Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Specter, Kohl, DeWine and others on a new bill, the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, which includes, as its centerpiece, our NOPEC legislation, which many of us have worked together on for years.

This measure--The No Oil Producing And Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC-- would make OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior and allow the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by oil cartels. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and other anticompetitive activities. The tools this bill would provide to law enforcement agencies are necessary to immediately counter OPEC's anticompetitive practices, and these tools would help reduce gasoline prices now.

The Congress should pass this measure immediately instead of waiting until the price of gasoline at the pump is $4 a gallon. OPEC has America over a barrel, and we should fight back. If OPEC were simply a foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it

would already be subject to American antitrust law. It is wrong to let OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of this cartel's member nations.

It is time for the President to join the bipartisan majority in the Senate which already said ``NO'' to OPEC by passing NOPEC and by sending it to the other body, where it was killed.

The Senate has already passed this bill, which would make OPEC subject to our antitrust laws. In fact, the Judiciary Committee has approved the NOPEC bill three times. Regrettably, even though President Bush promised in 2000 that he would ``jawbone OPEC,'' the Bush administration and its friends in the House have scuttled the NOPEC bill and the direct and daily relief it would bring to millions of Americans.

In addition, this bill makes it unlawful to divert petroleum or natural gas products from their local market to a distant market with the primary intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a market. This solves a real problem where products are being shipped for sale in that market but are later diverted and sold for less in another market.

We have an obligation to address these and other issues caused by oil cartels and by greedy companies who have money--that they have extracted from the American people--to burn. That is why I am also pleased that the bill includes provisions to conduct several studies that address serious competition, information sharing, and other antitrust problem areas related to the oil and natural gas industries. The American people deserve answers, and this bill also provides a path to getting those answers.

Authorizing tough legal action against illegal oil price fixing, and taking that action without delay, is one thing we can do without additional obstruction or delay.

The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, not the least of whom are hardworking Vermont farmers. The overall increase in fuel costs for an average Vermont farmer last year was 43 percent, meaning that each farmer is estimated to pay an additional $700 in fuel surcharges in 2006 alone. Vermonters know what the terrible consequences of these high prices can be: forcing many farmers to make unfair choices between running their farms or heating their homes. No one should be forced to make these choices, certainly not our hard- working farmers.

In summary, this bill will provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to fight OPEC's anticompetitive practices immediately, and help reduce gasoline prices now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to say ``NO'' to OPEC as we have done in the past.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Honest Services Act of 2006,''--a bill to provide new tools for Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our government. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption. This bill articulates more clearly for lobbyists, members of Congress, and Congressional staff the line that cannot be crossed regarding links between gifts or special favors and official acts, without incurring criminal liability.

Just recently, the Senate passed the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, S. 2349--the first lobbying reform bill in Congress in over a decade. I voted for the lobbying reform bill and I believe that this legislation takes an important step toward restoring the public's confidence in Congress.

I was disappointed, however, that I did not have an opportunity to offer the bill that I now propose as an amendment to the lobbying reform bill because cloture was invoked very early in the floor debate. My amendment would have offered an important and needed new dimension to the lobbying reform bill by strengthening our criminal public corruption laws.

Although it is certainly important to have high ethical standards within Congress and more transparency in the lobbying process, vigorous enforcement of our Federal public corruption laws is also an important component of this effort to restore public confidence in government. Indeed, it was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the serious ethics scandals that have grown over the last years. If we are serious about restoring public confidence in Congress, we need to do more than just reform the lobbying disclosure laws and ethics rules. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this type of public corruption by providing better tools Federal prosecutors to combat it.

This bill will do exactly that. The bill creates a better legal framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of Honest Services Fraud Involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the American people of the honest services of their elected representatives.

Under this bill, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for their actions. The law also prohibits Members of Congress and their

staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors, or holding hidden financial interests, in return for being influenced in carrying out their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up to 20 years imprisonment, or both.

This legislation strengthens the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption, by removing some of the legal hurdles to public corruption prosecutions. Under current law, Federal prosecutors often have great difficulty bringing public corruption cases because it is difficult to prove a specific quid pro quo under the Federal bribery statute. In addition, the current honest services fraud statute--18 U.S.C. 1346--requires that prosecutors must also show that misconduct occurred via the mail or wire, even when there is clear evidence of an improper link between gifts and an official act. My bill makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption cases without having to first overcome these hurdles.

The bill also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other individuals with much-needed notice and clarification as to what kind of conduct triggers this criminal offense. For much of the 20th Century, honest services fraud was a common law offense which courts read into the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. In 1987, the Supreme Court invalidated this common law concept in the case of McNally v. United States. In response to the McNally case, Congress subsequently added an honest services mail and wire fraud statute--18 U.S.C. 1346--to the Federal criminal code. Section 1346 has been regularly relied upon by prosecutors in public corruption cases ever since. However, that provision is often criticized for being too vague or for failing to give public officials sufficient notice about what type of conduct is covered by the statute. Courts have also disagreed about exactly what this statute means. My bill will help to resolve the confusion about honest services fraud in the legislative context, by setting out a well-defined honest services fraud offense for violations involving Members of Congress. In addition, the bill's intent requirements ensure that corrupt conduct can be appropriately prosecuted, but that innocuous actions will not be inappropriately targeted.

Lastly, my bill authorizes $25 million in additional federal funds over each of the next four years to give federal prosecutors needed resources to investigate public corruption. According to the FBI's 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, reducing public corruption in our country's Federal, State, and local governments is one of the FBI's top investigative priorities--behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber crimes. However, an August 2005 report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, found that, since 2000, there has been an overall reduction in the number of public corruption matters investigated by the FBI. That report noted that, in 2004, the FBI referred 63 fewer public corruption cases to the United States Attorney's offices across the Nation than it referred in 2000. My bill will give the FBI and the Public Integrity Section within the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and public corruption prosecutors.

If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to strengthen our public corruption laws and give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce these laws.

The unfolding public corruption investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad ranging impact. Just last month, the Washington Post reported that, as an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, federal investigators and the Pentagon are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's new intelligence agency--the Counterintelligence Field Activity--to MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham. The Cunningham case demonstrates that our democracy and national security depend upon a healthy, efficient, and ethical government.

The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.

Because I strongly believe that Congress must do more to restore the public's trust in their Congress, I urge all Senators to support this bill.

Mr. President, I join with Senator Jeffords today to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006, to designate two new wilderness areas and to make a number of additions to existing wilderness areas in Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest. This legislation will also designate a new National Recreation Area (NRA) in the Green Mountain National Forest in the area commonly known as Moosalamoo.

The U.S. Forest Service has recently released its Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the revision of

the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This has been an effort encompassing several years, a lengthy process including significant public involvement, and a great deal of difficult and detailed work on the part of the Forest Service staff in Vermont and our region.

I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to the staff of the Green Mountain National Forest for their perseverance and professionalism throughout the plan revision process. This has been by no means an easy task, with Vermonters and other interested citizens who care deeply about the National Forest weighing in with sincere and often conflicting views on land, resource and forest management decisions.

While there is much of interest in such a comprehensive plan, the primary role of the Congress lies with wilderness and other related special designations, such as National Recreation Areas. The Vermont Congressional Delegation has taken this responsibility seriously as we have sought a compromise between those who would prefer significant additions in wilderness areas and those who would prefer none. If this recommendation were enacted, about a quarter of the current Green Mountain National Forest would be designated as wilderness.

