protections that were negotiated with the participation of agribusiness and unions in the AgJOBS bill.

The Chambliss amendment requires employers to pay workers the highest of two wage rates: the prevailing wage in the area of employment, which may be determined by an employer who conducts his own local survey, or the applicable State minimum wage. Basing wages on the higher of these two rates could result in deep cuts to wages. Some State minimum wages are very low, such as Kansas, which requires only $2.65 per hour. Senator Chambliss previously acknowledged that farm wages could fall by roughly $3 per hour under his proposal. His proposal almost guarantees that no U.S. workers could afford to accept agricultural jobs and that foreign agricultural workers, who are already among the most poorly paid workers in America, would be paid miserly wages for their labor.

The Chambliss formulation does not include the well-balanced provisions of AgJOBS. Under AgJOBS, an employer must pay the highest of three wage rates: (1) the prevailing wage, (2) the Federal or State minimum wage, (3) or the ``adverse effect wage rate,'' or AEWR, a regional weighted average hourly wage rate for agricultural workers. The AEWR was established under the Bracero guest worker program for Mexican workers that ended in the 1960s. It was created to ensure that guest workers would not adversely affect American workers by depressing wages. Removing AEWR from the wage equation drives wages downward, which hurts all workers--American and foreign. It is no secret that our agricultural industries depend on cheap labor, and some estimate that 70 percent of agricultural workers presently working in the U.S. are undocumented. For all the of national security reasons I have cited throughout this debate, we need to bring agricultural workers out of the shadows. But we must also recognize that vulnerable populations deserve our support and protection. Farm workers are among the most vulnerable laborers in the Nation and I cannot support an amendment that would slash their wages further.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support what the Senator from Missouri has said.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond also have an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. President, when the Senate resumed its consideration of comprehensive immigration reform last week I began by expressing my hope that we would finish the job the Judiciary Committee started in March and the Senate began in April. We need to fix the broken immigration system with tough reforms that secure our borders and with reforms that will bring millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. I have said all along that Democratic Senators cannot pass a fair and comprehensive bill alone. Last week we got some help.

We got some words of encouragement from President Bush last Monday night when he began speaking out more forcefully and in more specific terms about all of the components needed for comprehensive legislation. For the first time, he expressly endorsed a pathway to earned citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers now here. I thank him for joining in this effort. We will need his influence with the recalcitrant members of his party here in the Senate, and especially in the House, if we are ultimately to be successful in our legislative effort. Without effective intervention of the President, this effort is unlikely to be successful and the prospects for securing our borders and dealing with the hopes of millions who now live in the shadows of our society will be destroyed. Those who have peacefully demonstrated their dedication to justice and comprehensive immigration reform should not be relegated back into the shadows.

Last week the Senate made progress. We made progress because Democratic and Republican Senators working together rejected the most strident attacks on the comprehensive bill that we are considering. We joined together in a bipartisan coalition in the Judiciary Committee when we reported the Judiciary Committee bill. Democratic Senators were ready to join together in April and supported the Republican leader's motion that would have resulted in incorporating features from the Hagel-Martinez bill, but Republicans balked at that time and continued to filibuster action. Last week, Republicans joined with us to defend the

core provisions of that bill, and we defeated efforts by Senators Kyl and Cornyn to gut the guest worker provisions and to undermine the pathway to earned citizenship. Instead, we adopted the Bingaman amendment to cap the annual guest worker program at 200,000 and the Obama amendment regarding prevailing wages in order to better protect the opportunities and wages of American workers.

I spoke last week about the need to strengthen our border security after more than 5 years of neglect and failure by the Bush-Cheney administration. A recent report concluded that the number of people apprehended at our borders for illegal entry fell 31 percent on President Bush's watch, from a yearly average of 1.52 million between 1996 and 2000, to 1.05 million between 2001 and 2004. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended while in the interior of the country declined 36 percent, from a yearly average of roughly 40,000 between 1996 and 2000, to 25,901 between 2001 and 2004. Audits and fines against employers of illegal immigrants have also fallen significantly since President Bush took office. Given the vast increases in the number of Border Patrol agents, the decline in enforcement can only be explained by a failure of leadership.

The recent aggressive and well-publicized enforcement efforts to detain illegal immigrants seem to be election-year posturing that does little to improve the situation. We need comprehensive reform, backed up by leadership committed to using the tools Congress provides, not to piecemeal political stunts.

Once again the administration is turning to the fine men and women of National Guard. After our intervention turned sour in Iraq, the Pentagon turned to the Guard. After the government-wide failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina, we turned to the Guard. Now, the administration's longstanding lack of focus on our porous Southern border and failure to develop a comprehensive immigration policy has prompted the administration to turn once again to the Guard. I remain puzzled that this administration, which seems so ready to take advantage of the Guard, fights so vigorously against providing this essential force with adequate equipment, a seat at the table in policy debates, or even adequate health insurance for the men and women of the Guard.

I have cautioned that any Guard units should operate under the authority of State Governors. In addition, the Federal Government should pick up the full costs of such a deployment. Those costs should not be foisted onto the States and their already overtaxed Guard units.

Controlling our borders is a national responsibility, and it is regrettable that so much of this duty has been punted to the States and now to the Guard. The Guard is pitching in above and beyond, balancing its already demanding responsibilities to the States, while sending troops who have been deployed to Iraq. The Guard served admirably in response to Hurricane Katrina when the Federal Government failed to prepare or respond in a timely or sufficient manner. The Vermont Guard and others have been contributing to our national security since the immediate aftermath of 9/11. After 5 years of failing to utilize the authority and funding Congress has provided to strengthen the Border Patrol and our border security, the administration is, once again, turning to the National Guard.

It was instructive that last week President Bush and congressional Republicans staged a bill-signing for legislation that continues billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead of a budget with robust and complete funding for our Border Patrol and border security, the President has focused on providing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Congress has had to step in time and again to create new border agent positions and direct that they be filled. Instead of urging his party to take early and decisive action to pass comprehensive immigration reform, as he signaled he would in February 2001, the President began his second term campaigning to undercut the protections of our Social Security system, and the American people signaled their opposition to those undermining steps. While the President talks about the importance of our first responders, he has proposed 67 percent cuts in the grant program that supplies bulletproof vests to police officers.

Five years of the Bush-Cheney administration's inaction and misplaced priorities have done nothing to improve our immigration situation. The Senate just passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that allocated nearly $2 billion from military accounts to border security. The Democratic leader had proposed that the funds not be taken from the troops. But last week the President sent a request for diverting a like amount of funding, intended for capital improvements for border security, into operations and deployment of the National Guard. The Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security came to the Senate floor last week to give an extraordinary speech in this regard.

In addition, last week the Senate adopted a billion-dollar amendment to build fencing along the Southern border without saying how it would be funded. We also adopted amendments by Senators Bingaman, Kerry, and Nelson of Florida to strengthen our enforcement efforts.

Border security alone is not enough to solve our immigration problems. We must pass a bill--and enact a law--that will not only strengthen the security along our borders, but that will also encourage millions of people to come out of the shadows. When this is accomplished we will be more secure because we will know who is living and working in the United States. We must encourage the undocumented to come forward, undergo background checks, and pay taxes to earn a place on the path to citizenship.

Last week we defeated an Ensign amendment to deny persons in legal status the Social Security benefits to which they are fairly entitled. I believe that most Americans will agree with that decision as fair and just. It maintains the trust of the Social Security trust fund for those workers who contribute to the fund.

The opponents of our bipartisan bill have made a number of assaults on our comprehensive approach. Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn opposed the Judiciary Committee bill. Senators Vitter, Ensign, and Inhofe have been very active in the amendment process, as well. I hope that they recognize how fairly they have been treated and the time they have been given to argue their case against the bill and offer amendments. We have adopted their amendments where possible. A narrowed version of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment disqualifying some from seeking legalization was adopted. The Sessions amendment on fencing was adopted. The Vitter amendment on documents was adopted. The Ensign amendment on the National Guard is being considered. Over my strong objection and that of the Democratic leader, Senator Salazar and others, a modified version of the Inhofe amendment designating English as our national language was even adopted. This amendment is wrong and has understandably provoked a reaction from the Latino community as exemplified by the May 19 letter from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and from a larger coalition of interested parties as reflected in a May 19 letter from 96 national and local organizations. I will ask copies of these two letters be printed in the Record following my statement.

