Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to.

Mr. CRAIG. Well, the point I am making is, we have had the expertise in the gulf to do it and do it right without any environmental damage. But we have denied exploration within a certain margin or buffer zone of the coast. As shown on the map, in this case, here is Lease Sale 181 that is being talked about today. On the average, from Pensacola, it is 100 miles out, approximately. And this is gas. This is oil and gas. At the closest point, we believe, at least to the line here of the EEZ, it is 50 miles. I simply offer this as an opportunity for the American people to become aware that in their backyard something is going on we are ignoring at this moment, and that we should not be ignoring.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. I will reclaim my time, Mr. President, since the Senator has answered for himself. It is obvious, training capability. We also know--and the military will agree--that once a well is drilled, the rig goes away. There is no surface obstruction. We are talking about 3 trillion cubic feet of gas potentially. We may be talking about a whole region that has 6 or 7 billion barrels of oil in it, let alone trillions of cubic feet of gas. We ought to be concerned environmentally, but my guess is we can fly around them a little bit while it is going on and then the rigs go away. But the oil and the gas keep flowing for the security of the economy of this country. I don't think citizens at the pumps right now are worried too much about flight patterns, but they are worried an awful lot about a flat pocketbook because we have not allowed ourselves the foresight that I am trying to suggest our foreign policy in these instances denied. You and I will debate 181 and beyond. But at our back door, and a heck of a lot closer to the coastline of your State than any sale proposed today out of 181, toward the east, 50 miles off is where the Chinese at this moment are test drilling to determine whether in fact there is a supply of oil. Then the rigs go in place. Then the environmental issues that you and I are concerned about may well come to be. I hope I am wrong. But I know I am right about this. These sales and test drillings are currently going on.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for his comments. Before I yield the floor, whether it is the Senator from Florida or Idaho, the American people are saying to us: A foreign policy that allows China to drill in our backyard is not a very good policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allow the privilege of the floor to be granted to Jessica Wilcox, an Energy Fellow in my office, for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I wish to introduce a simple, but I think an important piece of legislation which, if enacted, will affect just two positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Under Secretary for Health and the Under Secretary for Benefits. My bill would abolish the 4- year term limit on service in each position and remove the requirement that a search commission be assembled to identify candidates for either of the positions if a vacancy in the position occurs. As some of my colleagues may know, VA has thirteen positions in its central office for which Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation are required. There are seven Assistant Secretaries, a General Counsel, three Under Secretaries, a Deputy Secretary, and, of course, a full Cabinet level Secretary. Only the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits are given statutory terms of office. All of the other positions, two of which are superior offices and one of which is a fellow Under Secretary, serve at the pleasure of the President. In addition, under current law, if a vacancy occurs in either one of the two offices I have just mentioned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must establish a commission made up of various interested individuals to recommend not less than three persons to the President for the job. If the President does not care for the list of persons provided by the commission, the President may request that the commission recommend additional individuals from which he can choose a nominee. I believe the two changes I am proposing are warranted and deserve my colleagues' support for a number of reasons. First, and most important to me, is that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to nominate and with advice and consent of the Senate, appoint Officers of the United States. There is no requirement that any of the candidates be identified, vetted, or recommended by an extra- constitutional commission. In fact, recommendation and vetting is the power granted to the United States Senate through our advice and consent role. I find it interesting that the President today can choose a nominee for Chief Justice of the United States, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the Court of St. James and other incredibly important high offices of this government without a statutorily required search commission. Yet these two Under Secretaries at VA must go through this vetting process before even being identified to the President for his consideration of a nomination. I believe that it is our responsibility as elected representatives of the people to determine who is suitable for an appointment to a high office of public trust. The people, rightfully, hold us accountable for the performance of appointed officials. They do not