[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6725-6764]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2 p.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1268, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Mikulski amendment No. 387, to revise certain requirements 
     for H-2B employers and require submission of information 
     regarding H-2B nonimmigrants.
       Feinstein amendment No. 395, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 should not be 
     included in the conference report.
       Bayh amendment No. 406, to protect the financial condition 
     of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who 
     are ordered to long-term active duty in support of a 
     contingency operation.
       Durbin amendment No. 427, to require reports on Iraqi 
     security services.
       Salazar amendment No. 351, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the earned income tax credit provides critical 
     support to many military and civilian families.
       Dorgan/Durbin amendment No. 399, to prohibit the 
     continuation of the independent counsel investigation of 
     Henry Cisneros past June 1, 2005 and request an accounting of 
     costs from GAO.
       Reid amendment No. 445, to achieve an acceleration and 
     expansion of efforts to reconstruct and rehabilitate Iraq and 
     to reduce the future risks to United States Armed Forces 
     personnel and future costs to United States taxpayers, by 
     ensuring that the people of Iraq and other nations do their 
     fair share to secure and rebuild Iraq.
       Frist (for Chambliss/Kyl) amendment No. 432, to simplify 
     the process for admitting temporary alien agricultural 
     workers under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act, to increase access to such workers.
       Frist (for Craig/Kennedy) modified amendment No. 375, to 
     provide for the adjustment of status of certain foreign 
     agricultural workers, to amend the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act to reform the H-2A worker program under that 
     Act, to provide a stable, legal agricultural workforce, to 
     extend basic legal protections and better working conditions 
     to more workers.
       DeWine amendment No. 340, to increase the period of 
     continued TRICARE coverage of children of members of the 
     uniformed services who die while serving on active duty for a 
     period of more than 30 days.
       DeWine amendment No. 342, to appropriate $10,000,000 to 
     provide assistance to Haiti using Child Survival and Health 
     Programs funds, $21,000,000 to provide assistance to Haiti 
     using Economic Support Fund funds, and $10,000,000 to provide 
     assistance to Haiti using International Narcotics Control and 
     Law Enforcement funds, to be designated as an emergency 
     requirement.
       Schumer amendment No. 451, to lower the burden of gasoline 
     prices on the economy of the United States and circumvent the 
     efforts of OPEC to reap windfall oil profits.
       Reid (for Reed/Chafee) amendment No. 452, to provide for 
     the adjustment of status of certain nationals of Liberia to 
     that of lawful permanent residence.


                           Amendment No. 418

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside be in order that I may offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I call up amendment No. 418.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for himself, Mr. 
     Isakson, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Dole, Mrs. 
     Lincoln, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Reed, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 418.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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 prohibit the termination of the existing joint-service 
         multiyear procurement contract for C/KC-130J aircraft)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     PROHIBITION ON TERMINATION OF EXISTING JOINT-SERVICE 
                   MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT CONTRACT FOR C/KC-130J 
                   AIRCRAFT

       Sec. 1122. No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, or any other Act, may be obligated or 
     expended to terminate the joint service multiyear procurement 
     contract for C/KC-130J aircraft that is in effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.


                     Amendment No. 418, As Modified

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and I 
ask unanimous consent that Senator Allen be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


    PROHIBITION ON TERMINATION OF EXISTING JOINT-SERVICE MULTIYEAR 
              PROCUREMENT CONTRACT FOR C/KC-130J AIRCRAFT

       Sec. 1122. During fiscal year 2005, no funds may be 
     obligated or expended to terminate the joint service 
     multiyear procurement contract for C/KC-130J aircraft that is 
     in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment will prohibit any fiscal 
year 2005 funds from being used to terminate the C-130J multi-year 
procurement contract.
  In hearings before this body over the past several weeks Department 
of Defense personnel have admitted that when they made the decision to 
terminate this contract in December of last year that they did not have 
all the information needed to make that decision. Since PBD 753 was 
drafted in December 2004, we have learned that the cost to terminate 
this contract is approximately $1.6 billion.
  Also over the past several months we have seen the C-130J, KC-130J, 
as well as C-130s operated by our coalition partners in Iraq perform 
superbly throughout USCENTCOM. To date, C-130Js in Iraq have flown over 
400 missions, with a mission capable rate of 93 percent and have 
performed all assigned missions successfully. KC-130Js have flown 789 
hours in Iraq with mission capable rates in excess of 95 percent. 
Nevertheless, the Department of Defense has not yet submitted the

