[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6262-6299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1268 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant journal 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:

       Kerry amendment No. 333, to extend the period of temporary 
     continuation of basic allowance for housing for dependents of 
     members of the Armed Forces who die on active duty.
       Kerry amendment No. 334, to increase the military death 
     gratuity to $100,000, effective with respect to any deaths of 
     members of the Armed Forces on active duty after October 7, 
     2001.
       Durbin amendment No. 356, to ensure that a Federal employee 
     who takes leave without pay in order to perform service as a 
     member of the uniformed services or member of the National 
     Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount which, when 
     taken together with the pay and allowances such individual is 
     receiving for such service, will be no less than the basic 
     pay such individual would then be receiving if no 
     interruption in employment had occurred.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, for not to exceed 
10 minutes, without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg as a 
cosponsor to Senate amendment No. 333 and Senate amendment No. 334.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 6263]]




                      Amendments Nos. 333 And 334

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced two amendments to 
help our military families to be able to contend with the death of a 
loved one and the problems that flow to these families when one of 
America's service people are lost either in combat or in the course of 
duty. The disruptions are obviously enormous and unimaginable in many 
ways, but one of those disruptions is that after a period of 180 days, 
even in the middle of a school year, a widow would have to move off the 
base notwithstanding the kids are in the middle of a school year. I can 
give the names of people I have met in a number of instances over the 
course of the last couple of years traveling the country, people who 
talked about the incredible disruption to their family because of this.
  What we have learned listening to the commanders in the military and 
also to the families is that when we recruit, we are not just 
recruiting individual soldiers, and when we equip, we don't just equip 
by giving them the weapons and the technology they need to fight a war. 
We recognize we recruit a whole family and we retain a whole family. We 
need to have policies that are family thoughtful, family sensitive, so 
we can retain people in the military, particularly in a volunteer force 
where we expend enormous public dollars in order to train people to 
provide us with the superb capacity we have in our military.
  One of my amendments would provide an extension of that 180-day 
period of time so you get a year for the school year issue and other 
issues of finding a suitable home and figuring out whether you are 
going to go back and live with your parents, what your job is going to 
be, and where you are going to live, so all of these things are not 
providing added pressure to families who are already remarkably 
disrupted.
  The second is an amendment that would extend the death benefits, the 
total death benefits to families so those families who are unfortunate 
enough to lose a loved one are not suffering for the rest of their 
lives as a consequence of that contribution to their Nation.
  These amendments would be the first strong steps in what I call the 
military families bill of rights. I am not going to go through all of 
the details and the arguments for that, but I would like to say to my 
colleagues that yesterday I sent out an e-mail asking Americans to send 
stories in about their personal struggles with these issues, or those 
of their friends and friends' families that they heard about.
  In less than 24 hours over 2,000 families responded. They took the 
time out of their busy days in the hopes that we would listen, so I 
would like to share a few of those stories with my colleagues.
  The first is a couple in Austin, TX, who e-mailed me about one of 
their two young children who has Job's syndrome. When their father was 
called to duty, Home Depot stopped paying his salary and cut his health 
insurance. His wife, who was a schoolteacher, had to purchase insurance 
on the open market, leaving her finances in complete disarray. Her 
daughter was in the hospital so often that she eventually used up all 
of her sick and vacation days. The school docked her pay for lost time, 
and her financial situation went from bad to worse.
  This is because her husband was serving his country, but the 
Government did nothing for his family to make up that difference.
  I got an e-mail from a pharmacist whose nurses were upset about a 
woman who could not afford medication for her child because her husband 
had been called to duty in Iraq. They eventually found a way to get the 
mother the medication that her daughter needed, but the pharmacist was 
left questioning his Nation's leadership. Here is what he said:

       I was dismayed that there apparently was no help available 
     for this mother whose husband was serving his country.

  A guy in Abilene, TX, e-mailed me about his first friend in the world 
who was shot down in Iraq. He left behind a wife and three children. 
Over 2,000 people honored him at the memorial service, but that did not 
do anything to help his parents, who were draining their retirement 
savings to get health insurance for their grandchildren. This fallen 
soldier's friend wrote:

       Nathan's family is getting by because of their love and 
     faith in God and each other, but after losing a son in 
     service to America, they should not have to struggle to see 
     that his wife and children will get by. His wife has already 
     lost her husband, and his children will already grow up 
     without their father. His daughter Courtney will not have her 
     Dad to walk her down the aisle when she marries. They will 
     not have a Dad at their High School graduations or at the 
     birth of their children. They should not have to sacrifice 
     anymore.

  That is what this friend wrote to us, all of us Senators. Finally, I 
want to share a letter I received in February from Amy Beth Moore from 
Fort Hood, TX. Her two children, Meghan, age 13, and Sean, age 10, no 
longer have their father Jim. During his tour in Iraq, Jim was shot at, 
and his Hummer took a near deadly bullet in the gas tank. When he 
returned home, he was a senior officer in charge of refitting his unit 
for the next deployment. This required frequent helicopter flights back 
and forth from Texarkana.
  On November 29, 2004, his Blackhawk crashed, killing Jim and six 
other soldiers. Listen to what Amy wrote:

       Consider our predicament. But for the grace of God, my 
     husband would not have survived a deployment to Iraq and then 
     was working to ready the Fourth Infantry Division for its 
     next deployment. Why should it matter where he was killed 
     while serving proudly in the military? Why should we as his 
     surviving wife and children not be entitled to the increased 
     death gratuity and life insurance? I have been a full time 
     mom, managing the home front of a career soldier and it is 
     now up to me as a widow and a single parent to provide for 
     our children. These benefits would greatly assist me in doing 
     that and frankly, without them, we will have a serious 
     challenge in the days and months and years ahead without Jim. 
     I know that compensation in any form will in no way make up 
     for the loss of a loved husband and father and all the missed 
     moments that we would have shared as a family, but nothing is 
     more important to me right now than trying to take care of my 
     children, and it is on their behalf that I make this request.

  We have heard from military families. We have heard from friends. 
There are thousands more such stories across the Nation. The test is 
whether we, as a matter of conscience and common sense, are going to do 
what is right for those who serve our country.
  I thank the Appropriations Committee for fixing part of this, for 
going beyond the administration's request to limit the benefit to 
combat. But now I ask my colleagues to heed the advice of uniformed 
military leaders about those on active duty today and their families in 
the military. We need to provide this benefit to all Active-Duty 
personnel.
  Amy Beth Moore is right. What difference does it make where he was 
killed? He was killed preparing the troops to do what we need to do in 
Iraq, and his loss is as real whether he was killed in Iraq or 
elsewhere. If we fail to adopt these amendments we are going to confirm 
the greatest fears of Amy Beth Moore and the over 2,000 Americans who 
e-mailed their stories to me, that Washington talks a good game but 
doesn't really care about these families.
  For the survivors of our Nation's fallen heroes, much of life 
remains. Although no one can ever put a price on the loss of the life 
of any loved one, it is up to us to try to be generous, and I think 
correct, in helping them to put their lives back together. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in working toward a strong bipartisan military 
families bill of rights that does right by those who serve and by their 
families. I hope we can start that by taking the right direction in 
adopting these two important amendments today.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia again for his 
courtesy.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Durbin as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask if the Senator will add my name as a 
cosponsor to both amendments.
  Mr. KERRY. I am honored to have the Senator from West Virginia as a 
cosponsor.

[[Page 6264]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia retains the 
floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the bill before us contains funding for a 
number of items that can hardly be described as emergencies, despite 
the fact that they are contained in an emergency supplemental funding 
bill.
  One of those items that fairly leaps off the page is a $36 million 
earmark, tucked away in the report under military construction for the 
Army, to build a new, permanent prison at Guantanamo, Cuba. Why is this 
tucked away as an emergency? It is to house detainees from the war on 
terrorism.
  What struck me about this item is that the American people are being 
asked to build a permanent prison to house 220 prisoners from the war 
on terrorism when the courts have not yet determined the legal status 
of the detainees or whether the United States can continue to hold 
these individuals indefinitely without charging them with a crime.
  We are walking on thin ice here--thin ice. If ever there was a case 
of putting the cart before the horse, this seems to be it. Construction 
of a new permanent prison in Guantanamo assumes that the United States 
has in place a solid policy and a valid requirement for the long term 
internment of detainees at that site when in fact neither the policy 
nor the requirement has been validated.
  Ever since the Supreme Court ruled last year that U.S. law applied to 
Guantanamo, and that prisoners held there could challenge their 
detentions in Federal Court, the status of the detainees at Guantanamo 
has been a matter of open debate. A flurry--we have reached beautiful 
spring weather now, but a flurry of subsequent legal challenges mixed 
with allegations of prisoner abuse have only muddied the waters 
further.
  In August, a Federal district judge ruled that the military tribunals 
being conducted at Guantanamo must be halted because they did not 
provide minimally fair procedures and violated international law. Hey, 
look out here. Look what we are doing. Where are we going? Meanwhile, 
another Federal judge recently stopped the Government from transferring 
detainees from Guantanamo to other countries pending a review of the 
process.
  What is wrong with that? At the heart of the Guantanamo detention 
controversy is whether the detainees are entitled to prisoner of war 
status under the 1949 Geneva Convention, or are they, as the 
administration contends, ``enemy combatants'' who are entitled to no 
judicial oversight. It is a complex legal debate that is unlikely to be 
resolved anytime soon.
  And yet the White House has determined that the construction of a $36 
million maximum security prison at Guantanamo is such an urgent 
requirement that it cannot allow the courts to rule on the validity of 
the administration's detainee policy or even wait for the regular 
appropriations process. Not even wait for the regular bill--put it in 
the supplemental.
  This despite the fact that there is currently no overcrowding at 
Guantanamo, that the prison population is steadily declining--down to 
approximately 540 from a high of about 750--and that the Pentagon has 
already built a $16 million, permanent, state-of-the-art maximum 
security prison at Guantanamo to hold 100 prisoners. At the same time, 
according to an article last month in The New York Times, the Defense 
Department is trying to enlist the aid of the State Department and 
other agencies to transfer more prisoners out of Guantanamo, in an 
effort to cut by more than half the current population at Guantanamo.
  The fact is, the Pentagon has no idea at this point how many 
detainees from the war on terrorism are facing long term detention, or 
where they will eventually end up.
  As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it at a hearing before the 
Senate Appropriations Committee in February, ``The Department of 
Defense would prefer not to have the responsibility for any 
detainees.''
  For once, I agree with Secretary Rumsfeld, particularly given the 
allegations of abuse that have dogged the Defense Department's 
treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Guantanamo. 
The Defense Department should not automatically assume an open-ended 
burden of being the world's jailer of foreign enemy combatants.
  Given all the uncertainties concerning the future requirements for 
detention facilities at Guantanamo, where--oh where, tell me--is the 
urgency in this request? The Defense Department insists that prisoners 
currently in custody at Guantanamo are in conditions that are safe, 
secure, and humane. The current detention facilities at Guantanamo 
include Camp 4, where detainees live in 10-man bays with nearly all-day 
access to exercise yards and other recreational privileges; Camp 1, 
where detainees are housed in individual cells with a toilet and sink 
in each cell; and Camp 5, the new 100-bed maximum security prison that 
the Pentagon boasts would be envied by many States. Camp Delta also 
boasts a 19-bed detainee hospital, which military officials describe as 
a state-of-the-art facility, complete with first-rate dental care.
  With the exception of the existing maximum security prison, these are 
temporary facilities, but according to the Defense Department, they are 
designed to provide safe, secure, and humane housing for the prisoners. 
As the Pentagon is quick to point out, the concrete slab and open-air 
chain-link enclosures that originally housed prisoners when the 
Guantanamo detention facilities opened in January of 2002 are long 
gone.
  The Defense Department, in its justification for the new prison, 
asserts that the existing temporary facilities are nearing the end of 
their useful life, will not meet Geneva Convention requirements, and 
will be subject to continued scrutiny by the International Committee of 
the Red Cross, the ICRC, until facility standards are raised.
  Playing the Geneva Convention card is a curious tactic coming from an 
administration that selectively cherry-picks which of the Geneva 
Convention standards it chooses to apply to the prisoners at 
Guantanamo. The only Geneva Convention requirements cited by the 
Defense Department in its justification for the new prison are that 
housing units and core functions should be contiguous and allow for 
communal conditions where practical--certainly nice-to-have amenities 
but hardly a core requirement for the humane treatment of prisoners.
  In fact, the ICRC's main concern about Guantanamo, according to the 
organization's website, is not contiguous detention units but the fact 
that the administration has attempted to place the detainees in 
Guantanamo beyond the law. Building a new prison will not address that 
concern, and it will not exempt the Guantanamo detention center from 
the watchful eyes of the Red Cross. Nor will allegations of 
mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo be resolved by trading one set 
of cell blocks for another.
  There may indeed be advantages to moving more Guantanamo prisoners 
from temporary into permanent detention facilities, but until we have a 
clearer picture of the number of prisoners who will be housed there 
over the long term, there is no compelling reason to rush into spending 
$36 million of your money--it is your money--the taxpayers' dollars to 
build a prison based on guesstimates instead of facts.
  At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen 
Bantz Craddock, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees 
Guantanamo, was asked what the Pentagon was doing to improve the 
quality of life for the U.S. military personnel assigned to Guantanamo. 
General Craddock replied that he had submitted a list of unfunded 
requirements of several million dollars for U.S. military facilities. 
But, he continued, ``we are watching this closely because we don't want 
to get out in front of the policy with regard to the long-term detainee 
issue down there.''
  That is good advice from General Craddock, and I would suggest that 
we apply it to the detention facilities at Guantanamo as well. It is 
the policy that should drive the construction, not

[[Page 6265]]

the other way around. Before we ask the American taxpayers--before we 
ask you, the people out there who are watching the Senate Chamber here 
with open eyes, with open ears and probably with open mouths, you, it 
is your money--before we ask you, the American taxpayers to spend $36 
million to build a brand new permanent prison for foreign detainees at 
Guantanamo we should make sure that we have an ironclad requirement for 
that prison. Until the courts have resolved the legal status of the 
prisoners and until the Department of Defense and the administration 
determine the role of the department in the long-term detention of the 
prisoners, building a permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo 
is premature.
  Madam President, are there any pending amendments ahead of this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are amendments pending.
  Mr. BYRD. I will take my amendment in the order in which the 
amendment has been called up.
  I ask unanimous consent ahead of time if it may be in order to have 
the yeas and nays on my amendment, even though it won't be voted on at 
this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 367

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 367.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To reduce by $36,000,000 the amount appropriated for 
``Military Construction, Army'', with the amount of the reduction to be 
    allocated to funds available under that heading for the Camp 6 
              Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

       On page 169, line 13, strike ``$897,191,000'' and insert 
     ``$861,191,000''.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
are preparing to seek unanimous consent that we have a series of three 
votes that will begin at 1:45 p.m. today. These will be on or in 
relation to the Durbin amendment and the two Kerry amendments which are 
pending before the Senate. We hope to be able to reach agreement on 
this consent request so Senators can be advised very soon that that 
will be the order of the Senate.
  That still leaves, of course, the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia which we will have an opportunity to discuss separate and 
apart from these three that will be voted on. Then we will seek to deal 
with that amendment in the regular order.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that 
we have been able to reach agreement on a series of votes that will 
occur at 1:45. I am authorized by the leadership on both sides to 
propound this unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent at 1:45 p.m. today the Senate proceed to a 
series of votes in relation to the following amendments: Durbin No. 
356; Kerry No. 333; Kerry No. 334; provided further that no amendments 
be in order to these amendments prior to the votes, and that prior to 
the Durbin vote Senator Stevens and Senator Durbin be allocated 5 
minutes each to speak; further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided 
for debate prior to each vote; finally, that all votes after the first 
be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate the cooperation of all 
Senators in getting this agreement. Senator Byrd has offered an 
amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, but we will not 
vote on that amendment until others who wish to speak on the amendment 
have an opportunity to do so. That will occur at any time. If we do 
complete debate on the Byrd amendment prior to 1:45, that could be 
something we could consider adding, but at this point we are not 
prepared to make that announcement.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, imagine how nervous you would be if I 
told you as we go about our business in the Senate, hidden in the 
Capitol basement were over 500 tons of some of the deadliest material 
ever conceived by man, VX nerve gas. Suppose I told you it had been 
there for decades, and although the authorities had previously promised 
to safely destroy some toxins, they were now changing their tune. They 
had put their plans to dispose of these deadly weapons on hold, leaving 
you to babysit them. I imagine you would start to feel a little 
nervous. Now you know how the residents of Madison County, KY, feel. 
For the people of Madison County, KY, and all over central Kentucky, 
the fear I have described is a daily reality.
  The Blue Grass Army Depot in Madison County contains 523 tons of our 
Nation's chemical weapons stockpile. Since the 1940s, it has stored 
mustard gas, sarin nerve agent, and VX nerve agent. Each of these is 
among the deadliest nerve agents ever created. As little as 10 
milligrams of VX is enough to kill a human being. That is about the 
mass of 10 grains of sand. It is virtually undetectable to the naked 
eye, and yet if that tiny amount is inhaled, death is imminent. If it 
is absorbed through the skin, death takes mere minutes.
  The time has come for the safety of our fellow Kentuckians to safely 
eliminate these heinous weapons.
  The Department of Defense has agreed it is time for the weapons to 
go. They promised they would dispose of them. Congress has appropriated 
hundreds of millions of dollars for them to safely destroy the 
materials. Yet the Department refuses to take the necessary steps to 
accomplish the task. The Department has offered all sorts of reasons 
why, many of which even contradict each other. But the bottom line is, 
they refuse to spend the money the President requested and the Congress 
appropriated to dispose of these chemical weapons stored in Kentucky.
  This Congress cannot and will not let them get away with it. The 
Department's foot dragging on eliminating these weapons is simply 
unacceptable. The best they claim they can do is to place the Blue 
Grass Army Depot on caretaker status, meaning that virtually no cleanup 
action will be taken. The Department's own studies have shown the 
longer we sit on these dangerous weapons, the greater the risk to 
surrounding communities. The Department of Defense needs to fulfill its 
obligations, and it needs to clean up these sites now--not some other 
time, now.
  In 1996, I authored legislative language that created the Assembled 
Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program, also known as ACWA, to find the 
best method to destroy VX and other deadly agents. The Blue Grass Army 
Depot became one of the ACWA sites, along with a site in Pueblo, CO.

[[Page 6266]]

  The DOD refuses to clean up that site in Colorado also, and so my 
friend Senator Wayne Allard knows this issue well. I thank him for his 
steadfast involvement and leadership on this question. He feels as 
strongly as I do that the dangerous substances located at the hearts of 
our States need to be disposed of safely and quickly.
  The Department claims ACWA sites must be downgraded to caretaker 
status because they are over budget due to cost overruns. Yet the 
Department's own schizophrenic decisionmaking is what led to these 
costs. The Department has repeatedly stopped or slowed down design work 
and then restarted, adding unnecessary startup and stop-work costs. 
They stingily parcel out appropriated monies in such small quantities 
that it is impossible to spend it efficiently. Thus, it is the 
Department's own bureaucratic mismanagement that has created the cost 
problems.
  Perhaps we should expect no less from an outfit whose operating maxim 
is printed on this board behind me. Dr. Dale Klein, the Assistant to 
the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense 
Programs, admitted in his testimony last week before the House Armed 
Services Committee that, as he said:

       As I often tell people, some of our budgeting processes are 
     accurate but incorrect.

  Let me run that by you one more time. He said:

       As I often tell people, some of our budgeting processes are 
     accurate but incorrect.

  What nonsense. Can you believe that? Dr. Klein, speaking of the 
Department of Defense, said on the record:

     . . . some of our budgeting processes are accurate but 
     incorrect.

  I will leave it to someone else to figure out exactly what that 
means, but it does not fill me with confidence in the Department's 
ability to resolve this issue. The Congress must pursue this matter if 
we ever want to see positive results. Therefore, I have authored a 
provision, section 1115, in this bill before us, the supplemental 
appropriation bill, that expressly directs DOD to spend the money 
Congress has appropriated to dispose of chemical weapons at the Blue 
Grass Army Depot, which is in Kentucky, and the Pueblo Chemical Depot, 
which is in Colorado. It forbids them, absolutely forbids them, from 
shunting that money into any other purpose.
  Let me be clear: This provision does not add a penny of new spending 
to this bill. It merely requires the Department to spend the money they 
requested for the purposes they identified.
  DOD has broken its word to the citizens of Madison County. But the 
language I have authored will force the Department to get Blue Grass 
back on track, and I promise that prediction will prove both accurate 
and correct. My provision will guarantee that the $813.4 million in 
prior-year monies that has been budgeted for ACWA sites will not be 
transferred for other purposes.
  Over the past several years, the President has requested specific 
funds for ACWA. For reasons of comity, Congress has provided these 
funds for the overall chemical demilitarization program largely in lump 
sums, trusting that DOD would comply with the President's budget 
request. But they have not. Instead, DOD undermined the President's 
budget request and diverted funds intended for the ACWA Program. This 
language will hold the Department to the President's budget request 
with respect to this program.
  My provision will force DOD to obligate at least $100 million at the 
ACWA sites within 120 days of the enactment of this legislation before 
us. Because the Department has purposely--purposely--withheld funds 
from the ACWA sites and downgraded them to caretaker status, work has 
come to a virtual halt at Blue Grass in Kentucky and completely at 
Pueblo in Colorado.
  The Department itself has repeatedly determined that the storing of 
these deadly weapons poses an increasing danger over time. Yet they now 
complain they will have to jump through multiple bureaucratic hoops 
before those sites can be up and running again. By obligating $100 
million immediately, we can get much-needed funds moving through the 
pipeline again and help jump-start the cleanup efforts at both sites.
  My provision will also require the Department to provide Congress 
with a bimonthly accounting, every 2 months, of the money spent at 
these sites. This improved oversight will hopefully shed some light on 
the opaque processes at DOD. Perhaps with enough work, we can even find 
out how to make a budget both accurate and correct.
  Because safety is paramount, my provision will do one more thing. It 
will prohibit DOD from conducting a study on the transportation of 
chemical weapons across State lines. Because transporting chemical 
weapons across State lines is illegal already, one would think this 
provision unnecessary. But despite the law, the Department has ordered 
a study on doing that which it cannot legally do. It is a mystery to me 
why the Department would spend precious time and money exploring an 
option that is not an option, that is illegal under Federal law. Let me 
say again, the Department of Defense is currently spending funds that 
should be going toward destroying deadly chemical weapons on studying a 
course of action that is illegal.
  That suggests to me that rather than destroying the chemical weapons 
where they are stored, the Department is considering transferring them 
out of the Blue Grass Army Depot to other facilities. That is reckless 
and irresponsible for too many reasons to describe. Kentuckians do not 
want trucks full of nerve gas speeding down the interstate, and I 
suspect neither do the people of other States, such as Alabama, 
Arkansas, Utah, or any other State. Even if it were legal, there is no 
way politically these weapons are going to be moved across the country 
to some other site for destruction.
  Before I conclude, I want to address one more failure of the 
Department of Defense. By not meeting their obligations to the people 
of Kentucky and Colorado, they are breaking not only their word, they 
are breaking America's word. That is because by placing the ACWA sites 
on caretaker status, the Department is acknowledging the weapons will 
not be disposed of at least until 2016 at the earliest, yet the United 
States has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which establishes a 
deadline for elimination of these substances in 2012 at the latest. The 
Department of Defense should be working with all the speed it can 
muster to meet this deadline, not openly thumbing its nose at it. 
Passing this bill will move us closer to compliance with the Chemical 
Weapons Convention.
  In this age of terrorism, our decisionmaking processes for handling 
and disposing of such horrifying weapons must be focused and clear. The 
Department of Defense approach to ACWA sites has been neither.
  I urge our colleagues to support this bill. With the passage of 
section 1115, you will get accountability and transparency from the 
Department of Defense. You will ensure that the promise made to the 
people of Kentucky is a promise fulfilled. Most importantly, you will 
protect the safety of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
  On the other hand, if we do nothing, it will all be left up to DOD. 
The best they can be is ``accurate but incorrect.''
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is time control in place right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes prior to the first 
vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have 5 minutes after 1:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes before the vote at 
1:45 p.m.


                           Amendment No. 334

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to speak first on the amendment 
offered by Senator Kerry.

[[Page 6267]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska may proceed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, our Defense Subcommittee has considered 
this matter very closely. We believe the provision for death gratuity 
is a special and unique situation, and we provided it in the bill 
before the Senate.
  What we seek to provide is a special recognition for our Nation's 
fallen heroes who have given their lives in combat defending our Nation 
or who have died in training or other activity that is considered 
related to combat by title X.
  Let me state that again. Our provision covers all service members who 
lose their lives in combat or who die in training or other activity 
that is considered combat related by title X.
  The normal death gratuity in effect now is $12,400. It provides 
immediate cash to meet the needs of survivors. This amount is payable 
immediately and is intended to provide sufficient funding to support 
families until other benefits, particularly those such as the Survivor 
Benefit Plan, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, and Social 
Security, come into play.
  We believe every life is precious, and we grieve over the loss of 
life when it occurs among anyone in our military. But our 
Appropriations Committee has included this provision to provide special 
recognition for fallen heroes. This special recognition is intended for 
those who have died as a result of combat or combat-related situations, 
such as training, and in support of the global war against terrorism 
our Nation is fighting.
  The administration and the Department of Defense strongly oppose the 
recommended expansion of the death gratuity to cover all deaths of 
anyone who is in uniform. In fact, a 2004 independent study requested 
by the Department of Defense concluded that the full system of benefits 
provided to survivors of members who die on active duty is adequate, 
substantial, and comprehensive.
  That study did identify a lack of recognition for direct sacrifice of 
life, as provided by the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Act, which 
pays more than $267,000 to survivors in recognition of deaths in 
performance of duty of law enforcement officers and firefighters. The 
Senate supplemental bill provides this type of recognition for our 
military.
  First, if we consider opening the special death gratuity for all 
casualties, we should also consider the significance of a retroactive 
date, as we considered the concept of trying to cover all casualties. 
If the increased death gratuity is provided for all deaths, there is no 
longer a direct connection to the events of 9/11 and the war against 
terrorism.
  Finally, to increase the death gratuity to include all deaths would 
cost an additional $300 million in this year alone, 2005. The total 
bill for fiscal year 2005 would be about $1.1 billion.
  Many of us who served in war in defense of our Nation--and I am one 
of those--believe there is a special significance in the way we have 
defined death gratuity in the Senate bill before us now. We believe it 
is fully appropriate for the problem of recognizing fallen heroes.
  I know this provision is related to other outpourings of those who 
have lost life in the September 11 controversy. There is a connection 
in that this provision seeks to recognize soldiers who have fallen as a 
result of the actions we have taken as a nation to address 9/11 in the 
fight against terrorism. I do not believe we should devalue the most 
heroic sacrifices of our men and women in uniform by making this cover 
anyone in uniform.
  Mr. President, I do intend to oppose this amendment.
  I have 5 minutes before 1:45 p.m.