Just as the recently released Land and Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain National Forest has elicited abundant feedback across the spectrum of interested citizens and organizations, we expect our proposal to do the same. We offer this legislation as a good-faith effort to find a middle ground, and once this proposal is referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry--of which I am a member--we will welcome constructive comments and criticisms to improve the bill. Since the Vermont Congressional Delegation has long been on the public record in favor of additional wilderness designations within the Green Mountain National Forest, comments that are as specific as possible will be especially helpful in helping to refine our proposal.

In specific terms, this legislation proposes a new wilderness area in the Glastenbury Mountain area of approximately 28,500 acres. In the Romance, Monastery and Worth Mountain areas the bill proposes adding approximately 12,500 acres, which together would become the Battell Wilderness in honor of Joseph Battell, who once owned some 9,000 acres in this area and bequeathed thousands of acres to Middlebury College, which eventually became the core of the north half of the Green Mountain National Forest.

The bill also proposes designating approximately 4,200 acres for addition to the existing Breadloaf Wilderness, 2,200 acres to the Lye Brook Wilderness, 800 acres to the Peru Peak Wilderness, and 40 acres to the Big Branch Wilderness. The proposed Moosalamoo National Recreation Area covers approximately 17,000 acres.

This legislation does not include additional acreage for the George D. Aiken Wilderness Area or the Bristol Cliffs Wilderness Area. It does not propose a wilderness designation for the area known as Lamb Brook, and it does not propose a new National Recreation Area in the Somerset region.

Our legislation builds on the recommendations of the Forest Service. In many areas the Delegation bill closely tracks the Forest Service plan--Breadloaf, Big Branch and Peru Peak areas are nearly identical. In the Glastenbury area, the Forest Service added more than 8,000 acres to their original plan, and we have further increased the acreage of a proposed Glastenbury Wilderness Area. In addition, this legislation adds about 2,000 acres to the Lye Brook Wilderness, above the Forest Service recommendation. Finally, we are proposing the new Battell Wilderness Area, which encompasses lands the Forest Service included in a Remote Backcountry management category, which is essentially managed as a wilderness area.

In the Moosalamoo area, this legislation codifies the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area, which has the strong support of the various communities and local partners in the area. We believe this designation best represents the actual goals of the various stakeholders and merits this national designation. Furthermore, we have included the Forest Service's Escarpment management category in the designated area and have also included previously agreed upon management guidelines in the bill.

I would offer the following thoughts which we have returned to on those numerous occasions over recent years whenever this subject has been brought up for discussion in our State.

In sponsoring this legislation today, the Vermont Congressional Delegation is demonstrating our commitment to additional wilderness designations on the Green Mountain National Forest. The Green Mountain National Forest is the largest contiguous public land area in Vermont and within a days drive for over 70 million people. We are committed to protecting some National Forest lands for future generations under the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Our proposals have not been driven by acreage quotas, but rather by data supplied by the Forest Service and by interested Vermonters. Therefore, what is too much for some will be too little for others.

The timing of this introduction was conditioned so as to allow the Forest Service process to reach its conclusion and, at the same time, to enable Vermonters and other interested parties to review both the Forest Service and the Delegation recommendations. Throughout our deliberations, we have appreciated the help of the Forest Service staff and have recognized their commitment to their planning regulations, guidelines and timetable. We invite all Vermonters to join us in thanking the Forest Service staff for all the hard work in their planning effort.

While this legislation proposes to add significant wilderness to the Green Mountain National Forest, it bears noting that most of the lands designated in this bill are not suitable for timber harvesting. This legislation would retain many thousands of acres available for timber harvesting which will have to be managed in a fair, open and professional manner. We are committed to the development of such a process and we know the Forest Service shares this commitment. We invite all interested parties to join in this effort. It is our hope that given the superior manner in which the Forest Service conducted the Forest Plan Revision process, unnecessary appeals and litigation of the plan and future management activities can be avoided.

The Green Mountain National Forest has expanded since the last wilderness designations were made. As Senator Stafford, then Congressman Jeffords and I remember, during the consideration of the last Vermont Wilderness bill in 1984 there were many perspectives on the use of our National Forest. We assume there will be again this time. As we were 1984, we remain committed to carrying on the strong conservation legacy that generations of Vermonters, like Senator Robert Stafford, have fostered over the decades.

We urge anyone who is interested in the Green Mountain National Forest to review the whole Plan, as the Forest Service has recommended, and to look beyond their own primary areas of concern so that we can all do what we can to help implement the Plan.

In closing, I would note that the Delegation knows that you cannot undertake every possible use on every acre of National Forest land, and we believe most Vermonters support our approach to this issue. In recognition of this fact, we are introducing this legislation as a vision for the Green Mountain Forest for this and future generations.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the senior Senator from Louisiana's time, the Senator from Vermont then be recognized to speak on the immigration bill.

Mr. President, I am glad the senior Senator from Louisiana is on the floor. I commend her for her statement. She has been a Senate leader on this very important humanitarian matter. We have discussed the question of international adoptions many times. I know how wonderful she has been in--I don't mean to embarrass her--not just her position as a Senator, but in her personal life. She has been wonderful. She has worked with Republicans, Democrats, and those who have no political affiliation on this issue.

I have to think that because of her work there are many children throughout this country who are going to have a life much better than they would have had otherwise. I commend my colleague. I am glad to serve with her and I know she wants to bring forward an amendment on this subject. I believe it is No. 3225, which I should also note is a bipartisan amendment.

I support this amendment, the ICARE Act. I hope we can agree to have it formally offered and successfully considered. International adoption cries out for this relief. I will work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to see if we can get this adopted. I would be surprised if there is any Senator--Republican or Democrat--who would object to it. I certainly will give it my strong support.

Again, I commend the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, we were making some progress yesterday. We had a number of amendments that were adopted--one by the distinguished Republican leader and others. But then some tried to turn this into a partisan fight, and I think that is unfortunate. I hope we are back on track. We heard from a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle who support the bipartisan comprehensive bill, some of whom came down to speak for the first time in this debate. Senator Menendez spoke from his unique perspective as one who was a Member of the House during their debate on their bill. He was there when they debated their immigration bill. It turned out to be a very narrow and punitive bill, which he opposed. He is now a Member of the Senate and is supporting a far better bill here today.

Senator Nelson of Florida described amendments in which he is interested. Senator Lieberman spoke about an amendment which he and Senator Brownback wish to offer relating to asylum. Senator Brownback and Senator Lieberman have this totally bipartisan amendment to which, for some reason, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle are objecting. Senator Kerry spoke forcefully and eloquently.

I wish to speak for a moment about the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. I was struck by his description of the slurs to which he has been subjected for his support of the comprehensive bipartisan committee bill. I talked with Senator Salazar, I think it was probably about 9:30 last night. He called me at home and we talked about his experiences. I told him how proud I was of him for standing up. Some of the things that were said were things such as: ``Go back to where you came from.'' His family came to North America in the 16th century, a lot earlier than either side of my family. He is justly and rightly proud of his background, his ethnic background, and the great contributions he and his family have made to this country. I think about how horrible it is that he has to face these kinds of slurs. We are trying to do what is right for all Americans. This is not a situation where we have tried to craft a bill for one group of Americans over others, and Senator Salazar has worked to help us accomplish this.

So these slurs are wrong and it should be unacceptable to all of us. Senator Salazar is an outstanding Senator who has made great contributions. He served previously as the attorney general of his State. He is thoughtful and genuine, and he approaches issues in a serious manner. I am deeply offended that opponents of comprehensive immigration legislation have subjected him to these slurs. Let us debate the issues and stop the name-calling.