hold commissions accountable. Certainly, the President and Senators are free to seek out the views of any number of interested parties before deciding whom to nominate or whether to vote to confirm that person. But those outside consultations should be encouraged and welcomed, not obliged by law. The second reason I believe my colleagues should support this bill is that the language of the statute with respect to the commission and the term limits is at best unclear and at worst confusing. The law requires the Secretary to establish a commission to identify potential nominees when ``a vacancy in the position occurs or is anticipated''. The law also allows the President to reappoint the current office occupant for like periods. This raises the vexing question of whether there is an anticipated vacancy, requiring the appointment of the search commission to identify potential nominees, just because a term is expiring. If the answer is yes, then I ask if that answer is different if the President intends to nominate the current office occupant for an additional term? Clearly, it seems absurd to me to require a search commission to identify a suitable candidate for nomination if the President has already identified the current office occupant as his chosen nominee. Still, more confusing is what occurs if the President nominates the current office holder prior to the expiration of his or her term but then the term expires before the Senate has had the opportunity to act on the nomination. This scenario is actually not an absurd legal ``what if'' but an actual current problem. Just a few weeks ago, the President nominated Daniel Cooper to serve a 4-year term as Under Secretary for Benefits. Mr. Cooper was already the Under Secretary at the time of his nomination. Thus, there was no vacancy in the office and none was anticipated since he was being offered as his own replacement. So, no search commission is required under law. Yet, now Mr. Cooper's term has expired and the Senate has yet to act on his nomination. So, technically, there is now a vacancy requiring a search commission to identify a nominee. But, as I have just explained, the President has already nominated someone. So, with the concurrence of my ranking member, Senator Akaka, I advised the White House that there was no need for a search commission. But, the fact that the conversation had to occur shows the need for a change in this law. Of course, my preferred course would be to just eliminate the law as I am now proposing. Mr. Cooper's nomination has actually brought to light another reason that I believe we should eliminate the term limits on the positions. That is that the term adds a huge political element to the process of attempting to keep on a successful officeholder as in the case of Mr. Cooper. While not revealing any confidences or singling out individual Senators, I do not think my colleagues would be surprised to hear that since being nominated for an additional term Mr. Cooper has been subject to some political bargaining by Senators who seek to have him take some actions in his official capacity before they will vote to keep him on in his job. I understand that happens often around here. And I don't begrudge it in general. But, I think the opportunities for such actions should be minimized to the extent possible, especially when there is no question as to the nominee's qualifications or successful performance in office. If he or she is doing well, then, under my bill, the President would presumably retain his or her services. If not, then he or she should be removed, immediately. Not at the end of a term. That brings me to my final reason for this legislation. I simply believe that senior governmental officials should serve in those positions only so long as they hold the confidence of the President of the United States. If the President loses confidence in any of his senior leadership, he or she should remove those individuals from those posts. I understand that there are those who believe that this action would make the positions inherently political. I offer two thoughts to those who hold this belief. First, in 1988, when VA was elevated to cabinet level status through Public Law 100-527, the law required that the President appoint individuals to these two offices ``without regard to political affiliation or activity and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability.'' I am not proposing to change any of those requirements. Even if I was proposing such a change, certainly the Senate could impose such a condition prior to any confirmation. Second, I firmly believe that some political responsibility also leads to greater performance by officeholders and accountability to Congressional oversight. I think you all know that improved performance and bureaucratic accountability at VA are annual demands of our Veterans service organizations. I believe this change will move us one step closer to addressing their concerns. Mr. President, as I said at the outset of my statement, this is a simple bill. But, just like the old saying that if you watch the pennies the dollars will take care of themselves, I believe that if we make the simple, but necessary improvements to VA's operations and management structure, the entire system will improve on its own. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as one step towards overall improvement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I wish to introduce a simple, but I think an important piece of legislation which, if enacted, will affect just two positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs: the Under Secretary for Health and the Under Secretary for Benefits. My bill would abolish the 4- year term limit on service in each position and remove the requirement that a search commission be assembled to identify candidates for either of the positions if a vacancy in the position occurs. As some of my colleagues may know, VA has thirteen positions in its central office for which Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation are required. There are seven Assistant Secretaries, a General Counsel, three Under Secretaries, a Deputy Secretary, and, of course, a full Cabinet level Secretary. Only the Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits are given statutory terms of office. All of the other positions, two of which are superior offices and one of which is a fellow Under Secretary, serve at the pleasure of the President. In addition, under current law, if a vacancy occurs in either one of the two offices I have just mentioned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must establish a commission made up of various interested individuals to recommend not less than three persons to the President for the job. If the President does not care for the list of persons provided by the commission, the President may request that the commission recommend additional individuals from which he can choose a nominee. I believe the two changes I am proposing are warranted and deserve my colleagues' support for a number of reasons. First, and most important to me, is that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to nominate and with advice and consent of the Senate, appoint Officers of the United States. There is no requirement that any of the candidates be identified, vetted, or recommended by an extra- constitutional commission. In fact, recommendation and vetting is the power granted to the United States Senate through our advice and consent role. I find it interesting that the President today can choose a nominee for Chief Justice of the United States, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the Court of St. James and other incredibly important high offices of this government without a statutorily required search commission. Yet these two Under Secretaries at VA must go through this vetting process before even being identified to the President for his consideration of a nomination. I believe that it is our responsibility as elected representatives of the people to determine who is suitable for an appointment to a high office of public trust. The people, rightfully, hold us accountable for the performance of appointed officials. They do not hold commissions accountable. Certainly, the President and Senators are free to seek out the views of any number of interested parties before deciding whom to nominate or whether to vote to confirm that person. But those outside consultations should be encouraged and welcomed, not obliged by law. The second reason I believe my colleagues should support this bill is that the language of the statute with respect to the commission and the term limits is at best unclear and at worst confusing. The law requires the Secretary to establish a commission to identify potential nominees when ``a vacancy in the position occurs or is anticipated''. The law also allows the President to reappoint the current office occupant for like periods. This raises the vexing question of whether there is an anticipated vacancy, requiring the appointment of the search commission to identify potential nominees, just because a term is expiring. If the answer is yes, then I ask if that answer is different if the President intends to nominate the current office occupant for an additional term? Clearly, it seems absurd to me to require a search commission to identify a suitable candidate for nomination if the President has already identified the current office occupant as his chosen nominee. Still, more confusing is what occurs if the President nominates the current office holder prior to the expiration of his or her term but then the term expires before the Senate has had the opportunity to act on the nomination. This scenario is actually not an absurd legal ``what if'' but an actual current problem. Just a few weeks ago, the President nominated Daniel Cooper to serve a 4-year term as Under Secretary for Benefits. Mr. Cooper was already the Under Secretary at the time of his nomination. Thus, there was no vacancy in the office and none was anticipated since he was being offered as his own replacement. So, no search commission is required under law. Yet, now Mr. Cooper's term has expired and the Senate has yet to act on his nomination. So, technically, there is now a vacancy requiring a search commission to identify a nominee. But, as I have just explained, the President has already nominated someone. So, with the concurrence of my ranking member, Senator Akaka, I advised the White House that there was no need for a search commission. But, the fact that the conversation had to occur shows the need for a change in this law. Of course, my preferred course would be to just eliminate the law as I am now proposing. Mr. Cooper's nomination has actually brought to light another reason that I believe we should eliminate the term limits on the positions. That is that the term adds a huge political element to the process of attempting to keep on a successful officeholder as in the case of