Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. The answer, in my view, is clearly yes. I appreciate that Senator Warner says this is drafted only for the State of Virginia. It is drafted only for the State of Virginia so far as that State will make a determination as to whether to exempt itself from the moratorium. But the consequences of that action clearly have, in my mind, consequences to other States that will be absolutely neutered in their ability to do anything more than to vociferously object but without consequence. So, therefore, a drilling takes place. Even the Senator recognizes by virtue of having in his amendment a provision where some of the royalties go to the State of Virginia, some go to a fund for the purposes of damages done by a spill. So, therefore, there is a recognition of the possibility of damage, and who is that damage to? To other States. I don't want to be in a position of having to draw on a fund because my State has been damaged. I wish to avoid the damage in the first instance, and that clearly cannot be done under the amendment as offered. That is why my second-degree amendment is so critical to States for them to have a say as well about their well-being.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I think the latest copy of the amendment that was filed, the final copy that was filed by Senator Warner only says the State of Virginia, if I am not mistaken, on page 2 at line 21. But I do believe, however, that the consequence of opening the Outer Continental Shelf, even for one State, has a ripple effect to all the States the Senator mentioned.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Senator's question. The reality is that for a quarter of a century, we have had a moratorium exactly because we have come to understand that the values that are generated by our coastal regions, in economic terms, in terms of the environment, in terms of marine and aquatic life, in terms of all the ripple effect that means, has a greater value than any of the deposits that might exist there. The Senator from California is absolutely right as well, if all we are going to do is go back to what this bill seeks to undo, which is our dependency on oil, whether that oil is foreign or that oil is domestic, at the end of the day, it is a nonrenewable source, it is a highly polluting source, and it has consequences to the ozone. Yes, the Senator is absolutely right. That is why I oppose it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. In a moment, I will be happy to. I strongly oppose lifting these protections because not only is there concern for my home State of New Jersey, which has enormous consequences, but at the same time, the incredible domino effect it can have as it relates to the overall moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf. Anyone who believes it can just be done for Virginia and that others will not pursue it and they have at least under this amendment's procedures very little to say--they can raise a clamor, but they have no real ability to do anything. My amendment simply says, if we are going to let this happen, those States within 100 miles from where the drilling should take place should have some significant say, the ability to have a significant say about their future as well, their economies as well, and the right to be good stewards of the land for future generations of their States and of this Nation as well. I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from California.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate and respect the desire of the Senator from Virginia to be an advocate for his State for the pursuit of whatever natural resources it may have. However, the ocean is not refined to defined blocks that can be confined in terms of consequences. We share that Atlantic Ocean along many States. So the decision of one State, while it may be seen to be sovereign to it, actually has a ripple effect to other States, and the consequences can be very significant. Now, the Warner amendment, far from helping end our dependence on oil, is seeking to tap another vein to feed our oil and our fossil fuel addiction. I would say to all of my colleagues in this body, all States and Members of those States who reside within the Outer Continental Shelf should be paying a lot of attention to this amendment because the undoing of the moratorium for one State can create a domino effect that will undo the whole basis of the moratorium throughout both the east and west coasts. That moratorium has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason. It has existed for a quarter of a century, and for good reason because it is about preserving the very essence of other natural resources as well--the shorelines of those States which often generate billions of dollars in economic activity-- and also about being good stewards of the land for future generations of Americans. Now, I appreciate that the Senator from Virginia has in his amendment a percentage of the proceeds, some which will go to the Commonwealth of Virginia, some which will go to a fund to potentially mitigate damages, but that recognizes, in fact, that damage is possible to other States. I don't want to be in a position of New Jersey having to mitigate damages caused to its coastal shoreline which is critical in estuary capacity, critical in terms of the economy of our State, critical to the fishing industry of our State, critical to the tourism of our State, and critical to the State of New Jersey. I would replicate that through other States throughout the Atlantic seaboard as well as on the Pacific seaboard. So having a fund that says to other States: Well, if there is damage, we will work to mitigate it, is not very consoling. And to think that one would say: We will only drill for gas, don't worry about it, it is not about oil, we are only going to drill for gas, but if while we are drilling for gas we happen to hit oil, to believe that, oh, we are going to stop and plug it up and we are not going to pursue oil exploration I think is rather ludicrous. The Clean Energy Act of 2007 which we are debating is supposed to be--supposed to be--about transforming our economy from one based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable energy; from an economy which threatens our planet to one which is sustainable; from energy sources which are old and inefficient to ones which conserve our resources and use them efficiently. Instead, this amendment would promote oil and natural gas drilling in the mid-Atlantic. To me, that is an unacceptable threat to New Jersey's coastline. The area the Senator from Virginia is interested in opening to drilling is about 75 miles from Cape May, NJ--more than close enough for spills to pollute New Jersey's beaches. Furthermore, any drilling in the mid-Atlantic puts us on a slippery slope toward a day when oil rigs are the norm along the entire eastern coast. One of the greatest jewels of New Jersey is without a doubt our shore. Millions of people visit the Jersey shore every year, bringing an estimated $20 billion into the State's economy--$20 billion into the State's economy--and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. We simply cannot afford to put our shoreline at this type of risk. Mitigation