David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of an amendment I filed at the desk some time ago, Vitter amendment No. 1658, and I would like to briefly explain what that is. At its core, this amendment would allow Louisiana to use more Federal coastal impact assistance dollars, which are already going to the State under preexisting law, a law we passed a couple of years ago, to be used specifically for one of our top priorities in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and that is a hurricane protection effort. By way of background, in 2005, we passed the Energy Policy Act, and that did a very important thing for the State of Louisiana and other producing States. It established a Coastal Impact Assistance Program for the six States in the United States that produce offshore energy, particularly oil and gas. Obviously, that includes Louisiana. Under that 4-year Coastal Impact Assistance Program, certain Federal dollars flow to those producing States in light of the enormous work they do producing energy for our country and the negative impact that activity has in many cases on our coastline. Back at that time, a provision was made to restrict the amount of those funds that could go specifically to infrastructure projects, and that cap was established, with the work of Senator Bingaman and others, at 23 percent. Back in 2005, I argued strongly and worked with Senator Bingaman and others to say that cap should be lifted with regard to hurricane protection work, at least in Louisiana, because that work was absolutely so vital, so essential for our very existence. Unfortunately, that argument did not hold the day. The cap was not lifted, and an exemption was not put in place for hurricane protection efforts. I am trying to get that cap lifted for hurricane protection work in Louisiana now. My argument that we should do it comes down to two words--two words that happened, that devastated our coastline between then and now, and the two words are ``Katrina'' and ``Rita.'' Since that original act in 2005, Katrina and Rita struck, and they struck literal death blows to the Louisiana coast. If hurricane protection was a big priority before that, it has only grown enormously with those two hurricanes coming upon our shores. I think there is every rationale, every reason to allow us to use more of that coastal impact assistance money for hurricane protection efforts and to lift that arbitrary ceiling of 23 percent for infrastructure projects, specifically when we are talking about hurricane protection efforts. I have been in contact with Senator Bingaman about this issue. We have just discussed it on the Senate floor. I know he is considering these arguments. Perhaps in wrapping up my discussion, I could invite the Senator to engage in a brief colloquy and ask him again to focus on the extreme needs of the Louisiana coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and to continue consideration of lifting this cap in light of those extreme needs and to see where we are in that discussion.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reclaiming my time.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I was happy to do that. Reclaiming the floor, all of that is interesting. It is also what is commonly referred to as ``inside baseball.'' For the sake of the insiders here, let me translate for you what the American people just heard. To quote Charley Brown, ``Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah.'' The fact is, what Americans are faced with is an energy crisis and we have all this ``inside baseball'' tangling us up in the Senate, in the House, and we are not doing a darned thing about it. The other fact is there is no objection on the Republican side to calling this amendment up, No. 1776, to making it pending, to considering it. There are all sorts of debate and all sorts of discussions about other amendments. There is certainly no objection on our side to this amendment. Why should there be? Why shouldn't we allow individual States to say: Yes, we want to be part of the solution, particularly when all of the following events occur: average price of gasoline reaches $3.75 a gallon, foreign imports top 65 percent of everything used in the country, the President certifies that renewables can't make up the gap, the President certifies there is a continuing reliance on foreign oil, which is a national security threat? If all of those things happen, shouldn't we be allowing a State, through its Governor, through the State legislature, to be part of the solution in a safe and environmentally sensitive way to produce more energy in this country that doesn't take away the need for alternative fuels, that doesn't take away the need for conservation or everything else? But the clear and simple fact is, this problem is so big we need to do all of the above. Certainly this commonsense approach should be on that menu, should be among all of the above. Let's get beyond the Washington insider ``Wah, wah, wah,'' all the running around, all the objections, all the being tied up in knots, and present some reasonable, commonsense solutions to this growing national energy crisis. I hope those who control the floor and leave the floor, starting with the distinguished majority leader, to whom I deferred a few minutes ago on the floor, can be part of that.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Councilwoman- at-large Pearl D. Williams of Slidell for being named volunteer of the year by the United Way of St. Tammany Parish. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on her success and her contributions to Louisiana. Councilwoman Williams has long enjoyed volunteering with various organizations in order to assist the community, especially needy children, and this award recognizes the hard work and success she has constantly rendered. Councilwoman Williams has shown tireless dedication to the United Way. Williams has served on the St. Tammany United Way Leadership Council as a progressive, active fundraiser who helped establish various committees and celebrations in order to benefit different charities. She also served on the board of directors for the Children's Wish Endowment and as past president of the Slidell Memorial Hospital Women's Health Alliance, among many other great accolades. Councilwoman Pearl D. Williams passed away of heart failure at the age of 64 on Thursday, May 17, 2007, at her residence. She is survived by not only proud family members but also the grateful city of Slidell who will never forget Councilwoman Williams' selfless acts of generosity and charity. Thus, today, I rise to honor Councilwoman Pearl D. Williams so that more people can understand the kind of sacrifices she gave for others.