Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 45 (Friday, April 15, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 45 (Friday, April 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3718-S3730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1268, which the clerk will
report:
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005,
to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State
driver's license and identification document security
standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious
construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Mikulski amendment No. 387, to revise certain requirements
for H-2B employers and require submission of information
regarding H-2B nonimmigrants.
Feinstein amendment No. 395, to express the sense of the
Senate that the text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 should not be
included in the conference report.
Bayh amendment No. 406, to protect the financial condition
of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who
are ordered to long-term active duty in support of a
contingency operation.
Durbin amendment No. 427, to require reports on Iraqi
security services.
Salazar amendment No. 351, to express the sense of the
Senate that the earned income tax credit provides critical
support to many military and civilian families.
Dorgan/Durbin amendment No. 399, to prohibit the
continuation of the independent counsel investigation of
Henry Cisneros past June 1, 2005, and request an accounting
of costs from GAO.
Reid amendment No. 445, to achieve an acceleration and
expansion of efforts to reconstruct and rehabilitate Iraq and
to reduce the future risks to United States Armed Forces
personnel and future costs to United States taxpayers, by
ensuring that the people of Iraq and other nations do their
fair share to secure and rebuild Iraq.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 432

(Purpose: To simplify the process for admitting temporary alien
agricultural workers under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, to increase access to such workers,
and for other purposes.)
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendments be set aside. On behalf of Senator Chambliss and others, I
call up amendment No. 432.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for Mr. Chambliss,
for himself, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 432.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

[[Page S3719]]

Amendment No. 375, As Modified

(Purpose: To provide for the adjustment of status of certain foreign
agricultural workers, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
reform the H-2A worker program and the Act, to provide a stable, legal
agricultural workforce, to extend basic legal protections and better
working conditions to more workers, and for other purposes.)
Mr. FRIST. On behalf of Mr. Craig and others, I call up amendment No.
375.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for Mr. Craig, for
himself, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 375,
as modified.

Amendment No. 432

Cloture Motion

Mr. FRIST. I call for the regular order on the Chambliss amendment. I
now send a cloture motion to the desk to the Chambliss amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion, having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
Chambliss amendment to Calendar No. 67, H.R. 1268.
Bill Frist, Saxby Chambliss, Mitch McConnell, Elizabeth
Dole, Larry Craig, Judd Gregg, Norm Coleman, Trent
Lott, Arlen Specter, George V. Voinovich, Bob Bennett,
Pete Domenici, Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch, Richard Burr,
John Cornyn, James Talent, Chuck Hagel.

amendment no. 375

cloture motion

Mr. FRIST. I ask we resume the Craig amendment, and I send a cloture
motion to the desk to the Craig amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion, having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
Craig amendment to Calendar No. 67, H.R. 1268.
Bill Frist, Larry Craig, Mitch McConnell, Elizabeth Dole,
Judd Gregg, Saxby Chambliss, Trent Lott, George V.
Voinovich, Arlen Specter, Bob Bennett, Pete Domenici,
Pat Roberts, John E. Sununu, Orrin Hatch, Richard Burr,
John Cornyn, James Talent, Chuck Hagel.

cloture motion

Mr. FRIST. I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the underlying
bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion, having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 67,
H.R. 1268.
Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Elizabeth Dole, Olympia
Snowe, Norm Coleman, Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch, John
Cornyn, Craig Thomas, Michael Enzi, Larry E. Craig,
Trent Lott, George V. Voinovich, Bob Bennett, Pete
Domenici, Richard Burr, James Talent.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the live quorums, with
respect to the four pending cloture motions, be waived.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRIST. For the information of Senators, we now have four cloture
motions filed in relation to the emergency supplemental. They are filed
on the Mikulski amendment on H-2B visas, the Chambliss AgJOBS
amendment, the Craig AgJOBS amendment, and to the underlying emergency
supplemental.
This will ensure votes in relation to the three amendments and then
allow the Senate to move toward finishing the bill. I remind my
colleagues we will be able to consider additional amendments either
Monday evening or after the cloture votes have occurred on Tuesday.
I thank my colleagues and hope we can move quickly next week to pass
this important bill in order to provide the appropriate resources to
our troops. The cloture motions are filed to further the bringing of
this bill to closure. It is an important bill to support our troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq--indeed, around the world--and also the important
tsunami relief.
With what I have outlined, we will be able to take what are now still
more than two pages of amendments, outside of the many immigration
amendments that have emerged in the period over the last several days,
and give them some order so we can bring this bill to closure. Again, I
want to reaffirm our commitment to address immigration in the future.
It is a very important issue, but we will be having these three cloture
votes on the immigration issues I briefly outlined, and we have filed
cloture on the underlying bill, which does allow us to stay on
amendments, germane amendments that were laid down to changing,
altering, improving this bill as we go forward.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 340

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 340 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the pending
amendments are set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. Coleman, proposes an amendment numbered 340.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the period of continued TRICARE coverage of
children of members of the uniformed services who die while serving on
active duty for a period of more than 30 days)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. INCREASED PERIOD OF CONTINUED TRICARE COVERAGE OF
CHILDREN OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
WHO DIE WHILE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR A
PERIOD OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

(a) Period of Eligibility.--Section 1079(g) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following:
``(2) In addition to any continuation of eligibility for
benefits under paragraph (1), when a member dies while on
active duty for a period of more than 30 days, the member's
dependents who are receiving benefits under a plan covered by
subsection (a) shall continue to be eligible for such
benefits during the three-year period beginning on the date
of the member's death, except that, in the case of such a
dependent who is a child of the deceased, the period of
continued eligibility shall be the longer of the following
periods beginning on such date:
``(A) Three years.
``(B) The period ending on the date on which the child
attains 21 years of age.
``(C) In the case of a child of the deceased who, at 21
years of age, is enrolled in a full-time course of study in a
secondary school or in a full-time course of study in an
institution of higher education approved by the administering
Secretary and was, at the time of the member's death, in fact
dependent on the member for over one-half of the child's
support, the period ending on the earlier of the following
dates:
``(i) The date on which the child ceases to pursue such a
course of study, as determined by the administering
Secretary.
``(ii) The date on which the child attains 23 years of age.
``(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(C), a child shall
be treated as being enrolled in a full-time course of study
in an institution of higher education during any reasonable
period of transition between the child's completion of a
full-time course of study in a secondary school and the
commencement of an enrollment in a full-time course of study
in an institution of higher education, as determined by the
administering Secretary.
``(4) No charge may be imposed for any benefits coverage
under this chapter that is provided for a child for a period
of continued eligibility under paragraph (2), or for any
benefits provided to such child during such period under that
coverage.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as of October 1, 2001, and shall apply with
respect to deaths occurring on or after such date.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator

[[Page S3720]]

Durbin, Senator Coleman, Senator Dole, Senator Kennedy, Senator
Salazar, and Senator Corzine. This amendment is designed to improve the
health care access for those children who have lost a parent on active
military duty.
To understand the need for this amendment, we have to look at the
current status of the law, to understand the problem, to understand why
we need to change it. Currently, the dependent child--children of a
deceased service member--will receive medical benefits under the
TRICARE prime, for 3 years after that service member has died, at no
cost. But following that period, the dependent child may continue to
receive TRICARE prime at the retiree dependent premium rate available
to children until the age of 21, or 23 if enrolled in school. But they
have to pay for it.
Also, if a dependent child's military parent dies, that child moves
down on the food chain, in terms of availability of services. What that
means is that if, for example, there is a doctor's appointment opening,
an Active-Duty dependent would get preference to schedule that
appointment over the dependent child whose parent has died in service.
Let me state that again. Let me make sure my colleagues understand
me. To take one example, if there is a doctor's appointment opening and
your parent is alive, you get preference over a child whose parent was
killed in Iraq or killed in Afghanistan.
That is simply not fair. That is not right. I don't think any Member
of the Senate, who really understands that, would say that is right.
Our amendment would change that. What our amendment will do is put the
surviving children of service members killed in service to our country
in the same position as if their parent would have lived and continued
to serve in the military. It puts them in no better position, but it
puts them in the same position. That is all this amendment does. That
is the right thing to do.
What our amendment would do simply is to extend TRICARE prime to
every dependent child of a deceased service member at no cost--the same
thing as if the parent would have lived--until the dependent's age of
21, or 23 if the dependent attends college. It is the same as if the
service member were still alive.
Maintaining this level of TRICARE coverage guarantees the surviving
dependents will continue to have access to some of the best doctors
this country has to offer and would receive adequate health care and
treatment.
This is the right thing to do, it is fair, and it is just. I believe
it is what the American people, if they understood the issue, if the
issue was explained to them, would clearly want us to do. To do any
less for the surviving children of our service members who have been
killed in service to our country is simply not right.
I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Reserve Officers Association

of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 11, 2005.
Hon. Mike DeWine,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator DeWine: The Reserve Officers Association,
representing 75,000 Reserve Component members, supports your
amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriation, SR
109-052, to increase the period of continued TRICARE coverage
of children of members of the uniformed services who die
while serving on active duty for a period of more than 30
days.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has relied heavily on the
Guard and Reserve to provide almost half of the troop support
for Iraq and Afghanistan and this does not even take into
consideration the number of members who have volunteered for
duty during this time. It has been announced that this level
of Reserve Component support has become the norm.
Your bill will provide a limited entitlement, in keeping
with business case principles, that allows a member to serve
their country knowing that their family will be taken care of
if they give the ultimate sacrifice--their life.
The Active and Reserve Components, are entering into a new
phase of protracted warfare and we need to update our
outdated personnel practices to reflect this new environment.
Congressional support for our nation's military men and women
in the Guard and Reserve is and always will be appreciated.
Sincerely,