                           Amendment No. 356

  Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the amendment to fill the pay 
gap when Guard and Reserve are mobilized. This is the Durbin amendment. 
This emergency supplemental bill is not the proper legislative vehicle 
to add new benefits without approval of the committee of jurisdiction. 
The Senate Armed Services Committee, I am told, does not support the 
inclusion of this new benefit in our supplemental bill. The 
administration did not request that additional authority, and I am told 
it opposes this amendment. The proposed amendment, I believe, should be 
held for debate when the appropriate committee, such as the Armed 
Services Committee, brings the authorization bill before the Senate.
  The amendment to this bill would require Federal agencies to pay any 
difference between military pay and civilian compensation for employees 
of the Federal Government who either volunteer or are called to active 
duty. The estimate we received from the Congressional Budget Office is 
this is an additional cost of $152 million over a 5-year period.
  Reservists and guardsmen know when they are activated what their 
military pay will be, what their total compensation is. There is no 
misunderstanding about that. In an all-volunteer force, individuals 
choose whether they serve in the military. Certainly financial 
considerations enter into that decision, whether their service be full 
time or part time, with an obligation to answer the call of duty when 
necessary.
  When Guard and Reserve members train for mobilization, they 
understand they are subject to mobilization during war and national 
emergencies. The likelihood of mobilization is evident as the 
Department has been mobilizing Guard and Reserve members almost 
continuously for the past 13 years.
  More importantly, this provision would do a disservice to patriotic 
non-Federal reservists who are self-employed, small businessmen, or 
employees who do not receive such coverage as proposed by the Durbin 
amendment.
  In addition, the amendment would allow mobilized reservists to make 
significantly more than those active-duty service members whom they 
join when they are called up to serve in active duty. This could be 
interpreted by some active-duty members to mean that the Federal 
Government places a higher value on the service of those people who are 
called up temporarily than we do on those who are career military 
people. The amendment would cause a significant equity issue as far as 
the active-duty service members and I believe would negatively affect 
their morale.
  Requiring the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to pay 
the differential salary limits the ability of agencies to accommodate 
staffing shortages through temporary personnel actions. Once these 
people are called up, the Department has to hire someone temporarily to 
take their place. The place is there for them when they come back, but 
they will not have the ability to have the money available if they have 
to pay this differential. This issue becomes more significant the 
longer the period of active duty.
  Another concern is that this amendment does not distinguish between 
Reservists who volunteer to perform active duty and those who are 
involuntarily called to active duty. Reservists who volunteer for duty 
can weigh the financial impact of such service when considering whether 
to apply for an assignment.
  Finally, Reserve service offers a robust pay and benefits package. 
With the support of Congress, military pay is now very competitive with 
pay in the private and public sectors and allowances are increasing to 
minimize out-of-pocket expenses.
  Any changes to Guard and Reserve compensation system should be 
assessed for the long term, not just during this current deployment. 
Questions regarding affordability and equity of benefits must be 
carefully weighed and answered before we legislate changes.
  This appropriation bill is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to 
set military compensation policy; this change should be considered by 
the Armed Services and Governmental Affairs Committees which have 
jurisdiction over these matters.
  Thus, we strongly recommend that the Senate hold this authorization 
measure for full consideration by the Armed Services and Governmental 
Affairs Committees. The amendment deserves adequate time for analysis 
and debate in light of the full system of military benefits and funding 
constraints.

[[Page 6268]]

  I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Durbin's amendment touches on a 
critical issue: the strains being placed upon the National Guard and 
the Reserve by the long deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He 
correctly points out that these deployments have resulted in a 
financial crisis for unknown numbers of American families who have 
loved ones called to duty, pulled out of their civilian careers, and 
sent half a world away for long periods of time.
  The amendment pending before the Senate would compensate those 
members of the National Guard and the Reserve who suffer a loss of 
income because they are away from their civilian jobs--but only if 
those jobs are with the Federal Government. The many Guardsmen and 
Reservists who work in the private sector would not be helped by the 
amendment.
  I am very sympathetic to the plight of the families of National 
Guardsmen and Reservists who have found themselves in dire financial 
straits because of a long, unexpected deployment that takes the family 
breadwinner away from his job. I have heard from families in West 
Virginia who could be facing financial ruin because of a soldier's drop 
in income due to a protracted, 18-month deployment.
  However, the Congress is approaching this problem from the wrong end. 
The heart of this matter is not how much Uncle Sam may pay our citizen-
soldiers. The problem is that our National Guard and Reserve are being 
deployed, and re-deployed, for such long periods at a time. The United 
States hasn't sent so many part-time soldiers overseas in half a 
century. In addition to causing financial hardships for many American 
families, the pace of these deployments is threatening to break the 
back of the National Guard and the Reserve.
  In 2003, I offered two amendments to limit the deployment and re-
deployment of the National Guard and Reserve. Unfortunately, the Senate 
voted down those amendments, and the strains on the National Guard and 
the Reserve continue and, in some cases, are worsening. Until Congress 
limits the excessive deployments of our citizen-soldiers, or until our 
troops start coming home from Iraq, there will continue to be myriad 
strains on our troops and their families. It is not reasonable to 
expect the government to compensate our troops and families for each 
difficulty or strain that this foolish war in Iraq has caused, because 
our national treasure is finite.
  What's more, I am concerned that the amendment on which the Senate 
will soon vote will have financial consequences for many years down the 
road. Our country is neck deep in red ink, and Congress must be 
judicious in enacting benefits that grow to have a life of their own 
well after the Senate has voted. This problem is compounded by the 
refusal of the President to budget for the costs of the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. If the White House does not budget for the war, there 
is no way to increase revenues or lower other spending in order to 
balance the budget. In the coming days of debate on this emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, I will offer an amendment on this 
crucial point.
  Despite these reservations about the pending amendment, the bottom 
line is that the families of many National Guardsmen and Reservists are 
experiencing real financial hardships. Although this amendment will 
only take care of some of those families, it will provide a lifeline to 
families who are struggling to make ends meet because of the demands of 
the war in Iraq. I commend the Senator from Illinois for his commitment 
to the National Guard, and I will support him on this amendment.
  However, when the Senate next considers relieving the strains caused 
by the long deployments of the Guard and Reserve, the Senate should not 
adopt a piecemeal approach. The heart of the matter is our open-ended 
mission in Iraq. Unless that matter is addressed head-on, Congress will 
continue to find more and more ways to spend our nation's scarce 
treasure. That is not a wise fiscal course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senator from 
Alaska, who has served the Senate and his country so well, now opposes 
this amendment. When it was last offered on an emergency supplemental 
bill on October 17, 2003, he joined with 95 of our colleagues in voting 
for this amendment. I think the amendment still is a valid amendment.
  Let me explain what the amendment does. Seventeen thousand Federal 
employees have been activated into Guard and Reserve units. They find 
that when they go into this activated status, they are receiving less 
in income than they were paid by the Federal Government. The bill says 
the Federal agencies they worked for will make up the difference so as 
they are serving our country and risking their lives overseas they will 
have this pay differential, so their families will be able to keep the 
mortgage paid, pay the utility bills, and keep the family together.
  The Senator suggests this is going to create some sort of a 
disadvantage to those in active military, but I am sure he feels, as I 
do, that companies across America that stand behind their employees who 
are activated in the Guard and Reserve are doing the right and 
patriotic thing by making up the difference in pay between what one is 
paid when they are home and what one is paid when they are in uniform. 
They are saying to this soldier: We are with you; we are with your 
family; serve your country and come back to your job; we are proud of 
you.
  There is one employer at the top in America that does not do it. It 
is the Federal Government. The arguments are made on the floor today 
that if we stand behind these soldiers who are Federal employees, 
somehow it is a poor reflection on the rest of the military. That is 
not true. We revere and honor those who serve our country, active 
military, activated Guard, activated Reserve. Fifty-one percent of the 
activated Guard and Reserve take a cut in pay to serve America. What I 
am saying is if one is a Federal employee, for goodness sakes, they 
ought to have their salary made whole. Why should they go overseas, 
worrying about whether they are going to get hit by a bullet, step on a 
landmine or hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, and whether their spouse 
can pay the bills at home for tuition for the kids? Why do we not stand 
behind these soldiers who are serving? We are out there on the Fourth 
of July waving our flags, but, for goodness sakes, we have a chance to 
stand behind them today on the Senate floor. It is absolutely shameful 
that the Federal Government will not provide the same kind of pay 
protection for our activated Guard and Reserve that over 900 private 
businesses, State and local governments, have provided across America. 
We honor them.
  The Secretary of Defense has a Web site to honor the fact that they 
are standing behind the soldiers, but we do not do it. The Federal 
Government does not do it. This is our chance to make a difference.
  Also, on the Kerry amendment, I disagree with the Senator from 
Alaska. To think that if someone is on a troop plane headed over to 
Kuwait and, God forbid, it crashes, they are entitled to $12,000; 
however, if they get off the plane and are killed in combat they should 
be entitled to $100,000--I think they are heroes in both instances. 
Senator Kerry is suggesting we should regard them as such. I think his 
amendment is a valid amendment and, yes, it does cost money. It costs 
money to stand behind our veterans, our soldiers, and their families. 
That is part of the real cost of war. That is why I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this amendment. The amendment I am offering today passed 96 
to 3 when last called. It passed by a voice vote after that. It has the 
support of the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard 
Association of the United States, and the Enlisted Association of the 
National Guard of the United States. These organizations represent the 
men and women who are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
are asking for basic fairness from the Federal Government. I think this 
amendment is long overdue.

[[Page 6269]]

  For 3 years now, this amendment has been lost in conference. It 
passes on the Senate floor and disappears, and Federal employees 
activated to serve our country wonder what happened. Well, today we 
will have a chance with this rollcall vote to see if we want to stand 
behind these men and women in uniform. This is an amendment that is 
long overdue.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar of Colorado be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum, before a vote is 
called.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we each have 
1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senator from 
Illinois because every person the Senator has mentioned in connection 
with Senator Kerry's amendment is covered. All the people on an 
airplane going to combat are covered. Any training-related combat, they 
are covered. The question is whether people who stand side by side with 
someone in the Pentagon working daily in uniform, a civilian person 
working the same job, whether one should be covered in the event of 
death and the other should not, whether one should be covered while 
driving home here in Washington, DC, after drinking too much, gets in 
an automobile accident, and get the same benefit a fallen hero gets. I 
ask the Senator if he would consider in connection with his amendment 
eliminating a request for the yeas and nays and we would be glad to 
accept that amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, if I had not lost this amendment 
twice in conference after it passed the Senate, I would agree to that, 
but I think we need a record vote. I do not know what it takes to 
finally get this Senate to go on record and stand by the Senate 
position in conference. Twice now we have taken this proposal to 
conference and it has disappeared, with the White House or Department 
of Defense or somebody opposing it. If we have a record vote, I think 
we have a much better chance to say to the conferees, for goodness 
sakes, the third time, let us stand up for these men and women. I am 
sorry; I want to insist on the yeas and nays. I believe that is the 
only way to make it clear where we stand on the issue and to convince 
the conferees to finally stand for the Senate position if it succeeds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the underlying 
amendment. I ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Durbin amendment.
  The amendment (No. 356) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. We have under the order a vote, now, on two Kerry 
amendments, Nos. 333 and 334. Is there time for debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
to be evenly divided on each amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague in 
sponsoring these amendments, which will increase the death gratuity 
from $12,000 to $100,000 for all service members killed on active duty, 
and allow their dependents to continue receiving the basic housing 
allowance for a full year instead of the 180 days in current law.
  All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all we can to 
see that they have proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they 
need to protect their lives as they carry out their missions. But we 
also need care for the families of these courageous men and women who 
make the ultimate sacrifice.
  Any service member's death is tragic, whether in combat overseas or a 
training accident here in the United States. They are heroes, not 
victims. These brave men and women came forward to serve our country 
knowing what the dangers were and knowing the possibilities. They stood 
tall when the country needed them.
  Their case is a tragedy, and so is the void left behind for their 
loved ones.
  We know what happens when a family is notified of a death. There is a 
knock on the door. They open the door and a military officer is 
standing there to give them the most dreaded news they will ever 
receive. Details are few and typically only include the time and place 
of the death, and perhaps some brief words on how it happened. A few 
days later, he provides them a death gratuity check for $12,000 and 
helps them through the process of making the funeral arrangements while 
the flag draped coffin is on the way home.
  After the burial, the conversation turns to additional funds and 
benefits. The topic often has to be pressed by the officer, because the 
families, so burdened, seldom think in terms of what their benefits 
might be. They slowly realize that instead of having a constant 
breadwinner for many years, they receive only a modest monthly sum.
  The burden of combat deaths falls most often on the junior enlisted 
personnel, whose average yearly wages

[[Page 6270]]

can be as low as $17,000. The actual benefit depends on number of 
children and other specific circumstances, and decreases over time 
because of age or a child's status as a student.
  The current Senate bill uses the administration's formula to achieve 
a $500,000 threshold, and includes some noncombat deaths, but not all 
of them. The bill, for example, provides a $100,000 gratuity to 
survivors of those killed in training accidents. But it retains the 
current $12,000 gratuity for other types of deaths, such as those who 
collapse during strenuous exercise or are killed in an accident driving 
to work. It is distinction without a difference for the family of the 
service member who died. They know only that their loved one went to 
work to help prepare their fellow soldiers, marines, sailors or airmen 
for battle and will never return. In today's military, all jobs and 
stations are equally important.
  Our amendment eliminates any distinction between combat and non-
combat deaths and provides a death gratuity of $100,000, regardless of 
where or how a service member dies.
  Along with other provisions of the bill, the amendment would increase 
the total death benefit to $500,000, depending on the amount of 
military life insurance a person carries.
  No one can ever put a price on a human life, but there is no doubt 
that current levels are unacceptably low.
  It's also very important to extend the length of time for surviving 
widows and children to remain in military housing to a full year, 
either on base or with housing assistance.
  Currently, surviving spouses and dependents of military personnel 
killed on active duty may continue in their military housing or receive 
their military housing allowances for up to 180 days after the death of 
their loved one.
  Their loss is traumatic enough without the immediate pressure of 
having to find a place to live, moving, and disrupting their life all 
over again. Extending the length of time for survivors to stay in 
military housing gives them greater flexibility as they struggle to 
deal with what has happened. Children will be able to finish the school 
year among friends and in familiar surroundings.
  We know we can do much more to take care of military families after 
the loss of a loved one. We have been complacent for too long, and I 
urge my colleagues to support us in providing this much needed and 
well-deserved relief to these courageous and suffering families.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, point of inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 333

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from 
Alaska, or the manager, is prepared to accept one of the amendments, I 
think. Am I correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct; we are willing to accept the 
second amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is amendment No. 334, which extends 
the period of time that spouses can remain on a base after their spouse 
has died in action.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that is amendment No. 334.
  I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall be vitiated and the Senate 
adopt that amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Amendment No. 333.
  Mr. STEVENS. Amendment No. 333?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lincoln be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To which amendment?
  Mr. KERRY. To amendment No. 333 and amendment No. 334.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
cosponsor will be added to both amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. Our records show it is amendment No. 334.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is confusion.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am corrected; it is amendment No. 333.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair, the 
amendment described by the Senator from Massachusetts is----
  Mr. KERRY. No. 333.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. 333.
  Mr. KERRY. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska wish to modify 
his unanimous consent request?
  Mr. STEVENS. I have made the motion we vitiate the rollcall and 
accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No rollcall has been ordered at this time. 
Without objection, amendment No. 333 is agreed to. The motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 333) was agreed to.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 334

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the second amendment is an amendment to 
raise the death benefit for those who die while in service to our 
country. Currently, it is $12,000 plus change. We want to take it up to 
$100,000.
  The Senator is going to tell you that the Pentagon is opposed to 
this. Secretary Rumsfeld is opposed to this. The uniformed leadership 
at the Pentagon is overwhelmingly in favor of it.
  Air Force GEN Michael Moseley said:

       I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women 
     should be represented that way.

  Army GEN Richard Cody said:

       It is about service to this country and I think we need to 
     be very, very careful about [drawing a] distinction.

  And GEN Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

       I think a death gratuity that applies to all service 
     members is preferable to one that's targeted just to those 
     that might be in a combat zone.

  Let me say to our colleagues, you can be driving a car and have a car 
accident in a combat zone, and you qualify for the upper level. But if 
you are serving on an aircraft carrier or elsewhere and you are 
training personnel, and you die from a catapult that falls or you have 
an accident, you do not get the same benefit, even as you are preparing 
to send troops to war.
  That is wrong. We believe you ought to apply it according to the 
desire of the uniformed generals, which is to treat all members of the 
service the same say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, respectfully, the Senator from 
Massachusetts is wrong. Those who die in training or other activities 
related to combat are covered by our amendment. We sought to recognize 
fallen heroes from the time they enter training for combat to go 
overseas. They are covered by our amendment. What this amendment does 
is it does not give us the opportunity to recognize those who put their 
lives on the line. We oppose this amendment because of that fact. We do 
believe there ought to be a distinction.
  The Senator's amendment will mean, if someone right here in this 
district while in uniform drinks too much and dies while driving home, 
they are going to get this gratuity, the same gratuity the fallen hero 
should get. It is wrong to cover anyone in uniform with this type of 
allowance. We have increased the insurance for everyone in uniform. 
They can buy up to $400,000. But raising this from $12,240 to 
$100,000--it should go to those related to combat and in combat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 75, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Lott
     McConnell

[[Page 6271]]


     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 334) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for having 
supported amendment No. 334 to extend the $100,000 death gratuity to 
the survivors of all who die on active duty.
  I want the record to show what the amendment will accomplish and why 
what it accomplishes is important.
  Current law provides $12,000 to all members of the military who die 
on active duty, regardless of circumstance.
  Earlier this year, President Bush proposed increasing the death 
gratuity to $100,000 for those who die in Iraq, Afghanistan, or 
designated combat zones.
  The supplemental legislation reported by the Appropriations Committee 
increases the death gratuity to $100,000 for those who die in combat 
and those classified under circumstances classified as warranting 
Combat Related Special Compensation, CRSC, if they had lived. CRSC was 
a compromise brokered a few years ago in lieu of concurrent receipt. 
Using CRSC, the $100,000 death gratuity would go to those who die ``as 
a direct result of armed conflict; while engaged in hazardous service; 
in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war; or through 
an instrumentality of war.'' For all others, the death gratuity remains 
$12,000.
  My amendment is very simple. It changes the existing law to say 
$100,000 shall be paid in death gratuity under all circumstances in 
which $12,000 is now paid. It eliminates the provisions in the 
legislation that distinguish between the manner and place of deaths. It 
eliminates any connection to combat related special compensation. It 
does not extend the death gratuity to anyone who doesn't already 
receive the $12,000.
  The amendment simply heeds the advice of the uniformed leadership of 
the military who said, unambiguously, that a death is a death is a 
death, and Congress should not try to parse them.
  General Richard A. Cody, U.S. Army, said:

       It is about service to this country and I think we need to 
     be very, very careful about making this $100,000 decision 
     based upon what type of action. I would rather err on the 
     side of covering all deaths rather than try to make the 
     distinction.

  Admiral John B. Nathman, U.S. Navy, said:

       This has been about . . . how do we take care of the 
     survivors, the families and the children. They can't make a 
     distinction; I don't believe we should either.

  General Michael T. Moseley, U.S. Air Force, said:

       I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women 
     should be represented that way.

  General William Nyland, U.S. Marine Corps, said:

       I think we need to understand before we put any 
     distinctions on the great service of these wonderful young 
     men and women. . . . they are all performing magnificently. I 
     think we have to be very cautious in drawing distinctions.

  Finally, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, said:

       I think a death gratuity that applies to all service 
     members is preferable to one that's targeted just to those 
     that might be in a combat zone.

  I also want to note that the practical effect of my amendment is 
identical to the provisions of the House-passed supplemental. The 
underlying bill, H.R. 1268, passed the House on March 16, 2005, and in 
section 1113 it would require an equal death gratuity of $100,000 for 
all service members, regardless of the circumstance and location of 
their death. Like my amendment, it does not treat one military family 
differently than others.
  Lastly, my amendment has been endorsed by the Enlisted Association of 
the National Guard of the United States, EANGAUS; the Military Officers 
Association of America, MOAA; the National Guard Association of the 
United States, NGAUS; the National Military Family Association, NMFA; 
the Reserve Enlisted Association, REA; and the Reserve Officers 
Association, ROA.
  I thank my colleagues again for their support and look forward to 
working with them to hold this mark in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 367

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Byrd 
amendment. It is my understanding that, after I speak and after Senator 
Byrd has a few minutes to respond, we will have a vote on this 
amendment.
  The amendment put forth by Senator Byrd would take out $40 million 
requested by the administration in emergency funds to build a detection 
facility and security fence at Guantanamo Bay. I believe we must keep 
the $40 million to allow the Department to move forward to make better 
facilities at Guantanamo Bay, facilities that are more secure, and 
facilities that will make operations more efficient, especially in the 
use of guards.
  Currently, there are about 545 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. About 
half of those are housed in three camps, which are built as temporary 
facilities. I have seen these facilities. Many of us have gone to 
Guantanamo Bay to look at them. They are basically walls made of chain-
link fences. Of course, there is no climate control, and there is not 
very much room for exercise of detainees. Building the more permanent 
facility would provide a better, more secure facility, and facilities 
that are better housing units.
  I think Guantanamo Bay is the perfect place to hold these types of 
detainees, many of whom are dangerous terrorists. I do not want these 
prisoners moved. I don't want them moved into facilities in communities 
in our country, on our shores, where they can pose a danger for our 
citizens and serve as a lightning rod for terrorist activity. Al-Qaida 
has shown that it will try to liberate--by force if necessary and with 
no regard to the loss of innocent lives--their fellow terrorists. U.S. 
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have weathered such attacks and thwarted 
repeated violent escape attempts. Recent reports of tunnels, riots, and 
mortar attacks against detention facilities in Iraq have been well 
publicized in the press.
  Do we want to move that to the lower 48 States in the United States 
of America? I don't think so. Having them on an island, where other 
terrorist attempts to free prisoners are much less able to be put 
forth, is the exact right place for these prisoners. I want to make 
sure that we have the best facilities possible and that we have the 
permanent facilities on an island in Cuba so that there is not as much 
capability to do harm to innocent Americans as there would be if we 
moved those prisoners to places on our soil such as Atlanta, GA, or 
Florida.
  The detention facility that would be built will also reduce the 
number of required personnel. The current facilities

[[Page 6272]]

require significant personnel to monitor detainees. A permanent 
facility would free 150 of them to perform other tasks in the global 
war on terror. It will be the same for the security fence; we could 
free up 196 people who are now guarding around the perimeter of 
Guantanamo Bay. So that is 346 fewer guards that would be needed if we 
had the permanent facilities.
  It is very important that we keep the $40 million asked for by this 
administration to make better, more permanent facilities at Guantanamo 
Bay. I want them to stay on that island, not moved into the United 
States where we know terrorists are dwelling, we know they are looking 
for ways to attack our country. The last thing we want is for them to 
start moving into detention facilities to try to free prisoners and, in 
the process, harm innocent Americans or the people who are guarding 
those prisoners.
  So I ask the Senate to vote this amendment down and give the 
administration and the Department of Defense the capability to house 
these prisoners in the most efficient way possible and certainly in a 
way that protects American lives to the greatest extent possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I do not know of any other Senators who 
intend to debate this issue. I would like to put an exclamation point 
on the statement made by the distinguished Senator from Texas though.
  One thing that is clear, if we do not have a permanent facility 
there, an improved facility, we are going to have to keep more U.S. 
personnel there guarding and maintaining the security of this facility. 
If we use the funds the administration is requesting, approve the 
request the administration has submitted to the Congress, then we will 
be able to use a lot of the people who are there now for other purposes 
elsewhere in the war on terror to help better defend the country and 
make sure we are safeguarding the security interests of the American 
people.
  This is not to help prisoners have a better deal, even though the 
facility will be more humane and easier to care for and to deal with, 
but it will be more secure, and it will help us reallocate resources 
that will benefit our national security interests. That is the point.
  This is money well invested. The administration is requesting it. Our 
subcommittee chair supports it after reviewing the request. So I think 
the Senate should support the committee and what it has recommended and 
reject the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Byrd amendment? 
The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, am I recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Pentagon defends the current facilities for the 
incarceration of prisoners at Guantanamo as being safe, secure, and 
humane. There is no emergency, unforeseen or otherwise, that requires 
the immediate construction of a 220-bed maximum security prison to 
relieve existing deficiencies at Guantanamo, and so it is premature.
  That is part of the case I am making, it is premature. Why have this 
item in this bill? Why in an emergency supplemental bill? It is 
premature to ask the American taxpayers to spend $36 million--it is 
your money, I say to the taxpayers--to build a permanent maximum 
security prison at Guantanamo when the courts have not yet determined 
the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo or have not determined 
whether the United States can continue to hold them indefinitely 
without charging them with a crime.
  The prison population at Guantanamo is steadily declining, down to 
about 540 from a high of 750. The Department of Defense reportedly 
hopes to further cut the current population by at least half. However, 
DOD has not given a firm estimate of how many detainees it expects will 
require long-term incarceration.
  Why all the hurry? The 220-bed prison is a guesstimate--a 
guesstimate--not an estimate.
  The Department of Defense has already built one permanent maximum 
security prison at Guantanamo, a $16 million state-of-the-art facility 
completed less than a year ago that has the capacity to hold 100 
prisoners.
  Temporary detention facilities at Guantanamo include several camps in 
which prisoners are housed in individual cells with a toilet and sink 
in each cell, and one camp where detainees who are considered the least 
dangerous are housed in 10-man bays with all-day access to exercise 
yards.
  The Department of Defense contends that these temporary facilities 
are nearing the end of their useful life, but the Department does not 
argue they are unsafe or uninhabitable.
  The U.S. military has many urgent unmet needs, some of which are 
emergency status needs. Construction of a second permanent maximum 
security prison at Guantanamo is not among these urgent, unmet needs. 
This is a decision that should be deferred until the courts have 
resolved the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo and until the 
Defense Department determines the number of detainees it expects to 
hold in custody for the long term.
  What I am saying right now is the request is premature. Let us wait 
until the courts do their job. Then we will have a picture of what we 
need to do. Let us not be premature in spending the taxpayers' money 
when there are too many unanswered questions that ought to be answered 
and which in time will certainly present us with a clear picture of the 
permanent needs.
  I thank the Chair and thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas, 27, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carper
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--71

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dayton
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 367) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 6273]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 372

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 372, which 
is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 372.

