Floor Statements

There is no objection on the Democratic side.

Mr. President, on behalf of other Democratic Members, I will object.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3719, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3823

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3798

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3746

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3699

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida be added as a cosponsor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to join the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to oppose the amendment that has just been offered. Our

specialty crop producers are confronted with a number of challenges that threaten their viability and in some cases their ability to survive. It is no secret that my State of Washington is a major specialty crop State. We, in fact, rank No. 1 in the Nation in the production of a number of specialty crops--from apples to pears to cherries to raspberries to concord grapes, just to name a few of them, with 250 other fruits and vegetables produced in Washington State. The specialty crop industry represents a large segment of the agricultural commodities which serve the economic backbone of my State and many others.

Unlike row crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, there is virtually no support by the USDA for these fruits, and vegetable producers do not have access to crop insurance for their crops. Specialty crop producers have been hurt as the chairman of the committee enunciated.

There has been a lot more--from fires and droughts, hailstorms, and wind. Our fruit and vegetable producers have faced some major challenges during the last two years. These same industries have been very hurt--and in some cases decimated--by the inflow of specialty crops from overseas, as well as a lack of access to labor and pests and diseases.

I believe there is a need to make the commitment to help growers in all of our States and provide them with the assistance they desperately need.

Many Americans don't realize that specialty crops represent 51 percent of all farm cash receipts in the United States. That is more than $41 billion in annual farm value.

Although our fruit and vegetable industry is large, it is not larger than other commodities. They have access to relatively little of the overall agricultural disaster programs.

The section 32 grants to States to help specialty crops will help our fruit and vegetable producers survive these difficult conditions. Whether this is supporting research which is important, or promotion or marketing that is critical, these funds will help our fruit and vegetable farmers in business in every single State.

I think everyone in the Senate knows that the United States should produce as much domestic food product as it can. And the $75 million that is targeted by this McCain amendment to help keep our fruit and vegetable producers in business is simply a modest investment, and it is a commitment to keep our farmers in business in very difficult and challenging times.

I urge my colleagues to make the commitment to support the specialty crop farms and the farmers and the families who depend on it, and I urge them to vote against the McCain amendment.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3657

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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.

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 object.

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

Mr. President, I would second what the chairman has just stated about the budget constraints facing our subcommittee. I am committed to working with the Senator from Rhode Island during the fiscal year 2007 budget process to address these rising energy costs.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Reserving the right to object, I don't believe we have seen this amendment. If the Senator would share the amendment with us quickly, we can take a quick look at it.

Mr. President, we have no objection.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Amendment No. 3641, Division XII, Withdrawn

Mr. President, I know we put together a time line. Senator Kennedy would also like to be recognized. He can follow Senator Reid, but I think he would like to be recognized for 30 minutes following the four Senators we have in the queue.

Madam President, I object.

Madam President, I have no objection to the Senator talking to his amendment, but at this time, we will object to his calling it up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 20 minutes be equally divided between Senators Obama and Coburn, and that following that time, Senator Bingaman be recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Darren Benjamin, a detailee to the Committee on Appropriations, and Chris Heggem of committee staff be granted floor privileges during the debate on H.R. 4939.

Will the Senator from Oregon yield?

If the Senator from Oregon will yield for a unanimous consent request, Mr. President.

I ask the Senator to yield without losing his right to the floor immediately after----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be allowed to call up his amendment and offer it, and at the end of that time, to immediately return the floor to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I so modify my unanimous consent request that the Senator from Colorado be allowed to offer his amendment, and then at the conclusion of his offering that amendment, he would set it aside, and we would return to the pending amendment, which is the Wyden amendment, with the floor being under the control of Senator Wyden.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I think the attempt here is that the Senator from Colorado simply would like a few minutes on the floor this afternoon to offer his amendment. I don't think he is trying to supersede the order of any other amendments. The pending business of the Senate is the Wyden amendment, so the intent of the Senator from Colorado is simply to have a few minutes on the floor to offer his amendment. He has been here numerous times throughout the day simply asking for that time, and then we will return to the current order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. We want to have a chance to look at those before the Senator sends them to the desk.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I appreciate that. Mr. President, I rise to ask for a unanimous consent agreement so we can set in order the speakers that we have left on our side. I see you have several on your side as well, so perhaps we can work together to do this. But we have remaining Senator Conrad, who would like 7 minutes; Senator Levin who would like 2 minutes; Senator Schumer would like 5 minutes, and I would like 1 minute to offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin. If we could set in order a time on those, we would be happy to go back and forth with the Members on your side who would like to speak.