doesn't help us. We had a time in New Jersey history where oil slicks, where garbage came up on New Jersey's beaches and shores, and the consequences were enormous for the State's economy, for the vitality of the communities that are along the shoreline, consequences in employment. We worked very hard at cleaning up through the Clean Water Act and other initiatives to make sure the shoreline was preserved for future generations of New Jerseyans and, for that fact, the entire Outer Continental Shelf for the future generations of Americans who call that part of our country home. Now, the proponents of this amendment say that other States on the east coast will have the opportunity to provide input into any drilling decision, but to be very honest, the Secretary of the Interior will have the ability just to ignore their views and approve a recommendation for drilling anyway. Actually, this administration has already, through the mineral-mines management part of the Interior Department, been promoting a plan that actually seeks to create more drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. It is an advocate of that regardless of any potential consequences to natural resources. So I have no faith in a Secretary of Interior directed by an administration that promotes drilling, and all he has to do is say: OK, I heard you, New Jersey; thank you, but no thanks. That doesn't do anything to safeguard the sovereignty of any State that may be affected by the decisions of another State as it relates to the Outer Continental Shelf. This would leave States well within the scope of environmental impacts helpless--helpless--to stop most leases and, more importantly, for the circumstance at hand in my home State of New Jersey, we could not object to any drilling off the coast of Virginia--object in a way that would ultimately have a consequence--even though this drilling could seriously endanger our coast. Now, the proponents of this measure also claim drilling for natural gas will not have any negative environmental impact on our shores. With all due respect, that assertion is just simply not rooted in science, and it couldn't be more wrong. Massive amounts of waste muds and drill cuttings are generated by drilling operations. Most of this waste is dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Drilling muds often contain toxic metals, including mercury, lead, and cadmium. Mercury in particular has been found in very high concentrations around rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and has raised significant concerns about contamination of fish. In our own State of New Jersey, one of the challenges--and I know Virginia has very significant port activity as part of its economic generation--where there are ports, in the nature of the activity that takes place in those ports, there is often contamination of various sites. We had that reality as we dealt with the Port of Elizabeth in Newark and the Port of Newark in New Jersey, the megaport of the east coast. So the reality is that drilling muds often contain toxic metals, and mercury in particular is one of those. A second major polluting discharge is called produced water. Produced water typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead, naphthalene, zinc, toluene, and can contain varying amounts of radioactive pollutants. All major field research programs investigating produced-water discharges have detected petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic metals, and radium in the water column down-current from the discharge. Again, these pollutants have a devastating effect on fish populations that are already under considerable stress, particularly along the eastern seaboard, and those industries are very important, not only to the economies and the jobs they create and the economies of those States but to the consumers of those States who seek to have fish as part of their daily diet. Now, even if offshore areas are leased for gas exploration, there is always the possibility that oil could also be found, and if oil is found, the exploration company will surely drill for it since there has never been an instance where a lease prohibits--prohibits--an oil company from developing oil if oil is found in a ``gas-prone region.'' Without such a restriction included in the lease, there would be no assurances that oil, in fact, would not be developed, raising the possibility of an oil spill. According to the Department of the Interior, 3 million gallons of oil spilled from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. Oil is extremely toxic to a wide variety of marine species. Even if oil is not found, liquid natural gas condensates and can also spill. These gas condensates are highly toxic to virtually all forms of marine life. Those are just some of the environmental concerns. But beyond these environmental impacts, the Department of Defense has specifically expressed grave concerns about drilling off the coast of Virginia. In a letter drafted on April 10, 2006, to the Minerals Management Service, the Department of Defense made it clear that drilling off the coast of Virginia would interfere with the Department of Defense training and testing exercises. The letter states in part that proposed drilling would compromise the Virginia Cape's operations area. The Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps all use the Virginia Cape's operation area for critical training that could not be accomplished elsewhere. The letter makes clear that any structures built in the water where these types of activities are conducted would severely restrict military activities to test missile systems or have amphibious or air training missions. The letter by the Department of Defense concludes by saying: [b]ecause hazards in this area to operating crews and oil company equipment and structures would be so great, the department opposed oil and gas development activity in this Outer Continental Shelf planning location. The moratorium this amendment would begin to undo began in 1981, and it has continued ever since then. Congress has imposed restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf leasing in sensitive areas off the Nation's coasts. These moratoria now protect the east and west coasts of the United States and a small portion of the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida. The moratoria reflects a clearly established bipartisan consensus on the appropriateness of OCS activities in sensitive areas of the country, and they have been endorsed by an array of elected officials from all levels of Government and diverse political persuasions.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the Warner amendment No. 1578, and I ask that it be called up.