Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let's be factual here. The suggestion was made by the Senator from Vermont that we have an order of speakers on both sides. These would be Senators who have amendments that they want to offer. They would discuss them on the floor with the idea that perhaps a bipartisan group could meet after the caucus meetings and talk about how we might sequence the amendments. I would note, however, for the Senators here, the meeting after the caucus was a closed-door meeting to which only Republicans were invited. It is somewhat difficult to schedule Republican or Democratic amendments in such a meeting. This one-sided meeting was completely different than the business meetings the Senator from Pennsylvania held in the Judiciary Committee, which were successful in getting a bill to the floor. I urge the Republican and Democratic leaders to look at the model followed by the Senator from Pennsylvania in committee, which reported a bill to the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for another question?

Mr. LEAHY. As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows better than anyone here, we can accomplish a great deal when we are able to work together. He and I and key members of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party worked very closely in the Judiciary Committee to report a bipartisan piece of legislation to the full Senate. We reported a bipartisan bill, and I would like to vote on that. Here on the floor, we have voted on several amendments. We voted on the Frist amendment, the Bingaman amendment, the Alexander amendment. A Mikulski amendment is pending, which I believe could pass. We hope the other side will consent to take up Senator Nelson's amendment. Senator Brownback and Senator Lieberman have an amendment on detention and asylum. There is a Collins amendment, a Republican amendment on athletes; a Bond amendment; and another Republican amendment on natural science graduate students. Each one could be offered and voted on. There are a number of others we are working on. I made a suggestion this morning to ask unanimous consent that Senators be allowed to talk about amendments they planned to offer. A Democratic Senator might speak for 15 minutes and then alternate with the Republican side, and so on, back and forth. The junior Senator from Arizona objected to that proposal. He has an absolute right, of course, to object. I hoped that if Senators could come here and talk about amendments they hoped to offer, we might be able to work out some amendments in the usual way. Up until the last few years, when there has been single-party control in Washington, we were always able to share one side's amendments with the other, to see if there were areas of compromise. We would work out a schedule on complicated bills like this one. Certainly, this is the practice followed by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania in committee. Because he ran it in such a fair way, and because Senators on both sides of the aisle were able to discuss their amendments, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the full committee were able to report a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the ability to do that here. If we could go back to the traditional manner of doing things, the better way of doing things, practices similar to those followed by the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, we could get somewhere. As I said, we have already adopted a number of amendments. This is the practice I was suggesting when I received an objection this morning. I was hoping to set up a series of votes. I am not suggesting that the Senator from Arizona was not within his rights. Of course, he was within his rights to object. But once he did, we lost the ability to set up that procedure which, I believe, in my own experience, would have let some amendments go through. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has been more than generous. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor. I yield to him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Mexico on his amendment. It improves the bill being considered by the Senate. The Bingaman amendment enhances our efforts to be tough and smart in immigration reform by providing State and local law enforcement agencies with additional assistance. The Judiciary Committee sent a bill approved by a bipartisan vote of 12-6 to the Senate. It is a bill that is strong on enforcement. It is stronger than the bill introduced by the senior Senator from Tennessee, who started from the same place as the committee bill but did not include some of the enforcement measures added by amendment during Committee consideration and neglected some of the bipartisan improvements that we made. For example, the Frist bill does not include a provision added by the Committee at the urging of Senator Feinstein to make tunneling under our borders a federal crime. The committee bill adds new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers and the committee bill includes a Feinstein amendment to add 12,000 new border patrol agents, at 2,400 each year for the next 5 years. The committee bill is enforcement ``plus.'' It starts with strong enforcement provisions and border security to be sure, but it is also comprehensive and balanced. It confronts the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows. It values work. It respects human dignity. It includes guest worker provisions supported by business and labor. It includes a way to pay fines and earn citizenship that has the support of religious and leading Hispanic organizations. I continue to work with Chairman Specter in a bipartisan way to enact the committee bill. Our bill provides a realistic and reasonable system for immigration. Our bill protects America's borders, strengthens enforcement and remains true to American values. The committee bill wisely dropped controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling and other basic services that help undocumented aliens to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal law. I thank so many in the relief and religious communities