Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to ask the chairman of the committee, is it not correct that at this time there is agreement to have a debate--40 minutes equally divided--on this particular amendment, and the vote to be set at a later time, but we would try to conclude the debate at this time?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I will speak for one minute and then yield about 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky who will begin the discussion. Actually, I would like to read the entirety of this amendment. It will take me about 10 seconds. It explains what the amendment does. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that such amendments shall not increase gasoline retail prices and reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy. What this amendment does very simply is to say that the $28.6 billion in tax increases called for by this bill will be allowed to go into effect as long as the Secretary of Energy can certify that it would not raise gas prices or cause further dependence on foreign oil. The reason for the amendment, obviously, is to make a point. It is going to be very difficult to have $28.6 billion in tax increases on oil producers not reflected on our gasoline cost at the pump. I predict Americans will pay more for their gasoline because of the tax increases in this legislation. I will have more to say about the three different kinds of tax increases, why I believe that is the case, why I think it is a bad idea for us to increase our dependence on foreign oil and increase the cost of gasoline to consumers as a result of the tax increases embodied in this bill. At this time, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, unless the chairman of the committee would like to speak next, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, this amendment very simply changes an IRS interpretation of the 2005 Energy bill that provides a $1-per-gallon tax credit for creation of biodiesel. An interpretation by IRS said that if you take animal fat and add it to the biodiesel--or add it to diesel, you have biodiesel and then get the $1-per-gallon credit. That was not what was intended when this was created. What has happened is all of the animal fat used to do this was already being used by the oleo chemical industry. Folks, for example, who make soap and detergents and the like, are finding the cost of the animal fat, their feed stock, has skyrocketed 100 percent this past year because of the way this has been done. As a result, we are simply changing the interpretation IRS put on it that big oil companies can take advantage of what was not intended to be a tax credit for them, people who are already refining diesel fuel. But rather, those who would create legitimate new diesel fuel from legitimate biomass, the credit remains; nothing changes for that. It simply means the oil companies taking advantage of the credit in an improper way would no longer be able to do so.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will be happy to do this on my time because I am going to yield back my time on this amendment in any event. I am happy to have the vote on this amendment stacked with the Inhofe amendment at whatever time that will occur. With regard to the second amendment, which I am going to propose, I am not at liberty to do that right now because there are numerous people who wish to speak. I assure the chairman that as soon as I have that list and know how much time it is, I will let him know that.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 1733, and would ask that it be called up at this time.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the comments my colleagues made to remind everyone many of the dire predictions, including the ones of my good friend from Oregon, are a little beside the point. If you look at the actual wording of my amendment, it does not say anything about subsidies to big oil companies or anything of the like. Maybe I better read it again: Notwithstanding the provisions of this subtitle-- And those are the tax increases on oil companies, as well as the other tax increases in the legislation-- the amendments made by this subtitle shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that such amendments shall not increase gasoline retail prices and the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy. That is all it says. There isn't any more. There isn't anything about subsidies to oil companies or anything of the like. What the Senator from Oregon might be saying is that the provisions of the bill are not going to go into effect because it is true that the tax increases will, in fact, raise prices for American gasoline consumers and will increase our dependency on foreign oil. If, as the chairman of the committee said, that is not true, there is no relationship--in fact, his exact words were: It is fallacious to argue that these new taxes in the bill will raise fuel costs. If that is true, then there would not be any effect. The argument of the Senator from Oregon then falls. But if it is true the taxes in this legislation will raise prices for oil consumers or gasoline consumers and will further our dependence on foreign oil, then the Senator from Oregon at least has a point to argue because one provision out of the three major tax provisions relates to the general subject that he and I have worked on in the past and