Robert A. McIntosh,

Major General (Ret), USAFR, Executive Director.
____

National Military Family

Association,

April 10, 2005.
Senator Mike DeWine,
U.S. Senate,
Washington DC
Dear Senator DeWine: The National Military Family
Association (NMFA) is a national nonprofit membership
organization whose sole focus is the military family. NMFA's
mission is to serve the families of the seven uniformed
services through education, information, and advocacy. On
behalf of NMFA and the families it serves, I would like to
thank you for introducing important amendments in The
Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act, to enhance
benefits for survivors of those servicemembers who have made
the supreme sacrifice for their Nation.
NMFA strongly believes that all servicemembers deaths
should be treated equally. Servicemembers are on duty 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Through their
oath, each servicemember's commitment is the same. The
survivor benefit package should not create inequities by
awarding different benefits to families who lose a
servicemember in a hostile zone versus those who lose their
loved one in a training mission preparing for service in a
hostile zone. To the family, there is no difference. Your
amendment would extend the death gratuity increase proposed
by the Administration to survivors of all active duty deaths,
not just those that are combat related.
NMFA also supports the amendment you propose to extend the
TRICARE Prime medical benefit to any dependent child of a
deceased servicemember at not cost until the age of 21 or 23
if enrolled in school. This is a benefit that would have been
available to these children had their servicemember parent
lived and remained on active duty. The freedom from worrying
about copays and deductibles when a child needs to see a
doctor is very important for the surviving parent.
Thank your for your support and interest in military
families. If NMFA can be of any assistance to you in other
areas concerning military families, please feel free to
contact Kathy Moakler in the Government Relations Department
at 703.931.6632.
Sincerely,
Candace A. Wheeler,
Chairman/Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, one letter is from the Reserve Officers
Association and one is from the National Military Family Association.
I wish to share an excerpt from the letter from the ROA. Regarding
health care benefits, it reads in part as follows:

Your bill will provide a limited entitlement in keeping
with business case principles that allows a member to serve
their country knowing that their family will be taken care of
if they give the ultimate sacrifice--their life.

We owe the families of those who have lost loved ones in active duty
our gratitude and our support. It is time to do a better job of caring
for these families. It is time to ensure that this Congress does what
is right. I ask my colleagues to stand with me and with my other
colleagues to support these families and do our part as they have done
theirs.
As I said, I am joined in this amendment by Senators Durbin, Coleman,
Dole, Kennedy, Salazar, and Corzine. We believe this is the equitable
thing to do, it is the fair thing to do, and it is the right thing to
do.
Again, to repeat: All it does is put this child who has lost a parent
in Iraq, who lost a parent in Afghanistan, who has lost a parent in
service to our country, in the same position that child would have been
if that parent would have continued to serve in the military and would
have continued to live.
Today, without this amendment, that child is discriminated against.
After 3 years, that child has to pay for his or her own premium, that
family has to pay the premium and, not only that, even if they pay the
premium, they are put in a different position than if the parent would
have lived. The child of a person in the military who lives is in a
better position than a child of a person in the military who is
deceased, and that is wrong. This amendment corrects that.
I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside for the
moment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 342

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I now ask that my amendment No. 342 be
called up.

[[Page S3721]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, and Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Smith, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered
342.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To appropriate $10,000,000 to provide assistance to Haiti
using Child Survival and Health Programs funds, $21,000,000 to provide
assistance to Haiti using Economic Support Fund funds, and $10,000,000
to provide assistance to Haiti using International Narcotics Control
and Law Enforcement funds, to be designated as an emergency
requirement)

On page 183, after line 23, add the following:

Funds Appropriated to the President

united states agency for international development

child survival and health programs fund

For necessary expenses to provide assistance to Haiti under
chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
for child survival, health, and family planning/reproductive
health activities, in addition to funds otherwise available
for such purposes, $10,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con.
Res. 95 (108th Congress).

Assistance to Haiti

Sec. 2105. (a)(1) The total amount appropriated by this
chapter under the heading ``Economic Support Fund'' is
increased by $21,000,000. Of the total amount appropriated
under that heading, $21,000,000 shall be available for
necessary expenses to provide assistance to Haiti.
(2) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$10,000,000 may be made available for election assistance in
Haiti.
(3) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$10,000,000 may be made available for public works programs
in Haiti.
(4) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$1,000,000 may be made available for administration of
justice programs in Haiti.
(5) The amount made available under paragraph (1) is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95
(108th Congress).
(b)(1) The total amount appropriated by this chapter under
the heading ``International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement'' is increased by $10,000,000. Of the total
amount appropriated under that heading, $10,000,000 shall be
available for necessary expenses to provide assistance to
Haiti.
(2) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$5,000,000 may be made available for training and equipping
the Haitian National Police.
(3) Of the funds made available under paragraph (1), up to
$5,000,000 may be made available to provide additional United
States civilian police in support of the United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti.
(4) The amount made available under paragraph (1) is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95
(108th Congress).

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators
Bingaman, Coleman, Nelson, Corzine, Dole, Chafee, Dodd, Durbin,
Alexander, Martinez, Smith, Specter, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Obama. It
will provide additional emergency assistance to Haiti. Unfortunately,
the fact is that the bill before us now contains virtually no
additional economic assistance to Haiti, the poorest country in our
hemisphere.
Haiti today is on the brink of collapse. Elections are scheduled in
November, but there is grave social unrest and horrible poverty that is
spinning Haiti back into its previous cycles of violence and
instability. Haiti is our neighbor to the south, about an hour and a
half plane trip from Miami. Twice in the last decade, American marines,
American troops, have had to go to Haiti.
There is an interim government in Haiti, a government that was
supported and is supported and backed by the United States and by the
international community, but the situation is very precarious. That
interim government is scheduled to give way to a permanent government
after elections that are now scheduled for November of this year. There
is an international peacekeeping force in Haiti, but there is
significant violence, and the government is, quite frankly, tottering.
Money is needed in this emergency supplemental for emergency reasons
in Haiti. We cannot wait for the normal appropriations process. First
of all, money is needed for the elections. The United States will have
to contribute toward these elections. We will have to take the lead,
and other countries, of course, will participate, if elections are
going to be held.
Those elections were not scheduled when the last appropriations bill
went through this Congress. No one could have totally foreseen what the
exact situation would have been in Haiti when the last appropriations
bill was approved by this Congress. The violence has continued. The
international peacekeeping force has not been as aggressive as some of
us would have liked to have seen it, and therefore violence has
continued. Some of the pro-Aristide forces are responsible for some of
the violence, and some of the old regime people dating back to Baby Doc
are responsible for some of the violence. The situation is not good.
Some of this money, quite frankly, needs to be used for humanitarian
assistance. Some of the money needs to be used to train the police.
Some of the money needs to be used to deal with the unemployment
situation.
My colleagues and I--a long bipartisan list that I have read with
seven Republicans have sponsored this amendment--are working with the
chairman of the subcommittee and with the chairman of the full
committee to see what funds might be available and what we might be
able to work out with regard to this amendment.
If the United States does not stay engaged in Haiti, the day will not
be far off when there will be more chaos in Haiti than there already
is, and the government may fall. American troops may be back in Haiti
at great cost to us, potential lives as well as money, and we may once
again see more people flooding toward the United States. This will be
money that is very well spent, and, quite frankly, I believe we have no
choice but to spend this money.
I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I wish to talk now about two other
amendments, one of which has already been offered and one which will be
offered that I have cosponsored.
Haiti is not the only emergency need that cannot wait another 6 or 9
months for funding. I wish to first talk about an amendment that
Senator Kohl and I sponsored and that Senator Cochran has been very
helpful in regard to.
Our amendment provides additional emergency money for food aid. The
President in his budget requested $150 million in additional emergency
food aid in this bill. Quite frankly, we need to do more. Accounts have
been drained, and over 17 million people are in need of emergency food
aid in the world. That is a very conservative estimate.
Last week, the United Nations World Food Program announced that it
would be forced to cut rations to Darfur to make their supplies last.
As Senator Frist so eloquently spoke just a few moments ago, the people
in this part of the world suffered through genocide, and now they will
starve. In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development has
been forced to cut programs in Sudan and Angola, Nicaragua, Rwanda,
Ghana, Eritrea--all food programs.
We know, of course, about the high-profile food aid emergencies, such
as the people affected by the tsunami in Southeast Asia and the people
in Darfur, but what we really do not hear so much about is the need for
food as a result of the locust infestation that swept through Africa
last year, devastating crops, and what we do not hear about is the
devastating floods in Bangladesh that leave women and children without
any means of survival. We cannot tell these 17 million starving people
of the world to wait. We can't tell them to wait for the regular
appropriations cycle because, frankly, by then, for them at least, it
will be too late.
When this amendment comes to the floor, the amendment sponsored by

