Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of S. Res. 427 through 433, which were submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony, through written affidavit, and representation in an attorney fee dispute proceeding pending before a State bar arbitration committee in Nevada. The distinguished Democratic Leader, Senator Reid, has been asked to provide an affidavit in this proceeding. Senator Reid believes that he has relevant first-hand knowledge, acquired in his capacity as a Senator, and would like to cooperate with this request.

Accordingly, this resolution would authorize Senator Reid to provide an affidavit in this matter with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to S. Res. 371.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate en bloc consideration of H.J. Res. 81 and H.J. Res. 82, which were received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolutions be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolutions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 6. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 2454, the border security bill, with the time from 9:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. equally divided between the managers or their designees, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture, as under the previous order; further, I ask that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived and that second-degree amendments be filed at the desk no later than 10:30 a.m., pursuant to rule XXII.

Mr. President, just a few minutes ago I filed two cloture motions on the border security bill and four cloture motions on Executive Calendar nominations. Under the provisions of rule XXII, we will have several votes on Friday unless an agreement can be reached which we will consider tomorrow. Tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. we will have a cloture vote on the Specter substitute amendment, which was filed by the minority leader, with the other cloture vote on nominations. We still have a lot of work to be done before we leave at the end of the week.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, this morning, at 10 a.m., we will proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Michael Chagares to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit.

Following that vote, we will resume debate on the border security bill. We have four first-degree amendments pending to the bill at this time, and we expect to begin votes on those amendments today. The chairman is ready to dispose of those amendments so that we can consider additional amendments to the bill. This is the final week before the Easter break. However, I believe it is ample time to consider this bill, if we get everybody's cooperation and participation. If we can consider amendments under reasonable time agreements, then we can make substantial progress each day and evening in order to finish our work on the bill. Having said that, we will have votes each day this week, with late-night sessions possible as we move forward on the bill.

Mr. President, on Sunday evening, severe storms and tornadoes struck the western part of Tennessee, leaving a damage trail 25 miles long and a quarter to a half mile wide throughout Dyer County. It really struck two counties, Dyer and Gibson. The assessment is underway. About 2,000 homes and businesses have been destroyed or suffered substantial damage, a devastating blow to these small rural communities which have suffered the greatest impact from the storm. There have been reported 23 fatalities that have been confirmed as a result of the tragedy. A number of other Tennesseans--right now, the count is roughly 82--have been injured, 17 critically. This morning, I offer my deepest sympathy to the loved ones, the families that have been affected. My thoughts go out to those recovering from these unforeseen events.

Governor Bredesen has requested a major disaster declaration for the State, and yesterday I asked the President for expeditious review and approval of Tennessee's request for assistance. I spoke yesterday with the Acting Director of FEMA, David Paulison, as well to express my strong support for the State's request. I will continue working with the administration and my colleagues in the Tennessee delegation to ensure State and local officials have the resources they need to assist our communities.

Again, our thoughts and prayers go out to all of the families affected.

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the immigration reform debate. Our borders are dangerously porous, and our immigration system is flatout broken. That is why it is so important for us to debate and focus on the issue of immigration reform and to bring that debate to closure over the course of this week. It is my hope that by Friday we will have a bill that is fair and equitable, that gives priority to our security concerns and at the same time respects America's strong and proud immigrant tradition. We are a nation of the rule of law and a strong nation of immigrant heritage.

Last October, I met with a number of Senators, including Senators Cornyn and McCain, to discuss my intention to bring the immigration issue to the floor this spring. Why? Because the system is broken. There are millions of people coming across our borders, 25 percent growth last year in illegal immigrants coming across our borders. It is broken. It is broken at the borders, in the interior. And our temporary worker program is broken.

I laid out at that time a specific plan for border security where we had broad agreement and then build on the consensus of border security with a comprehensive approach that included what happens on the interior; that is, the worksite, workplace enforcement, as well as, in the third dimension, fixing the temporary worker program.

Over last week and the first part of this week, we have followed the plan laid out last October. We started with strong border control and expanded to interior and worksite enforcement, as well as what I hope will be a fair, equitable, commonsense temporary worker program. All three elements are necessary.

I am optimistic that by staying focused and by working together-- again, this is not a partisan issue, as the Democratic leader knows in talking to his caucus and as I know in talking to my caucus, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is a challenge for all of us to put together a workable, realistic immigration reform bill--we can forge a plan that deals effectively with our national security, that protects the rule of law, and that recognizes that our economic interests can be reflected in strong legal immigration programs.

What we cannot support, however, is amnesty. To me, amnesty is when you give someone who has clearly broken the law a leg up on the pathway to citizenship. Giving illegal immigrants a special path to citizenship essentially rewards people who have broken the law. It simply doesn't make sense when you have other law-abiding people around the world who are being disadvantaged. You are punishing people who follow the law. To give amnesty, as we did in the 1980s and as some propose to do today, simply sends a strong signal to the world or to anybody who would like to come to America that they don't need to obey the law; if you sneak into this country, eventually there is going to be another round of amnesty. That aggravates the problem. It creates a magnet to attract people to this country illegally.

Twelve million illegal immigrants now reside in the United States. We hear the figures--11 million, 12 million, or is it 21 million? We don't really know because they are illegal immigrants. We don't know what their names are. We don't know where they are. We don't know exactly what they are doing. One of the goals has to be to bring them out of the shadows.