I think that those of us, many of us, who have been called anti- Catholic or anti-Christian or anti-Hispanic or anti-southern or anti- women or anti-American, have been subjected to these attacks because those who disagree with us find it easier to smear than honestly debate the issues. I find it most unfortunate that a Senator of the quality and integrity of Ken Salazar would be subjected to this form of an attack. This seems to have become a new and unfortunate way to debate. It is almost like an ethnic or religious McCarthyism we are facing. People don't want to debate the issue, so they slam somebody and suggest base motives.

I remember in another debate when some Republicans disagreed with me, they tagged me as being anti-Catholic and anti-Italian. I thought of the slurs my Italian grandparents faced when they immigrated to this country, and what my mother faced as a young girl because she spoke a language different than others were used to. But I also think of the pride my Italian relatives felt, here in the United States and in my grandparents' home in Italy, when I became a Member of the Senate. I don't feel I have to prove my bona fides for any of my heritage. My father was proud of his Irish background and my mother was proud of her Italian background. They were both proud of their heritage, but they went through a difficult time at a different time in this country.

I think of the stories of when my father was a teenager and had to support his mother and sister because my grandfather died as a stonecutter in Vermont. At that time Vermont was a much different State. It was not the wonderful, proud State it is today. My father faced signs that said: ``No Irish need apply'' or ``no Catholic need apply.'' In their time, my grandparents faced similar things. That has changed.

I worry about those who are unwilling to debate issues of importance to this country, people who won't debate the merits, but simply attack people, as they have Senator Salazar or me with baseless religious or ethnic claims. It is a form of McCarthyism; it is just intolerance of a different nature. This Senate should be above that.

Those who have seen this happen, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, should condemn it. They should stand up and condemn it, as one of the greatest Vermont Senators ever to serve, Ralph Flanders, did when he supported a resolution of censure of Joseph McCarthy for what he was doing. They were members of the same party, and he condemned what McCarthy did.

President Bush called for a civil debate and I wish his supporters would follow that suggestion. I agree with the

President on this. We should have a civil debate. But I wish somebody, even one Republican, would step up and condemn the unfounded attacks and disassociate themselves from such poisonous conduct. We have a major piece of legislation here that will affect all 295 million Americans, and it will affect 11 million people who are here in an undocumented status in our great country. Let's talk about that and how we can best solve this difficult situation for the good of our country. Let's not impugn the character or the motives of any Senator.

During yesterday's debate, we had a procedural discussion that became unnecessarily heated. I have been here 32 years. Let's go back to having a Senate that will debate issues and get away from the polemics and the name-calling. During the course of the day yesterday, both the Democratic leader and I suggested, along with members of the staff, amendments on which we could have votes. Republican and Democratic amendments alike. I think if we had votes on these amendments, or even now if we had votes on these amendments, which are offered by Republicans and Democrats, some by both, we would have the kind of movement that, in my experience after 32 years, gets legislation through.

We sent an initial list of amendments to the other side that we believe could be scheduled for debate and votes. There is one by Senator Brownback and Senator Lieberman that has been rejected. It could pass with probably 80 votes in this body if it came to a vote. I don't know why we can't vote on that.

Some on the other side tried to turn this into a partisan debate. The Democratic leader, Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and others have taken a bipartisan approach. Senator Specter and I have worked very closely, along with our staffs, under extraordinarily difficult scheduling to get this bill on the floor. What we brought to the floor is a bipartisan product, and everybody says, let's have a piece of bipartisan legislation. The President of the United States has said that. Most columnists have said that. We say that in our speeches. Well, let's do it with our votes. Let's not do it just for the rhetoric; let's do it in reality.

The Democratic leader has filed a petition for cloture that I hope will be successful on comprehensive, realistic, and fair immigration reform so we can take action this week. If we don't, let's stay through the weekend and let's get this done. Let's get it done. Stop the polemics.

Finally, as I have said before, don't let politics in this country degenerate into an ethnic and religious McCarthyism, which is what this debate has become. As a man of faith, I am proud to be a U.S. Senator, but I will make my decisions based on what the facts are before me. I am proud of my ethnic background. I am proud of the rich culture it has brought to our family, as I am proud of my wife's background as a first-generation American and the language skills and the background she brought with her. I am proud of the diversity of my grandchildren. But I make my decisions as a Senator based on one thing: the extraordinarily solemn oath I have been privileged to take in this Chamber six different times. I am mindful of the extraordinary privilege it is to walk on this floor and to have a chance to vote. I will vote my conscience. I will bring to bear my skills and my background as a prosecutor and a lawyer, as a Vermonter, aided by as fine a staff as anyone could have. I will bring that experience to these votes. But I will not be cowed by the obscene and irrational name-calling by the other side; nor, as I mentioned earlier, will Senator Salazar, who is a man with an extraordinary background, tremendous integrity, honor, and abilities.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Specter, Kohl, DeWine and others on a new bill, the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, which includes, as its centerpiece, our NOPEC legislation, which many of us have worked together on for years.

This measure--The No Oil Producing And Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC-- would make OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior and allow the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by oil cartels. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal action against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing and other anticompetitive activities. The tools this bill would provide to law enforcement agencies are necessary to immediately counter OPEC's anticompetitive practices, and these tools would help reduce gasoline prices now.

The Congress should pass this measure immediately instead of waiting until the price of gasoline at the pump is $4 a gallon. OPEC has America over a barrel, and we should fight back. If OPEC were simply a foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it would already be subject to American antitrust law. It is wrong to let OPEC producers off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the seal of approval of this cartel's member nations.

It is time for the President to join the bipartisan majority in the Senate which already said ``NO'' to OPEC by passing NOPEC and by sending it to the other body, where it was killed.

The Senate has already passed this bill, which would make OPEC subject to our antitrust laws. In fact, the Judiciary Committee has approved the NOPEC bill three times. Regrettably, even though President Bush promised in 2000 that he would ``jawbone OPEC,'' the Bush administration and its friends in the House have scuttled the NOPEC bill and the direct and daily relief it would bring to millions of Americans.

In addition, this bill makes it unlawful to divert petroleum or natural gas products from their local market to a distant market with the primary intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a market. This solves a real problem where products are being shipped for sale in that market but are later diverted and sold for less in another market.

We have an obligation to address these and other issues caused by oil cartels and by greedy companies who have money--that they have extracted from the American people--to burn. That is why I am also pleased that the bill includes provisions to conduct several studies that address serious competition, information sharing, and other antitrust problem areas related to the oil and natural gas industries. The American people deserve answers, and this bill also provides a path to getting those answers.

Authorizing tough legal action against illegal oil price fixing, and taking that action without delay, is one thing we can do without additional obstruction or delay.

The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, not the least of whom are hardworking Vermont farmers. The overall increase in fuel costs for an average Vermont farmer last year was 43 percent, meaning that each farmer is estimated to pay an additional $700 in fuel surcharges in 2006 alone. Vermonters know what the terrible consequences of these high prices can be: forcing many farmers to make unfair choices between running their farms or heating their homes. No one should be forced to make these choices, certainly not our hard- working farmers.

In summary, this bill will provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to fight OPEC's anticompetitive practices immediately, and help reduce gasoline prices now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to say ``NO'' to OPEC as we have done in the past.

Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will confirm Michael Chagares to a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This confirmation will bring the total number of judicial appointments since January 2001 to 235, including the confirmations of 2 Supreme Court Justices and 44 circuit court judges. Of course, 100 judges were confirmed during the 17 months when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate. In the other 45 months, under Republican control, only 135 judges have been confirmed. Ironically, the Senate was almost twice as productive under Democratic leadership as under Republican leadership.

Recently, President Bush withdrew the nominations of Judge Henry Saad to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Daniel P. Ryan to the Eastern District of Michigan. These withdrawals are long overdue and bring to a close a sad chapter in history of judicial confirmations when the President and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee ignored opposition to nominations by the home State Senators.

