Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the majority has the remaining time until 5:30, at which time there will be two votes, one on Senator Bingaman's amendment and one on the Alexander amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Not on this but on another matter. If the Senator needs more than a minute, I am glad to yield some of our time to the Senator.

Mr. ALEXANDER. How many minutes would the Senator like--2 or 3 minutes?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this afternoon at 5:30 we will be casting two votes: one on Senator Bingaman's amendment which has to do with border security, the second is a different kind of amendment. It is an amendment about what I call the rest of the immigration story, helping prospective citizens become Americans. I know border security is extremely important. We are starting with that because the principle of the rule of law is at stake. I know it is extremely important for us to create a temporary legal status, as has been discussed this afternoon by Senators Cornyn and Kyl and Sessions, for students we welcome here to study and workers we welcome here to work. We are going to be talking today and this week about that. But I submit the most important thing we will be discussing this week, and the most important part of any story on immigration, has to do with a different principle, and that is the three words right up here above the Presiding Officer's chair, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' one from many, the motto of our country, the greatest achievement of the United States of America. We have taken all this magnificent diversity from all over the world and we have turned it into one nation, a nation with a common heritage, a common history, a common language--something no other country in the world has been able to do nearly as well. This amendment is about redoubling our efforts to help prospective citizens who are here legally to become Americans. The amendment reflects the work of several Senators in this Chamber. Senators Cornyn and Isakson and Cochran and Santorum and I, earlier, along with Senator McConnell and Senator Frist, had offered legislation we called the Strengthening American Citizenship Act, which I will describe in a minute. In the last two Congresses, Senator Schumer and I introduced legislation that would take the oath of allegiance that a half million to a million new citizens take every year and put it into the law, give it the same sort of status extended to other important national symbols, such as the Star-Spangled Banner, our national anthem. Several of us here--Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Byrd, and Senator Burns--have been working to try to put the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be American. This is about helping prospective citizens become Americans. Becoming American is no small thing. We don't think about becoming French, or becoming English, or becoming Japanese, or becoming German because in most countries in the world you become a citizen, if you can at all, based upon your race, your ancestry, your background. We are just the opposite here. You cannot become a citizen of the United States based upon your race, your ancestry, or your background. In fact, you only may become a citizen of the United States if you move here from another country by going through a series of steps, which includes pledging allegiance to the founding documents that embody the principles that unite us as Americans. We are united by ideals. This debate this week is a good debate because it brings up many of those principles and ideals that unite us, and it is typical of most of our debates on this floor. Those ideals often conflict. We have the idea of a nation of immigrants conflicting with the rule of law here. That is why we are having a difficult time figuring out what to do about the 10 million or 11 million people who are here illegally. We have to weigh the facts as we talk about how many temporary workers we want, and that we have the principle of laissez faire in our character. We have a free enterprise system. We want people to work. We want to attract them here. As a part of that principle of laissez faire, we have in the bill that Senator Specter reported two important provisions that make it easier for some of the brightest people outside of our country to come to our country and help create a higher standard of living for us. We have some very outdated and nonsensical provisions in our immigration laws. If Werner von Braun showed up wanting to come to a university today, or a Werner von Braun of this generation, he would have to swear he was going to go home. We wouldn't want him to go home. We want the brightest people here in our universities and in our research institutes so they can help us create better jobs and a higher standard of living here. Otherwise, those jobs go to India, to China, and other parts of the world. We have many principles at stake. Here is exactly what the amendment does we will be voting on this afternoon after Senator Bingaman's amendment. First, it would help legal immigrants who are embarked on a path toward citizenship to learn our common language--English--our history, and our way of Government by these provisions. One, providing them with a $500 grant for an English course. There are a great many people here who want to learn English. I think it is a myth that those people who come to this country don't want to learn English. For older people who come here, it is harder. But in 2004, 1.142 million individuals participated in English literacy programs designed to help improve English language for immigrants. Seventy-one percent of those participants are Hispanics. Twenty-eight percent of all English literacy adult education programs reported having waiting lists. Thirty-five percent of those reported lists of 50 or more people on the waiting lists. We have a lot of people here who want to learn our common language, and we should want them to learn our common language. It is important to unite us as a country to do that. Second, we would allow those who become fluent in English--not just basic in English but fluent and proficient in English--to apply for citizenship 1 year early; that is, after 4 years instead of 5. That is a major change. In