Mr. President, I would be happy to modify my unanimous consent request to say that following the Senator from Georgia, Senator Conrad be recognized for 7 minutes, that Senator Allard then be recognized, Senator Levin for 2 minutes, Senator Cornyn for whatever time he asks for, Senator Schumer for 5 minutes, and then Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, if my colleagues would advise how much time they have so we can let our Senators know when to be on the floor so we can move things along more quickly. Can the Senators from Texas and Colorado tell us how much time they want?

Mr. President, I amend my unanimous consent request, and I would ask for 1 minute for myself in the intervening time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up Harkin amendment No. 3714.

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

Mr. President, I have to object at this time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside in order that I may call up the Kennedy amendments numbered 3716 and 3688.

Mr. President, I send the amendments to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be set aside and I ask for the regular order to consider Harkin amendment No. 3600.

There is no further debate on the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3599 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment, which is offered by Senator Lugar and Senator Obama, restores full funding for the President's supplemental request for the Nunn-Lugar programs, at a total cost of $8 million. This amendment will allow upgrades to Russian nuclear warhead storage facilities to be completed on time.

The House-passed bill contained full funding for the Nunn-Lugar programs. This amendment would square us with the House level.

This amendment has 34 cosponsors--10 Republicans, 23 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

My understanding is that this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask that it be considered by voice vote and adopted at this time.

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.

Amendment No. 3708

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I call up amendment No. 3708 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I believe we have no other amendments Senators want to offer on our side tonight.

I ask our colleagues on the other side if they have any further amendments to offer tonight.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on the Democratic side.

I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New York and 15 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. President, I will withhold my request until you have made a decision on the vote.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I object.

We just want to see what it is.

Amendment No. 3641

Mr. President, I am very proud to be in the Senate today to support the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in offering this amendment, the current pending business regarding adding additional funds for our veterans who have served us so honorably overseas every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, every day in Iraq and Afghanistan the men and women of our Armed Forces make us very proud. Last year, I had the honor of visiting our troops in Baghdad and Kuwait. I was personally impressed with their commitment and their professionalism. We in this Senate all agree that we support them and we stand with them as they carry out the mission they have been asked to do.

However, they also deserve our support when they come home, when they come home as veterans. We need to make sure they have the health care they were promised, job training, and transition assistance. They deserve all the things our country promised them when they signed up to serve us.

Unfortunately, today our country is still falling short of meeting those needs. We all have known for years that the demands on the VA have grown considerably, but funding just has not kept pace. Senator Akaka talked about what happened last year with the funding shortfall we got into. We had to get back in place emergency funds to meet the needs last year.

We are again offering this amendment to increase funding for America's veterans, frankly, because they were there for us and now it is up to us to be there for them.

We need this amendment this year again because veterans are still facing tremendous shortages and delays in getting the care they need. Veterans today coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are able to get an appointment initially with the VA, but then they have to wait up to 6 months for a consultation and another 7 months for surgery. So, as a result, we are seeing veterans today take over a year before they get the care they are seeking at our veteran services. A lot of our veterans coming back from Iraq have to wait 18 months to get their disability claims processed. Imagine returning from Iraq and waiting a year and a half before you get the services you have been promised.