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 234, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 111; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio amendment which would require that 15 percent of the Nation's electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020. I have heard from my office some of the debate which has taken place today. I was surprised that some of my colleagues have characterized this amendment as some sort of Federal giveaway for the wind industry. The renewable portfolio standard will not just benefit the wind industry, of course, but it will also benefit the production of energy from solar, biomass, electricity from biogas, small hydro, geothermal, and ocean and tidal energy projects as well. This diverse set of energy sources will help protect us from the fuel price increases, such as those we have seen in natural gas recently. In turn, this reduction in demand for natural gas might even cause natural gas prices to fall, causing electricity prices to also fall. Another economic benefit of the renewable portfolio standard is that it would help these emerging technologies flourish in the United States. Right now there are renewable energy firms in Europe that are outpacing their U.S.-based competitors. But by driving up demand for renewable energy domestically, we will help develop these industries at home, creating jobs and allowing us to develop energy as a domestic economic engine. At the same time we are meeting our energy challenges, at the same time that we are meeting the economic imperative of our energy challenges, at the same time that we undermine foreign countries--for which we are giving our dollars abroad in terms of our addiction to those energy sources--we can also fuel a domestic economic engine by pursuing these sources. Of course, the most dramatic effect of the amendment will be its positive impact environmentally. According to the Energy Information Administration, it will reduce carbon emissions by 222 million tons per year by the year 2030, and other reports project reductions of as much as 10 percent per year from the electricity sector. This would be the equivalent of removing 71 million cars from the road. Think about it-- removing 71 million cars from the road. I also want to point out what this amendment will do for the solar energy industry. This amendment will provide triple renewable energy credits to solar energy. As a result, it has been estimated that this will result in a 500-percent increase in solar energy production. Solar needs to be a significant part of America's energy future. When you have a way to generate energy that produces no carbon emissions, has no moving parts, makes no noise, and results in no adverse wildlife impacts, that is something we as a nation need to be pursuing. My home State of New Jersey realized this a few years ago and set about enacting policies designed to spur the growth of its solar market. The results have been extremely successful. New Jersey has the second largest solar market in the entire Nation, from 6 installations to nearly 2,000 in just 5 years, over 7 megawatts of installed capacity, and tens of millions of kilowatt-hours produced each year. New Jersey, of course, is blessed with many things, but it is not blessed with more Sun than most of the rest of the Nation. The State simply recognized that by being visionary we could not only start generating large amounts of pollution-free energy in our own State, but we could also provide a kick-start to a whole new industry. That industry, of course, generates not only great energy, truly clean energy, truly renewable energy, but at the same time creates a very significant economic positive consequence as well. What New Jersey has done we must do as a nation. The renewable portfolio standard amendment, along with the extension of solar tax credits, will help expand the use of solar energy, and, most importantly, lower the cost. I also want to urge my colleagues to oppose the Domenici amendment-- the amendment that Senator Domenici has offered to Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard amendment. That amendment would stall the development of renewable energy and thereby undercut the entire point of this bill. There are some who don't want to challenge the industry. There are those who don't want to bring us to a higher standard. For them, the Domenici amendment to Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard is their out. That is their out. For those Members of the Senate who don't want to bring us to a higher challenge, who don't want to challenge the industry, who, in essence, are happy to support the status quo, the Domenici amendment is their solution. The Domenici amendment, however, has numerous problems. To begin with, the substitute would allow States to opt out of the standard for just about any reason--just about any reason. If a State can opt out, the renewable industries will be hesitant to adequately invest in these projects and, therefore, we won't move forward. The substitute will also weaken renewable requirements by including nonrenewables, such as nuclear power. This would divert money from renewables to an already well-subsidized energy source. The Domenici substitute would also allow the Department of Energy to designate ``other clean energy sources'' to qualify for clean energy credits without any restrictions on the Secretary--without any restrictions on the Secretary. Who knows what would be included under such a definition. This would leave discretion for the Secretary to include ``clean coal'' or any other source of energy one could put the word ``clean'' in front of. In addition, the Republican substitute would include energy inefficiency projects and demand-response programs. The more things we add to the standard, the less meaningful the standard becomes. We cannot pit efficiency against renewables. We need both efficiency and renewables to flourish in partnership and not compete for investment dollars. Once again, I praise Senator Bingaman, the chair of the Energy Committee, on which I have the privilege of sitting, for his amendment, for his vision, for bringing us and challenging us to a higher standard, one that the Nation clearly needs. It will be beneficial for our environment, it will boost our domestic economy, and it will reinforce the actions taken by 23 States that have already shown leadership by instituting renewable portfolio standards. If the States have already shown leadership in this regard, the Nation and the Senate need to show the same leadership. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of that important amendment and against efforts to weaken this important provision. Those are, I hope, words that Members of the Senate will take to heart.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following calendar items be indefinitely postponed: Calendar No. 61, S. Con. Res. 10; Calendar No. 87, S. 261; Calendar No. 100, S. 624; and Calendar No. 130, H. Con. Res. 118.