order to become a citizen, one must be here 5 years under the present rules. One should have good character and pass a test about our Constitution and principles. None of that changes. Today, one must learn English--a basic level of understanding. In addition to helping people learn English with grants which may be used in any accredited educational institution, why not give those who become proficient in English the incentive of becoming a citizen in 4 years? That is what this amendment would do. It would provide grants to organizations to offer courses in American history and civics so that new citizens could learn the principles that unite us as a country. It authorizes a new foundation to assist in these efforts. This is an area ripe for public-private opportunity. I think there are a great many people--many of whom may be immigrants themselves--who would want to contribute to a new foundation that would help new citizens learn more about our country. We codify the oath of allegiance which new citizens swear when they are naturalized. This is a remarkable law. One-half million to a million new Americans this year will take the oath. They renounce where they come from, and they pledge allegiance to where they are coming. Of course, we are all proud of where we came from, but we are prouder still to be Americans. This provision puts this into law. It is essentially the same oath George Washington himself took in 1778 at Valley Forge and administered to his own officers. It is the same oath that millions upon millions of new citizens of this country have taken for 200 years. This would dignify it and make it a part of our law. In addition, this amendment asks the Department of Homeland Security to work with the National Archives, the National Park Service, and others to carry out a strategy to highlight the ceremonies in which immigrants become American citizens. I have been to many of those ceremonies. There is not a more moving experience anywhere in America--and these events happen virtually every day in some Federal courthouse, where 30, 45, or 70 prospective citizens will arrive in the courthouse. The judge will say something about our country and what this means, and then these men and women from all across the country, neatly dressed, many of them with tears in their eyes, raise their hands, having been here 5 years, shown good character, learned English, and passed the test about our Constitution and they renounce allegiance to where they have come from and they pledge allegiance to this country. Those ceremonies will be highlighted. Finally, it establishes an award to recognize the contributions of outstanding new American citizens. I would suspect that this new award would one day, perhaps very quickly, become as important as the Presidential Medal of Freedom because it will not be hard to find outstanding contributions by new immigrants to our country. I see the Senator from New Mexico on the floor. He and I have heard it often said that of the 100 Americans who have won the Nobel Prize in physics, 60 are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Each of us knows of such a list, and for the President to be able to identify up to 10 such immigrants who have made great contributions to our country and to recognize them every year will make a difference. How much will this cost? It won't cost the taxpayers a penny because these grants to help people learn English, which is the major cost, will be paid for by the visa fees that are paid each year. This is an important amendment. I believe it is the most important subject we have before us: helping prospective citizens learn English, giving them an incentive to become a citizen in 4 years instead of 5, as they become proficient in English, providing grants to encourage the teaching of American history and civics, creating a new foundation to assist in that, codifying the oath of allegiance, highlighting the ceremonies in which citizens become new Americans, and then allowing the President to designate a handful of new Americans every year who contributed so much to our country. During these next few weeks, we should enact legislation to secure our borders. Then we should create a legal status for workers and students. We welcome them to increase our standard of living, as well as export our values. But we should not complete our work on a comprehensive immigration law without remembering why we have placed that three-word motto above the Presiding Officer's Chair, without remembering that our unity did not come without a lot of effort, without noticing lessons from overseas in France and Great Britain that remind us it is more important today than ever to help prospective citizens become Americans. I notice the Senator from New Mexico on the floor. The majority has all the time remaining, if the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to discuss it. I would be glad to yield some of that time to the Senator from New Mexico if wants to discuss his amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is an amendment about the motto above the Presiding Officer's desk. It helps legal immigrants who are embarked on a path toward citizenship to learn our common language, English, to learn our history and our way of government, by providing them with grants. It allows legal residents to earn their citizenship in 4 years instead of 5 if they become fluent in English. It provides grants to organizations to offer courses in American history and civics, sets up a foundation to assist with that, codifies the oath of allegiance that immigrants take and dignifies the ceremonies in which immigrants become American citizens, and establishes an award to recognize the contributions of outstanding new American citizens. The amendment reflects the work of a number of Senators. Senator Schumer and I have worked on the oath. Senator Byrd, Senator Reid, Senator Burns, and I have worked on American history. Senators Cornyn and Cochran and others have cosponsored the Strengthening American Citizenship Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be added as a cosponsor of the amendment, along with Senators Frist, McConnell, Isakson, Cochran, Santorum, and McCain.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I have a modification of my amendment which I send to the desk.