Even with negative blue slips opposing the nominations in 2003 from the home State Senators, the former Judiciary Committee chairman took the position to ignore them and proceed with hearing and to force the Saad nomination through the committee on a party-line vote. That was the first time the committee voted on a nominee with two negative blue slips and it may have been the first time any chairman and any Senate Judiciary Committee proceeded with a hearing on a judicial nominee over the objection of both home State Senators. It is certainly the first time in the last 50 years, and I know it was the first time during my 32 years in the Senate.

When Chairman Hatch chaired this committee and we were considering the nominations of a Democratic President, one negative blue slip from one home State Senator was enough to doom a nomination and prevent a hearing on that nomination. Indeed, among the more than 60 Clinton judicial nominees who this committee did not consider there were several who were blocked in spite of the positive blue slips from both home State Senators. So long as one Republican Senator had an objection, it appeared to be honored, whether that was Senator Helms objecting to an African-American nominee from Virginia or Senator Gorton objecting to nominees from California.

The blue-slip policy in effect, and enforced strictly, by the Republican chairman during the Clinton administration operated as an absolute bar to the consideration of any nominee to any court unless both home State Senators had returned positive blue slips. No time limit was set, and no reason had to be articulated. Remember, before I became chairman in June of 2001, all of these decisions were being made in secret. Blue slips were not public, and they were allowed to operate as an anonymous hold on otherwise qualified nominees. In the 106th Congress alone, more than half of President Clinton's circuit court nominees were defeated through the operation of the blue slip or other such partisan obstruction.

Perhaps the best documented abuses occurred in the Sixth Circuit, when the nominations of Judge Helene White, Kathleen McCree Lewis, and Professor Kent Markus to that court were blocked. Judge White and Ms. Lewis were themselves Michigan nominees. Republicans in the Senate prevented consideration of any of President Clinton's nominees to the Sixth Circuit for years. When I became chairman in 2001, I ended that impasse. Under Democratic leadership, in spite of the abuses by Republicans, we proceeded to consider and confirm 2 nominees to the Sixth Circuit among the 17 circuit judges we were able to confirm in our 17 months. We have continued to confirm judges, and the vacancies that once plagued the Sixth Circuit have been cut dramatically. Where Republican obstruction led to 8 vacancies on that 16-judge court, Democratic cooperation has allowed these vacancies to be filled and only 2 remain. The Sixth Circuit currently has more judges and fewer vacancies than it has had in years.

Ignoring the opposition of Michigan's Senators, President Bush renominated Judges Saad and Ryan in 2005 rather than nominate consensus nominees for those vacancies that could be easily confirmed. In fact, Judge Ryan's nomination was not withdrawn until last week even though he received a majority ``not qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association in March 2005. I look forward to the White House reconsidering its confrontational posture and working with the Senate to send to the Senate well-qualified nominees who can be confirmed with the support of Michigan's Senators.

These are not the only nominations the President has withdrawn recently. Last month, the President also withdrew the nomination of James Payne to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest. Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening process or by the ABA but by online journalists.

As I discussed last month, at a minimum that case and the other withdrawals reinforce concerns about this White House's poor vetting process for important nominations which became apparent with the withdrawals of Bernard Kerik to head Homeland Security, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and Claude Allen to be a Fourth Circuit judge. It was not the administration's vetting but reporting in a national magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination. Democratic Senators resisted the nomination of Allen, a Virginian, because the President was seeking to appoint someone from another State to a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. Unfortunately, rather than being thorough in selecting lifetime appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, all too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies and picking political fights.

As today's confirmation demonstrates, Democrats in the Senate cooperate with this White House when it focuses on sending the Senate qualified consensus nominees. Unfortunately, as the recent withdrawals demonstrate, this White House too often does not want to cooperate with us.

I congratulate the nominee and his family on his confirmation today.

Is all time yielded back on the nomination?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we have a number of people who want to speak on both sides, and the distinguished chairman is here. I was going to ask unanimous consent--let me discuss one thing first before I do--to first allow the two distinguished Senators from Florida to speak briefly on a matter not involving immigration but involving----

A group by the name of the Gators.

But before they do that--I hope to maybe go back and forth--I would like to ask to be able to lock in on this side, realizing that we will probably go the traditional way, back and forth on the bill on both sides, that it would be Senators Nelson, Menendez, Lieberman, Salazar, Durbin, and Kennedy.

What I was going to recommend is we ask people to be able to speak in 15-minute blocks, each one of them speaking for 15 minutes, realizing that if we work it this way, I would imagine the distinguished chairman would want 15 minutes on his side, and go back and forth.

So I would propound that following discussion by Senators Nelson and Martinez, recognizing the significant accomplishment for Florida, we have 15 minutes a side for discussion and that the Senators on our side in the slotted times be Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Menendez, Senator Lieberman, Senator Salazar, Senator Durbin, and Senator Kennedy.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

No, no. Finish what you were saying.

Mr. President, I know there are amendments on both sides. I have already stated my admiration for the way the Senator from Pennsylvania moved this bill through the committee and on to the floor. I would like to have finished the bill last week, and I share his sense of urgency to finish. I suspect there will be discussions about this in both the caucuses this noon. I wonder if possibly the Senator from Pennsylvania and I, and whomever else he would like, could try to sit down and work out an order for amendments so that we can move forward. But that probably will not happen until after the caucuses, and I thought we could at least have others speak. I have spoken, and I will include another statement for the legislative record this morning. But I think if we get Senators down here to talk about it, we can also work out the time for amendments.

Of course.

Mr. President, for offering an amendment, it would require, of course, unanimous consent. I have not included, just because it gets too complicated--that is why I wanted to work out with the distinguished chairman when such amendments might be offered. It would allow Senators to speak, but any Senator speaking, if they wanted to offer an amendment, would still require unanimous consent then. Rather than trying to micromanage this all the way down the line, I will let each Senator make that request.

That is right.

Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania states it accurately. A number of Senators, I suspect, on both sides are going to talk about amendments they intend to offer. Unanimous consent will not be given for anybody to offer an amendment on either side during this time, but I would encourage Senators to talk about the amendments they intend to offer.

Mr. President, any Senator can object. I have been told that there are those on the Republican side who would object to a Democrat offering an amendment, so I suspect there would be similar objections here. But any Senator can speak about his or her amendment. Any Senator can offer an amendment. Any Senator can make an objection. But insofar as there are going to be objections on the Republican side to some Democratic amendments, and vice versa--there is a

Democratic amendment pending, of course, that of Senator Mikulski--I thought, until we get to the caucus, at least we could accomplish something by talking about the amendments we want to offer.

I will again make a unanimous consent request that after the two distinguished Senators from Florida speak about the Gators, there be 15 minutes a side to talk on the bill or amendments Members wish to offer. And if we do that, again, I realize we would alternate. On the Democratic side it would be Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Menendez, Senator Lieberman, Senator Salazar, Senator Durbin, and Senator Kennedy.

I renew that request.

Certainly, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the two Senators from Florida be allowed to speak at this point about the Gators as in morning business, but I will then again request at least on our side we have an order of speakers as I have noted.

I ask unanimous consent now simply that the two distinguished Senators from Florida be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield, without losing the floor, for a suggestion?

Mr. President, may it be in order to ask consent that when the distinguished Senator has finished speaking, the senior Senator from Florida be then recognized to speak, all sides retaining their rights, of course, on the offering of amendments?

I ask further consent that following the distinguished Senator from Colorado the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, be then recognized.

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

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Florida is correct. I am told that amendments will be offered on the side. It would be either the Democrat side or the Republican side. There would be objection but Senators agree to speak about amendments and are encouraged to speak about amendments they intend to offer.