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as a member of the Energy Committee, I know a tremendous amount of work has been put into making this a strong energy package that will help us achieve energy self-reliance, lower gas prices, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Under Democratic leadership, we are headed into a new cleaner, greener, and more affordable energy future, one where we do not seek to treat our addiction to oil by drilling for yet more oil in the Arctic or off the east coast. This bill represents a bold step forward toward an economy that is based upon energy efficiency and renewable rather than fossil fuels. I do believe, however, that there are a few key amendments that will make this good bill even better. The most important of these is Chairman Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard amendment, requiring that 15 percent of the Nation's electricity be produced from renewable sources by 2020. This forward-thinking provision is a declaration that our country is ready to be a renewable energy leader. I often hear in the Halls of Congress that energy is a regional issue. If you represent a cold State, you probably support one set of policies; if your State grows corn or drills for oil, you support other policies. I understand the passionate advocacy one must undertake on behalf of one's home State. But energy can no longer be viewed as a parochial issue that only affects local interests. We in the Senate have a responsibility to ensure that our local interests do not jeopardize the Nation's interests as a whole, nor can we stand in the way of this great Nation becoming a global leader on what has become a global issue. For most of the past two centuries, this country has been blessed with an abundant supply of domestic energy, bountiful enough to provide us with all of the heat and power we have needed. But for the last 40 years we have increasingly had to look abroad to secure supplies of oil. This quest to feed our seemingly insatiable appetite for oil has unquestionably shaped our foreign policy. We pay the price for our oil habit when a corrupt regime such as Iran feels emboldened to threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons, and do so with impunity because their access to oil makes it possible for them to buy influence around the globe. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has pointed out, it is not a coincidence that when oil was $20 a barrel, both Russia and Iran launched internal reform programs to increase democratic participation. As the price of oil has soared past $70 a barrel, both of those countries have reversed course and used their burgeoning treasuries to stifle dissent and roll back democratic progress. The same story can be told across the world, from the corrupt royal governments and pseudo-theocracies of the Middle East, to the iron- fisted dictators who hold sway in the former Soviet countries in Central Asia, to the petro-populism of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many of the countries that sit on the largest reserves of oil are the same countries that are now resisting reform and creating global instability. If the story of the 20th century was of a tidal wave of democracy sweeping across the globe, the emerging story of the 21st century is of that wave being swallowed underneath a floor of crude. As long as there are tyrants who have the lucky fortune to sit on top of massive oil reserves and prop up their regimes through huge petroleum profits, there will be no reform. Finding alternatives to oil is a key to democratic, economic, and social reform in much of the world. In response to this energy security challenge, some of my friends and colleagues will undoubtedly advocate Federal support for efforts to support a liquid fuel from coal. They point out that we have an abundant supply of coal, that we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal. This line of thought ignores the threat of global warming. The lifecycle emissions of liquid fuel made from coal are over twice that of gasoline. If we substitute oil for coal, a fuel that releases even more greenhouse gasses than oil, we are setting our planet up for disaster. Global warming is happening. It is caused by human activities. It is threatening our very existence. Recently, the New Jersey Research and Policy Center catalogued the impacts of global warming in my State over the next century. If we do not act quickly and decisively, Cape May Beach will erode between 160 to 500 feet inland. The Holland Tunnel will be forced to close due to repeated floods. Heat-related deaths in our cities will rise fivefold, and flooding along the Delaware River will cause millions of dollars in property damage. Similar devastating impacts will be seen all over the world. Floods will require the evacuation of millions in India and Bangladesh. East Asia will experience increased water shortages. Central Africa will see ever worsening drought conditions. Warmer ocean surface temperatures will lead to stronger hurricanes and cyclones. In order to address our energy challenges, we must keep these worldwide impacts in mind, but that does not mean we should not act locally to achieve our national goals. Just this past weekend, the Washington Post ran an article with the headline, ``Cities Take Lead on Environment As Debate Drags at Federal Level.'' The article detailed the actions that mayors have taken to fill the void left by the President's lack of leadership on climate change. Hundreds of mayors have created energy efficiency projects, promoted renewable energy, and vowed to meet the greenhouse gas reductions laid out in the Kyoto Protocol. To foster this local spirit in our cities to tackle climate change, I, along with Senator Sanders, have included a provision in this bill to create an energy and environmental block grant program. This program will allow cities and counties to get Federal grants to make their buildings more efficient, create new renewable energy projects, and continue their leadership in reducing U.S. carbon emissions. Mr. President, not only does the Clean Energy Act of 2007 lower greenhouse gas emissions and help us achieve energy self-reliance, but the bill also promises to reduce prices at the pump. First, the bill creates real competition for oil by increasing the production of renewable biofuels from 8.5 billion gallons per year in 2008 to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. Second, the bill lowers the demand for oil by requiring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to achieve a nationwide fleet fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passenger cars and light trucks. Third, the bill expands the Federal research into plug-in hybrid technology so that electricity can compete against liquid fuels as a power source for our vehicles. Finally, by cracking down on price gouging, the bill will ensure that oil companies cannot drive up costs without justification. For too long companies have been allowed to squeeze motorists for record profits without economic justification. This bill will make oil markets more transparent and institute tougher civil and criminal penalties for market manipulation. Taken together, these measures will create more supply, put downward pressure on demand, and create a more competitive marketplace. In turn, this will lead to drastically lower prices for all drivers. Mr. President, in closing, each of us comes to the Senate as a representative of our respective State, but our responsibilities do not end at our State's borders. As national leaders, we also have a responsibility to come together and address issues such as our global energy challenges. When it comes to these issues, whether it is national security or global climate change, we must rise above local interests and show national leadership. Then, and only then will we be able to effect change that benefits consumers, improves our energy security, and establishes the United States as a leader in the fight against global warming. I salute Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 14; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Durbin and Boxer as cosponsors of amendment No. 1392.