What has become increasingly clear from our discussion in the Senate is that this is not a monolithic group, these 12 million people. Forty percent have been here longer than 10 years. In all likelihood, they are much better assimilated, maybe fully assimilated into our society today. Forty percent have been here less than 5 years. It may be that we will need to break down this group and look at it. Maybe the 40 percent who have been here for greater than 5 years should have some access to a green card, and the 40 percent who have only been here a few months or maybe even a couple years could be dealt with differently. It is not a monolithic group. A successful, realistic immigration program has to acknowledge the different groups and treat them accordingly. Only then do I believe that we can succeed in getting the 12 million people out of the shadows, encouraging them to identify themselves and then function within the system.

In addition, I support a strong and fair temporary worker program that allows people to fill what employment needs we have, to learn a skill, to send money home, to return to their hometowns to help build and develop their communities. As I said last October, we need this three-pronged approach which begins with border security, strengthens workplace enforcement, and offers a fair and realistic temporary worker program for the hard-working men and women who come to this country to earn for their families back home. All three elements are vital. All three require action. Only a comprehensive approach will fix this broken system.

I look forward to continuing our debate this week. I am optimistic that by working together and applying a little common sense, we will come up with a plan that gets the job done and makes America safer and more secure.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I will turn to the chairman in a moment, but we are in an unusual situation. When we step back and look at this bill, we see we have an important bill that is a national security issue, an issue of fairness and equity, and we have a good bill on the floor that does not have 60 votes. That is pretty clear today, after all of the discussions. Yet we are not allowed--in spite of having good amendments which can make this bill even better, we are not being allowed to move those amendments forward at all.

It is very clear by the last vote where the vote was, I think almost unanimous, that people are not serious about moving these amendments forward one at a time. I think it is disrespectful to the body itself because they are good amendments on both sides of the aisle that need to be debated and that need to come to a vote, and we are not allowed to do that. It is coming from the other side of the aisle.

I think that we need to get serious about it. It needs to be a dignified debate and a civil debate. Right now, we are not going to finish the bill. It is in effect being blocked by the other side because we are not allowed to get amendments to the floor so that at some point this bill could reach a threshold of 60 votes.

So I am very frustrated now, and I think colleagues on both sides of the aisle are. I know the chairman is. We had about 2 hours of debate earlier this afternoon that made it very apparent that the other side is trying to stop the bill. I just plead with our colleagues to come together and have both sides be able to offer their amendments.

It is Tuesday. If we work tonight and we work Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, we can pass a bill that will address border security, that will address interior enforcement and worksite enforcement, and that will address the issue of a temporary worker program that is fair to the 12 million or 13 million or 11 million people out there today who are here illegally.

That is what can be achieved. But the other side is basically delaying, postponing, obstructing, and not allowing us to consider amendments, and that is all that we ask.

Mr. President, I interpret what the Democratic leader said to be that we have a bill on the floor that is a good bill and a solid bill but that the other side of the aisle does not want to give us the opportunity to amend that bill in any way, that they just want to flat out deny that. And I say--and that is my question--that the other side really just wants one vote, and it is on a bill that is a good bill, but we haven't given everybody here the opportunity to participate and debate and amend. That is my interpretation. I think that is wrong. I say that because we just voted 99 to 0 not to table the Kyl amendment.

So the Kyl amendment is pending, and it is the regular order of business that has been pending Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday--6 days, 7 days it is pending, and they will not give us a vote, an up-or-down vote on the Kyl amendment. It is as simple as that.

The signal is that we are not going to consider any amendments. In fact, the statement is that we are not going to consider any amendments. Let us go straight and see if this underlying bill has a 60-vote cloture; is that correct?

Mr. President, again, I would ask--the Kyl amendment was not tabled, so it is the pending amendment. And I would ask if the other side would be willing to give us a rollcall vote on that amendment. It is not tabled at this juncture.

The answer is no. That is the first one.

Let us go to the Mikulski amendment, the next one that has been pending for X number of days, and I would ask that we consider the Mikulski amendment and take it to a vote and vote on it right now.

Mr. President, I think it is clear. We are seeing in essence a stonewalling of the bill on the other side, an important bill that is of national security. There are four amendments--the Kyl-Cornyn amendment is the official amendment. We are being denied an up-or-down vote. The next one is Isakson; we are ready to vote on that. The next one is Dorgan; we are ready to vote on that. The next one is Mikulski; we are ready to vote on that. We are ready to vote on all four of those.

What it sounds like to me is that the Democratic leader wants to pick our amendments and then we will consider and we will think about it, knowing--knowing--that we have Tuesday night, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday to complete this bill. We are making no progress whatsoever because they are not allowing us to vote on amendments in the order that they are there. So it is apparent to me--and I agree, we will let the managers work on it, but it is apparent to me that the Democrats are not serious about passing a bill that affects the security of this Nation.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the courtesy to colleagues here should be at least to include the ones that are pending that I have read: Kyl-Cornyn, Dorgan, and Mikulski, that have been pending for days and days, rather than allowing the Democratic leader to cherry-pick amendments to vote on.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today at 4 p.m. the jury in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial rendered their verdict that Mr. Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty. It is reported that after the judge and jurors left the courtroom, Moussaoui shouted his defiance and declared his unyielding enmity toward this country.

Although none of us gets any satisfaction from the Moussaoui ordeal,