Will the Senator yield?

As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows better than anyone here, we can accomplish a great deal when we are able to work together. He and I and key members of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party worked very closely in the Judiciary Committee to report a bipartisan piece of legislation to the full Senate.

We reported a bipartisan bill, and I would like to vote on that. Here on the floor, we have voted on several amendments. We voted on the Frist amendment, the Bingaman amendment, the Alexander amendment. A Mikulski amendment is pending, which I believe could pass. We hope the other side will consent to take up Senator Nelson's amendment. Senator Brownback and Senator Lieberman have an amendment on detention and asylum. There is a Collins amendment, a Republican amendment on athletes; a Bond amendment; and another Republican amendment on natural science graduate students. Each one could be offered and voted on. There are a number of others we are working on.

I made a suggestion this morning to ask unanimous consent that Senators be allowed to talk about amendments they planned to offer. A Democratic Senator might speak for 15 minutes and then alternate with the Republican side, and so on, back and forth. The junior Senator from Arizona objected to that proposal. He has an absolute right, of course, to object.

I hoped that if Senators could come here and talk about amendments they hoped to offer, we might be able to work out some amendments in the usual way.

Up until the last few years, when there has been single-party control in Washington, we were always able to share one side's amendments with the other, to see if there were areas of compromise. We would work out a schedule on complicated bills like this one. Certainly, this is the practice followed by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania in committee. Because he ran it in such a fair way, and because Senators on both sides of the aisle were able to discuss their amendments, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the full committee were able to report a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the ability to do that here.

If we could go back to the traditional manner of doing things, the better way of doing things, practices similar to those followed by the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, we could get somewhere.

As I said, we have already adopted a number of amendments. This is the practice I was suggesting when I received an objection this morning. I was hoping to set up a series of votes.

I am not suggesting that the Senator from Arizona was not within his rights. Of course, he was within his rights to object. But once he did, we lost the ability to set up that procedure which, I believe, in my own experience, would have let some amendments go through.

The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has been more than generous. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor. I yield to him.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for another question?

Mr. President, let's be factual here. The suggestion was made by the Senator from Vermont that we have an order of speakers on both sides. These would be Senators who have amendments that they want to offer. They would discuss them on the floor with the idea that perhaps a bipartisan group could meet after the caucus meetings and talk about how we might sequence the amendments. I would note, however, for the Senators here, the meeting after the caucus was a closed-door meeting to which only Republicans were invited.

It is somewhat difficult to schedule Republican or Democratic amendments in such a meeting. This one-sided meeting was completely different than the business meetings the Senator from Pennsylvania held in the Judiciary Committee, which were successful in getting a bill to the floor.

I urge the Republican and Democratic leaders to look at the model followed by the Senator from Pennsylvania in committee, which reported a bill to the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield without his losing the floor?

Mr. President, of course the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Vermont were both here, missing all those recesses. As much as I have enjoyed the company of my friend for over a quarter of a century, I did not enjoy it so much that I wanted to miss those recesses. There are several amendments that we could vote on in the next couple of hours, as far as I am concerned. I would be happy to do that.

No, starting right now. We have one pending. I mentioned that several Senators, including a majority of Senators from the Republican side of the aisle, have amendments that we could be voting on.

Mr. President, before we do that, I believe the distinguished Senator from Connecticut wishes to speak.

Imprimatur.

Mr. President, the Senate has taken significant and constructive steps over the past week toward fixing our Nation's broken immigration system. On March 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a comprehensive and bipartisan package that is tough but smart.

We sent to the Senate a bill that includes critical law enforcement and border security measures--tougher than the bill introduced by the majority leader earlier last month. Our bill, which was passed by a strong bipartisan 12-to-6 vote in committee, also includes realistic solutions for the problem of the millions of undocumented presently living inside our borders. We do not offer these aliens amnesty but create an incentive for them to come out of the shadows, register, and earn the opportunity to obtain legal status over the course of 11 years.

Over the past week, we have taken strides to see these proposals passed into law. I thank the many Senators who have come to the floor to speak in support of the committee bill. Senators McCain and Kennedy, who did the hard work of drafting many of these measures, have made strong statements explaining why the committee bill is not an offer of amnesty but represents an earned path to legalization and eventual citizenship. Senator Feinstein spoke about how this bill is tough on enforcement but pragmatic in its temporary worker and legalization programs.

I thank Senator Durbin for his eloquent statement last week describing the DREAM Act, which is included in the committee bill. Senator Lincoln, Senator Salazar, and Senator Obama have all come to speak in favor of the ``enforcement-plus'' measures in the bipartisan bill.

We have voted to approve several amendments that further strengthen

the bill. Senator Bingaman's amendment to bolster national security by assisting local law enforcement in border States was approved overwhelmingly yesterday. So was Senator Alexander's amendment to strengthen citizenship programs, and last week, we passed a Frist-Reid amendment to study the tragic deaths occurring at the border between the United States and Mexico.

I hope we will vote next on the important amendment offered by Senator Mikulski with a long list of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. The Mikulski amendment will bring relief to employers by easing the shortfall of seasonal workers.

I hope we will also vote on amendments that will be offered by Senator Bill Nelson to add additional enforcement provisions to the Committee bill.

We have before us an opportunity to take a historic vote on a realistic and reasonable system for immigration. Our bill protects America's borders, strengthens enforcement, and remains true to American values. We should pass this bill this week.

Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--as far as I am floor manager on this side and a cosponsor of this amendment--that I may proceed for 3 minutes with the additional time not taken from the majority side.

If the Senator will do that, that will work.

Mr. President, I thank my friends from Tennessee and Texas for their courtesy.

I commend the Senator from Maryland. I enthusiastically-- enthusiastically--cosponsor this amendment. It is going to bring relief to employers by easing the shortfall of seasonal workers. I know it is desperately needed in Vermont.

Last May we passed, and the President signed into law, assistance for small and seasonal businesses by enacting a special exemption. The amendment passed last May, offered by Senator Mikulski, cosponsored by myself, Senator Jeffords, and others, created an exemption to the cap for seasonal workers.

The Vermont ski, hotel, and conference industries rely on hiring foreign workers when they cannot find Americans to fill seasonal jobs. Over the past several years, the demand for these workers across the country has far exceeded the caps and has led to a severe shortage of workers which threatened the hospitality industry which is such an important part of Vermont's economy.

Senator Mikulski's amendment will simply extend the sunset date and give businesses in Vermont, Maryland, and other States the resources they need to compete and succeed. We need this relief in Vermont. The broad range of bipartisan support for this amendment shows how badly it is needed.

I thank the Senator for her persistent efforts. I thank my good friends on the other side of the aisle for the courtesy they showed a late arrival.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Mexico on his amendment. It improves the bill being considered by the Senate. The Bingaman amendment enhances our efforts to be tough and smart in immigration reform by providing State and local law enforcement agencies with additional assistance.

The Judiciary Committee sent a bill approved by a bipartisan vote of 12-6 to the Senate. It is a bill that is strong on enforcement. It is stronger than the bill introduced by the senior Senator from Tennessee, who started from the same place as the committee bill but did not include some of the enforcement measures added by amendment during Committee consideration and neglected some of the bipartisan improvements that we made. For example, the Frist bill does not include a provision added by the Committee at the urging of Senator Feinstein to make tunneling under our borders a federal crime. The committee bill adds new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers and the committee bill includes a Feinstein amendment to add 12,000 new border patrol agents, at 2,400 each year for the next 5 years.

