Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise once again to ask unanimous consent--and I will do so shortly--to hold oil companies accountable for their spills. This is really a sense of who is on your side. Are we going to take the side of big oil or are we going to take the side of commercial fishermen? Are we going to take the side of big oil or are we going to take the side of shrimp fishermen? Are we going to take the side of big oil or are we going to take the side of preserving the estuaries that are so critical yet that we see increasingly devastated, the wildlife, with consequences to those ecosystems that may very well affect a generation? Are we going to take a side with big oil or are we going to stand up for the tourism industry that is affected? Are we going to stand up for big oil or are we going to stand with the boater who ultimately sees his boat languishing in the waters because he cannot go out because there is no one to take out on a commercial venture? Are we going to stand up for the communities and the coasts along the gulf shore or are we going to stand with big oil? That is what this effort is all about. It is about setting responsibility where responsibility should lie. I applaud that the President got BP to sign up to $20 billion over the next 4 years or so. But that does not mean we should not be lifting the liability cap, a liability cap that is ridiculously low at $75 million total when BP, for example, makes over $90 million a day. So their liability under the law, regardless of what they say, is less than 1 day's profit.

Mr. MENENDEZ. This is about making sure at the end of the day we stand up to big oil. I know there are those who suggest--my colleague from Louisiana has suggested he has a better way. The problem is his better way is constitutionally infirm. That has been reviewed by the Congressional Research Service which says that trying to enact legislation that effectively declares the guilt or imposes punishment on an identifiable individual or entity is in essence a bill of attainder under the Constitution; therefore, it cannot work. I have heard him say I don't want to come here and make a speech, I want to solve something. That is exactly the problem. That does not solve anything because it is constitutionally infirm, therefore it would not apply, therefore we would not have a success. Besides, if it is good enough for this incident, it is good enough for any other. Understanding that, I want to ensure we stand on the side with all of those commercial interests, so I ask unanimous consent--I take a final 30 seconds--I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged of S. 3472, the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2010, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ. This is unlimited liability.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Would the Presiding Officer let me know when I have exhausted 2 of my 3 minutes?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Could the Presiding Officer tell me how much time remains for the majority side?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, there is no doubt that the vivid images we see every day of economic and environmental tragedy unfolding in the gulf are unprecedented, if not apocalyptic in nature. They have opened our eyes to the need for a fundamental redirection in our policy and the need for definitive action now to hold big oil accountable. The images are horrific, and they have made Americans realize the dirty fuels of our industrial past and the environmental and human toll they are taking in the gulf as we speak should now give way to a consensus on a real, meaningful investment in clean energy and increased oversight of corporate polluters. The time has come for change and this Congress needs to stand up for all those families in the gulf, for the rich habitats of marshes and estuaries that are being destroyed. The time has come to make the big polluters pay. But the time has also come to look ahead and plan for a smarter, greener, safer, cleaner future. No one--no one--can look at what is happening in the gulf and think we should not call big oil to task. No one can look at the images of brown pelicans drowning in a tide of crude oil and not wonder how to stop it and, at the same time, how to move to a comprehensive energy policy that will take us beyond our reliance on fossil fuels and toward clean energy independence. No one can look at Louisiana shrimpers and oystermen, fishing fleets idle, businesses closed, and not feel for those families wondering how they will get their lives back. This is not the time to shield big oil from full responsibility, as our colleagues on the other side seem to favor. This is not the time for excuses. Two things are clear. Those who are at fault must be held accountable. We need to embrace this tragedy as an opportunity to formulate a new American energy policy that creates American jobs and ultimately invests billions of dollars that we spend on foreign oil at home on clean energy sources. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have said no to that approach. They have said no to energy reforms and favored big oil. They said no to every effort to hold big business accountable for its failures. They said no to Wall Street reform and favored big banks. They said no to environmental oversight and favored corporate polluters. They have said no to even commonsense economic recovery legislation to put people back to work and save the economy from the disaster 8 years of their policies have created. They said no to families denied health coverage and favored big insurance companies. They have also continuously blocked my Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act that would hold BP accountable for damages, lifting the liability cap from the ridiculous $75 million worth of liability--less than 1 day's profit for BP--and lifting it to an unlimited liability since they have created unlimited damages in the gulf. No, they come up with proposals that basically are to protect big oil. Let's index it to their profits regardless of how much damage they have created. Let's worry about the ``smaller driller'' even if they cause unlimited consequences to our environment. Is there a difference between a $100 billion company and a $10 billion company when both of them create the same environmental damage that has been created in the gulf? I don't think so. The question is, Whose side do we stand on. Do we stand with the taxpayers to make sure they don't reach into their pockets for big oil's consequences, or are we going to defend big oil? If we were to bring to the floor a bill to invest in a clean energy future and create clean energy American jobs, they would say no to that as well. It seems to me it is time to say yes to American-made clean energy, yes to the millions of jobs it would create. It is time to also end tax loopholes for big oil companies, such as BP, that are avoiding paying billions of dollars in taxes. They are getting huge tax breaks for drilling activities and revenues, and they are concocting foreign tax schemes, all of which amount to more than $20 billion over the next 10 years. That is why I have introduced a bill to end tax loopholes for big oil. It seems to me the flow of revenues to the oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. It is pretty heavy and constant. There is no valid reason for these multibillion-dollar international corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer. They certainly are not using the extra money they get from exploiting tax loopholes to bring down the price of a gallon of gasoline for New Jersey families. Unlike the gusher in the gulf, we can topfill these loopholes and shut them down quickly and permanently, if we pass this legislation. But my colleagues on the other side continue to say no to commonsense reforms. We could use the billions of dollars and giveaways to big oil for an alternative fuel program. We need to look at the economic potential for modern, safe, renewable energy rather than to take the risk of another environmental and economic disaster. Instead of doubling down on 19th century fossil fuels, we should be investing the money we have been giving to big oil in the clean, limitless, 21st- century energy that would create thousands of new jobs, significantly reduce the burden of energy costs, and help clear the air we collectively breathe. It is time we close those loopholes and move forward on alternative fuels and embrace the future rather than cling to the ways of the past and pay the oil companies to continue those ways of the past. Specifically, the legislation I have introduced recoups royalties that oil companies avoided paying for oil and gas production on public lands. It prevents big oil from manipulating the rules on foreign taxes to avoid paying full corporate taxes in the United States. It ends tax deductions and giveaways to big oil such as deductions for classifying oil production as manufacturing, deductions for the depletion of oil and gas through drilling, and the deductions for the cost of preparing to drill. That is right. Big oil actually gets a deduction for preparing to drill. Among other provisions, it recoups royalty revenue with an excise tax on oil and gas produced on Federal lands and on the Outer Continental Shelf to pay back taxpayers for contract loopholes. That would save an estimated $5.3 billion. It ends big oil's abuse of foreign tax credits, saving another $8 billion. While the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act stops giving big oil tax breaks, it protects refineries and oil companies with yearly revenues of less than $100 million and lets them retain certain tax credits and deductions. It repeals big oil's expensing of drilling costs. In the President's budget, this saved $10.9 billion, but we are exempting smaller companies that would lower that estimate. It repeals big oil's depletion allowance for oil and gas wells estimated to save $9.6 billion. It is time to close these big tax oil loopholes, time to stem the flow of revenue to the oil companies, and invest in smart, alternative fuels for the future. The fact is, oil companies make up 4 of the top 10 spots on the Fortune 100 list of the largest corporations. In the first 3 months of this year alone, in the first quarter of 2010, the top 5 oil companies made over $23 billion in profits--not revenue, profits. They can afford to do business without American taxpayers subsidizing them. It is time for action. Millions of Americans are out of work. Families are hurting. Communities are hurting. People everywhere are feeling the pinch, and big oil companies are raking in the profits. At the same time, some of them, such as BP, are creating enormous environmental disasters in our country. That is why I am proud of my colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus who sent a letter to BP saying: Put $20 billion down in an escrow account administered independently so we can make sure those in the gulf begin to have the relief they so desperately need. To my colleagues on the other side, it is time to stop saying no and do what is right, what makes sense, and what keeps us secure. It is time to stop saying no to commonsense policies that end tax loopholes that benefit big oil. It is time to protect American taxpayers by lifting the liability cap so big oil, which made the spill, messed up, should clean up, be responsible for it, instead of American taxpayers. It is time to use those tax breaks from big oil and close them to invest in clean energy solutions that create greener, better, more secure American jobs for the 21st century. It is time to hold big oil accountable and invest in the future. Those are the choices. I hope we will make the right ones. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. I come to the floor in strong opposition to the Murkowski resolution because it means we will needlessly use more oil. That is why the oil industry supports this resolution, because this resolution would increase demand for their products. In turn that is why so many of my Republican friends support this resolution, because whenever big oil wants something, it seems they line up to support it. When the Republicans were in charge of MMS, they stripped the government's ability to regulate oil drilling. Anyone who has turned on the news in the last 52 days can see exactly what the policy of allowing industry to police itself has gotten us. Now they want to go further and strip the government's ability to reduce our oil consumption and regulate pollution. This is simply a wrongheaded approach at the wrong time. This is not the time to increase oil consumption by more than 450 million barrels, which this resolution would ultimately do. This is not the time to prop up big oil, make ourselves less energy secure, and put our coastlines in further peril. The events unfolding in the gulf have vividly shown us we should not be doubling down on 19th-century dirty fuels but, instead, moving to clean technologies of the 21st century that will reinvigorate our economy, allow our businesses to compete internationally, improve our energy security, and preserve the environment. The resolution is regressive on its face. For my home State of New Jersey, it would increase dependence on oil by more than 14 million barrels in 2016 and cost New Jerseyans an additional $39 million at the gas pump in 2016. The Federal Government gives big oil tax breaks. It gives big oil subsidies. The government even gives big oil, so far, a cap on damages stemming from oilspills. The resolution is just one more windfall for big oil at the expense of American taxpayers. So the choice is clear: We can keep protecting big oil from regulation or we can do what reason, common sense, and good governance dictate. In light of the facts--in light of the need to reduce pollution; in light of the need to move toward new, smarter, greener energy for the future; in light of what we are seeing happen every day in the gulf--over the last 52 days--in light of the fact that this resolution would cost consumers as much as $47 billion in additional fuels costs, I hope the Senate soundly defeats the Murkowski resolution. This is a choice between polluting our environment--and stopping the government from ensuring we do not pollute our environment--and moving toward a cleaner, greener future. This is a choice between a quality of life that ultimately reduces respiratory ailments and cancer versus one that continues to perpetuate it. The choice could not be clearer. I certainly hope my colleagues will ultimately vote for a choice that is greener, that has a future of promise and hope and opportunity, not one that continues to help big oil at the expense of the American taxpayer. With that, I yield back any time I may have to the chair.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for regular order with regard to the Reid amendment No. 4174.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the amendment I rise to offer today as a second-degree will do something several of my colleagues and I have been seeking to do on the floor for the last 2 weeks or so; that is, to make absolutely certain that big oil polluters pay for oilspills and not the taxpayers--not fishermen, not small business owners, not coastal communities, not States, not municipalities. This amendment would eliminate the artificially low liability cap that is currently in place--a cap that is currently set at $75 million--which means companies such as BP are only on the hook legally for less than 1 day's profits. BP made nearly $6 billion in 3 months of this year in profits--not proceeds, profits. That comes out to about $94 million a day. So the present liability cap--the cap that says, yes, you have to be responsible for all the cleanup, all of the efforts, but to the extent you have damaged shrimp fishermen, commercial fishermen, to the extent you have damaged coastal communities--to all of that extent--there is a $75 million limit. Well, if we let that stand, that would be less than 1 day's profit for BP. So we want to make sure they are legally on the hook and their spill, which wreaks complete economic devastation on small business and local communities and our environment that could very well last for years to come, does not allow them to get away with not being fully responsible. I believe yesterday we had a big day in the Senate in this debate about liability caps for oil companies that spill. First, the administration finally clarified. It had originally said we believe the cap should be lifted, but it had not quantified as to what that should be. Yesterday the administration clarified its position to say it will support unlimited