for speaking out on this matter. Those criminal provisions should be focused on the smugglers, and under the committee bill, that is what we did. The Committee also voted down a measure that would have criminalized mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States. Illegal status is currently a civil offense with very serious consequences, including deportation, but criminalizing that status was punitive and wrong. It would have led to further harsh consequences and trapped people in permanent underclass status. These criminalization measures, which were included in the House-passed bill supported by congressional Republicans and are reflected in the Frist bill, have understandable sparked nationwide protests. They are viewed by many as anti-immigrant and inconsistent with American values and history. The committee bill, while tough on enforcement and on the smugglers, is smarter and fairer. The Bingaman amendment adds to our product. It is a constructive amendment. I hope that it will be supported by all Senators, whether Republican, Democratic or Independent. Border law enforcement agencies deserve our support as they are confronted with border-related criminal activity. I thank the Senator for including both the northern and southern borders in his concerns and within the coverage of his amendment. The amendment recognizes the failures of the Federal Government over the last few years and its failure to provide adequate security along our borders. As the Senator from New Mexico has said, when such failures impose costs on local communities, the Federal Government should help. The peaceful demonstrations around the country over the last few weeks call on the Congress to recognize the human dignity of all and to do the right thing, in keeping with longstanding American values. We need a comprehensive solution to a national problem. We need a fair, realistic and reasonable system that includes both tough enforcement and immigration reform provisions. All Senators should be able to agree with these principles. I was glad to hear that President Bush was speaking recently about the need for a path to citizenship and the need for a comprehensive bill. Of course, as we proceed through their sixth year in office, the Bush-Cheney administration has still not sent a legislative proposal to the Congress on these matters. Instead of waiting, we have done the hard work and are writing a tough, smart, comprehensive bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Tennessee and Texas for their courtesy. I commend the Senator from Maryland. I enthusiastically-- enthusiastically--cosponsor this amendment. It is going to bring relief to employers by easing the shortfall of seasonal workers. I know it is desperately needed in Vermont. Last May we passed, and the President signed into law, assistance for small and seasonal businesses by enacting a special exemption. The amendment passed last May, offered by Senator Mikulski, cosponsored by myself, Senator Jeffords, and others, created an exemption to the cap for seasonal workers. The Vermont ski, hotel, and conference industries rely on hiring foreign workers when they cannot find Americans to fill seasonal jobs. Over the past several years, the demand for these workers across the country has far exceeded the caps and has led to a severe shortage of workers which threatened the hospitality industry which is such an important part of Vermont's economy. Senator Mikulski's amendment will simply extend the sunset date and give businesses in Vermont, Maryland, and other States the resources they need to compete and succeed. We need this relief in Vermont. The broad range of bipartisan support for this amendment shows how badly it is needed. I thank the Senator for her persistent efforts. I thank my good friends on the other side of the aisle for the courtesy they showed a late arrival. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--as far as I am floor manager on this side and a cosponsor of this amendment--that I may proceed for 3 minutes with the additional time not taken from the majority side.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will do that, that will work.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon my wife Marcelle and I went and said our final farewells to our Erma Byrd, the wife of our distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Marcelle and I have been privileged to know both Senator and Mrs. Byrd for well over 30 years. While there, we talked with the distinguished senior citizen from West Virginia and told him how much that relationship meant, but especially how much it meant to us to see a love affair such as theirs, one that continued from the time they were teenagers to the time of Mrs. Byrd's death. Mrs. Byrd and my wife used to sometimes drive down together for Senate spouse meetings. Every time Marcelle would come back, she would tell me something new and valuable she had learned from Erma and how much that friendship meant. In recent times, when illness stopped her ability to come here, I would talk with my good friend Robert Byrd and ask him how Erma was doing and to tell him that both she and Robert were in our prayers and our thoughts. Many of us will be at the funeral this weekend out of respect for both of them. I will be thinking of the privilege it has been to have known them both and how privileged I am to still have as a dear friend and colleague Senator Robert C. Byrd. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask consent I be allowed to continue for a few minutes as though in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation now? I am just asking the question.