[[Page 6726]]

amended budget request for this program that they discussed during 
hearings. That is why this amendment is necessary.
  I am introducing this amendment to make sure that this program, which 
is performing extremely well and which meets validated Air Force and 
Marine Corps requirements, is not prematurely cancelled and that the 
Department of Defense follows through with their commitment to complete 
the multi-year procurement contract.
  There are some issues with the current contract being a commercial 
contract versus a traditional military contract. My colleague, Senator 
McCain, and I agree that a traditional contract is more appropriate in 
this case and applaud the Air Force's decision to begin transitioning 
the program in that direction. However, I think we can all agree, that 
regardless of how these planes are procured, that the United States 
military needs them and they are demonstrating their value to the 
warfighter, and to the taxpayer today.
  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. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I think we are now ready to begin a 
conversation. There are several colleagues here, including the Senators 
from Georgia, Alabama, and Idaho, we would like to discuss this issue 
we are going to be voting on tomorrow. Our colleagues need to have a 
clear picture of what we will be voting on.
  There are two basic versions of legislation to try to make it easier 
for agricultural employers to hire people who are temporary workers or 
who have been in the United States illegally and can be employed under 
the bills proposed here. There are two different approaches. One is the 
approach of the Senator from Idaho--I will defer to him in a moment to 
have him discuss his approach--and the other approach Senator Chambliss 
and I have offered. There are a couple of key differences. They both 
approach the problem from the standpoint of broadening the way in which 
legal immigrants can come to the country and be employed legally in 
agriculture and taking illegal immigrants who are currently not working 
within the legal regime, using counterfeit or fraudulent documents--
and, everybody knows, being employed illegally--and enabling them to 
work for a temporary period of time legally in this country.
  The primary difference between the approaches is over the question of 
amnesty. Regarding that, I think everybody would have to admit--and 
different people have different definitions of what amnesty is--
everybody would have to agree, if there is a difference in how you can 
become a legal, permanent resident in this country or a citizen, you 
would have to agree, if someone is granted an advantage over an 
applicant for legal permanent residency or citizenship status in 
another country, if they are given an advantage because they came here 
illegally and counterfeited documents to get employment and worked here 
illegally, to give them an advantage over people who are seeking to 
come here legally is giving them an advantage that would amount to 
amnesty. You should not be able to use, in other words, your illegal 
status to bootstrap yourself into a position of legal, permanent 
residency or citizenship.
  I pointed out before, under the bill of the Senators from 
Massachusetts and Idaho, there would be an ability for people not in 
the United States but who would like to come here to claim they worked 
in the country illegally, and that would give them an ability to come 
here and apply for this same status. So, ironically, we would be 
turning on a neon sign that says come here with documents--they could 
be fraudulent and you could have defrauded us before--and claim that 
you worked in the country illegally, and we will let you come back in 
again.
  I don't know how you give people an advantage on the basis they 
violated our law. You would think you would want to give people an 
advantage who have played by the rules. That is the second way in which 
this bill grants amnesty and is not the right approach. As my colleague 
from Georgia talked about, we would be changing, for the first time, a 
law to allow the Legal Services Corporation to represent these illegal 
immigrants, which is something we have not been willing to do in the 
past. We have to be careful because the reason illegal immigrants are 
working here is the current H2-A law is so cumbersome to use, it is so 
subject to abuse and costs money and takes time and you can be sued, 
and so on, that employers don't like to use it. It is just not worth it 
to them. If we are going to have a bill that is no easier to use, there 
is not going to be any advantage over the current law and, as a result, 
it is going to be difficult for farmers to utilize this new provision 
if they have to look over their shoulder and wonder if the Legal 
Services Corporation is going to file a lawsuit.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, doesn't the AgJOBS 
bill, as well as the Chambliss-Kyl amendment, recognize there is a need 
in this country for agricultural workers to do the job that is not 
being done by American workers today, and we are not displacing 
American workers?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is a very good question. I think all of 
us would agree that we cannot be displacing American workers. We are 
currently not doing that today. There is a need for these employees, 
and it is really a question of which approach is the better one, to 
ensure we can match a willing worker with a willing employer without 
granting amnesty.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator from Arizona yield for another 
question?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Does the Chambliss-Kyl amendment not take the current 
H2-A program, which is very cumbersome and requires a lot of paperwork 
and requires the adverse effect wage rate to be paid, and streamline 
that program to where it is more easily usable by farmers who now 
simply don't use it because it is cumbersome? Does it alleviate some of 
the problems?
  Mr. KYL. Yes. We change the wage rate to the prevailing wage. We make 
it easier for the farmer to demonstrate that there are not American 
workers available to do the jobs. We make it easier, cheaper, faster, 
but with protections for the employees.
  I think all of that is why the American Farm Bureau Federation has 
endorsed our legislation as the best way for them to satisfy these 
employment needs.
  Mr. President, I will close and allow my colleagues the opportunity 
to speak. Senator Craig wants to disagree with us, and I want to give 
him that opportunity. Let me allow him to describe his bill, and we can 
have a debate back and forth as to which bill better satisfies our 
employment needs or requirements but doing so in a way that we can 
actually get a bill passed and sent to the President; i.e., a bill that 
doesn't include amnesty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Arizona 
finally coming to the floor with a piece of legislation. For the last 
several years, I have challenged the Senate to deal with what I 
believe, and I think most colleagues believe, is a very urgent problem. 
Our borders, as much money as we have poured into them and as many new 
border patrolmen as we have put along them--primarily our southern 
border today--are still being overrun substantially by illegal people 
crossing.
  While we have been trying, since 9/11, to understand and reform our 
immigration laws, there has been a great deal of talk, but very little 
done--some 1,300 days now of high-flying political talk about the 
dramatic problem that we awakened to post-9/11, and that was that there 
were between 8 million to 12 million undocumented illegal people in