that he was talking about, which is the royalties that should be paid by offshore oil companies. One of two things is true, but they can't both be true. It might be true the tax increases in this legislation are going to raise the cost of gasoline to American consumers and increase our dependency on foreign oil, and then at least one of the things the Senator from Oregon talked about would at least come into play. Or it could be, as the Senator from Montana said, there would not be any effect because this would not raise gasoline prices, in which case the Senator from Oregon is simply incorrect when he says that the effect of my amendment is to provide subsidies for oil companies. They can't both be true. What is the probability? I think the probability is that the tax increases in this legislation will raise prices for American consumers and will increase our dependency on foreign oil. And that is just not my guess, although it is fairly intuitive if you understand anything about economics. If you tax something, more generally the producer of that product is going to reflect the prices in what he charges to consumers, and the price, therefore, paid at the pump, in the case of gasoline, goes up. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that the tax provisions alone in this legislation, setting aside the other mandates in the Energy bill, will likely increase gas prices by 21 cents per gallon over the next 8 years. Taking all of the provisions together, the Energy bill could increase the price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 a gallon to $6.40 a gallon by the year 2016, a 104-percent increase. For comparison, current policies will lead to gas prices climbing from $3.14 to $3.67 in the year 2016. And in just the next year alone, consumers can expect to pay between $3.16 to $3.79 due to the impact of this bill. During the next decade, between now and the year 2016, due to this bill alone, consumers can expect to spend an average of $1,445 more per year on gasoline. Again, that is not just speculation. It is obviously the law of supply and demand. It is the law of economics. If you are going to impose this tax, it is going to be passed on by the people who pay the tax. So American consumers can expect to pay a lot more for gasoline at the pump. I don't think anybody would argue that our dependence on foreign oil is going to decrease. In fact, because of one of the three provisions of this bill, the foreign tax credit tax increase, it is obvious our oil producers are going to be put at an economic disadvantage vis-a-vis those abroad, and it is obvious we are going to have to be more dependent on foreign oil, not less. It was interesting that the Senator from Montana started out his argument saying the purpose of this bill is to get more energy, especially from renewable fuels. It is true the purpose of a good energy bill should be to get more energy. The problem is, this bill doesn't provide any more energy. It does focus some subsidies on renewable fuels, and the only way we are going to get more renewable fuel energy, obviously, is by subsidizing those particular energy sources. But the bill itself provides not a drop of new oil. Yet somehow or another it costs $28.5 billion, and that gets to the second point the Senator from Montana made. He said this is not a tax-increase bill; this is a tax-decrease bill. But then he lets the cat out of the bag by saying: Of course, we must still pay for what we are doing. Well, indeed. We do have to pay for what we are doing, and what we are doing is spending $28.5 billion. So the bill raises taxes by $28.6 billion. That is the estimate the Congress must use. That is what the Finance Committee is required to use, $28.6 billion in new taxes. The reason: to pay for what we are doing, for what the bill spends. Granted, some of the spending in the bill is in the form of tax breaks, such as the last tax break we talked about. Unfortunately, my amendment was not adopted, so a tax break is going to be misused, and we are going to be paying billions of dollars because of that misuse. But I think there is no question that the tax increases that are provided for in this bill will be seen as tax increases. Mr. President, has my time expired?

Mr. KYL. That is the end of my time. I will resume this argument tomorrow morning and remind my colleagues why it is that I think we don't want to pass the tax increases in the bill.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I have offered, No. 1733, be modified to reflect that it is a second- degree amendment to the Baucus amendment No. 1704.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Baucus amendment from the Finance Committee would extend the tariff on imported ethanol for 2 more years. The Gregg amendment properly repeals the tariff. Now, why do I say properly? Because the ethanol tariff acts as a tax on U.S. consumers at the gasoline pump. It increases the cost of gasoline because the cost of ethanol is increased due to the tariff. If Americans want anything out of this Energy bill, it is a reduction in gasoline prices. In fact, in a recent Associated Press poll, 60 percent of the respondents said that gas prices--which, by the way, are currently around $3 a gallon--are causing them hardships. Now, it is one thing to maybe have to pull back a little on your family vacation this summer, but an awful lot of people have to drive to get