We all have met with veterans who have returned. We know many of them are coming back with severe injuries. Many of them are facing tremendous mental health hurdles. Today, the VA is operating on a bare- bones funding. It is doing more and more with less and less. As the war in Iraq continues, our heavy reliance on the Guard and Reserve has affected the VA and utilization rates in our ability to keep our promises to them for their health care and their services when they return.

Last month, the Secretary of the VA came in front of the MilCon VA Subcommittee and told us that OIF and OEF veterans accessing VA care was 38 percent higher than expected halfway through this fiscal year-- 38 percent higher than they predicted, than they had requested funds for.

We have to make sure the VA has the funds it needs to care for our veterans. I personally can think of no better way to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families than by taking care of them when they return.

All Senate Members have met with our veterans, their families and spouses, those who serve them. We know the mental health care of our veterans is not being met today. Recent reports have verified that 30 percent of OIF and OEF veterans are accessing mental health services. That is much higher than anyone predicted.

We need to make sure those mental health care services are available. That is why Senator Akaka is in the Senate today offering this amendment to provide the VA with $430 million to enhance readjustment counseling and outreach to returning servicemembers, to shore up the VA's capacity to provide mental health services to veterans who need them, and to address the current shortfalls we are facing across the system.

Our amendment simply recognizes that caring for our veterans is and should be part of the ongoing cost of war. The bulk of the VA's readjustment counseling is provided through our Vet Centers, as many Members know. These are storefront facilities that operate independently of the rest of the VA health care system. That separation from the institutional VA care makes them an invaluable resource in reaching many of our returning servicemembers who today may be wary of the VA system or in very remote locations.

Our amendment provides $80 million for these Vet Centers so they can meet the needs they are seeing today. We know in the budget these Vet Centers have been flatlined. Over the years, these centers have provided services to a total of 118,811 OIF and OEF veterans. So far this year, these Vet centers have provided services to 70,547 OIF and OEF veterans. And these vet center services include outreach to our returning servicemembers at their demobilization sites. So they are very critical services, and we need to make sure they are funded.

I mentioned mental health a minute ago. I think we all know that men and women who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering serious mental health problems. So our amendment addresses that by providing $168 million toward the implementation of the VA's own mental health strategic plan. That will help serve our veterans who are suffering from PTSD and other debilitating conditions.

We all know, and as I know from talking to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of these soldiers are literally on the front line 24- 7, and we know the cost of that in returning. We have to make sure they get the services they need for PTSD and other mental health conditions because not only should we provide that for them because they need it but because we need to make sure when they come home they get the help they need so they can remain valuable members of our communities.

Finally, the amendment secures an additional $182 million for the various regions in the country that are once again suffering from shortfalls. Despite all of our work last year, and despite our efforts on the floor last year, evidence has continued to mount that demonstrates there is still a need for supplemental funds. The VA medical centers are still millions of dollars in debt. We need to make sure we provide the dollars within the supplemental to take care of that.

So I am proud to stand with Senator Akaka as we offer this amendment. I hope every Senator recognizes that part of the cost of war is paying for the care of our men and women when they return home. I can think of no more important promise to keep. I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this critical amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I object only because we have not seen the amendment. If we can see it fairly quickly, then I am sure we can proceed with it. So I would just call for a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to report on some of the progress we have made in our effort to secure our Nation's ports and our cargo container system.

This morning, I testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act which I introduced last year with Senators Collins, Coleman, and Lieberman. That critical and effective bill is on the fast track both in the House and in the Senate.

While that hearing was starting, we received another urgent reminder of why we need to improve our cargo security in this Nation. This morning, this very morning at the Port of Seattle, 21 Chinese nationals were discovered. They had been smuggled into the United States in a cargo container. That incident is a stark remainder that we today are still not doing enough to keep our cargo container system secure. This appears to have been a case of human smuggling, but that cargo container could have been filled with anything from a dirty bomb to a cell of terrorists. Today our country is vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Time is not on our side.

I will spend a few minutes this afternoon outlining the threat and explaining how our legislation helps. By using cargo containers, terrorists can deliver a one-two punch to our country. The first punch would create an untold number of American casualties. The second punch would bring our economy to a halt.