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that would go a long way toward ensuring that Federal contracting remains a process of equal opportunity and open competition. Specifically, my legislation would prohibit the practice of attaching restrictive union-only project labor agreements, or PLAs, to Federal contracts. In short, any contractor or subcontractor who is bidding on a construction project that includes a union-only PLA must agree to recognize unions as the representatives of the employees on that job; use the union hiring hall to obtain workers and apprentices; pay union wages and benefits; and follow the union's restrictive rules, job classifications, and arbitration procedures. These restrictions would apply at the expense of a contractor's or subcontractor's usual team of workers. They would apply in States that may have low numbers of unionized construction workers, even if it meant denying jobs to local, in-State workers and required bringing in employees from out of State. Finally, the restrictions in a union-only PLA would apply even though only 13 percent of our private construction workforce belongs to a construction labor union, and therefore effectively locking out almost nine of every 10 able, qualified workers. In my home State of Louisiana, just 7.4 percent of private construction workers belong to a construction labor union. Yet, for example, if union-only PLAs are attached to the Federal construction projects helping rebuild Louisiana after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisianans will be locked out of this important rebuilding process, making it difficult to find work and earn a decent wage; the same jobs and wages that would enable Louisiana families to return to the hurricane-affected areas and rebuild their lives in these communities. Yet, instead of enabling local folks and businesses to come together and participate in their community's renewal, PLAs will ensure that these valuable jobs will go to just a select few, mostly out-of-State union workers. It is inexcusable that local Louisiana firms and their workers would be barred from freely bidding on construction projects in their own town or parish. And this is just one example of the harmful consequences associated with PLAs. In sum, the Federal Government should not be in the business of taking taxpayers' money to fund projects that exclude more than four out of five workers, making these projects discriminatory, anticompetitive, and unnecessarily expensive. At the very least, taxpayers should be able to bid and work on projects that they are funding with their own hard-earned dollars. Construction workers should have the opportunity to work on projects that benefit their own communities regardless of their union affiliation. The Federal Government should maintain a neutral position and encourage full and open competition in the Federal contracting process. Contracts should be awarded based on sound, commonsense criteria, such as quality of work, experience, and cost. Union affiliation has no place within the criteria for considering a contract bid. The best bid, by the most qualified contractor or subcontractor, should always be the winning bid. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to oppose attempts to attach union-only project labor agreements to Federal projects. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Jay Lapeyre and Laitram, LLC, of New Orleans for receiving the Recognition of Excellence in Innovation certificate from the Louisiana Technology Council. I would also like to take a few moments to expand on Laitram, LLC, and their continued success. The Louisiana Technology Council recently hosted their third annual awards council and the first since Hurricane Katrina. This certificate awards local and regional leaders in new technology throughout the United States who have created a new industrial advance or service in the last 12 months, operated a new, original manufacturing process, or have received a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office for a recent technological discovery. More than 60 nominations were submitted from public and private sectors, institutions, and individuals. J. M. Lapeyre, the designer of the original shrimp-peeling machine in 1946, founded Laitram, LLC, and completely transformed the shrimping industry. Since its inception, his descendants have continued to carry on this tradition of improvement and modernization. Over the past 5 years, Laitram has patented more than 60 new inventions, including 16 in 2006, illustrating Laitram's commitment to innovation and the best quality for its customers and the State of Louisiana. Specifically, the Intralox Series 400 Angled Roller conveyor belt has revolutionized the industry, allowing the replacement of older technology and maintaining Louisiana's package handling applications not only in food but in other industries as well. Therefore, I congratulate Jay Lapeyre and Laitram LLC on being an inspiration to business owners everywhere, and I wish them success.