[[Page 6727]]

our country--most of them here and working hard to help themselves and 
their families. But it was obvious there were a few here with the 
evilest intent in mind: to destroy our country and to destroy us, too.
  While I accept the argument, as most do, that comprehensive 
immigration reform is critical, right now we have a critical situation 
in front of us as it relates to agriculture. Starting about 5 years 
ago, and before 9/11, American agriculture was attempting to get the 
Congress to look at their plight. The plight was obvious and simple--
and criticize it if you will--but the reality was that 50 to 70 percent 
of their workforce was undocumented, and the law we had given them, as 
the Senator from Arizona has so clearly spoken to, was so cumbersome, 
costly, and so untimely--and the key to timeliness is when the crop is 
in the field and ripe, it has to come out or it rots--that American 
agriculture could not depend on it. The workforce who was seeking the 
work in American agriculture began to recognize it. If you will, the 
black market or the illegal processes began.
  It should not be a surprise to any of us that when government stands 
in the way of commerce, stands in the way of an economy, usually people 
find a way around it. Tragically enough, it happened. But, by 
definition, it was an illegal way.
  Last year, in our country, there were 2 months in which we were a net 
importer of food. This year, it is guesstimated it could be in as many 
as 6 months that we will be a net importer of food, and that will be 
the first time, in the history of American agriculture, that becomes 
the situation. So why we are here on the floor today debating a piece 
of a much broader overall immigration problem is because it is urgent, 
it is important we deal with it, and we deal with it now as 
thoughtfully and as thoroughly as we can. That is why I insisted that 
the Senate come to this issue.
  I am glad my colleagues have come up with an alternative. I think the 
provisions in it are quickly thought up. They were criticizing my bill 
earlier because I offered a temporary visa. They offer a visa. They 
offered it for 3 years--3 years--as many as 9 years. What I am glad to 
hear said, for those who argue what we were doing was an amnesty issue, 
is that it is no longer viewed as that, that we recognize there is a 
legitimate need for an American agricultural workforce, and it is 
critically necessary we make it a legal workforce for the sake of our 
country, for the sake of our borders, and for the sake of American 
agriculture.
  That is what this debate will be all about in the next several hours 
and tomorrow morning before we vote on this issue. Both sides have 
accepted a rather unusual procedure, Mr. President--a supermajority 
procedure. Why? Well, we are germane to this supplemental bill because 
of what the House did earlier with a Sensenbrenner amendment dealing 
with what is known as REAL ID. It dealt with immigration and, as a 
result of dealing with immigration in the House, we were legitimized to 
do so, in a germane way, in the Senate. We will do that.
  At the same time, we all understand that in legislative procedures, 
on cloture 60 votes are required. We have agreed to do so. Tomorrow, we 
will vote--first on the Chambliss-Kyl amendment and then on the Craig 
amendment. It will require 60 votes to proceed. Whether we succeed or 
fail--and I think I can succeed--what is most important is that the 
American people are beginning to hear just a little bit about what they 
have deserved to hear for the last 1,300 days, since 
9/11 awakened us all to the dysfunctional character and the lack of 
enforcement of immigration law that has been going on for well over two 
decades. It was so typical of a Congress that wanted to talk a lot 
about it but do very little about it.
  The Senator from Arizona and I and the Senator from Georgia, without 
question, agree on the critical nature of American agriculture today. 
What we also agree on--symbolic by their presence on the floor today, 
debating the issue and offering an alternative--is that we cannot build 