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should not 
  delay enactment of critical appropriations necessary to ensure the 
   well-being of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces 
   fighting in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to 
   conduct a debate about immigration reform while the supplemental 
   appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United States 
                                Senate)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) our immigration system is badly broken, fails to serve 
     the interests of our national security and our national 
     economy, and undermines respect for the rule of law;
       (2) in a post-9/11 world, national security demands a 
     comprehensive solution to our immigration system;
       (3) Congress must engage in a careful and deliberative 
     discussion about the need to bolster enforcement of, and 
     comprehensively reform, our immigration laws;
       (4) Congress should not short-circuit that discussion by 
     attaching amendments to this supplemental outside of the 
     regular order; and
       (5) Congress should not delay the enactment of critical 
     appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of the men 
     and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq 
     and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to conduct a 
     debate about immigration reform while the supplemental 
     appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United 
     States Senate.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I realize the Senator from Texas has 
been recognized to offer his amendment. I ask unanimous consent I be 
permitted to offer my amendment after the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection to 
that request. I note that Senator Feinstein, who is also joining me as 
a cosponsor on this amendment, would like to speak following me. 
Senator Isakson would also like to speak. I ask unanimous consent they 
be recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Withholding the right to object, I have no objection to 
how long you wish to speak on your amendment, Senator. I wanted to be 
sure I got to offer my amendment this afternoon.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment of the 
Senator from Maryland will be considered after the amendment of the 
Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Maryland for working with us.
  This amendment is a sense of the Senate that Congress should not 
delay enactment of the supplemental appropriations bill by attempting 
to conduct a debate about comprehensive immigration reform at this 
time.
  As I made clear, along with Senator Kyl and others on this point, I 
am for comprehensive immigration reform. It is long overdue. It is 
something in the regular order we are going to consider, both in the 
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship, which I 
chair in the Judiciary Committee, but also I have talked with the 
chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, and he has 
advised me that once we complete our work--hopefully in the next couple 
of months--he would give us an expedited markup in the full committee.
  On a subject so complex and potentially divisive as comprehensive 
immigration reform, it is appropriate we take up this issue as we would 
most complex issues; that is, by the regular order. It is particularly 
important we do so in light of the subject matter of the present 
legislation in the Senate which is an emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill that should be passed without undue delay so our 
men and women in uniform can get the resources they need, including the 
equipment to do the job we have asked them to do and which they have so 
heroically agreed to do on our behalf in the war on terror.
  I confess there are many good proposals out there with regard to 
immigration reform. The Senator from Maryland has a proposal on H-2B on 
which there will be some agreement; some people will agree with it. The 
distinguished Senator from Idaho has a bill called the agriculture jobs 
bill which will attempt to create a workforce that can work in the 
agricultural industry. I have some problems with the details of that 
bill, but in the main it is a well-intentioned effort to try to deal 
with part of this problem.
  I say ``part of this problem'' advisedly. Rather than try to deal 
with this issue on a piecemeal basis, it is important we enact 
comprehensive reform. For too long we have simply ignored the fact our 
borders are not secure, that once people get past the border they 
literally can melt into the landscape. It has resulted in the current 
untenable proposition that there are about--no one knows for sure--10 
million people who have come into our country outside of our laws. We 
need to deal with that, particularly in a post-September 11 
environment, by addressing the security concerns, by restoring our 
reputation in this country as a nation that believes in and adheres to 
the rule of law but also in a way that is compassionate and deals with 
the economic reality involved where approximately 6 million of those 10 
million people are currently in the workforce, many performing jobs 
American citizens simply do not want to perform.
  It is not because I disagree with the general intent of immigration 
reform that I speak in favor of this resolution, which says we ought to 
take up this matter but in the regular course and on another day.
  It is mainly because I do not want to see, nor do I believe any 
Senator on the floor or in their office or elsewhere would want to see 
us get bogged down and diverted in an immigration debate that, frankly, 
I do not think we are yet ready for, and at a time which I think could 
well damage our long-term prospects at getting comprehensive 
immigration reform passed, but particularly in a way that is 
calculated--let me change that word; it is not ``calculated''--the 
result likely would be that we would slow down and perhaps bog down 
this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to equip our troops 
with what they need.
  So this resolution suggests, in the last paragraph, that:

       Congress should not delay the enactment of critical 
     appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of the men 
     and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq 
     and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to conduct a 
     debate about immigration reform while the supplemental 
     appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United 
     States Senate.

  I commend this to all of our colleagues. I express my appreciation in 
particular to the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, for working 
with us. We both serve on the Judiciary Committee and believe this is 
an important issue. But it needs to be handled in the regular course 
that would not divert us from the immediate task at hand, which is to 
make sure our troops have the resources they need in order to complete 
the job we have asked them to do on our behalf.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for 
authoring this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor. I agree with all the comments he has made. I believe it is a 
huge mistake to bypass the Judiciary Committee, to bypass the 
Immigration Subcommittee on bills that are big in their ramifications 
on the United States of America.
  If we do that, we will get into a debate on the floor on the AgJOBS 
bill. I think very few people know, for example, that the way the bill 
is written

[[Page 6274]]

you can have two misdemeanor convictions and essentially still get a 
temporary green card. That can be misdemeanor theft. That can be 
misdemeanor battery. That can be misdemeanor drugs. I will have an 
amendment to address that. I will take some time with it.
  Most people do not know you just have to have 100 hours of work in a 
12-month period. I will have an amendment to address that, and there 
will be other amendments to address that. But this is a very 
controversial bill that can have a huge impact on the number of people 
coming across the border. At the very least, it should have a markup in 
Judiciary. We should have an opportunity to make amendments in 
Judiciary before it comes to the floor of the Senate as an amendment on 
an appropriations bill.
  There is also the REAL ID bill, which very well may come up. Senator 
Mikulski has an amendment on H-2B. I am concerned about it because it 
does not have a cap on the number, and the H-2B quota has been reached. 
I believe it is 66,000. Maryland has some problems, which are valid 
problems, I am sure. But just to open the bill, unless there is a 
specified number--I think we need to discuss it.
  I will bring up the State Criminal Alien Program for reauthorization. 
This is paying back the States for their costs of confinement of 
illegals who commit felonies and misdemeanors and go to county jails 
and State prisons. So it will open a long and complicated debate on the 
floor of the Senate. We should not do that. Please. I have sat as a 
member of the Immigration Subcommittee now for 12 years. I come from a 
big immigration State, the largest, no doubt about that, in America, a 
State with very deep concerns.
  I understand the agricultural labor needs of the States as well as 
anyone. And not to be able to have a markup, not to be able to make 
amendments in a committee and present a bill that has been scrubbed, 
amended, and is ready for prime time, I believe, is a huge mistake.
  So I am very pleased to support the Senator's amendment. I will have 
another amendment in due course in this area as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand at this moment to very cautiously 
oppose the resolution and to express my reason. I say ``cautiously'' 
because of my respect for the Senator from Texas and respect for the 
Senator from California and all of the work they are putting into 
immigration and the need for comprehensive reform.
  None of us in the Senate argue about it, but we certainly are willing 
to talk about it. In fact, we have talked about it now for 1,201 days 
since 9/11. Mr. President, 9/11 was that day of awakening when we found 
out there were millions of foreign nationals in our country without 
documentation, and some of them were here with evil intent. Not many 
but some. Most are here and hardworking.
  Tragically enough, because of the character of an obsolete package of 
immigration laws, they are living in the back streets and shadows of 
America. They have no rights. They work hard. Many of them take their 
money back to their birth country. Some of them attempt to stay. That 
is where we are. We all know that.
  The Senator from California has talked about the numbers. Her State 
has a very big problem. I hope we can get into that debate.
  Let me also talk about the timing of it. I think you are going to 
see, if it is extended, only those who would want to extend the time of 
this debate. The issue of the Senator from Maryland is a very small, 
sensitive, important debate. It is very time sensitive. That law should 
have been in place the first of April so the hires could have gone 
forth at the first of May. In my State, the resorts open June 1. It is 
critical that workforce be in place by June 1.
  Comprehensive debate, according to the Senator from Texas, should 
probably take place late summer, early fall, when they have finally 
done their work. I do not criticize them for that. But I must tell you, 
long before 9/11 I was looking at the very tragic situation of American 
agriculture. American agriculture has admitted openly that they have a 
very large problem. It is quite simple. The Bureau of Labor and 
Statistics will tell you the workforce may have as many as, well, 1.6 
million workers, and 70 percent of them are not documented and 
therefore, by definition, illegal. By surveys alone, the workers admit 
it. Yet we now say: Gee whiz, we will talk about it now.
  It is too late now. It can't be done now. It is time sensitive to the 
industry, very time sensitive to the food on the shelf of the American 
consumer, time sensitive to humane support of those who toil in our 
fields.
  No, there is never the right time. And, oh, about this supplemental, 
this ``urgent'' supplemental--I am sorry, I do not mean to criticize 
the Senator from Texas--we have been urgently working on this for 2 
months. That is how long ago the President proposed it, 2 months ago. 
We will have this on the President's desk by the first of May. That is 
when they want it. We do not need to debate immigration for 4, 5 days 
unless the Senator from California wants to drag it out.
  There will be amendments on the floor of the Senate to my bill, and 
there should be. It is open for amendment. I would hope I could 
convince Senators to take it as it is. It has had hearings before the 
Judiciary Committee. It is well vetted. It has been 8 years in the 
crafting. Last year, I had 509 groups supporting it. This year I will 
have 600.
  This issue's time has come, and it is time the Senate deal with it 
openly and forthrightly. I was willing to step back for a moment. I 
told the leader so. The leader worked on it but could not put that 
package together. I will be on the floor of the Senate later today, 
hopefully, offering my amendment. It has been filed at the desk. We can 
deal with this in a day, unless there are Senators who want to drag it 
out by throwing in amendments that ought to go in the substantive 
comprehensive package that the Senator from Texas, chairing the 
committee, is working on and attempting to do at this moment.
  A comprehensive bill? You bet. Rifle shots, targeted? You bet. We 
have to do it now and should do it now--H-2B, H-2A, critical to 
Americas's workforce and food supply now, not this fall or this winter 
or next year. We almost collapsed the raisin industry in the Central 
Valley in California last year. Why? Because Social Security was doing 
its work and checking Social Security numbers. And 72 percent of them 
were mismatches. That is a phrase for ``illegal.'' The Senator from 
California knows it. She has admitted she has a major problem in the 
heart of America's agricultural food basket.
  Shame on us for not having the time to deal with the problem and deal 
with it forthrightly, honestly, and fairly. I am willing to subject my 
work to amendments, if the Senator from California wants to bring all 
of the amendments she can. I would hope she would target it to those 
specific two, the AgJOBS bill. She is right about misdemeanors, but I 
am only following the current Federal law, the current law for 
immigration. I haven't changed it at all. If she doesn't like it, she 
will bring amendments, and maybe we can adjust that a little.
  I have worked with the Senator from California. I am not disagreeing 
with the premise of some of her arguments. But if she wants to throw 
the whole baby in with the bath water, then she had better be careful 
because she will collapse her agricultural economy if we make a 
misstep.
  We are doing something right now that is critical to America and to 
America's culture. We are trying to control our borders. We are trying 
to apprehend and deport those in our country who are illegal. We ought 
to do that. I have voted for everything along the way. But as we work 
to get all of this done and clean up the inheritance of the last 20 
years of bad law or law that wasn't enforceable--and we learned all 
about it in a post-9/11 environment--we have to remember one thing: As 
we do the right things, we have to do all of it the right way or we

[[Page 6275]]

will collapse certain segments of America's economy because we 
destroyed the workforce that is out there at this moment, toiling in 
America's agricultural fields or in America's processing plants, 
working hard to take money home to their children and wives--not here, 
dominantly in Mexico. Some here.
  That is the reality that I bring to the floor, and I am very willing 
to debate. I hope we can get into that debate later on today.
  When you think about the Cornyn-Feinstein resolution, that this is 
not the right thing, then when is it? Twelve hundred days from now, 
1,300, 1,400 days from the day that America awoke to the problem as 
America's people were killed and our trade center fell and our Pentagon 
was attacked? That is the reality. We are doing all the right things. 
We are moving in the right direction. But let's make sure that as we 
do, we do it in a package that doesn't start collapsing segments of our 
industry or mistreating people who work hard for themselves and for the 
American economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me a few 
moments to speak about this issue.
  If we read the preamble to this proposed amendment, it says it is a 
sense of the Senate that the Congress of the United States should not 
delay the appropriation to our men and women in harm's way by having a 
debate over immigration policy. It could just as easily say it is the 
sense of the Senate that the Congress should not delay a comprehensive 
immigration reform debate which is the reason we have the problem 
today.
  I have a great respect for the Senator from Texas. I understand why 
this amendment has been put together because, as the Senator has said, 
there are a lot of us who have been trying for 3 or 4 days to figure 
out a way to bring about a meaningful debate on comprehensive 
immigration reform. I am taking this opportunity because I want to make 
points not on behalf of the Senator from Georgia but on behalf of the 9 
million people in Georgia I represent.
  Those points are as follows: REAL ID is not an immigration issue. It 
is a national security issue. By the time we get to the end of this 
debate and the conference, it should be a part of this package.
  No. 2, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from California 
and the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Texas and the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I wouldn't disregard for a second the amount of work that 
has gone into the comprehensive immigration laws of this country, 
trying to bring about fundamental change. However, as of this date, in 
the 3 and a half plus years since 9/11, the Congress has done little to 
address some major issues. For a second, I would like to address them.
  As I do, I want you to know I am a second-generation Swedish 
American. Because of this great country, my grandfather emigrated in 
1903 in the potato famine. My father was born in 1916. My grandfather 
wasn't naturalized until 1926. Because of this Constitution, I am in 
the Senate today. I respect the legal immigration process. I also 
despise those who tend to judge books by covers and categorize people 
by their ethnicity or their look or say: They are an illegal alien. We 
have delayed so long in dealing with securing our borders, enforcing 
legal immigration and seeing to it there are consequences to bad 
behavior, the American people have lost confidence in the government to 
actually do what the Constitution expects us to do.
  Think about a few things for a second. We have talked about 
agriculture. We are spending money enforcing the adverse effect wage 
rate on the onion farms of south Georgia. We are spending money 
enforcing a law that actually would induce a farmer to think about 
hiring undocumented workers rather than documented workers because it 
is going to cost him $2, $3, or $4 an hour more to hire the documented 
worker, and we don't have the enforcement people to enforce our 
borders. How in the world can we justify trying to enforce that which 
induces the wrong thing to happen?
  We have seen our health facilities, our educational facilities--I 
chaired the Georgia Board of Education. I spent more time providing 
Spanish-speaking teachers for our State, and bilingual programs, which 
I am proud of. I want to educate every one of them. I helped write No 
Child Left Behind. But as the flood and the flow continues and the 
suspicion continues that we fail in Washington to recognize the crisis 
we have in this country, a crisis that is causing some of our citizens 
to take actions that worry me deeply, it is my responsibility on the 
floor of this Senate to represent the people of the State of Georgia.
  I respect the Senator from Texas and this amendment. I understand why 
it is here. If we get about the business of a feeding frenzy, of taking 
some of the points I have mentioned and the Senator from Idaho has, we 
may delay, but somehow, some way we need to send the American people 
the clear signal we get it. We are going to have comprehensive reform. 
We are going to have a comprehensive debate, and it is going to be 
sooner rather than later.
  I will disagree, I am sure, as will others with me, on where we need 
to go. But disagreeing on how we get there and getting there are two 
different things. We no longer have the luxury. Our States, our school 
systems, our hospitals, our farmworkers, and our people no longer have 
the luxury or the patience for us to delay any longer.
  In my State of Georgia, there is an old saying: If you want to get 
the mud out of the stream, get the hog out of the spring. 
Procrastination on dealing with the delicate and difficult issues of 
comprehensive immigration reform have muddied the water in America and 
will do great harm if we don't hurry up and take the 8, 3, 4, and 6 
years of work that has been done in committees and move forward with 
comprehensive reform.
  I believe the Senator from Texas is trying to use this as a 
foundation for that to happen. I understand the Senator from Idaho's 
frustration which I have shared. I hope if my remarks contribute 
anything, it will be to send a message: Regardless of whether we agree 
on the specifics, let us no longer delay in dealing with the single 
largest domestic issue to the people of the United States and that is 
comprehensive immigration reform and rewarding legal immigration and 
getting our arms around illegal immigration.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wanted to make a brief response, 
both to the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Idaho. One of the 
reasons why I think it is so difficult to look at a broken immigration 
system is because our immigration system is so big. America takes more 
immigrants in its regular immigration quota a year than other 
industrialized countries put together.
  If you take that and you take all of the other programs, H-1B, H-2B, 
the L visas, and all these other visas, it adds up to about 5.5 million 
people a year who come into our country under one visa or another. It 
is an enormous job to look over this whole breadth and scope of 
immigration programs and make the necessary changes.
  I think one logical change is if a quota of people coming from Mexico 
is perhaps too small, people have to wait too long; therefore, there is 
a huge illegal immigration problem. Nonetheless, we are a nation of 
laws. If we have the law, we should follow the law. So I am one who 
believes reform should be done, but in the name of reform I don't 
believe we should pass a bill quickly on an appropriation bill without 
going through the necessary steps to adjust it and amend it in the 
committee.
  Let me make a point in response to the Senator from Idaho, and I am 
pleased that he is a great expert on California agriculture. Since he 
is, he will know that the great bulk of the workforce is illegal. That 
workforce has been there for a very long time. I would accept a bill 
that provided for

[[Page 6276]]

some adjustment of a workforce that had worked in agricultural labor 
for 3 years, that had been in California doing it, could show prior 
work documentation and be vouched for by employers.
  According to this bill that we are going to have on the floor--and I 
assume people feel it is going to sweep through--you only have to work 
for a hundred days--that is, 575 hours--in 12 months and you are 
eligible for your family coming, for a temporary green card; and then 
if you work another time, you get a permanent green card.
  Well, this is going--mark my words--to be a huge magnet. When I 
discuss this with people, they say: There is an eligible date. Look at 
it here. Do you think people across the border know the eligible date? 
All they know is they have to be here and work for a hundred days, so 
come on over. They come over and you cannot find them and they don't go 
home. What happens is the numbers build up, the people in southern 
California find people camping in their backyards, in their gullies, 
and in the parks; there is no housing, the schools are overcrowded, and 
then people go to the ballot with an initiative. That is what happened 
in 1994 when proposition 187, unconstitutional as it was, passed. Polls 
show that if put on the ballot today, it would most likely pass again.
  So I have tried to be constructive. I have proposed amendments that 
have been rejected by the authors in the House and the Senate. I am on 
the Immigration Subcommittee. Why do any of us serve on a subcommittee, 
then, if a bill of such enormous dimension--this could be the largest 
immigration program in history. It could bring millions of people into 
this country. The workers, their spouses, their minor children are all 
permitted.
  We should know what we do. Now, a hundred days of work, 575 hours of 
work--if I were on the other side, I would say I can sneak across and 
get a hundred hours of work, then I can bring in my family and I will 
have a green card. It is nirvana.
  For my State, it is perhaps different--Texas might be the next State, 
and then Arizona--in terms of sheer numbers and problems. When the 
President proposed his plan, let me tell you that apprehensions at the 
border in February went up 14.2 percent; the next month, March, 57.8 
percent; April, 79.6 percent. So the call was out there, and people 
thought, aha, and they tried to come across the border to get into the 
country. The same thing will happen.
  That is why it is important that we figure a way to prevent that from 
happening. I will provide for an adjustment of status for people who 
have worked in agricultural labor for a long time, for a substantial 
period of time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For a nice question or a mean one?
  Mr. CRAIG. I have never been mean to the Senator from California, nor 
has she to me. She obviously makes very important points. None of those 
have been disputed and none of them have been dismissed out of hand. 
California is a unique situation. Texas is a unique situation. My State 
of Idaho has a large number of undocumenteds during the year, but it is 
equal to one county in the Central Valley of California. I understand 
that.
  I don't understand California agriculture as well as the Senator from 
California, but I spent a good deal of time down there because I work 
on a broad variety of issues dealing with California and water. 
California has a very real problem. The Senator has a right to be 
concerned and alarmed. Any amendments she would wish to offer that are 
viewed as constructive I will take a very hard look at to make sure 
that what we do works.
  Yes, we have a January 1, 2005, date. I will not get into the details 
of my bill. We will debate that. So the rush of the border would 
already have had to occur. But it hasn't. It has increased simply 
because there is a demand for workers in this country.
  If the Senator wants to help me shape that more, I am willing to 
listen to that and see what we can do with amendments that deal with 
the misdemeanor issue she is concerned about and a time certain. None 
of us wants to create a rush at the border. What we want to create for 
California and the rest of the country is a legal workforce that is 
there, real, and honors those here for 3, 4, 5 years, who are married 
and have families here. We say: Go back to Mexico, and you may get back 
across the border.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think I have the floor. I was 
waiting for the question.
  Mr. CRAIG. The question is quite simple: Offer your amendments, and I 
will take a serious look at them. You make very important issues for 
your State and many other States, and I hope you will do that in a fair 
and responsible way, as you have always been on this issue.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I happen to agree with her 100 percent. 
She is exactly right. Not only are we going to see a flood of illegals 
coming across in greater numbers than what we have today, we are going 
to see status under the AgJOBS bill, which is pure and simple amnesty. 
But you are also going to have somewhere between 8 million and 13 
million illegal aliens who are here today having the opportunity to 
become legalized. Just the fact that we don't know, as the Senator has 
alluded to, how many there are, with the difference being between 8 
million and 13 million, that tells you how big the problem is.
  So I happen to agree with her, and I will simply tell her we are 
going to have an alternative--Senator Kyl and I--to the AgJOBS when we 
get to that. The Senator is exactly on target relative to these folks 
who are going to line up at the border.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may conclude my discussion, and then I will 
yield the floor to Senator Craig. He mentioned raisins. The last time I 
looked, it took 40,000 workers in California to harvest the raisin crop 
in 4 different counties. Most of these are illegals. Most of these have 
done it year after year. They also go from crop to crop to crop, as we 
know.
  The key is to take care of, in my view, the people who are already 
here and working and are a part of this. The demand for the 
agricultural jobs comes every time the employer sanctions are carried 
out. Then suddenly the agricultural industry says we are for bringing 
more people in from other countries. I think we have to find a way to 
have a workforce that is known, identifiable, reasonably and well paid, 
that can get housing, can send their children to school, that work in 
this industry. Probably one-half of the agricultural workforce--I would 
say 600,000 workers--is illegal. These are the 600,000 who I believe we 
should be concerned with--not opening the border to bring in more but 
to find a way that they then can become a responsible part of the 
workforce. That is where I am, because I admit that is a need.
  This bill does not do that. This bill sets up a different program and 
does not relate to people who have been here for years working in 
agriculture. They may be very good citizens. They probably are. Some of 
them own their homes, they have children, they are responsible. They 
have a tough life, true. I think this can be handled. But what has 
happened is there is a set mentality that the bill has to be this way 
because we have 60 votes, and we are going to keep it this way. That is 
a problem and, therefore, that mentality does not let it go through 
Immigration, does not let amendments have exposure in committee.
  Virtually everybody here who is arguing is a member of the Judiciary 
Committee. That is where we ought to be debating it instead of on the 
floor passing a piece of legislation of which no one--no one--knows the 
absolute effect.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, may I ask two 
quick questions? Will the Senator from California respond? First, the 
Senator from California is the ranking member on the Terrorism and 
Homeland Security

[[Page 6277]]

Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair; is that 
correct?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator another question. She 
talked about the probability of thousands and thousands of illegal 
immigrants being attracted to come into the country who are not here 
now. The Senator from Idaho said we will have a cutoff date.
  Was the Senator from California, in raising that concern--which I 
believe to be an absolutely legitimate concern--perhaps talking about 
section 101(D)(1)(c) of the bill of the Senator from Idaho which 
actually invites former lawbreakers to return to the United States? In 
other words, illegal immigrants who have formerly worked in U.S. 
agriculture.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, can the Senator give me a page?
  Mr. KYL. I do not have the page. It is a section that permits former 
immigrants, who worked here illegally in agriculture but have since 
returned to their home, to return to our southern border and apply for 
the special status that is set up in the bill the Senator from 
California described earlier in order to file a preliminary application 
for status as temporary permanent resident if they appear in designated 
ports of entry with an application that ``demonstrates prior qualifying 
employment in the United States,'' and then could be granted admission 
to the United States by the Department of Homeland Security.
  That is question No. 1. Is that one of the areas in which additional 
illegal immigrants would be attracted to come into this country?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. Additionally, this bill gives this 
special temporary green card to people with two misdemeanors on their 
record. I have discussed this with the authors in the House, and they 
do not want to amend it. My own view is there should be no 
misdemeanors. Why should somebody who broke a law coming here be able 
to break two more laws and get special consideration? We all know 
misdemeanor laws vary. We know there are misdemeanor drug laws, there 
are misdemeanor battery laws, misdemeanor theft laws, misdemeanor 
driving under the influence--there are all kinds of criminal 
misdemeanors. To say someone who broke the law who came here illegally, 
who was illegally employed, can have two misdemeanors on their record 
and have a special status is something I do not understand. Yet I have 
implored them for a substantial period of time, and they do not want to 
change.
  If we had a chance to discuss this in the Judiciary Committee in a 
markup, this would be brought out, and we could debate it back and 
forth. People could say why they want it, we could say why we do not 
think it should be included, and there would be a vote. At least a bill 
would have been vetted by a committee process.
  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator from California yield for another question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. Under the provisions we talked about before, which would 
attract any number of illegal immigrants--and by the way, that is not a 
term I throw around negatively because they would, in fact, have to say 
they were illegal immigrants in order to gain entry into the United 
States. They would have to say they were working illegally in the 
United States before and now they want to come back. That is the 
provision of law under which they could actually come back into the 
United States.
  Based on the experience of the Senator from California with the use 
of illegal documentation--Social Security cards, driver's licenses, all 
of the other items of identification that can be counterfeited--would 
the Senator have a view as to whether this particular provision could 
be taken advantage of by those wishing to commit fraud? Of course, 
people already committed fraud in this country by coming here illegally 
and using those same fraudulent documents to gain employment in the 
first place. Isn't this one that would engender a lot of fraudulent 
applications to come back into the United States?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This has been and is today a huge problem. 
Additionally, there is another problem on our southern border, if the 
Senator would give me a minute, and that is, other than Mexicans 
crossing the border being picked up illegally. I think it was up to 
88,000 last year. So it is shooting up. And when you ask the Border 
Patrol about it, they say this is very difficult for them to sort it 
all out because there is such pressure on the border. The Senator, 
certainly, in Arizona knows that pressure on the border.
  The fraud of documents is well known. One can buy a driver's license, 
a Social Security card fraudulently in places that I know of and have 
seen it happening in southern California for $15 or $20. So that is not 
a big problem.
  Mr. KYL. If I can conclude by saying to the Senator from California, 
I think the proposal she and the Senator from Texas have set forth to 
put this very important but very complicated discussion off and not 
have this debate on the bill that helps to fund our war operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan is a very good proposal which I intend to support.
  As she knows, I welcome the opportunity to work with her and also 
with my good friend and colleague from Idaho, the Senator who is 
proposing the bill, which I would oppose but would hope to be able to 
work on if we have the opportunity to do that outside the kind of 
activity in which we are engaged on the supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  So I do support the proposal of the Senators from Texas and 
California and hope the body will approve it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I enjoyed this debate. It has been over 15 
years since the Senate has had real debate on immigration. The Simpson-
Mazzoli bill was the last time the Senate seriously looked at this 
issue, and it took us years to finally come up with a bill. We have not 
seriously addressed changes since.
  There have been dramatic changes across America in immigration 
patterns, the number of people coming in, certainly issues of national 
security. If there is ever an issue we should address in comprehensive 
fashion, it is immigration.
  I commend President Bush. We do not see eye to eye on many things, 
but I commend him for his leadership in suggesting we debate 
immigration. His proposal is not one I embrace in its entirety, but it 
at least opened the debate. Many were critical of it, some lauded it, 
but at least he had the courage to step up and say: Let's debate it.
  Now comes the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we have an 
important bill before us relative to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
tsunami relief. Senator Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, and Senator 
Feinstein, a Democrat of California, have said this bill should not 
include immigration provisions. I think they make a compelling 
argument, an argument which I joined with several of my colleagues in 
making to Senator Frist a few days ago, who cosigned a letter--about 20 
of us--to Senator Frist saying we do not believe one specific 
immigration provision should be part of this conference or this 
appropriations bill, and that relates to the REAL ID.
  For those who have not followed the debate, the REAL ID is a 
provision adopted in the House of Representatives which will be part of 
this appropriations bill when the House and Senate come together to 
decide the final work product.
  My concern, I say to Senator Cornyn and Senator Feinstein, is that 
the garlic is in the soup. There is no way to take it out at this 
point. Those of us who may be conferees will walk into that conference 
committee and face an immigration issue, a very serious immigration 
issue, a very controversial one.
  So the suggestion we not add any immigration debate to this bill may 
be a good one to expedite it but like it or not we are going to face 
what I consider to be some very onerous provisions of the REAL ID bill 
which will be