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to honor Bossier City, LA, which is celebrating its centennial anniversary, and I would like to take a few moments to publicly recognize their great history. In the 1830s, the area of Bossier City originally encompassed the Elysian Groves Plantation of James Crane. Due to its proximity to the river, it quickly became a hotbed for trade and activity. By 1850, hundreds of wagons crossed through the vicinity on their way to the West; many settlers also stayed, realizing the land's fertile river valley and abundant farmland. Soon, interstate railway systems boomed, and Bossier became a growing metropolis. The farmers, realizing the area's potential, quickly began to sell plots of land as transportation flourished. Finally, in 1907, with its growing textile industry and expansive transportation system, Bossier City received official status as a city in Louisiana. Throughout its history, Bossier City has endured and survived many impediments, such as the great fire which consumed over half of the downtown area. In the late 1950s, Bossier was named the fastest growing city in Louisiana. Bossier City began its centennial celebration on April 7 with the biggest birthday party that the city has ever witnessed on the banks of the city's foundation on the Red River. The initial festivities ranged from the opportunity to meet the city's oldest resident to a reception, with a 100-square-foot birthday cake. Throughout the year, the commemoration will continue with events from the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life to Barksdale Air Force Base. Over the year, residents and business owners in the city will be able to attend and plan activities that aid in representing the city's deep southern history and culture. The centennial memorializes Bossier City's rise to one of the great cities of the State of Louisiana. Today, I want to congratulate Bossier City on the last 100 years, and I wish the residents luck and continued success and progress.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that would go a long way toward ensuring that Federal contracting remains a process of equal opportunity and open competition. Specifically, my legislation would prohibit the practice of attaching restrictive union-only project labor agreements, or PLAs, to Federal contracts. In short, any contractor or subcontractor who is bidding on a construction project that includes a union-only PLA must agree to recognize unions as the representatives of the employees on that job; use the union hiring hall to obtain workers and apprentices; pay union wages and benefits; and follow the union's restrictive rules, job classifications, and arbitration procedures. These restrictions would apply at the expense of a contractor's or subcontractor's usual team of workers. They would apply in States that may have low numbers of unionized construction workers, even if it meant denying jobs to local, in-State workers and required bringing in employees from out of State. Finally, the restrictions in a union-only PLA would apply even though only 13 percent of our private construction workforce belongs to a construction labor union, and therefore effectively locking out almost nine of every 10 able, qualified workers. In my home State of Louisiana, just 7.4 percent of private construction workers belong to a construction labor union. Yet, for example, if union-only PLAs are attached to the Federal construction projects helping rebuild Louisiana after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisianans will be locked out of this important rebuilding process, making it difficult to find work and earn a decent wage; the same jobs and wages that would enable Louisiana families to return to the hurricane-affected areas and rebuild their lives in these communities. Yet, instead of enabling local folks and businesses to come together and participate in their community's renewal, PLAs will ensure that these valuable jobs will go to just a select few, mostly out-of-State union workers. It is inexcusable that local Louisiana firms and their workers would be barred from freely bidding on construction projects in their own town or parish. And this is just one example of the harmful consequences associated with PLAs. In sum, the Federal Government should not be in the business of taking taxpayers' money to fund projects that exclude more than four out of five workers, making these projects discriminatory, anticompetitive, and unnecessarily expensive. At the very least, taxpayers should be able to bid and work on projects that they are funding with their own hard-earned dollars. Construction workers should have the opportunity to work on projects that benefit their own communities regardless of their union affiliation. The Federal Government should maintain a neutral position and encourage full and open competition in the Federal contracting process. Contracts should be awarded based on sound, commonsense criteria, such as quality of work, experience, and cost. Union affiliation has no place within the criteria for considering a contract bid. The best bid, by the most qualified contractor or subcontractor, should always be the winning bid. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and to oppose attempts to attach union-only project labor agreements to Federal projects. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, unfortunately, this illustrates the point about the inappropriateness of cloture. These are two significant amendments which go to important provisions of the bill. All of us--and more importantly, the American people--deserve to have these matters debated and voted on. Let me explain what these amendments are about. Everybody--certainly the majority side--has been given the amendments. My first amendment only requires what Congress originally mandated back in 1986; that is, the entry/exit system known today as US-VISIT. We must have that fully operational before all aspects of this bill are allowed to go into effect. It was authorized 10 years ago, but it is not near to fully operational now. We must make sure that it is a part of this bill's enforcement trigger. Without the US-VISIT system's completion, we can't be sure that we know what individuals are in the country. In fact, we can be sure we will not know because how can we possibly have a grasp of who is in the country and who is not in the country without this system which tracks people as they exit? There are a lot of folks on visas here for a limited period of time. Under that visa, they, of course, need to exit the country before their visa