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to offer strong support for Senator Dodd's amendment. I appreciate his leadership. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment in order to protect, again, the right of U.S. citizens. Before I get to the heart of what Senator Dodd seeks to do, I think it is time for a little review of where we are. I do not quite understand the process of a grand bargain in which there are alleged core elements of it that are inviolate, that cannot be touched, and then see amendment after amendment, such as confidentiality, that undermine the ability of the earned legalization process and others that ultimately seem to undermine the efforts of what I thought was that grand bargain, and yet don't seem to disrupt the apple cart. Yet when amendments such as the family reunification amendment I offered last night, the one that Senator Dodd is offering now, when they are raised: Oh, this will be a deal killer. This bill has become more punitive. It has become more onerous. It has become more impossible to achieve comprehensive immigration reform with every amendment that has passed. It has moved increasingly to the right in the process--on confidentiality, on Social Security, on earned-income tax credit, on incarceration, on visa revocation. The list goes on and on. Yet the grand bargainers don't seem to be affected by those. But when we try to keep families together, it is a calamity. Under current law, we recognize that parents are integral to the family structure and that they remain so even after their children have grown up. That has been our bedrock principle. As such, we correctly characterize parents as part of an immediate family which exempts them from the green card caps when applying for legal permanent residency. Unfortunately, under the grand bargain, it removes these individuals from the immediate relative category and sets an arbitrary, insufficient annual cap for green cards for the parents of United States citizens at 40,000. This is less than approximately a third of what last year was the number of visas for parents. It is less than half of the average number of visas issued in the past 5 years. By saying that parents are no longer members of the immediate family, I don't know how much more nuclear this family can continue to get under, particularly, Republican proposals. I always thought, listening to the debates on family values, that parents--the matriarch, the patriarch--were core elements of a family. They take existing law, the right of a United States citizen to claim their parents as part of an immediate family, and do away with that right and then supplant it with a limitation where we will give you a limited right to bring up to, collectively across the country, 40,000. By saying parents are no longer members of the immediate family and imposing unreasonable caps on the amount allowed to rejoin their U.S. citizen children, we are not only breaking up families, we are also effectively creating an entirely new backlog, even as we are trying to eliminate it with this legislation. This not only changes the spirit of our immigration policy, it also, once again, deemphasizes family structure, all without a single hearing on the issue of family or the value of family in our immigration system in either the 109th or the 110th Congress. This is not only about the rights of potential immigrants to enter the country. Rather, more importantly, this is about the rights of United States citizens who wish to live with and possibly care for their parents. As it stands under the legislation, the right of those American citizens to be reunited with their parents is virtually totally undermined. From a moral perspective, this undermines the family values I so often hear my colleagues talk about. I have heard the words of the late Pope John Paul who, clearly, from a moral perspective, said: Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for human dignity. I have heard it from President Bush when he said: Family values don't end at the Rio Grande. I guess when it comes to your parents, it does. But this agreement, similar to his proposal before, belies those words. Besides the moral imperative to keep families united, practically speaking, a breakdown of family structure often leads to a breakdown of social stability. People living with stable families are more likely to succeed, more likely to contribute to our Nation, more likely to strengthen our communities, less likely to be anything but an exemplary citizen. U.S. citizens want to be together with their family members. That is a natural human instinct. Yet here we are debating a provision of this legislation that undermines the very essence of family. This may be the next-to-last shot the Senate will have on standing up for some values for families. I will be offering another amendment on the new point system that will determine future immigration that, hopefully, will give more points to families as part of an overall new system, but ultimately the Dodd amendment and my amendment are likely to be the last opportunities for the Senate to put its votes where its values are. In this case, Senator Dodd makes an important point. For those who argue the chain migration issue--and I won't take out my chain again to remind people how we dehumanize family members, and we want to make them an abstract object so we can do away with it--the bottom line is, if a U.S. citizen is already claiming their parents, they have ended the chain, if we want to even refer to it in those terms, because that parent can only come here by virtue of a U.S. citizen claiming them. So it means it has to be their son and daughter. That basically ends the chain. This is not a chain migration issue. This is the core of family reunification, to have parents with their children, with their grandchildren who, by the way, under U.S. law, that U.S. citizen is responsible for them financially without question; otherwise, they don't qualify. They don't get their petition approved. It is not just a familial relationship that gives you the ability to claim as a U.S. citizen your parents, you must also show the financial ability to sustain them when you claim them; otherwise, even that right is extinguished. Here we have a foolproof situation--no chain migration, no public charge, and, ultimately, the opportunity to strengthen family. If the Senate cannot vote for the Dodd amendment, it simply does not believe in family values. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. One point. Remember how the Senator from Arizona said how all ``those people'' would be able to claim their families. The Menendez amendment has nothing to do with ``those people.'' The Menendez amendment has everything to do with U.S. citizens today who have a right under the law. So I hope we do not confuse both of those.