Floor Statements

Mr. President, I end tonight saying a few words about the devastating storms that occurred last night in my home State of Tennessee. First and foremost, I offer my deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones last night. My heart goes out to those families who are reeling in the aftermath of this sudden and totally unexpected tragedy. The people of Tennessee grieve with you and our prayers are with you through this painful ordeal.

I let my fellow Tennesseans know I requested that the President have a quick review and approval of the State's request for assistance. I have also taken the opportunity to talk directly with acting FEMA Director David Paulison to expect my clear support for the State's request. Director Paulison is looking into the matter, of course. We had a good exchange. I appreciate FEMA's strong support.

Senator Alexander and I stand ready to assist the State and local officials in any way possible to ensure our communities have the resources they need. We will pull together as Tennesseans and neighbors and together we will get through this awful crisis. Our thoughts and our hearts and prayers go out to others who have been affected by the storms in other States.

When I talked to Director Paulison today, he was describing that those storms were northwest of Tennessee, as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, the Senate proceed to executive session and an immediate vote on the confirmation of calendar No. 600, Michael Chagares, to be a United States circuit judge for the Third Circuit; provided further that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m., Tuesday, April 4. I further ask 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 proceed to executive session as under the previous order, with the debate divided equally until 10 a.m. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to accommodate the weekly policy luncheons.

Mr. President, this evening we have continued to work on agreements for the border control bill. We need to make significant progress tomorrow, and Senators should be prepared for late nights throughout the week. At 10 a.m. tomorrow morning we

will vote on a circuit judge who was reported by the Judiciary Committee last week. I hope we can follow up that vote with agreements to vote on other amendments to the border security measure. Therefore, votes will occur throughout Tuesday's session of the Senate.

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, we are immediately resuming debate today on the border security measure that is pending. Yesterday we were only able to complete action on one amendment, and we have three additional amendments still pending. During today's session we expect to set up votes on those amendments so that others may get into a queue for consideration.

With only a week left before our Easter break, it had been my desire to have more votes yesterday and today. We were unable to reach any agreements to allow that to happen, but today we do need to make progress on setting up votes for Monday. We need to put in full nights and days next week to complete the bill and, therefore, I am prepared to have several votes on Monday to begin to process as many amendments as possible. I encourage Senators to come to the floor today and Monday and use this time for any statements they may have on the border security issue.

Mr. President, so far this week, we have had good debate, strong debate, robust debate, on strengthening our borders and crafting a comprehensive immigration plan. Everyone agrees we need to secure our borders, that our national security is at stake.

We are also in agreement that we need to craft a comprehensive immigration plan that is compassionate, reasonable, and fair, that upholds our immigrant tradition without crossing over the line of granting amnesty. As I have said before, a nation that cannot secure its borders cannot secure its destiny.

I am gratified by my colleagues' support for my amendment yesterday to have the Department of Homeland Security collect data on the terrible problem of border crossing fatalities, of deaths of people crossing the border. The amendment also suggests policies to reduce the number of these tragedies.

As I mentioned on the floor, over the past decade over 3,000 men, women, and children--families--have died along our borders, in many cases because of the brutality and indifference of criminal human smugglers who, at the first sign of trouble, abandon their human cargo in the desert to suffer and die.

We have an obligation to protect our borders, but we also have an obligation to protect and preserve the life of every person who sets foot on American soil. I am hopeful that by gathering this information on this tragic problem, we can devise the best methods to put an end to it.

I am also certain that as we continue with the larger debate, we will be able to craft a comprehensive plan that deals fairly with the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants now residing within our borders without granting amnesty.

I believe the Judiciary Committee bill--the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee--goes too far in granting illegal immigrants with what can fairly be described as amnesty.

We will hear a lot of debate on what is amnesty, and I hope there will be some consensus over time coming out of this debate as to what amnesty actually is. I believe the Judiciary bill does enter this realm of amnesty, and, thus, I am very hopeful that over the next several days amendments will be offered on the floor to pull back from this amnesty provision.

I disagree with the amnesty approach. I do not think we should be rewarding illegal behavior, not just as a matter of principle but also because granting amnesty now will encourage people in the future to cross the border illegally, expecting amnesty to be granted every 5 years or every 10 years or every 15 years. It undermines our securing our borders. It gives an incentive for people to cross our borders, not just legally but illegally, if we grant amnesty.

In the coming week, I look forward to my colleagues coming to the floor to offer a variety of ideas and solutions to these problems, these challenges. I hope they will have ample opportunity to do that.

I said 2 or 3 months ago, we would have 2 weeks--in essence, 2 weeks--on the floor of the Senate to provide an opportunity to come and debate and amend whatever bill came to the floor. I am concerned a little bit that we are entering into a delay or a postpone mode. I say that because we did not have votes last night, after my amendment--or late yesterday afternoon--and we are not having votes today. It does take consent on both sides of the aisle to have these votes. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come forward so we can have that debate, we can have that amendment, we can have those votes, and define this bill in a way that will reflect the majority of people on this floor.

An example: Last night, Senator Alexander offered his widely supported Strengthening American Citizenship Act--a beautiful and a very important amendment. It is reasonable. It is common sense. It is patriotic. It would help newly arrived immigrants to learn their responsibilities and assimilate the habits and privileges of American citizenship. Unfortunately, however, the other side objected to allowing a vote on the amendment.

I mention that because we cannot run the bill that way throughout. We have to have the debate, we have to have the votes in order to define this bill. We need a debate that is robust, that is vigorous, that is open, that is participatory in the sense that people can come forward and get the votes they deserve.