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are going to have a major debate on immigration. That is a good thing, both for the country and for the Senate. I note, however, in the Judiciary Committee, we have had a major amount of debate and long markups. The distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and I have tried to make sure we had full hearings. The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is on the floor. As I said last night, he has spent more time on this than any of the rest of us. He has been in the Senate longer. He has been a leader in the area of immigration. When we began the debate, Chairman Specter and I followed the opening statement of the Republican leader with a discussion of how the Judiciary Committee, in a truly bipartisan manner, worked successfully to meet the deadline set by the Senate's Republican leadership. I understood that the majority leader had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were able to meet that deadline. I heard our chairman reiterate that same thing on the floor again yesterday. We did it, we completed that difficult task. We did it by working together, Republicans and Democrats, something that should be done more often around here. Under the steady leadership of the chairman and Senator Kennedy, and with the hard work and dedication of so many members of the committee, we worked through the long hours and numerous amendments and accomplished what had seemed to be the impossible. Our staffs worked throughout the St. Patrick's Day recess. As I said last night, I got e- mails from them at 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock at night and then again very early in the morning. I knew how hard they were working on this-- the staffs of all the Senators involved. Then the Judiciary Committee sent a resounding message approving a bill by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6. What was interesting about that is none of the amendments on the critical issues passed on a party-line vote. They were by strong bipartisan votes. Let me tell you what our committee did. We have a bill that is strong on enforcement. In some ways, it is stronger than the bill passed by the House. It is tough on employer enforcement. It is tough on traffickers--and it should be. It is stronger than the bill introduced by the senior Senator from Tennessee, who started from the same place as the committee bill but did not include some of the enforcement measures added by amendment during committee consideration nor any of the other improvements we made. For example, neither of those other bills included a provision, added by the committee at the urging of Senator Feinstein, to make tunneling under our borders a Federal crime. The committee bill adds new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers, and it added manslaughter to the definition of aggravated felony. Finally, on Monday morning of this week, the committee adopted a Feinstein amendment to add 12,000 new Border Patrol agents--2,400 each year for the next 5 years. Our committee bill is enforcement-plus. It starts with strong enforcement provisions and border security, but it is also comprehensive in its balance. It confronts the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows. It values work. It respects human dignity and includes guest worker provisions supported by both business and labor. It includes a way to pay fines and earn citizenship that has the support of religious organizations and leading Hispanic organizations. Yesterday, Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin and Senator Harkin made excellent, persuasive statements in favor of the committee bill. Senators Domenici and Martinez also spoke of their personal journeys. These were very real and meaningful statements. They reminded us all that we are a country of immigrants. I thank them for speaking in terms favorable to the comprehensive approach we have adopted. Listening to them makes me think how proud my immigrant grandparents would be. They immigrated from Italy to Vermont. They would be proud to hear this debate, and to see their grandson speaking on the floor of the Senate. I look forward to working with Chairman Specter in a bipartisan way to pass the committee bill. The chairman and I have been able to move our committee from being a confrontational committee to one that works in a bipartisan fashion. I commend him for that. I commend all members of the committee for that. What we have done is, by working that way, we have provided a realistic and reasonable system for immigration. The bill protects America's borders, it strengthens enforcement, and most important, it remains true to the best of American values. The committee bill wisely dropped controversial provisions which would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief or medical care or shelter or counseling or other basic services to undocumented aliens. Under the earlier bill, they would have faced possible prosecution under felony alien-smuggling provisions of the criminal law--a reminder that in a nation such as ours, with such a great heart and soul as a nation, we also have a moral and humanitarian responsibility to people. We should not make felons of those who carry out the responsibility of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering those who need shelter. I thank so many in the relief and religious communities, the faith community, for speaking out on this matter. Even in my own faith, I was so pleased to see some of the leaders speak out so strongly. The criminal provisions should be focused on the smugglers, not on the children of aliens or those who help them. Focus it on the smugglers, those who traffic in human misery and sometimes bring about the death of those they smuggle. Under the committee bill, that is what we did. The committee also voted down a measure that would criminalize mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States. I was a prosecutor. I know how unworkable that would have been. Illegal status is currently a civil offense with very serious consequences. One of the most serious, of course, is it includes deportation. But if you then criminalize that status, it is punitive, it is wrong, it is totally unworkable and goes against the history of our Nation. It would have led to further harsh consequences. It would have trapped people in permanent underclass status. It would have put bars in front of the American dream. These criminalization measures, which were included in the House- passed bill supported by congressional Republicans and which were reflected in the majority leader's bill, have understandably sparked