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this. It is not more than a figleaf. It sounds great, 2027. The definition of ``reasonable expectation'' means absolutely nothing. The majority of the Senate voted to have some form, although it did not pass a budget point of order, to have some form of family reunification of U.S. citizens waiting to go be reunited with their family abroad. This does nothing. As a matter of fact, I have heard some of the children, family members of U.S. citizens, would have to wait 60 years. I have the State Department's report. None of them are more than 15 years. So the reality is, this is a figleaf for those who voted against the last one. It does absolutely nothing for family reunification. Let's keep at least a strong message we do want to reunify families as we move this bill ahead and vote against the Kyl amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I regret that we have started down this road. I move to waive section 201 of the concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, under the bill before us, U.S. citizens have less rights than an undocumented alien. The base bill says, you break the law, you get benefits up to January 1, 2007. You follow the rule of law, and your right as an American citizen to claim your family, for which you have already submitted a petition, is extinguished as of May 1, 2005. That is fundamentally wrong. How do we promote the rule of law when we say to a U.S. citizen, who has already applied for their family member waiting abroad, paid their fees, the government has collected them, their application has been approved, they followed the rules and obeyed the law, that they have an inferior right--an inferior right--to someone who did not follow the rules and crossed the border and who will ultimately receive a benefit superior to that of a U.S. citizen who is claiming their family? Why do we tell the family of the U.S. citizen to go to the back of the line behind people who violated the law? This is a vote about family values and family reunification. This is a vote about the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be equally charged.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. There are 80 of them. I will not read them all, but I want to give a sense of some who have moral authority behind them, as it relates to saying the Senate should adopt this amendment: The Church World Service; the Hebrew Immigrant Aids Society; the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; the Mennonite Central Committee; NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; the United Methodist Church; the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; and a whole host of organizations that are not religious in nature but clearly are advocates from all of the different sectors of society: For example, the Asian American Justice Center, the Asian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum, the Federation of Indo-American Seniors' Association of North America, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La Raza, the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, to mention a few. They all believe this Senate should be putting its votes where its values are, into the reunification of families. Finally, I know there will be an attempt to offer what we call a side-by-side, something to try to produce a figleaf for those who don't want to be seen as casting a vote against family reunification, a vote against snuffing out the rights of U.S. citizens. And that figleaf actually would do absolutely nothing. What it would do is guarantee the underlying bill. It would guarantee that a U.S. citizen who obeyed the law, followed the rules, did everything right, had their family member waiting, it would guarantee that their right would be snuffed out. It would guarantee that they would go to the back of the line, a line in which there are people who didn't follow the law, obey the rules, violated the law, and they will be in the back of the line with them. That amendment that is going to be offered clearly is a figleaf. It clearly is poorly constructed. It doesn't deal with the present realities of undermining that right of a U.S. citizen. It does nothing to preserve the right of those people who filed and who are now being snuffed out, being cut out in terms of the rights of those U.S. citizens because of the underlying bill. There is only one way to make this right. There is only one way to preserve family reunification. There is only one way to preserve the rights of these individuals who wore the uniform of the United States, who were good enough to wear the uniform, serve their country, and should have the right, which this bill snuffs out, to claim family members. There is only one way of making sure we don't turn this into an abstract object of chain migration, but that we understand the core values of family; that we understand a child who turns 21 is no less a child you love dearly and want to be with and who doesn't stop being part of your nuclear family because they magically turned 21 and are now nonnuclear. That is what is at stake in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez-Hagel, and others, amendment so that, in fact, we can still stay within the ``grand bargain'' but we can do what is right on family reunification. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me first commend my distinguished colleague from Colorado, who has been a voice of reason throughout this whole process. He has been a leader in trying to fashion a comprehensive immigration reform that is tough and smart. We need immigration reform that is tough as it relates to making sure our borders are protected. We have not only the right but the obligation to secure those borders and ensure that we have the wherewithal and the resources to make sure only those who cross, cross in a fashion that is safe, legal and orderly. At the same time, we need immigration reform that deals with our economy, fueling that economy, and finally finds justice for individuals who are often subject to human trafficking as well as exploitation. To my distinguished colleague from Colorado, I tip my hat for the tremendous effort he has made--and that brings us to where we are today. But I do want to go toward one of the pending amendments that will be voted on in the next block. It is the amendment I have offered with Senator Hagel and many others that goes to the core of one of the great issues the Senate will decide as it relates to this immigration bill, and that is whether families and the reunification of families is still a value to the Senate, is still a value in our family, whether families who come together and are strengthened by being together and helping each other and working with each other and nurturing each other and by so doing strengthening communities in the process are to be preserved, or are they, in terms of that battle, likely to be eliminated and struck, at least in our immigration context? I certainly hope when the Senate comes to vote, it will be voting in a way that is in line with the many speeches I have heard here, that I have heard in committee hearings, that I have heard in the other body, in the House of Representatives, where I served before coming here, about family values, family reunification is going to be preserved. It is time to put our votes where our values are. The Menendez-Hagel amendment offers that opportunity. Now, I do wish to wave my saber to the managers of the bill. I have heard some suggestion that there may be an attempt to offer a budget point of order which would