Mr. Cooper. While not revealing any confidences or singling out individual Senators, I do not think my colleagues would be surprised to hear that since being nominated for an additional term Mr. Cooper has been subject to some political bargaining by Senators who seek to have him take some actions in his official capacity before they will vote to keep him on in his job. I understand that happens often around here. And I don't begrudge it in general. But, I think the opportunities for such actions should be minimized to the extent possible, especially when there is no question as to the nominee's qualifications or successful performance in office. If he or she is doing well, then, under my bill, the President would presumably retain his or her services. If not, then he or she should be removed, immediately. Not at the end of a term. That brings me to my final reason for this legislation. I simply believe that senior governmental officials should serve in those positions only so long as they hold the confidence of the President of the United States. If the President loses confidence in any of his senior leadership, he or she should remove those individuals from those posts. I understand that there are those who believe that this action would make the positions inherently political. I offer two thoughts to those who hold this belief. First, in 1988, when VA was elevated to cabinet level status through Public Law 100-527, the law required that the President appoint individuals to these two offices ``without regard to political affiliation or activity and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability.'' I am not proposing to change any of those requirements. Even if I was proposing such a change, certainly the Senate could impose such a condition prior to any confirmation. Second, I firmly believe that some political responsibility also leads to greater performance by officeholders and accountability to Congressional oversight. I think you all know that improved performance and bureaucratic accountability at VA are annual demands of our Veterans service organizations. I believe this change will move us one step closer to addressing their concerns. Mr. President, as I said at the outset of my statement, this is a simple bill. But, just like the old saying that if you watch the pennies the dollars will take care of themselves, I believe that if we make the simple, but necessary improvements to VA's operations and management structure, the entire system will improve on its own. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as one step towards overall improvement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is an interesting time on the floor of the Senate. We just heard the most fascinating speech about fingerpointing I have heard in decades--fingerpointing from the other side that is trying to suggest they are blameless, absolutely without blame, because the Senate is stalled in its attempt to gain a comprehensive immigration reform bill. This is one Republican Senator who, several years ago, stepped across the aisle and stood with Senator Ted Kennedy in a clear recognition that something had to be done to deal with illegal foreign nationals in our country in a just, reasonable, humane, and legal way. To suggest that the Democratic caucus has not had conflict behind closed doors over the last week is, in fact, a false statement because today we see this veneered front. To suggest that they are without blame because the Senate for 1 week has stood still doing nothing because they would not allow amendments on the comprehensive bill? May I say shame on you? I am saying that because the veneer doesn't fit. It is paper thin like the front page of the legislation before us. The Senate Judiciary Committee worked its will, and it brought forth a bill to this floor. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best they could do? Absolutely, yes. Did they work hard? You darn bet they did. Does it have all the components in it that we would want for tough border security and control to contain our borders, to secure them? It must have that, and it does have that. Because I don't care how good the legislation is that I think I have created with a coalition of over 500 groups of Hispanics and labor and agriculture over the last 5 years, as good as my legislation is, known as AgJOBS, it is not going to work if the border isn't secure. You have to stop the flow of illegals, and we do that. But we don't do it by pointing a finger at all of them and saying: You are all felons. We cause them to earn, in the course of years of hard work, the right to continue to work and, if they choose-- if they choose--to become an American citizen by another lengthy process. Is that unfair? Is that irresponsible? It is absolutely not. Was that created by Republicans? Yes, it was. By Democrats? Absolutely. So let me suggest that when the assistant minority leader stands up and says: No, not me, not us, not ours, that simply is not true. Yes, the Republican side is conflicted. Yes, we have differences. Yes, there were amendments. But those amendments, as would be the normal process on the floor of the Senate after a bill came out of committee, have been denied by that paper-thin veneer you have just heard this morning from the other side. Immigration has been and will always be a bipartisan issue. It must be. It should be. Is it to our advantage to make it partisan? Absolutely not. But some are now playing that game, and that in itself is most dangerous. I will continue to work with all of my colleagues to resolve this issue. It is fundamentally important to America that we do. Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, I said: America, turn and look at yourself in your mirror, and you will find a multiethnic, a multinational image. We as Americans are the phenomenal mosaic of the world, and we are because we have historically had an orderly, responsible immigration policy that didn't point fingers and didn't play partisan politics and worked its will. I must tell you there have been and there always will be those who got here yesterday who don't want those coming tomorrow. Yet America's great energy is simply that we continue to bring people from around the world who become Americans in search of the great American dream, who live under our constitutional structure, who embody it because of the new energy as a free citizen they employ. It is in itself the only Nation in the world that has been able to do that. I say, when I am out in Idaho and around the country, is it possible for you to become Japanese if you are not born one? Absolutely not. Or to become an Italian if you are not born one? You can't become that. But you can become an American. Why? Because this great country was never one nationality, never one religion; it was the place the world came to find freedom and to be able to use its individual energies underneath the framework of a constitutional system that established laws. What are we attempting to do here today? We are attempting to clarify a law, to strengthen a law, to make sure that the wonderful process we have seen throughout our history continues to be orderly and just and responsible. Who is to blame here? The U.S. Senate, the Congress of the United States, when, in 1986, they passed a law about immigration, but they didn't recognize in doing so that they were creating a natural magnet and they didn't control the border, dominantly to our south; and then again in 1996 we did the same thing and we didn't control the border. This great economic engine of ours became the magnet for the downtrodden to come to work, to earn a little money, to improve themselves. We took advantage of that, hopefully in a positive way, hopefully in a humane way--not always, but we did take advantage of it. Then, after 9/11, we awakened to this phenomenal reality that there were millions in our country who were illegal, and some of them were bad guys bent to do us harm. Now we are playing political games on the floor as to who is on first and who is on second on this issue. Shame on us. Because the veneer on the other side is just that: paper thin. This has been and will remain a bipartisan issue, it is an American issue, and it is responsible for this Senate to deal with it. It is right and proper under our rules that if someone has an amendment in disagreement to what I have done--and now I see my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, who worked with me and introduced into the committee mark a very valuable component as it relates to American agriculture. We didn't play the partisan game. We came together because she has in her State and in the great San Joaquin Valley, which is, without dispute, the greatest agricultural valley in the world, a true need to stabilize and build a legal workforce; and in Idaho, at the peak of our labor season, I have anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000 illegals. She has more illegals in one county in California working than I have in my entire State. Still, Senator Feinstein and I understand one thing very appropriately: that what we do must be legal, that American agriculture cannot build its strength on an illegal foundation, and it knows it, too. That is why we have worked with them to solve this problem. We think that within the committee bill, there is a solution. There are some on my side and on the other side who probably disagree with that, and there are amendments over here that would change what Senator Feinstein and I have proposed, and that is within the committee mark. I think I can defeat those amendments. I am certainly willing to debate them. It would be appropriate under the rules of the Senate that some of those amendments would be offered, but that has been denied. I am disappointed in that. I hope that over the course of the next 2 weeks, calm heads will prevail. I hope the idea of finger-pointing goes away. We all have a responsibility here, not only to our home States but to our Nation, to develop a comprehensive immigration reform policy to secure our borders for the sake of our Nation's security. That is what this Senate has attempted to do, and that is what we are now being denied. I don't believe that is the appropriate position for any of us. Immigration reform has been--let me repeat--and will always be and must be a comprehensive approach, a bipartisan issue where we work together to resolve what is in itself a major national issue of the day. Our citizens have asked that we do this. While they are divided by our effort in every way, we attempt to bring together that division in what we hope is a comprehensive, responsible, legal approach that first embodies national security and secondly, and as importantly, though, represents a balance for our economy, a reasonable and responsible approach toward humanity for those who come to work and for those who want to be citizens. In my opinion, that is a responsible position. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, would the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I would like to take a minute only. I would like the record to reflect I am speaking as in morning business for that minute.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me first thank the chairman for his due diligence. There is no question that he has focused on this for a good many months and has tried to work us through a process of time and issue. The Senator is so right in talking about all of the complications involved: the types of labor, qualifications, and all that is necessary to deal with this in a responsible way, and to contain our borders and to control them. And without that, no orderly process will ever happen effectively. As the chairman knows, I have spent a good deal of time on this issue, somewhat focused on a segment of our economy in agriculture. To your knowledge, as it relates to the compromise you are talking about that may be struck and has taken form here in the last 24 hours, is the agricultural provisions that we--myself, working with a member of your committee, Senator Feinstein--worked to put in the bill that came out of committee, is that still the provision that is in place as we know it and as we would vote on it?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for that response. Every employment sector is unique, and what we have found, and I think what the committee has found, is that agriculture, because of the type of labor involved, is kind of the entry door many of our migrant laborers come through, legal and illegal, and from that, if you will, learn and move to other segments of the economy. So we tried to reflect that in the structure of the Feinstein amendment to the bill, recognizing that other portions of the bill would be different, and that the compromise that is being talked about, in my opinion, makes some sense as it relates to seniority and time and place to work in a fair and responsible way. At the same time, it makes sure that we don't effectively damage these segments of the economy Americans will not work in, choose not to work in, and that we find foreign nationals can and will and are very effective in their work there. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me talk about the business at hand, and that is the most important debate that I think this Senate has held in a good many months, on S. 2454, the comprehensive national immigration bill. In this immigration reform discussion, I have stood here to emphasize our imperative duty to guard our borders and strengthen our national security. I have spoken about the provisions within S. 2454 that deal particularly with the agricultural economy that I have focused on now for a good many years. I presented my colleagues with alternatives and approaches toward resolving the issue of illegal foreign nationals working in the agricultural economy. Today I want to talk about another component of the immigration debate. I am concerned about some of the comments being flung around as we address this critical issue. Certainly, this is a topic that awakens America's emotions, but I cannot help but reflect on what those comments reveal about us as a Nation. It is as though America doesn't want to face the mirror and look at herself. She doesn't want to see what she is and what that means. But for her own good, she has to. She must look in her mirror. She is a blend. She is a wonderful mosaic. She is English. She is German. She is Italian. She is Polish. She is Irish. She is Asian. She is African. And, yes, she is Hispanic. She is multiracial, multiethnic, and diverse in every aspect of her national life. That is why she is admirable. That is why she has prospered, and that is why she is strong. What is true in science is true in sociology. Mixing results in achievement and strength--we ought to think about that. We ought to evaluate some of the conceptions we have regarding immigrants and measure them against the realities to see if they hold true. Immigration is a phenomenal national challenge. It always has been. But immigration is a challenge, it is not a threat. Quite honestly, immigrants represent solutions to many of our Nation's problems, both currently and in the future. (Mr. VITTER assumed the chair.)

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a shortfall of 10 million workers in this country by 2010. The reason is quite simple: Our workforce is growing older, and as it grows older, it shrinks. That is true in Japan, a great Nation 30 years ago, 20 years ago, suggested to be the economic force of the world, and 12 years ago, it quit growing and began to die. Why? Because her workforce grew older. On the other hand, immigrant labor is behind the significant economic growth this country has experienced in different areas in recent years. These are the economic necessities of today in a growing economy. Can we recognize this? Do we see that foreign nationals are cleaning up New Orleans and binding her wounds? Do we know that the Pentagon was rebuilt by Hispanic muscle? Immigrants are sweating it out across our country. They consistently have done it literally for centuries. In my home State, Hispanics were digging the mines in the 1860s. Mexican cowboys and ranchers were solid members of the pioneer communities even before my State became a State. Hispanics were mule packers in the 1880s, the mule trains that moved across the great West. They and the Chinese were building and maintaining the railroad systems of the American West throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, they are harvesting apples in Washington, peaches in Georgia, and oranges in Florida. They are gathering grapes in California, slashing sugarcane in Louisiana, harvesting potatoes in Idaho, and picking corn in Iowa. Their footprints are in agricultural fields across America. Immigrants are hard workers. They work hard because they are grateful people and feel a sense of debt for the opportunity this country has given them. Contrary to what some believe, immigrants who have entered legally and illegally are not here to siphon services but to produce and to contribute. They are working hard and, in most instances, giving back. The Idaho commerce and labor department reports that between 1990 and 2005, Hispanic buying power in Idaho rose more than twice as fast as total buying power across our State. Nationwide, the purchasing power of Hispanics will reach $1 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--in 4 years. Beyond their role in sustaining the country's labor force, immigrants make a net fiscal contribution to the U.S. economy. The President's 2005 Economic Report, which uses figures that are most authoritative in analyzing to date the economic impact of immigrants, says: The average immigrant pays nearly $1,800 more in taxes than he or she costs-- The economy. Undocumented immigrants are believed to contribute billions of dollars to our Social Security system, billions of dollars they will not benefit from. According to the President's report, the administration's earnings suspense file--that is a file within Social Security made up of taxes paid by workers with invalid or mismatched Social Security numbers-- totaled $463 billion in 2002. While other nations of the developed world are aging, America still sees a youthful face reflected in that mirror in which she looks. Immigration renews the United States, and it keeps us young, while countries such as Japan, as I mentioned earlier, and Russia and Spain are facing problems because their populations are decreasing. America has the necessary arms to support its pension and its social programs. Therefore, a comprehensive immigration reform is in America's best self-interest. Yes, we must contain our borders. Yes, we must, in any immigration program, make sure that it is controlled and managed so that those who come to America can, in fact, become Americans. Understanding these realities erases some of the misconceptions bouncing around this Chamber and bouncing around America, misconceptions that sometimes smack of prejudice. Previous immigration waves have experienced it to some extent, but I believe that we, as a nation, are greater than that. When every one of us, except Native Americans, belong to a family that came from somewhere else, we should be careful not to erect mental borders, the type that keep people who are different from us at arm's length. We are a nation that encourages new thinking and benefits from the growth that results from that new thinking. The American poet, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said it best when he said: A mind stretched by a new idea never returns to its original shape. It expands. It grows. It broadens. Immigration is a source of new ideas of entrepreneurship and vitality. The meeting of cultures simply does not happen in a one-way street but in a bridge, where both sides give and receive. When America looks at herself in her mirror, what will she see? She will see the very multicultural character she has always been. She will see that characteristic is her greatest asset. So the debate on the floor of the Senate today is worthy of this Senate. It is worthy of all of us to make sure that a program that is broken, a national immigration program that has not had a caretaker for over two decades, now be given that responsibility, to be redesigned, to be shaped, to be brought under control, that our borders be secure and that America's multinational or multiethnicity continue to grow and prosper and bring the kind of strength and viability to our culture that it has always given us. America will be greater because of what we do here, if we do it right; it will not be lessened by our actions. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. Obviously, Senator Sessions is on the committee and had been speaking prior to this interlude with our leaders. I have worked 5 years to get a piece of this bill, and I have a piece of the bill that is currently before us. At the same time, I have voted consistently to allow my colleagues who disagree to have a vote on their issues. Senator Sessions and I rarely disagree on issues. On this we disagree. He is very artful in casting certain provisions of it one way. I could argue it the opposite way. I suspect my arguments would sound nearly as logical as his. But what is important here is the final shaping of a very important piece of legislation. Controlling our borders is an absolute must that we have denied ourselves for now two decades. Everybody talks about the 1986 act. It didn't work. No, it didn't work. It didn't work because we didn't realize, at least some didn't, that we were sending a signal out that if you could get here and wait your time, some day you might become legal. You might become a citizen. We didn't realize that we put a megaphone to the world and said: Come one, come all. We also had an economy and job-creating environment in which there were jobs to be had. We didn't control the border. Again in 1996, a