I trust that with so many of their amendments having been fairly considered and some having been adopted, those in the opposition to this measure will reevaluate their previous filibuster, that they will vote for cloture, and, I will hope, support the compromise bill.

Immigration reform must be comprehensive if it is to lead to real security and real reform. Enforcement-only measures may sound tough but they are insufficient. The President has acknowledged this truth. Our bipartisan support of the Senate bill is based on our shared recognition of this fact. In these next few days, the Senate has an opportunity, and a responsibility, to pass a bill that addresses our broken system, with comprehensive immigration reform.

I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, would the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, the President said: Every human being has dignity and value, no matter what their citizenship papers say. I believe this amendment is antithetical to that sentiment.

Senator Ensign has proposed an amendment antithetical to the sentiments that the President expressed, and which most Americans share. Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Many do not yet have Social Security numbers but they and their American employers have paid in their contributions. Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. Americans understand fairness. That is fairness. We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. It violates the trust that underlies the Social Security Trust Fund.

Senator Ensign proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.

Under current law, immigrants who have paid Social Security while in an undocumented status may gain the benefit of all of their contributions once they gain legal status and become eligible to collect Social Security benefits. They paid in and they should be entitled to the benefits they have earned. The whole purpose of the path to citizenship program in the bill is to encourage people to become lawful, productive citizens. Penalizing these people is unfair, especially since under the law they are not only working hard and contributing to the Social Security Trust Fund, but also working hard to achieve legal status and earned citizenship. Hard work is rewarded in the country, not penalized. Following the law and advancing on the path toward earned citizenship should be encouraged, not punished.

For example, the children of an undocumented worker who has worked for 20 years and who has paid into the system would be denied all Social Security benefits if their parent dies before becoming a legal resident or citizen. Even though the children are citizens, they would be denied the benefit their parent worked many years and contributed to earn. Not only is this unfair, but it risks encouraging others in similar situations to stay in the shadows and not to pay into the Social Security Trust Fund. This will also have the effect of shifting burdens to the States and local communities and away from the Social Security safety net. I am confident that Vermonters and all Americans understand fairness. They understand respecting other people and respecting their contributions in terms of work and Social Security payments. They will not want to steal those contributions and benefits and deny fairness to lawful immigrants and their families.

They also understand that if the Republican-controlled Senate is prepared to take these Social Security funds today, the risk increases that their Social Security funds could be targeted tomorrow. After all, the Social Security Trust Fund is already being used to mask the deficit. As it becomes harder and harder to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and rising gas prices and lucrative Government contracts, some will be tempted to use money diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund. The President has already proposed draining the Crime Victims Trust Fund. We should maintain these trust funds for the purposes for which Congress created them and keep them safe. We should respect the contributions that people make to these trust funds and not look for excuses to start denying legal residents and citizens the benefits they have been promised.

Let us not take a giant misstep that we will surely regret. If we are going to encourage and support a path to citizenship for many people under this bill, we must do so in a way that ensures independence and security once that journey is completed.

Mr. President, I have spoken several times in the course of this debate about my belief that immigrants should learn the English language. In my experience, most new Americans want to learn our language and make efforts to do so as quickly as possible. The bill that we are debating calls for immigrants to learn English as one of the several steps they must take before they can earn citizenship.

We can all agree that English should be the common language of the United States, but by making English the ``national'' language, the Inhofe amendment goes too far. The amendment was modified to remove a ban on publishing official documents in any language but English. That was a good correction. In many local communities and States it may well be useful and helpful for the government to reach out to language minorities. Greater participation and information are good and appropriate steps communities should be striving for. We should not be mandating artificial and shortsighted restrictions on State and local government.

I regret, however, that the amendment continues to include language that strongly discourages the use of other languages to inform residents and continues to treat those who speak another language as second-class citizens. We would do better to recognize our diversity and provide greater opportunities to those for whom English is a second language to become more fluent.

My mother spoke Italian as a child and learned English when she went to school. My wife grew up in a family that spoke French. She began speaking English when she started going to school. Both were helped throughout their lives by being completely and totally bilingual as a result.

Mr. President, I tell the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I will have a total amount of 10 minutes.

Mr. President, information is vital and sometimes lives depend on it. Is it not in the interests of all Americans to have every member of our society as well-informed on matters of health, safety and our democracy as possible? Do we really want to restrict government publications and communications, such as those on disaster preparedness, public health concerns, if there is an avian flu pandemic, to English only? We have recently seen the extensive and effective reach of Spanish radio in this country. Would we not want to employ that resource in a crisis? Do we really want to tie our hands and require Congress to pass a special statute every time health and safety materials, for example, would be useful?

We already have statutes that call for bilingual election materials to assist language minorities in accordance with our commitment to making participation in voting fair and meaningful. We know that there are many circumstances in which effective access to information requires communications in many ways and many languages.

Would it not have been useful for the President to try to sell and explain the Medicare drug benefit plan with all its complications and permutations in many languages in order to reach the most possible beneficiaries? Do we really intend to require such obviously beneficial actions to need a special statutory authorization? Should we review agency requirements to take warnings in languages other than English off our airlines and automobiles and dangerous equipment? Are we going to stop providing court translators and require all court proceedings, which are themselves official government proceedings, to occur in English, only to the detriment of fairness and justice?

Are we going to go back into the Congressional Record and scrub the statements of Senators Martinez and others who have used Spanish here on the floor? If I recall correctly, the Senator from Oklahoma has spoken on this floor in Spanish. Would this amendment make his use of Spanish illegal--or does the Constitution's ``speech and debate'' clause mean that the rule that he is asking us to adopt applies to everyone else but not to Senators?

Now, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is on the Senate floor. It was only a few weeks ago that we worked together to adopt the Alexander amendment to S. 2454, the immigration bill we debated in April. The text of Senator Alexander's amendment is included in S. 2611, the bill before us now. The Alexander amendment created a grant program to promote the integration of immigrants into our democracy by teaching civics, history and the English language.

That is the right approach for America to take. The Inhofe amendment takes the opposite approach, the wrong approach and has the effect of stigmatizing those who grew up where Spanish or Chinese or other great languages were spoken. It risks driving a wedge between communities. This is contrary to our values and what we should be seeking to accomplish with this important legislation.

I recognize that not every State is like my home State of Vermont, where the majority of residents speak English. Even in my State, however, there are many families who first came to America speaking only French. My parents-in-law became proud American citizens. They spoke French at home, and that was the first language of my wife. My grandparents emigrated from Italy speaking Italian. That was the first language of my mother until she went to school. We are proud of that.

In prior generations, we welcomed large groups of Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and in recent years, immigrants and refugees from Africa, Asia and many other parts of the world. I wish my French was better. I wish my Latin was more polished. I wish I knew more than a few words and phrases in Chinese and Spanish.

On Monday night, the President spoke eloquently about the need to help newcomers assimilate and embrace our common identity. He spoke of civility and respect for others and said that Americans are bound together by our shared ideals. These are the messages we must send to the American people, not the divisive message of the Inhofe amendment.

I look around this Senate Chamber and engraved in the wall behind the elevated desk and chair of the President of the Senate are the words ``E Pluribus Unum.'' Every school child is taught that expression, ``out of many, one'' and what it means to our shared value of being the United States of America. It points to an important value from our history and today. It points to our struggle to become a nation of many people, of many States, and of many faiths. What is wrong with our using Latin, as we traditionally have and expressing our unity?

Latin expressions mark our official currency and the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. The phrases ``annuit coeptis'' and ``novus ordo seclorum'' are part of the official symbols of the United States. These expressions are traced back to Virgil and a line from his instruction for farmers, which seeks the favor of God or Providence for our great endeavor to create a nation unlike any that had come before. The second Latin phrase is another allusion to Virgil and notes our seeking a new order.