Cargo containers carry the building blocks of our economy, but they can also carry the deadly tools of a terror attack. Today we are not doing enough to keep America safe.

In the Senate it can feel as though the dangers at our ports are millions of miles away, but in recent years some in our Government have said they could never have imagined the devastation caused by recent disasters.

Let me make this crystal clear. On March 21, 2 weeks ago, a container ship called the Hyundai Fortune was traveling off the coast of Yemen when an explosion occurred in the rear of that ship. Here is a photo of what happened next. About 90 containers were blown off the side of the ship, creating a debris field 5 miles long. Thankfully, there were few fatalities and the crew was rescued. They are still investigating the cause. It does not appear at this time to be terrorist related.

Imagine this same burning ship sitting a few feet from our shores in New York, or Puget Sound, off the coast of Los Angeles, Charleston, Miami, Portland, Delaware Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine we are not just dealing with a conventional explosion but we are dealing with a dirty bomb that has exploded on America's shore. Let me walk through what would happen next.

First, there would be an immediate loss of life. Many of our ports are located in or near major cities. If there was a nuclear device exploded at a major port, up to a million people could be killed. If this was a chemical weapon exploding in Seattle, the chemical plume could contaminate our rail system, Interstate 5, Sea-Tac Airport, not to mention our entire downtown business and residential areas. At the port there would immediately be a lot of confusion. People would try to contain the fire. But it is unclear today who, if anyone, would be in charge.

Then, when word spreads that it is a dirty bomb, panic is likely to set in and there would be chaos as first responders try to react and people who live in the area try to flee.

Next, our Government would shut down every port in America to make sure there were not any other bombs or any other containers in any one of our cities. That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our economy right into a brick wall and it could even spark a global recession. Day by day we would be feeling the painful economic impact of such an attack. American factories would not be able to get the supplies they needed. They would have to shut their doors and lay off workers. Stores across our country would not be able to get the products they need to stock their shelves.

In 2002, we saw what a closure of just a few ports on the west coast could do. It could cost our economy about $1 billion a day. Now, imagine if we shut down all of our ports. One study concluded that if U.S. ports were shut down for just 12 days, it would cost $58 billion.

Next, we would soon realize we have no plan for resuming trade after an attack--no protocol for what would be searched, what would be allowed in, or even who would be in charge. There would be a mad scramble to create a new system in a crisis atmosphere.

Eventually, we would begin the slow process of manually inspecting all the cargo that is waiting to enter the U.S. ports. One report has found it could take as long as 4 months to get it all inspected and moving again.

Finally, we would have to set up a new regime for port security. I can bet you that any new rushed plan would not balance strong security with efficient trade.

The scenario I just outlined could happen tomorrow. We are not prepared. Nearly 5 years after September 11, we still have not closed a major loophole that threatens our lives and our economy. Time is not on our side. We must act.

I approach this as someone who understands the importance of both improving security and maintaining the flow of commerce. My home State of Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. We know what is at stake if there were an incident at one of our ports. That is why I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce, to help us find where we are vulnerable and to evaluate the best security practices. It is why I have worked to boost funding for the Coast Guard and have fought to keep the Port Security Grant Program from being eliminated year after year.

Right after 9/11, I started talking with security and trade experts to find out what we need to be doing to both improve security and to keep our commerce flowing. Ten months ago, I sought out Senator Collins as a partner in this effort. I approached Senator Collins because I knew she cared about this issue. I knew she had done a lot of work on it already, and I knew she was someone who would get things done. Since that day, we have worked hand in hand to develop a bill and move it forward. I am very grateful to Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman for their tremendous work on this issue as well.

The GreenLane Act, which we had a hearing on this morning, recognizes two facts: We must protect our country and we must keep our trade flowing.

We know we are vulnerable. Terrorists have many opportunities to introduce deadly cargo into a container. It could be tampered with any time from when it leaves a foreign factory overseas to when it arrives at a consolidation warehouse and moves to a foreign port. It could be tampered with while it is en route to the United States.