to work and have to drive as part of work. Clearly, when over half of Americans are caused hardships by the current high level of gasoline prices, Congress has the responsibility to do something about that. We should act. One of the few ways in which we can directly impact the price of gasoline at the pump is to eliminate the tariff of 54 cents per gallon on ethanol that is brought into the United States. Nothing else in this bill will directly bring down gasoline prices. In fact, there are several provisions that will actually have the effect of increasing gasoline prices. Promoting a competitive market for ethanol will help bring down gasoline prices because it increases the supply that is available and provides, therefore, access to lower cost ethanol. The bottom line is this: When there is a supply of potential fuel out there and our companies are trying to find that supply so they can bring it into the United States to meet the demand of consumers, but they have to pay 54 cents a gallon on part of that supply, they are either going to buy the supply at 54 cents a gallon and pass the cost on to the consumer or they are not going to be able to do that, thereby reducing the supply of gasoline available. What happens when you have more demand and less supply? The cost goes up anyway. Either way, having this tariff in place causes an escalating cost of the price of gasoline because it reduces available supply to the American consumer. We have a mandate now to use ethanol. That is required. That mandate means the companies that provide the gasoline to consumers have no choice but to acquire ethanol. If much of that ethanol is abroad, and we are charging 54 cents a gallon for it, obviously, you can see it is going to increase the cost of gasoline for the American consumer. Americans are a competitive people who know how the free market works.

Mr. KYL. I need an additional 30 seconds, Mr. President. One way we know the free market can work better is if we don't have artificial prices on a product which the American consumer needs in order to work. That means we can reduce the cost of gasoline by eliminating this costly ethanol tariff.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain in support of this resolution to acknowledge the athletic achievement of a tremendous group of young women. On June 6, the University of Arizona women's softball team won the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Softball Championship. By defeating the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers 5 to 0, the Wildcats claimed their 8th title since 1991. The victory was a team effort that was marked by a number of special accomplishments. Taryne Mowatt, pitcher for the Wildcats, set a Women's College World Series record by pitching 60 innings and was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Player. Centerfielder Caitlin Lowe had a record-tying 4 hits in the national title game. Shortstop Kristie Fox tied the record with 12 hits in the series. On 4 occasions Fox faced the best pitcher in the country, Tennessee's Monica Abbott. Second baseman Chelsie Mesa can take credit for hitting a 3-run home run off Abbott to break open the game and send the Wildcats to victory. Taryne Mowatt, Kristie Fox, Jenae Leles, and Caitlin Lowe were selected to be on the all-tournament team because of the skill they demonstrated during the tournament. Other Wildcats making important contributions include Adrienne Acton, Sarah Akamine, K'Lee Arredondo, Callista Balko, Sam Banister, Cyndi Duran, Lauren Erb, Samantha Hoffman, Jill Malina, Lisa Odom, Danielle Rodriguez, and Laine Roth. The team's success was guided by their coach, Mike Candrea, who just completed his 22nd season as coach of the University of Arizona softball program. A highly decorated coach, Candrea has won 18 coach- of-the-year honors. He boasts a 1,131 to 228 overall win-loss record. In 2004, Candrea took a year off to coach the USA Olympic softball team, which went on to take the gold medal. Senator McCain and I introduce this resolution today so that this body can send a well-deserved congratulations to the University of Arizona Wildcats and their coach for the hard work and skill they demonstrated in winning the championship.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, once-terminal diseases such as leukemia, aplastic anemia, cerebral palsy, and sickle-cell anemia are now treatable, if not curable, by using stem cells derived from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. Early this year, scientists at Wake Forest University School of Medicine found stem cells in amniotic fluid. These stem cells are particularly exciting for their pluripotency--the characteristic that enables the stem cell to turn into multiple bodily tissues and thereby be useful in a variety of medical treatments. In the last few weeks, just as the House was engaging in a partisan effort to pass this bill that the President rightly vetoed, scientists discovered that human skin could one day be used to create limitless lines of stem cells that are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells in their characteristics. Already such newspapers as the Washington Post are glowing with reports about how this discovery could ``revolutionize stem cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade.'' At the same time, the highly trumped benefits of stem cells derived from the destruction of