Our incorporation of languages other than English does not stop there. Take a look at the flag of Connecticut with the phrase ``Qui transtulit sustinet''; the flag for Idaho that includes the phrase ``Esto perpetua''; the Kansas flag that includes the phrase ``ad astra per aspera''; the Maine flag that includes ``Dirigo''; the Massachusetts flag that includes the phrase ``Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem''; the Michigan flag includes not only ``e pluribus unum'' but also ``Circumspice,'' ``Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam'' and ``Tuebor''; the Missouri flag includes the phrase ``Salus populi suprema lex esto''; the flag of New York includes the expression ``Excelsior''; the Virginia flag includes the

phrase ``Sic semper tyrannis''; the flag of West Virginia includes the phrase ``Montani semper liberi''; and the Wisconsin flag also includes the phrase ``e pluribus unum.''

I see the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota, and I thought I would include the flag from his own State. The flag of Minnesota includes a French language phrase befitting its history, ``L'etoile du Nord.''

Do we in this Senate mean to demand that the States change their State flags and State mottos to eliminate Latin and French? Do we really mean to frown on their use? Or is it only Spanish, a language derived from Latin that we wish to denigrate? In that case, I remind the Senate that the State of Montana includes on its flag the phrase ``oro y plata,'' a Spanish phrase that serves as the State motto ``gold and silver.''

I remember how silly we looked a couple of years ago when some in the House demanded that French fries be renamed ``freedom fries.'' Does this prohibition apply to Roman numerals, such as those included on the flag of Missouri? Does this body intend to embark down that road? I hope not, I pray not.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his amendment. He is a Senator who continues to demonstrate his interest and ability in bringing us together rather than seeking to drive wedges between us. We can all agree that English should be the common language of the United States. His is a good suggestion for an alternative that I will support. In many local communities and States, it may well be useful and helpful for the Government to reach out to language minorities. Greater participation and information are good things. We should not be mandating artificial and shortsighted restrictions on State and local government.

I have spoken in the course of this debate about my belief that immigrants should learn the English language. In my experience, most new Americans want to learn our language and make efforts to do so as quickly as possible. The bill that we are debating calls for immigrants to learn English as one the several steps they must take before they can earn citizenship.

I certainly understand why the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Asian American Justice Center, the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights, the National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund and others have been concerned about the Inhofe amendment. I share their concerns. I strongly support the efforts of the Senator from Colorado to find a common ground to unite us rather than divide us and strongly support his alternative amendment.

Mr. President, this is yet another amendment designed to undermine the well-balanced programs in this bill. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act is the product of hard-fought compromise and it reflects a balance between the needs of American business and American workers. Strong coalitions representing both of those sectors of our society support

this bill and endorse the temporary worker program contained in it.

One critical provision in the bill creates an opportunity for temporary workers who have followed the rules and worked hard while in the U.S. to seek legal permanent status after a period of time. An employer who has come to rely upon an immigrant guest worker and wants to keep that immigrant on staff can file a petition after 1 year for the immigrant to get in line for a green card. The guest worker does not receive any preferential treatment in this program. He must get in the back of the line and meet all the other requirements to earn citizenship, a process that will likely take more than a decade to complete.

The Kyl amendment strips out this provision, taking away a valuable option for both the immigrants and their employers.

When a similar amendment was debated in the Judiciary Committee--and defeated, as I hope this one will be--the sponsor stated his belief that lower skilled immigrant temporary workers should have to leave the U.S. after a few years. High-skilled workers are not treated in this manner. H-1B visas holders have the opportunity to apply for green cards under current law. But some sponsors of this bill are willing to treat guest workers as second class.

This attitude is deeply disturbing. Lower skilled workers are essential to our economy and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Many of our great American leaders, scientists, artists, and teachers have immigrant roots of very modest means. Throughout this debate we have heard many Senators tell their personal stories. Almost all of these reflected early years of hardship and struggle while immigrant parents worked hard under very tough circumstances so that their children could have greater opportunities.

Not only is that attitude offensive to me, but it makes little business sense. Employers of immigrants in the sectors most likely to use these temporary workers, such as hotels and tourism, food service, health care, and meat packing, support the program in the bill. The National Restaurant Association has stated that the restaurant industry is expected to create almost 2 million new jobs by 2016. It expects this growth to outpace available labor. For reasons such as these, the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and members of the Essential Worker Coalition support the bill, and strongly oppose this amendment.

Striking the path to citizenship measures in the guest worker program is also the wrong decision for national security reasons. One of the driving forces behind enacting a comprehensive reform program is to ensure that we know who is living and working within our borders. If there is no path available to those who seek it and can meet the tough requirements in the bill, then some guest workers will overstay their visas and continue to live and work in the U.S. out of status. That would put us back in the position we are in right now--the position that we all agree must be reformed.

In fact, the reason that guest worker programs have failed in the past is precisely because they did not contain an option for guest workers to apply to remain in the U.S. legally, if that is what they hope to do. Many guest workers will return home, but not all. We should ensure that the programs we define in law do not send immigrants back into the shadows.

Finally, I express my disappointment in hearing about the White House support of the Kyl amendment. I find it troubling that the White House would choose this amendment to fight so hard to pass. A tremendous amount of effort has been expended by many of us in the Senate, including a handful of determined Republicans, to preserve the core provisions of the bill. These committed supporters of the bill view the Kyl amendment as one that strikes to the core of the compromises contained in it. We would have benefited from the White House's involvement earlier in the process in a helpful way, but its choice to fight against comprehensive reform today is a grave disappointment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Kyl opened debate on this amendment last night by noting that when an earlier version of this amendment was offered a few weeks ago to S. 2454, it was a ``somewhat different'' amendment. I understand and appreciate this understatement, but I also appreciate that Senator Kyl and his lead cosponsor Senator, Cornyn, were willing to compromise and make improvements to their original text.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Democratic leader, Senator Reid. He was right to insist that the original version of the Kyl- Cornyn amendment--a much broader version that some Senators wanted to adopt almost immediately when it was introduced a few weeks ago-- deserved review and should not be rushed through the Senate to score political points. He was right, as the latest version of the amendment attests. In addition, in the immigration debate prior to the April recess, Senator Durbin recognized and described several drafting flaws in the original amendment that would have swept in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, perhaps unintentionally. With a little time, and thanks to a lot of hard work, the amendment has been significantly changed, narrowed, and improved.

Among the modifications, the amendment now includes a waiver of its provisions. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive certain conditions of ineligibility to participate in the earned legalization program in title VI of the bill. A negative impact on family members, or humanitarian concerns such as harsh conditions in the immigrant's home country, should allow participation in the earned legalization program. An alien's failure to obey an order of deportation may be based upon the alien's trepidation over leaving behind his U.S. citizen children. An immigrant may have had to use false documents to gain entry into the U.S., such as the case of an asylum seeker who is fleeing persecution.

There is a humane way to treat otherwise law-abiding immigrants. This is consistent with American values. I wish that the Kyl-Cornyn amendment could be modified further so that its exclusions were more specifically focused on criminals. That is what we have done in our bill and in underlying law.

Madam President, when the Judiciary Committee met to consider a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we adopted an amendment by Senator Kyl on limited fences and barriers along the border. I supported that amendment. It called for replacing and repairing barriers in certain border towns.

Now Senator Sessions is offering an amendment to correct what Senator Kyl had included in the Judiciary Committee bill and that was incorporated in the underlying bill now before the Senate. I had thought that the Senator from Arizona had consulted with the administration and, in particular, with the Department of Homeland Security before offering his amendment and that the committee action would have been sufficient. Apparently Senator Sessions and his cosponsors, which include a number of Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, think that the Kyl amendment was inadequate. They say that their discussions with Secretary Chertoff, the Border Patrol, and Homeland Security lead them to seek a needed change and correction.

As Senator Kennedy noted, the fact may well be that the Secretary and the administration have all the legal authority they need without this amendment to do what they think needs to be done. That they have not done more before now was not for the lack of authority as far as I know. Nor has Congress refused to provide such authority as may have been necessary or that has been requested by the administration.

On this point, I quote a column from today's Roll Call authored by Norman Ornstein. He concludes:

For nearly five years, we drastically have underfunded our

first responders while failing to coordinate plans across

state and regional lines. We still do not have interoperable

communications among first responders. We have underfunded

border security despite warnings that immigration issues were

intertwined with basic security issues. No wonder this issue

has exploded on the national scene, and no wonder we are

seeing this belated move to ``solve'' the problem with a

National Guard presence.