Mr. ALEXANDER. We have all the time remaining between now and 5:30 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 3193, the amendment we will be voting on later this afternoon.

Mr. ALEXANDER. If it is all right with the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Vermont 3 of our minutes so he can make his remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, tomorrow Governor Bredesen and Congressman Tanner will be on the site. We will continue to be in touch with Governor Bredesen and provide whatever assistance we can. We will work closely with State and local officials. My prayers are with the families who have suffered tremendous loss as a result of these storms, and I know we will see shining examples of the Tennessee volunteer spirit and neighbor helping neighbor as west Tennesseans rebuild their homes, their businesses, and their lives.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, last night, severe tornadoes and strong storms swept through west Tennessee. Dyer and Gibson Counties were the hardest hit. According to the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, at least 23 individuals lost their lives in just those two counties. One of those killed was Jane King of Newbern, TN. She was a relative of Congressman John Tanner, and our thoughts are with John and Betty Ann Tanner and all of Jane King's family. At least 70 people have been injured as a result of the storms. TEMA expects that number to rise. There is damage to at least 11 other counties in west Tennessee. Thousands of Tennesseans have lost their homes and their livelihoods. TEMA reports that 1,200 buildings were damaged or destroyed in the town of Bradford alone. Tennessee Emergency Management Agency officials are on the ground in the counties affected. They are helping to survey damage. They are offering assistance. A state of emergency is in effect. The biggest need thus far is to get the roads clear. GEN Gus Hargett has assigned 30 members of the 230th Engineer Battalion of the Tennessee National Guard to assist with debris removal. The Dyersburg Armory is being used as a Red Cross processing site. This afternoon, Senator Frist and I sent a letter to President Bush asking for speedy review and approval of the State's request for Federal disaster assistance. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

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

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, these temporary students and workers have helped us create an economy that last year produced 30 percent of the world's wealth for us Americans alone, who constitute just 5 percent of the world's population. It makes no sense for us to have an immigration system that makes it easy for unskilled workers to come here illegally and harder for the brightest people to come here legally. That is why it is my hope this comprehensive immigration bill we are considering will have in it the ideas that would make it easier, modestly easier, for a larger number of highly skilled people to come here and help us create better jobs. For example, there are two recommendations that were made in the document called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' by the National Academy of Sciences panel, headed by Norm Augustine. This was a set of 20 recommendations that was made to us in Congress by this distinguished panel last summer in answer to our question: What should we do to keep our advantage in science and technology so that our good- paying jobs don't go to India and China? They told us 20 things to do. Two of the things to do had to do with making it easier for the most intelligent people in the world to work and study and do research here. One of the ideas would be to give a green card, a permanent residency card, to any student from overseas who earns a doctorate in mathematics, engineering, technology, or the physical sciences. Those persons could stay here and help improve our standard of living. For example, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, the largest science laboratory in the United States of America, the director, the assistant director, and the head of our United States effort to recapture the lead in supercomputing in the world--those jobs are all filled by people from other countries who have green cards, who are here helping us improve our standard of living. So we are glad they are here, and we should make it easier for such people to come. Craig Barrett, the head of Intel, estimates if we were to adopt this provision, that would mean perhaps 12,000 to 15,000 additional doctoral students in math, engineering, technology, or physical sciences, once they earn their degree, can stay in the United States. The other provision was at one point in the Judiciary Committee mark. It may still be there. But it takes the cap off some categories of highly advanced people who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, and math. It is simply in our own interest to do that. It continues a long tradition and is one more example of why we already have a tradition of welcoming workers and students who temporarily work here. So we have at least four principles at play that I have talked about: The rule of law, equal opportunity, laissez faire, and we have the characteristic of our country being a nation of immigrants. But there is another principle that I believe is the single most important principle we have in this debate and it is the one that is engraved above the chair of the Presiding Officer. It is the motto