is up. The US-VISIT system allows us to know if they are doing that. How can we possibly be ready for the full implementation of this legislation, how can we possibly say we have the enforcement system we need in place without the US-VISIT system, without knowing who exits the country and when, without knowing whether they have overstayed their visa? As of 2006, the illegal population included 4 to 5.5 million overstays, people here illegally because they are overstaying the time limits of their visa. The US-VISIT system is absolutely necessary to get to the heart of the problem and to enforce against overstays. How can we say we have adequate enforcement, how can we trigger the other provisions of this bill without making sure we have that in place, functioning, fully operational? The US-VISIT system is not any part of the triggers now in the bill. It must be. That is what my amendment 1339 goes to. As I mentioned, I have another amendment, No. 1338, that would correct a provision in the bill which doesn't allow for a catch-and- release program anymore but simply changes that to a catch, pay, and release program. In this legislation, those in this country illegally who are caught and who are not from Mexico don't have to be kept in custody. They can be released on a $5,000 bond. For months, and indeed years, we on the Senate floor and those around the country have decried the catch-and-release program, a program that has been in place where illegals are caught but are released into our country and simply given a piece of paper that says: Show up to court on such-and-such a date. Guess what. They never do. This bill merely changes that to a catch, pay, and release program. It allows catch and release to continue, only with a $5,000 bond. Why is that a problem? Because many of the folks we are talking about, particularly those who are among the most dangerous, those involved in illegal drug activity, those in other organized crime, can get the $5,000 bond. If they are already paying human smugglers to get them across the border, in many cases thousands and thousands of dollars, one has to assume they can get the resources to pay this bond. Changing catch and release to catch, pay, and release is completely inadequate. Yet that is what the underlying legislation does. Amendment No. 1338 would close that loophole, would say: No, we are going to end catch and release forever, and we are not going to allow cash, pay, and release. When we catch these folks coming into the country illegally who are not from Mexico, so we can't simply send them back to Mexico at the southern border, we are going to detain them. We are not going to let them into the country on a bond or anything else. We are going to detain them until they are deported, and we are going to work very hard to deport them as quickly as possible. Again, I believe my two amendments, which have not been allowed to be offered, clearly illustrate why we are not ready for cloture on this bill. This is a significant debate on a massive, 800-page bill. This bill, if enacted, will affect our country in major and significant ways for decades to come. Everybody admits that, no matter what side of the debate they may be on. Yet we have only been allowed to have a modest number of votes on the bill, something on the order of 12. That is ridiculous. We need these sorts of amendments considered and voted on, and we must oppose cloture until that happens.

Mr. VITTER. I thank all my colleagues for their courtesies. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Cornyn amendment and in opposition to the much weaker, watered-down Democratic alternative. This amendment illustrates a lot about this debate. The Cornyn amendment is clear. It is necessary. It is common sense. It is absolutely necessary we pass amendments such as this and have the ability to debate and vote on amendments such as this in the important immigration debate. This amendment is very straightforward. It prevents terrorists, gang members, sex offenders, and other folks who have broken the law in significant ways, committed significant felonies, from receiving immigration benefits and citizenship in the future. How can any of us in the Senate oppose a straightforward and necessary commonsense amendment? How can any of us be comfortable with an underlying bill which has these gaping loopholes? We must address these gaping loopholes. How can we tell families across America that we are going to allow sex offenders and gang members to become legal residents, possibly citizens? The Cornyn amendment would prevent this. It would address all of these significant loopholes. Again, terrorists, gang members, violent gang members, those who have committed other significant felonies, those who have been detained for coming into the country illegally and have absconded, those who have been deported from the country for coming into the country illegally and have reentered illegally--all of those categories of illegals should be prevented from gaining the benefits of this bill. The Cornyn amendment clearly does that. The Democratic alternative clearly does not. It has significant omissions from the Cornyn amendment. It allows absconders, those who have been detained and have gone underground, to receive the benefits of the bill. It allows those who have been deported from the country and who came back in illegally to get the benefits of this bill. It allows others who fall into the category of gang members and those who committed serious felonies to gain the benefits of this legislation. That is simply wrong. We must support the commonsense, straightforward Cornyn amendment. I also want to spend a portion of my time urging my colleagues to not vote for cloture on this bill as it presently rests before us, because we have many important amendments to consider. Two of those are the amendments I will humbly offer to the Senate. They are important issues; they are important amendments. I urge us to pay careful consideration to them and to have an opportunity for debate and vote. In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and to call up my amendment No. 1338.