Where has Congress been in all of this? For nearly five

years, absent without leave. It's been AWOL on oversight,

AWOL on serious legislation to deal with either the lapses in

the department or the broader problem of border security,

AWOL on serious deliberations about broader immigration

issues, AWOL on seeking bipartisan solutions for difficult

problems that need some consensus in the middle. And it's

been worse than AWOL in making sure that we have institutions

of governance after the next massive attack. Congress'

approval rating is 22 percent? That seems too high.

Sadly, there is much truth in what Mr. Ornstein writes. During Republican congressional control they have slavishly taken their cues from the Republican administration and defended its every misstep.

With respect to the Sessions amendment I have questions, questions about its value and whether it is meant to signal some kind of ``fortress America'' approach to real world problems. I also have questions about its cost and how the Senator from Alabama intends to pay for its additional costs. He said during the course of the debate that he estimated that it would cost an additional billion dollars. On the day that the President is signing into law billions of dollars of additional tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, I wonder whether we might not have been wiser to set aside a billion dollars from those tax breaks being provided millionaires to help fund enforcement measures for America's border security.

The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill will require more than $54 billion in expenditures. The Sessions amendment will add additional costs. Is it several hundred million dollars, a billion dollars, as the Senator from Alabama has estimated, or more? The Senator from Texas has said that this bill is merely a downpayment on what it will cost to secure our borders. I wonder what the Senator from Texas believes this will eventually cost. I wonder how he intends to pay for these measures. Under Republican leadership we are already running the largest annual deficits in history and have turned a $5 trillion surplus into a projected debt of somewhere between $8 trillion to $10 trillion.

Earlier today the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee came to the Senate to make an extraordinary statement. I am sorry he spoke to an almost empty floor. I urge all Senators to consider his remarks. The Senator from New Hampshire is someone I have worked with to provide interoperable communications to law enforcement along the shared border of our States. He is one of the most straight-talking Members of the Senate and he demonstrated that again today. He said today that the $1.9 billion capital account he had sought to establish for border security improvements is gone, that it has been transferred to operational needs. In addition, he expressed regret for having had to structure his amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to take funds from military accounts in order to allocate it to border security.

In that regard, the Democratic leader has been proven right in his amendment that would have provided the $1.9 billion without taking funds from our troops. Now the Senator from New Hampshire says that he understands that his amendment will not survive the House-Senate emergency supplemental appropriations conference. The Democratic leader was right to offer his amendment and the Senate would have been wiser had it adopted it to fund border security with real dollars. As matters now stand, if Senator Gregg is correct, it appears there is no money in the budget or available to fund these measures. Let us not make false promises to the American people about border security. Let us not call for measures that we will not be able to pay for but wish to trumpet.

I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we call up the Stevens, Leahy, Murkowski, Jeffords, Coleman, Stabenow, Collins, and Levin amendment No. 4018 to extend the implementation deadline for the Western Hemisphere initiative by 18 months. I ask unanimous consent that it be allowed to be called up. It will simply be a voice vote.

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

The amendment simply extends for 18 months the Western Hemisphere travel initiative on the northern border.

Mr. President, the amendment has been called up. There is to be a voice vote by consent. A voice vote is still allowed to go forward. The Senator can vote against it, of course.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What happens to the amendment that was brought up by unanimous consent, amendment--

I thank the Chair. So does that mean that amendment becomes the pending amendment following the disposition of the Vitter amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I have no objection to that. It fairly states it. This would apply to both borders and, of course, simply extends the time after which we have to have the kind of ID that would be called for in previous legislation. It would extend to both the northern and southern border. I will be glad to have both Senators from Texas as cosponsors.

Mr. President, when the Congress passed the intelligence reform bill in 2004, it included measures that were intended to help secure our borders. These provisions, called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, require that any person, including a U.S. citizen, present a passport or its equivalent, when they enter the United States from neighboring countries, including Canada or Mexico.

We have long enjoyed less-formal immigration policies with our neighbors, and especially with Canada. These policies encourage tourism and trade and promote goodwill between our nations.

The impact of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative on Northern Border states could be extremely harmful. Last year, Vermont exported $1.516 billion worth of products to Canada. And in 2003, more than 2 million Canadians visited Vermont, spending $188 million while here. Other northern border States enjoy similar trade and tourism benefits with Canada and face what could be significant downturns in their economies if this law is not implemented smoothly.

States like Alaska and Minnesota have unique challenges under the law because in Alaska all or in Minnesota some residents have to cross into Canada before entering the continental U.S. by land. In addition, several southern States could experience negative impacts. Florida and Nevada welcome significant numbers of Canadian tourists. Other States have strong economic ties to Canada and depend on the efficient movement of products across international borders.

We all know that the economic health of many small towns along the border depends upon their access to neighboring Canadian towns. In some cases, these towns share emergency services, grocery stores and other basic services. Residents sometimes cross the border on foot several times a day. This is true in Vermont, and I am sure that it is true for communities in many border States.

The State Department is developing a lower cost passport alternative--called the PASS Card--but that program has serious problems and potential for delay. The two Government agencies responsible for these PASS Cards are still arguing over what technology to embed in the card.

This issue alone indicates that DHS cannot meet the January 1, 2008 deadline when all U.S. citizens will need this card, or the more expensive traditional passport, to cross the northern border at land ports of entry.

I have worked in recent months with Senators Stevens, Jeffords, Coleman, Stabenow, Murkowski, Cornyn and Levin to extend the implementation date for this program to June 2009. That would give the U.S. and Canada an extra 18 months to prepare for a smooth transition. The bipartisan amendment we offer today should be non controversial and I hope all Senators will support it.

No one is suggesting that we should repeal the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative altogether, but in order to protect our economy and to preserve community ties, we should intervene now to ensure that the Government can implement this law in a rational manner. An extension is the sensible way to proceed. We need to be smart about border security, not just to sound ``tough'' about it.

Mr. President, I oppose the Cornyn amendment because I believe it undermines the careful balance between American workers and business that is contained in the bill.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S. 2611, allows guest workers under the new H-2C visa to work initially on a temporary visa and to apply later for a green card if their work is needed over a long period of time. Under the program, after 1-year the employer of the immigrant guest worker could petition for a green card. Alternatively, after 4-years the immigrant guest worker could petition on his or her own for permanent resident status.

The Cornyn amendment would strike the right of immigrant guest workers to self-petition. This is a dangerous proposal. One of the reasons that guest worker programs have failed in the past is that prior programs did not provide labor rights to the temporary workers. By placing the rights of petition exclusively in the hands of employers, unscrupulous actors have the ability to manipulate or abuse workers by controlling the workers' access to legal immigration status.

The bill before us is a compromise package that seeks to balance the rights of American business and labor, and that enhances our economy and national security by bringing illegal workers out the shadows. The balance depends in part on treating all workers equally, including giving immigrant workers the same labor rights that are available to U.S. citizens. If all workers possess the same rights, then employers cannot depress wages by preying on illegal workers, or workers whose status is held hostage by their employers. The business community understands this issue and therefore the Essential Worker Coalition, a broad coalition of employers and associations calling for comprehensive immigration reform, is opposed to the Cornyn amendment.

Under the bill, immigrants who decide to self-petition will have to meet all of the other requirements for a green card. In the new guest worker program, these requirements include a work requirement, passing security and background checks, demonstrating that the immigrant is learning English and civics, and undergoing medical exams.

The self-petition provision in the bill is not a backdoor or a short cut to citizenship. It should not be stricken by the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. President, The Isakson amendment is designed to tear apart the interwoven fabric of a bill that many of us have worked so hard in a bipartisan manner to pass in the Senate.

The Isakson amendment asserts that there can be no guest worker program and no legalization path for undocumented immigrants currently in the United States until security at the borders is guaranteed. Sounds good, until you realize that comprehensive immigration reform consists of several interrelated steps, each depending on the rest in order to maximize the prospects of the overall plan to get the job done. This amendment is a prescription for failure, by ripping a comprehensive plan apart. That is why this amendment has been described as a ``poison pill'' that would undermine the bipartisan bill before the Senate.