liability for damages caused by future spills in deep waters. Then several of my Republican colleagues came to the floor of the Senate to support unlimited liability for damages caused by this particular spill, not a broader range. I think that is progress. We certainly embrace the fact that for this and any potential future spill there should be unlimited damages. So from when I started this effort with several of my colleagues, including Senator Nelson, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Murray, and others, we have come from opposition to lifting the cap, to a determined amount, to now having an understanding that unlimited liability certainly in a spill of this nature should, in fact, take place. However, we cannot depend on BP's good word or BP's statements. There is no consent judgment. There is no written guarantee. We need to make sure those communities within the gulf and that we as a nation and as taxpayers do not have to pay for BP or any other responsible party. So it is encouraging to see colleagues coming around to see it the way I and 20 Senate cosponsors of my bill are supporting, but we still have a bit of a ways to go. We all should agree all oil companies should pay for all damages caused by spills from offshore facilities, certainly if they are doing deepwater drilling, certainly if they create the risk; and if that risk ultimately ends in damage, we should be able to universally agree they should be responsible for the liability. But we should not depend upon doing that just when an oil company makes statements they promise to pay; not just when the company is so big it can pay with a few weeks' worth of profits. We need to make sure people whose livelihoods are ruined by an oilspill are protected no matter what. We need to ensure big oil companies are held accountable no matter what. That is why I am offering this amendment to remove the cap on liability completely so we can truly hold oil companies accountable for all of their potential damages. I have heard some people referring to keeping the oil companies responsible, such as BP, as un-American--un-American--to hold a multibillion-dollar corporation accountable for the very disaster it created. I think it is un-American not to be able to pursue such a corporation for the purposes of holding them accountable for the disaster they have created to the economic well- being of commercial fishermen, shrimp fishermen, seafood processing plants, coastal communities, wetlands, and a whole host of other consequences that we have. This is a chance to show if we are going to stand up with big oil or with small businesses, including fisheries and coastal communities, whether we are going to stand up with multibillion-dollar corporations or with the taxpayers of this country so they have no liability whatsoever. I think the choice is pretty clear. I hope everyone in our Chamber will do the right thing, to hold big oil accountable for the damages they have caused. I hope our colleagues will join us in this effort. I am truly pleased to see there is a movement in this direction. I hope we can make it a bipartisan movement. I think the American people are seeing that regardless of what BP ends up committing to pay or what they don't commit to pay, when they came before the Energy Committee and the executives were there and they were asked what are all the legitimate claims, they equivocated on a series of answers: Well, is this a legitimate claim? Is this a legitimate claim? Is this a legitimate claim? They equivocated on all of that. When the three different entities--BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, all of whom may be responsible parties--had the opportunity, they all did the finger-pointing at the other one. That does not give me a sense of security or a guarantee that this enormous consequence to our environment and to our economy is going to be taken care of by the words of those who both shift blame and equivocate on their responsibility. I think we have clearly learned there obviously is no such thing as a rig that is too safe to spill, and there should be no legal wiggle room for oil companies that devastate coastal businesses and communities now or in the future. This spill, if nothing else, tragedy that it is, should serve as a rallying cry for holding big oil responsible for the damage it has caused. That is our choice. That is our opportunity. I urge that is the fierce urgency of now, as we look at that live feed of that oil gushing every day for now well over a month. It is our fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of this country. It is our duty to the next generation of Americans in this country to make sure the company and companies that created this set of circumstances and these enormous damages are fully liable for it. That is the opportunity we have by virtue of this second-degree amendment. I hope my colleagues will embrace the opportunity and live up to those responsibilities. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Senator's question. The fact is, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, we have used the National Guard in an unprecedented way. They have been called for deployment abroad, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere in unprecedented numbers. The stress we have created on the force by virtue of these two continuing engagements, as well as any other national emergency that might occur, is incredibly challenging. It is real challenging to those forces. My view is the Senator is right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the question and view of the Senator from Illinois. Yes, that is why I said I respect the previous positions Senator McCain had. He understood that you cannot solve this problem by throwing more money, more troops at it. At the end of the day, that has not achieved all the goals, despite enormous increases. And yet there are still challenges. In view of the fact the President himself--something I personally don't support but nonetheless has gone ahead and made a deployment on his own, it seems to me we should see what works before we advance billions for efforts and directing troops by an amendment when those troops could be needed for a whole host of things. I have to be honest with you. If we are going to start directing troops, then I wish to see them directed to the gulf so, in fact, we can help out with the oilspill not getting into critical wetlands and estuaries. I think that is a national emergency.

Mr. MENENDEZ. The Senator from Illinois is correct. As a matter of fact, the same letter he read from General Jones, the National Security Adviser, and John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said: There is no modern precedent for Congress to direct the President to deploy troops in the manner sought by that amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. The Senator is correct. In addition, some of the funding they take is from already mandated programs, programs that are critical to citizens and communities and States, and they would, in essence, detract from those mandated programs for which there is a Federal obligation to move it in this direction, at the same time decreasing the job opportunities at a time in which we are trying to grow this economy, not contract it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. For all of these reasons, I am in strong opposition to these amendments. I certainly urge their defeat. We are going to send billions more after billions that have already been sent to accomplish the same negative result, and your own words speak to the very essence of how we get to a solution, which is to pursue a comprehensive nature to this reality. If you want to ensure a continuing set of circumstances in which law enforcement turns U.S. citizens into second-class citizens, then vote for the amendments. But otherwise, you should oppose them. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on some of the amendments before the Senate that I understand will be considered and coming up for some votes. To me, they are misguided efforts as it relates to how we ultimately deal with our immigration policy in this country; how we deal with the questions of national security, of our economy, of our well-being. I have joined in supporting and take a backseat to no one in our efforts to secure the borders of the United States. However, the militarizing of the border is something I clearly do not believe is in our collective interests. Now, Senators Cornyn, Kyl, and McCain seek to offer border enforcement amendments to the supplemental we are debating, but these amendments are, in my mind, merely an opportunity to grandstand instead of solving the country's real immigration problems. These amendments would deplete critical stimulus funds that are greatly needed to support a recovering economy. It is an economy that recovers that ultimately generates the revenues to fund some of the very initiatives we would like to see. It is important to realize that many of the remaining stimulus funds--much of the funding is for mandatory programs. These are programs we must pay for under current law, such as unemployment insurance, food stamps, FMAP, to mention a few. Furthermore, there seems to be a sense of amnesia here. We have already poured billions of dollars into border enforcement this year, more than under the last Republican-controlled Congress. Over the last 3 years alone, the Democratic Congress has increased U.S. Customs and Border Protection funding by over 23 percent, from $8 billion to about $10 billion. We have added an extra $1 billion for border infrastructure and security activities as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Funding for border security in the last 10 years has increased substantially, with a 127-percent increase for Customs and Border Patrol inspections, a 160-percent increase for border control, and a monstrous 1,737-percent increase for construction and technology purposes--1,737 percent for construction and technology purposes. These investments have fully funded over 20,000 Border Patrol agents--an increase of 6,000 agents or more than 50 percent since 2006. This increase was at a total cost of over $3.5 billion this year. We have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents in a 5-year period, and the Border Patrol is better staffed and funded than at any time in its 85-year history. We completed the southwest border fence, with over 645 miles now under effective control compared to 241 miles in fiscal year 2005. Over the last 3 years, the Democratic-controlled Congress has invested $1.2 billion to complete the fence--20 percent more than the Republican Congress provided for that effort. We have financed advanced new border control technologies including cameras, radars, sensors, and command and control systems to help the Border Patrol continuously monitor the border. Democrats in Congress provided $421 million--more than four times what the Republican Congress provided--for these tools and required a high standard of oversight and accountability to ensure these advanced technologies would prove to be robust, reliable, and true force