[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.

  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.'')


                           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.

                          ____________________