Mr. VITTER. I am sorry to hear that. Let me try my second amendment which is also at the desk. It concerns a significant provision in the bill which we need the opportunity to debate and vote on. That is Vitter amendment No. 1339.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I am in order, I will speak in strong support of my amendment No. 1339 which will be voted on later tonight.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in this debate on the immigration bill about enforcement provisions. There has been a lot of discussion about triggers in this bill to ensure that enforcement actions are taken, are paid for, and are enacted before other aspects of the bill, such as the Z visa program and the temporary worker program, go into effect. My grave concern is that these triggers are wholly inadequate and represent thinking that is backward from where it needs to be. If you look at the triggers designed in the bill, they were arrived at, again, as I would put it, in a backward fashion. The question was asked: Well, it is going to take about 18 months to be ready to enact the other provisions of the bill, so what enforcement are we teed up to do during the next 18 months anyway? We will define that as the enforcement trigger for the bill. I simply think that is the wrong way to arrive at a trigger. The key question has to be: What needs to be done? What is the totality of significant measures that needs to be done in order to have real enforcement at the border and real enforcement at the workplace? Let's make that totality the trigger in the bill. Of course, the triggers are far less than that. One perfect example is the subject of this amendment. The US-VISIT Program has been authorized since 1996, but it is not near operational. This is the program that would establish an entry and exit system so we know absolutely who comes into the country on visas and when those people leave, if they leave on time under their visa, or if they do not and are, therefore, overstaying their visa. Without such a system, we cannot possibly know who is in the country and who is overstaying their visa. This is a very serious part of our illegal immigration problem. As of 2006, the illegal population, by most estimates, included 4 million to 5.5 million overstays. So visa overstays are a big part of the problem. We know from 9/11, that visa overstays accounted for many of the terrorists at the center of the 9/11 plot. So how can we have meaningful enforcement without this US-VISIT system, including the exit portion of the system? We cannot. The simple answer is that we can't. My amendment No. 1339 would include full implementation of this exit system of the US-VISIT Program into the trigger of the bill. Therefore, the other significant portions of the bill, such as temporary workers, such as Z visas, et cetera, cannot take effect until the full trigger is pulled, including full implementation of the US-VISIT system. If we are serious about enforcement, we have to pass this amendment. If we are serious about enforcement, we have to recognize that 4 million to 5.5 million illegals in this country are visa overstays, and we cannot get our hands around that visa overstay problem without full implementation of this system, which has been authorized but nowhere near implemented since 1996. So I urge all my colleagues to come together and build up the trigger and enforcement provisions of this bill with the Vitter amendment No. 1339. With that, I yield back my time. (Mr. SALAZAR assumed the Chair.)

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would add to the enforcement trigger mechanism of the bill that the US-VISIT Program be fully operational. This is the entry/exit system program that has been authorized since 1996 but has never been put into operation. As Senator Hutchison just mentioned, we all know a huge part of the illegal immigration problem is visa overstays. The latest estimate, in 2006, is that 4 million to 5.5 million visa overstays are illegal immigrants in this country. We cannot get a handle on that problem without the US-VISIT system knowing when people are leaving the country and, thus, whether they are overstaying their visa. Yet that is not part of the enforcement mechanism in the bill at all. Let's vote for this amendment and make it part of the bill.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a man who has dedicated almost 40 years of his life to the service of his constituency. Senator Ted Stevens was appointed to represent Alaska in the Senate in 1968 and has done so in a way that the citizens of his State have reelected him six times since. Senator Stevens is currently the longest-serving Senator in the history of our party and a steadfast representative for Alaskan conservative values. As a young man Senator Stevens served his country honorably during World War II. A member of the Flying Tigers of the Army Air Corps' 14th Air Force, he is also twice a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for his heroism in aerial combat. Senator Stevens is in excellent company as the first recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross was Captain Charles A. Lindbergh, who also set a few records in his own time. I am especially thankful for the work Senator Stevens has done to help aid the people of Louisiana. Through his position as Chairman in the last Congress and currently Vice-Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee he has worked tirelessly on important legislation to our State. Especially noteworthy are the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, which included provisions dedicated to the aid of the fishing industry in Louisiana following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and his essential support of legislation to get Louisiana its fair share of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues. It has been an extraordinary experience to work with as accomplished a legislator as Senator Stevens in my time in the Senate. I thank him for his service to the citizens of this great country.