multipliers. We have funded three new Predator-B unmanned aerial vehicles for long-duration aerial surveillance of the areas between official ports of entry. Customs and Border Patrol air and marine division manages the largest law enforcement air force in the world with 284 aircraft, including six Predator aircraft patrolling the Nation's land and sea borders to stop terrorists and drug smugglers before they enter the United States. Since 2008, a Democratic-controlled Congress has provided $323 million--more than five times the amount previously provided by Republicans--for the Unique Identity Initiative under the US-VISIT Program. Democrats have also doubled funding--from $15 million in 2008 to $31 million in 2010--for the US-VISIT effort to review biographic, travel, and biometric information of foreign visitors to the United States. The Border Patrol is not the only Federal agency at the border. In Arizona alone, there are more than 6,000 Federal law enforcement agents--the majority employed by the Border Patrol--representing nearly 10 agents for every mile of international line between Arizona and Sonora, Mexico. The legions of Border Patrol agents are supported by thousands of Federal agents from a wide spectrum of agencies, including several thousand Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents; 1,180 DEA agents; 1,212 air and marine officers; 6,235 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents; 1,419 canine enforcement teams; 280 horse patrols; 208 narcotics detection teams; 32 currency detection teams; 212 narcotics- human smuggling detection teams; and 4 DEA mobile enforcement teams. The number of Border Patrol agents has increased so rapidly there aren't even enough supervisors to effectively train new agents. The GAO found that the agency's ratio of agents to supervisors went from the normal 5 to 1 to 11 to 1. In addition to these border enforcement increases, the democratically controlled Congress has increased ICE's budget 37 percent since 2007, the last year of a Republican majority in the Congress, and restructured the agency's budget to target aliens with dangerous criminal convictions and those who pose the greatest threat to America and Americans. In the last 10 years, funding for immigration, customs, detention, and removal has increased by 170 percent. Over the last 16 months, the administration's comprehensive plan to secure the southwest border has resulted in record seizures of illegal weapons and bulk cash transiting from the United States to Mexico, significant seizures of illegal drugs heading into the United States, lower violent crime rates in southwest border States, and reduced illegal immigration. Republicans now say we must pour more money into border security before we can address this issue comprehensively--more than everything I have already stated--but that has not always been their position. Let me read you a quote regarding border enforcement: Despite an increase in border patrol agents from 3,600 to 10,000, despite quintupling the border patrol budget, despite the employment of new technologies and tactics, all to enforce current immigration laws, illegal immigration drastically increased during the 1990s. While strengthening border security is an essential component of national security, it must also be accompanied by immigration reforms. As long as there are jobs available in this country for people who live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, these people will risk their lives to cross our borders, no matter how formidable the barriers, and most will be successful. I ask you, who made the statement against border security policies and in favor of comprehensive immigration reform? It was our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, on March 30, 2006. Here is another quote: For those who say let's just enforce our laws, I remind them that some of our laws are unenforceable. My conservative friends are the first ones to point out that the 1986 law is not an effective law. It is unenforceable. And until we change it, we are not going to be able to just enforce the laws. That was our colleague from Arizona, John Kyl, in 2007. I could go on and on about the comments made in the past. I agree in those respects with Senator McCain's and Senator Kyl's past statements that we certainly need comprehensive immigration reform to achieve the goal of reestablishing the rule of law and fixing our broken immigration system. Even former Bush administration Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge wrote in a 2006 op-ed that gaining ``operational control of the borders is impossible, unless our efforts are coupled with a robust temporary guest worker program and a means to entice those now working illegally out of the shadows into some type of legal status.'' Now, ``border security first'' has been the strategy used by the Congress and the Federal Government for the past 17 years. My understanding of the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, do more of it, and get the same result. That is a recipe for failure. Several of my colleagues and I have put forward an immigration framework as an invitation to our Republican colleagues to join us in something that is critical to the national security of the United States, critical to the economy of the United States, and critical so that American citizens and legal permanent residents do not face what they are facing. I have over 200 cases of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents of the United States--people who obey the law, follow the rules and the process, are