a living embryo have yet to be demonstrated, despite considerable private and public funding. All members of this body share a desire to find cures or successful treatments for horrible illnesses. Fortunately, such an opportunity has been presented in the way of adult stem cells. Even with all of the tremendous potential that adult stem cells hold for treating serious medical conditions, some of my colleagues are unwilling to support legislation that funds the development of ethically acceptable and medically beneficial adult stem cell research. This body should recognize the fundamental differences--not just between Senators--but among the American people, over the appropriate use of taxpayer funding for stem cell research that destroys a living embryo. We may never move beyond this impasse, but that should not stop us from encouraging non- controversial and highly productive medical treatments. While S. 5 contains provisions which are morally unacceptable to many people, S. 30, the ``Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act'' or the ``HOPE Act,'' which the Senate passed, is an opportunity for Congress to support highly-productive adult stem cell research free of ethical defects. S. 30 would specifically direct the Department of Health and Human Services to seek alternative sources of stem cells and study the possibility of establishing an amniotic and placental stem cell bank, similar to the bone marrow and cord blood stem cell bank, while reaffirming a policy that prohibits research that destroys human life. This goes far beyond the current policy in the extent to which it supports adult stem cell research. Right now, as Senators prepare to consider an override of the President's veto of S. 5, there are millions of Americans suffering from serious illnesses who are waiting for the potential treatments offered by adult stem cell research. Rather than wasting precious time debating ethically divisive funding for stem cell research that destroys living embryos, the House should take up and pass S. 30. It is disappointing to see partisanship trump science and patients' hopes. I applaud the President for issuing his Executive Order today, implementing many, but not all, of the key provisions of S. 30. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm opposition to S. 5 by upholding this justified veto, and to think twice about trying to add S. 5 or similar provisions that would promote embryo-destructive research onto other bills, including annual appropriations bills. Such a move would justify the veto of that legislation as well.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would prohibit the sale or provision of caller ID spoofing services. This bill would enact a legislative proposal that was made by the Justice Department in a letter to members of this committee. To facilitate commentary on this bill, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter from the Justice Department be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would prohibit the sale or provision of caller ID spoofing services. This bill would enact a legislative proposal that was made by the Justice Department in a letter to members of this committee. To facilitate commentary on this bill, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter from the Justice Department be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Bingaman amendment relating to the renewable portfolio mandate. The Bingaman amendment would impose a 15-percent portfolio requirement for a limited number of so-called renewables by 2030. I oppose this amendment as I have opposed such proposals in the past because it is an egregious example of Federal command and control of the marketplace. Renewables have been and will continue to be an important part of our energy mix. Hydropower, solar, geothermal, wind, municipal solid waste all make substantial contributions to our energy needs. These and the other power types--nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas--succeed in the market because they are cost-effective, not because the Federal Government has required them to be bought. Congress has long supported renewable energy. That is one thing-- Federal mandates are another. Fundamentally, I oppose Federal command and control of the marketplace. I have no doubt that any requirement that a particular percentage of electricity generation by renewables can be met. During World War II, through a tremendous expenditure of money and effort, we developed nuclear weapons when no one thought it was possible. During the sixties, no one thought it was possible to send a man to the Moon, but we did. A renewable portfolio mandate of any percent, be it 15 percent as proposed here or even 50 percent, is achievable--whether it be through actual generation of energy or through the purchase of credits from the Federal Government. But at what cost? What cost in terms of electricity rates to be paid by American consumers, estimated at over $100 billion by 2030, at what cost in terms of stifling technological advancement into other alternative sources of energy? Over the past 20 years, renewable technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, not because we ordered industry to generate more renewable power but because we gave incentives to generate new renewables. The Bingaman approach turns that on its head. Under the Bingaman amendment, renewable producers will