the wall high enough along our southern border, we cannot dig its 
foundation deep enough to close that border off, that it requires good, 
clear, simple, understandable, functioning law, not unlike the old 
Bracero Program of the 1950s when we had a guest worker program, when 
we identified the worker with the work, and they came, they worked, and 
they went home.
  Up until that time, illegal immigration was astronomically high. It 
dropped precipitously during that period of time when we were 
identifying and being able to work about 500,000 workers who were 
foreign national in American agriculture. It was a law that worked.
  Then somehow, in the sixties, Congress got it all wrong again. Why? 
Because they thought they were protecting an American workforce. But 
what the AFL-CIO found out and why they support my legislation is that 
there are unique types of employment in this country with which the 
American workforce will not identify.
  I am pleased to hear that the Chambliss-Kyl bill, along with mine, 
provides a first-hire American approach. We create a labor pool. The 
employer must first go there, but if that workforce is not available, 
they do not have to languish there because, in essence, they have a 
crop to harvest, and the crop is time sensitive. We understand all of 
that.
  I will get to the detail of my bill over the course of the afternoon 
and tomorrow. This is a bill that for 5 years has been worked out 
between now over 509 organizations. It is interesting that the Farm 
Bureau supports the Kyl-Chambliss approach, but they do not oppose my 
approach. And last year they supported my approach. In other words, 
they are as frustrated as all of us are about this very real problem of 
immigration. First they are here and then they are there. What is most 
important is that we are here on the floor of the Senate this afternoon 
talking about an issue on which this Senate has been absent way too 
long.
  What the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Georgia, and I and 
others who will be on the floor--I see my prime cosponsor Senator 
Kennedy is on the floor--believe is that this is an issue whose time is 
coming, and we believe for agriculture it is now because it is critical 
and it is necessary. We are learning at this moment that as much money 
as we throw at the border, as many Border Patrol men as we hire, if the 
law on the other side does not back them up, if the law on the other 
side does not create a reasonable pathway forward for a workforce to be 
legal and a workforce that is necessary in this country, then you 
cannot put them along the border unless they are arm length to arm 
length from the Gulf of Mexico to San Diego. And even then, those folks 
have to sleep.
  The reality is, we have to get the law right, and the law has been 
wrong for a great long while. In the absence of a functioning, 
reasonable law, we have set up for our country a human disaster. Not 
only do we have an uncontrolled illegal population in our country, but 
because they have no rights, because of the way they are treated, it is 
not unusual in the course of a given year to see 200 or 300 lose their 
lives along the southern border of our country, to see our emergency 
rooms in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California flooded, to see the 
very culture and the very character and foundation of our country at 
risk because we do not control process, we do not control immigration, 
and we do not do so in an upright, legal, and responsible way.
  We are here. We are going to debate this for a time, and there will 
be much more debate tomorrow. We will have some key votes to see 
whether we proceed to deal with the bill that I call AgJOBS and that 
509 organizations across the country that have worked with us for the 
last 5 to 6 years call AgJOBS. It is a major reform in the H-2A law. It 
is a simplification. It is a clearer understanding. It is a reasonable 
process: The blue card, if you will, or the green card that is 
acceptable, normal, and understandable and provided in a temporary and 
earned way, as my bill does, is simply a point in transition, and it 
ought to be viewed as that.