There are several dangers. I outlined what would happen if terrorists exploded a container in one of our ports.

But they could as easily use cargo containers to transport weapons or personnel into the United States to launch an attack anywhere on American soil.

The programs we have in place today are totally inadequate. Last May, thanks to the insistence of Senators Collins and Coleman, the Government Accountability Office found that C-TPAT was not checking to see if companies were doing what they promised in their security plans.

Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do find something suspicious at a foreign port, they cannot today force that container to be inspected. So we have a clear and deadly threat. We know current programs are inadequate. The question is, what are we going to do about it? We could manually inspect every container, but that would cripple our economy.

The real challenge here is to make trade more secure without slowing it to a crawl. That is why Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, and I have been working with the stakeholders and experts to strike the right balance. The result is the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. That bill provides a comprehensive blueprint for how we can improve security while we keep trade efficient.

At its very heart, this challenge is about keeping the good things about trade--speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to the bad things about trade--the potential for terrorists to use our engines of commerce.

Our bill does five things.

First, it creates tough, new standards for all cargo. Today we do not have any standards for cargo security.

Secondly, it creates what we call the GreenLane option, which will provide an even higher level of security. Companies that join it have to follow the higher standards of the GreenLane cargo. Their cargo would be essentially tracked and monitored from the moment it leaves a factory floor overseas until it reaches the United States. We will know everywhere that cargo has been. We will know every person who has touched it. And we will know if it has been tampered with. The GreenLane essentially pushes our borders out by conducting inspections overseas before cargo is ever loaded onto a ship bound for the United States. We provide incentives for companies to use the highest standards of GreenLane.

Third, our bill sets up a plan to resume trade quickly and safely, to minimize the impact on our economy.

Fourth, our bill will secure our ports here at home by funding port security grants at $400 million.

And, finally, our bill will hold DHS accountable for improving cargo security. DHS is long overdue in establishing cargo security standards and transportation worker credentials. We need to hold DHS accountable, and our bill provides that infrastructure to ensure accountability and coordination.

I thank all of our cosponsors and our partners. I especially thank Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership. She chaired the hearing this morning, and her expertise and her commitment were clear to everyone in the hearing room.

I also thank Senator Coleman for his leadership and his work as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator Coleman has helped expose our vulnerabilities and has worked to develop solutions.

I also thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership and support. I commend our cosponsors, including Senators Feinstein, Snowe, and DeWine.

I would add, we are also beginning to see progress on the House side with the SAFE Port Act. I thank Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane Harman for their leadership on that side.

Today we have a choice in how we deal with cargo security challenges facing us. But if we wait for a disaster, our choices are going to be much starker. Let's make the changes now, on our terms, before there is a deadly incident. Let us not wait until a terrorist incident strikes again to protect our people and our economy.

Two months ago, the people of America woke up and spoke out when they heard that a foreign government-owned company could be running our ports. That sparked a critical debate. Now we need to set up a security regime that will actually make us safer. Until we do so, none of us should sleep well at night. A terrible image such as this one--a burning container ship with a dirty bomb in one of America's harbors-- could be on our TV screens tomorrow. So this Congress must act today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is now engaged in a spirited debate about reforming our immigration policy. I rise today to share my perspectives and my priorities.

Let's remember, though, that this is not just about immigration; it is about the type of country we want to be, what we stand for, and what type of future we all want to build. It is easy to get caught up in the specifics of one policy or another, but I encourage my colleagues to not lose sight of the bigger picture. This debate touches nearly every aspect of American life, from our economy to security, from our classrooms to our workplaces.

I know there is a lot of pressure to do something about immigration, especially in an election year, but if we do the wrong thing, it will have a painful effect on millions of families, on our economy, and on our future for generations to come. Let's take the time to do it right. Perhaps the biggest mistake we could make is to think that addressing enforcement alone will create the changes we want to see.