gravitate to low cost, existing renewable sources. They will have no incentive to innovate and bring their costs down. The power generated will be sold almost regardless of cost. The Bingaman amendment is nothing more than the Government deciding which type of energy is politically in favor and which type is politically out of favor. Right now, the wind industry is the big political winner. It is lower in cost than most renewables, currently gobbles up 95 percent of available tax credit, and has the largest lobby for the Bingaman amendment. Wind-generated power has significant environmental problems we need to address. First, wind turbines take up lots of space to generate any significant amount of energy, making them poor for urban environments and problematic for landscape viewsheds, especially near our Nation's national parks. They are also dangerous for wildlife. The National Academy of Sciences stated in a report released this year that bats are at considerable risk in the Southwestern United States and elsewhere, where reliance on wind power has been growing. The wind-power turbines generate sounds and, possibly, electromagnetic fields that lure the acoustically sensitive creatures into the spinning blades. In addition, local bird populations are also at risk. NAS also stated that local bird populations, especially peregrine falcons and other raptors that are attracted to windy areas where the generators are likely to exist, are at risk and called for additional study. Raptors ``are lower in abundance than many other bird species, have symbolic and emotional value to many Americans, and are protected by federal and state laws.'' Besides these environmental impacts that must be looked at, the fact is, wind just doesn't blow enough in most parts of the country for this to be a viable source of energy for utilities across the country to rely on. I believe the kind of energy utilities use to generate electricity should be based on the free market and consumer choice. If consumers want to buy the kind of renewable energy mandated by the Bingaman amendment, they are free to do so. Likewise, if they want to spend their money on something else, they should be free to do that too. Consumers are better able to decide what is in their own interest than government. Why should a family of four struggling to meet its monthly bills, to educate the kids, or help elderly parents be required--due to Federal political correctness--to purchase high-priced energy instead of meeting family obligations? Over 20 States have already adopted their own renewable standards, including my home State of Arizona. They each did so, presumably, because those States decided it was in their citizens' best interests. I have long believed that decisions affecting people's lives and livelihoods should be made at levels of government that are closest to the people, not by bureaucrats in Washington. Let's look at the problems with a Federal renewable portfolio mandate. First, as I said before, it picks certain politically favored renewable energy types for special treatment, ignoring what States have already decided to do on their own. The supporters of the amendment will tell you that is not the case and that State programs can continue, but that is only true if the State picked the same favorites this amendment does. For instance, what about Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania took a look at its energy availability and determined that coal to liquids made sense given its vast coal reserves. So coal to liquids counts toward meeting its State RPS. Under the Bingaman amendment, Pennsylvania would not be able to count this source toward the Federal mandate, in effect gutting its State RPS program and increasing the costs to consumers. This example brings me to a basic problem with a Federal renewable mandate. Some regions of the country are blessed with abundant renewable resources, while others are not. The renewable mandate will create stupendous transfers of wealth from renewable-poor States to renewable-rich States. This means that consumers in New York City will send their hard-earned dollars to wind generators in Minnesota. Think about it. Consumers in New York City will pay for renewable electricity they don't even get. That is not fair. If the purpose of the renewable mandate is to lessen our dependence on foreign energy, there are better ways: nuclear power, clean coal, and oil and gas from regions of the United States that have been put off limits. Let's face it, we have to have reliable sources of energy to meet the ever increasing consumer demand for electricity. However, the primary sources of energy that will be necessary to meet this mandate, wind and solar, are intermittent sources. What happens when the wind doesn't blow or the Sun doesn't shine? As we learned in economics 101, there is no such thing as a free lunch; consumers will pay. They will pay for the renewable energy and they will pay for the backup capacity that will come from what we know are reliable sources of energy--nuclear, coal and natural gas--to keep the lights on. Mr. President, let me return to my fundamental concern about the renewable mandate. The Bingaman amendment gives the Federal Government the power to micromanage the marketplace with a one-size-fits-all mandate; I want States to determine the best mix to meet their energy needs and allow the free market to work. Thus, I will