here legally--who have been unlawfully detained in violation of their constitutional rights. In some cases, American citizens have been detained for months before their citizenship was established. Who among us in this Chamber is willing to accept second-class citizenship simply because of the happenstance of who they are, what they look like, what their accent may be, or the happenstance of where they happen to reside? But that has happened to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. Then we have laws that exacerbate those possibilities of expanding. I do not accept that any citizen of the United States is a second-class citizen of this country. Our national security, our framework, incorporates many of our Republican colleagues' ideas. It makes for an even more robust border enforcement process, in a way that deals with national security. The framework includes increases in Border Patrol and technology. At the same time, we can never have national security if we don't know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who might be here to do it damage. Unless we bring millions of people out of the darkness into the light and find out why they are here, what is their purpose, and do a criminal background check on them and make them law-abiding insofar as they will be able to contribute to the national good, pay taxes, go through the background check, and learn English, and after a long set of years have an opportunity to adjust their status in this country, millions will be in the shadows, and we have no idea if they are here to pursue the American dream or to do it harm. By having people come forth as the law, as we suggest, becomes reality and being able to register in a temporary status, we bring people out of the darkness into the light. We create an opportunity to do criminal background checks to make sure they have been in other respects law-abiding and that they are here to pursue the dreams that millions of immigrants who came to this country and contributed to the vitality of this Nation have enormously. But we will never know who is here to pursue that dream versus who is here to do it harm if they stay in the shadows. That is not in the interest of the national security of the United States. The reaction to the Arizona law illustrates that Latinos, Asians, and others do not believe they are second-class citizens in this country. I have nothing in my possession that presents that I am a U.S. citizen, even though I was born in the great city of New York. I have nothing that ultimately says that I am such. I don't carry my birth certificate or my passport around with me. In essence, I was born here, but if I want to travel to another State that says that simple lawful contact with a citizen--well, lawful contact with a citizen is a police officer on foot patrol who comes up to a group of citizens; lawful contact with a citizen is a patrol car that comes up to a group of day laborers on a corner; lawful contact is anywhere a police officer might well be in contact with any citizen. Now the idea that, well, this person gives me reason to suspect that somehow they are here in an undocumented fashion--and that process, even before the Arizona law, has led to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents being unlawfully detained in the United States. I guess until it happens to one of us, we don't quite feel the same way. But I believe any citizen in this country is not a second-class citizen. I am also worried when one group of people in our country becomes a suspect class--when one group of people is blamed for all the ills of the Nation. History teaches us when that happens, it has a very sad ending. It has a very sad and dangerous ending. We cannot let that happen in the United States of America. It is not who we are as a people. It is not who we are as a nation. I believe there is much that hopefully will be in common. We believe jointly that the national security of the United States is about controlling and protecting our borders, but how we do it is going to be very important. It is about the national economy of this country because, I just have to be honest with you, we have to be honest with what elements of our economy--even in this challenging economy, elements of our economy that are done by immigrant workers. If you had breakfast this morning and you had fruit, it was probably picked by the bent back of an immigrant worker. If you had chicken for dinner last night, it was probably plucked by the cut-up hands of an immigrant worker. If you slept in one of the hotels or motels of the byways of our cities, it was probably cleaned by the hands of an immigrant worker. If you have a loved one who is infirm, probably their daily needs are being taken care of by the steady hand and warm heart of an immigrant worker. I could go on and on. I believe this is also about our national economy. For so long as we permit a subclass to be exploited in an economy it hurts the wages of all others in an economy, and only bringing them out of the darkness and into the light will create a better circumstance in which we will not have such exploitation. I do this all by way of background that says if the amendments that are now going to be proceeded on--the Cornyn amendment and the Kyl second degree--pour billions into perpetuating an inadequate strategy that would not solve the problem, dumping $1.9 billion in additional personnel, technology, and resources along the border, when in fact we have a set of circumstances where that has shown itself time and time again not to have been the successful