require a higher vote total. I would simply say that there are also budget points of order on the underlying substitute. If in fact we are going to go down that slippery slope, then I would have the expectation myself to be offering budget points of order against the substitute. I think what is fair is to have a vote up or down on the amendment as it relates to the majority of the Senate's will. We will see what the majority will of the Senate is. But if we are going to move down that road, I would acknowledge that there is a budget point of order as it relates to the underlying substitute. So I hope we will not move to that type of tactic as we pursue the vote on this amendment. Now, it seems to me that under the existing bill, people who apply under the existing rule, under the law as it is today, who observe the law, who follow the rules, who said to their family member: No, no, do not come to the United States, wait your turn, follow the law, obey the rules, who filed an application as is a right of a U.S. citizen to file for a petition for their immediate relative, who paid their application fee, whose Government took their application fee, whose Government went ahead and made an analysis of that petition to see if it was a petition that was lawfully entitled to be approved, and who approved the very essence of that petition saying: Yes, this person, as a U.S. citizen, has the right--the right--to go ahead and apply for their family member, their brother or sister, their mother or father, their son or daughter--that is the universe that we are talking about--and says: Having approved my documentation and having approved of that petition, then you must wait your turn to the time that ultimately the priority date will invoke the possibility for you to come to the United States. That is the law. That is obeying the law. That is the rule of law. So you would think that in the legislation we are debating, those who have obeyed the law, followed the rules, and those who are U.S. citizens and have done the right thing, that we would not extinguish, eliminate their right for having done the right thing--for having done the right thing. But that is the very essence of what this bill does, unless we adopt our amendment. Under the bill, not only does, of course, the Senate bill propose a radical change to who and how you can come to this country, but it also cancels the applications that are pending-- pending--of many people who have been waiting patiently in line for family-based visas. If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, you filed after May of 2005, the date that arbitrarily was taken and put into the bill to bring in a relative to the family immigration system, your application is gone. It is voided. You are told: Get to the back of the line--the back of the line, by the way, which is the back of the line with people who violated the law, who violated the law. Imagine that. Whose right is being extinguished here? Not the family member who is waiting abroad. No. The right of the individual that is being extinguished is the U.S. citizen. That is where the right accrues. It is that person who has the right to make this claim under existing law. So we take away their right after they filed the petition, paid their fees, and told their family members to wait. They are told to get in the back of the line. The back of the line is after those individuals who did not follow the law and obey the rules. It boggles the mind. Under the Senate bill, employment-based immigrants are allowed to continue their applications as long as they are pending after the date of enactment. Employment-based verification. What about those families who have done everything right? It is only fair, in my mind, that family-based immigrants be given the same treatment. The Menendez-Hagel amendment goes a long way to restoring fairness to this situation by doing what? We simply take the cutoff date that is in the bill, May 2005, and we say: Do not treat American citizens any worse than you are going to treat those who came into the country in an undocumented fashion. You are going to give them a benefit, January 1, 2007. They had to be here by January 1, 2007. Well, then, let those who followed the law, obeyed the rules, paid their fees, told their families to wait, they have the same benefit: January 1, 2007. It is not outside the ``grand bargain.'' It is within the same context. You want to clear out a backlog? Fine, clear out a backlog but be fair in the process. Do not extinguish the rights of U.S. citizens. It is important to understand, as we talk about this, the stringent requirements that exist under the law today governing family sponsorship for immigration. They would continue to apply in these cases. Any U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident wishing to sponsor a family member, as part of the approval of that petition, must demonstrate that he or she earns at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty level and must sign a legally enforceable ``affidavit of support,'' pledging to ensure his or her relative will not become a public charge. On top of that, based upon the welfare reform legislation that was passed several years ago, legal immigrants are barred, barred from accessing most Federal means-tested public benefits for the first 5 years in the United States and are thereafter subject to further limitations until they have worked 40 quarters in this country, which is the equivalent of 10 years--10 years. Five years first, in terms of being barred from any public benefit because you came in on the affidavit of a family member who said: I am going to be responsible for this individual, and then 10 years after, in terms of being subject to further limitations of their necessity to have worked 40 quarters, 10 years. Now, I have heard a lot about the rule of law. I am for the rule of law. But how does the rule of law get promoted, how does the rule of law get promoted when we say to a U.S. citizen who has applied for their family member waiting abroad, waiting their time, following the rules, obeying the rule of law, that, in fact, they have an inferior right to someone who did not follow the rules, who did not obey the law, and who ultimately will receive a benefit superior, superior to that U.S. citizen who is claiming their family member and waiting under the law and pursuing the law? In my mind, it sends out totally the wrong message. The message should have been: No, no. Come across. Come however you can. Then, by the way, you know we are going to give you a benefit. Do not stay out there waiting. Yes, it breaks our heart that we are not together. Yes, you are going to have to wait a period of time. But you know that is the law. We are going to do this right. Oh, no. Instead of honoring and rewarding that and sending a message that when you observe the law there is a benefit, you know, we do the opposite. We do the opposite under this bill. Our amendment very simply says: A U.S. citizen claiming their family member, waiting under the legal process, waiting to proceed, that their right should not be snuffed out like that, under this bill, in May of 2005, when those who have crossed the borders of our country through a process that is unchecked, undocumented, get a