[[Page S3722]]

Senator Kohl and me, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
provide this emergency food. It is lifesaving. It will make a
difference. Lives are, in fact, saved.
Finally, I am cosponsoring an amendment offered by Senator Corzine,
together with Senators Brownback and Durbin, that would provide $93.5
million to address the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Frist, who has on many occasions
been to Sudan and has personally done humanitarian work there, and who
has been so very active on the floor of the Senate as well. I thank him
for his eloquent words a few minutes ago and for his great leadership.
I also thank my other colleagues who have taken the lead in this area
and for their comments on the floor about this particular amendment and
the dire situation in Darfur. They have been deeply committed to
helping this troubled region of our world, and I commend them for their
work.
The amendment would provide $52 million in assistance for the African
Union. The African Union is trying to stop the genocide, and we have a
moral obligation to support their mission.
This amendment also addresses the overwhelming humanitarian crisis in
Darfur--providing $40.5 million for international disaster assistance.
The United Nations International Children's Fund estimates that they
only have access to 5 to 10 percent of Darfur and only can get into 5
or 10 percent, and they have access only to one-third of the millions
of people living in the region. Children's lives depend on our vote on
this amendment.
This amendment is budget neutral.
I urge all of my colleagues who have raised their voices on the floor
in opposition to the crimes being committed in Darfur to vote for this
amendment and to vote for the accompanying amendment containing the
Darfur Accountability Act. The genocide in Darfur must end, and it must
end now.
I understand that we cannot address every problem in the world in
this particular bill and that some things will have to wait for the
regular appropriations cycle, but the things that I have come to the
floor to talk about this morning simply will not wait. Lives are at
stake if we do not address them in this bill, and lives will, in fact,
be lost. Each one of the items that I have talked about is a matter of
crisis, a matter of emergency.
They need to be included in this bill.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 451

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I
ask unanimous consent that Senators Mikulski, Stabenow, Dodd, Boxer,
Dorgan, Lieberman, Clinton, and Akaka be added as cosponsors of this
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Ms.
Mikulski, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment
numbered 451.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To lower the burden of gasoline prices on the economy of the
United States and circumvent the efforts of OPEC to reap windfall oil
profits)

On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
Sec. 6047.(a) Congress finds that--
(1) the prices of gasoline and crude oil have a direct and
substantial impact on the financial well-being of families of
the United States, the potential for national economic
recovery, and the economic security of the United States;
(2) on April 12, 2005, crude oil prices closed at the
exceedingly high level of $51.86 per barrel and the price of
crude oil has remained above $50 per barrel since February
22, 2005;
(3) on April 11, 2005, the Energy Information
Administration announced that the national price of gasoline,
at $2.28 per gallon--
(A) had set a new record high for a 4th consecutive week;
(B) was $0.49 higher than last year; and
(C) could reach even higher levels in the near future;
(4) despite the severely high, sustained price of crude
oil--
(A) the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(referred to in this section as ``OPEC'') has refused to
adequately increase production to calm global oil markets and
officially abandoned its $22-$28 price target; and
(B) officials of OPEC member nations have publicly
indicated support for maintaining oil prices of $40-$50 per
barrel;
(5) the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (referred to in this
section as ``SPR'') was created to enhance the physical and
economic security of the United States;
(6) the law allows the SPR to be used to provide relief
when oil and gasoline supply shortages cause economic
hardship;
(7) the proper management of the resources of the SPR could
provide gasoline price relief to families of the United
States and provide the United States with a tool to
counterbalance OPEC supply management policies;
(8) the Administration's current policy of filling the SPR
despite the fact that the SPR is more than 98 percent full
has exacerbated the rising price of crude oil and record high
retail price of gasoline;
(9) in order to combat high gasoline prices during the
summer and fall of 2000, President Clinton released
30,000,000 barrels of oil from the SPR, stabilizing the
retail price of gasoline;
(10) increasing vertical integration has allowed--
(A) the 5 largest oil companies in the United States to
control almost as much crude oil production as the Middle
Eastern members of OPEC, over of domestic refiner capacity,
and over 60 percent of the retail gasoline market; and
(B) the top 10 oil companies in the world to make more than
$100,000,000,000 in profit and in some instances to post
record-breaking fourth quarter earnings that were in some
cases more than 200 percent higher than the previous year;
(11) the Administration has failed to manage the SPR in a
manner that would provide gasoline price relief to working
families; and
(12) the Administration has failed to adequately demand
that OPEC immediately increase oil production in order to
lower crude oil prices and safeguard the world economy.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that the President should--
(1) directly confront OPEC and challenge OPEC to
immediately increase oil production; and
(2) direct the Federal Trade Commission and Attorney
General to exercise vigorous oversight over the oil markets
to protect the people of the United States from price gouging
and unfair practices at the gasoline pump.
(c)(1) For the period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act and ending on the date that is 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act--
(A) deliveries of oil to the SPR shall be suspended; and
(B) 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day shall be released from
the SPR.
(2) If necessary to lower the burden of gasoline prices on
the economy of the United States and to circumvent the
efforts of OPEC to reap windfall crude oil profits, 1,000,000
barrels of oil per day shall be released from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve for an additional 30 days.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered will allow
the Federal Government to take long overdue action to curb the record
high gasoline prices that are plaguing American consumers at the pump.
As my colleagues are aware, for weeks, oil and gasoline prices have
been placing an immense burden on working families. They are burning a
hole in every wallet and pocketbook in America, and they are
threatening our fragile recovery. The March numbers showed that
consumers are not spending on other things because of the high prices
of gasoline and other petroleum products. It is time this body took
action to protect our Nation's economic security from sky-high oil
prices and the whims of the OPEC cartel.
This amendment would provide the American consumer with relief by
halting the diversion of oil from markets to the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, and by releasing an amount of oil from the reserve through a
swap program in order to increase supply, quell the markets, and bring
down prices at the pump.
What we are faced with is the simple market economics of supply and
demand. If demand goes up, price goes up. If supply goes up, price goes
down. At a

[[Page S3723]]

time when we are facing recordbreaking gasoline prices, it is
unfathomable that the Federal Government would actually be taking oil
off the market and exacerbating the high costs of working families.
The price of crude oil has remained at near record highs for the
first half of 2005. Oil has been trading at over $50 a barrel since
February 22. The prices have already burdened Americans, particularly
in my home State of New York and the Northeast where we rely on home
heating oil to heat our homes, as people have done throughout the
winter.
I know a lot of these families were hoping for a quick spring so they
could enjoy relief from the high energy prices. Unfortunately, that has
not been the case, as the increased burden of oil costs has just moved
from the home and now, as we approach spring, to the highway. As
Americans are beginning to plan for their summer vacations and road
trips, the price of gasoline has reached a record high for the fourth
week in a row.
The Energy Information Administration predicted that the current
price of $2.28 a gallon--that is 49 cents, just about half a dollar up
from last year--could give way to even higher prices in the future.
We know who is being hurt by these oil prices, and we know who is
benefiting--OPEC. OPEC made over $300 billion in oil revenue last year.
They stand to gain much more if the price stays in the stratosphere.
And they have a policy which they keep changing. Originally, they said
$22 to $28 a barrel would be their policy. Now they say they are
comfortable at oil remaining at $40 to $50 permanently. I know who will
not be comfortable--American families who depend on affordable oil to
commute to work, heat their homes, and provide for their energy needs.
Some of my colleagues may be asking: Didn't OPEC agree to increase
production by 500,000 barrels a day? The reality is that OPEC's pledge
to increase production on paper has not reduced prices at the pump.
OPEC cut a million barrels in the face of rising prices, and now they
say they are going to raise it 500,000 barrels. But we are not sure
this is happening because it may be a paper transaction. When it comes
to the talk of increasing production by another 500,000 barrels, an
increase that might actually result in a production raise, it is no
surprise that OPEC members are balking. Venezuela, Nigeria, and Libya--
all have indicated they would oppose such an increase. That is another
reason we should use the SPR because there is a division in OPEC, and
we can strengthen the hands of those more responsible nations that want
to increase production to meet the increasing demand in the world.
What has the administration done on this? It has continued its policy
of taking oil off the market and placing it in the SPR. This policy,
which further tightens the oil market by taking much-needed supplies
out of commerce, is slated to take an average of 85,000 barrels a day
off the market during the height of the driving season.
I understand some of my colleagues are convinced the SPR should not
be touched, even to safeguard our economic security. I would argue that
the concerns to this degree do not properly balance America's physical
security needs against our economic security needs. The SPR is now 98
percent full. We are not recommending a sale but, rather, a swap so the
oil would be replaced presumably at a lower price, and we would have
the full amount of oil in the SPR once again.
The administration has these tools, and yet we are letting OPEC
control the whole show. If we showed them we meant business, that we
were willing to mix in, they would be far more reticent, far more
reluctant to raise the price at will in the light of increasing demand
from China, India, our country, and other places.
It is about time we did this. I urge my colleagues to join me in
protecting the pocketbook of working families from OPEC's profiteering
by supporting the amendment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to make some remarks today on the
Defense supplemental we have before us. It is critical we pass that
legislation. I have been exceedingly disappointed that critical
legislation to support our troops who are serving us in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other areas around the world is being held up by what
now appears to be a prolonged and extensive debate on immigration. More
than that, we are being asked to vote on a very significant immigration
legislation. No. 1, the AgJOBS bill is 105 pages. As I read it, Mr.
President, as I know you have, it is breathtakingly deficient. It will
undermine our current immigration system, make it much worse. It is an
abomination. Yet I understand at one point the sponsors, Senators Craig
and Kennedy, said they had over 60 Senators prepared to vote for it.
Now, they are peeling off right and left and we may certainly hope
there are not votes sufficient to pass this legislation we will be
voting on now on a defense bill.
I was in an Immigration Subcommittee hearing yesterday, chaired by
Senator Cornyn who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. It
was a very informative and important hearing. He has been working on
this for many months now, trying to hammer out something that makes
sense for America. Yet now we are rushing through to vote on this bill.
I want to share some thoughts about it.
I want to strongly oppose the AgJOBS Act. I oppose it, not only
because it has nothing to do with the money we need to support our
troops in Iraq and will no doubt, and already has, slow down the bill,
but because it undermines the rule of law by rewarding illegal aliens
with amnesty. It creates no mechanisms in the law that will help bring
integrity to a system that is failing badly. It is a huge step
backward. It would be a disaster, if you want to know the truth.
It contains a host of bad provisions that should not be law and, as a
result, has even lost the support of much of the agriculture community
the sponsors claim to be so much in need of it.
It will provide amnesty to 1 million illegal aliens and their
families in addition, illegal aliens who broke the immigration law to
come here illegally and then again broke the law by working here
illegally. The AgJOBS bill will treat unfairly those people who come to
the United States legally to work in agriculture, and do their work and
comply with the rules dutifully. They do not benefit at all from this
amnesty. Only illegals can benefit from its passage. That is a
fundamental principle a great nation ought to think about. This is not
an itty-bitty matter. We are going to provide a benefit to somebody who
violates a law and deny it to somebody who complies with the law? What
kind of policy can that be? How can one justify such a policy?
Under the AgJOBS bill, illegal aliens are granted not only the right
to stay here and work here, but they are put on the road to
citizenship, a virtual guaranteed path to citizenship unless they get
arrested for a felony--not arrested, you have to be convicted of a
felony. Or if you are convicted of three misdemeanors, that can get you
out--three or more.
As I noted, the legal farm workers under the current H-2A program
will get nothing. They are certainly not put on a road to citizenship.
Legal workers will not become permanent resident workers and then
citizens under the AgJOBS bill. If the AgJOBS bill passes, we will
state to the world that America is in fact rewarding people who break
the law to the disadvantage of those who follow it.
The sponsors of the amendment say this is not amnesty, it is earned
legalization; it is adjustment of status; it is rehabilitation. Those
are misnomers, to say the least. The AgJOBS bill is amnesty, plain and
simple. It will give illegal aliens the very thing they broke the law
to get, the ability to live and work inside the United States without
having to wait in line the same as everybody else to get it. The
amnesty contained in AgJOBS does not stop there. It goes even further
and gives illegal aliens a direct path from their new legal status to
U.S. citizenship.