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is an important amendment that goes to the heart of our debate. This amendment strikes all of the text of title VI, the Z visa amnesty section. It takes all of that Z visa out of this massive immigration bill. I thank several Members for joining me in this important amendment: Senator DeMint, Senator Thomas, Senator Bunning, Senator Enzi, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Coburn. They are all cosponsors of this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues to join in this fundamental but necessary correction of the bill. Many folks will say: We can't do this. This goes to the heart of the bill. It goes to the heart of the compromise. Well, indeed, it does. It does that because that is where an absolutely fundamental flaw with this approach resides. The Z visa is amnesty, pure and simple. Amnesty is at the heart of this bill and is a fundamental problem and flaw with the bill that we must correct. Make no mistake about it, the American people know this. It is obvious. Why is it so hard for us to acknowledge the fact, acknowledge the negative consequences that flow from it, and correct it? Considering how badly received last year's Senate-passed amnesty bill was, I am shocked we are here again, admittedly with a better bill in some respects but with a bill with Z visa amnesty right at the heart of it. The American people don't want this. They don't want the Z visa, because they don't want to reward law breaking and thereby encourage more of the same. The Z visa amnesty provision absolutely rewards those who have broken the law and, in doing so, is a slap in the face to those thousands upon thousands of folks who are honoring the law, following the law, standing in line, waiting their turn under the rules. I ask my fellow Senators, are we going to be a nation that values that rule of law? These Z visas tell lawbreakers the opposite, that it is OK to break the law. In doing so, most importantly, most negatively, that has to encourage more like behavior in the future. Clearly, that sort of amnesty sends the wrong message, a reward for breaking the law. Clearly, that encourages the same sort of behavior we absolutely don't want in the future. I think the fundamental question in this debate is, is this bill going to be a repeat of the 1986 immigration reform the Congress passed at that time or is this bill fundamentally different? Again, that is a central question that goes to the heart of the Z visa issue and others. In 1986, Congress took up immigration reform. They passed a significant bill, not as wide sweeping as we are talking about now but certainly a significant bill. Arguments were very much the same: We are going to beef up enforcement. We are going to get serious. We are going to have real enforcement at the border. We are going to have meaningful enforcement at the workplace. In that context, we need this amnesty one time, and it will be done and the problem will be solved. What is the history since then? The history is clear. A problem that was then about 3 million illegal aliens has grown at least fourfold-- 12, 13 million, or more. So it has mushroomed. The problem has gotten a lot worse. Why? Because the amnesty provisions of that bill in 1986 absolutely went into force and effect. They were absolutely honored. But at the same time, the enforcement never happened to an adequate extent. So what happens with those two dynamics? It is simple to see what did happen--inadequate enforcement, real amnesty that sent the message loudly and clearly: You will eventually be forgiven for breaking the law to get into this country illegally. The problem mushroomed. The problem quadrupled from more than 3 million illegal aliens in the country to 12 or 13 million or more today. That is an awfully fundamental question we need to ask as we look at this legislation. I have asked that question. My answer is: This is a vastly improved bill from last year, but this bill still has that fundamental flaw. This bill still risks--and I believe will inevitably repeat--the mistake of 1986, only on a far broader, a far bigger, and far more dangerous scale. We cannot afford that. There are colleagues of both parties in this Chamber who make the argument that we hear about most legislation: The status quo is broken. This bill is not perfect, but this bill will move it along. This bill will make it better. That sort of incrementalist approach is true in a lot of cases. In this case, I don't think it is true at all. In this case, a flawed bill gives us the real threat, the real danger of making the problem a lot worse, not better. That is the history of what happened in 1986. That is what will happen again with inadequate enforcement plus amnesty. How do we correct this? One way is to beef up enforcement. I support a lot of different measures to make the enforcement more certain, to nail it down absolutely before we go into any of these other areas such as a temporary worker program, certainly Z visas. The triggers in this bill are much ballyhooed, but the triggers don't get us to where we need to be before they trigger the Z visa. All the triggers do is say: We are going to do what was planned for the next 18 months anyway, which isn't all of what we need to do, which isn't half of what we need to do to secure the border and have real workplace enforcement. But then we are going to trigger the amnesty. We are going to trigger the Z visa. That is not enough. We need to beef up those enforcement provisions. The other way to fix going down the 1986 road again is to get rid of amnesty, to get rid of the Z visa. That is exactly what this amendment does. Certainly many of my colleagues will protest wildly about calling this amnesty. If you look at the facts, there is no other conclusion to reach. If you look at history, there is no other conclusion. For those lawyers in the Chamber, probably the best known legal reference book is Black's Law Dictionary. Open it. Turn to ``amnesty.'' It is very straightforward. Amnesty is ``a pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons.'' Black's Law Dictionary cites as its first example of what that means the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It points to that very act and says it ``provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the country.'' That is the example it cites in the very definition of the concept of amnesty. I ask unanimous consent to print this definition with the example in the Record.

Mr. VITTER. So, again, let's not repeat the horrible mistakes of the past. Let's not repeat the fundamental mistake of 1986 that got us to the situation we are in today, that quadrupled, or more, the problem then faced in 1986. Let's not repeat it in either side of the ledger: by having inadequate enforcement--and I am afraid the enforcement provisions of this bill, the trigger requirements, et cetera, are inadequate--and let's not repeat it on the other side of the equation by granting amnesty and creating a magnet for more illegal activity into this country. We cannot afford to do that. This amendment goes to the core of that fundamental problem and corrects it by taking out title VI, the Z visa amnesty provisions.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Vitter amendment No. 1157.