[[Page 6278]]

part of the conference committee report. If it is appropriate, I will 
retain the floor but ask the Senator from Texas about that particular 
circumstance. Would the Senator from Texas be open to modifying his 
sense of the Senate resolution in paragraph 4? In paragraph 4, the 
Senators from Texas and California say Congress should not short 
circuit the discussion of immigration by attaching amendments to this 
supplemental outside of the regular order.
  Would the Senator from Texas modify his resolution to add the 
following language: Or by including provisions relating to immigration 
in the conference report to this supplemental appropriation bill?
  If the Senator would, then I think what we are saying is we want a 
clean bill. By this vote, we are instructing our conferees to not come 
back with REAL ID, to not come back with any immigration provision.
  I understand the predicament Senator Mikulski faces in Maryland. 
Senator Reed of Rhode Island faces a similar predicament when it comes 
to Liberian refugees. Senator Schumer faces an emergency situation with 
victims of volcano on an island who are now going to be deported back 
to tragic circumstances.
  The point I am making is we cannot escape the reality immigration is 
on top of us and coming at us, but if we want this bill--because of its 
special nature--to be clean, I ask, without yielding the floor, if I 
could, through the Chair, if the Senator from Texas would be open to 
including this language in his sense of the Senate resolution?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the question of the Senator 
from Illinois. For purposes of the Senate bill, it is absolutely 
critical, as I think the debate has shown so far, we not get into other 
unrelated issues to the war supplemental, but we ought to leave it up 
to the conferees. Obviously, we are going to have to deal with the 
House provisions, and that is going to be worked on in the conference 
committee I do not expect to be on.
  This is the agreed language Senator Feinstein and I have been able to 
come up with, and it covers the area we have some control over; that 
is, what happens in the Senate on the Senate's version of the bill.
  Certainly, I will want to work with the Senator from Illinois and all 
my colleagues to try to make sure we enact comprehensive reform. Part 
of the problem is we are taking this in a rifle-shot fashion when I 
think what we need to do is deal with it comprehensively. That is the 
reason for the resolution.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas. I do apologize. I 
mentioned to him a minute or two ago that I was going to ask a question 
along these lines. I would like to ask Senator Cornyn and Senator 
Feinstein to consider this. Because if we do not go to that next step 
and say we are not going to let the House bring in an immigration 
provision in conference and tie our own hands and not offer important 
immigration provisions in the Senate, that is unfair. If we are going 
to make this an immigration and appropriations bill, then we have some 
pretty important issues to consider.
  Senator Kennedy has an issue with Senator Craig--Senator Mikulski, so 
many do. If this conference is going to be open and the REAL ID 
provisions come rolling out at us, as difficult as it is, as time 
consuming as it may be, we have no recourse but to open the issue and 
open the debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, reluctantly, I rise to oppose this 
amendment, even though I agree with many of the principles expounded in 
it. No. 1, to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the sponsors of 
this amendment, I too, agree, that our immigration system is badly 
broken. It does fail to serve the interests of our national security 
and our national economy. We do need to enact the critical 
appropriations bill to support our troops and help people who are 
tsunami victims and some other important aspects. At the same time, 
though, the sense of the Senate really should be directed to the House. 
For someone like myself, who has a very serious crisis because of 
something called the H-2B visas, which I will explain in more detail at 
another time, the fact is this is our only vehicle.
  Immigration, as an issue, was introduced in the supplemental 
appropriation bill in the House of Representatives with an enormously 
controversial and prickly concept, the so-called REAL ID card. I know 
that my colleague from Tennessee has proposed some creative solutions 
to deal with that. I know that others want to talk about this. If we 
can talk about comprehensive immigration reform, I am all for it. But 
the question is, When are we going to do it? It has been over 1,000 
days since 9/11, and we have not done comprehensive immigration reform, 
nor have we looked at what aspects of immigration are working. There 
are certain aspects that are working in certain areas of the guest 
worker programs; college students who come from abroad, who work in our 
country and learn in our country and go back home, what a tremendous 
exercise in public diplomacy the so-called J visas have accomplished.
  In my own State, the H-2B visa, which allows guest workers to come 
into this country for seasonal employment to take jobs that are 
certified as not being held by American workers, with a mandated return 
to their own home, has worked well. It has worked so well that the cap 
is now bursting at the seams.
  I am all for comprehensive immigration reform, but No. 4 says 
Congress should not short circuit the discussion by attaching 
amendments to this supplemental. We have had no discussion. There is 
nothing to short circuit. What we do have is a series of, as Senator 
Durbin has said, these rifle-shot crisis situations.
  It would be wonderful if we could have comprehensive reform. I look 
forward to participating in that comprehensive reform. For now, we have 
to look at those States that are facing a crisis because of the flawed 
immigration system we have now and for which we are advocating modest 
and temporary legislative remedies.
  I salute our colleagues. They have a big job ahead of them. Anybody 
willing to undertake comprehensive immigration reform needs to be 
encouraged, supported and worked with. We need elasticity in this bill 
to deal with those things related to our economic viability. In many 
ways, a guest worker program that is working needs to be addressed, and 
I hope to offer an amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Maryland has 
worked hard on this need, as well as the Senator from Idaho, and there 
are other Senators who feel deeply we ought to deal with immigration. 
Most of us have been to Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. We know what this 
bill is about. This bill is about whether the National Guard men and 
women from Tennessee have sufficient armor when they go into a combat 
zone. This bill is about whether we are going to get some money to the 
new Palestinian Authority in time for them to be a success so we can 
begin to have the hope of peace in the Middle East. This bill is about 
whether we are going to fully fund a building in Baghdad for our 
thousands of Americans who are there so that they do not have to live 
in trailers and live in a more dangerous situation than most Americans 
outside of this country live in today in the world.
  This bill is about whether our combat men and women have rifles that 
are sufficiently modern to defend themselves. This bill is about 
whether we have safe trucks. Eight hundred of them convoy from Kuwait 
City to Baghdad every day, carrying supplies to our men and women. This 
bill is about whether we have helmets for our combat men and women. We 
should not be slowing it down. It is amazing to me that we would slow 
down a bill to support the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, 40 
percent of whom have

[[Page 6279]]

left their mortgages, left their homes, left their children, left their 
jobs. They are dealing with all the issues we have to deal with from 
half a world away. Plus they are being shot at, and some of them are 
being killed. We are slowing it down because we have failed to address 
one of the single most important issues facing our country, and so we 
come up in the middle of a debate about whether to support our troops 
and say, okay, let us stop for a few weeks and argue about immigration.
  For Heaven's sake, we should pass the bill to support our troops 
immediately. We agree with it. We all support it. We support them. We 
all agree with it. Then we should get about the business of dealing 
with the point of the Senator from Maryland, and the proposal of the 
Senator from Idaho, and the work Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn are 
doing.
  This is a country that is unified by a few principles, our country, 
the United States of America. We are not unified by our race or by our 
ethnicity or anything else such as that. Among those principles is the 
rule of law. We go all around the world meddling in other people's 
business, preaching about the rule of law, yet we have 10 to 15 million 
people living here who violate the law by being here. We should not 
tolerate that, and we should be embarrassed as a Congress that we have 
failed to deal with it.
  This is not a problem Tulsa can deal with or Nashville can deal with. 
This is a flat out responsibility of the Congress to solve, and we 
should solve it. We are dumping on the backs of local communities the 
cost for schools to educate people who are illegally here. Ten years 
ago in the schools of southern California, a third of the children in 
the largest school district in California were here illegally. Somebody 
has to pay for that. Emergency rooms in hospitals have many people 
there who are here illegally. That is straining the budgets of cities 
and states.
  So here we are in the middle of a debate about how quickly we can 
support our military effort, and somebody over in the House of 
Representatives attaches a bill that might make some sense but--No. 1, 
it slows down our bill for the troops, and No. 2, it probably imposes 
upon states a big unfunded Federal mandate which most of the people on 
this side of the aisle were elected to stop. I mean there are 190 
million state driver's licenses. What the House provision would do is 
say we are going to turn the state driver's license examiners into CIA 
agents so they can go around and check and see whether we have any 
terrorists coming in, and then we are going to make them pay for it as 
well. Here is one more unfunded mandate.
  Then the third thing we are doing, and we have not even considered 
through our committees whether this is the best way to do it, is 
determining if we are going to have in effect a national identification 
card. In fact, that is what the REAL ID Program is. It is a national 
identification card. They say it is not, but what else is it? We have 
taken an ineffective national identification card, the driver's 
license--I have mine right here. We have taken an ineffective national 
identification card, and we are trying to turn it into an effective 
one. We know it is ineffective because we know that the terrorists in 
9/11 all had driver's licenses. I know it because mine expired in 2000, 
and every time I hand it over at the airport they never turn it over to 
see if it was renewed to the year 2005. We have an ineffective 
identification card, and the House wants us, without going to a single 
committee, to pass a big unfunded mandate, slow down help for the 
troops, and pass an unfunded national identification card. That is what 
we are being asked to do here, and I don't think we should do it. That 
is not the right way to go about it.
  I fully support the idea of allowing the Democratic and Republican 
leadership to agree on a certain time soon where we address this 
massive challenge to our credibility as a nation, as a nation of the 
rule of law, and where we create an immigration system we can be proud 
of. For me, that means a generous program to allow people to come here 
and work legally, and then we enforce the law. For me, that means we do 
not have a double system where we have 500,000 or a million people who 
stand in line to get in, and then we have another million people who 
break the line to get in. That is not right.
  We also need to address questions about whether we are going to 
continue to require people who apply for student visas to say when they 
apply that they never intend to live here. Of course, many of them do 
and we want many of them to. Do we not want the brightest scientists in 
China or India to come to the University of Alabama or Tennessee and 
then stay here and create jobs to keep our standard of living up? We 
are getting more competition from those other countries for these 
bright people. We need to look at that. Then we need to look at 
enforcement.
  But this is not the way to do business here. I strongly support the 
Cornyn resolution. I do not want to see the REAL ID legislation or any 
other immigration legislation slow down money for the troops, put an 
unfunded mandate on state and local governments, and prematurely, 
without careful, comprehensive consideration, try to deal on this floor 
with one of the greatest issues we have to face.
  We should pass the Cornyn resolution. We should pass the bill 
supporting the troops. Then we should set aside a specific time, face 
up to it, and do our job of reforming the immigration laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this issue because I 
think we find ourselves fixing the wrong problem again. The real 
consequence of not having addressed the immigration problems in this 
country means we have problems with crops that are not going to be 
harvested because we don't have workers. But the time to do that is 
right after we finish this bill.
  The American people as a whole do not want an amnesty program, but 
they will accept an amnesty program if we fix the border, and we have 
not secured the border. We have not done what we need to do in this 
body, in the House or through the administration, to enforce the laws 
of this country.
  It is illegal to come here and we should not reward illegal behavior. 
But you can't even begin to address that until you say we are going to 
enforce closing this border for national security purposes but also for 
competitive purposes.
  We need to have a national debate about how many people need to come 
in and supply an effort to our Nation as we grow. All of us in this 
country are immigrants except for the Native Americans. We would 
welcome others. But it has to be done legally. We have not done our job 
as bodies of the legislature, along with this administration, of first 
securing the border.
  We have a national priority in terms of our own safety. Yet the 
politics of securing that border plays into every Presidential 
candidate who is running today. It becomes a political football. The 
fact is, for our children we need to secure that border to make sure we 
don't have terrorists coming across. ``60 Minutes'' 3 or 4 weeks ago 
showed a person from Croatia who came across the border illegally, 
became a legalized citizen after that, and ran guns and exported them 
throughout our country. He had access illegally to get here in the 
first place. That is not what we want.
  We need to solve agricultural problems. I come from an agricultural 
State. But the American people are not going to accept an amnesty 
program, I don't care how you design it, based on any type of 
emergency, until we fix the obligation we have, which is to control 
that border. We have the capability to do it. We have the technology to 
do it. We have the money to do that and a lot less of other things if 
we would do it. If we will in fact control that border, then we can 
solve every other problem that comes about.
  There are going to be consequences of not fixing the problems that 
were outlined by Senator Mikulski and Senator Craig, but rightly so, 
because we haven't done our job. There are consequences when we do not 
do our job. So I support Senator Cornyn's resolution fully. We need to 
come back and

[[Page 6280]]

address this. We need to address every other area, but we have to first 
recognize that the American people are counting on us to do what is 
right in terms of securing the border. As long as we continue to ignore 
that because it is not politically acceptable in certain circles, then 
we are not going to fulfill our duty to protect this country. When we 
have troops fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan and around the rest of 
the world, and we will not even enforce the law when we have the 
capability to do it, we dishonor them.
  So this is fixing the wrong problem. It is a problem, yes, but it is 
not the real problem. The problem is the border and controlling the 
border. I am convinced the American people are compassionate and will 
deal with any other issue of those who are here and those who want to 
come here in an orderly fashion, once they have the confidence that we 
have the border controlled. But we fail to do that at our peril, we 
fail to do that at the peril of the safety of this country, and we fail 
to do that at the peril of these areas that need specialized help in a 
short period of time. We are going to suffer the consequences of that 
and we should.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I point out the debate we have been seeing 
here in the last couple of hours to me proves the point, and that is 
this is a complex, difficult, contentious issue, but one that, from 
what I heard over the last couple of hours, we all agree needs to be 
addressed.
  Indeed, that is what the resolution says. It says Congress must 
engage in a careful and deliberate discussion about the need to bolster 
enforcement of and comprehensively reform our immigration laws. That is 
what the resolution says.
  I know different Senators have different proposals. As I have said, I 
think the idea is we ought to take up those in the Judiciary Committee 
in the Subcommittee on Immigration, and we ought to be able to come up 
with a bill we can present to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
and other members. We can have it marked up. With the help of the 
majority leader, we can get it to the floor of the Senate.
  It would be my hope we can do that within the next few months. I 
agree. We have a serious problem that has long been neglected in this 
country, and it cries out for an answer.
  Lest any of our colleagues think this is not a complicated matter, 
let me point out some of the matters contained in the AgJOBS bill alone 
which I think are very controversial. For the benefit of our colleagues 
who are listening, this will give them a flavor of why I say this is 
such a complex and contentious issue.
  For example, although the AgJOBS bill purports to be a temporary 
worker program, it does not have a requirement once people are 
qualified to work in the program that they actually return to their 
country of origin. I believe this component of a work-and-return 
concept is absolutely critical to any program we might justly call the 
temporary worker or guest-worker program.
  Second, one of the provisions of the AgJOBS bill is entitled 
``Eligibility for Legal Services.'' This provision requires free, 
federally funded legal counsel be afforded through the Legal Services 
Corporation to assist temporary workers in the application process for 
legal permanent residency. That is right. The bill requires that the 
taxpayers pay the bill for these allegedly temporary workers to apply 
for legal permanent residency under the bill, creating a new legal 
right and a new right to legal representation for which the American 
taxpayers are going to be called on to pay.
  Third, the AgJOBS bill allows farm workers who are currently working 
illegally in the United States to cut in line in front of workers who 
have followed legal avenues from the start, violating the principle the 
Senator from Tennessee articulated so well just a few moments ago.
  Next, AgJOBS grants amnesty to as many as 3 million illegal aliens 
who say they have worked recently in U.S. agriculture, along with their 
family members.
  So not only are we talking about a worker program, we are talking 
about bringing families and children, which common sense tells us will 
decrease the likelihood that at any such time in the United States part 
of this program will indeed be temporary. Indeed, it is more likely 
that they will stay beyond the span of their visa and live here 
permanently.
  One other point: Since virtually all of the special agricultural 
workers granted the one-time-only amnesty enacted in 1986 left 
agricultural work as soon as they had their green cards on hand, AgJOBS 
puts illegal aliens on the path to U.S. citizenship in a two-step 
process.
  First, illegal aliens would be granted temporary residence and 
indentured for up to 6 years to ensure they continue to work in 
agriculture in the short term. Next, once these newly legalized aliens 
are provided records of labor, they will be granted lawful permanent 
residence and then U.S. citizenship--amnesty, in a word.
  Next, AgJOBS also freezes wage levels for new legal H-2A, 
nonimmigrant, agricultural workers at the January 2, 2003, level for 3 
years following enactment. The undocumented worker can then stay in the 
United States indefinitely while applying for permanent resident 
status. They can become citizens so long as they work in the 
agricultural sector for 675 hours over the next 6 years. Their spouse 
and minor children are permitted to accompany them and will also earn 
legal permanent residency status.
  I point that out because, as the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, 
said earlier, I doubt there are many of our colleagues who understand 
the content of this AgJOBS bill. If the Senator from Idaho chooses to 
offer it as an amendment, we will take up that debate. Senator 
Feinstein and others may offer some amendments, and I hear that Senator 
Kyl and Senator Chambliss may have amendments of their own. Who knows 
how many other amendments may be working out there related to AgJOBS or 
maybe a more comprehensive bill to deal with this issue generally.
  But that makes the point. While we are spending time talking about 
immigration reform, we are not getting to the job that ought to be 
highest on our list of priorities; that is, making sure this emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill passes without undue delay and without 
getting bogged down in other matters, such as immigration reform.
  In the end, I join with all of my colleagues and say it is past time 
we deal with immigration problems in this country comprehensively. We 
have no border security now. We do at the bridges, but between the 
bridges it is come and go almost as you please. While many people come 
across the border to work, we understand as human beings people who 
have no hope or no opportunity where they live will do almost anything 
to be able to provide for their family. Be it human smugglers or be it 
self-guided trips across the Rio Grande or across our northern border, 
it is relatively easy to get into the United States, and the terrorists 
who know that can exploit that and hurt the American people.
  We also know once people get to the interior of the United States, 
there is virtually nonexistent law enforcement. We have inadequate 
detention facilities along the border, particularly in my State. They 
have to let virtually all of the detainees, the immigrants who come 
across illegally, go on their own recognizance and ask them to come 
back for a deportation hearing 30 days later. It should be no surprise 
that in some instances 88 percent of them don't show up and simply melt 
into the landscape--many of them working in places all across the 
country doing jobs Americans, perhaps, do not want.
  But this demonstrates how badly broken our immigration system is, our 
border security, our interior enforcement, and the reason we need to 
deal with this comprehensively, not just with a Band-Aid.
  I hope my colleagues will join Senator Feinstein and me and the 
others who have spoken already in support of the Cornyn-Feinstein 
resolution and

[[Page 6281]]

let us have a debate about immigration--comprehensive immigration 
reform. But let us not do it at the time when our troops are fighting 
the war on terror and delay them getting the equipment and the 
resources they need in order to do the job they volunteered so nobly to 
do on our behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his 
leadership on this issue and for his remarks, which I share.
  We have a problem with immigration and law enforcement and national 
security. Some of these are just security and some of these involve 
economic and social policy that impact the immigration question.
  I believe we can do better. We need to give serious thought and 
consideration that we can do much better. We have people who want to 
come here. They want to do so in the right way. They will be assets to 
our Nation. We ought to identify those people and try to accommodate as 
many as possible, consistent with our own national interest.
  The Senator from Texas mentioned what is happening in enforcement 
today. It is a nightmare. There was an article this morning in the 
Washington Times about 13 illegals stopped by the local police 
officers. They were released on bail. They are asked to show up for a 
hearing on their deportation. The statistics show, as the Senator just 
said, as much as 80 percent of those people do not show up. They become 
absconders. It makes a mockery of the system in many ways.
  I have some ideas about this issue. I have some beliefs that local 
law enforcement has been confused in what their authority is. We ought 
to encourage them to be helpful in this area instead of discouraging, 
as the current laws today are.
  I have done legal research on that particular question, but this is a 
Defense supplemental bill to fund our soldiers in the field in combat. 
It is not the time to debate comprehensively one of the most complex 
and sensitive subjects this country has to deal with. That is 
fundamental.
  The Sensenbrenner language offered early on on the intelligence bill 
was not accepted. He was given a promise he could move it on the first 
vehicle that came out of the House. This is more a national security 
issue, by far, than an immigration bill. It is simply a tool to create 
a system by which we can readily identify those who are not here 
legally.
  It is my observation, having been around this Senate now for some 
years, that you can propose and do a lot of things on immigration. 
Unless you come up with something that works, that has the actual 
potential to be an impediment to illegal entry into our country, that 
is when we start hearing an objection. It seems those proposals never 
pass.
  I am prepared not to offer anything on this bill. I am prepared not 
to debate on this bill. My opinion is, the Sensenbrenner language is 
fine. I am all for it. But we are at this point looking at the 
potential of a flood of amendments dealing with immigration on a bill 
that ought to be funding our soldiers.
  The distinguished Senator from Mississippi who chairs the 
Appropriations Committee must be looking in wonder at a bill that is 
supposed to be funding our troops that has now become a massive debate 
on this issue of immigration. It is unfortunate.
  Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn have agreed on an amendment that 
makes sense. It is something I can live with. I believe it would move 
us forward.
  The legislation being proposed, such as AgJOBS, is not good to begin 
with, and I would probably oppose it, but more than that it is not the 
time to deal with it. We are just not ready. It is not appropriate.
  I urge our colleagues to support this, and not only support it but to 
vote down the amendments that deal with immigration so we can get this 
bill done. We will have to deal with immigration. It is a critical 
national issue. It is important to our country. We are a nation of 
immigrants. We do not want to stop people from coming here. We do have 
needs in many areas and sectors of our economy.
  I am not sure the Republic is going to fall if we do not have enough 
custodial helpers in some resort somewhere. I am not sure the Republic 
is going to fall if there is not somebody to turn the bedspreads down 
at night and put a little piece of chocolate on the pillow. In fact, we 
have a lot of American citizens who do that work dutifully every day. 
If they were paid $2 or $3 more an hour, maybe they would do it; maybe 
there would be more American citizens prepared to do that work.
  We grow cotton in my home State of Alabama. If we bring twice as much 
cotton into the United States as was brought in the year before, will 
we not drive down the price of cotton, or any other commodity?
  We need to be of the understanding that unlimited immigration to meet 
every possible need some business person says is critical is not the 
right policy for our country just because they say it is critical. They 
have an interest. They want cheap labor. We are now talking about 
matters that go beyond this supplemental.
  I am proud of our soldiers. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan three 
times. They are performing exceedingly well. We have a responsibility 
to support them. This legislation does that. It is our responsibility 
to move it forward, get it to them, remove this uncertainty, make sure 
the Defense Department has what they need to support our troops because 
we are holding their feet to the fire. If they are not doing what the 
Defense Department ought to be doing, we are going to be on them, and 
we need to give them the resources so we can legitimately complain if 
our soldiers are not being adequately supported. We will make a mistake 
if we get off that purpose and move toward a full-fledged debate on 
immigration.
  I support the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Carper
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dayton
       
  The amendment (No. 372) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment. I 
understand my colleague from California is seeking a unanimous consent.

[[Page 6282]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. If I may, Mr. President, I thank the Senator 
from Maryland. I ask unanimous consent--
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This is without yielding the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized following the Senator from Maryland for the purpose of 
offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator from Maryland yield?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, without losing my floor privileges.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. It is an 
amendment to restore the money for the initial design of the building 
for the National Intelligence Director. When this bill was before our 
committee, we reduced that amount at the time, but when the budget was 
presented, there was not a nominee for that office.
  Yesterday, I presented to the Intelligence Committee Ambassador 
Negroponte to be the new NID and discussed this issue with him. It has 
become somewhat controversial. This amendment I have would restore the 
money our committee reduced in the line that deals with the NID. It has 
been cleared.
  I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside temporarily 
so we may consider this amendment. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am now confused. As a courtesy to the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, I yielded to 
him so he could offer his technical amendment. Are we now laying my 
amendment aside?
  Mr. STEVENS. No.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Where are we?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is offering a unanimous consent to 
set aside your amendment and to bring up his, which has not been done 
yet.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in the interest of following the regular 
order and engaging in senatorial courtesy, we really need order. I 
could not hear the distinguished Senator and, therefore, was concerned 
that we were having some slippage in our process.