[[Page S3724]]

Getting rewarded by being handed the exact thing you broke the law to
get plus the ability to get citizenship is amnesty, I think, under any
definition of it. It even goes far beyond the proposals President Bush
has made that some have called amnesty, and he says it is not.
I am somewhat dubious about some of the ideas he has proposed. But
his principles are clearly violated by this AgJOBS bill. Make no
mistake about it, President Bush, for all his commitment to improving
the ability of people to come to America to work, has never announced
principles as breathtakingly broad as this.
Let us remind ourselves that criminal laws are involved here. Title
8, section 1325 of the United States Code says illegal entry into the
United States is a misdemeanor on the first offense, a felony
thereafter. Coming here illegally, regardless of why you came, is a
criminal offense. Oftentimes, false documents and papers are submitted
and filed. That is a criminal offense also.
Not only does it provide amnesty to illegal aliens who are already
working here, it gives amnesty to the illegal alien's family, if their
family is also illegally here. But if their family is still abroad and
not here, the AgJOBS amendment allows the illegal alien to send for
their family and bring them here, cutting in line ahead of others who
made the mistake of trying to comply with our laws rather than break
them.
According to a Pew report, there are at least 840,000 illegal
immigrant workers who would be eligible for amnesty under this bill.
Adding in one spouse and a minor child for each of those, the estimate
can easily increase to 3 million immigrants--3 million, all of whom are
defined only in the agricultural community, not in any other community
in the country where it seems to me we would have a very difficult time
on principle defining why agriculture workers get such beneficial
treatment compared to any other worker who might be here.

Not only does AgJOBS give amnesty to the current people who are in
our country illegally, but it extends that amnesty to illegal aliens
who once worked in America but have already gone home. It actually
encourages them to come back to the United States and puts them on a
route that leads them to full citizenship. These are people who have
returned home to their country, and we are putting them ahead of lawful
workers who come here and may also want to be citizens one day.
The AgJOBS amendment will create a category of ``lawful, temporary
resident status'' of agricultural workers who have worked at least 100
days in the 18 months prior to December 31, 2004. These are supposed to
be workers who were here working, contributing to our economy, but they
only have to work 100 days.
You have to read these acts. You can't just believe what you hear
about them. I was trying to study it last night and things kept hitting
me that almost take your breath away. One hundred workdays--do you know
how that is defined in the act? An individual who is employed 1 or more
hours in agriculture per day, that is a workday. For literally as many
or as few as 100 hours of agricultural work in 18 months you are put on
this track. That is not good policy. I don't know who wrote this bill.
The details of it are extremely troubling.
Because the bill now only applies to agricultural workers, it is true
the entire illegal population that is estimated to be in our country of
8 to 10 million will not be legalized under the bill. However, we can
be quite sure the majority of those 1.2 million illegal agricultural
workers will apply for amnesty if this amendment is passed.
Again I ask, what real principle can we stand on to say we need to
give these people who are here illegally preference over people who
might be working in some other industry?
Under the AgJOBS bill, an illegal alien is not deportable as soon as
his paperwork is filed. No factfinding or adjudication on the
application is necessary. It kicks in a protection that he cannot be
deported. Maybe he has been charged with a felony, but the trial hasn't
come along yet. It seems to me the procedure is guaranteed to go
forward and they will be able to be put on this track. After the
illegal alien gets the first round of amnesty, being granted temporary
legal status under the AgJOBS bill, the bill gives them the opportunity
to continue working in agriculture and apply for permanent resident
status here in the United States. Thereafter that puts you in a
position to become a citizen--guaranteed, unless you get in some big
trouble.
There is no limit on the number of individuals who would be allowed
to adjust to lawful permanent residence and eventually become citizens.
If the illegal alien who meets the bill criteria has already left the
United States, the legislation actually would encourage them to come
back through the border to become a lawful temporary worker. As I read
the legislation, they are allowed to do that by filing a petition. I
believe it is called a preliminary petition. This petition is pretty
interesting. The petition fundamentally is filed at the border with an
officer, it says. And who is the officer? An officer is a member of a
farm workers organization or an employer group, both of which are not
representing the interests of the citizens of the United States but
both of which have a special interest in having the alien come into the
country. That is how they make their money. And they have to accept it
if he produces virtually any document at all that would say he or she
has worked in the country at sometime previously.
Later on my breath was taken away where it says in this act that the
documents filed by the illegal alien are confidential. Read this:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary
[that's the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is supposed
to be supervising all of this, under his jurisdiction] nor
any official or employee of the Homeland Security or Bureau
or Agency thereof may use the information furnished by the
applicant pursuant to an application under this section. . .
.

It goes on to say:

Files and records prepared for the purposes of this section
by qualified designated entities [these are these employer
groups. These are the farm worker organizations] are
confidential, and the Secretary shall not have access to such
files or records relating to the alien without the consent of
the alien, except as allowed by a court order issued pursuant
to paragraph 6.

Great Scott, you mean you file an application that is supposed to
justify you to come into the country, and it is supposed to allow you
to come in here, but the drafters of this legislation are so
distrustful of our Government and the Secretary of Homeland Security
that he is not even able to see the documents? I don't know how this
became the policy of the United States.
The fundamental principle is that no nation is required to allow
anyone to come into their country because they have sovereignty over
their country. They set standards and try to adhere to them. Wise
countries such as ours are very generous about how many people are
allowed to come in. Some are far more strict--most are, in fact, more
strict than are we. But no one has a right, automatically, to enter
somebody's country. You enter by permission of that country. I don't
think there would be anything wrong to ask the applicant to at least
file a petition so the designated governmental official in charge of
the operation can see it, instead of it being secret from them.
Frank Gaffney recently wrote a column entitled ``Stealth Amnesty.''
He is the president of the Center for Security Policy. We do have some
security problems involving terrorism involved around our country. He
summarized the AgJOBS bill by saying this:

By the legislation's own terms, an illegal alien will be
turned into ``an alien lawfully admitted for temporary
residence'' . . .