nationwide protest. In the view of many, it is anti-immigrant and inconsistent with America's values and history. The committee bill, while tough in enforcement and on the smugglers, is smarter and fairer. I ask Senators to look at the peaceful demonstrations across this country. Listen to the people who are speaking out. A half-million people went out in a peaceful demonstration in Los Angeles. That is nearly the population of my State. That was just one demonstration among many. Opponents of a fair, comprehensive approach are quick to claim that anything but the most punitive provision is amnesty. They are wrong. This is not an amnesty bill. An editorial in yesterday's New York Times entitled ``It Isn't Amnesty'' makes the point that painting the word ``deer'' on a cow and taking it into the woods does not make the cow a deer. As I said yesterday, in Vermont, especially during deer season, we Vermonters know the difference between a deer and a cow. Sometimes we wish the tourists did. Our committee bill should not be falsely labeled. Our bill is more properly called what it is: a smart, tough bill. We know we need a comprehensive solution to a national problem. We need a fair, realistic, and reasonable system that includes both tough enforcement and immigration reform provisions. All Senators, Republicans and Democrats, should be able to agree with these principles. The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee is that bill. I am glad to hear that President Bush is again speaking about the need for a path to citizenship and the need for a comprehensive bill. I hope, as we now proceed through the sixth year in office, that the Bush-Cheney administration will finally send a legislative proposal to Congress on these matters. They have stated their support. Let them also bring forward what they believe is appropriate legislation. We did not want to wait any longer in our committee. We did the hard work, and produced a bipartisan bill. We did the hard work, and we wrote a tough, smart, comprehensive bill. The Judiciary Committee's debate has produced a bill that I believe would make my immigrant grandparents proud, and my maternal great-grandparents proud. It is worthy of our support. This is a body which should reflect the conscience of our great Nation. There are only 100 of us. We are enormously privileged to represent 295 million Americans. Let us speak to the conscience of all of us and the humanity of all of us. Let us pass this bill. It is not just from the managers' point of view, from a political point of view; it has the support of the labor unions, business groups, leading Hispanic organizations, and many from our religious communities. They are asking the Senate to do its part. Let's adopt the committee bill so we can bring hard-working people out of the shadows and end the permanent underclass status of so many who have contributed so much. Let us protect our security and our borders, but support the American dream that attracted my grandparents and the American dream that attracted so many, and allow this bill to become a reality. We are a good, brave, and wonderful country. Let us demonstrate it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would tell my good friend from my neighboring State of New Hampshire, I do have a statement. It is not very long; it is probably 7 or 8 minutes. But I would like to say, just to frame the issue, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, and I spoke on the floor yesterday on this. This is a major issue. I will want to speak. I do not intend to hold the floor very long.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. As usual, he found us a roadmap and it worked well. Madam President, let me just briefly suggest the absence of a quorum. I am going to take us out of the quorum in about 1 minute. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I filed an amendment to the lobbying reform bill, S. 2349, on March 7. My amendment is the honest services amendment, No. 2924. It is disappointing that there will not be an opportunity to offer my amendment--or to have it considered by the Senate--because cloture has been invoked and the strict rules governing amendments postcloture prevent me from offering this amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to articulate more clearly the line that cannot be crossed with respect to links between special favors and gifts and official acts, without incurring criminal liability. My amendment would have offered an important and needed new dimension to the lobbying reform bill. Ironically, because my amendment offers a new element to the lobbying reform debate, it is now out of order. It was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the serious ethics scandal that has grown over the last years. If we are serious about restoring public confidence in Congress, we need to do more than just reform the lobbying disclosure laws and ethics rules. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this type of public corruption by providing better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat it. My amendment would have done exactly that. It would create a better legal framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of honest services fraud involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the American people of the honest services of their elected representatives. Under my amendment, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for their actions. My amendment would also prohibit Members of Congress and their staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors or holding hidden financial interests in return for being influenced in carrying out their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up to 20 years' imprisonment or both. My amendment would strengthen the tools available to Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. The amendment makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption cases without all of the hurdles of having to prove bribery or of working with the limited and nonspecific honest services fraud language in current Federal law. The amendment also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other individuals with much needed notice and clarification as to what kind of conduct triggers this criminal offense. In addition, my amendment would authorize $25 million in additional Federal funds over each of the next 4 years to give Federal prosecutors needed resources to investigate corruption and to hold lobbyists and other individuals accountable for improperly seeking to influence legislation and other official matters. The unfolding corruption investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and MZM demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad-ranging impact, including the devastating consequence of undermining the public's confidence in our Government. Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that, as an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, Federal investigators are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's new intelligence agency--the Counterintelligence Field Activity--to MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham. The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest. I strongly believe that public service is a public trust and that Congress must provide better tools for Federal prosecutors to combat public corruption in our Government. If we are serious about reform and cleaning up this scandal, we will do so. I am disappointed that we missed the opportunity this lobbying reform bill provided to bolster Federal corruption prosecutors, and I hope we will soon find another opportunity to act in the interest of all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania for his kind words. I have told him privately, and I will say it publicly, he has acted as a chairman should. I have been here 31 years, now going on my 32nd year. I have seen great chairmen in both parties in this institution. I have seen others who were chairmen in both parties. Senator Specter is in the mold of the great chairmen. He took a very difficult bill, by his own force of will--as he has with others--and kept us together, made sure we had discussions. We went across the political spectrum. We had people who feel very strongly, and rightly so, who had differing views--all distinguished Members of the Senate. He herded them together, kept us together, and kept us in, doing what has been a rarity: the type of Monday session he had to make it work. I can assure colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, we would not have this bill on the floor, in an ability where the Senate cannot only work its will but do a fine piece of legislation, were it not for Senator Specter. Senator Specter made it possible with his leadership. Senator Kennedy, on our side, has worked on these issues since before any of us presently on the floor were in the Senate. And with the work of Senators from both sides of the aisle, we have a bill that provides a realistic, a reasonable system for immigration. We voted in a bipartisan majority. We have seen, over the years, the Judiciary Committee become more polarized. We have seen, in the past couple of years, more and more strongly bipartisan votes. In this case, it was a bipartisan majority with a vote of 12 to 6, with two-thirds of the members of the committee voting in favor of a bill that protects America's borders, strengthens enforcement, and--and this is what is so important--remains true to American values. The Judiciary Committee has confronted the challenging problem of how to fix our broken immigration system head on. It has sent to the Senate a good product. The committee met six times to debate a proposal offered by the chairman, meeting for long hours and considering dozens of amendments. The debate was substantive. It was civil. It was bipartisan. It was effective. And it was productive. I might say, had it not been for superb staff on both sides of the aisle, this would not have been possible. I think of the members of my own staff. I would log on sometimes at midnight, when I would get home from other things, and their e-mails were pouring in from the work they had done. I would go back on the e-mails at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and there were new ones. They were working around the clock. We were given a deadline of March 27 by the Senate Republican leadership. I understood that the majority leader had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were able to meet his deadline and report a bill by Monday night. It was difficult. At times it was a Herculean task that seemed almost the task of Sisyphus. It seemed undoable and the deadline impossible, but under the steady leadership of the chairman, with the hard work and dedication of so many members of the committee--again, I compliment Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts on our side who worked so hard on this--we worked through the long hours and numerous amendments and accomplished what seemed to be the impossible. When I mention those two Senators, it is not to leave out other Senators. We had so many who brought up amendment after amendment, who worked hard on it, all trying to get a bipartisan bill. The Judiciary Committee sent this resounding message, as I said, with a bill with a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6, with strong bipartisan support of every key amendment. These were not party-line amendments. These were bipartisan amendments. It is a bill that is strong on enforcement and in some ways stronger than the bill passed by the other body. It includes a provision added by Senator Feinstein, for example, to make tunneling under our borders a Federal crime. It is tough on employer enforcement. And it is tough on traffickers. It is also comprehensive and balanced. It confronts the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows. It values work. It respects human dignity. And it includes guest worker provisions that have been supported by both business and labor. It includes a way to pay fines and earn citizenship that has the support of religious and leading Hispanic organizations. These provisions are not amnesty. I spent enough years in law and enough years as a prosecutor. I know what amnesty is. These are not