of this country: E pluribus unum. Our work will not be complete until we help prospective citizens become Americans because our country's greatest accomplishment is based upon that principle. That is, we have united people from many different backgrounds into one nation based upon the belief in a few ideas, rather than upon race, ancestry, or background. Of all the principles we will be debating in these next 2 weeks, none is more important than that one chosen as our national motto, the one carved in stone above the desk, E pluribus unum: one from many. We are not here dividing sides up on who is pro-immigrant and who is anti-immigrant. We are here saying we have 5 important principles we all believe in that unite us as Americans, from rule of law to equal opportunity to E pluribus unum. We are trying to put those together in a sensible way. That is what our politics is about. That is most of what we do in the Senate and that is what the people expect us to do today. Each year we welcome about 1 million permanent new legal residents, many of whom go on to become citizens. I am now talking about people who are legally in the United States of America. To become an American is a significant accomplishment. First, you must live in the United States as a legal permanent resident for 5 years. Next, you must learn to speak English, our common language. Next, you must learn about our history and Government. Since we are united by ideas rather than the color of our skin, one has to learn these ideas to become a citizen. Next, you must swear an oath and renounce the government of the country from which you came and then swear allegiance to the United States of America. Those are pretty strong words--renounce the government of the country from which you came and swear allegiance to the country to which you are going. Where does that come from? This is where it comes from. This oath dates back to May 12, 1778, when General George Washington and the general officers at Valley Forge signed an oath very similar to the one taken by the 30 citizens the President swore in on Monday, the oath that more than 500,000 new American citizens took last year in hundreds of naturalization ceremonies all over America. Here is a portion of the oath Washington and his general officers swore: I, George Washington, Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States of America, do acknowledge the United States of America to be Free, Independent, and Sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of Great-Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States of America. . . . Those were remarkable words then. Those were remarkable words on Monday, when those 30 new citizens stood up and said the same thing. The language in the oath immigrants take today comes from that oath in 1778. It says in effect: I may be proud of where I come from, but I am prouder of where I am. In both the last session of Congress and in this session, Senator Schumer and I introduced legislation, S. 1087, to put the wording of the oath of allegiance derived from this into law, giving it the same dignity as the Star Spangled Banner and the Pledge of Allegiance. Becoming an American is also a unique experience because it has nothing to do with ancestry. America is an idea, not a race. We are united by principles expressed in our founding documents, the very principles we are debating in this immigration legislation, not by our multiple ancestries. Americans enjoy more rights than the citizens of any nation on the face of the Earth and our Founders recognized, as every citizen and prospective citizen must, that along with those rights come responsibilities. The new citizens, like those who came before, must appreciate this simple but fundamental truth: In a free society, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Some have suggested our diversity is what makes our country great. To be sure, diversity is one of our great strengths, but diversity is not our greatest strength. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. The greatest accomplishment of the United States of America is that we have molded that magnificent diversity into one nation, based upon a set of common principles, language, and traditions. That is why the words above the desk of the Presiding Officer say one from many, not many from one. And that is why a comprehensive immigration bill is not complete unless we help prospective citizens who are legally here become Americans. We could look to Great Britain and France to remind us of how fortunate we are to have had two centuries of practice helping new citizens become Americans. Last August, when he announced a number of measures regarding British citizenship, Prime Minister Tony Blair said: People who want to be British citizens should share our values and our way of life. These new rules were spurred by the terrorist attack in London in which four young men, three of whom were the British-born children of Pakistani immigrants, bombed the London subway system. France is facing a similar period of self-examination on integrating immigrants and the children of immigrants following violent civil unrest this last November. According to the French Ambassador: These teenagers feel alienated and discriminated against both socially and economically. They don't want to assert their difference. They want to be considered 100 percent French. It is hard to imagine becoming French or becoming British or becoming Japanese or Chinese or German, for that matter. On the other hand, to be