Just by fiat.
Provided they had managed to work unlawfully in an agricultural job
in the United States for a minimum of 100 hours; in other words, for
2\1/2\ weeks during 18 months prior to August 31, 2003.
I will continue to talk about the bizarre nature of this application
process. Someone who is even not in the country who wants to come back
into the country, as I understand it, who has worked in our country
illegally for some period of time and have returned to their country,
they want to come back; they file an application, a preliminary
application, I believe the phrase is. They do not file it with the
Government, they file it with a farm workers group or an employer
group,

[[Page S3725]]

both of which do not have a real interest in seeing that the laws of
the United States are enforced.
It goes on. It is difficult to understand. I read from page 24 of the
205-page bill:

. . . the Secretary shall not have access to such files or
records relating to the alien without the consent of the
alien, except as allowed by a court order.

It goes on to say that ``neither the Secretary nor any official''
shall ``use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant to an
application filed under this section,'' provided they cannot use it
``for any purpose other than to make a determination on the application
or for enforcement.''
Then it goes on to state that ``nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the use or release for immigration enforcement
purposes or law enforcement purposes'' of information contained in
files and records of the Department of Homeland Security but that does
not give them the ability to use the information contained in the
paperwork filed with the employer group. Those papers the employer does
not give to the Department of Homeland Security are kept secret and not
available to law enforcement, the bill goes on to add that no
information in the application can be used ``other than information
furnished by an applicant pursuant to the application or any other
information derived from the application that is not available for any
other source.''
I was a prosecutor. I know how hard it was to handle these things.
This bill will create a situation that makes these documents virtually
unusable in making sure this system has integrity. Why do we want to do
that? What possible reason do we want to have in legislation of this
kind that would say when you come here and you present documentation
into evidence that justifies coming here to do that--why shouldn't the
information you present in your application be part of the files of the
Government, be reviewable at any time by any agency of the Government,
for any purpose for which they want to use it? Everybody else has to do
that.
Before you can be a Senator, you have to disclose all your finances.
That does not take me long, but for some people it takes a long time.
We have to do that, but somebody who is not even a citizen, not even a
resident of this country, can keep information secret even though they
are asking to become legal permanent residents eligible for
citizenship.
Mr. President, I will quote from an article by Mr. Frank Gaffney.
This confirms what I have been saying, which is undisputable about the
bill. We are not at a time in our history when we should be doing this.
It is exactly opposite of what we should be doing if we want to create
a new system of immigration that allows more people to come here
legally, to work as their schedules are fit, with employers who may
need them.
We can do that. We should do that. We can do better about that. We
can improve current law. But to just willy-nilly allow people who could
very well be very marginal part-time employees, who never worked much--
to give them permanent resident status and citizenship for violating
our laws is thunderously erroneous, in my view. It is just not good.
Mr. Gaffney goes on to say:
Once so transformed--What he means by that is once you have been
transformed from an illegal person to a legal person by filing an
application--they can stay in the U.S. indefinitely while applying for
permanent resident status. From there, it is a matter of time before
they can become citizens, so long as they work in the agricultural
sector for 675 hours over the next six years.
But you only have to work, really, 2,000 hours, or 1 year out of 6
years, but you have to stay in the agricultural sector.
Some have called this creating indentured servants. Why isn't it a
form of indentured servitude? You have to come here. You are required
to work for 6 years in agriculture. You cannot take some other type
employment.
The Craig[-Kennedy] bill would confer this amnesty as an exchange for
indentured servitude. The amnesty will be conferred--Mr. Gaffney goes
on to say--not only on farmworking illegal aliens who are in this
country--estimates of those eligible run to more than 800,000. It would
also extend the opportunity to those who otherwise qualified but had
previously left the United States. No one knows how many would fall in
this category and want to return as legal workers. But, a safe bet is
that there are hundreds of thousands of them.
If any were needed, S. 1645 [the AgJOBS bill] offers a further
incentive to the illegals: Your family can stay, as well.
Alternatively, if they are not with you, [and you are in the United
States] you can bring them in, too--cutting in line ahead of others who
made the mistake of abiding by, rather than ignoring, our laws.
So the system would work this way. I do not think anyone would
dispute this. Someone is here illegally. They are working in
agricultural work. By the way, it defines, at the beginning of this
legislation, what an ``employer'' means in agricultural employment. And
it says:
The term ``employer'' means any person or entity, including any farm
labor contractor and any agricultural association, that employs workers
in agricultural employment.
So you have to work for an agricultural employer, but that does not
indicate to me that you have to be working in agriculture. Maybe the
company has some workers who are agricultural, and 90 percent of them
are not. Maybe you could work for them the way this thing is written,
regardless.
But the way this system would work is if they were here illegally
over a period of 18 months--if they were here just 18 months--and had
worked 100 hours in agricultural employment during that 18 months, the
Secretary shall make them a lawful temporary resident--required to,
unless they committed a serious crime or something.
Then, over the next 6 years, if they were to work in agriculture for
up to 2,060 hours--that is about 1 year's work--over 6 years in
agriculture, they become a legal permanent resident. Then if you just
hang along there for 5 years, you can become a citizen.
Now, I do not see where this can be supported by somebody saying they
earned their citizenship. Citizenship should not be bought and paid for
in labor. Why? Well, they worked for compensation, they wanted to work
for compensation, this is not something we forced them to come here and
do, they were paid like every other American is paid. You earn your pay
for the work you perform. I do not know that you should earn additional
benefits because you work. All the while, of course, the lawful H-2A
workers are still required to go home when their time is up. They only
receive pay for working, why should we give illegal workers more than
that.
The AgJOBS amendment goes so far as to provide free legal counsel to
illegal aliens who want to receive this amnesty. All Americans don't
get free legal counsel. There is no notice in this bill that suggests
they have to have any low-income level or have no assets to get the
legal services this bill gives to illegal alien workers. It provides
that the Legal Services Corporation can expend their funds and shall
not be prevented from providing legal assistance directly related to an
application for adjustment of status under this section.
Again, we are now giving them free legal status, free legal services,
and we are allowing them to go to these groups, these farmworker
organizations or employer groups, to help them with that. The AgJOBS
amendment provides all that in that fashion.
Let me talk about another item in this amendment an item that
restricts the rights of employers. I don't know how every State does
it. I think probably a substantial number of States, like my State of
Alabama, have laws that provide for employment at will; that is, unless
an employee has a contract, they work for the company and they can
leave the company whenever they want and the company can terminate them
whenever they want. That is Alabama law. I am rather certain of that.
But if you come in under this act, you get an enhanced protection over
American citizens. Prohibition: No alien granted temporary resident
status under subsection (a) may be terminated from employment by any
employer during the period of temporary resident status except for just
cause. And they set up an administrative law process, an arbitration
proceeding to have all these trials. The burden of

[[Page S3726]]

proof is on the employer to demonstrate just cause for termination, and
he has the burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Once again, we are entering into a complex legal deal here we need to
avoid, providing legal rights and protections to noncitizens who have
violated the law that are not available to American citizens.
Presumably, there are two farmworkers on this farm somewhere. One of
them is an American citizen--in Alabama, let us say--and the boss wants
to fire one of them. If he fires the temporary resident alien, he has
to go through arbitration and hire a lawyer and defend himself and be
sued. As a matter of fact, it goes on to say that doesn't end it. That
is one additional remedy the worker can have. He can still sue the
employer for any kind of fraud, abuse or harassment or any other thing
that some trial lawyer may pursue. So it doesn't end it. The evidence
apparently can be utilized from that trial into a next trial.
I am concerned about that. I believe it is an unnecessary litigation
that is going to impact our country adversely. That is why you will see
that agricultural groups are not supporting this AgJOBS bill.
What we really should do is follow the recommendations made to us
over the years by immigration commissions of Congress that have been
created for the specific purpose of providing advice and counsel to us
on how to effect immigration reform. In 1992, 6 years after the last
illegal alien agricultural worker amnesty passed in 1986 as part of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, the IRCA, the Commission on
Agricultural Workers issued a report to Congress that studied the
effects of the 1986 agricultural amnesty called the Special
Agricultural Worker Program.
One of the first things the Commission acknowledged was the number of
workers given amnesty under the bill had been severely underestimated.
The Commission reported the SAW Program legalized many more farmworkers
than expected:

It appears that the number of undocumented workers who had
worked in seasonal agricultural services prior to the IRCA
was generally underestimated.

What else did the Commission find? Did it suggest that this solved
the problem of workers in America in agricultural industry? Did it fix
the problem that they tried to fix in 1986?
They say this:

Six years after the IRCA was signed into law, the problems
within the system of agricultural labor continued to exist.
In most areas, an increasing number of newly arriving
unauthorized workers compete for available jobs, reducing the
number of workers available to all harvest workers--

That is, those who were given amnesty and those who are citizens--

and contributing to lower annual earnings.

Did the Commission recommend we pass a second legalization program
such as AgJOBS? What did they say that might help us on that? They said
this:

A worker specific and/or industry specific legalization
program, as contained in the IRCA, should not be the basis of
future immigration policy.

This was 6 years after we did the last one. They had a commission
study it. This is what they concluded. What do they suggest we ought to
do? What did the Commission recommend? They said the only way to have
structure and a stable agricultural market was to increase enforcement
of our immigration laws, including employer sanctions, and reduce
illegal immigration:

Illegal immigration must be curtailed. This should be
accomplished with more effective border controls, better
internal apprehension mechanisms, and enhanced enforcement of
employer sanctions. The U.S. Government should also develop
better employment eligibility and identification systems,
including fraud-proof work authorization documents for all
persons legally authorized to work in the United States so
that employer sanctions can more effectively deter the
employment of unauthorized workers.