decade later, we attempted to tackle it again. Numbers had grown. We didn't control the border. In 1999, I began to work on the agricultural issue. I worked a compromise over a period of 5 years now with a lot of different people. But in the heart of what I have done is a very important key: it is controlling the border. No matter how we write this legislation, if you cannot define the number and control the number, it is for naught. That is an absolute fact. It isn't by accident that the first few titles of the committee bill are all about border control. I wish we would move much faster on border control. I wish nationally we could move tomorrow because what we have offered will take a few years to implement. We have to train more Border Patrol men, 1,500 a year, and go on and on with beds of detention and all that. That is important and part of the control. We have to find the resources to do it. So all of that has to fit together. At the same time, Americans are phenomenally frustrated about what we are doing and where we are. They know why we need to do something, and they know our borders ought to be controlled. Well, I am going to stand here and defend the right of my colleagues to offer amendments. I would like to think that on the issues I am passionate about, my arguments are more persuasive to a majority and I can defeat any amendment that might be proposed to change certain provisions. I don't know, but I am willing to take that risk because I have to guarantee this process. The attitude of shut out and deny has never worked in this Senate. We always shape it a little bit, but we never deny it. Yet for a week now it has been denied and it will not stand or the bill will fall. That would be wrong for the American people not only to see but to understand because in it are the ingredients to solve a problem, if we have the heart and the will to implement it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet tomorrow, April 6, 2006, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``The Effectiveness of the Small Business Administration.''

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 435, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today I come to the floor to recognize the retirement from my staff of Mike Tracey, my director of communications. Mike started working for me 10 years ago. When I first met him, he said: ``Finally someone works here with less hair than me.'' Mike's head shines pretty brightly on a clear day. Mike is always fond of saying that his job is not rocket science. It is not science, he is right. It is art--and Mike Tracey is a master at the art of communications. He is a man who finds a challenge and tackles it head-on. His tenacity is legendary. When he heads into a battle with me, Mike is always out on the front line with the flag flying high. He is a man who loves America and is not afraid to let people know it. When you are around Mike, you cannot help but be boosted by this man's passion. I am sad to see Mike Tracey leave my staff, but he goes on to a new challenge, and I know he will tackle that challenge with the same tenacity he approaches life and has for 10 years approached the job he does for me. I wish him the best of luck and thank him for his service to me, to the State of Idaho, and to America. Mike Tracey, have a great life in your next job, as I know you will.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I join Senator Akaka in introducing legislation that would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to the rates of disability compensation provided to our Nation's disabled veterans and to the compensation provided to survivors of veterans and servicemembers who died, or who will die, as a result of military service. Every year since 1976 Congress has enacted an annual COLA adjustment for veterans with disabilities and survivors. The regularity of Congress's action on COLA legislation underscores its importance. Without it, inflation would erode the purchasing power of millions of beneficiaries. According to its fiscal year 2007 budget, VA estimates that it will provide disability compensation to 2,867,013 veterans with service- connected disabilities in the upcoming fiscal year. Among the veterans estimated to receive such compensation are 5 World War I veterans; 335,180 World War II veterans; 160,889 Korean-conflict veterans; 992,360 Vietnam-era veterans; and 762,230 veterans of the Persian Gulf war era. The COLA legislation will also benefit an estimated 348,479 survivors. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that inflation, at the close of this fiscal year, will be at 2.2 percent as measured by the consumer price index published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Once the actual inflation level is known, this legislation would adjust payment rates in effect on November 30, 2006, and be applied to payments made to veterans and survivors effective December 1, 2006. CBO also estimates that the legislation will increase direct spending by $530 million in fiscal year 2007. Again, because of the importance accorded to annual COLA legislation, all of this spending is assumed in the budget baseline and, thus, requires no offset. In summary, this legislation is critical to the lives of over 3 million beneficiaries who have served our country well and faithfully. I ask my colleagues for their continued support for our nation's veterans. And I ask for their support of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.