I approach this debate with a clear understanding of what is at stake, frankly, with some skepticism that Congress can achieve this delicate balance in a heated political environment. But I will keep pushing for the right policies. These policies are based on my own personal experiences, on people who have shared their life experiences with me, and on the unique perspective Washington State provides.

Washington State does have a lot at stake in this debate over immigration reform. I have led discussions around my State with key stakeholders who have experiences in areas such as border security, labor needs, agriculture, education, and housing that have all helped form my perspective.

First of all, Washington State is a border State. We know the dangers of an insecure border. For years, I have fought Federal policies that steered critical resources away from the northern border to the southern border. Year after year, I have fought budgets that were biased against the needs at our northern border. My border communities have struggled with inadequate staff, equipment, and facilities. Tragically, it took the September 11 attacks to finally get the Federal Government to listen to what we had been saying all along: you cannot keep America secure if you shortchange the northern border.

Since then, we have made some progress. I have worked with Chairman Gregg and others to secure the money to triple the number of agents along our northern border. I helped to fund the northern border air wing that is in my State to patrol our skies and to provide enforcement and surveillance. I should note that we still need to extend their patrol hours beyond just 40 hours a week.

We have made progress but not nearly enough. Just this week, we learned that Federal investigators were able to smuggle parts for a dirty bomb across the northern border into Washington State. That is unacceptable.

As we have increased enforcement at the northern border, new challenges have emerged. Federal agents are arresting more people for smuggling and other crimes, but the Feds are just handing those suspects over to local officials for holding and prosecution. As a result, communities like Whatcom County on the foreign border are struggling to deal with the huge new burden of Federal prosecutions. Whatcom County is spending $2 million a year to process federally initiated cases. Whatcom County is not being reimbursed, but communities along the southern border are. That is not fair, and it is something I am working to correct.

Washington State understands the importance of border security. I believe any bill we pass has to treat the northern border fairly.

Our communities need help to combat the scourge of drugs and violence that accompany rampant smuggling operations. We cannot wait until a terrorist tries to move a dirty bomb across our northern border.

Washington State also has a great stake in how immigration reform affects one of our largest industries--agriculture. We rely on immigrants to harvest the crops that put food on our table and bring our State billions of dollars a year in economic activity. Last week in Moses Lake, WA, I heard personally from farmers and orcharders who had to leave fruit on the trees last season because they could not get enough help to pick it fast enough. This costs our farmers and our entire State economy.

Already, many farmers have told me that the 2005 season was the worst season they have had in trying to get the employees they needed. It is estimated that 700,000 undocumented workers are living in Washington State. That means Washington State has the highest per capita concentration of undocumented workers of any State in the Nation. We know how important laborers are for our economy.

Washington State public schools and universities are also impacted by our Nation's immigration policies. I hope we can all agree the children of immigrants deserve a decent education which builds our communities and our economy.

For years, I have worked to increase educational opportunities for all students living in this country. I am a proud supporter of the Dream Act, which helps make higher education more accessible to the children of immigrants. I have been proud to celebrate with young students through the Latino Educational Achievement Project and other organizations in my home State of Washington that break down barriers to education. Our educational policies have to ensure that immigrants and the children of immigrants are not denied the opportunity to share in the American dream.

Housing is another area that is connected to our immigration policy. Many communities in Washington State are struggling with the lack of affordable housing. That can mean families are trapped living in unsafe or substandard housing. We also have to address the housing challenges in agricultural communities. For several years, I have been working on a farmworker housing initiative to help address a tremendous shortage of safe and affordable housing for the people who work on our farms.

All of these experiences--the northern border, agriculture, education, labor needs, and housing--help inform me on my view on immigration policy. I believe from that, that we need a holistic approach.

Enforcement is important. Securing our borders is important, but if we leave out things such as education and job training, if we ignore the tools families need to rise above their circumstances and build a better life, we will be missing the big picture and we will be throwing away the ladders of success generations of Americans have relied on to make their families and, subsequently, our country stronger.