a citizen of this country, one must become an American. We should be wise enough to take a lesson from the difficulties of our friends overseas and redouble our effort to help new citizens become Americans. This is, of course, one more reason to control our borders--so that we know who is coming from other countries and can help those who legally choose to stay here to become Americans. We Americans have always understood that perhaps the most important limit on how many new citizens our country can successfully absorb depends upon how many can be assimilated as Americans. Robert Putnam has written in the book ``Bowling Alone'' how at the beginning of the 20th century, when America experienced an influx of foreigners about as great in terms of percentages as that of today, the Nation took seriously the issue of assimilation. It was during this time that civic organizations such as the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts and the Rotary Clubs were launched. Many industries had programs that taught English and history to foreign workers. The most important agent of assimilation was the common school, what we call today the public school. The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said the public school was created largely ``to teach immigrant children reading, writing, and arithmetic--and what it means to be an American.'' Yet today U.S. history is not as important a part of the school curriculum as it once was. As a result, high school seniors score lower on U.S. history than on any other subject. I have worked with Senators Kennedy, Byrd, Reid, and a number of others to help put the teaching of American History and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. But while we are teaching our children more about what it means to be an American, we should also be stepping up efforts to help the 500,000 to 1 million permanent legal residents who are living legally among us and who will this year become American citizens. During these next 2 weeks, we should enact legislation to secure our borders. That honors the principle of the rule of law. Then we should create a legal status for the workers and the students we welcome here to help increase our standard of living, as well as to support our values. That honors the principle that we are a nation of immigrants, that we believe in equal opportunity, and that we believe in a free market, laissez faire. But we should not complete work on a comprehensive immigration bill without remembering why we have placed that three-word motto above the Presiding Officer's chair, without remembering that our unity did not come without a lot of effort, without noticing lessons from overseas that remind us that it is more important today than ever to help prospective citizens become Americans. In the spring of 2002, 4 years ago, when Senator Fred Thompson decided not to run for reelection, my job then was on the Harvard faculty at the Kennedy School of Government. I was teaching a class I created there called the American Character and America's Government. Matt Sonnesyn, who is my senior policy adviser today, was my course assistant at the time. In that course, we looked at the kinds of issues that Senators might deal with. I had no idea at the time that I might be a Senator. We tried to identify the principles that each of the problems raised. In other words, we recognized that since we are a nation united by principles, we wanted to be able to understand the principles and have a principled discussion when we got issues like school choice or support for faith-based institutions. Perhaps the issue that created the most discussion in our class that semester was a question that was presented in this way: Should illegal immigrants in the State of Illinois have State driver's licenses? The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, had come to Chicago and asked the Illinois legislature to do that. If one of my students had stood up and said: I have a pro-immigrant or an anti-immigrant solution to this problem, that student would probably have earned an F because I asked them to identify the principles that this issue raised. This was a typical university class of pretty smart students in an area where more of the students are to the left, I would say. There were several refugees from the recent Clinton administration, there were some international students, and there were students from all over our country of many races and backgrounds. But the first issue this class raised when considering the question of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in Illinois was the principle of the rule of law. Then we went right through the other principles that I have just discussed today. And a little bit to my surprise, this class came down very hard on the idea that, of all the principles considered, the principle of rule of law required no driver's licenses for people not legally here. They came to that conclusion quickly. But they also came quickly to the conclusion that in a country that always values equal opportunity, laissez faire, and a nation of immigrants, that we should have clear rules for welcoming people who are temporarily working here and temporarily studying here, that there should be generous allotments for that, that it was in our interest. They also spent a lot of time talking about those three words above the Presiding Officer's chair, about how can we help all those who were here legally to learn what it is to be an American. I was very impressed with the way our class 4 