The committee bill is enforcement ``plus.'' It starts with strong enforcement provisions and border security to be sure, but it is also comprehensive and balanced. It confronts the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows. It values work. It respects human dignity. It includes guest worker provisions supported by business and labor. It includes a way to pay fines and earn citizenship that has the support of religious and leading Hispanic organizations.

I continue to work with Chairman Specter in a bipartisan way to enact the committee bill. Our bill provides a realistic and reasonable system for immigration. Our bill protects America's borders, strengthens enforcement and remains true to American values.

The committee bill wisely dropped controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling and other basic services that help undocumented aliens to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal law. I thank so many in the relief and religious communities for speaking out on this matter. Those criminal provisions should be focused on the smugglers, and under the committee bill, that is what we did.

The Committee also voted down a measure that would have criminalized mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States. Illegal status is currently a civil offense with very serious consequences, including deportation, but criminalizing that status was punitive and wrong. It would have led to further harsh consequences and trapped people in permanent underclass status. These criminalization measures, which were included in the House-passed bill supported by congressional Republicans and are reflected in the Frist bill, have understandable sparked nationwide protests. They are viewed by many as anti-immigrant and inconsistent with American values and history. The committee bill, while tough on enforcement and on the smugglers, is smarter and fairer.

The Bingaman amendment adds to our product. It is a constructive amendment. I hope that it will be supported by all Senators, whether Republican, Democratic or Independent. Border law enforcement agencies deserve our support as they are confronted with border-related criminal activity. I thank the Senator for including both the northern and southern borders in his concerns and within the coverage of his amendment.

The amendment recognizes the failures of the Federal Government over the last few years and its failure to provide adequate security along our borders. As the Senator from New Mexico has said, when such failures impose costs on local communities, the Federal Government should help.

The peaceful demonstrations around the country over the last few weeks call on the Congress to recognize the human dignity of all and to do the right thing, in keeping with longstanding American values. We need a comprehensive solution to a national problem. We need a fair, realistic and reasonable system that includes both tough enforcement and immigration reform provisions. All Senators should be able to agree with these principles.

I was glad to hear that President Bush was speaking recently about the need for a path to citizenship and the need for a comprehensive bill. Of course, as we proceed through their sixth year in office, the Bush-Cheney administration has still not sent a legislative proposal to the Congress on these matters. Instead of waiting, we have done the hard work and are writing a tough, smart, comprehensive bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask consent I be allowed to continue for a few minutes as though in morning business.

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon my wife Marcelle and I went and said our final farewells to our Erma Byrd, the wife of our distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Marcelle and I have been privileged to know both Senator and Mrs. Byrd for well over 30 years.

While there, we talked with the distinguished senior citizen from West Virginia and told him how much that relationship meant, but especially how much it meant to us to see a love affair such as theirs, one that continued from the time they were teenagers to the time of Mrs. Byrd's death.

Mrs. Byrd and my wife used to sometimes drive down together for Senate spouse meetings. Every time Marcelle would come back, she would tell me something new and valuable she had learned from Erma and how much that friendship meant.

In recent times, when illness stopped her ability to come here, I would talk with my good friend Robert Byrd and ask him how Erma was doing and to tell him that both she and Robert were in our prayers and our thoughts. Many of us will be at the funeral this weekend out of respect for both of them. I will be thinking of the privilege it has been to have known them both and how privileged I am to still have as a dear friend and colleague Senator Robert C. Byrd.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation now? I am just asking the question.

Madam President, I would tell my good friend from my neighboring State of New Hampshire, I do have a statement. It is not very long; it is probably 7 or 8 minutes. But I would like to say, just to frame the issue, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and I spoke on the floor yesterday on this. This is a major issue. I will want to speak. I do not intend to hold the floor very long.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. As usual, he found us a roadmap and it worked well.

Madam President, let me just briefly suggest the absence of a quorum. I am going to take us out of the quorum in about 1 minute.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we are going to have a major debate on immigration. That is a good thing, both for the country and for the Senate. I note, however, in the Judiciary Committee, we have had a major amount of debate and long markups. The distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and I have tried to make sure we had full hearings.

The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is on the floor. As I said last night, he has spent more time on this than any of the rest of us. He has been in the Senate longer. He has been a leader in the area of immigration.

When we began the debate, Chairman Specter and I followed the opening statement of the Republican leader with a discussion of how the Judiciary Committee, in a truly bipartisan manner, worked successfully to meet the deadline set by the Senate's Republican leadership. I understood that the majority leader had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were able to meet that deadline. I heard our chairman reiterate that same thing on the floor again yesterday. We did it, we completed that difficult task. We did it by working together, Republicans and Democrats, something that should be done more often around here.

Under the steady leadership of the chairman and Senator Kennedy, and with the hard work and dedication of so many members of the committee, we worked through the long hours and numerous amendments and accomplished what had seemed to be the impossible. Our staffs worked throughout the St. Patrick's Day recess. As I said last night, I got e- mails from them at 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock at night and then again very early in the morning. I knew how hard they were working on this-- the staffs of all the Senators involved. Then the Judiciary Committee sent a resounding message approving a bill by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6.

What was interesting about that is none of the amendments on the critical issues passed on a party-line vote. They were by strong bipartisan votes. Let me tell you what our committee did.

We have a bill that is strong on enforcement. In some ways, it is stronger than the bill passed by the House. It is tough on employer enforcement. It is tough on traffickers--and it should be. It is stronger than the bill introduced by the senior Senator from Tennessee, who started from the same place as the committee bill but did not include some of the enforcement measures added by amendment during committee consideration nor any of the other improvements we made. For example, neither of those other bills included a provision, added by the committee at the urging of Senator Feinstein, to make tunneling under our borders a Federal crime. The committee bill adds new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers, and it added manslaughter to the definition of aggravated felony.

Finally, on Monday morning of this week, the committee adopted a Feinstein amendment to add 12,000 new Border Patrol agents--2,400 each year for the next 5 years.

Our committee bill is enforcement-plus. It starts with strong enforcement provisions and border security, but it is also comprehensive in its balance. It confronts the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows. It values work. It respects human dignity and includes guest worker provisions supported by both business and labor. It includes a way to pay fines and earn citizenship that has the support of religious organizations and leading Hispanic organizations.

Yesterday, Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin and Senator Harkin made excellent, persuasive statements in favor of the committee bill. Senators Domenici and Martinez also spoke of their personal journeys. These were very real and meaningful statements. They reminded us all that we are a country of immigrants. I thank them for speaking in terms favorable to the comprehensive approach we have adopted. Listening to them makes me think how proud my immigrant grandparents would be. They immigrated from Italy to Vermont. They would be proud to hear this debate, and to see their grandson speaking on the floor of the Senate.

I look forward to working with Chairman Specter in a bipartisan way to pass the committee bill. The chairman and I have been able to move our committee from being a confrontational committee to one that works in a bipartisan fashion. I commend him for that. I commend all members of the committee for that.

What we have done is, by working that way, we have provided a realistic and reasonable system for immigration. The bill protects America's borders, it strengthens enforcement, and most important, it remains true to the best of American values.

The committee bill wisely dropped controversial provisions which would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief or medical care or shelter or counseling or other basic services to undocumented aliens. Under the earlier bill, they would have faced possible prosecution under felony alien-smuggling provisions of the criminal law--a reminder that in a nation such as ours, with such a great heart and soul as a nation, we also have a moral and humanitarian responsibility to people. We should not make felons of those who carry out the responsibility of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering those who need shelter.

I thank so many in the relief and religious communities, the faith community, for speaking out on this matter. Even in my own faith, I was so pleased to see some of the leaders speak out so strongly.