That is what they recommended. That is what we haven't done. In fact,
we are in an uproar over this rather minor Sensenbrenner language the
House put on their bill that deals with national security and a way to
make ID secure and other matters consistent with recommendations of the
9/11 Commission. So it appears that the Senate does not want to do that
but what we want to do is continue to pass these amnesty bills. This
should not be happening.
Restoring our ability and commitment to successfully enforce our
immigration laws is the only long-term solution. A real solution will
not reward illegal behavior by handing out amnesty to people here
illegally, but instead will require effective control of our borders,
active policing in the interior, and participation among all levels of
law enforcement. Of course, it includes improving the laws that we have
to allow, where needed, more people to come legally in a system that
actually works. But to have any system at all, of course, that must be
created with an enforcement mechanism that works. We have never created
such a mechanism and now it is time to do so.
I introduced a bill last Congress--and will introduce, again--that
would strengthen the United States' ability to enforce our immigration
laws. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act would clarify for law
enforcement officers of a State, county, and city that they do have
authority to enforce immigration violations while carrying out their
routine duties.
They don't have authority to deport or try, but they have a
responsibility, in most instances, to detain people they identify as
being here in violation of the law and contact Federal officials to
process that individual after that. They have been told, and been
confused about, what their authority is. I have written a law review
article on it, aided by my assistant here, my counsel, Cindy Hayden. We
researched the law and came to that conclusion.
The law provides the authority, in virtually every instance, but
lawyers have confused cities and counties and police and sheriffs, and
they are not participating in anything the way they would like. We are
not talking about forcing them to do anything. We are trying to make
sure we pass legislation that clarifies existing law and makes it clear
they have the ability to serve and assist our country. It would
increase the amount of information regarding deportable illegal aliens
entered into the FBI National Crime Information Center database, making
the information more readily available to local officials.
This is a big, big deal. In the hearing Senator Cornyn chaired
yesterday, we had a person from the Department of Homeland Security who
is in charge of detention and removal, and what we learned was that
over 80 percent of the people who are detained, processed and found to
be here illegally are released on bail while the government arranges
for their deportation. It is not surprising they don't show up to be
deported. Even after they are given a hearing and found to be here in
violation of the law, they are consistently released on bail, and 80
percent of those don't show up to be deported. Then, we now have some
400,000 absconders. Now, Mr. President, if a Senator gets a DUI in
Kansas or someplace and you don't show up for court, they put your name
in the database, and if you get stopped for speeding somewhere in some
other State, they will pick it up. So they are a fugitive, but their
information is not being put into the NCIC.
I know police officers. I was a prosecutor for over 15 years. I asked
them about this. They tell me they do not even bother to call the
Federal Immigration officials if they apprehend someone that is
illegally here because they won't come and get them. So they have just
given up. They are prepared to help. What a great asset that would be.
But, no, we have not seen fit to do that.
But more importantly, the 400,000 absconders are not in the National
Crime Information Center computer. So when a State officer apprehends
someone, and they have a name and they want to run it through the
wanted persons database they would use for an American citizen, they
run the birth date, the driver's license, or other identifying
characteristics, and it tells them whether there is a warrant out for
their arrest.
That is how most people are caught today who violate the law and who
are fugitives. Most of them are caught in simple traffic stops. Don't
tell them because they will quit speeding. But that is how we catch
them--when they get in a fight somewhere and the police runs their name
and there is a warrant out in Texas for them for assault or something.

[[Page S3727]]

We raised Cain last year about that and asked the tough questions of
a number of the Department officials. They said they would try. So out
of 400,000, we learned there are about 40,000 of those names they found
time to put in the NCI Center computer system that is available at
city, county, and police offices out in the country. That indicates to
me how confused we are about how to make this system work.
I want to say this. I absolutely believe that we have one big problem
on our minds; that is, we think it cannot be done. We think we cannot
enforce immigration laws, that we might as well just quit. Well, under
our present way of doing so, that is correct. However, if we create a
more generous way for people to come here legally that is simple and
understandable, and if we enhance our enforcement abilities and if we
quit rewarding those who come illegally, you will begin to see the
numbers change. As a matter of fact, there is a tipping point out there
I am absolutely convinced exists.
If we enhance the enforcement of those who come illegally, we quit
providing those who are here illegally with benefits, we increase
border enforcement, and we enhance the way for people to come here
legally to work, and we make that easier and will get more support from
countries from which these people come, we can tip this thing. As the
number that come into the country illegally goes down, and as our
enforcement effort and officers are increased, you will have a
tremendous change in the number of enforcement officers per illegal.
That is when you make progress. That is what happened in crime.
The crime rate has been dropping for the last 20 years. As it drops,
we don't fire policemen. We have gotten more policemen per crime, so
they have more time to work on crime. They are doing a better job of
apprehending repeat offenders and putting them in jail. The crime rate
has broken. Instead of going up, as it did in the 1960s and 1970s, it
has been going down for over 20 years. We can do that here. It will
affirm America's commitment to the rule of law. To do that, we are
going to need additional bedspace for detention, and we cannot continue
to release people who have been apprehended on the street so they just
disappear again. We have to require the Federal Government to receive
and process people who have been apprehended by local law enforcement.
We need to make sure the system provides them a fair hearing, but it
also needs to be a prompt hearing. If someone is in violation of the
law, the system should work rapidly and not with great expense. Those
are some of the things I am concerned about in the bill I have offered.
But there are many other problems of a similar nature that need to be
dealt with.
We are a nation of immigrants. America openly welcomes legal
immigrants and new citizens who have the character, integrity, the
decency, and the work ethic that have made this country great. But they
are concerned, rightly, about the politicians in Washington who talk as
though they hear them when they cry out for a system that works, and we
say we are working on it. What do we do? We came up with an AgJOBS bill
that absolutely goes in the wrong direction. The same people who are
supporting that bill, for the most part--although not Senator Larry
Craig--are opposing my bill, for example, that would enhance law
enforcement authority for local officers, and they wonder if we have
any commitment at all here to enforce the law. They have every right to
do so because I will tell you, from my experience in talking with
police officers in my State, nothing is being done. Until we put our
minds to it, nothing will be done.
How do we go from here? What should we do? In my view, we need to
pass this emergency supplemental to support our troops. We need to
reject all immigration amendments on it. We need to follow President
Bush's lead and have a serious debate and discussion on this issue.
We need to agree on certain principles about how it will be
conducted. We are going to have a legal system that works. We are going
to be humane in how we treat people who come here. We are going to
consider American needs. It is not going to be an unlimited number. And
we are going to create a legal system that works.
We can do that, and we should do that. A lot of work is going on
toward that end right now. Senator Kyl and Senator Chambliss have a
major bill to deal with some of these issues. Senator Cornyn, a former
justice of the Texas Supreme Court, a former attorney general of Texas,
is doing a real good job in managing the Immigration Subcommittee of
the Judiciary Committee and is considering all these issues. Then
sometime later this year, I think, we might as well get serious, bring
something up and try to make some progress. Who knows, maybe even the
President should appoint an independent commission of people who
understand this issue--we have had commissions before--and make some
specific recommendations about how we ought to proceed. That could
work, in my view.
Right now the American people lack confidence in us, and they have
every right to lack confidence in us because we have created a system
that is flawed, it is not working. It is an abomination, really.
I want to share this information with my colleagues. Farmers who are
supposed to be benefiting from this act, the agriculture workers
amnesty legislation, do not want it. Maybe some farm groups in
Washington or lobbyists are for it. Maybe some big agricultural
entities want it. But I have in my hands an open letter from the
Southeastern Farmers Coalition. It is signed by a list of organizations
and individual H-2A program participants, people who utilize farm
workers from out of the country who are ``the overwhelming majority of
H-2A program users in the country.''
The list of signatories to this letter is expansive, including the
North Carolina Growers Association, the Mid-Atlantic Solutions, the
Georgia Peach Council, AgWorks, the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable
Association, the Virginia Agricultural Growers Association, the Vidalia
Onion Business Council--I am sure that is a sweet group--and the
Kentucky-Tennessee Growers Association.
The letter states:

Farmers in the Southeastern United States are opposed to
Senate bill S. 1645 introduced by Ted Kennedy and Larry
Craig. It is an amnesty for illegal farm-workers. It does not
reform the H-2A program. Please oppose this legislation.

The text of the letter, which asks me to oppose the bill, says:

[AgJOBS] is nothing more than a veiled amnesty. While
everyone, it seems, agrees that the H-2A program desperately
needs reform, this legislation does not fix the two most
onerous problems with the program: the adverse effect wage
rate and the overwhelming litigation brought by Legal
Services groups against farmers using the H-2A program.

In fact, it explicitly provides for more such litigation. The letter
goes on to say:

The Craig-Kennedy-Berman reform package provides a private
right of action provision that goes far beyond legitimate
worker protections and expands Legal Services' attorneys
ability to sue growers in several critical areas. These
lawyers, who have harassed program users with meritless
lawsuits for years, will continue to attack small family
farmers under the new statute.