amnesty. Undocumented immigrants already in the country would not get to cut to the front of the line, but, in accordance with the committee's bipartisan plan, will need to pay fines, pay back taxes, work hard, and wait in line for green cards. They have to pass background checks and play by the rules. With fines and hard work and going to the back of the line, after 11 years, by following a regular path to legal status, the currently undocumented will join as full participants in American society. Following this plan, we could create an orderly system for immigration that is consistent with traditional American values and our history. Opponents of a fair, comprehensive approach are quick to claim that anything but the most punitive provisions are amnesty. They are wrong. We had an amnesty bill. President Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. This is not an amnesty bill. An editorial in the New York Times entitled ``It Isn't Amnesty'' makes the point that painting the word ``deer'' on a cow and taking it into the woods does not make that cow a deer. Frankly, in the State of Vermont, we deer hunters know the difference between a cow and a deer. We better. Our committee bill should not be falsely labeled. Our bill is more properly called what it is--a smart, tough bill. The committee also voted to add several constructive and practical measures to the chairman's mark. We added a new version of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, a bill I have long supported. I was joined in that bipartisan effort by Senator Larry Craig. AgJOBS will reform the H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural labor. This new version will help dairy farmers in Vermont and many other States to legally hire foreign workers. The bipartisan provision approved by the panel would make dairy workers able to work under visas for up to 3 years, with the opportunity to adjust to permanent residence and achieve their full potential to become eligible for higher paying occupations. The American people are engaging with us in this debate. The Nation's newspapers reflect the public's growing interest in how these decisions will be settled. In my home State, the Burlington Free Press and the Rutland Daily Herald have offered thoughtful editorial observations about these issues. I commend these editorials to the attention of my colleagues, and I will at the end of my statement include them. The committee also adopted an amendment to include the bipartisan Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, called the DREAM Act. This provision will allow immigrant students to attend college and become permanent residents if they follow the rules established in the act. It will free eligible students from the constant fear of deportation, while allowing them to work so they can afford to pay for college. By our bipartisan committee vote, we hope to extend Hispanic young people greater educational opportunities so they may realize the American dream and achieve their potential. The committee agreed--wisely, I believe--to drop several controversial provisions. Early in the process, I led an effort to remove a provision directing the Department of Homeland Security to study building a barrier, a fence, a wall along our northern border with Canada. If I might just for a moment, I live less than an hour's drive from Canada. I see people go back and forth across that border all the time, families who live on both sides. My wife is a first-generation American. She was born in Vermont literally a couple hundred yards from the Canadian border. Her parents were naturalized citizens coming from the Province of Quebec. When I come home and she is speaking French on the phone, I know she is talking with some of her relatives in Canada. But tens of thousands of families, probably far more than that, cross the northern border. There are also businesses. We even have a store in Vermont where there is a line painted down the center of the store, a cash register on one side of the store with Canadian money and a cash register on the other side with U.S. money. Why? Because half the store is in Canada and half in the United States. With the proposal that was before us of this barrier, this fence, it was going to be Joe would get a passport and bring me that box of Rice Krispies from the other side of the store. I mean, it gets down to that. There are businesses up and down the same way. When this proposal faced the light of day, we understood it easily. There were other controversial provisions that we wisely dropped, provisions that would have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief--medical care, shelter, counseling, and other basic services--to undocumented aliens to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal law. If somebody is running a food bank or a shelter for battered children and women and they give aid, they help people, they feed the hungry, if you have an order of nuns who feed the hungry, under those circumstances, they faced a chance of being charged with a crime. For shame, for shame. Let's accept the beatitudes as something that should go across all faiths, across all laws. I thank so many in the relief and religious communities for speaking out on this matter. Those criminal provisions should be focused on the smugglers. Under the committee bill, that is what we do--go after the real criminals, the smugglers, people who trade in human lives. The committee also voted down a measure that would have criminalized mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States. Illegal status is currently a civil offense with very serious consequences, including deportation. But criminalizing that status was punitive and wrong. Let's be realistic. Are you going to go out and lock up over 10 million people? It would have led to further harsh consequences. It would have trapped people in permanent underclass status, unwilling to move into the mainstream of society. These policies, which were included in the House-passed bill and supported there by congressional Republicans, understandably sparked nationwide protests. They were viewed as anti-immigrant and inconsistent