The criminal provisions should be focused on the smugglers, not on the children of aliens or those who help them. Focus it on the smugglers, those who traffic in human misery and sometimes bring about the death of those they smuggle. Under the committee bill, that is what we did.

The committee also voted down a measure that would criminalize mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States. I was a prosecutor. I know how unworkable that would have been. Illegal status is currently a civil offense with very serious consequences. One of the most serious, of course, is it includes deportation. But if you then criminalize that status, it is punitive, it is wrong, it is totally unworkable and goes against the history of our Nation. It would have led to further harsh consequences. It would have trapped people in permanent underclass status. It would have put bars in front of the American dream.

These criminalization measures, which were included in the House- passed bill supported by congressional Republicans and which were reflected in the majority leader's bill, have understandably sparked nationwide protest. In the view of many, it is anti-immigrant and inconsistent with America's values and history. The committee bill, while tough in enforcement and on the smugglers, is smarter and fairer.

I ask Senators to look at the peaceful demonstrations across this country. Listen to the people who are speaking out. A half-million people went out in a peaceful demonstration in Los Angeles. That is nearly the population of my State. That was just one demonstration among many.

Opponents of a fair, comprehensive approach are quick to claim that anything but the most punitive provision is amnesty. They are wrong. This is not an amnesty bill. An editorial in yesterday's New York Times entitled ``It Isn't Amnesty'' makes the point that painting the word ``deer'' on a cow and taking it into the woods does not make the cow a deer. As I said yesterday, in Vermont, especially during deer season, we Vermonters know the difference between a deer and a cow. Sometimes we wish the tourists did.

Our committee bill should not be falsely labeled. Our bill is more properly called what it is: a smart, tough bill.

We know we need a comprehensive solution to a national problem. We need a fair, realistic, and reasonable system that includes both tough enforcement and immigration reform provisions. All Senators, Republicans and Democrats, should be able to agree with these principles. The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee is that bill.

I am glad to hear that President Bush is again speaking about the need for a path to citizenship and the need for a comprehensive bill. I hope, as we now proceed through the sixth year in office, that the Bush-Cheney administration will finally send a legislative proposal to Congress on these matters. They have stated their support. Let them also bring forward what they believe is appropriate legislation. We did not want to wait any longer in our committee. We did the hard work, and produced a bipartisan bill.

We did the hard work, and we wrote a tough, smart, comprehensive bill. The Judiciary Committee's debate has produced a bill that I believe would make my immigrant grandparents proud, and my maternal great-grandparents proud. It is worthy of our support.

This is a body which should reflect the conscience of our great Nation. There are only 100 of us. We are enormously privileged to represent 295 million Americans. Let us speak to the conscience of all of us and the humanity of all of us. Let us pass this bill. It is not just from the managers' point of view, from a political point of view; it has the support of the labor unions, business groups, leading Hispanic organizations, and many from our religious communities. They are asking the Senate to do its part. Let's adopt the committee bill so we can bring hard-working people out of the shadows and end the permanent underclass status of so many who have contributed so much.

Let us protect our security and our borders, but support the American dream that attracted my grandparents and the American dream that attracted so many, and allow this bill to become a reality. We are a good, brave, and wonderful country. Let us demonstrate it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I filed an amendment to the lobbying reform bill, S. 2349, on March 7. My amendment is the honest services amendment, No. 2924.

It is disappointing that there will not be an opportunity to offer my amendment--or to have it considered by the Senate--because cloture has been invoked and the strict rules governing amendments postcloture prevent me from offering this amendment.

The purpose of my amendment is to articulate more clearly the line that cannot be crossed with respect to links between special favors and gifts and official acts, without incurring criminal liability. My amendment would have offered an important and needed new dimension to the lobbying reform bill. Ironically, because my amendment offers a new element to the lobbying reform debate, it is now out of order.

It was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the serious ethics scandal that has grown over the last years. If we are serious about restoring public confidence in Congress, we need to do more than just reform the lobbying disclosure laws and ethics rules. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this type of public corruption by providing better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat it.

My amendment would have done exactly that. It would create a better legal framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of honest services fraud involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the American people of the honest services of their elected representatives.

Under my amendment, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for their actions.

My amendment would also prohibit Members of Congress and their staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors or holding hidden financial interests in return for being influenced in carrying out their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up to 20 years' imprisonment or both.

My amendment would strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. The amendment makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption cases without all of the hurdles of having to prove bribery or of working with the limited and nonspecific honest services fraud language in current Federal law.

The amendment also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other individuals with much needed notice and clarification as to what kind of conduct triggers this criminal offense.

In addition, my amendment would authorize $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next 4 years to give Federal prosecutors needed resources to investigate corruption and to hold lobbyists and other individuals accountable for improperly seeking to influence legislation and other official matters.

The unfolding corruption investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and MZM demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad-ranging impact, including the devastating consequence of undermining the public's confidence in our Government. Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that, as an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, Federal investigators are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's new intelligence agency--the Counterintelligence Field Activity--to MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham.

The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.

I strongly believe that public service is a public trust and that Congress must provide better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. If we are serious about reform and cleaning up this scandal, we will do so. I am disappointed that we missed the opportunity this lobbying reform bill provided to bolster Federal corruption prosecutors, and I hope we will soon find another opportunity to act in the interest of all Americans.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania for his kind words. I have told him privately, and I will say it publicly, he has acted as a chairman should. I have been here 31 years, now going on my 32nd year. I have seen great chairmen in both parties in this institution. I have seen others who were chairmen in both parties.

Senator Specter is in the mold of the great chairmen. He took a very difficult bill, by his own force of will--as he has with others--and kept us together, made sure we had discussions. We went across the political spectrum. We had people who feel very strongly, and rightly so, who had differing views--all distinguished Members of the Senate. He herded them together, kept us together, and kept us in, doing what has been a rarity: the type of Monday session he had to make it work.

I can assure colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, we would not have this bill on the floor, in an ability where the Senate cannot only work its will but do a fine piece of legislation, were it not for Senator Specter. Senator Specter made it possible with his leadership.

Senator Kennedy, on our side, has worked on these issues since before any of us presently on the floor were in the Senate. And with the work of Senators from both sides of the aisle, we have a bill that provides a realistic, a reasonable system for immigration.

We voted in a bipartisan majority. We have seen, over the years, the Judiciary Committee become more polarized. We have seen, in the past couple of years, more and more strongly bipartisan votes. In this case, it was a bipartisan majority with a vote of 12 to 6, with two-thirds of the members of the committee voting in favor of a bill that protects America's borders, strengthens enforcement, and--and this is what is so important--remains true to American values.

The Judiciary Committee has confronted the challenging problem of how to fix our broken immigration system head on. It has sent to the Senate a good product. The committee met six times to debate a proposal offered by the chairman, meeting for long hours and considering dozens of amendments. The debate was substantive. It was civil. It was bipartisan. It was effective. And it was productive.

I might say, had it not been for superb staff on both sides of the aisle, this would not have been possible. I think of the members of my own staff. I would log on sometimes at midnight, when I would get home from other things, and their e-mails were pouring in from the work they had done. I would go back on the e-mails at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and there were new ones. They were working around the clock.

We were given a deadline of March 27 by the Senate Republican leadership. I understood that the majority leader

had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were able to meet his deadline and report a bill by Monday night. It was difficult. At times it was a Herculean task that seemed almost the task of Sisyphus. It seemed undoable and the deadline impossible, but under the steady leadership of the chairman, with the hard work and dedication of so many members of the committee--again, I compliment Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts on our side who worked so hard on this--we worked through the long hours and numerous amendments and accomplished what seemed to be the impossible.