vote no on the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, Senator Craig Thomas was a wonderful friend to all of us. He was an accomplished Senator, and he was a true cowboy. It is that spirit that won't be replaced in the Senate, and it is that spirit that I would like to remember today. Craig's record in the Senate will reflect his significant accomplishments, and I wish to honor the quality of the man who achieved them. I had a special affinity for Craig. Not only did he and I come to the Senate at the same time, we had also served in the House of Representatives together. Craig came to the House in 1989, 2 years after I did, when he won a special election to replace our current Vice President, Dick Cheney, who had been made Secretary of Defense. We, of course, were also fellow westerners, and I admired the manner in which he embodied the values of the West: the self-reliance, grit, and quiet determination of pioneers that shape Americans still today. These values were impressed into Craig as he grew up on a ranch near Cody, WY. Those values of the American West, instilled by the rugged landscape of Wyoming, would serve him well in the Marine Corps and in the Senate. Craig did not talk a whole lot, but he always meant what he said. He communicated in a way that didn't require a whole lot of ``jibber- jabber,'' as he would say. Everyone appreciated this quality in him. You never had any doubt about where Craig stood, something our public officials could learn from today. Craig understood that words and rhetoric easily vanish from our memories. He recognized that honor is not won by keeping up appearances but by working hard and accomplishing what you set out to do. He understood that the best way to accomplish difficult things was to get busy doing them. To Craig, this was common sense, but oftentimes common sense is all too uncommon. In his commonsense manner, he served the people of Wyoming who overwhelming elected him to the Senate on three occasions. Craig let the interests of the State guide his work in the Senate. He never let his ego get in the way of doing what was best for Wyoming and the country. My wife Caryll and I grieve with Craig's wife Susan and their family. But, in our grief, we also celebrate his life. There is much to celebrate not only in Craig's accomplishments--whether on behalf of our national parks, farmers, or rural families, to name only a few of his legislative priorities--but also in his character. He was a humble servant for Wyoming who stood up for the people of his State. Even in his illness, he never wavered from his duties as a legislator. The values of the American West are the commonsense values that make self-government possible. Craig Thomas, the cowboy and statesman, embodied these values that made this country what it is and are needed to sustain it in years to come.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wish to share in the comments of my colleagues who have spoken in favor of this legislation in expressing concern that we were not able to proceed tonight to the final steps for its consideration, but also to express appreciation to the majority leader and others who have expressed a willingness to continue to ensure that legislation can move forward as quickly as possible. We should not here this evening cast any blame for our failure to move it forward tonight. In a sense, all of us who were supporters didn't do a good enough job of ensuring all of the process could occur that Members properly insist on in order to vindicate their rights to debate and have amendments to get the job done. By the same token, those who oppose the bill need to appreciate that at a certain point, there is adequate consideration of their amendments. The majority leader expressed this evening the view that we hadn't quite reached that point. And reluctantly, because of that, I joined those who decided to vote to keep the debate moving forward, which at this point means the majority leader has, at least temporarily, set it aside. But it shouldn't be too hard to get about a dozen amendments of Members considered. That is why I say we all share some responsibility, because that shouldn't have been that hard of a task. I hope our leadership will ensure that once we get that list available and ready for consideration, we can quickly take up the legislation again and finish it in this body so it can move forward to the other side. I am not going to talk about the substance of the legislation tonight. I do want to thank those who worked so hard on its behalf on both sides of the aisle. The Senator from Colorado who has just spoken was an incredible inspiration in getting it done. The work Senator Kennedy did throughout this effort to ensure that he drove us to a conclusion that was one that didn't satisfy anyone 100 percent, but which all of us at the end of the day found we were able to support-- without his leadership, it wouldn't have been possible. My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, with whom I have worked on so many things, made some very difficult decisions and in that, as always, I respect the way she provided her leadership. On our side, colleagues such as Senator Mel Martinez, who is on the floor now, my colleague John McCain from Arizona, Lindsey Graham, and Senator Specter who spoke, and all of the others who helped so much on this legislation, we are committed to seeing it through