                           Amendment No. 386

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I have 
a request to set aside the Senator's amendment temporarily while we 
consider this amendment which has been cleared on both sides. It 
restores the original budget request for NID.
  I offer the amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from 
Hawaii, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be brought 
before the Senate, that it be adopted, that the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and that we go back to the amendment of the 
Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 386.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 149, line 10 strike ``$89,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$250,300,000'' and on line 11 strike ``$20,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$181,000,000.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 386) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized. The 
Chair will enforce order.


                           Amendment No. 387

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr. 
     Allen, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Warner, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Stevens, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 387.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To revise certain requirements for H-2B employers and require 
        submission of information regarding H-2B nonimmigrants)

       On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following 
     new title:

                      TITLE VII--TEMPORARY WORKERS

     SEC. 7001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Save Our Small and 
     Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 7002. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON H-2B WORKERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 214(g) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(9) An alien counted toward the numerical limitations of 
     paragraph (1)(B) during any one of the 3 fiscal years prior 
     to the submission of a petition for a nonimmigrant worker 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) may not be counted 
     toward such limitation for the fiscal year in which the 
     petition is approved.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment in subsection (a) shall take 
     effect as if enacted on October 1, 2004, and shall expire on 
     October 1, 2006.
       (2) Implementation.--Not later than the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall begin 
     accepting and processing petitions filed on behalf of aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), in a manner 
     consistent with this section and the amendments made by this 
     section.

     SEC. 7003. FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION FEE.

       (a) Imposition of Fee.--Section 214(c) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)), as amended by section 
     426(a) of division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
     2005 (Public Law 108-447), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(13)(A) In addition to any other fees authorized by law, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud 
     prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition 
     under paragraph (1) for nonimmigrant workers described in 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).
       ``(i) The amount of the fee imposed under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be $150.''.
       (b) Use of Fees.--
       (1) Fraud prevention and detection account.--Subsection (v) 
     of section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1356), as added by section 426(b) of division J of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447), 
     is amended--
       (A) in paragraphs (1), (2)(A), (2)(B), (2)(C), and (2)(D) 
     by striking ``H1-B and L'' each place it appears;
       (B) in paragraph (1), as amended by subparagraph (A), by 
     striking ``section 214(c)(12)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (12) or (13) of section 214(c)'';
       (C) in paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (2)(B), as amended by 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``(H)(i)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(H)(i), (H)(ii), ''; and
       (D) in paragraph (2)(D), as amended by subparagraph (A), by 
     inserting before the period at the end ``or for programs and 
     activities to prevent and detect fraud with respect to 
     petitions under paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section 214(c) to 
     grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The heading of such subsection 
     286 is amended by striking ``H1-B and L''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 7004. SANCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 214(c) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)), as amended by section 3, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14)(A) If the Secretary of Homeland Security finds, 
     after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, a substantial 
     failure to meet any of the conditions of the petition to 
     admit or otherwise provide status to a nonimmigrant worker 
     under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) or a willful 
     misrepresentation of a material fact in such petition--
       ``(i) the Secretary of Homeland Security may, in addition 
     to any other remedy authorized by law, impose such 
     administrative remedies (including civil monetary penalties 
     in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per violation) as the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be appropriate; 
     and
       ``(ii) the Secretary of Homeland Security may deny 
     petitions filed with respect to that

[[Page 6283]]

     employer under section 204 or paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection during a period of at least 1 year but not more 
     than 5 years for aliens to be employed by the employer.
       ``(iii) The Secretary of Homeland Security may delegate to 
     the Secretary of Labor, with the agreement of the Secretary 
     of Labor, any of the authority given to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security under subparagraph (A)(i).
       ``(iv) In determining the level of penalties to be assessed 
     under subparagraph (A), the highest penalties shall be 
     reserved for willful failures to meet any of the conditions 
     of the petition that involve harm to United States workers.
       ``(v) In this paragraph, the term `substantial failure' 
     means the willful failure to comply with the requirements of 
     this section that constitutes a significant deviation from 
     the terms and conditions of a petition.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 7005. ALLOCATION OF H-2B VISAS DURING A FISCAL YEAR.

       Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(g)), as amended by section 7002, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(j) The numerical limitations of paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     be allocated for a fiscal year so that the total number of 
     aliens who enter the United States pursuant to a visa or 
     other provision of nonimmigrant status under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) during the first 6 months of such fiscal 
     year is not more than 33,000.''.

     SEC. 7006. SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS OF INFORMATION REGARDING H-
                   2B NONIMMIGRANTS.

       Section 416 of the American Competitiveness and Workforce 
     Improvement Act of 1998 (title IV of division C of Public Law 
     105-277; 8 U.S.C. 1184 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Provision of Information.--
       ``(1) Quarterly notification.--Beginning not later than 
     March 1, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     notify, on a quarterly basis, the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of House of 
     Representatives of the number of aliens who during the 
     preceding 1-year period--
       ``(A) were issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant 
     status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)); or
       ``(B) had such a visa or such status expire or be revoked 
     or otherwise terminated.
       ``(2) Annual submission.--Beginning in fiscal year 2007, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit, on an annual 
     basis, to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate--
       ``(A) information on the countries of origin of, 
     occupations of, and compensation paid to aliens who were 
     issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) during the 
     previous fiscal year;
       ``(B) the number of aliens who had such a visa or such 
     status expire or be revoked or otherwise terminated during 
     each month of such fiscal year; and
       ``(C) the number of aliens who were provided nonimmigrant 
     status under such section during both such fiscal year and 
     the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(3) Information maintained by state.--If the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security determines that information maintained by 
     the Secretary of State is required to make a submission 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary of State 
     shall provide such information to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security upon request.''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment that 
is desperately needed by small and seasonal business throughout the 
country. This amendment is identical to the bipartisan bill I 
introduced in February called Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act. 
It is designed to be a 2-year temporary solution to the seasonal worker 
shortage that many coastal States and resort States are facing.
  I wish to acknowledge the need for comprehensive immigration reform, 
but right now small and seasonal businesses all over this Nation are in 
crisis and need our help. These businesses need seasonal workers before 
the summer begins so they can survive.
  For years, they have relied on something called the H-2B visa program 
to meet their needs. This is a temporary guest worker program. But this 
year they cannot get the temporary labor they need because they have 
been shut out of the H-2B visa program because the cap has been 
reached. This is a program that lets businesses hire temporary guest 
workers when no American workers are available.
  This amendment modeled after the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business 
helps employers by doing four things:

       It temporarily exempts the good actor workers--those who do 
     return home after they have worked a season--from the H-2B 
     cap. Employers apply for and actually name those good 
     compliant workers who have complied with the law, they name 
     them so that they are allowed them to reenter for this 
     temporary period.
       It protects against fraud within the H-2B program.
       It provides a fair and balanced allocation for the H-2B 
     visas.

  And it reports to Congress how the program is working and where the 
beneficiaries are.
  I urge my colleagues to help small businesses by passing this 
amendment and save these businesses and actually save thousands of 
American jobs.
  Thousands of small and seasonal businesses are facing a worker 
shortage as we approach the summer. In my home State, this is primarily 
in the seafood industry. This year, because the cap of 66,000 workers 
was reached earlier in the year, my small businesses have been 
effectively shut out. We have had a lot of summer seasonal business in 
Maryland on the Eastern Shore and Ocean City, people working on the 
Chesapeake Bay, and many of these businesses use the program year after 
year.
  First of all, they do hire American workers. They hire all the 
American workers they can find. But at this time of the year, we need 
additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because that cap was reached 
for the second year in a row, I might add, these employers are at a 
disadvantage. They cannot use the program. What will it mean? It will 
mean that some of our businesses will actually have to close their 
doors.
  My amendment is supported on both sides of the aisle. It does not 
change existing requirements for employers. Employers cannot just turn 
to the H-2B visa whenever they want. First of all, employers must try 
vigorously to recruit those workers. Then they must demonstrate to the 
Department of Labor that they have no U.S. workers available. Only 
after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with the H-2B 
visas.
  The workers they bring in often participate in the program year after 
year. They often work for the same companies. They do not stay in the 
United States and are prohibited by law from doing so. They return to 
their home country, to their families, and their U.S. employer starts 
all over the following year.
  Let me just say this: Right now in certain villages in Mexico, there 
are many women--mothers and their adult daughters, aunts--who are 
packing their bags. They are ready to come back to Maryland where they 
have come before to work in Clayton Seafood or Phillips Crab House, 
which so many of you have enjoyed in your visits to the bay, or 
Harrison's seafood. Some of them have been in business 100 years. Some 
of them are major employers. A lot of college kids work their way 
through college working at Phillips Seafood, but Phillips Seafood needs 
these guest workers to help these kids and to help the restaurant stay 
open.
  These workers are not taking the jobs, they are helping American 
workers keep their jobs and American companies keep their doors open 
and, I might add, to the delight of many of you here, to the delight of 
people who enjoy our products, and to the delight of the people who 
collect the sales tax, Social Security, and so on from those American 
workers.
  I know we need comprehensive reform, but while we are waiting for 
that, I have a temporary fix. By the way, working with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, we looked for regulatory relief. We consulted 
with the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. 
Secretary Chao could not have been more gracious, more cooperative, 
more forthcoming, but when it came down to it, her legislative counsel 
said, you need to change the law. She could not change the regulations 
on this cap.
  What does my amendment do? First, my amendment continues to protect 
those American jobs. It is a short-term

[[Page 6284]]

fix because it is a 2-year solution. This amendment will only be in 
place for 2 years. So it allows this comprehensive reform to go 
forward.
  What it does is exempt returning seasonal workers from the cap. That 
means there are no new workers. It means those people who have worked 
before and have gone back home are the only ones who would be eligible. 
In other words, in the last 3 years, they had to have worked here under 
the law, come in under the law, and returned home as the law requires. 
So it is not new people. It is not an amnesty program. It is an 
employment program for them and for us. These workers receive a visa, 
and it requires their employers to list them by name. So in all 
probability, they will return to the same employer. Then, at the end of 
the year, they will do it all over again. Remember, the only people 
eligible are those who have used the program in the past--the employer 
and the actual person coming in.
  I worry about fraud, too. So we have an antifraud fee that ensures 
that Government agencies processing the H-2B visa will get added 
resources in their new sanctions. The bill creates a fair allocation of 
visas. Some summer businesses lose out because winter employers get all 
the visas. This will make the system more fair. We also simplified the 
reporting requirements.
  I could give example after example of businesses that have been 
impacted. Clayton Seafood started over a century ago. They work the 
water of the bay supplying crab, crabmeat, and seafood. It is the 
oldest working crab processing plant in the world, and by employing 65 
H-2B visa workers they have been able to retain all of their full-time 
workers.
  The Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago, is 
the last corn cannery left out of 300. When they could not find local 
workers, they turned to the H-2B visa. Since then, that business is 
open and thriving. Each year this program helps the company not only 
maintain its workforce, but 75 Americans have good paying full-time 
jobs in accounting and marketing and other areas, and it keeps 190 
seasonal workers going and 70 farmers who would not have a cannery to 
go to are also able to keep their jobs.
  So that is what my legislation is all about. It is a quick and simple 
legislative remedy. It has strong bipartisan support. It is realistic. 
It is specific. It is immediate, achievable, and does not exacerbate 
our immigration problem.
  Every Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents, 
whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, or other people in 
resort areas, know the urgency in their voice. They know the immediacy 
of the problem. Our companies feel urgency. They feel immediacy. They 
feel desperation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this amendment and keeping 
the doors of American companies open while we also maintain control of 
our borders.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I, first, commend Senator Mikulski, and I see the 
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and others who have been interested in 
this issue. Am I right that the earlier numbers by and large have been 
taken up primarily by winter tourism? The time for application comes at 
the time of the year when great numbers are taken up for the winter 
tourism, which has happened historically, and what we are trying to do 
with the Senator's amendment is to treat the summer tourism and the 
summer needs on an even playing field, as they are in my own State, 
which are primarily smaller mom-and-pop stores and some very small 
hotels that need that. So this basically creates a more even playing 
field, as I understand, between those who would be taken in the 
wintertime and those who need the help in the summer, No. 1; am I 
correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Massachusetts has accurately assessed 
what has created the crisis: that given the time of application and 
when they want the people to work, the winter needs then take up 
practically all 66,000. We acknowledge our colleagues who do need the 
winter help, but we need their help for the summer help. You are also 
correct that my legislation would create a more even playing field 
between the two and, again, this is a temporary legislative remedy 
while we assess the entire situation of the need for comprehensive 
reform, how we keep American jobs, how we keep American companies open, 
and yet retain control of our borders.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Am I correct this is a rather modest increase in terms 
of the demand? In my own State, the numbers are approximately 6,000 for 
the summertime. The numbers the Senator has are going to be nationwide, 
so this is very modest based upon the need. The final point which the 
Senator has emphasized, but I think it is very important to underline, 
is these are people who have been here before, who have gone home and 
came back and therefore have demonstrated over the course of their life 
that they return back home and are in conformity with both the 
immigration and labor laws that exist today.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator, again, has made an accurate assessment. 
This bill is only applicable to employers and guest workers who have 
complied with the law. If a worker has not been here before and they 
have not demonstrated that they have complied with the law, not 
returned to their home country, they would not be eligible. That is why 
I say we need to help American business but keep control of the border.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for her response and urge my 
colleagues to give strong support for her amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as many are well aware, the cap in 
current law on the number of H-2B visas is too restrictive, and it's 
imposing needless hardships on many businesses that rely on seasonal 
workers to meet the heavy demands of the tourism industry. Once again, 
these small industries are facing a crisis this summer if the number of 
visas isn't increased immediately. Senator Mikulski's timely amendment 
will provide the much-needed relief they deserve, and I urge the Senate 
to support it.
  For several years in a row, the cap has created a crisis for the 
tourism industry in Massachusetts and nationwide. Countless small, 
family-run businesses depend on the ability to hire more workers for 
the summer season, and they can't possibly find enough U.S. workers to 
fill the need. Without this amendment, many of these firms can't 
survive because the seasonal business is the heart of their operation.
  This fiscal year's allocation of 66,000 visas was exhausted just a 
few months on into the year. Senator Mikulski will make about 30,000 
additional visas available, and it should be enacted as soon as 
possible, so that these firms can make their plans for the coming 
months.
  Obviously, this amendment is only temporary relief. It should be 
achieved through comprehensive immigration reform. We all know our 
immigration system is broken, and many other reforms are needed as 
well. The Nation needs a new immigration policy that reflects current 
economic realities, respects family unity and fundamental fairness, and 
upholds our enduring tradition as a Nation of immigrants.
  Enacting these other reforms will take time--time we don't have if we 
want to rescue countless seasonal employers around the country. Senator 
Mikulski's proposal provides the immediate relief needed to enable 
employers counting on H-2B workers to keep their doors open this 
summer, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague along the Chesapeake Bay, Senator Mikulski. 
This amendment would make minor, temporary changes to the non-
immigrant, seasonal visa program known as the H-2B visa program. This 
program allows small businesses in the Commonwealth of Virginia to hire 
temporary workers for non-agricultural jobs.
  As many of my colleagues know that for each fiscal year, which starts 
on October 1, there has been a statutory

[[Page 6285]]

limitation on the number of admissions to the U.S. under the H-2B visa 
category since 1990. In 2004, the statutory cap of 66,000 H-2B visas 
was reached on March 9. This year the H-2B cap was reached much earlier 
on January 3.
  As a result of reaching this cap for the second year in a row, many 
businesses, mostly summer employers, have been unable to obtain the 
temporary workers they need because the cap was filled prior to the day 
they could even apply for the visas. Consequently, these businesses 
have and will continue to sustain significant economic losses unless 
Congress acts.
  Our amendment helps fix this problem by making common-sense reforms 
to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal 
companies an opportunity to remain open for business.
  First, the bill would reward good workers and employers. Those 
workers who have faithfully abided by the law for one of the past 3 
years would be exempted from the cap. This exemption will help keep 
together workers and employers who have had a successful track record 
of working together.
  Second, the bill would make sure that the Government agencies 
processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and 
prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in 
the program would pay an additional fee that would be placed in a Fraud 
Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland 
Security, and Labor could use these funds to educate and train their 
employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas.
  Finally, the bill would implement a visa allocation system that would 
be fair for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas would be reserved 
for employers needing workers in the winter and the other half would be 
reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision 
would allow both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance 
to obtain the workers they desperately need.
  Without these modifications, these employers will continue to 
struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their 
businesses running. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come 
to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their 
businesses are not going to make it another year if something is not 
done soon. Only through passage of this amendment can this detrimental 
cycle be interrupted and these businesses can be saved.
  Unfortunately, the only real opposition to this legislation is 
``perception.'' I have the utmost respect for those in this Chamber 
that may not fully support this amendment. Their perception on this 
matter stems from good principles. Illegal immigration has grown to be 
a substantial problem in this country, especially in the area of 
domestic security, and I agree that changes must be made to make our 
policy work.
  However, the temporary changes this amendment proposes does not 
belong in the debate on immigration or illegal immigration. The H-2B 
program is a seasonal, non-immigrant worker visa program. In fact, it 
may be one of the last programs we have to provide a legal, seasonal 
workforce for our small businesses, allowing them to fill the gaps 
where domestic workers cannot be found.
  More importantly, these changes do not belong in the immigration 
debate because they deal with an economic issue. Over 75 percent of net 
new jobs in this country come from small businesses. This amendment 
proposes changes to help save our small businesses. In many parts of 
the country, for every temporary H-2B worker that is hired, two more 
full-time domestic workers are sustained.
  There are some criticisms of this program which I am sure some will 
raise. Let's take a moment and examine some of these mis-perceptions 
surrounding the H-2B program.
  H-2B employers do not do enough to recruit U.S. workers. They could 
just pay more. Virginia employers have not found this to be the case. 
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor set 
stringent guidelines on recruitment and wages.
  First, U.S. employers must prove that they have exhausted all 
opportunities to hire U.S. workers. One H-2B employer agent in 
Virginia, who assists employers in this process, have told me that they 
have already spent in excess of $250,000 on such ads on behalf of its 
300 plus clients for the 2005 employment season. This was out of over 
6,000 job openings for 300 plus employers in 30 plus States.
  Even after this campaign, they only succeeded in locating and hiring 
less than 50 U.S. workers who expressed an interest in the H-2B jobs. 
They were all hired, but unfortunately, less than half of these workers 
started work and even less completed the entire season.
  In regard to the seafood industry, over the past 15 years, Americans 
have slowly withdrawn from their workforce. It is common for motivated 
workers to make $75-$100 dollars in a 7-hour day shucking oysters, 
picking crabs, or packing the product. Those in the seafood industry 
have told me that despite this earning potential, ``frequently U.S. 
workers will work for a day or two and then never return. It is 
difficult to function on the uncertainty of our local work force, but 
we never give up on them.''
  In addition, the Department of Labor requires H-2B workers and U.S. 
workers to be paid the same wages for the same work. Additionally, all 
of the same taxes taken out of a domestic worker's salary are taken out 
of the
H-2B worker's salary; however, the
H-2B worker by regulation are ineligible to receive any benefits from 
the taxes withheld from their paycheck.
  The H-2B program encourages illegal immigration; or, there's nothing 
more permanent than a temporary worker, a long review of the management 
of this program reveals otherwise. The employers have successfully 
ensured that the workers return to their home country. If they do not, 
employers are not able to participate in the program next year, and 
neither are the workers. Most consulates in their home countries 
require the workers to present themselves personally to prove that they 
have returned home.
  Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those 
Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in 
the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from 
Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that 
do not want them. Like I have said before, this program actually helps 
to sustain domestic jobs.
  The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of 
businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied 
access to the program for the second year in a row. The amendment 
introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main 
objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair.
  These seasonal businesses just cannot find enough American workers to 
meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is 
so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses 
need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system 
is not treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be 
reformed if we want these employers to stay in business.
  I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maryland for raising 
this issue. I have joined her as a cosponsor on this amendment. In my 
some quarter of a century that I have been privileged to be in the 
Senate I have watched in my State the loss of the textile industry and 
the furniture industry. Peanuts have disappeared, tobacco has 
disappeared, and now the seafood industry is disappearing.
  The distinguished Senator from Maryland and I have paralleled our 
careers, and my recollection is there used to be about 150 oyster-
picking and crab-picking small businesses in my State. If there is one 
thing about this legislation, it is for the small person operator, man 
and woman. I doubt if there is now more than 40 out of the 150 or more 
picking houses remaining in my State, and these folks have come to see 
me. They are very quiet when they come in. They do not have any high-
paid lobbyist. They come up themselves. Maybe they take off their 
overalls, but by and large they come right

[[Page 6286]]

in the office in a very courteous way and they do not beg for anything. 
They just want to have an opportunity to remain in existence. Most of 
these small operations have been handed down from family to family.
  Throughout Virginia, we take great pride in the Virginia crabcake. We 
are in competition with the Maryland crabcake. Now, I know Marylanders 
will come over and steal the Virginia crabmeat to put in their 
crabcakes. I say to my dear friends, the two Senators from Maryland, 
they know that, but pretty soon there may not be any crabmeat left for 
the crabcakes from either State to put on their menus.
  Likewise, the oysters have declined, but that, I cannot say, is 
entirely due to this labor situation. It is more because of the 
Chesapeake Bay and the problems we are having with the balance of 
nature. The oysters are disappearing for a variety of reasons, but I 
will not get into that. Then a number of the seafood houses that 
provide bait for fishing are dependent on these workers.
  I ask my colleagues to listen carefully to two letters that were 
written to me, and then I will yield the floor. The first one is from 
Cap'n Tom's Seafood. He states:

       My name is Tom Stevens, I am owner and operator of Cap'n 
     Tom's Seafood located in Lancaster County in the Northern 
     Neck of Virginia.

  By the way, that is one community I have tried to help because those 
counties have great pride, but they do not have as strong an economy as 
they once did. He continues:

       I'm located less than 30 minutes from businesses like The 
     Tides Inn, Indian Creek Yacht Club and Windmill Point. These 
     business are large consumers of seafood. I also have many 
     customers in the Richmond area.
       When I opened my plant, for years I tried to operate using 
     local help. However, it has become much harder to operate. 
     Not only is the local force scarce and unreliable, but the 
     younger generation is not interested, in learning the trade. 
     On holidays, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas when oysters 
     are in demand, shuckers are nowhere to be found.
       As you are aware, in this business, oysters must be shucked 
     and crabs must be picked soon after they arrive. I have tried 
     to get local help by advertising in the local newspapers and 
     through the employment agency without success. I finally got 
     help through the H2 B workers program.
       Speaking for myself and several others in the industry, we 
     could not operate our businesses if it weren't for the H2 B 
     program. I can not emphasize enough how important this 
     program is for the seafood industry of Virginia. These 
     workers are reliable, hard working, and with excellent work 
     ethics. Their main purpose is to earn money to improve their 
     lives and the lives of their families in their country of 
     origin. I pay them as I do my other workers, not the minimum 
     I was told I could, but the top of the pay scale for the 
     seafood industry. I deduct their taxes including Social 
     Security and pay unemployment, even though they do not claim 
     it.
       I sincerely hope that you will continue to support the H2 B 
     workers program and to strengthen the program by increasing 
     the quota. The future of the seafood industry is dependent 
     entirely on this program. It is important that our industry 
     remains strong and healthy for the welfare of the State of 
     Virginia.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tom Stevens.

  The other letter is from Bevans Oyster Company, Inc., in Kinsale, VA, 
a small community:

       I am Ronald Bevans, President and owner of Bevans Oyster 
     Company. My company relies on the Federal H2-B temporary 
     foreign visa program to provide the legal, reliable, seasonal 
     labor which my company needs in order to stay in business. We 
     have used this program since 1996 to obtain fish packers from 
     March 1 to December 31. Our workers, for the most part, 
     return to us each year. Some of them have been with us since 
     we started the program in 1996.

  And on and on it goes. One sentence in here stands out:

       Our seafood business cannot survive without the H2-B 
     workers.

  Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and 
seasonal businesses by agreeing to this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter and other letters printed 
in the Record and yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Bevans Oyster Company, Inc.,

                                     Kinsale, VA, January 6, 2005.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I am Ronald Bevans, president and owner of 
     Bevans Oyster Company, Inc. My company relies on the federal 
     H-2B temporary foreign visa program to provide the legal, 
     reliable, seasonal labor which my company needs in order to 
     stay in business. We have used this program since 1996 to 
     obtain fish packers from March 1 to December 31. Our workers, 
     for the most part, return to us each year. Some of them have 
     been with us since we started utilizing the program in 1996.
       This year we requested 110 workers. Our filing agent, Mid-
     Atlantic Solutions, tells us that our application is still at 
     the U.S. Department of Labor awaiting certification to be 
     used for the next step of the approval process. Although our 
     application was filed as early as legally possible, it did 
     not get to the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) 
     before the H-2B statutory cap of 66,000 annual visas was met. 
     Consequently, we will be unable to employ our H-2B seasonal 
     workforce.
       Our seafood business cannot survive without the H-2B 
     workers.
       I make every effort to hire American workers for these 
     positions, and have Americans working here wherever possible. 
     However, our experience has been that there is an 
     insufficiency of Americans willing to do the type of work 
     required for these positions. Generally those who are hired 
     quit within the first week. We have a loyal local workforce, 
     but they are getting older and their number diminishes each 
     year.
       It is critical that you understand that without the help of 
     our foreign workers Bevans Oyster Company will have to shut 
     down and the American workers currently employed here will 
     lose their jobs as well.
       I opened Bevans Oyster Company in 1966 and have owned and 
     operated it myself ever since. Over the years, my business 
     has continued to grow. When the need arose for additional 
     workers and I could not find reliable help in my area, I 
     turned to the H-2B program to meet my seasonal labor 
     shortfall. With the help of this program over the past eight 
     years, my business has grown and flourished and is now a 
     vital part of the Northern Neck community. This business is 
     my life. By suspending the H-2B program, the government is 
     not only preventing me from accessing my employees, it is 
     taking my livelihood and everything I have worked so hard to 
     build.
       The lack of seasonal workers for our fish season will have 
     a domino effect on many other people and industries. Our fish 
     suppliers will either have to find a new market for their 
     bait fish or dock their fishing boats. Our customers, which 
     are located along the entire east coast and along the Gulf 
     from Florida to Texas, who have come to depend on us over the 
     years for their bait needs, will suffer from the lack of 
     product, causing their customers to suffer, and so on.
       As you well realize, the Virginia seafood industry is 
     located in rural counties and provides many needed jobs for 
     U.S. citizens in these communities. The loss of Virginia 
     seafood H-2B workers will lead to the loss of the American 
     jobs the seafood industry provides.
       I go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that my workers are 
     legally employed and that U.S. workers jobs are protected. 
     The wages I pay are above the prevailing wage for this area 
     and industry. I make sure my workers are housed in decent, 
     safe, and affordable housing. These workers have told me that 
     the opportunity to work in the U.S. has improved their 
     quality of life as well as that of their families and their 
     home communities. The money earned and returned to their home 
     country is an important contribution to that economy. Workers 
     build homes and educate their children. Without the H-2B 
     program, they would never realize these dreams.
       My company desperately needs some type of relief from this 
     cap. I don't know all the answers. All I know is that we need 
     our workers, and they need us. Please keep the H-2B program 
     operating until a comprehensive solution to the immigration 
     issue is reached. Thank you for your consideration of this 
     request.
           Sincerely,
     Ronald W. Bevans.
                                  ____



                                   Little River Seafood, Inc.,

                                    Reedville, VA, March 24, 2005.
     To: Mr. John Frierson.
     From: J. Gregory Lewis.
     Re: H-2B Program.
       Dear Mr. Frierson: Thank you for your phone call yesterday 
     regarding the H-2B program and our needs as an employer of 
     immigrant workers. This program has enabled us to meet our 
     seasonable labor needs for many years. Our seasonal jobs, 
     (crab picking, crab packing, etc.), are manual, repetitive 
     tasks--unskilled labor.
       Regarding our questions about payment to these laborers, 
     when Little River Seafood, Inc., hires an employee, that 
     person, local or immigrant, completes the necessary W-4 
     federal withholding form and the State of Virginia 
     withholding form. We withhold the required social security 
     tax, and federal and state taxes on all employees. In 
     addition, we pay the employer's share of social security

[[Page 6287]]

     tax and pay the federal and state unemployment taxes.
       Though our pickers are guaranteed a wage of $5.25 per hour, 
     which is the prevailing wage, they are paid by the ``piece 
     rate'' per pound of crabmeat. Most pickers end up earning 
     between $7 and $9+ per hour depending upon how quickly they 
     learn, their level of ability, and ultimately, their 
     productivity. All pickers, immigrant or local, are paid in 
     the same way.
       As our older local employees have retired, the younger 
     locals do not seek employment in this field. Because we are 
     stabilized by the use of legally documented H-28 seasonal 
     workers, we are able to continue in the crab processing 
     business, make crab purchases from our local watermen (some 
     of whom are students), and keep our local workers employed, 
     some on a year-round basis. Without the H-2B employees, our 
     ability to stay in business, keep our local workers employed, 
     and contribute to the economy would be severely jeopardized.
       Regarding your questions as to recruitment of employees, 
     Little River Seafood advertises each year, prior to the 
     crabbing season, in our local newspapers. Response to these 
     advertisements has been minimal. Our local Virginia 
     Employment Commission is made aware of our employee needs, 
     and of course, because we are in a small, rural community, 
     these needs are also spread by word-of-mouth. Local response 
     is almost nil. We have employed a few students during the 
     summer for miscellaneous jobs around the plant, and, as 
     mentioned, we do make crab purchases from students that are 
     crabbers learning the business.
       We certainly appreciate your phone call and your interest 
     in learning more about the necessity of keeping the H-2B 
     program in effect allowing countless small businesses in the 
     United States to remain in business and continue to 
     contribute to the economy.
       Please let us know if we can provide you with further 
     information.
                                                 J. Gregory Lewis,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       Graham & Rollins, Inc.,

                                    Hampton, VA, January 12, 2005.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner, I am in receipt of your letter dated 
     January 10, 2005. concerning H2-B workers for Graham & 
     Rollins, Inc. My two sons and I appreciate your timely action 
     in pursuit of reconsideration of our petition, however 
     painful, it apparently is not to be. It is a shame that a 
     small fourth generation family business must vanish because 
     our government has become so impersonal to communicate a 
     simple omission of just two names before closing the door and 
     rejecting our petition irrespectively of the consequence from 
     such an act. We have examined all options to save the company 
     concluding that we must by June or July obtain the Mexican 
     H2-B skilled laborers we have trained over the years. As a 
     final act towards this object, we ask if you would consider 
     sponsoring a bill similar in nature to the one you introduced 
     last year exempting returning H2-B visa holders 
     (beneficiaries/workers) from the annual FY 66,000 H2-B 
     program cap, or raising the cap to accommodate the needs of 
     entitled businesses that have been left out. We have reason 
     to believe there are many small businesses such as our own 
     faced with the same crisis, and congressional action is 
     required to keep those institutions whole. The H2-B program 
     was created to accomplish the work not being done in this 
     country because of unavailability of the domestic work force 
     to meet the needs of our work place.
       Taking away the employees we have trained and become 
     dependent upon through this program is like sabotage. This 
     cannot and must not happen to the many small companies like 
     Graham & Rollins affected by the reduction of the visa cap. I 
     trust and hope you are in agreement and will expedite 
     congressional action to accomplish exempting the returning 
     H2-B workers or raising the cap. Please let us know as soon 
     as possible if you are supportive of this request and if we 
     can help by contacting our other representation.
           Sincerely,
     John B. Graham, Sr.
                                  ____



                                R&W Marine Construction, Inc.,

                                  Cobbs Creek, VA, March 29, 2005.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       R&W Marine Construction, Inc. has been operating in 
     Virginia for 38 years as a small construction business 
     specializing in marine construction and excavation. We engage 
     in heavy construction consisting of building piers, 
     bulkheads, riprap (stone) installation along shorelines and 
     landscaping work. This type of work is not easy and requires 
     hard physical labor.
       Over the years of operating my business, I have 
     continuously dealt with labor problems. It is very difficult 
     to hire domestic workers that are dependable, reliable and 
     are willing to do this type of work. I have hired some 
     excellent supervisors over the years but they can not work 
     without the laborers. We have frequently advertised in the 
     local and regional newspapers and also contacted the 
     employment agencies for job referrals. We pay competitive 
     rates and offer benefits to all domestic workers. We accept 
     employment applications year round and only receive a very 
     small quantity. Most of these applicants will not accept a 
     labor position or are not suitable for this line of work. R&W 
     Marine also recruits students for summer time positions.
       We were introduced and participated in the H2B Program in 
     2000. It has been very successful to the livelihood of my 
     business and has created the workforce needed to meet the 
     work demand. The pay rates for the H2B workers are specified 
     by the U.S. Department of Labor. The wages are subject to all 
     state and federal taxes. These workers arrive in the spring 
     and return to their country within 10 months of their 
     arrival. They always return home within this time frame. I 
     have never had a problem with a worker not abiding by the 
     immigration policies. R&W Marine has had many of the same 
     workers return consecutively for the past 5 years and are all 
     legal workers.
       If businesses are not able to acquire the number of H2B 
     workers needed to operate their business, they may be forced 
     to hire illegal workers. This will increase the problems for 
     the Immigration Service of keeping up with who will be 
     entering the U.S. and the security of our country. Also, if 
     businesses are forced to shut down or minimize their services 
     they provide to the public, there may be a significant 
     reduction in our American domestic workforce.
       I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. 
     Please continue to gain support for the H.R. 793, the H2B cap 
     fix bill.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Richard E. Callis,
                                                  President/Owner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first of all, if I could just say 
preliminarily, in order not to split the united front in support of 
this amendment, I am not going to get into a debate between the quality 
of the Virginia crabcake and the Maryland crabcake, although I must 
note it is the Maryland crabcake that has always held preeminence in 
that discussion.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object to that statement.
  Mr. SARBANES. I commend my colleague from Maryland for a very 
innovative and carefully reasoned response to a crisis situation. This 
is a clear example of legislative craftsmanship that addresses the 
issue and does it in a way that does not open up a lot of unintended 
consequences or other possibilities. It does not constitute any major 
restructuring of the immigration laws or anything of that sort. This is 
really an effort in a very focused, almost laser-like way, to address 
this specific problem.
  The problem is the following: Under the administrative set up, an 
employer cannot seek an H-2B visa until within 120 days of when it 
would be used or exercised. That means that people who need summer 
employees cannot come in right at the beginning of the year to seek the 
H-2B visas. What happened, of course, this year is people in the 
earlier part of the year--the winter people in a sense--came in, and 
used up all of the 66,000 visas that were available so people who have 
relied on this program over the years to carry out their businesses 
were shut out altogether. Of course, that raises very dire prospects 
for the operation of these small businesses all across the country.
  We have underscored the crisis confronting the seafood business in 
Maryland and Virginia, but innkeepers in Maine, hotel operators in 
Florida, and businesses all across the country confront similar 
problems with respect to being able to bring in these H-2B visa 
workers.
  This amendment maintains all the requirements that existed 
previously. In other words, the employers must still demonstrate they 
have sought to find American workers for these jobs. That is a current 
requirement. That is maintained in this amendment.
  These employers, some of them, have made extraordinary efforts to do 
that, visiting college campuses, attending job fairs, exploring every 
possible way they can find workers. Many have gone well beyond what I 
think has been previously required in terms of meeting that 
requirement. But, they have not been able to find the workers. They 
need these H-2B workers.
  What my colleague, Senator Mikulski, has done--I think in a very 
measured way--is, if you previously brought in an H-2B worker and that 
worker has

[[Page 6288]]

then gone back at the end of the limited time during which they were 
permitted to come into the country to do the job, you can, despite the 
fact we have now bumped up against the ceiling, bring that worker or 
workers that helped you meet your employment situation back in. No new 
worker would come into the country under this provision who had not 
been here before as part of this H-2B program. So, in effect, you are 
saying to someone: Look, you have come for the last 2 or 3 years as 
part of this program, so it is going to be available to you to come 
again. And you say to the employer seeking to bring them, you can bring 
back that workforce in order to meet your work situation.
  In that sense, it is not an expansion of the general availability of 
the program. You are not broadening who can partake of it. You must 
have previously participated in the program in order to be able to come 
in again. I think that is a very innovative way to address the 
situation. It will enable these small businesses to function.
  It is important to recognize that it is not the functioning of the 
particular business involved, but it is the functioning of other 
businesses, dependent upon the particular business that needs these 
workers, that will be affected most. If you cannot do the processing of 
the seafood, then the people down the line who depend on getting that 
seafood in order to do their business are going to be adversely 
affected as well. So there is a ripple effect that goes out through the 
economy which raises the threat of having a substantial economic 
impact, at least in some areas of the country.
  I also want to underscore the amendment, as I understand it--and my 
colleague can correct me if this is not so--maintains all of the 
existing penalties that would apply to an employer who might 
misrepresent any statement on their H-2B petition. In other words, 
employers would still be held responsible in terms of how they 
conducted their effort. As I mentioned earlier, they are required to go 
through all of the necessary measures to ensure they have not been able 
to find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill these jobs before 
they file an H-2B visa application.
  This amendment is limited in time. It is limited in scope, but it 
would address the current crisis situation. It might not totally 
address it, but we are confident it would do so sufficiently to enable 
most, if not all, of these businesses to carry out their functions.
  I think it does not raise larger questions and, therefore, because it 
has been very carefully developed, I think it constitutes an 
appropriate response to the situation we are now confronting. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment. It does the job. It does it in a 
very direct and focused way, and it will enable us to work through 
these problems while we await general revisions of the immigration 
laws.
  This doesn't open up that particular path which I know would concern 
some Members of this body.
  I again commend my colleague for very carefully working out an 
amendment. I know how much he has consulted with people in the 
administration and colleagues here in the Senate. I very much hope this 
body will adopt this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief, but at the same time I 
think what we have all said is very important to this issue. The H-2B 
class of workers is a critical component to not just the seafood 
industry of our coasts but to the resort industry of our country. For 
any of you who have ever skied in the West and met this nice young lady 
or man who speaks with a Norwegian brogue and they are helping you up 
and down the ski lift, my guess is they are class 2B. If you have met a 
young man or woman waiting on tables at a resort, possibly in Sun 
Valley, ID, they are a class 2B. The reason they are there is because 
they come, they build a stable presence, they are there for the period 
of time our resort hospitality industries need them, and it is most 
important that we have them.
  Both Senators from Maryland have already talked about the dynamics of 
first that employer must seek domestic workers, U.S. citizens, and when 
that labor supply is exhausted they must seek elsewhere because they 
simply need that workforce. They come, they stay, they go home. It is a 
program that works well.
  I am going to be on the floor later debating another program that 
doesn't work well: H-2A. The reason it doesn't--and it used to years 
ago in the 1950s; identified the worker and the work necessary and the 
employer. We had nearly 500,000 in those days of H-2A, known only then 
as the Bracero Program. It was out of the great wisdom of the Congress, 
and it has not worked since. This one works.
  But what the Senator from Maryland is doing is bumping up the cap a 
little bit. Why? Because we have a growing economy, and we have a 
growing need. It isn't a static workforce; it is a dynamic workforce--
whether it is the seafood industry, whether it is the hospitality 
industry, or whether it is a stone quarry mining semiprecious stones in 
the State of Idaho to be polished and placed in the countertops of 
high-end kitchens of new homes across America. That is the diversity of 
this particular workforce.
  She has identified it. She has recognized it. It is a cap of 65,000. 
The cap for 2005 was reached on the first day of the fiscal year. That 
not only speaks to the need but it speaks to the reality of the 
problem.
  The amendment is very specific. This amendment would temporarily 
exempt returning workers who have good records and play by the rules 
from the H-2A cap, protect against fraud for H-2B, protect against 
fraud in the H-2B program by adding a $150 antifraud fee, and on and 
on. In other words, it has some safety checks in it, but it rewards 
those who play by the rules--and most do. They come, they work, they go 
home.
  That is not only ideal for our country, it is ideal for these foreign 
nationals who can benefit themselves and their families by coming here 
to work for a salary that is, of course, better than the salary they 
can earn in their own home country and working in conditions that meet 
all of the standards of our labor laws in this country. That is 
fundamentally what is so important.
  My conclusion is simply this: This amendment provides a fair and 
balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. Currently, many summer 
employees lose out as winter employers tend to be the first in line for 
the B's. That was already expressed, both by the Senator from 
Massachusetts and by others who have spoken on this issue.
  I strongly support the amendment. It is the right time. It needs to 
be done. We simply cannot wait. This is an issue that is very time 
sensitive. We can't wait until October to hire folks who are needed the 
first of May.
  I hope that we move it quickly through the Congress and get it to the 
President's desk.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield briefly, yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator made the point that this addresses those 
workers who have played by the rules. In other words, they have come, 
they have worked, and gone back. They have met all of the requirements. 
Of course, they pay taxes while they are here. We know they are here. 
They are followed and documented.
  But I want to add a dimension: It also addresses the employers who 
have played by the rules by seeking to get their workers through the 
system legally.
  Mr. President, I will read from the article in the Baltimore Sun:

       Despite their frustration, the owners say they will not 
     turn to an obvious alternative work force. ``I am not going 
     to hire illegals,'' said one of the owners. ``It is against 
     the law.''

  He made the point that they have done everything legally. This H-2B 
program is a win-win situation. The workers pay taxes, the Government 
knows who they are, and they get checked at the border. So you have 
employers who want to play by the rules and employees who have played 
by the rules. This

[[Page 6289]]

amendment focuses on them and gives them a solution to a very pressing 
problem.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Maryland for bringing that up. 
What he demonstrates by that statement is a system that works. But he 
also demonstrates that the other Senator from Maryland has recognized 
that when pressures build and limits are met, you turn the valve a 
little bit and let the pressure off and let the legal system work, 
quite often in H-2A.
  Last year, 45,000 people were identified. But 1.6 million are in the 
workforce. We had a system in H-2A that worked like this, and we were 
sensitive and constantly working to adjust it. And we wouldn't have an 
illegal, undocumented problem that we will debate later tomorrow or 
next week. This is a system that works, but it also is one that we have 
been sensitive to and have been willing to adjust the cap so everybody 
can effectively play by the rules and meet the employment needs they 
have.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by commending the 
Senator from Maryland for her work on this very important issue. She 
and I, along with Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, Senator Kennedy from 
Massachusetts, and many of our colleagues, have joined forces in a 
bipartisan way to address an issue that affects the small businesses in 
our States.
  Many American businesses--particularly those in the hospitality, 
forest products, and fishery industries--rely on seasonal employees to 
supplement their local workers during the peak season. That is 
certainly true in my home State of Maine. We have many seasonal 
restaurants and hotels that need to greatly expand their workforces 
during the summer and fall months. Many of them, after fruitless 
efforts to hire American workers, have found that it has worked very 
well for them to hire in the past foreign workers under the H-2B visa 
program. But this year all 66,000 available H-2B visas were used up 
within the first few months of the fiscal year--in fact, in early 
January. The Department of Homeland Security announced that it would 
stop accepting applications for H-2B visas. This creates a particular 
inequity for States such as mine that have a later tourism season. By 
the time Maine restaurant owners, hotel owners, and other tourism-
related small businesses can apply for these workers, there are no more 
visas.
  My colleagues from Maryland and Idaho have raised very important 
points. These are workers who often return year after year to the same 
familiar family business in Maine. When their work is done, they leave 
and return home to their home countries. They play by the rules. The 
businesses play by the rules. They are not hiring people who are here 
illegally. They are hiring people through this special program.
  Without these visas, employers are simply going to be unable to hire 
a sufficient number of workers to keep their businesses running during 
the peak season. Many of these businesses fear this year they will have 
to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest and 
most profitable time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for 
American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax 
revenues for our States.
  These losses will be significant. We must help them be avoided. That 
is why I have worked with my colleagues in introducing the legislation 
upon which this amendment is based. It is the Save Our Small and 
Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. It would offer relief to these 
businesses by excluding from the cap returning foreign workers who were 
counted against the cap within the past 3 years and to address the 
regional inequities in the system. It would limit the number of H-2B 
visas that could be issued in the first 6 months of the fiscal year to 
half of the total number available under the cap.
  By allocating visas equally between each half of the year, employers 
across the country operating both in the winter and the summer seasons 
will have a fair and equal opportunity to hire these much-needed 
workers.
  Let me emphasize what, perhaps, is the most important point in this 
debate. That is, employers are not permitted to hire these foreign 
workers unless they can prove they have tried but have been unable to 
locate available American workers through advertising and other means.
  As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of 
Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred. In Maine, as in other 
States, our State Department of Labor takes the lead in ensuring that 
employers have taken sufficient steps--including advertising--to try to 
find local workers to fill these positions. Indeed, that is the 
preference of my Maine employers. They would much rather be able to 
hire local workers. Indeed, they do hire local workers, but there 
simply are not enough local people to fill these seasonal jobs that 
peak during the summer and the fall.
  Comprehensive, long-term solutions are necessary for this and many 
other immigration issues. But we have an immediate need. The summer 
season is fast approaching. Tourism is critical to the economy of 
Maine. But if the tourism businesses are not able to hire a sufficient 
number of workers to operate their businesses, the economy will suffer 
and American jobs will be lost. It is exactly as the Senator from 
Maryland so eloquently explained in her statement.
  We need to make sure we act now to avoid a real crisis for these 
seasonal businesses this summer and fall.
  I salute the Senator from Maryland for her work on this. I hope my 
colleagues will join in supporting this amendment. This vehicle may not 
be the very best for this proposal, but we do need to act. Time is 
running out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
remarks, along with her and her colleague from Maine for their advocacy 
on behalf of Maine workers. We know Maine has been hard hit with many 
issues.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator DeWine of Ohio as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations would take my amendment or, at the very 
least, have an amendment tonight. There needs to be a discussion on how 
we proceed.
  I note there seems to be no one here. I could speak on this bill, I 
have such passion, such fervor about the need for it that I could speak 
for an extended period of time, but I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is to be recognized following the last debate.
  Mr. INHOFE. I see.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. My amendment is pending and I recognize the Senator 
from Oklahoma wishes to speak. The Senator from California has an 
amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I was going to make a unanimous consent request to have a 
very short statement concerning S. 359. I recognize your amendment is 
pending, but I would do that through unanimous consent. This is the 
Agriculture Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator wishes to speak on another matter, 
perhaps as if in morning business, I have no objection to that.

[[Page 6290]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might, how long will this be?
  Mr. INHOFE. I respond to the Senator from California, I could do 
anywhere between 2 minutes and an hour. Your choice.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would object since I have been waiting.
  Mr. INHOFE. I can make it very short.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Two minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Three minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Perhaps I could clarify this, Mr. President. The reason 
I asked for a quorum call, reclaiming my right to the floor, is so the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and I could 
discuss how we were going to proceed for the rest of the evening. 
Therefore, the Senator from California would know how to exercise her 
right as the next in line.
  So if the Senator from California could be patient for a minute to 
get clarification, he could be a time-filler.
  Would that be a good way to do it?
  Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It is a klutzy way of talking about it, but it is, 
nevertheless, where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will make this very quick. And I 
appreciate this very much from the Senators from Maryland and 
California.
  Mr. President, I just want to get on the record.
  Last summer, I had an intern in my office from Rwanda. I have been 
active in Rwanda in kind of a mission thing for quite some time. She 
came to this country 10 years ago after the genocide that was taking 
place. She went through all the problems in becoming a legal resident. 
And, of course, she is going to actually become a citizen.
  I have been privileged for a number of years to be chosen to speak at 
the various naturalization ceremonies in Oklahoma. These people go 
through all of the procedures. I daresay that most of those who go 
through the naturalization process become better citizens than some who 
are born here.
  Certainly, they know more about the history of this country. That is 
one of the reasons I have opposed, historically, any type of an amnesty 
program.
  Now, the one that is before us by my very good friend from Idaho has 
four steps of amnesty in AgJOBS. The first one is a temporary resident 
status, so that this jobs bill states that upon application to DHS, the 
immigration status of an illegal immigrant shall--not ``will,'' not 
``may be,'' but ``shall''--be adjusted to lawful temporary resident 
status as long as the immigrant worked in an agricultural job for at 
least 575 hours or 100 workdays, whichever is less.
  The next step is to take that same person and give them permanent 
resident status. The third step would be to make an adjustment not only 
for those individuals coming in but also for the spouses and the minor 
children. So we are talking about opening that gate for many more 
people.
  Fourthly, the reentry. Now, this means if somebody left the country 
under any circumstances, they would be allowed to come back and go 
through this process.
  On top of that, another thing I do not like about the legislation is 
it does have a taxpayer-funded legal services provision in it.
  So I just want to get on record and say this is something I do not 
think is in the best interests of this country.
  Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from California and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving my right to object, may I ask what the 
Senator would like to do?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What I would like to do is put forward an amendment. 
I gather there will be no more votes tonight.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, that is what we are trying to determine. That is 
what I am trying to determine. I would like to have a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, that is fine. I will not take long. I will just 
put the amendment in. I will not ask for a vote tonight.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I have no objection.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendment is set aside.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want the Senator to know it is my 
intention to vote for her amendment. I obviously did not want it on 
this bill, but since it is, it is my intention to vote for it.


                           Amendment No. 395

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that text of the REAL ID 
      Act of 2005 should not be included in the conference report)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask that the amendment be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. 
     Clinton, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 395:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Senate conferees should not agree to the inclusion 
     of language from division B of the Act (as passed by the 
     House of Representatives on March 16, 2005) in the conference 
     report;
       (2) the language referred to in paragraph (1) is contained 
     in H.R. 418, which was--
       (A) passed by the House of Representatives on February 10, 
     2005; and
       (B) referred to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate on February 17, 2005; and
       (3) the Committee on the Judiciary is the appropriate 
     committee to address this matter.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the clerk. This amendment is cosponsored by 
Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Alexander, Leahy, Clinton, and Boxer.
  As the clerk has read, it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It 
relates directly to the REAL ID Act. It is the sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment that attempts to bind the Senate conferees to oppose the REAL 
ID Act in the conference on this bill. I would like to take a minute to 
explain why.
  First of all, this was presented to the Senate in February. It has 
not yet been heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, once again, 
a very controversial bill will be considered in conference on this 
bill. It was put in the House bill in a preemptive way. It is there, 
and we have to deal with it.
  I want everyone to know this bill is major in scope in what it does 
to change immigration hearings and much to do with immigration. It very 
much tightens the standards for asylum and withholding of removal. It 
would give judges broad discretion to deny asylum claims based on the 
credibility of the applicant. And possibly one reason alone could mean 
a negative credibility finding.
  It changes the statutory requirement that an applicant must 
demonstrate to be granted asylum, making it much more difficult, and it 
eliminates judicial review by barring a court from reversing the 
decision of the judge or other adjudicator about the availability of 
corroborating evidence.
  It would give the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
the ability to unilaterally waive all laws to construct the border 
fence, including possibly wage and hour laws, criminal laws, labor 
laws, civil rights, and so on.
  Now, the problem with this section--I happen to be for finishing this 
3-mile stretch of California border with a border fence--is the wording 
in this is so broad that it appears to provide waiver authority over 
laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and 
roads not just to finish the fence in Southern California but anywhere 
in the United States. And it would allow for no review or appeal of the 
decisions of the Secretary of Homeland Security relating to this.