benefit--January of 2007. Because here is the message we send under this bill: Break the law, you get a benefit--January of 2007. Follow the law, follow the rule of law, obey it, your right is snuffed out in May of 2005. So I think if we want to send a message about the rule of law, what we want to do is to ensure we put on an equal footing the rights of a U.S. citizen claiming their family member, obeying the law, to give them the same opportunity that those who have not. That is what our amendment is all about. Now, as we approach moving toward a vote on this amendment, I wish to remind our colleagues about whose rights they are snuffing out. Rights of individuals good enough to wear the uniform of the United States, good enough to serve their country, good enough to fight for their country but not good enough to observe their right to claim their family member. Under this bill, both U.S. citizens and U.S. legal permanent residents' rights are snuffed out. These men in different branches of the armed services of the United States, they were good enough to fight for their country, but they were not good enough, under this bill, to have their rights preserved to claim their family member. That does not make sense to me. Now, I have heard about this killer amendment--killer amendment. One of our colleagues has tried to describe our amendment on family reunification as a killer amendment. What is a killer amendment? A killer amendment is an amendment that is proposed by a sponsor who does not want to see comprehensive immigration reform pass the Senate. Now, the ironic part of that is many who used that language last year when I was in the Senate voting for comprehensive immigration reform, that was used against me in my election last year. They were voting against comprehensive immigration reform. Killer amendment? When did family reunification--family reunification--strengthening of families, preserving the rights of U.S. citizens, including those who wear the uniform of the United States, when did that become a killer amendment? Now, I have heard a lot about family values in my 15 years in Congress. You know, when you want to move away from the human aspect, when you want to forget, for example, the face of Marine LCpl Jose Antonio Gutierrez, a legal permanent resident of the United States who gave his life, the first soldier to die in Iraq, under this bill, had he survived, you would have extinguished his right to claim his family. He was good enough to die for his country, not good enough to have his rights preserved. When you don't want to see the human faces, you dehumanize it so you can deal with it abstractly. So what have we heard about? We have heard about chain migration. We can treat it like an inanimate object; we have to stop that chain migration. This is much more than chain migration. This chain my colleagues so abstractly refer to, the top of this chain is someone who is a mother or a father. When did that become such a horrible thing? I thought we wanted to strengthen families, honor our parents, honor their ability to perform and to be strengthened. But that is chain migration. We can't let a U.S. citizen be able to claim their family. No, that is chain migration. We can't do that. When did we decide our brothers and sisters are nonnuclear? But they are part of the chain, brothers and sisters. Then our children--this is a good one--if they are under the age of 21, they are part of our nuclear family. If they are over the age of 21, they are no longer part of our nuclear family, just a little part of this chain. I have two children. One is 21; the other is 23. I have never for a moment, because they changed from 20 to 21, believed they were not part of my nuclear family. I don't view them as part of a chain. I don't love them any less. I couldn't live without them any less. The mere passage of a year, some numerical figure makes them part of a chain, nonnuclear. I guess we can do away with our children. I guess we can do without the right of U.S. citizens to claim their children. We can just discard them. I guess when you become 21, you really don't matter anymore. As a matter of fact, all of that family values stuff doesn't matter anymore. Unless we adopt this amendment, that is what we are talking about. Imagine if we couldn't have such a set of circumstances be preserved by virtue of this amendment. I have shown some of these pictures before, but as we move to the vote, I hope people understand what I am talking about. Under the bill, family reunification that I believe is so critical, we wouldn't have a lot of people in our country who have made enormous contributions. Ultimately, we ended up thriving because of their contributions. We ended up thriving on the contributions of a Colin Powell whose parents, under this bill, would not have been eligible to come to this country and, therefore, unlikely that he would have been born here and had the opportunity to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of State. He has made a good contribution to this country. Right now in Iraq our leadership comes from GEN David Petraeus. The reality is, under this bill his parents would have been unlikely to come to this country, and he would not be a United States general and leading the best efforts we can have in Iraq. Under this bill, the inventor of the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk, would not have made it to this country. Yet he saved the lives of millions and millions of people here and across the world. Under this bill, at least, America wouldn't have been the place in which electricity and the light bulb would have been found. Thomas Edison, from my home State of New Jersey, likely would not have made it because his parents weren't rocket scientists. The list goes on and on. We have a gentleman who did a great service to our service men and women across the globe, Bob Hope. Under this bill his parents wouldn't have made it, and we wouldn't have had an incredible ambassador for our country and an incredible sponsor of goodwill for the men and women who served us over decades around the globe. What do we say? This came out recently in one of the newspapers. What are our priorities? Stopping terrorists, stopping drugs at the border? No. Drugs or explosives? No. We are just checking to make sure you don't take any loved ones with you. Under this bill, it doesn't matter because even when you obey the law and follow the rules, you ultimately have your right extinguished. It seems to me we have our values wrong. It is not about chain migration, not about just looking at the ability to say that family reunification should not happen, especially when the burden is on the family member who happens to be a U.S. citizen. I simply believe the question before the Senate will be, are you willing to vote to eliminate the right that exists today of a U.S. citizen who filed his papers, the Government took his money, he obeyed the law, followed the rules, you are going to take away his or her right? But you are going to give a right to individuals who didn't follow the law and obey the rules. I certainly don't believe that ultimately is in pursuit of the rule of law. There are many organizations that have joined us. I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record.