The Senate recently passed the Defense supplemental appropriations bill, a bill that included nearly $2 billion for border security. It seems that what

Senator Isakson wants the Senate to do is to wait until all of those funds are expended, and then assess our security. Many of us have been fighting for years to improve border security by targeting more resources for technology on the borders and by adding additional Border Patrol agents. The Bush administration repeatedly failed to fulfill Congress's directives in recent years, but I was pleased to hear the President say last night that he now supports increasing the number of Border Patrol agents by 6,000. He made a statement last night that was stronger and displayed a stronger commitment than we have heard from him previously, and I hope he plans to follow through on his words.

The President also spoke about the need to simultaneously implement guest worker programs and a path to earned citizenship for the undocumented. This is similar to the comprehensive approach that those of us who supported the Judiciary Committee bill, and then the Hagel- Martinez compromise, still believe is necessary to reform our broken system and to secure our borders. Do Senator Isakson and the supporters of his amendment believe that the President is taking the Nation in the wrong direction? I find it troubling that with such strong bipartisan support for S. 26l1 in the Senate, and the leadership of the White House on the core principles of the bill, these Senators refuse to join in constructive efforts to enact comprehensive reform. From the beginning, many voices outside of the Senate have been intent on bringing down this bill.

Senator Salazar has offered an alternative that supports the principles of S. 2611 and that reflects the goals laid out by the President in his statement last night. I urge all Members of the Senate to vote against the Isakson ameendment and for the Salazar alternative. We must work toward comprehensive solutions that secure our borders and strengthen the Nation, not piecemeal gambits that undermine the efforts of bipartisan progress toward a Senate bill.

Mr. President, at the end of this month, John Bramley will step down as provost of the University of Vermont. From a day-to-day standpoint, the provost of a university is more important than the president of a university. The provost is the chief of operations who embraces the president's vision and implements ideas into reality. By ensuring that academics, research, and student life are running smoothly, the provost creates an environment that enriches the lives of students, faculty, administrators, and the community.

As provost of the University of Vermont since 2002, John Bramley has not only excelled as provost, but also set a standard that will serve as a benchmark to measure other provosts around the country.

I have known John since he came to the University of Vermont from England in the early 1990s. I believe that John excelled as provost because of his leadership in earlier positions that he held at the university. John is first and foremost an animal science scholar who is known internationally for his groundbreaking research on bovine mastitis. He is also an excellent teacher who genuinely enjoys the interaction between and challenges from students--both undergraduate and graduate. That became evident when he was recognized with the Joseph Carrigan Teaching Award in 1998.

John easily made the transition to administrator. He directed the university's farm programs, cochaired the agricultural extension programs, chaired the Department of Animal Sciences and, perhaps most notably, was chair of the Faculty Senate--a position held by election among his faculty peers.

I jokingly think that his early demonstration of these administrative

skills likely led to his demise as being tapped interim provost and then eventually as provost in 2002. And we are so grateful that John was at his position, as this turned out to be a critical time in the history of the University of Vermont.

It is no secret that during the 1990s UVM suffered from several years of unstable and rocky leadership. Not surprisingly, such a rapid turnover at the helm of a major university led to many problems including budget shortfalls; low morale among faculty, staff and students; and, less than stellar relations with the local Burlington and statewide communities. The work of both interim president Ed Colodny and John guided the university to calmer waters during that difficult time, and helped to build a strong and valuable foundation for the incoming president.

Under President Fogel's administration, the university has been reinvigorated and its prestige restored. I am sure that President Fogel would agree when I say to all my colleagues that we owe much to John Bramley for bringing the university into this new, promising chapter in its history.

John is stepping down as provost, but I am glad that I do not have to end this speech with a farewell. John will be returning to what I think he enjoys most, his teaching and research. I know he will continue to be an important part of the University of Vermont community and I look forward to continuing to see him on campus.

Mr. President, today the Senate turns its attention again to comprehensive immigration reform. I hope we can finish the job the Judiciary Committee started in March and the Senate began considering in April. We need to fix the broken immigration system with tough reforms that secure our borders and with reforms that will bring millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

I commend the majority and minority leaders for continuing to search for a procedural agreement, even though Republicans blocked action on a comprehensive solution by filibustering before the April recess. Democrats supported the bill that was reported by the Judiciary Committee, and we were willing to support the Hagel-Martinez compromise. In fact, Democrats voted twice in two days for comprehensive reform, but the Republican leadership refused to follow the commitments it made when the cameras were on, and folded its tent by declining to support cloture even on the motion of the Republican leader.

I hope that when the President speaks to the Nation this evening, he will strongly encourage his party to support a comprehensive bill in the Senate. The President offered some helpful comments in April, but these words came too late, as the far right wing of his party had already undermined the potential compromise. Democrats were prepared to pass a bill in April and are prepared to pass a fair and comprehensive bill now.

The Bush-Cheney administration has gone to great lengths to create the impression that it is now committed to strengthening our border security. The reality is that very little progress has been made. A recent report concluded that the number of people apprehended at our borders for illegal entry fell 31 percent under President Bush's watch, from a yearly average of 1.52 million between 1996 and 2000 to 1.05 million between 2001 and 2004. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended while in the interior of the country declined 36 percent, from a yearly average of roughly 40,000 between 1996 and 2000 to 25,901 between 2001 and 2004. Audits and fines against employers of illegal immigrants have also fallen significantly since President Bush took office. Given the vast increases in the number of Border Patrol Agents, the decline in enforcement can only be explained by a failure of leadership.

The recent aggressive and well-publicized enforcement efforts to detain illegal immigrants are little more than political posturing that do little to improve the situation. We need comprehensive reform, backed up by leadership committed to using the tools Congress provides, not piecemeal political stunts.

Tonight we expect to hear that the National Guard will be deployed to the Mexican border. Once again the administration turns to the fine men and women of the National Guard in a crisis. After our intervention turned sour in Iraq, the Pentagon turned to the Guard. After the governmental-wide failure in responding to Katrina, we turned to the Guard. Now, the administration's continual unwillingness to focus on our porous border and develop a comprehensive immigration policy, the administration turns once again to the Guard. Yet I am continually puzzled that this administration, which seems so ready to take advantage of the Guard, fights so vigorously against providing this essential force with adequate, equipment, a seat at the table in policy debates--even adequate health insurance for the men and women of the Guard.

As long as these Guard units operate under the authority of State Governors, I believe this action is appropriate. In addition, the Federal Government should pick up the full costs of such a deployment and be clear about the length of this service. Those costs should not be foisted onto the States and their already taxed Guard units. Their families have been called upon to sacrifice more than any other group of Americans. My heart goes out to the members of the Guard and their families.

Controlling our borders is a national responsibility, and it is regrettable that so much of this duty has been punted to the States and now to the Guard. The Guard is pitching in above and beyond, balancing its already demanding responsibilities to the States, while sending troops who have been deployed to Iraq. The Guard served admirably in response to Hurricane Katrina when the Federal Government utterly failed to respond in a timely or sufficient manner. The Vermont Guard and others have been contributing to our national security since the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Later tonight, we expect the President will announce that after more than 5 years of failing to use the authority and funding Congress has provided to strengthen the Border Patrol and our border security, it has come to this, militarizing our southern border.

Instead of proposing a budget with robust and complete funding for our Border Patrol, the President has focused on providing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Congress has had to step in time and again to create new Border Agent positions and direct that they be filled. Instead of urging his party to take early and decisive action to pass comprehensive immigration reform as he signaled he would in February 2001, the President began his second term campaigning to undercut the protections of our Social Security system that Americans oppose. While the President talks about the importance of our first responders, he has proposed 67 percent cuts in the grant program that supplies bulletproof vests to police officers, a program that has special resonance today when we meet to recognize the 157 officers we lost last year.

Five years of the Bush-Cheney administration's inaction and misplaced priorities have done nothing to improve our immigration situation. Its time for action, not more talk. The Senate just passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that includes nearly $2 billion for border security. These are important programs and we all support them, although a number of us believe the Democratic leader was right to offer them without taking the funds from our troops' needs in Iraq.