[[Page 6291]]

  In terms of judicial review of orders of removal, it would limit, if 
not eliminate, stays of removal while cases are pending. Most 
importantly, it would eliminate, for the first time in our Nation's 
history, any habeas corpus review of removal orders for both criminal 
and noncriminal immigrants. This is a major change. It would limit the 
ability of the courts of appeal to review mixed questions of law, even 
in cases of longtime, lawful permanent residents, if virtually any 
crime led to the deportation.
  Further, the restrictions on reviewing mixed questions of law would 
apply to asylum and claims under the Convention Against Torture. Now, 
here is a section that causes great concern. I believe it does to 
Republicans as well as Democrats.
  The REAL ID Act appears to essentially create bounty hunters. Let me 
tell you how it does that. It increases the authority of bail bondsmen 
to arrest and detain anyone they believe is illegal, including a 
financial incentive by leaving it up to a bondsman's opinion that an 
alien poses a flight risk which necessitates them being turned over to 
the Department of Homeland Security. If that is the case, the alien 
forfeits his or her bond premium under very broad circumstances. 
Illegal aliens turned over to the Department of Homeland Security must 
be detained.
  Now, this is at a time when immigration officials have not proven 
they can detain all of the aliens they apprehend today.
  What this does is, it says to the bail bondsman, if you think someone 
is illegal, you can go after them. You can maintain custody over them 
and you turn them in, and they have to be detained. This is on a bail 
bondsman's opinion of illegality. It also would provide bail bondsmen 
with unfettered access to information on illegal aliens and to 
influence Government processes with noncitizens subject to bonding. I 
don't know that we should be giving bail bondsmen this authority 
without any hearing in the Senate or any consequential discussion in 
the House on this point.
  It sets minimum bonds for aliens in removal proceedings at $10,000, 
and it prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from releasing 
anyone on their own recognizance who is in removal proceedings. We 
don't even know if we can hold everybody. This particular section, 
actually more than any other, causes me enormous concern, and obviously 
the cosponsors of this sense of the Senate.
  It does a number of other things. It holds spouses and children of an 
alien accountable for an alien's involvement in a terrorist 
organization or activity, even if they didn't know about it. I don't 
know that we should do that without understanding what we are doing.
  With respect to driver's licenses, it creates a large unfunded 
mandate on the States. The CBO did a cost estimate of the costs 
associated with implementing the driver's license provisions and 
estimated that DHS would spend $20 million over the 5-year period to 
reimburse States for the cost of complying with the legislation. But in 
addition, it would require States that participate in the driver's 
license agreement, which is an interstate database, to share driver 
information at a cost of $80 million over 3 years, to reimburse States 
for the cost to establish and maintain the database. The grand total is 
$100 million over 3 to 5 years.
  The just-passed intelligence reform law sets up a process whereby 
States, the Federal Government, and interested parties will make 
recommendations for establishing minimum Federal standards for driver's 
licenses and personal identification documents. The REAL ID Act 
essentially countermands the rights of States in this process. Both the 
current law, pursuant to the intelligence reform bill, and the REAL ID 
Act require that States set certain minimum document requirements as 
well as minimum issuance standards. The difference is that the REAL ID 
Act eliminates the stakeholder process and proscribes a very 
complicated and burdensome set of requirements on States.
  It also has differences between the intelligence reform bill and the 
REAL ID Act on the issue of driver's licenses and personal 
identification documents. The intelligence bill gives States 2 years to 
comply with minimum standards. The REAL ID Act gives States 3 years in 
order for these documents to be accepted by a Federal agency for 
official purposes.
  Secondly, the intelligence reform bill requires that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation work together to 
establish minimum standards for driver's licenses and personal 
identification documents. The REAL ID Act imposes on States what must 
be done.
  I don't think we should do this. We passed an intelligence reform 
bill. We dealt with some standards in that bill. Here, without a 
hearing, without any committee consideration, this bill is put, by the 
House of Representatives, on to this supplemental and is in conference.
  I don't think we should do this. The sponsors agree with me. So we 
have proposed a sense of the Senate that would seek to bind conferees 
to eliminate the REAL ID Act from this bill. That doesn't mean it is 
eliminated for all time. I also believe the Judiciary Committee should 
promptly hear the bill. We should consider amendments. We should be 
able to compare it in this house with the intelligence reform bill just 
passed and, therefore, make a decision. This is what the Senate is set 
up for. We are meant to be a deliberative body. We are meant to 
consider major and controversial pieces of legislation and, if 
necessary, slow them down. This is added unilaterally on this 
supplemental bill with no consideration by this house whatsoever. It is 
going to resolve itself with a very few Members of this body dealing 
with an enormously complicated, controversial bill that conflicts with 
other legislation passed by this body. We don't do our work if we let 
this happen.
  We have proposed this sense of the Senate, and I am hopeful there 
will be enough votes in this body so that the conferees on the Senate 
side will simply not accept business being done this way. Who would 
have thought a major piece of immigration legislation would be placed, 
without hearing, on this emergency supplemental which deals with the 
war in Iraq and critical emergency matters? It is a big mistake.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, and I understand the vote will not be 
tonight, but this will be put in the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 387

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. As I understand the regular order, the H-2B amendment I 
have offered is pending. I note that there are other speakers on the 
other side of the aisle but on the same side of the issue who wish to 
speak. I note the Senator from Wyoming is here and he wishes to speak. 
I want to continue the debate on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is the regular order.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I will 
briefly tell of my interest and support for this idea. I am very 
pleased to be a cosponsor. This is an issue we have struggled over the 
last couple of years. Certainly it is not the overall remedy to our 
whole struggle on immigration. However, this is something we do need to 
do now that will last in the meantime while we work on the other.
  Each of us who has spoken has a little different role to play in our 
home States with regard to this issue. In Wyoming, it is primarily the 
summer season, travel and vacations, Jackson Hole, WY, and other places 
where this has been a very important part of providing services there. 
Last year, of course, we were caught up in the 66,000-worker 
limitation, and it was kind of unfortunate for us because, as I said, 
it was the summer season, and therefore, the applications didn't get in 
as quickly as they did in some other places

[[Page 6292]]

where their seasons started earlier. By the time our folks applied, 
there were no vacancies.
  I am for an overhaul of immigration. When we have the needs and we 
want people to be able to legally come to this country, whether it is 
for a short while, whether it is for a longer while, come legally, I am 
one who thinks illegal is illegal and we shouldn't have it that way.
  We have to look at the demands and then find a relatively simple way 
to work through it; otherwise, people tend to try to ignore it and go 
around, so that doesn't work.
  These small businesses are in need of some relief. They cannot find 
workers to do these jobs. The Labor Department certifies there is 
indeed a labor shortage in this case and they look to willing workers.
  The Mikulski amendment is quite simple, as has been explained. It 
doesn't count workers to the cap of 66,000 who have participated in the 
H-2B program during the past 3 years. It separates the allocation to 
two 6-month batches 2-year temporary relief. It collects new fees for 
fraud prevention and detection so folks who process the applications 
have the skills and tools to identify fraud. We need to make these 
changes.
  I understand the difficulty with the bill that is on the floor. I 
think the resolution is coming clear so we can deal with some of these 
issues and leave the larger, longer term solutions to another time.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and I look forward 
to a very positive vote on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
comments in articulating the economic issues facing Wyoming. I have had 
the occasion to visit there myself and I know what a wonderful State it 
is. I am not much of a skier; I am built a little too close to the 
ground for that. But this shows this is not only a coastal State issue, 
and it also shows it is not only a seafood processing issue; this is an 
issue that affects our entire country, particularly those who depend 
upon summer seasonal workers. We understand some of our States enjoy--
whether it is Massachusetts, Wyoming, or Idaho--both summer and winter. 
Either way, the Senator knows that we depend on summer workers. We 
thank him and the Senator from Idaho who spoke, as well as others.
  Mr. President, I note that the hour is late and now that the Senator 
from Wyoming has spoken, I am not sure if there are other people who 
wish to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe of Maine be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to get a vote on my amendment, 
but it is not possible tonight. Therefore, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have requests to make on behalf of 
managers of the bill with respect to amendments that have been cleared 
on both sides of the aisle.


                           Amendment No. 401

  I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 401.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 193, line 23 of the bill, strike ``$500,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof: ``$1,000,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 401) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 402

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the next amendment is on behalf of 
Senators McConnell, Leahy, and Obama that addresses the Avian flu virus 
in Asia, which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     McConnell, for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Obama, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 402.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

        (Purpose: To address the avian influenza virus in Asia)

       On page 192, line 19, after ``March 2005,'' insert ``and 
     the avian influenza virus,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 402) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 403

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of Mr. Lugar and Mr. Biden. It deals with an increase in funding 
for the Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for 
Reconstruction and Stabilization with an offset.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself, 
     Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 403.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional amounts for diplomatic and consular 
 programs and reduce the amount available for the Global War on Terror 
                             Partners Fund)

       On page 171, line 13, strike ``$757,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$767,200,000''.
       On page 171, line 21, after ``education:'' insert the 
     following ``Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, $17,200,000 should be made available for 
     the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and 
     Stabilization:''.
       On page 179, line 24, strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$30,500,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 403) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 404

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Mr. Leahy regarding environmental recovery activities in 
tsunami-affected countries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 404.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To modify language in the bill relating to environmental 
           recovery activities in tsunami affected countries)

       On page 194, line 7, delete ``Aceh'' and everything 
     thereafter through ``Service'' on line 9, and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``tsunami affected countries''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 404) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 405

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. Leahy requiring a 5-day notification to the committees on 
appropriations for tsunami funds.

[[Page 6293]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 405.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment reads as follows:

 (Purpose: To require five day prior notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations for tsunami recovery and reconstruction funds)

       On page 194, line 19, after colon insert the following:
       Provided further, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations, except that 
     such notifications shall be submitted no less than five days 
     prior to the obligation of funds:

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 405) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 406

(Purpose: 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)

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh], for himself, Mr. 
     Corzine, and Mr. Pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 406.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to support a cause which is essential 
to the continued prosecution of our war on terrorism. It is essential 
to preserving our National Guard and Reserve as a vital force in 
defending our country, and it is essential to defending our moral 
obligation to those who defend our Nation.
  No one--particularly those citizens who have placed themselves in 
harm's way at our bidding--should be forced to choose between doing 
right by their loved ones and doing right by our country. The amendment 
I have submitted will prevent that moral tragedy from happening.
  What I refer to as the patriot penalty--the cut in income those who 
are called to active duty in our Guard and Reserve must suffer--has 
become a very serious problem. We now have about 180,000 Active-Duty 
Guard and Reserve personnel; 40 percent of the forces in Iraq have been 
called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve. The deployments are 
now lasting longer on average than any time since the Korean war.
  Since that conflict, it had been our practice to not summon the Guard 
and Reserve for active duty for more than 6 months. Today it is routine 
they are called to service in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere for 
longer than that period of time, making these deployments not 
reasonably anticipatable on behalf of these individuals and their 
families.
  Mr. President, 51 percent--more than half--of the guardsmen and 
reservists who are called to active duty suffer a loss of income, the 
patriot penalties. The average loss is $4,400 per citizen soldier--a 
material amount of money for the average American family. The General 
Accounting Office in a recent study indicates that there is growing 
financial strain on these families, even up to bankruptcy. It is 
morally unacceptable. It is unacceptable from a national security 
standpoint and from our obligation as fellow citizens that those we 
place in harm's way and ask to make the ultimate sacrifice physically 
should also be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice financially.
  That is what this amendment would stop. It is hard, not just for the 
soldiers and their families involved; it is also undermining the 
vitality of the Guard and Reserve and the essential role they play in 
service to defending our country. Fully five out of six of the Reserve 
branches did not meet their recruiting goals in the most recent period. 
General Helmly, the head of the Army Reserve, has described the Army 
Reserve as a broken force. At a time when we are relying upon our 
Reserve and our Guard men and women more than ever before, they are on 
the cusp of becoming, according to their commander, a broken force. We 
must not let that happen. Of the 78 percent of these individuals who 
are considering not reenlisting in the Guard and Reserve, fully 75 
percent, three-quarters, cite the loss in income as a material factor 
in their decision to not reenlist.
  Many laudable firms in my State and, I am sure, in the State of 
Mississippi, the State of South Carolina, and elsewhere, are doing 
their part. About one-third of employers are seeking to make up this 
penalty, the patriot penalty, on their own; 23 States are helping. It 
is important we do our part as well.
  Our amendment would provide, after someone has been called to active 
service for more than 6 months--therefore a period of time more than 
was reasonably anticipatable--for up to $10,000 in lost income be made 
up for these individuals, meaning that more than 95 percent of those 
who suffer this penalty would be made whole.
  We provide incentives for the two-thirds of employers currently not 
contributing to making up these penalties, for them to do their part as 
well, making it a public-private partnership. The cost over the next 5 
years is estimated to be about $535 million. Given the scope and the 
magnitude of the undertakings in Afghanistan, in Iraq, the costs we are 
incurring for so many other activities, including to try to train, 
equip and put into place Afghans and Iraqis to defend their countries, 
this is well within our budget. This is well within what we can afford 
as a country, to do right by those who are attempting to implement 
freedom abroad, to ensure that they can do right by their loved ones 
and their families at home.
  Objections, of course, are raised to anything in the Senate. The 
principal one is that it will lead to an inequality of pay to those on 
the battlefield, permanent Active-Duty personnel versus Reserve and 
Guard men and women who have been called to serve by their side. These 
are unequal circumstances. As I said, for those who are Active-Duty and 
have made that commitment to our country, they can plan for that 
circumstance. For those in the Guard and Reserve who have been called 
to service for a period of time that was not anticipatable because it 
is longer than any time in the last half century, they require and 
deserve somewhat different treatment. I simply say, we do not call upon 
our Active-Duty personnel to take a cut in pay when they enter combat. 
We should not ask our guardsmen and reservists to take a cut in pay 
when they do likewise. That is why the patriot penalties must be made 
up.
  In conclusion, we should find it within both our hearts and our 
wallets to do right by those who defend our country. It is important to 
the fight against terrorism. It is important to the preservation of the 
Guard and Reserve as a vital component of our Nation's security. It is 
important and essential that we fulfill our moral obligation to those 
we have called to duty so that they can do right by their loved ones, 
just as we are asking them to do right by their company.
  I respectfully ask for my colleagues' support of this urgent and 
worthwhile initiative.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 6294]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: 
In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 
give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend 
paragraph 4 of Rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 
1268 amendment No. 398, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       On page 231, after line 6, add the following:

   TITLE VII--SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SENATE ON WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION 
                              CONTRACTING

     SEC. 7001. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have exerted very 
     large demands on the Treasury of the United States and 
     required tremendous sacrifice by the members of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States.
       (2) Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure 
     comprehensive oversight of the expenditure of United States 
     Government funds.
       (3) Waste and corporate abuse of United States Government 
     resources are particularly unacceptable and reprehensible 
     during times of war.
       (4) The magnitude of the funds involved in the 
     reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on 
     terrorism, together with the speed with which these funds 
     have been committed, presents a challenge to the effective 
     performance of the traditional oversight function of Congress 
     and the auditing functions of the executive branch.
       (5) The Senate Special Committee to Investigate the 
     National Defense Program, popularly know as the Truman 
     Committee, which was established during World War II, offers 
     a constructive precedent for bipartisan oversight of wartime 
     contracting that can also be extended to wartime and postwar 
     reconstruction activities.
       (6) The Truman Committee is credited with an extremely 
     successful investigative effort, performance of a significant 
     public education role, and achievement of fiscal savings 
     measured in the billions of dollars.
       (7) The public has a right to expect that taxpayer 
     resources will be carefully disbursed and honestly spent.

     SEC. 7002. SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION 
                   CONTRACTING.

       There is established a special committee of the Senate to 
     be known as the Special Committee on War and Reconstruction 
     Contracting (hereafter in this title referred to as the 
     ``Special Committee'').

     SEC. 7003. PURPOSE AND DUTIES.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of the Special Committee is to 
     investigate the awarding and performance of contracts to 
     conduct military, security, and reconstruction activities in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq and to support the prosecution of the 
     war on terrorism.
       (b) Duties.--The Special Committee shall examine the 
     contracting actions described in subsection (a) and report on 
     such actions, in accordance with this section, regarding--
       (1) bidding, contracting, accounting, and auditing 
     standards for Federal Government contracts;
       (2) methods of contracting, including sole-source contracts 
     and limited competition or noncompetitive contracts;
       (3) subcontracting under large, comprehensive contracts;
       (4) oversight procedures;
       (5) consequences of cost-plus and fixed price contracting;
       (6) allegations of wasteful and fraudulent practices;
       (7) accountability of contractors and Government officials 
     involved in procurement and contracting;
       (8) penalties for violations of law and abuses in the 
     awarding and performance of Government contracts; and
       (9) lessons learned from the contracting process used in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan and in connection with the war on 
     terrorism with respect to the structure, coordination, 
     management policies, and procedures of the Federal 
     Government.
       (c) Investigation of Wasteful and Fraudulent Practices.--
     The investigation by the Special Committee of allegations of 
     wasteful and fraudulent practices under subsection (b)(6) 
     shall include investigation of allegations regarding any 
     contract or spending entered into, supervised by, or 
     otherwise involving the Coalition Provisional Authority, 
     regardless of whether or not such contract or spending 
     involved appropriated funds of the United States.
       (d) Evidence Considered.--In carrying out its duties, the 
     Special Committee shall ascertain and evaluate the evidence 
     developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the 
     facts and circumstances relevant to contracts described in 
     subsection (a) and any contract or spending covered by 
     subsection (c).

     SEC. 7004. COMPOSITION OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

       (a) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Special Committee shall consist of 7 
     members of the Senate of whom--
       (A) 4 members shall be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate, in consultation with the majority 
     leader of the Senate; and
       (B) 3 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate.
       (2) Date.--The appointments of the members of the Special 
     Committee shall be made not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Special Committee shall 
     not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner 
     as the original appointment.
       (c) Service.--Service of a Senator as a member, chairman, 
     or ranking member of the Special Committee shall not be taken 
     into account for the purposes of paragraph (4) of rule XXV of 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate.
       (d) Chairman and Ranking Member.--The chairman of the 
     Special Committee shall be designated by the majority leader 
     of the Senate, and the ranking member of the Special 
     Committee shall be designated by the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (e) Quorum.--
       (1) Reports and recommendations.--A majority of the members 
     of the Special Committee shall constitute a quorum for the 
     purpose of reporting a matter or recommendation to the 
     Senate.
       (2) Testimony.--One member of the Special Committee shall 
     constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony.
       (3) Other business.--A majority of the members of the 
     Special Committee, or \1/3\ of the members of the Special 
     Committee if at least one member of the minority party is 
     present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of 
     conducting any other business of the Special Committee.

     SEC. 7005. RULES AND PROCEDURES.

       (a) Governance Under Standing Rules of Senate.--Except as 
     otherwise specifically provided in this resolution, the 
     investigation, study, and hearings conducted by the Special 
     Committee shall be governed by the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate.
       (b) Additional Rules and Procedures.--The Special Committee 
     may adopt additional rules or procedures if the chairman and 
     ranking member agree that such additional rules or procedures 
     are necessary to enable the Special Committee to conduct the 
     investigation, study, and hearings authorized by this 
     resolution. Any such additional rules and procedures--
       (1) shall not be inconsistent with this resolution or the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate; and
       (2) shall become effective upon publication in the 
     Congressional Record.

     SEC. 7006. AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--The Special Committee may exercise all of 
     the powers and responsibilities of a committee under rule 
     XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
       (b) Hearings.--The Special Committee or, at its direction, 
     any subcommittee or member of the Special Committee, may, for 
     the purpose of carrying out this resolution--
       (1) hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and 
     administer such oaths as the Special Committee or such 
     subcommittee or member considers advisable; and
       (2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, 
     and materials as the Special Committee considers advisable.
       (c) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
       (1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (b) shall 
     bear the signature of the Chairman of the Special Committee 
     and shall be served by any person or class of persons 
     designated by the Chairman for that purpose.
       (2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United 
     States district court for the judicial district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may 
     issue an order requiring such person to appear at any 
     designated place to testify or to produce documentary or 
     other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court 
     may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
       (d) Meetings.--The Special Committee may sit and act at any 
     time or place during sessions, recesses, and adjournment 
     periods of the Senate.

     SEC. 7007. REPORTS.

       (a) Initial Report.--The Special Committee shall submit to 
     the Senate a report on the investigation conducted pursuant 
     to section 7003 not later than 270 days after the appointment 
     of the Special Committee members.
       (b) Updated Report.--The Special Committee shall submit an 
     updated report on such investigation not later than 180 days 
     after the submission of the report under subsection (a).
       (c) Additional Reports.--The Special Committee may submit 
     any additional report or reports that the Special Committee 
     considers appropriate.

[[Page 6295]]

       (d) Findings and Recommendations.--The reports under this 
     section shall include findings and recommendations of the 
     Special Committee regarding the matters considered under 
     section 7003.
       (e) Disposition of Reports.--Any report made by the Special 
     Committee when the Senate is not in session shall be 
     submitted to the Clerk of the Senate. Any report made by the 
     Special Committee shall be referred to the committee or 
     committees that have jurisdiction over the subject matter of 
     the report.

     SEC. 7008. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Special Committee may employ in 
     accordance with paragraph (2) a staff composed of such 
     clerical, investigatory, legal, technical, and other 
     personnel as the Special Committee, or the chairman or the 
     ranking member, considers necessary or appropriate.
       (2) Appointment of staff.--
       (A) In general.--The Special Committee shall appoint a 
     staff for the majority, a staff for the minority, and a 
     nondesignated staff.
       (B) Majority staff.--The majority staff shall be appointed, 
     and may be removed, by the chairman and shall work under the 
     general supervision and direction of the chairman.
       (C) Minority staff.--The minority staff shall be appointed, 
     and may be removed, by the ranking member of the Special 
     Committee, and shall work under the general supervision and 
     direction of such member.
       (D) Nondesignated staff.--Nondesignated staff shall be 
     appointed, and may be removed, jointly by the chairman and 
     the ranking member, and shall work under the joint general 
     supervision and direction of the chairman and ranking member.
       (b) Compensation.--
       (1) Majority staff.--The chairman shall fix the 
     compensation of all personnel of the majority staff of the 
     Special Committee.
       (2) Minority staff.--The ranking member shall fix the 
     compensation of all personnel of the minority staff of the 
     Special Committee.
       (3) Nondesignated staff.--The chairman and ranking member 
     shall jointly fix the compensation of all nondesignated staff 
     of the Special Committee, within the budget approved for such 
     purposes for the Special Committee.
       (c) Reimbursement of Expenses.--The Special Committee may 
     reimburse the members of its staff for travel, subsistence, 
     and other necessary expenses incurred by such staff members 
     in the performance of their functions for the Special 
     Committee.
       (d) Payment of Expenses.--There shall be paid out of the 
     applicable accounts of the Senate such sums as may be 
     necessary for the expenses of the Special Committee. Such 
     payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the chairman of 
     the Special Committee and approved in the manner directed by 
     the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. 
     Amounts made available under this subsection shall be 
     expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.

     SEC. 7009. TERMINATION.

       The Special Committee shall terminate on February 28, 2007.

     SEC. 7010. SENSE OF SENATE ON CERTAIN CLAIMS REGARDING THE 
                   COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that any claim of fraud, 
     waste, or abuse under the False Claims Act that involves any 
     contract or spending by the Coalition Provisional Authority 
     should be considered a claim against the United States 
     Government.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: 
In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 
give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend 
paragraph 4 of Rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 
1268 amendment No. 399, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available in this Act or any other Act may be used to fund 
     the independent counsel investigation of Henry Cisneros after 
     June 1, 2005.
       (b) Not later than July 1, 2005, the Government 
     Accountability Office shall provide the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House with a detailed accounting of 
     the costs associated with the independent counsel 
     investigation of Henry Cisneros.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this debate on emergency funding for our 
military wouldn't be complete if we did not begin to address the crises 
military families face at home as well as abroad.
  I am proud that the Senate has passed my two amendments, one to allow 
families to stay in military housing for a full year after the death of 
a spouse, the other to ensure all military families receive $500,000 in 
total death benefits when a loved one dies in service to America, but I 
am also deeply moved by the stories I have heard from across our 
country in the last 24 hours about the challenges to military families 
every day.
  Yesterday, I sent an email to Americans asking them to share their 
stories--of husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neighbors and 
friends who serve their country with courage but have been left on 
their own by our policies here at home. Within hours over 2,000 
Americans sent me their stories. They took time out of their busy days 
to share their stories on the hope someone would listen. Their voices 
must be heard in the halls of Congress. Today, I enter a small sample 
of their stories into the Congressional Record to prove we are 
listening, and hope that today's victory marks a new beginning, and 
that soon Congress will answer all their prayers and pass a 
comprehensive Military Families Bill of Rights.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
     Alan Neville--Aberdeen, SD
       This is a story about my own family. In January 2003, my 
     wife was called to active duty with her Army National Guard 
     unit. She was inactive status and a mere 7 days from being 
     completely out of the military when she was mobilized. She 
     went from being a civilian attorney to a Sergeant/E-5 
     administrative clerk at a significant loss of pay. At that 
     time, I became a single parent to four young children for one 
     full year. In August 2004, I too was called to active duty 
     with my Army Reserve unit. I went from being a university 
     professor to being a Sergeant First Class/E-7. Once again, 
     our four children were without one of their parents during 
     their critical stages of development. We've done our part, 
     now it's time for others to do their part. The burden placed 
     on the National Guard and Reserve forces seems extreme. The 
     morale among more seasoned soldiers, those with 10 to 20 
     years of service, is not good. Many are getting out of the 
     military at the first available moment.
     Jack Cooper--Corpus Christi, TX
       This is a story about a young couple in Austin, Texas. The 
     husband works for Home Depot and was called up in the Marine 
     reserves. There are two young children, both girls. One of 
     the girls has Job's Syndrome. Home Depot did not continue the 
     family's insurance.
       They had to go out and pay ridiculous rates for additional 
     health insurance to cover the child. That was money they 
     could not afford because Home Depot did not pay his salary 
     while he was gone. The child was in the hospital for much of 
     the time the father was in Iraq. The mother had to take off 
     from teaching to stay with the child in the hospital. She 
     used up all vacation and sick time, and then was docked pay 
     for lost time.
       We are not taking care of our soldiers or their families.
     Doris Fulmer--Albuquerque, NM
       I just lost my husband on February 11. He was a navy pilot 
     for 28 years. He paid on my SBP for years, and now I can 
     hardly get by, and waiting for the increase in October is 
     going to be difficult. I will have to sell my house to 
     survive. It appears they are waiting for us to die to . . .
       Not enough is being done for the active duty veteran. I 
     don't see how the administration can be so tight with the 
     veterans and their loved ones while we wage war in a foreign 
     country and pour in millions of millions of dollars.
     Stephen Cleff--Haddenfield, NJ
       This past Christmas, my uncle was called into service in 
     Iraq. He has served this country in Vietnam and when he 
     returned continued to serve as a policeman.
       My uncle is 58 years old. This is an example of how 
     stretched our armed forces are because of the current 
     policies of the President and his followers.
       His current service not only required that he miss 
     Christmas with his family, including his father who was very 
     ill, but more importantly, it required that he miss his 
     father's funeral. His wife is now alone in their house, 
     waiting for his return. I do not know the specifics of their 
     finances, but I do know that they relied on his income as a 
     police officer.
       I wonder how easily our current majority leaders would send 
     people into combat if they had to survive on the same 
     benefits.
     Christopher Perkins--Burnham, ME
       Here in Central Maine we have a young man, Fred Allen who, 
     like myself, volunteered to be a paratrooper and served in 
     both Afghanistan and then in Iraq.
       He was grievously wounded in both legs in Falluja, a name 
     we all know from the news. He spent a good deal of time in 
     the hospital getting back on his feet and continues his 
     healing and therapy at home. According to