Comprehensive immigration reform should do seven things: it should improve enforcement; it should treat the northern border fairly; it should include a guest worker plan which includes a path to citizenship; it should provide a path forward so that people who are here have an opportunity to become citizens and realize the American dream; it should protect the rights of victims and refugees; it should not turn into criminals those compassionate souls who care for their wounds, teach their children, or feed their families; and finally, it should provide the resources to help families rise above their circumstances through education and training.

Let me take a minute to talk about each of these priorities.

First of all, we should improve our enforcement, and that means providing personnel, equipment, facilities, and resources to enforce our borders. In the wake of September 11, security at our borders and enforcement of our immigration rules are now more critical than ever. That is why I have pushed for years to hire more Border Patrol agents, deploy more resources along the border, including the northern border air wing, and to make sure we are using the latest technology to secure our Nation's borders. We must continue to make investments in securing our border and protecting ourselves from those who seek to do us harm.

Second, we have to treat the northern border fairly. We will not be shortchanged as we have in the past. If we are going to secure our borders, we cannot leave the northern border behind.

Third, immigration reform should include a guest worker plan to keep our economy moving forward. We have tremendous labor needs in our country, especially in labor-intensive fields such as agriculture. Our economy cannot survive without access to the workers we need. A responsible guest worker

program can help address our country's economic needs. As one farm leader in my State put it, we need reform, but we cannot commit economic suicide in the process.

I am cosponsor of the bipartisan AgJOBS bill which allows current workers to retain citizenship and which would set up a guest worker program that will really work. I hope we can follow a similar path. But whatever we do, we can no longer tolerate a system that expects our farmers to be experts in document verification. Our farmers should not be turned into criminals.

One option is to provide a way to electronically verify someone's identity. If we pursue that approach, we must not put a new financial burden on our farmers who are just trying to follow the law and do the right thing.

We have to establish a realistic system that allows employers to legally hire the help they need. And agriculture is not the only sector that would be affected by these proposals. It would also affect the construction and hospitality industries as well.

Fourth, immigration reform should provide hope and a path forward for a resident to be able to earn--earn--legal status.

Fifth, any legislation must protect the rights of victims and refugees to access the courts. Over the years, we have worked to protect victims and refugees, but if we enact an expedited removal process, we could undo all that work and cause tremendous human pain. We have worked very hard through the Violence Against Women Act to protect victims no matter where they come from or what their legal status is. The act allows victims of domestic violence to petition to stay in the United States. We should keep those humane protections in place.

Sixth, we should not make felons of those who seek to help the most vulnerable. Churches and other support groups should not be threatened with jail time for showing compassion toward anyone who needs help. It is not the job of hospital workers or teachers or priests to enforce our immigration laws, nor should it be. We should not block any emergency room doors, any classroom, or any police station to the needs of all of our residents.

Finally, we need to invest in the things that help immigrants and all Americans rise above their circumstances. I am concerned that many important issues are being left out of this debate we are now having. As leaders, it is our duty to protect and foster the American dream for all of our citizens as well as those on the path to citizenship.

We need to invest in primary and secondary education. All of our children should have the opportunity to become more successful than their parents. We need to invest in adult education and literacy programs. Immigrants on the road to earned adjustment should have the opportunity to improve themselves and learn the English language.

We also need to invest in workforce training. All of our citizens should have the opportunity to increase their skills and earning power and achieve a greater share of the American dream.

We need to invest in health care and secondary education if this path to earned citizenship will truly allow all of our neighbors to participate in the American dream, while also allowing our economy to grow.

We are not talking about charity for someone else. We are talking about investments that help every American family achieve their dreams.

Throughout our history, the United States has been a beacon of hope for people throughout the world. That light shines as bright today as it ever has. As we work here to reform our immigration policy, let's make sure our actions reflect our security, our economy, and the opportunity America has offered generations of immigrants. Let's take the time to get this right. Our country's future depends on it.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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