Border security alone is not enough to solve our immigration problems. We must pass a bill--and enact a law--that will not only strengthen the security along our borders, but which will also encourage millions of people to come out of the shadows. When this is accomplished we will be more secure because we will know who is living and working in the United States. We must encourage the undocumented to come forward, undergo background checks, and pay taxes to earn a place on the path to citizenship.

Just a few weeks ago I went to the White House with a bipartisan delegation of Senators to speak with the President. The need for a fair and comprehensive immigration bill was the consensus at that meeting and I believe the President was sincere when he told us that we had his support. I hope he will include that commitment in his statement to the nation tonight. If not, I trust that he will not wait to urge comprehensive immigration reform on those Republican Senators and the Republican House leadership who have yet to endorse our bipartisan comprehensive approach. Without Republican support and the intervention of the President with the recalcitrant factions within his party, this effort is unlikely to be successful and the hopes of millions will be destroyed. Those who have peacefully demonstrated their dedication to justice and comprehensive immigration reform should not be relegated back into the shadows.

The bill that won the bipartisan support of a majority of the Judiciary Committee was a compromise that contained the essential components that are required for comprehensive

immigration reform. Before the last recess, I was willing to support a further compromise that incorporated the principles of the Hagel- Martinez bill because it was proposed by the majority leader as a ``breakthrough'' that would allow us to pass immigration reform.

Immigration reform must be comprehensive if it is to lead to real security and real reform. Enforcement-only measures may sound tough, but they are insufficient. In these next 2 weeks, the Senate has an opportunity, and a responsibility, to pass a bill that addresses our broken system with comprehensive reform and puts the pieces in place to secure the Nation.

Reserving the right to object, what was the request?

Mr. President, I don't think this is in keeping with what I understand the distinguished Republican leader and the distinguished Democratic leader had discussed as a procedure, nor discussed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So I will, for the moment, object until such time as we can figure out what is it they want. I came in late on the earlier agreement, but I want to make sure the Senator from Texas is following what the two leaders had proposed. So I will object.

Mr. President, Just south of Route 9 in southern Vermont, along a tree-lined road, lies one of Vermont's distinctive destinations, Marlboro College. Walk through this picturesque school in the summer months and you will hear some of the sweetest melodies imaginable, or you may be enveloped by warm pulses of sound that seem to linger like the wispy clouds above. The sounds you hear are those of another year of the Marlboro Music Festival.

Since its founding in 1951, this 8-week festival--one of the world's premiere chamber music workshops and weekend concert series--brings some of the most renowned and experienced musicians together with the rising stars of tomorrow.

This year has marked the 40th anniversary of the Musicians From Marlboro, the festival's active touring program which sends the musicians on the road to perform periodically across the country. At some of the Nation's premier venues, including historic places like the Freer Gallery in Washington and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the concerts feature the exceptional music heard first in the Marlboro Music Festival.

As this remarkable event approaches again this year, spanning the gorgeous Vermont months of June through August, it is fitting to pause to note the accomplishments of the Musicians From Marlboro and the entire Marlboro Music Festival. For four decades, the festival's touring group has brought their music to every corner of the United States. For four decades, the musicians have set a model of artistic excellence that has inspired other musicians and artists and their audiences. This band of musicians--outwardly casual but hard-driven in their pursuit of beauty and truth in their art--has moved thousands of concert-goers.

The touring group has featured such superb musicians as Rudolph Serkin, Richard Goode, Benita Velente, and Murray Perahia. Performers who went on to make up such noted ensembles as the Guarneri and Emerson String Quartets have received critical early boosts from the Marlboro experience of intensive summers and the tours. Their alumni can be found in many leading orchestras, from the Philadelphia Orchestra to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

There is certainly something about Vermont and the Green Mountains that helps inspire the ensemble. Whatever the inspiration, the Musicians From Marlboro are a superb reflection of the best Vermont has to offer.

Vermont is a richer place because of the Marlboro Music Festival, and the festival and its musicians have touched innumerable audiences across the country with their artistry. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating the Marlboro Music Festival and its Musicians From Marlboro on this great achievement of 40 years of touring and in wishing the festival many more happy and sonorous decades to come.

Mr. President, for all of the recent talk from the majority about up-or-down votes, and allegations of Democratic obstruction on amendments, I find it astounding that the Republican majority has locked up Senator Enzi's bill and will not allow amendments to be offered. We now face exactly the type of obstruction the majority has decried so loudly. On a bill for which Senator Enzi has urged full debate, the Republican majority has now decided the Senate and the American people we represent should not get the benefit of the full legislative process. For example, I am being prohibited from offering an amendment to help prevent medical malpractice insurers from bid rigging, price fixing, and other anticompetitive behavior that hurts doctors and patients. For another, we are prohibited from offering an amendment to extend the arbitrary deadline for seniors to sign up for prescription drug benefits without a penalty. Why not provide our seniors more time and assistance in examining the prescription drug provisions that have frustrated so many? Seniors did not grow up in the computer age and many are not trained accountants who can sift through the confusion. They should not be penalized by an arbitrary cutoff date which could easily be extended.

This week, the Senate has already refused to proceed to legislation that would have abridged our citizens' access to justice when they are injured by medical errors. Those bills purported to lower medical malpractice insurance costs when, in fact, it is not payouts that have led to rising insurance premiums. The Senate has done the right thing by rejecting these bills once again.

The debate that preceded the votes demonstrated that capping medical malpractice awards is not the way to lower insurance premiums, which we all agree are unfair to the men and women who devote their lives to the care of others. There can be no disagreement that exorbitant insurance costs make it harder for medical professionals to do their jobs. Health care providers, like all Americans, deserve fair treatment in the marketplace. We also know that the insurance marketplace is unique, because unlike other business interests, insurers are not subject to some of the most important Federal antitrust laws.

High malpractice insurance premiums are not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. This myth has been repeatedly discredited. They are the result of investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models geared toward ever-increasing profits. But an insurer that has made a bad investment, or that has experienced the same disappointments from Wall Street that so many Americans have, should not be able to recoup its losses from the doctors it insures. The insurance industry should have to bear the burdens of its own business model, just as the other businesses in the economy do.

High malpractice premiums for doctors can occur because there is nothing stopping insurers in a soft market from collectively raising rates and stifling competition. Any other business would be prohibited from this activity, and I have heard no arguments as to why the insurance industry should be treated differently. The insurance industry is special because it is exempt from most Federal antitrust laws. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies to operate without being subject to those laws, and our Nation's physicians and their patients have been the worse off for it. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve--and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising premiums, we must objectively limit this broad exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

The amendment I wanted to propose modifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act with respect to medical malpractice insurance, and only for the most pernicious antitrust offenses: Price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations.

Only those anticompetitive practices that most certainly will affect premiums are addressed. I am hard pressed to imagine how anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories.

After all, the rest of our Nation's industries manage either to abide by these laws or suffer the consequences. If medical malpractice insurers are certain that malpractice lawsuits drive their rates, then there should be no reason to object to bringing their business within the reach of the same Federal laws that apply to all others.

Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive activities in the insurance industry. My proposal, which I wanted to offer, is a scalpel, not a saw. It would not affect regulation of insurance by State insurance commissioners and other State regulators.

But there is no reason to perpetuate a system in which Federal enforcers are precluded from prosecuting the most harmful antitrust violations just because they are committed by insurance companies.

This amendment is a carefully tailored solution to one critical aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance rates. I am sorry that I was stopped by the Republican leadership and could not offer this narrowly drawn legislation as a positive step towards improving the American health care system, which would help ensure that doctors and patients are treated fairly.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Mr. Bob Stiller, president and chief executive officer, and the 600 employees of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters on their selection as the Nation's top corporate citizen by Business Ethics Magazine. In the best traditions of Vermont, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters is about more than making a profit--they are about fostering a strong commitment to corporate social responsibility.

Through the company's support of organizations like the Rainforest Alliance, a non profit dedicated to protecting ecosystems, and Coffee Kids, an international nonprofit seeking to improve the quality of life for children and families in coffee-growing communities, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters has been a pioneer in the fair trade coffee movement. The company has also taken its socially responsible mission into the halls of our government, when, in 2002, Green Mountain formed a joint alliance with the U.S. Agency for International Development aimed at improving the livelihoods for those in improvised coffee growing regions.