[[Page 6296]]

     his mother he is receiving little in the way of compensation 
     or direct help.
       I can draw a strong parallel here with my personal 
     experience in the Army.
       I enlisted in 1967 at the height of Vietnam and also went 
     Airborne. I served with the 3/506th Airborne Infantry 
     ``Currahees'' of the 101st Airborne Division in 1968-69. I 
     was a radio operator and then a machine gunner in the field. 
     I received the Combat Infantryman's Badge, Jump Wings, Air 
     Medal and the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device for heroism in 
     ground combat.
       After my return home my best friend was killed in Vietnam 
     and I began to have serious problems with nightmares, 
     depression etc.
       The army's answer at the time was a ``resignation for the 
     good of the service'' Sign here and you can go home.
       In the 1980's there was a greater awareness of the problems 
     veterans were having and programs were developed, but for 
     over 15 years we were on our own. Many good soldiers didn't 
     make it.
       Thanks to Senators Mitchell and Cohen I was finally able to 
     receive PTSD treatment and treatment for arthritis and a 
     disability award.
       It is my greatest hope that our younger brothers will not 
     have to wait so long for their help. I once wrote a critique 
     of the PTSD program at VAMROC, Togus, Maine for Senator 
     Mitchell. This was my final remark.
       ``We who placed our lives in the balance, and were not 
     found wanting, ask for no more than that which is our due, to 
     be treated with dignity, honor and respect.''
     Pamela Goers--Romulus, MI
       My stepson is in the Navy stationed in Washington State. He 
     finds it so extremely hard to take care of his family on his 
     pay that he was willing to volunteer to go to Iraq [again] 
     because of the bonus offered and how much his family would 
     benefit from it. This is just wrong. The military men and 
     women put their lives on the line for us; the least we can do 
     is ensure that their families are provided for.
     James Tate--Coon Rapids, Iowa
       I have 2 sons in Afghanistan, deployed for 1 year duty with 
     the 168th Infantry Iowa National Guard. The younger has had 
     the misfortune of having his marriage disintegrate in his 
     absence and he has no assurance that his construction job 
     will be available on his return. The older has a contract 
     detassling business for 2 Iowa seed corn companies. This is a 
     very seasonal business and Mike has suffered a $60,000.00 
     loss of income from the business. In his absence his wife and 
     I had the responsibility of keeping the business going but 
     the companies involved were fearful that in his absence we 
     would not be able to handle the number of acres he normally 
     completes. Consequently they cut the allotted acres by \1/2\. 
     Much of the fixed expenses of running such an operation 
     remain the same regardless of the total acres performed. 
     Normally the business returns approximately $70,000 above 
     expenses. Last summer the return was less than $10,000.00. 
     Besides, there remains a question of whether or not the 
     companies will make the normal acres available in the future 
     or if they will give them to the other contractors that 
     filled the void this past summer.
       My wife and I raised and educated 11 law abiding, tax 
     paying American citizens. This administration has created a 
     situation that for the first time in nearly 70 years leaves 
     me ashamed of what my country is doing in the world.
     D. Bottoms--Oregon, WI
       My best friend Kurt Jerke, age 31, is a captain in the 
     Indiana National Guard. He was a Ph.D. graduate student in 
     the Department of Biological Sciences at Purdue University. 
     In his final year for his Ph.D. degree, he received orders to 
     leave for Afghanistan. At this time, his wife Katie had just 
     giving birth to his first son. Kurt left when his son was 
     only two months old. Katie has been in a daze ever since Kurt 
     left for Afghanistan with managing her job, daycare and 
     caring for her child, while maintaining there house all as a 
     single parent. They're son, Cade, is now a year old. He's a 
     walking, talking, cute little guy. Kurt missed his son's 
     first year and Kurt still has no end in site. Kurt has no 
     idea when or if he's coming home. Kurt has no idea if he's 
     staying in Afghanistan or if he's going to Iraq . . .
     Sandy Fox--Cleveland, OH
       As a 6-year member of the Ohio National Guard, my son was 
     within one month of completing his obligation when he was 
     notified that he could not leave the service. He is now in 
     Baghdad, much to the dismay of the entire family.
       He has two sons, ages 2 and 4. He discovered the week 
     before he shipped out for Iraq that his wife is pregnant with 
     a daughter . . . the first female in our family for quite a 
     long time. His wife is a nursing student who also has a part-
     time job. Not only has his departure caused emotional 
     upheaval for the entire extended family, he was the major 
     ``breadwinner'' for his nuclear family.
       Knowing that she could not afford to keep up payments on 
     their apartment, their vehicles, etc., without his income, 
     she approached the military for assistance. She was told that 
     there was nothing they could do for her. . . that she would 
     have to turn to her in-laws for help to sustain her and her 
     family while her husband was serving our country.
       In summary, this poor pregnant woman is living in the 
     basement of her in-laws' home with her two sons because the 
     military and our government turned their backs on her. Their 
     atrocious treatment of the military personnel, their families 
     and our veterans belies all their public rhetoric about 
     family values and moral integrity. It's disgraceful! I don't 
     know how they sleep at night.
     Kara Block--Jamaica Plain, MA
       My brother is a lieutenant in the Marine Corps. He has been 
     on two tours of duty to Iraq and is about to deploy for the 
     third time, this time to Afghanistan.
       Since 9/11, our family has been continually shadowed with 
     the threat of losing my brother on one of his deployments. He 
     was on the first wave of the invasion in March 2003 as part 
     of the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance that forged ahead to 
     Tikrit. On that first Iraq deployment, we did not hear from 
     our brother until it was time for his battalion's return to 
     the States. He called my parents via a satellite phone before 
     heading back, to ask them to wire $200 for a phone card to 
     call home from the ship that carried them homeward. The U.S. 
     government does not pay for its troops to keep in touch with 
     their families while deployed.
       On his second deployment to Iraq, my brother called home to 
     ask for a particular kind of field binoculars, as those that 
     should have been standard issue to him had not been provided. 
     These binoculars cost my parents $500, and were obtained only 
     with great difficulty [incidentally, per Newsweek in 2003, 
     the average American troop spent over $2000 outfitting 
     himself/herself with safety and field gear]. For many other 
     military families, the purchase of this necessary safety-
     enhancing instrument would be prohibitively expensive.
       In January 2004, when much media ado was made about the 
     lack of armor in the Humvees contributing to many unnecessary 
     roadside fatalities from IEDs, President Bush made a 
     statement assuring all military family members that the 
     troops would receive proper armor by March 2004. However, 
     upon their return, several Marines Lieutenants informed us 
     that the armor did not arrive till June/July 2004; despite 
     the battalion's mission being to escort military and civilian 
     convoys--a highly dangerous duty that took them all over IED-
     infested roads of Iraq. The Marines also cited a shortage of 
     flak-jackets on their first deployment.
       The ordeal of enduring those long, dangerous deployments 
     (especially cognizant of the lack of armor/equipment) and 
     perennially bracing for bad news is too great to recount 
     here. Needless to say, these last few years have taken an 
     extensive toll on the health and happiness of this family, 
     which I consider as much of a sacrifice for this nation as 
     the military service of my brother.
       Despite the outcry of his family against such things as his 
     inadequate training for the jobs with which he was tasked, 
     lack of armor and other safety-enhancing equipment [and 
     despite the acknowledged fact that he and his men faced death 
     at every moment at the behest of a president who lied us 
     about the reasons for war], my brother has volunteered to 
     extend his time in the Marines and to deploy for a third time 
     in two years. Were I a poet I would better describe my 
     boundless pride in him and all our troops. Heartbreak-
     ingly, he and all the other troops who give so much for this 
     country ask so little in return.
       We celebrate the heroism our troops with homecoming 
     parades, yellow ribbons and imposing bronze memorials. But we 
     as a country [especially in Congress] should put our money 
     where our mouth is and increase combat pay, grant our 
     Veterans adequate health care and other benefits, and take 
     care of the families of the fallen or injured (e.g., access 
     to good education for their children). THAT would be a 
     meaningful demonstration of our respect and appreciation for 
     their sacrifice. Our troops deserve no less.
     Theresa Grof--Agawam, MA
       My husband was activated in 2001 after 9/11. His pay was so 
     low as a technical sergeant in the U.S. Air Force Reserves 
     that we are now 20,000 dollars in debt and have no way out. 
     My husband has served his country many times, he is a Gulf 
     War Veteran, Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran, and an Iraqi 
     Freedom Veteran. He has 14 years in the United States Air 
     Force Reserve, but the pay is so low and the benefits being 
     slowly eroded away that he is no longer sure if he wants to 
     make it to 20 years. He sees his unit falling apart and wants 
     to stay but with cuts in benefits and our debts mounting (we 
     have also both attended college on our GI Bills during these 
     activations) that it just does not seem feasible to stay in 
     the reserves any longer. His unit is losing more and more 
     longtime reservists every week. The unit is becoming 
     undermanned and when they get a new recruit, which is not 
     very often, the person is not well trained enough to really 
     help. This problem of losing long serving military men like 
     my husband will affect the military's mission. Retaining 
     these men is important and passing a bill to help those of us 
     so in debt because of continuous activations should be a 
     major priority at this time. I am very proud of my husband 
     and I see his determination to keep serving his country but 
     soon there will be no reason to stay.

[[Page 6297]]


     Mark Vaughn--East Greenwich, RI
       I am in the U.S. Army Reserve and have been deployed 4 
     times in 8 years. I have missed almost 36 percent of my 
     daughter's life while deployed. When not deployed I am an 
     adjunct college professor and, until recently did not make 
     enough to be able to afford health insurance. The only time I 
     and my daughter were covered was while I was deployed. While 
     I believe that is would be cost prohibitive to provide all 
     Reserve and National Guard soldiers health benefits, it would 
     be the right thing to do to provide them a health plan which 
     they could buy into (co-pay). This plan would cover them and 
     their families whether or not they were deployed. In addition 
     to providing the families of our soldiers, sailors, marines 
     and airmen a benefit it will also help keep them healthy 
     should they be called up. I believe that it would also 
     provide a strong incentive for recruiting. Just a thought.
     Heidi Behr--Orlando, FL
       I work as a social worker at a local elementary school in 
     Maitland, Florida. We have some kids in our school whose 
     parents are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know of many 
     families (some at our school and in our community and 
     elsewhere around the country) who are struggling to make ends 
     meet financially because they are not receiving adequate 
     compensation while their loved ones serve in the Armed 
     Forces. Many of the families who have members in the National 
     Guard are dealing with the double blow of loss of pay while 
     also now not having their husband or wife at home. I think it 
     is criminal that our government calls these national guards 
     up without compensating the family for their lost wages and 
     insurance. If a family was dependent on this guard member's 
     insurance through their civilian job, many times those 
     families have now lost health insurance. This is not right 
     and needs to be taken into account by the government when 
     they decide to call these men and women back into service.
     Carrie Philpott--Eugene, OR
       My son joined the Marine Corp in November of 2002. He 
     enlisted with the hopes that he would be able to fulfill his 
     dream of attending college and earning a BA degree in 
     Criminal Justice. Other than the GI bill, no other funds are 
     available to him for higher education He has just spent a 
     month at home with me after being injured while serving our 
     country in Iraq. He had the time to study his military 
     benefits package and look at what university he would be able 
     to attend. Imagine his disappointment and frustration to find 
     that his GI bill will only cover 1.75 years of an 
     undergraduate degree at a state university that doesn't even 
     offer a degree in his field of study. He has now returned to 
     his unit to complete his 4 year enlistment only to be told 
     that he will have to go back to Iraq in Aug. '06.
       Along with his physical injury, my son had nightly 
     nightmares, screaming out visions that could only have come 
     from his battle experiences. I wonder what else he will have 
     to endure for the price of an education?
     Kathy Hartman--Loveland, CO
       This is a story in reverse to what you are seeking. I have 
     a nephew serving in Iraq who works as a security guard for a 
     private contractor. He receives approximately $18,000 per 
     month and has all of the finest in equipment and security. He 
     received his training as a Ranger in the U.S. Army but now 
     serves as an employee of a private contractor.
       My question is, why isn't every soldier employed in Iraq 
     able to receive the salary, benefits and equipment that this 
     ``soldier'' does? Why have we contracted some of this war out 
     to the highest bidders, using our tax dollars to pay some of 
     our soldiers a more-than-decent wage while our ``grunts'' 
     fight and die at minimum wage? I do not understand this 
     inequity except of course for the fact that we have now set 
     up wars and military expenses to benefit large corporations 
     even more than they have benefited in the past.
       Don't get me wrong. While I do not believe in this war, I 
     do believe that all those in harm's way should be equitably 
     compensated, trained and outfitted. I would rather that all 
     soldiers be compensated at a wage befitting the horror and 
     danger they experience.
       Clearly the private contractors are able to pay generous 
     compensation in addition to making generous profits. This is 
     wrong.
     Nada Smith McLeskey--Columbus, OH
       I was married for 28 years to my first husband who for 21 
     years served our country in the United States Air Force. He 
     continues today serving our country by teaching your high 
     school students leadership by serving with the JRAFROTC 
     Program in Salt Lake City, Utah. Our daughter served for 6 
     years in the Utah Air National Guard and today our son serves 
     our country in the United States Air Force in the Special 
     Forces branch. Our son has already seen one tour of duty to 
     the Middle East. He is married and a father of 3 children. He 
     is an enlisted service member. His wife was forced to stop 
     working because their childcare far out weighed the income 
     she could bring home and the subsistence allowance program 
     was cut by the Bush Administration. They now live in base 
     housing but none the less, their income for a family of five 
     is roughly $2000 per month. By the time their bills are paid, 
     there is little left for them to buy groceries or enjoy the 
     luxury of maybe going out to a movie or to eat. I send them 
     what I can per month to help out. I know what it is like to 
     serve our country and have to live on an extremely tight 
     budget. My daughter in law would love to work so they can pay 
     off their debts and have extra money, but with 3 children 
     under the age of 6 it is impossible as childcare would eat up 
     all her wages. Thank you.
     Doug Brewer--Tacoma, WA
       My daughter is best friends with a 16 year-old whose father 
     is a reservist. He was deployed to Iraq, leaving behind a 12 
     year-old autistic child, who needs the care of two parents to 
     even have a semblance of a quality of life. The father is in 
     Mosul, a very dangerous place, ostensibly for a year, but we 
     all know how that length of time has tended to expand. I 
     can't tell you how many tears this family has shed over the 
     father's safety, the one parent's frustration of raising an 
     autistic child (among two other siblings), as well as the 
     financial pressures of having the main bread-winner gone. 
     Why? For what purpose?
     Katie Laude--Beaver Dam, WI
       My husband is a reservist currently serving in Afghanistan. 
     He served his 8 years of military service after getting an 
     ROTC scholarship for college. After finishing his two years 
     of being a company commander he went on IRR. After September 
     11th he was given the advice to join back with his unit or 
     risk being ``cross-leveled'' into another unit where he 
     wouldn't know the troops.
       Well, as it turns out, he did join his old unit again but 
     was still cross leveled to a unit in St. Cloud, MN (we live 
     in southern Wisconsin). We have three boys (ages 9, 6 and 1). 
     I had our third son after my husband had left. To make it 
     worse, I have NO family support group unless I want to drive 
     over 5 hours to the unit in Minnesota. I have had to hire out 
     virtually everything around our house (lawn, snow removal, 
     home maintenance, etc). After taking a year leave from my job 
     after the baby was born, I felt I had to go back to work. So 
     I am now working full time as a teacher and raising three 
     kids with no husband.
     Linda Brown--Bunker Hill, WV
       Our daughter is in the MD Air National Guard as well as a 
     full time college student. We still carry her on our medical 
     insurance. She has been deployed twice in the last 3 years 
     each time putting her education on hold. Her boyfriend works 
     full time at the WV Air National Guard but does not have 
     medical insurance. My daughter became pregnant but is unable 
     to marry her boyfriend because he does not have medical 
     insurance. There is no way she could marry him and then have 
     the baby with no insurance. I advised her not to, what if 
     something happened to her or the baby? We cannot afford to 
     pay out of pocket and we make too much money to qualify for 
     Government aid. We would like our daughter to be married and 
     she would like to be also. Her boyfriend has checked into 
     private insurance but at $800 a month they can not afford it. 
     My daughter served in Qatar in Operation Enduring Freedom as 
     did her boyfriend. He flies almost every week doing missions 
     for our government but is not offered insurance! It makes me 
     so mad, most of our government officials don't care about 
     healthcare for others because they will never have to worry 
     about themselves.
     Gail Mountain--Gloucester, MA
       Like a lot of stories about abuse and mistreatment, despite 
     the specific issue surrounding that abuse and mistreatment, 
     proving it is very difficult.
       Nonetheless, I would like to share my suspicion of 
     mistreatment of my nephew as a member of the Air Force 
     reserve who lost his job in the U.S. upon his return from a 
     3-month assignment in Kuwait, perhaps a year ago.
       He had been getting subtle messages for months from his 
     employer that his need for time off to accommodate his 
     military training was not appreciated.
       When he returned from Kuwait, he was ``let go'' under what 
     I believe to me the guise of his inability to do his work.
       He believes, and so do I, that he lost his job because of 
     the time it took for him to serve his country.
       He will never be able to prove it, but I think we need to 
     also find a way to insure this does not happen to those who 
     choose to serve our country, yet still need to earn a living.
       This young man continues to diligently work on his master's 
     degree and to take every opportunity to get as much military 
     training as he can so he can become a part of the 
     investigative branch of the Air Force because he loves his 
     country and because he wants to participate in the safety of 
     it. I hope a part of your work will be to also insure that 
     our reserves and our national guard are taken care of by the 
     country they choose to protect.
     Sarah O'Malley--Castine, ME
       This story is of a man in a town near by, the nephew of a 
     friend, a high school classmate. Harold Gray was in the 
     National Guard, the 133rd Engineering Battalion from here in 
     Maine. He was injured several months ago by a road side bomb, 
     getting hit with shrapnel in the head and shoulder.

[[Page 6298]]

     Shrapnel destroyed his eyes and lodged in his brain.
       Harold was in a coma for quite a while at a military 
     hospital in Washington. His wife traveled to DC to be by his 
     side, and his three young daughters are staying in their home 
     community with family. Harold's wife is a manicurist with no 
     benefits, when she doesn't work, she doesn't get paid. She 
     hasn't been working for months now. In every store you go in 
     around here, there is a coffee can with Harold's picture, 
     collecting spare change to help support his family. This 
     soldier's family is living off good will and spare change.
       As a Guardsman, I don't know what kind of extended support 
     Harold and his family can expect. The best case scenario for 
     Harold's situation would be a full cognitive recovery, but 
     with total blindness. This is however, extremely unlikely. 
     Harold will live the rest of his life with shrapnel in his 
     brain, and the severe cognitive deficit that goes with it, as 
     well as the loss of this sight. As a Guardsman, not a member 
     of the Army etc, I fear that his family will fall between the 
     cracks, and through loop holes and bureaucracy not receive 
     the benefits (however paltry) that regularly commissioned 
     soldiers are entitled to.
     Jean Harris-Letts--Middleburg, FL
       I am a physician in a town where many of my patients count 
     on military benefits.
       For Medicare recipients, most of the time both Social 
     Security checks go for food and rent, while hopefully the 
     service connected spouse will be able to get his or her 
     medication from the Veterans Administration. The non-military 
     spouse will have to get samples of meds or often go without.
       My younger patients whose spouses are in the military are 
     in an only slightly better position . . . It baffles me how 
     anyone could countenance cutting military benefits in a time 
     of war, when so much depends on morale.
       The patients to whom I refer are not deadbeats. They are 
     hard working people, who are just not being properly 
     compensated, and find only twenty four hours in the day when 
     they try to do more.
     George Cleveland--Milwaukee, WI
       I am a Vietnam era vet with severe back pain, lumbar/sacrel 
     facet degeneration. I was completely independent when 
     President Clinton was in office. When President Bush got in 
     office and reduced V.A. funds. They took away my pain meds, 
     which where 6-5mg Percocets and 2-10mg Oxiocotins. It's 
     gotten to the point that I can't walk with my grandchildren 
     anymore. I'm 58 years old and poor with no other insurance 
     I've talked to other vets with similar problems. We've 
     basically been told that we are not worth the price of our 
     meds. What's going to happen 40 years from now when the vets 
     from Iraq still need help will they be forgotten to? Just go 
     to any V.A. Hospital in this country and talk to the vets 
     sitting in the smoking area and ask. This will probably screw 
     me pretty bad but at this point I just don't give a damn.
     Holly Ortman--Fort Benning, GA
       My name is Holly Ortman. Not only am I a nurse in the US AF 
     Reserves (inactive now), but I am also a spouse of an active 
     duty soldier in the US Army and a mother of 4. I am highly 
     educated and was working on my Practitioners Degree. I have 
     always stood behind our government and its decisions, but as 
     of late, I feel that my support is dissipating due to the 
     government's lack of support for the military families and 
     the military child. When our son was 6 months old, my husband 
     was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan with the 10th 
     Mountain Division. At the time I was an ICU Nurse manager at 
     the local hospital. At this point in our lives, we only had 3 
     children. Due to the demands of being a mother of 3, one of 
     which was only 6 months, and an acting single parent due to 
     the absence of my husband, I had to step down as the nurse 
     manager and work in the ER as an emergency/trauma nurse. This 
     was very short lived because in the state of New York nursing 
     is unionized, therefore everything works off of seniority. 
     That left only night shifts open for me to work. Because 
     finding a trustworthy person to come in at night and watch 3 
     children and get 2 of them ready for school the next morning 
     is so difficult I had to totally resign my nursing position. 
     Just so you understand the seriousness of this let me explain 
     that before I resigned, our family income was close to 
     $4500.00 a month. Because I could not work due to the 
     military deployment, our income fell to less than 1800.00 a 
     month. This qualified our family for W.I.C., and other forms 
     of public assistance, which we had never needed before, but 
     desperately need now. During his deployment, my husband re-
     enlisted for another 6 years. He is a very patriotic man and 
     he wanted to do what he felt in his heart was right. We 
     toughed it out and my husband came home in May of 2004. 
     Shortly after his return, we found out we were pregnant with 
     our 4th and last child. He then received his orders for Fort 
     Benning, Georgia. We relocated to Fort Benning and upon his 
     First day of reporting and 6 months TO DO THE DAY of his 
     return from Afghanistan he was told to collect his CIF gear, 
     he would be leaving for Iraq by January and that they needed 
     his combat experience over there. We were devastated, as the 
     birth of our last child was due in February and we were 
     hoping to financially catch up by me going back to work. Due 
     to the fact that my pregnancy was high risk, he was allowed 
     to stay behind until the baby was born. He is now leaving for 
     Iraq this Saturday. My career, in a field that is in dire 
     need of experienced people, will once again be on hold, and 
     we will have to scrape by yet again due to the minimal amount 
     the government pays my husband to leave his family and put 
     his life on the line. I was so disappointed in my government 
     when I heard that many wanted to decrease the deployment pay. 
     We are barely making it as it is and without that pay we 
     would literally be in dire straights. Now there is talk of 
     decreasing the amount of the yearly raise to help the budget. 
     Both of my oldest children go to a military school and it has 
     been a God send. They have deployment groups for them and a 
     counselor to help with the transition, which was very hard 
     during the first deployment. These schools know how special a 
     military child is. Now Donald Rumsfeld wants to shut down our 
     military schools. How much more can you people keep taking 
     from us before you realize that we have nothing left to take? 
     I cannot even repay my government student loan because I can 
     not work because of his continual deployment and the 
     government doesn't pay him enough to keep us above poverty 
     level. My family has sacrificed so much and only keeps 
     getting slapped in the face by our government. My family 
     feels so used. I currently hold a commission as Major in the 
     USAF IRR, which I am resigning, and I have told my husband, 
     we will find him a way out. We just can't afford the price of 
     your freedom anymore. I am sorry but fine speeches and big 
     talk cannot put food on my table and bring my husband home 
     alive. Thank you for this chance to share this with you.
     Richard Perez, Sr.--Las Vegas, NV
       On February 10th, 2005 at 11:30pm in Al Asad, Iraq, we lost 
     our only son USMC LCpl Richard A. Perez Jr.
       His story is on www.richardperezjr.com website.
       The heartache will never end. My wife Rosemarie who had 
     been a senior sales agent for State Farm with the states 
     highest sales totals for the past 4 years is devastated and 
     has no more energy to even perform her job anymore because of 
     the loss of our only son.
       I, Richard A. Perez Sr., Battle with this problem daily, 
     recently our son had signed with us on a very large home loan 
     which we thought would solve all problems as we have rented 
     for 20+ years and never owned a home.
       We bought it with the pretense that Rich would help us with 
     the home loan and to build upon his career and life with his 
     own family as he was generating money in his management 
     position at Jack in the Box restaurant. The house has not 
     been built as of yet, but the looming cost of a home here in 
     Las Vegas is skyrocketing and a big payment is due soon. We 
     cannot afford to do this as our daughter is a student at UNLV 
     another a student in High School aspiring model and actress 
     and a third only 10 years old a gymnast in Henderson . . . 
     all girls who lost their brother.
       I personally have lost my job and find myself on 
     unemployment getting 329.00 per week because I grieved too 
     long and could not perform my job at the level expected.
       Costs run high, but our family has been ruined by a war my 
     son never intended on entering as he was a reservist and had 
     goals and dreams of his own. We still have not even gotten 
     our sons final report , we don't even know the details of 
     what happened? 8-9 weeks ago . . . He was proud to be a 
     Marine and we are proud of him, the little money the 
     Government gave us has paid his college loans at UCLA and we 
     are faced with the hardship of our lives being ruined, 
     because of Iraq.
       My whole family has suffered during the past 2-3 months 
     since the accident but really the past 7-9 months we've been 
     stressed and it has affected all that we do daily.
       What a disaster, what a shame that my own land of liberty, 
     land of the free has placed us in bondage for years to come 
     and has all of us reeling as where do we go from here?
       I am a 7th generation American. My family tree is American 
     Indian, Spanish and Mexican from Los Angeles, CA. I grew up 
     thinking my country was great, my forefathers defended my 
     stance so we can live today. My very uncle Fred Perez sold 
     airplanes to Iraq and Iran as he worked for Boeing in the 60-
     70s. My cousin lost a leg in the USMC in Vietnam. My Uncle 
     lost an arm in Korea and my wife's uncle died on the shores 
     of France during WWII. What happened to the American Dream? 
     Why, when my family and son defended liberty, do we now 
     suffer? People in NYC buildings were provided 2 million 
     dollars each so they could adjust to their loss. Yes, they 
     needed it, but we do too.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to H.R. 1268 
which would require the Department of Defense to submit a report to 
Congress by July 15, 2005, on the Government's processes and policies 
for disposal of property at military installations proposed to be 
closed or realigned as part of the 2005 round of base closure and 
realignment, and the assistance available to affected local communities 
for reuse and redevelopment decisions.

[[Page 6299]]

  This report will be of tremendous assistance to States and local 
communities affected by BRAC, and faced with difficult decisions about 
the redevelopment and economic revitalization of their areas. The 
report required by this amendment is similar to Community Guides to 
base reuse, which were published by the Department of Defense in all 
four previous BRAC rounds during the Commission's deliberations. These 
guides served a vital purpose for affected communities by explaining 
existing Federal law pertaining to property disposal and by endorsing a 
proactive and cooperative relationship between military departments and 
local communities, without appearing to be directive in nature. I ask 
support for this amendment.

                          ____________________