strategy. It is interesting that some of the State and local grant programs for border security have led to a misuse of funds and costly litigation. The Arizona Daily Star investigation found that funding for State and local grant programs was used to compensate officer time for issuing traffic citations, crowd control at parades and soccer games, attending a funeral, monitoring gun shows, and responding to calls about loud music. That isn't about border enforcement. The McCain amendment appropriates $250 million, offset with Recovery Act funds. Deployments would be required to start within 72 hours of passage and last until the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security certify they have operational control of the border. This amendment would place a significant burden on National Guard troops who are already overburdened and interfere with the President's authority to deploy troops. We are already using the National Guard in unprecedented ways in deployments abroad. The President's authority is affected. I know the administration strongly opposes it. General Jones, the National Security Adviser; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism said in an attached letter to Senator Levin: There is no modern precedent for Congress to direct the President to deploy troops in the manner sought by the amendment. It represents an unwarranted interference with the Commander-in-Chief's responsibilities to direct the employment of our Armed Forces. It would also interfere with the administration's comprehensive border security plan.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I not only acknowledge that those statements have been made, but I know the Senator and others, including myself, have raised the fact that BP's credibility in this respect is not credible. In fact, scientists have gone into the gulf and made the determination that at the rate that spill is taking place, it is far beyond what BP told us. As a matter of fact, we have an interest in this regard not only, of course, because of the environmental consequences but also because of the royalties we should be claiming on all of that oil that is being let out. So the Senator is correct. This is one of the issues we are facing.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Florida for a question.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I will state the same objection. I have not seen the amendment, and while I appreciate that the bill managers may have agreed to it, the reality is, as I understand it, any Member of the Senate can rise to object. I hope not to be compelled to object. But at this point, I will object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, first, I am disappointed because I appreciate what the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma said, but the reality is, the administration has been thoughtful. They have thought about it. Today they announced, as well as was verified by the Assistant Attorney General at a hearing, that it is their view that in fact there should be an unlimited cap. So they have not equivocated about an amount. They have now said it should be an unlimited cap; unlimited, just as BP has suggested that they are going to accept unlimited responsibility for the liability they have created as a result of the spill in the gulf. I have difficulties understanding, when we begin to talk about sizes--that if you are smaller but conduct yourself with the same potential risky consequences that end up polluting the gulf or anyplace else as it is being polluted right now--that simply because you are smaller but you take the same risks that you should have less liability, which means that then all of us as taxpayers--and I know a lot of people here do not want to see the Federal Government more involved. They want to see the Federal Government less involved until they need the Federal Government and then they come clamoring to this Chamber for money. It seems to me if these companies--and the Senator only mentioned the top five, but there are more that have good profits, but certainly the top five. If they made $25 billion in 3 months, why in God's name should I give them any of the taxpayers' money when they mess up, when they pollute? What Representative of what State is going to come here and say give us money because, by the way, we were harmed in this way or that way or the other when in fact they are unwilling to hold the oil companies responsible--with record profits? It is not acceptable. If we say if you are not one of the big 5 but we are worried about the next 10--they may be smaller but some of these entities that get referred to as independents--you know, there is one that actually owns a 25-percent stake in the well that is spilling in the gulf. They are valued at $40 billion. I don't think for the average American that is a mom-or-pop. The reality is, regardless of the size, the fundamental public policy question, if you take an activity that is risky, shouldn't you be responsible for the consequences of your risky activity or do we shift the responsibility to the general public and the taxpayer? It is like what we just went through in the Wall Street debate. So when they hit it big on the oil well and everything goes well, they keep the money. But when something goes wrong, the rest of us pay for the consequences. I do not think the American taxpayers want to see that. That is not what they have in mind as being responsive to their interests. So I know my colleague from New Jersey wanted to enter into a colloquy with me. I would be happy to yield to him now.