Green Mountain has maintained these strong corporate ethics while continuing to build a robust earnings record. In 2005, the company reported revenue of $161.5 million, with net income of $9 million, a 15-percent increase over the year prior. And in the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, Green Mountain's fair trade coffee represented 26- percent of total sales, an increase of 68-percent compared to the same period last year.

I commend this outstanding Vermont company and ask unanimous consent that the Business Ethics article naming Green Mountain Coffee Roasters as the Nation's top corporate citizen be printed in the Record, along with a recent editorial from the Burlington Free Press.

Mr. President, I join in introducing a bipartisan resolution to designate May 15, 2006, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day.

This is the tenth year running that I have been involved in the introduction of this resolution to keep alive in the memory of all Americans the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities. For 8 years I introduced this resolution with my old friend and our former colleague Senator Campbell, a former deputy sheriff who was a true leader on this issue. Now I have teamed with Senator Specter, another former prosecutor, in this worthy cause. We have all witnessed firsthand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they serve and protect our communities.

I also want to thank each of our Nation's law enforcement officers for their commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens. They are the real-life heroes; too many of whom too often make the ultimate sacrifice. It is important to support and respect our state and local police officers and all of our first responders.

Currently, more than 850,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. Each year, one in 16 officers is assaulted, one in 56 officers is injured, and one in 5,500 officers is killed in the line of duty in the United States every other day. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of our country, and is a tragic reminder of how important it is for the Congress to provide all of the resources necessary to protect officers in the line of duty.

In 2005, 156 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 169 deaths annually, and a major drop from 2001 when a total of 237 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved

training and advanced emergency medical care. And, in total, more than 17,500 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice.

In the 108th Congress, we shepherded into law a number of measures to make a difference in the lives of all police officers and the communities they serve. We improved the Justice Department's Public Safety Officers Benefits program by making law the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act, P.L. No. 108-182: which allows survivors of public safety officers who suffer fatal heart attacks or strokes while participating in nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activities to qualify for Federal survivor benefits.

We also enacted the Campbell-Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, P.L. No. 108-372, which extends through FY 2007 the authorization of appropriations for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This program helps State, tribal and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers.

Incredibly, President Bush has proposed significant cuts to the bulletproof vest program in his fiscal year 2007 budget proposal, but I will work with other Senators to make sure the program is fully funded. Bulletproof vests have saved the lives of thousands of officers and are a fundamental line of defense that no officer should be without. I know I am not alone in calling for the Senate to fully fund the bulletproof vest program and I truly hope Senators will agree that it is critical that we provide the funding authorized for this program. Hundreds of thousands of police officers are counting on us.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which Senator Campbell and I championed in the Senate, was signed into law, P.L. No: 108-277. This measure established national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit trained and certified on-duty, off-duty or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in most situations so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as to protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals.

National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the United States with the opportunity to honor the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. More than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades. I hope all Senators will join me in honoring their service by passing this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I find it unfortunate that we do not hear any discussion by proponents of this legislation about what is best for patients injured or killed by medical errors. The debate in favor of malpractice award caps has been cast in terms of patient accessibility to health care, but what about patient safety? Capping noneconomic damages may benefit insurance companies, but it does nothing for victims and nothing to address the serious problem of preventable medical errors.

Despite all of the rhetoric and all the myths and misinformation about the so-called crisis facing our medical professionals, what about the fact that studies have estimated that medical errors kill up to nearly 100,000 people each year? How does capping what a victim can recover help address this tragic fact? Rather than having all the talk be about alleged physician shortages and phantom reductions in insurance rates, we should be looking at how to improve the quality of care patients receive and how to improve patient safety. This legislation does nothing to provide any incentive for health care providers to improve the safety of their services, drug companies to rigorously test their products, or nursing homes to provide responsible and compassionate care to our elderly citizens.

Aside from the fact that caps on non-economic damages will not address exorbitant insurance rates, such caps harm both women and children. The Wall Street Journal published an article in 2004 detailing the effects of California's non-economic damages cap. The article discussed how the California law has created two classes of malpractice victims: those who earn large amounts of money and get good representation, and those who do not and cannot find advocates willing to take on their cases. The effect is that many women who do not work, but raise children, cannot get representation because they cannot point to an annual salary that will be lost, and thus lawyers are reluctant to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to litigate a meritorious claim. The same is true for children, whose recovery under this legislation would depend on often difficult estimates of the cost of future care. A California attorney quoted in The Wall Street Journal article summed up the California law's effect by concluding: ``We are saying to doctors and hospitals it's OK to kill somebody who comes from a poor family because ultimately they aren't going to have the same effect on our medical-malpractice insurance as somebody who comes from a rich family.'' The similar one-size-fits-all approach in this legislation is the wrong way to go.

I also question the timing of partisan legislation that will do nothing to address patient safety. As insurance rates, like gas prices, continue to soar to the benefit of corporate profits, as the number of uninsured continue to rise during this presidency, the Republican- controlled Senate seeks to take up partisan legislation that will help a few very powerful insurance companies become even more powerful. Rather than take up legislation to apply competitive antitrust principles to the business of insurance, the majority leader insists that we limit our actions to legislative proposals that will deprive citizens injured by medical errors a full measure of justice. Instead of taking up legislation to push the frontiers of life-saving medicine through stem cell research, we are going to debate whether we should make it easier for insurance companies to continue their predatory behavior at the expense of both doctors and patients. Instead of calling this a malpractice bill, we should call it a gift to the insurance companies bill.

In recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to urge sensible and humane immigration reform and the public clearly wants Congress to address these issues and to strengthen our borders, and instead we are discussing how to dismantle our internal borders and tread on State sovereignty by nullifying State tort law. A war rages in Iraq in which our Nation's best and bravest are making the ultimate sacrifice to advance democracy, and meanwhile we are talking about how to curtail Americans' access to justice. Forty-five million people do not have health insurance in this country, and yet we are considering legislation that will make it harder for children who suffer lifelong injuries from medical errors to get the long term care they need. The gap between the richest Americans and everyone else continues to widen, but instead of taking up legislation to raise the minimum wage, the majority leader wants to shield lucrative insurance companies from having to pay fair awards to medical malpractice victims. Where in the majority leader's schedule are the American people's real priorities?

There are ways to improve health care. These bills do not do that. There are alternatives that address the high costs of medical malpractice insurance and patient safety, but they differ from the narrow approach we debate today. There are solutions to both the current high rate of medical errors, as well as high insurance costs, that will not further victimize patients or intrude into the sovereignty of State legislatures and citizens, but they are not brought before the Senate for consideration and action.

If we want to address high insurance costs, let us address the unhelpful practices within the insurance industry and find a real solution that does not penalize victims of medical errors. If we want to bring down the number of medical errors, merely cutting costs and increasing profits for insurance companies is not the way to go. Capping malpractice awards does nothing to treat the root cause of malpractice lawsuits. Let us put patients before insurance companies in this debate and find real solutions to the preventable medical errors that are occurring every day.

Some of us have proposed legislation to tackle the problem of rising insurance costs without taking away American citizens' access to justice. If we want to improve patient care and lower the number of medical malpractice claims, we need to find ways to prevent medical errors at the rate they occur now. That is common sense. Senator Obama has proposed the Hospital Quality Report Card Act of 2006 to provide accountability within those hospitals compensated through Medicare by requiring highly detailed reporting of safety procedures, patient accessibility, the incidence of errors and infections, and many other areas important to both patient safety the effectiveness of treatment. Senator Obama's bill would provide the information to help consumers make an informed decision about where to obtain treatment. It would provide the information necessary for hospitals to improve the safety and effectiveness of their services. It would allow insurers and purchasers of insurance to reduce the likelihood of claims by sending their insured customers and employees to the best hospitals available, and would allow doctors and policy makers to target areas in need of improvement. Senator Obama's bill puts the priorities of patient safety and health care improvement first. I commend the Senator from Illinois for this bill and I urge other Senators to join me in supporting it.