When I mention those two Senators, it is not to leave out other Senators. We had so many who brought up amendment after amendment, who worked hard on it, all trying to get a bipartisan bill.

The Judiciary Committee sent this resounding message, as I said, with a bill with a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6, with strong bipartisan support of every key amendment. These were not party-line amendments. These were bipartisan amendments. It is a bill that is strong on enforcement and in some ways stronger than the bill passed by the other body.

It includes a provision added by Senator Feinstein, for example, to make tunneling under our borders a Federal crime. It is tough on employer enforcement. And it is tough on traffickers.

It is also comprehensive and balanced. It confronts the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows. It values work. It respects human dignity. And it includes guest worker provisions that have been supported by both business and labor. It includes a way to pay fines and earn citizenship that has the support of religious and leading Hispanic organizations.

These provisions are not amnesty. I spent enough years in law and enough years as a prosecutor. I know what amnesty is. These are not amnesty. Undocumented immigrants already in the country would not get to cut to the front of the line, but, in accordance with the committee's bipartisan plan, will need to pay fines, pay back taxes, work hard, and wait in line for green cards. They have to pass background checks and play by the rules. With fines and hard work and going to the back of the line, after 11 years, by following a regular path to legal status, the currently undocumented will join as full participants in American society. Following this plan, we could create an orderly system for immigration that is consistent with traditional American values and our history.

Opponents of a fair, comprehensive approach are quick to claim that anything but the most punitive provisions are amnesty. They are wrong. We had an amnesty bill. President Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. This is not an amnesty bill. An editorial in the New York Times entitled ``It Isn't Amnesty'' makes the point that painting the word ``deer'' on a cow and taking it into the woods does not make that cow a deer. Frankly, in the State of Vermont, we deer hunters know the difference between a cow and a deer. We better. Our committee bill should not be falsely labeled. Our bill is more properly called what it is--a smart, tough bill.

The committee also voted to add several constructive and practical measures to the chairman's mark. We added a new version of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, a bill I have long supported. I was joined in that bipartisan effort by Senator Larry Craig. AgJOBS will reform the H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural labor. This new version will help dairy farmers in Vermont and many other States to legally hire foreign workers. The bipartisan provision approved by the panel would make dairy workers able to work under visas for up to 3 years, with the opportunity to adjust to permanent residence and achieve their full potential to become eligible for higher paying occupations.

The American people are engaging with us in this debate. The Nation's newspapers reflect the public's growing interest in how these decisions will be settled. In my home State, the Burlington Free Press and the Rutland Daily Herald have offered thoughtful editorial observations about these issues. I commend these editorials to the attention of my colleagues, and I will at the end of my statement include them.

The committee also adopted an amendment to include the bipartisan Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, called the DREAM Act. This provision will allow immigrant students to attend college and become permanent residents if they follow the rules established in the act. It will free eligible students from the constant fear of deportation, while allowing them to work so they can afford to pay for college. By our bipartisan committee vote, we hope to extend Hispanic young people greater educational opportunities so they may realize the American dream and achieve their potential.

The committee agreed--wisely, I believe--to drop several controversial provisions. Early in the process, I led an effort to remove a provision directing the Department of Homeland Security to study building a barrier, a fence, a wall along our northern border with Canada.

If I might just for a moment, I live less than an hour's drive from Canada. I see people go back and forth across that border all the time, families who live on both sides. My wife is a first-generation American. She was born in Vermont literally a couple hundred yards from the Canadian border. Her parents were naturalized citizens coming from the Province of Quebec. When I come home and she is speaking French on the phone, I know she is talking with some of her relatives in Canada. But tens of thousands of families, probably far more than that, cross the northern border.

There are also businesses. We even have a store in Vermont where there is a line painted down the center of the store, a cash register on one side of the store with Canadian money and a cash register on the other side with U.S. money. Why? Because half the store is in Canada and half in the United States. With the proposal that was before us of this barrier, this fence, it was going to be Joe would get a passport and bring me that box of Rice Krispies from the other side of the store. I mean, it gets down to that. There are businesses up and down the same way. When this proposal faced the light of day, we understood it easily.

There were other controversial provisions that we wisely dropped, provisions that would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief--medical care, shelter, counseling, and other basic services--to undocumented aliens to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal law. If somebody is running a food bank or a shelter for battered children and women and they give aid, they help people, they feed the hungry, if you have an order of nuns who feed the hungry, under those circumstances, they faced a chance of being charged with a crime. For shame, for shame. Let's accept the beatitudes as something that should go across all faiths, across all laws. I thank so many in the relief and religious communities for speaking out on this matter. Those criminal provisions should be focused on the smugglers. Under the committee bill, that is what we do--go after the real criminals, the smugglers, people who trade in human lives.

The committee also voted down a measure that would have criminalized mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States. Illegal status is currently a civil offense with very serious consequences, including deportation. But criminalizing that status was punitive and wrong. Let's be realistic. Are you going to go out and lock up over 10 million people? It would have led to further harsh consequences. It would have trapped people in permanent underclass status, unwilling to move into the mainstream of society.

These policies, which were included in the House-passed bill and supported there by congressional Republicans, understandably sparked nationwide protests. They were viewed as anti-immigrant and inconsistent with American values and history, American values that attracted my grandparents to come here from Italy to settle in Vermont or my great grandparents to come from Ireland and do the same.

The committee bill was tough on enforcement and very properly so tough on the smugglers. It is smarter and fairer.

Finally, I thank the chairman for setting aside provisions in the mark

that would have consolidated all immigration appeals from around the Nation into the jurisdiction of the Federal circuit, the court of appeals for the Federal circuit. That is a court we have wisely set up in recent years in Washington because it has specialized jurisdiction. It was created to hear patent appeals and cases involving technical intellectual property issues, those issues which have so much to do with the economy of our country. It was not set up to hear immigration appeals. In fact, the Judicial Conference, chaired by now Chief Justice John Roberts and Federal judges from across the country, expressed serious concerns with these proposals. The chairman did the right thing when he agreed to hold a hearing and further consider what provisions will best correct the problems created by former Attorney General Ashcroft's ill-conceived actions with respect to these matters in cutting down the number of people who could handle such matters.

I ask everybody to look at the peaceful demonstrations around the country over the last week. I will pick just one--in Los Angeles, half a million people. I can't help but notice that. We have slightly over 600,000 people in my State. They had almost the population of my State in a peaceful demonstration in Los Angeles. They were calling on us, calling on the Congress, the U.S. Senate and our colleagues in the other body, to recognize the human dignity of all. These aren't numbers. These aren't numbers. These are human beings. Do the right thing. We can do it in keeping with the longstanding American values. Let's not take the attitude that we are here, so no one else should be here. We are a nation of immigrants. We really are. In this case, if we are going to truly have the American dream, we also need a comprehensive solution to what has become a national problem. We need a fair, realistic, and reasonable system that includes both tough enforcement but immigration reform provisions. The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee is that bill.

This could be a pivotal moment in helping to achieve that goal. The Judiciary Committee's debate has produced a bill that I believe would make my grandparents proud. But I think it would make the ancestors of all of us proud. It is worthy of our support. We should stop and think for a moment in this body, this exclusive body--there are only 100 of us who get a chance at any given time to represent almost 290 million Americans--should we not do something that makes the country proud, makes those other 290 million Americans proud and makes us in this body proud?

I thank the many individuals and organizations who were so helpful to us during committee consideration of the bill. Included among those supporting this measure are many labor unions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, leading Hispanic organizations such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza, many religious organizations, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I ask unanimous consent that editorials from the Rutland Daily Herald, the Burlington Free Press, and the New York Times be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico. We have known each other for over 30 years. I appreciate his words. I thank him.