with American values and history, American values that attracted my grandparents to come here from Italy to settle in Vermont or my great grandparents to come from Ireland and do the same. The committee bill was tough on enforcement and very properly so tough on the smugglers. It is smarter and fairer. Finally, I thank the chairman for setting aside provisions in the mark that would have consolidated all immigration appeals from around the Nation into the jurisdiction of the Federal circuit, the court of appeals for the Federal circuit. That is a court we have wisely set up in recent years in Washington because it has specialized jurisdiction. It was created to hear patent appeals and cases involving technical intellectual property issues, those issues which have so much to do with the economy of our country. It was not set up to hear immigration appeals. In fact, the Judicial Conference, chaired by now Chief Justice John Roberts and Federal judges from across the country, expressed serious concerns with these proposals. The chairman did the right thing when he agreed to hold a hearing and further consider what provisions will best correct the problems created by former Attorney General Ashcroft's ill-conceived actions with respect to these matters in cutting down the number of people who could handle such matters. I ask everybody to look at the peaceful demonstrations around the country over the last week. I will pick just one--in Los Angeles, half a million people. I can't help but notice that. We have slightly over 600,000 people in my State. They had almost the population of my State in a peaceful demonstration in Los Angeles. They were calling on us, calling on the Congress, the U.S. Senate and our colleagues in the other body, to recognize the human dignity of all. These aren't numbers. These aren't numbers. These are human beings. Do the right thing. We can do it in keeping with the longstanding American values. Let's not take the attitude that we are here, so no one else should be here. We are a nation of immigrants. We really are. In this case, if we are going to truly have the American dream, we also need a comprehensive solution to what has become a national problem. We need a fair, realistic, and reasonable system that includes both tough enforcement but immigration reform provisions. The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee is that bill. This could be a pivotal moment in helping to achieve that goal. The Judiciary Committee's debate has produced a bill that I believe would make my grandparents proud. But I think it would make the ancestors of all of us proud. It is worthy of our support. We should stop and think for a moment in this body, this exclusive body--there are only 100 of us who get a chance at any given time to represent almost 290 million Americans--should we not do something that makes the country proud, makes those other 290 million Americans proud and makes us in this body proud? I thank the many individuals and organizations who were so helpful to us during committee consideration of the bill. Included among those supporting this measure are many labor unions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, leading Hispanic organizations such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza, many religious organizations, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I ask unanimous consent that editorials from the Rutland Daily Herald, the Burlington Free Press, and the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico. We have known each other for over 30 years. I appreciate his words. I thank him.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has agreed to unanimously approve this legislation to rename the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the Green Mountain National Forest as the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area. Along with Senator Jeffords, I introduced this legislation as what we believed is a fitting tribute to our friend and former colleague, Senator Robert Stafford. Bob Stafford is an absolute giant in Vermont politics. He spent almost 30 years representing our great State first in the U.S. House of Representatives and then in the United States Senate. Prior to his arrival in Washington in the early 1960s, he served his fellow Vermonters closer to home holding a number of prominent State positions. He served as Rutland County prosecuting attorney, as Rutland County State's Attorney, as deputy State attorney general, and finally as our State's attorney general. From 1957-1959 Bob Stafford held the post of lieutenant governor, and in 1959 he went on to become Governor. In 1960, Bob Stafford was elected to Vermont's sole seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He won five successive reelections. In September 1971, he resigned his House seat to accept appointment to the U.S. Senate following the death of Senator Winston Prouty. After winning a special election in January 1972, Bob proceeded to represent Vermont in the Senate during the next 17 years. I had the distinct privilege of serving with him during all but two of those years. During his Senate service Bob Stafford became a national figure of stature, of vision and of courage in his leadership especially on environmental and education policy issues and legislation. His legacy endures in his many legislative achievements. To honor our friend, Senator Jeffords and I introduced this legislation to name the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the Green Mountain National Forest as the ``Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area.'' White Rocks is among his most beloved natural areas in Vermont, and Bob Stafford protected more land in our State than anyone who came before him. I know he and Helen could actually see the towering white cliff face of White Rocks Mountain from their home. By passing this legislation, the Senate honors our former colleague and our friend.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the nomination of Judge Stephen Larson so that it can be done by voice vote. I see the distinguished leaders on the Senate floor. I don't think there is any objection.