Supporters of Craig-Kennedy-Berman have endorsed this alleged reform
believing in a misguided fashion that it will bring stability to the
agricultural labor market. It will not. It will create greater
instability. As illegal farm workers earn amnesty, they will abandon
their farm jobs for work in other industries.
Continuing this letter:

Many of the attached signatories have been actively
involved in negotiations surrounding this legislation. The
following groups have broken ranks with the American Farm
Bureau.

As a matter of fact, I think the Farm Bureau has now switched sides
on this bill, and they are no longer endorsing it. They are not
supporting it now. They have changed their position.
They continue:

You are likely to hear that the majority of agriculture
supports this bill. The industry, in fact, is split.

But, in fact, the trend has been the other way against it.
They go on:

History has demonstrated that the amnesty granted under the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was a dismal
failure for agriculture employers. Farm workers abandoned
agricultural employment

[[Page S3728]]

shortly after gaining amnesty and secured jobs in other
industries.

I also received a letter last week from two growers in Alabama who
favor improving the ability to utilize foreign workers. They strongly
support that. But still they asked me to oppose the AgJOBS legislation.
Tom Bentley of Bentley Farms, which grows, packs, and ships peaches
from Thorsby, AL, and Henry Williams, head of the Alabama Growers
Association, write:

In the coming days, you may be asked to vote on legislation
offered by Senator Larry Craig and Senator Edward Kennedy
that purports to significantly reform the present H-2A
agricultural worker program by providing an earned amnesty to
hundreds of thousands of undocumented farm workers now
present in the United States.
Despite claims that this bill is bipartisan and represents
the interests of all agricultural employers, growers in the
Southeastern United States do not support the passage of this
legislation.
This bill is not H-2A reform as touted, it is simply an
amnesty bill for a selected group of workers.

If farmers who make up a majority of H-2A employers are opposed to
AgJOBS because it is amnesty for illegal workers and it does not reform
the H-2A program, why should we pass it? Who supports this amendment? I
believe the supporters who are advocating it are really not in touch
with the desires of the American people and the desires of the farmers
they claim to represent. In fact, I am not sure the authors understand
just how far this bill goes and just how many serious problems exist
within it.

I do not think that I am out of touch with the American people. I
certainly believe the principles I have advocated are consistent with
the rule of law that I cherish in our country, and I am troubled to see
it eroded in this fashion. I believe reform is necessary. I believe we
can achieve reform. I believe we need to spend some time on it. I do
not think it can be done piecemeal. I originally thought it had to be
done comprehensively. Then somebody convinced me we could break it up.
But the more I look at it, the more I see the nature of it. Why would
we want to spend all this time on one group of workers, agricultural
workers? There are other workers who are facing the same challenge. Why
not fix this problem in a generous way for foreign workers to come and
work, a generous way to achieve citizenship, a focus on the real needs
of America, not just laboring immigrants. We need people who have
Ph.D.s, brain power, scientific people who may cure cancer one day. We
need more of those kinds of people, too.
We need to look at it comprehensively. Draw up a system that works.
But one that allows us to honor the heritage we have been given as
Americans, the heritage that draws so many people--our heritage of the
rule of law--is being eroded terribly today.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is pending. The
distinguished majority leader will make the decision as to what votes
are going to occur on Monday evening. I want to get my debate out of
the way, hoping this amendment, which is probably germane postcloture--
maybe we could do it at that time and get it over with.
Over this past recess I had the good fortune to travel to the Middle
East. I visited Nevada troops in Kuwait before they went to Iraq. It
was a great trip for me, one I will never forget. But I saw firsthand
what has been accomplished in the face of very difficult and dangerous
conditions in Iraq. I was also able to see that every American should
be very proud of the unheralded service these courageous service men
and women perform each day.
The 1864th Transportation Unit from Nevada hauls the goods from
Kuwait to Iraq. This is where we hear about some vehicles needing more
armor. These vehicles need more armor, but when they get an order they
get in the truck and off they go, men and women.
I also received briefings on the status of our efforts to secure and
rebuild Iraq. During a helicopter flight over Baghdad, it was very
clear that big city one time was in shambles. The process of rebuilding
Iraq has started, thanks to generous assistance of the U.S. taxpayers,
but a lot of it doesn't show.
The amendment I offer today seeks to honor the sacrifices of our
troops and taxpayers on behalf of the Iraqi people and ensures that
other nations of the world keep their commitment in this worthwhile
effort.
I want to spend a few minutes discussing the details of what we and
other nations around the world are doing to secure and rebuild Iraq.
Presently, there are more than 150,000 Coalition troops in Iraq. More
than 130,000 of them are Americans, such as the 1864th I saw in Kuwait
that drives on a continual basis into the middle of Iraq.
Since the beginning of this war, more than half a million U.S.
military personnel have served in Iraq. The story is remarkable. It is
remarkable because it is similar to the international effort to rebuild
Iraq.
While this Nation has appropriated more than $20 billion in direct
assistance for Iraqi reconstruction, the rest of the world combined has
produced about half of that. When I say ``produced,'' it is only in
talk. Even more startling is the fact that the vast majority of the
commitments made by these other countries have been in the form of
loans and credits rather than hard cash such as we have provided. In
short, this Nation has done more than its fair share to secure and
rebuild Iraq.
As I noted at the outset, it was clear from my recent trip that a
great deal more needs to be done in construction, and that is an
understatement. We are not as far along as the administration promised
we would be at this point of the conflict; and the cost to the U.S.
taxpayers of our country for operations in Iraq has far exceeded the
estimates the administration provided us prior to the start of this
war.
The failure of the international community to keep its commitment is
one reason why reconstruction developments in Iraq have not proceeded
as they should. According to the State Department's sixth quarterly
report, the international community has actually delivered only $1
billion of the $13.5 billion promised.
As for the cost to the U.S. taxpayers of the Iraq reconstruction,
administration officials declared that Iraq itself could cover a
substantial portion of these costs. Shortly after the war started,
Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz told the House Budget Committee,
``There's lots of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S.
taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can easily finance
its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' U.S. AID Director Andrew
Natsios was even more explicit in his statement nearly a month later:

The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other
countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany,
Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in
several years, when it's up and running and there's a new
government that's been democratically elected, will finish
the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20
billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this
will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on
funding for this.

I think it's fair for the American people to ask why the Iraq
reconstruction has not proceeded as promised by this administration?
Why, when the United States military and our taxpayers have done so
much, the international community has done so little, failing to keep
even its relatively modest reconstruction commitment? Any why have the
administration's statements that the people of Iraq and other nations
would cover the bulk of that country's reconstruction costs proven to
be so wrong?
I think it is time we restored some equity, fairness, and shared
sacrifice with other nations on the reconstruction efforts.
I haven't talked about the deaths of our soldiers, the sacrifices
they have made being wounded. I am talking today only about money. The
commitment other countries have made has been very small in actual
personnel, very large in talk and very short in dollars. and our
taxpayers have more than lived up to their commitment to the people of
Iraq. It's long past time that the rest of the world do the same.
That's what my amendment seeks to do.

My amendment is quite straightforward. This amendment does not affect
roughly $17 billion of the $20 billion that Congress has appropriated
for Iraq reconstruction assistance. the administration is free to do
with that

[[Page S3729]]

amount as they see fit and when they see fit.
And it gives the President two clear options that he could take to
gain access to the remaining $3 billion.
First, the President can easily gain unfettered access to the
remaining funds by merely certifying that other nations who have made
financial commitments to help Iraq at the Madrid Donor's Conference and
in other donor meetings since 2003 have fulfilled those commitments.
Second, if the President is unable to make that certification, this
amendment provides him with yet another way to gain access to and spend
the remaining funds we have appropriated. he can simply certify to the
Congress that: No. 1, his representatives have made a good faith effort
to persuade other nations to follow through on their previous financial
commitments to Iraq; No. 2, the sale of Iraqi oil or other Iraqi
sources of revenue should not be used to reimburse the United States
Government for our reconstruction assistance; and No. 3, despite the
failure of these other nations to live up to their financial promises
and the inability of Iraq to reimburse us for a significant portion of
our reconstruction costs, continued American spending on Iraqi
reconstruction is in the national security interests of the United
States.
These are very simple, clear and straightforward certifications. The
amendment does not require others to pay for U.S. military operations,
nor does it seek to shut down the reconstruction process.
I recall what the military commanders on the ground have said about
the importance of delivering reconstruction aid as a means of putting a
dent into the insurgency. As the former Commander of the First Calvary
in Baghdad often talked about, where reconstruction efforts were
successful and where the citizens had power, clean water and basic
services, the attacks against American forces went down.
Let us be clear. I am not arguing against continuing to help the
Iraqi people with the reconstruction of their country. I am not
in favor of putting insurmountable hurdles in front of the President as
he seeks to carry out these efforts.