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

Mr. VITTER. In that context, one obvious question is: How does that amnesty provision compare to what is in this 2007 bill? I think if you go down the requirements of the 1986 law and the requirements of this bill before us, you will see they are disturbingly familiar. In 1986, how do you gain temporary residence status? Continuous unlawful residence in the United States since before January 1, 1982. Fees: a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 fee for each child, a $420 family cap. You have to meet certain admissibility criteria: 18- month residency period, English language and civics requirement. Those are the basic requirements under that 1986 law. Let's compare it to what is in this bill, which is very similar. The dollar amount fees are higher, more significant, but in terms of the nature of the requirements in this bill, they are disturbingly similar: physically present and employed in the United States since a certain date--January 1, 2007; $1,000 penalty and a $1,500 processing fee; meet admissibility criteria; background check; English language basic requirement, et cetera--the exact same type of requirements under the Z visa provisions of this bill, as well as the 1986 law, which ``Black's Law Dictionary'' itself labels amnesty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this simple side-by-side comparison of the 1986 law and this bill presently before the Senate.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple, it is very straightforward, and it is very important. It strikes title VI from the bill, which is the very controversial Z visa provision. In my opinion, and the opinion of many people, many Americans, this is amnesty purely and simply, and that conclusion is important not because of a brand, not because of the word but because of what it means and what it will create. It will create a magnet to increase illegal activity into the country, to encourage more of the same, more of the problem and not solve the problem. That is why we must remove this title from the bill. The key question in this debate is will this bill fundamentally repeat the horrible mistakes of 1986 when we did amnesty but not nearly enough enforcement. I believe this bill, as it stands now, repeats that horrible mistake.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I, too, rise today to strongly oppose the motion to proceed that we will be voting on in a few hours and to strongly oppose this absolute rush to judgment on this bill, rush to pass legislation that will have a huge impact on our country for 25 to 50 years or more. I start by thanking Senator Sessions for his hard work in defending the Senate procedure that is in place for a very good reason--to ensure the deliberative process, to ensure that important, weighty matters get careful consideration. That is what the American people deserve. That is what is absolutely threatened by this rush to pass this legislation, starting with the motion to proceed that we will be voting on in a few hours. The Senate is supposed to be the world's most deliberative body. Yet I and many other Senate offices have not had adequate time to look carefully at this so-called compromise proposal before this very important vote this afternoon. The first time the legislation was available to me or any other Senator was at 2 a.m. on Saturday. Yet right now, Monday, in a few hours, we are being asked to essentially start voting on it through the motion to proceed. I am especially disappointed because I joined 16 fellow Senators urging the Senate leadership to provide 1-week prior notice before we are asked to cast votes on this massive immigration reform bill. Rather than 1 week, of course, we barely get a day of the work week. As I said, this bill was not available for anyone's consideration until 2 a.m. Saturday. Here we are on Monday about to start voting on this massive bill of 800 to 900 pages, at least. Maybe it will be near a thousand pages when it is put into proper bill form, which hasn't happened yet. There has been no committee consideration, no committee markups and vetting, which is the normal course of action, which at least happened last year during Senate consideration of immigration reform. Senator Reid, the majority leader, is rushing and urging us to finish this week before the Memorial Day recess. Folks haven't had any chance to study the bill yet and we are going to rush to try to finish it this week and there is no estimate whatsoever of its cost, no CBO score. In fact, the proponents of the bill haven't even requested, as I understand it, a CBO score to date. That should tell you something. I urge my fellow Senators to vote against this motion to rush to judgment, because that is what it is, and join the American public in urging the leadership to postpone any vote until it has had a proper chance to review carefully this massive proposal. I am not against all immigration reform. I am against voting on a bill that only a few Senators participated in crafting and that all Senators have not had adequate time to study carefully. Mr. President, an obvious question: Why are we in the midst of this rush to judgment, rush to pass this bill? I believe there is a very simple political answer, and it is that if the American people fully understood what was buried in this bill, there would be a massive outcry against it, and Senators--politicians at heart--would have to react to that outcry. I believe that is the simple, cold, hard political fact behind this rush to judgment and rush to pass this bill. Of course, the biggest item that I would argue falls into that category is the Z visa section of this massive immigration reform proposal. It would grant amnesty--I truly believe there is no other appropriate word for it--to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to come into this country, who have broken more laws to stay in this country and, in many cases, get jobs. But this Z visa section of this proposal--better known as Z visa amnesty--would give all these millions and millions of illegal aliens the opportunity for pure, unadulterated amnesty. Make no mistake, this Z visa is amnesty, pure and simple. It rewards folks for breaking the law and lets them stay in this country without ever having to return to their homeland forever. I have an amendment that will strike the entire text of title VI and remove the Z visa amnesty program from the bill. I hope at least we have time for consideration of that and other crucial amendments. I will certainly offer this amendment, and the American public absolutely wants to have all Senators vote on record on that amendment and other important amendments. Again, we should not absolutely rush to judgment and rush to pass this bill, 800 to 900 pages or