If we want to reign in the costs of insurance for health care providers, we must address the conditions within the insurance industry. I have proposed a bill along with Senator Kennedy to exempt medical malpractice insurers from the counterproductive McCarran- Ferguson Act. This bill would give regulators the tools necessary to prevent anti-competitive business practices that hurt doctors and patients. If medical malpractice insurers are artificially driving up the costs of insurance, we should stop it. Health care in our country is too important to allow profits at the expense of patients. We are not going to stop soaring insurance premiums by cutting off the access of victims to justice. We are going to stop them by stopping the anti- competitive behavior of the insurance companies. Again, health care in our country is too important to allow profit at the expense of patients, especially when in the last 6 years we have seen the highest increase in the number of uninsured Americans in my lifetime.

I urge other Senators to join me in rejecting legislation that will do nothing more than benefit profitable insurance companies under the guise of improving patient accessibility. Let us work together in a bipartisan fashion to come up with real solutions to the

problem of preventable medical errors. Let us find ways to end the abusive practices in assisted living facilities and nursing homes. Let us find ways to lower insurance costs without hurting victims. Those in need of care must be able to trust their doctors and health care providers without doubt. Elderly Americans deserve the best care that can be provided. Our doctors and other health care providers deserve to be treated fairly in the marketplace when purchasing malpractice insurance, and not be affected by artificial monopolies and price- fixing cartels. If we work together, we can make progress and make a difference.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor about amendment 3662 filed by Senator Feingold and cosponsored by myself and Senators Byrd, Salazar, Lieberman and Collins, concerning the Special Inspector General for Iraq.

In that statement I pointed out that because of the administration's decision to request funds for Iraq reconstruction under traditional Foreign Operations accounts even though the funds would be used to continue many of the same activities previously funded under the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, it would end the Special IG's oversight of these funds.

The Feingold amendment would have ensured that the Special IG's oversight continued, but the Majority opposed his amendment.

As a result, we now have only the State Department Inspector General to oversee these funds, even though that office has no people in Iraq and no capacity to undertake a job of this size and complexity any time soon.

I understand that my friend from Wisconsin went to the floor prior to the vote on cloture and waited for an opportunity to offer his amendment, but he was unable to obtain floor time. After cloture was invoked his amendment was ruled nongermane, and he was out of luck as far as getting a vote on his amendment.

The Special IG has uncovered widespread waste, fraud and abuse. Shocking sums have been wasted by unqualified contractors who spent the taxpayer's money as if it grew on trees, with little to show for it. Many projects that have absorbed millions or tens of millions of dollars will never be completed.

The Special IG has not won any popularity contests with the agencies whose performance he is responsible for overseeing, nor with some in the majority in Congress. However, they have

never offered a substantive explanation for ending his oversight of the Iraq reconstruction funds.

I do want to correct one of my statements yesterday, when I said that members of the majority party, in opposing the Feingold amendment, were ``acting on behalf of some in the Pentagon and the White House who want to shut down the office of the Special IG.''

I am informed that members of the majority party were not acting on behalf of the Pentagon and the White House. It was not my intention to impugn the integrity or character of my friends in the majority who I respect and have worked closely with for years, but rather to convey my strong disagreement and disappointment with their opposition to the Feingold amendment and to the continued oversight of these funds by the Special IG.

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will confirm two more lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary, Thomas Golden of Pennsylvania and Brian Cogan of New York. These confirmations will bring the total number of Senate-confirmed judicial appointments since January 2001 to 240, including the confirmations of two Supreme Court Justices and 43 circuit court judges.

Democrats in the Senate have been cooperative in considering and confirming consensus nominees. In fact, 100 judges were confirmed during the 17 months when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate compared to only 140 judges in the other 45 months under Republican control.

This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out another five judicial nominees unanimously. When they are considered and confirmed by the Senate, we will not only reach 245 judicial confirmations, but we will equal the number of judicial nominations considered in the entire session in the election year of 1996 when a Republican Senate controlled consideration of President Clinton's nominations. In session not a single nomination to the court of appeals was considered, not one. Of course this year we have already joined in confirming Judge Michael Chagares to the Third Circuit and I expect Democratic Senators to join in confirming the nomination of Milan Smith to the Ninth Circuit when that nomination is scheduled by the majority leader.

Unfortunately, the Senate Republican leadership is again bent on seeking to use nominations to score partisan points. Our job is to fulfill our duty under the Constitution for the American people so that we can assure them that the judges confirmed to lifetime appointments to the highest courts in this country are fair to those who enter their courtrooms and to the law, rather than to advance a partisan agenda. Regrettably, this is not the first time the Republican leadership in

the Senate has chosen to pursue a partisan agenda using judicial nominees. Sadly, published reports during the last couple of weeks indicate that the Senate Republican leadership is, instead, preparing to cater to the extreme rightwing faction that is agitating for fights over judicial nominations. We will see that when they insist on confrontation over such controversial nominations as Judge Terrence Boyle, Norman Randy Smith or Brett Kavanaugh. Despite Democratic cooperation in the confirmation of scores of nominees and the undeniable fact that we have treated this President's nominees more fairly than Republicans treated those of President Clinton, they seem intent on using controversial judicial nominations to stir up their partisan political base.

Rather than address the priorities of Americans by focusing on proposals to end the subsidies to big oil and rein in gas prices, rather than devote our time to passing comprehensive immigration reform legislation, rather than completing a budget, the Republican leader came to the floor last week to signal a fight over controversial judicial nominations. One of the nominations that the Republicans want to rubberstamp is that of Judge Terrence Boyle to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We have learned from recent news reports that, as a sitting U.S. district judge and while a circuit court nominee, Judge Boyle ruled on multiple cases involving corporations in which he held investments. In at least one instance, he is alleged to have bought General Electric stock while presiding over a lawsuit in which General Electric was accused of illegally denying disability benefits to a long-time employee. Two months later, he ruled in favor of GE and denied the employee's claim for long-term and pension disability benefits. Whether or not it turns out that Judge Boyle broke Federal law or canons of judicial ethics, these types of conflicts of interest have no place on the Federal bench. Certainly, they should not be rewarded with a promotion. They should be investigated.

The Republican leadership would rather have the Senate be a rubberstamp for rewarding this administration's cronies with lifetime appointments to high Federal courts. They have tried before. If the White House had its way, we would already have confirmed Claude Allen to the Fourth Circuit. He is the former Bush administration official who recently resigned his position as a top domestic policy adviser to the President. Last month we learned why he resigned when he was arrested for fraudulent conduct over an extended period of time. Had Democrats not objected to the White House attempt to shift a circuit judgeship from Maryland to Virginia, someone now the subject of a criminal prosecution for the equivalent of stealing from retail stores would be a sitting judge on the Fourth Circuit confirmed with a Republican rubberstamp.

A look at the Federal judiciary in Pennsylvania demonstrates yet again that President Bush's nominees have been treated far better than President Clinton's and shows dramatically how Democrats have worked in a bipartisan way to fill vacancies, despite the fact that Republicans blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. With today's confirmation of Thomas Golden to be a district court judge in Pennsylvania, 21 of President Bush's nominees to the Federal courts in Pennsylvania will have been confirmed, more than for any other State except California.

With this confirmation, President Bush's nominees will make up 21 of the 43 active Federal circuit and district court judges for Pennsylvania--that is more than 49 percent of the Pennsylvania Federal bench. On the Pennsylvania district courts alone, President Bush's will now sit in 18 of the 36 judgeships.

This is in sharp contrast to the way vacancies in Pennsylvania were left unfilled during Republican control of the Senate when President Clinton was in the White House. Republicans denied votes to nine district and one circuit court nominees of President Clinton in Pennsylvania alone. Despite the efforts and diligence of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, to secure the confirmation of all of the judicial nominees from every part of his home State, there were 10 nominees by President Clinton to Pennsylvania vacancies who never got a vote. Despite records that showed these to be well- qualified nominees, these nominations were blocked from Senate consideration.

So while I congratulate Thomas Golden and his family on his confirmation, I remember those who were not treated so fairly by Senate Republicans.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I won't object assuming there will be 2 additional minutes on this side.

Mr. President, is the Senator from Massachusetts seeking recognition for a unanimous consent request?

I was going to proceed for about 5 minutes, but if the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to go first, that is fine.