I have set up a process to be as fair as possible so all points of views are heard. Many of the Senators, understandably, do want to offer amendments. For my part, though we began with the Securing America's Borders Act, a bill I brought to the floor, the first amendment was Chairman Specter's amendment, and that is to offer the Judiciary Committee bill as a substitute. I, and I think the whole body, accept that out of deep respect for the committee process and the great work the committee has done thus far and the right for the committee's voice to be heard.

I am optimistic about where we are going with this bill. It is interesting, in our caucus, and I know in the Democratic caucus as well, there is a lot of discussion going on. You can't help but to pick up the papers now and listen to the radio and watch television and not see this discussion of these very real problems being put first and foremost in the headlines and in the stories.

I think that is healthy because we have problems which we have failed to address as a people, problems we absolutely must address, the problems of people crossing these borders illegally, at a rate that about 2.8 million people came across our Southwest border last year. That number is increasing every year by about 25 percent. These are illegal people coming across the borders. It is a problem that is there. It is a problem that is growing. It is a problem we have to address.

The challenge which is probably the most difficult is how to address the 11 million people who have crossed those borders in the past, probably 7.5 million of whom are working, many of them families. Many of them--I guess all of them--came here with the intention of a better life. But they broke the law and they are here illegally. How can we treat them with compassion and understanding but not give them a leg up among other law-abiding people who also want citizenship?

Those are challenges. I think everybody is struggling with that. I appreciate it. And it means we are going to have passionate debate, contentious debate. Not everybody is going to agree on even those two issues I mentioned. It is going to be a highly charged issue. There are deep feelings and deep and strong principles at stake.

The process will work. I am confident in this body the process will work if we keep our debate civilized and dignified and fair to every Member of the body. And by ``fair,'' I mean allow people to come to the floor and offer those amendments and have them voted on.

As I said when I introduced the border security bill, I do want our debate to reflect our commitment to the rule of law and to our proud immigrant heritage--to both. We are a nation of immigrants, and we have all benefited from America's uniquely inclusive character. I believe we can honor both our history and our laws, and by working together, we can forge a solution that does credit to this body and to the American people.

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

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday, I wrote a letter to President Bush expressing my strong opposition to the United States participating in the United Nations Human Rights Council. I believe the newly established body represents little improvement over the old and discredited commission it is intended to replace. Furthermore, any U.S. participation or financial support of the Council undermines our credibility as defenders of human rights around the world. I believe many of my colleagues share my assessment, which is why this resolution expresses the Senate's opposition to the Council and our strong belief that the United States should take no part. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was established by the United States and our allies in 1946 to monitor and prevent human rights abuses throughout the world. It was charged to uphold the ideals embodied in the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. However, in the intervening years, the Commission fell far short of these noble expectations. In particular, the Commission consistently granted membership to some of the world's worst human rights abusers. Sudan, Cuba, Libya, China, and Zimbabwe all have demonstrated egregious disregard for the human rights of their own citizens and shamefully were all Commission members. Moreover, the Commission repeatedly failed to act or condemn numerous cases of intolerable human rights abuses. These include the many abuses perpetrated by Communist states, the 1994 Rwanda genocide, and even the ongoing genocide in Sudan's western region of Darfur. Many of our colleagues by now have had the opportunity to travel to that Darfur region. I, for one, have been there, as well as Chad, the country immediately west, and seen the terrible tragedies that are being created by this ongoing genocide. The Commission refused to condemn state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They consistently singled out the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, for criticism, while overlooking serious cases of human rights abuse in neighboring countries. The Commission repeatedly proved itself ineffective, unaccountable, and inefficient. It failed to achieve the goals and uphold the ideals for which it was created. Now, to their credit, the United States and many at the United Nations recognized the need for serious reform of the Commission in order to restore the U.N.'s credibility. However, the U.N.'s new Human Rights Council, established just 2 weeks ago, fails to do just that. It falls far short of the standards envisioned by President Bush and Secretary General Kofi Annan. It glosses over its deficiencies and offers only superficial changes to the former Commission structure.

Fundamentally, the Council lacks the mechanisms and standards necessary to prevent flagrant human rights violators from gaining membership. It maintains the geographical quotas that will, once again, ensure that human rights abusers continue to have access to membership. It is wrong. It does not make sense. In short, the new Council fails to improve over the old Commission, and it is destined to fail in its core mission of monitoring and preventing human rights abuses around the world.

I applaud President Bush and our Ambassador at the U.N., John Bolton, for opposing the resolution establishing the Council. I personally urge the administration, as does this resolution, to oppose U.S. participation in and deny American support for the U.N.'s new Human Rights Council. This would uphold America's credibility and reputation as a protector of human rights and deny the Council unwarranted legitimacy.

I also believe that the United States should lead a group of like- minded democracies to establish an effective human rights oversight body outside of the U.N. system. At a minimum, countries charged with protecting human rights should themselves hold regular, competitive, democratic elections; allow for freedom of expression; and have a credible civil society--all of which was not the case for the old U.N. Commission, nor is it now the case for the new Council.

Regrettably, the U.N. and many of its member states have shown that they are not serious about reform. Therefore, the United States and those committed to protecting human rights must adhere to our principles and work toward a solution outside of the United Nations.

For too long, the world's worst human rights abusers have successfully shielded themselves from scrutiny. It is time for change. It is time for sunlight. I believe that under the leadership of America, we should create a new, a stronger, a more credible body to protect the human rights of all of those who are vulnerable around the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 599, 603, and 604. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the following treaties on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11; I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification, that any statements be printed in the Record as if read, and that the Senate take one vote on the resolutions of ratification to be considered as separate votes; further that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask for a division vote on the resolutions of ratification.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 416, which was submitted earlier today.

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 consideration of S. Res. 417, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble agreed to, the motion to reconsider laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 418, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.