years ago at that university dealt with the issue of immigration. It had a similar problem to the one we are facing. They considered all the principles. It was not considered to be a pro-immigration or anti-immigration result. It was a discussion about principles in which we all agree, which collide, and it was up to the students in that class to come to a solution which was principled. That is our job in this body. We need to let the American people know that we honor each of the principles that we talk about today. We should not step back one inch from honoring the principle of the rule of law, but we shouldn't be hesitant for one minute to welcome those who work here and study here because we also honor the principle of equal opportunity, being a nation of immigrants and the free market economy that we are. I hope before we are through in these 3 weeks that we will do as the students did 4 years ago and realize that above all, when we talk about immigration, about people coming to this country, that what is distinctive about America, what is our greatest accomplishment, is not that we can figure out a way to create laws and virtual laws to control our borders, not that we can come up with some mathematical number of people who can work and study here, but what we have been able to do that France has not done, that Great Britain has not done, that China and Germany have not done--no country in the world has ever done the way we have--is that we have taken people from all different backgrounds and said we are the United States of America. And to become an American you believe in ideals, and it doesn't matter where you come from, what your race is, what your background is. It is important that we keep that up front, that we honor our diversity but more important that we can be proud of where we come from but prouder where we are; that we honor the oath of allegiance that our amendment will seek to make law, where George Washington and his officers said we put aside where we came from--we may honor it, we may be proud of where we may go to reunions and talk about it, but we are Americans. That is the most important subject for an immigration debate, and this bill will not be complete without it. I look forward to offering an amendment at the appropriate time that adds to our discussion of helping prospective citizens become Americans. This would be the only country in the world in which such an amendment would have that kind of meaning. Exhibit 1

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand the majority leader may be coming soon and, if he does, I will suspend my remarks so he may be recognized and hope that after he is recognized, I can continue with my remarks. This week, the Senate begins an overdue reform of our immigration laws. The Chair has been in the middle of that and is making contributions to it. Because nearly 10,000 illegal aliens cross the United States border every day, more than 3 million a year, we should start--start--with border security. But then, once we secure the border and can uphold our limits on immigration, we should get quickly back to the American tradition of creating a legal status for those whom we welcome to temporarily work and study in the United States and who, by doing so, enrich our diversity and spur our economy. But my purpose today is to make sure we don't stop there, that we don't overlook, as Paul Harvey might say, ``the rest of the story,'' the rest of the immigration story; that is, helping prospective citizens who are legally here become Americans. Joined by Senators Cornyn, Isakson, Cochran, Santorum, Frist, and McConnell, I have introduced S. 1815, the Strengthening American Citizenship Act that is indispensable to any comprehensive immigration bill. This legislation I plan to offer as an amendment at the appropriate time during this debate would help legal immigrants who are embarked on a path toward citizenship to learn our common language, to learn our history, and to learn our way of government by the following steps: No. 1, providing them with $500 grants for English courses; No. 2, allowing those who become fluent in English to apply for citizenship 1 year early; that is, after 4 years instead of 5; next, providing grants to organizations to offer courses in American history and civics; next, authorizing a new foundation to assist in these efforts; next, codifying the oath of allegiance, which new citizens swear when they are naturalized. It is an oath of allegiance that is very much like the oath of allegiance George Washington and his officers took at Valley Forge in 1778, about which I am going to have more to say. In addition, our amendment would ask the Homeland Security Department, working with the National Archivist and others in our Government, to carry out a strategy to highlight the ceremonies, such as the one the President attended this week, in which immigrants become American citizens; finally, our amendment would establish an award to recognize the contribution of outstanding new American citizens. Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington has written that most of our politics is about conflicts among principles that unite us as a country. More than any other subject we might discuss, this immigration debate will involve the basic principles of what it means to become an American. That is why we begin the debate with border security, not because we are pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant. That is not what we are talking about. We begin the debate with border security because as Americans we believe in the principle of the rule of law. It is hypocritical for us in the United States of America to preach to the world about the rule of law, yet thumb our nose at the 12 million people who live here illegally. It is hypocritical and it is dangerous to our security not to control our own borders. There is no apology to be made for us as Americans insisting on the principle of the rule of law, just as there should be no other hesitancy about other principles, such as welcoming those who temporarily work here and study here. So the principle of the rule of law is not the only principle that is at stake in this debate. We create a legal status for those from other countries whom we welcome to temporarily study and work here because of the principle, first, of equal opportunity, because we are a nation of immigrants; that is a part of our character, and because we founded our economy upon the principle of laissez faire. In other words, we are a free market economy. So there are three more principles we need to throw into the mix along with the rule of law: equal opportunity, a nation of immigrants, laissez faire. We may be outsourcing jobs, but for years we have won our wars and built our economy by ``insourcing'' brain power. Wernher von Braun and his colleagues from Germany helped us in the space race against the Soviets. Sixty percent of the American winners of Nobel Prizes in physics are immigrants or children of immigrants. Sixty percent of the postdoctoral students at our universities in America are foreign students. There are 572,000 foreign students studying at colleges and universities in the United States. While they are here, these students and researchers from other countries help create a higher standard of living for us Americans, and when they go home they export our values better than any foreign aid ever has. In addition, many of the workers our economy needs to grow come from neighboring countries. I asked my staff to see if I could get an estimate of how many visas we have on the books today for workers coming to the United States from other countries. As best we can tell, we have about 500,000 visas of different forms that may be issued each year, of one kind or another, to unskilled and skilled people who come to our country. Add that to the 572,000 foreign students who study in our country and we have today a large number of people from other parts of the world who are here, enriching our country and improving our standard of living. I ask unanimous consent that this list of visas for workers coming to the United States from other countries each year be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 3193, which I filed at the desk, be considered.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The majority leader, Senator Frist, is also a cosponsor. While I do understand and am disappointed by the fact that we are not going to be moving to votes tonight, this is not a new idea that I have made in my amendment. My first speech on the floor of the Senate in 2003 was about the importance of becoming American, how in our country we are unique because we do not base our backgrounds on race or ancestry but on a set of ideas, and how important it was for us to put the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, joined me on that. Senator Kennedy joined me and Senator Reid. He and I are working together to create Presidential academies for students and teachers of American history. We are trying to take the National Assessment of Educational Progress and make sure that it includes another way of putting the teaching of American history back in the right place in our curriculum. The reason we do that is because our common schools were created to help immigrant children learn the three Rs and what it means to be an American. Because if you don't know the principles upon which our country is based, it is difficult to become an American. We have this advantage over other countries in the world who base their nationality on race or on the color of their skin or their ancestry. We don't do that. It is important to become an American by understanding the principles of our country. We agree on that. It is those principles that we debate here. This is not a debate about who is pro or anti-immigrant. We are all pro-immigration because that is an important part of our character. But we have more than one principle at issue here. The first one is the rule of law. We are all for the rule of law because people who come to this country don't come to a country where we don't stop at stop signs and we don't observe contracts and we don't follow the law. We follow the law here or there are consequences. We have those principles. And we have the principle of equal opportunity. And we have the principle of a free market or laissez faire. We have the principle above the President's desk of E Pluribus Unum. Our great achievement is that we have taken this magnificent diversity and forged it into one country. We are the United States of America, not the United Nations. Therefore, the amendment that I had filed today and is ready to be voted on tonight or tomorrow or Monday, whenever we are ready, ought not to be very controversial. It is simply to help the half million to a million people from other countries who are legally here and ready to become citizens, to help them become Americans. It does that by providing them with $500 grants so they can learn our common language. It doesn't make them learn it; it