to the end. Another one of our colleagues on the Democratic side, Senator Cantwell, who also was a help in moving part of this along, said this is a marathon, and she is right. We are not quite to the finish, but we are going to finish. I know there are those out in America who think this is not a good bill. If you want to criticize the bill, there are a hundred ways to do it. I could point out all the flaws, and there are plenty. But you cannot solve big problems without trying. We have tried hard. We have produced an imperfect product, but a product that is the best to come along yet. In the amendment process we can make it better, and in the rest of the legislative process, hopefully, we can approve it. Hearing from the American people, we have put many of their suggestions into the mix here to help improve it. But if we don't try, this problem that has bedeviled us for years will continue. As so many others have said, failure is not an option. We have a big problem in this country that needs solving, and I respect those who have put their shoulder to the wheel to solve it in the face of great opposition and misunderstanding in some respects from some of our constituents. But if you don't try, you don't reach these tough solutions. We came here to solve the tough problems. I will conclude with comments that have always inspired me by Teddy Roosevelt, who was not afraid to get in a dusty arena and fight it out. He said the thing he most appreciated about his opportunities in life was the opportunity to work on work worth doing. This is work worth doing.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I might interrupt the Senator for a question. Would it be possible also to make sure Senator Domenici will be able to speak after the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, this is an amendment that would enable people to enter the United States and become immigrants, green card holders, and eventually citizens, who, under the current law, have no expectation of ever getting those rights because they are in categories or are from countries in which the waiting line is so long that they would never, ever be able, under existing law, to become a U.S. citizen. In addition, because it would allow several hundred thousand immigrants to come into this country who would not otherwise be legal under existing law, there are three budget points of order, and, therefore, at the conclusion of these remarks, I will be making a budget point of order. I hope my colleagues agree that we should not waive the budget under these circumstances.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Jersey that what he said, as far as he said it, is, of course, exactly correct. What I was talking about was the tradeoff that existed between the accommodation to the 12 million people and--by the way, I don't use that phrase ``those people.'' I hope the Senator understands that I was referring to the criticism of those who say we shouldn't allow the illegal immigrants in the country, especially if we chain migrate their families. We ended the chain migration. We had to draw a time when applicants would be able to apply and their applications would be considered. We had it at one point. We agreed to move that date to accommodate the people on the Democratic side of the aisle. The Menendez amendment would move it to January 1 of this year, bringing in, I think, a total of well over 800,000 people. That, obviously, would undo the rather delicate balance of agreements that was reached that deals with this subject. Recognizing, however, we wanted to make sure anybody who had a reasonable expectation of being able to immigrate should be able to do so, we have prepared an amendment that would, in fact, allow anybody with a reasonable expectation to be able to immigrate here. We put the date way back to 2027, and we say that if you could have reasonably expected to get here by 2027, you are in and you are in within an 8- year period from now. I think that is very fair. The person who is excluded under our proposal is the person who, as I said, is the sibling of a Mexican national who is a sibling of a U.S. citizen who might be 101 years old when he gets to the United States of America. That is not a reasonable expectation. I think our approach is reasonable. It is consistent with the underlying agreement we reached. I regret to say--and I appreciate the Senator from New Jersey has every right to raise a budget point of order on the underlying bill--we fully expected there would be points of order at the conclusion presumably of the consideration of the bill and we would have to vote on those. Obviously, it is a 60-vote point of order. We expected to have 60 people who would support the legislation, and we believe that to be the case. But if the Senator wants to bring the bill down, as the Senator from South Carolina said, by raising an amendment such as that which has been proposed or at this time trying to conclude the budget point of order, I don't think that is the best way forward. As the Senator from South Carolina said, we have one good chance to get legislation passed. I don't think we want to blow that chance. Now is our time. We were sent here to do difficult jobs. I hope, in the bipartisan spirit that has so far characterized our debate, we can move forward and continue to keep this bill as literally a beacon of hope for a lot of people who are counting on us.