Rather, I am simply saying that in light of all that America's troops
and taxpayers have done for the people of Iraq and the world, it seems
only reasonable to expect that other nations will live up to their
commitments and that this administration would want to hold them
accountable.
We should be looking for ways to strengthen the President's
negotiating hand when dealing with these other countries, and that's
what this amendment does.
Passing this amendment gives the President greater leverage in
getting other nations to follow through on their previous commitments.
The President can cite this Congressional action, highlight the fact
that the Congress is closely monitoring the international contributions
coming into Iraq, and let them know that there is growing concern in
the Congress about their inability to live up to their past promises.
For those who argue that passing this amendment will slow down the
reconstruction, nothing could be further from the truth. As I've
already stated, the State Department and AID cannot spend the money
they already have.
Through six quarterly reports, the U.S. has spent only $4.209 billion
in Iraq, an average of $701.5 million per quarter. At this rate, it
will take over 5 years for all the money to be spent.
In other words, at the current pace, the Bush administration would be
over before we would spend their reconstruction money that we have
already provided last year.
If this amendment passes, the reconstruction money will flow
unaffected for many years, perhaps through the end of President Bush's
term. At that point, he or a future President merely needs to issue a
certification to ensure the continued flow of the money.
Iraq needs to become the world's concern, not strictly our concern.
We owe that to our soldiers and to the American taxpayers who have been
both patient and generous and have borne an unusually high burden. If
you want to support the troops, our taxpayers, and give the
administration the leverage to get the rest of the world to live up to
their commitments, this amendment should be supported.

highways

Briefly, we need to a highway bill. We have received all kinds of
letters from different entities saying we must do a highway bill.
According to a report by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation officials, the uncertainty caused by the short-term
extensions to the surface transportation program has cost billions of
dollars in project delays and thousand and thousands of jobs. This is
an alarm.
I have letters from over 20 groups ranging from state and local
governments to major trade associations, all urging immediate
consideration of this important bill. When we finish the supplemental,
I urge the majority leader to move forward on the highway bill.
Yesterday, Senators Baucus, Inouye, Jeffords, Sarbanes, and I sent a
letter to the majority leader requesting that he bring the surface
transportation reauthorization bill to the floor for consideration
prior to the completion of this April work period. I hope we can do
that. It is so important.
Senator Baucus and Senator Bond, the people leading that
subcommittee, have done a wonderful job. We have a bill ready to go. I
hope we can do that soon.
I ask unanimous consent a letter from 18 trade associations be
printed in the Record in addition to a letter from virtually all State
and local government organizations, the National Governors Association,
and the letter I previously mentioned from the Democratic leaders.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

April 13, 2005.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Frist and Reid: With the 109th Congress well
underway, we urge you to schedule Senate floor consideration
of legislation to reauthorize the federal highway and transit
programs for this month. The Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21) expired September 30, 2003, and the
programs continue to operate under a series of extensions.
The Senate has repeatedly expressed its will about the
importance of addressing the nation's transportation
challenges and there is no substantive reason to delay
consideration of this bill.
TEA-21 reauthorization may be one of the few measures the
Senate will consider this year that will pass with
overwhelming bipartisan support. This board support, combined
with the May 31 expiration of the latest short-term extension
of the highway and transit program, presents a compelling
case for Senate action so that conference negotiations may
begin with the House of Representatives, which approved its
multi-year reauthorization bill March 10.
The nation's surface transportation infrastructure needs
and safety concerns continue to grow, yet lack of a long-term
funding commitment by the Federal government is impeding
states' ability to plan and let transportation improvement
projects that will help create American jobs, ease pollution
creating traffic congestion and address highway safety. With
substantial groundwork completed on TEA-21 reauthorization
over the last two years, the authorizing committees with
jurisdiction over the legislation are well prepared for
Senate consideration of a reauthorization bill.
We urge you to schedule TEA-21 reauthorization legislation
for Senate floor action as soon as possible and allow the
Senate to again work its will on this critical matter.
Sincerely,
American Road & Transportation Builders Association,
Associated General Contractors of America, U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, American Association of State Highway &
Transportation Officials, Associated Equipment
Distributors, Association of Equipment Manufacturers,
International Union of Operating Engineers, National
Ready Mixed Concrete Association, American Public
Transportation Association, American Concrete Pipe
Association, American Concrete Pavement Association,
National Utility Contractors Association, Portland
Cement Association, National Asphalt Pavement
Association, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, American Society of Civil
Engineers, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association,
Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust.
____

April 12, 2005.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Office of the Senate Majority Leader, Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Frist: On behalf of the nation's state
and local governments, we

[[Page S3730]]

want to take this opportunity to urge you to schedule
consideration of SAFETEA, the Senate version of the
reauthorization of the highway and transit programs, at the
earliest possible date. This legislation needs to be passed
by the Senate and sent to a conference committee as soon as
possible. As you know, TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003
and the current extension expires on May 31, 2005. In order
to plan for, maintain, and build our nation's transportation
infrastructure, state and local governments need a multi-year
reauthorization passed in the very near term.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Respectfully,
Raymond C. Scheppach,
Executive Director, National Governors' Association.
William T. Pound,
Executive Director, National Conference of State
Legislatures.
Daniel M. Sprague,
Executive Director, Council of State Government.
Larry E. Naake,
Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
J. Thomas Cochran,
Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Donald J. Borut,
Executive Director, National League of Cities.
Robert O'Neil,
Executive Director, International City/County Management
Association.
____

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, April 14, 2005.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist and Senator Reid: On behalf of the
nation's governors, we write to urge the Senate to complete
action on the surface transportation reauthorization bill and
begin conference before the current extension expires on May
31, 2005. Congress' series of successive short-term
extensions of TEA-21 have burdened State transportation
planning and programming, and can only be addressed by
passing a long-term bill.
We encourage the Senate to consider and expeditiously
complete its work on S. 732 so that the Senate and House
bills may be conferenced and a law enacted.
Additional information and specifics regarding the
governors' position on surface transportation reauthorization
can be found in the attached NGA Policy which was revised and
reaffirmed on March 1, 2005 at the NGA Winter Meeting.
Sincerely.
Mark R. Warner,
Governor of Virginia.
Mike Huckabee,
Governor of Arkansas.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, April 14, 2005.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Majority Leader: We write to request floor
consideration of the surface transportation reauthorization
bill prior to the completion of this April work period.
As you know, a well-maintained surface transportation
system is critical to our nation's economy. Long-term
transportation planning is essential to the continued
maintenance and improvement of the system. Unfortunately, for
the past 18 months, the Federal surface transportation
program has operated under a series of short-term extensions
denying states the ability to make and to execute long-term
transportation plans.
Because of this continuing uncertainty, many states have
had to slow or to stop entirely progress on many important
transportation projects. Further extensions will only
exacerbate these delays costing billions of dollars in
project delays and thousands of jobs.
The current program extension expires on May 31, 2005. In
order to complete work on this important legislation before
this deadline, the full Senate must consider the measure
prior to the end of the April work period. Recognizing this
urgency, each of the committees of jurisdiction will be ready
for Senate floor debate in the near future.
We are ready and committed to moving this process forward
in the bipartisan spirit this bill has traditionally enjoyed.
We look forward to an open and vigorous debate of the surface
transportation reauthorization before the end of this April
work period.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid,
Max Baucus,
Daniel Inouye,
Jim Jeffords,
Paul Sarbanes.

As we all know, the current Federal surface transportation program
expired 18 months ago, and the program has operated under a series of
short term extensions since then, with the latest set to expire on May
31 of this year. While these extensions have helped the Federal program
limp along, they have denied States the ability to make long-term
transportation planning decisions essential to the continued
maintenance and improvement of the system. In addition, the lack of a
permanent reauthorization bill has caused many States to slow or stop
entirely progress on many important transportation projects.
According to a report by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, the uncertainty caused by the short term
extensions has cost billions of dollars in project delays and thousands
of jobs.
Mr. President, I stand ready and committed to moving this process
forward in the bipartisan spirit that this bill has always enjoyed. I
urge the majority leader to bring the surface transportation
reauthorization bill up for floor consideration before the end of the
April work period for the good of the country and the workers that so
desperately depend upon its future.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier this week I was proud to submit
into the Record several e-mails from the more than 2,000 I had received
from military families around the country. These e-mails detailed the
proud service that America's military families make every day. The e-
mails are full of their pride and understanding of service. And I know
my colleagues join me in expressing our thanks to them for all they do.
I submitted these e-mails because they put a human face on the
sacrifices we speak about so often. I have come to learn that one of
the stories relayed to me about a Home Depot employee does not reflect
Home Depot's policies. In fact, Home Depot is a strong supporter of its
mobilized employees. The company was recognized last year by the
Department of Defense for its support to service members, including a
program to give hiring preferences to injured service members who want
to work for the company. Its ``Project Home Front'' contributed tools
and volunteers to help military spouses make home repairs while their
loved ones were deployed. And, as a model for others to emulate, Home
Depot makes up any salary lost by mobilized employees. I am happy to
set the record straight on the contributions Home Depot makes to the
brave Americans who work for it and serve in the National Guard and
Reserves. I regret the unfortunate oversight and thank Home Depot for
their support of America's military.
The stories we received are snapshots of what service means to
families across this great land. America's military families are
partners in the defense of this country and we have to listen to them.
Taking care of their needs is not sentimentalism it's a practical
investment in our national security. Given the millions spent to
recruit and train the men and women of the United States military, our
modest investment in military families is a smart way to retain the
force.
I thank my colleagues for their continued interest and support on
these issues, and I thank Home Depot for its support of America's
heroes.

____________________