helps them, if they want to learn it. It says to those who become fluent in English that they may become citizens in 4 years instead of 5. It doesn't penalize them. It gives them rewards. It gives grants to organizations to help them learn our history. It codifies the oath of allegiance George Washington and his troops took and that millions of Americans have taken which basically says I am not Scotch-Irish anymore, which my family was. I am an American. I am proud of my Italian heritage, but I am proud to be American. That has been our history. Senator Schumer and I in two Congresses have introduced legislation making that oath a law, not just some administrative dictum that someone could mess around with, but put it right up there with the Star-Spangled Banner, the National Anthem, and other great symbols of America. My amendment establishes a reward to recognize the contributions of outstanding new citizens. It asks the Department of Homeland Security and the National Archives to develop ways to dignify and celebrate these wonderful ceremonies such as the one the President attended on Monday where 30 people stood up and said: I have been here 5 years. I have demonstrated good character. I have learned English, and I am proud of where I came from. But I am prouder to be American. I swear allegiance to this country, the same oath George Washington and the officers took at Valley Forge in the year 1778 and which new citizens have taken in this country ever since then. We could talk about border security. It is important, and that is the rule of law. We can solve that problem. We know how to do that. We can agree on that. We can talk about how many guest workers we want. We already authorize 500,000 or more work visas a year. Perhaps we need more. We can figure that out. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico and I have been working for a year with the National Academy of Sciences to make certain that we in-source brainpower so we can keep our jobs from going to China and India. I would like, through this legislation, to make it easier for the brightest people in the world to come here and help us create our high standard of living. I mentioned earlier in the day that the top three jobs at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, our largest science lab in America, are held by three foreigners with green cards from England, Canada, and India. The Senator and I have worked together to recapture our advantage in supercomputing in America so that America can be the leader in computing. Who runs that program? It is a citizen of India who is living here. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but he is here helping improve my standard of living and the next person's standard of living. I want our discussion to be a comprehensive discussion. I want us to deal with border security. That is the rule of law. But I want us to set rules for welcoming the people who temporarily work here and study here, but I also want us to make sure we do the most important thing and remember those three words up there in the Senate Chamber, ``e pluribus unum.'' They are not there by accident. They mean that we need to devote extra effort to making sure that those who come here legally also become Americans. That is the real limit on the number of new citizens who can come here--whether they can become a part of our culture, a part of our country, and become Americans. If we don't do that, we are nothing more than a united nations; we are not the United States of America. I think there is broad agreement in this body about that. That is why Senator Schumer and I introduced the oath of allegiance bill. That is why myself and others are working on helping to put American History back in our schools for children. I am ready to vote on this amendment tonight or tomorrow, but I certainly hope the chairman and the leaders on both sides of the aisle would allow Senator Bingaman's amendment and my amendment and others to be voted upon as soon as possible. The American people are expecting us to deal with immigration. We are here and we are ready to do it. Let's get on with it. It is time to stop debating and start acting, and a good way to start would be to help prospective citizens become Americans. That would finish a comprehensive bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see Senator Bingaman. I will be brief in my remarks because I assume he wants to speak. If I could say to the chairman, who was here earlier, I hope very much we can begin to move to votes. I spoke earlier today about an amendment which I filed which is amendment No. 3193. It is filed at the desk. It already has the cosponsorship of Senators Cornyn, Isakson, Cochran, and Santorum. I ask unanimous consent that Senators McConnell and McCain be added as cosponsors.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask consent that at 3 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Frist amendment at the desk related to a study on deaths on the border; provided further that no amendments be in order prior to that vote.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time before the vote be allocated as follows: the next 30 minutes beginning at 1:20 be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; the following 30 minutes be under the majority control; the next 30 minutes be under the control of the Democratic side; and finally that the remaining time before the vote be equally divided between the two sides.

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