more. We don't know because it is not in proper bill form yet, with language only available to all Senators starting 2 a.m. on Saturday, and yet here we are Monday, the first day of the workweek, rushing to start voting on this bill. What is more, there is no estimate of the cost of this measure, costs that will be with us for decades and decades to come, no estimate of the cost, and to date the proponents of the bill haven't even asked the Congressional Budget Office to start working on an estimate, which should give us some inkling of what that cost estimate might look like. Yet in the midst of this, the majority leader is pushing for final consideration of the bill this week, before we leave this week. Yet most of us have only begun to look at its exact language. Surely our Founding Fathers did not intend for this to be the legislative process. Surely they did not intend for a very few to represent the many, even in the Senate. We have 100 Senators who have votes in this body. All of them, not just the proponents and crafters of the bill, all of them, all of us should have a reasonable opportunity to digest this massive bill. The legislative process should afford elected officials and our citizens the opportunity to read, amend, and debate bills. Can we honestly say we have honored that principle by going forward with votes on this legislation starting today, with the leadership rushing to try to finish the entire process in the Senate by the end of the week? I ask my fellow Senators, is this a precedent we really want to establish for future very important legislation, legislation such as this that will affect our country for decades and decades to come? Clearly, this is not the right precedent. Clearly, we should have time to read the bill before we start voting on it, and we don't here. Clearly, we should have time to hear from the American people about the very important elements in this bill, and we don't. Clearly, all of us should know the cost estimate of this bill. We should get a CBO score before we start voting on this bill. And we don't. We are not likely to have that score before the end of Senate consideration with the proponents not even having asked for a CBO score, to my knowledge, to date. Clearly, something is up with this rushed process. Clearly, this process needs to go beyond this week, through the Memorial Day recess, so we can have an adequate and full national debate; not just Senate debate but a national debate among all our citizens and then be allowed to come back, flesh out details, offer more amendments, having digested the entire bill. On any vitally important matter, on any key bill numbering 1,000 pages or so, on any legislation that will affect our country for decades and pose costs in the trillions and trillions of dollars, that is the right course of action. One has to wonder in that context why the Senate leadership is pushing for exactly the opposite course of action. Again, I urge all of my colleagues, however they are leaning on this bill, which they have only begun to read, to vote no on this motion to proceed to preserve the integrity of the Senate, the deliberative process, and to respect the American people enough to give them, as well as ourselves, the time to digest all important aspects of this massive bill. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise very briefly to turn away from the budget for just a few minutes and focus on a matter of extreme importance for Louisiana and, indeed, the country, and announce a very important and positive resolution to this matter to give us the right leadership we need in place at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in time for this upcoming hurricane season which is due to begin this June 1. Today LTG Carl Strock is ending his tenure as the Chief of Engineers and Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He served the Army honorably for 36 years, and for the last 2 years of his career, I would say he has gone under intense work and pressure as he led the Corps through the extraordinary events of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and those recovery efforts. I join everyone here, Republicans and Democrats, in thanking General Strock for his service and wishing him all the best in the next phase of his life. This comes, as I mentioned, right as our next hurricane season is due to begin on June 1. As we go into that threat and into that battle, as it were, it is very important we have a new commander in place to lead us. The President nominated LTG Robert Van Antwerp to replace General Strock. I came to this floor literally just a half an hour ago very concerned that his nomination was being held up by a Democratic hold, and that threatened that we would not have our new commander in place for this new hurricane season. One does not go into battle without a leader, and that battle, as I said, is just a few weeks away. It is important to acknowledge that nobody wanted to rush into this nomination. We all wanted to make sure this nominee, General Van Antwerp, is the right person for the job. Indeed, we have. I spent weeks looking very carefully at the nomination, as did my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu. We held hearings on this nomination in the committee of jurisdiction for the Corps, on which I serve, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Everyone over that period of time got comfortable and very supportive of this nomination. That is why it is very appropriate that we move forward and make sure this nominee, this leader, is in place before the start of the next hurricane season. As I mentioned, I literally came to the floor a half an hour ago, and this was very much uncertain because there was a Democratic hold on the nomination. I am very relieved and very happy to say that in that short period of time, that has been cleared up. That hold on this particular nomination has been lifted, and the nomination of the new head of the Corps, GEN Robert Van Antwerp, will be cleared through the Senate later today. This is very positive. I thank Majority Leader Reid for agreeing to this literally in the last hour in light of the crucial nature of this position and the impending start of this next hurricane season, June 1. I, again, thank everyone for working toward this important goal. It is important that we have the right leader at the helm in time for the battle, in time for the start of the new hurricane season, June 1. Clearly, our work in overseeing the Corps, and our work in funding key work of the Corps in the gulf coast region continues. I will certainly redouble my efforts in that regard. But at least we have our general in place, our leader in place for the hurricane season, which is very appropriate and very necessary. Madam President, I yield the floor.