[[Page 6728]]

  You will hear the rhetoric that it will allow millions of people to 
become legal. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Labor, 
does not agree with that at all. The Department of Labor says there are 
about 500,000 who they think will responsibly and legitimately come 
forward, and of that, there may be dependence of around 200,000 that 
are already in this country because that workforce has been here 5 or 6 
years or more, for that matter. So those numbers are reasonable and 
realistic, and that is a moment in time, a transition as we create a 
law and allow American agriculture to work their way into a functioning 
realistic H-2A program that is timely, that is sensitive, that meets 
their workforce needs, and recognizes the value and the production of 
American agriculture.
  If we do not correct this law and correct it now, Americans have a 
choice because we already decided years ago, based on the character of 
the work, that most Americans would not do it. They had better jobs and 
alternative jobs. So American agriculture began to rely on a foreign 
workforce.
  I say this most directly, and I mean it most sincerely. Either 
foreign workers will harvest America's agricultural produce for 
America's consumers or foreign workers will harvest agriculture in 
another country to be shipped to American consumers. Ask an American 
today what they want. They want a safe food supply. They want an 
abundant food supply. They hope it would be reasonably priced. But most 
assuredly, they want to know that it is safe and it is reliable. The 
only way to guarantee that is that it be harvested in this country, as 
it has been from the beginning history of our great country. It was not 
for 2 months last year and possibly not for 6 months this year.
  We have a choice to make. We either create a legal workforce, a 
workforce that is identifiable, or we keep stumbling down this road 
that no American wants us to go down, and that is to not control our 
borders, to not identify the foreign nationals within our borders, and 
to not have a reasonable, legal, and timely process. That is what the 
debate is all about.
  I am pleased to see the other side, having been in opposition for so 
long, finally say, Whoa, I think maybe we ought to try to get this 
right. We disagree on process, we disagree on their approach, but there 
is similarity in many instances on reform of the H-2A program. We will 
work over the course of this afternoon, evening, and tomorrow to break 
all those differences out so all of our Senators can see these 
differences and sense the importance of what we debate.
  There are many others who have come to the floor to discuss this 
legislation this afternoon. I yield the floor so the debate can 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the proposal 
offered by Senators Craig and Kennedy. I see Senator Kennedy on the 
floor and Senator Craig on the floor. Their work is a testament to 
their persistence and the staying power of a handful of agricultural 
workers and employers who have been willing to set aside ideology and 
partisanship to hammer out a major overhaul of our law in this area.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield for a 
procedural question?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Oregon, we have the 
Senator from Massachusetts here, and the Senator from Alabama has been 
here, as has the Senator from Georgia been on the floor when there was 
no one else present. I wonder if we can get some general agreement of 
going back and forth between proponents or opponents or proponents of 
the two separate bills so the Chair has some idea of order and the 
debate participants do as well.
  I offer this as a suggestion. I have not proposed a unanimous consent 
request, but perhaps some of the staff can work this out while the 
Senator from Oregon is speaking.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Because our debate time, as I understand it, is actually 
tomorrow, and I think we will go off and on this issue today, and 
because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is on the floor 
managing the supplemental and may have other amendments he wants to 
deal with, I would hope we can rely on the Chair for moving us back and 
forth in a balanced way from side to side before we look at a 
structured way to proceed. I have difficulty with that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Arizona in his 
request. I think it is important if we are to spend most of the 
afternoon on the issue. If we could work out an orderly arrangement, 
that would be good.
  Mr. KYL. Let me propose this unanimous consent, Mr. President, if I 
may. The Senator from Oregon is speaking right now. I ask unanimous 
consent that after the Senator from Oregon is finished, so there would 
have been two Members speaking on behalf of the legislation of the 
Senator from Idaho, that at that point, the debate next go back and 
forth between proponents of the Chambliss-Kyl amendment and then back 
to Kennedy-Craig, and anyone offering an amendment can obviously seek 
to ask unanimous consent to lay the pending business aside, but in the 
meantime the debate on these two provisions that will both be voted 
upon tomorrow proceed with speakers on either side rotating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend from New Mexico who was 
here before I was here. Let him proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have two amendments to offer, and it 
will take a total of about 3 minutes. I do not expect votes on them 
today, of course, but I would like a chance to very briefly offer them, 
and then have them set aside, if I can do that after the Senator from 
Oregon concludes his remarks and before the rest of the debate 
continues.
  Mr. KYL. That is accommodated in the unanimous consent request which 
I proposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I welcome the opportunity 
to work this out. Can we perhaps get some time understanding as well? 
The Senator from Oregon mentioned he will probably need 15 minutes. 
Could we get some kind of understanding about the length of time? 
Generally we go from Republican to Democrat. Now we are looking at 
going from proponents to opponents. I do not mind that, but if we can 
limit this to 15 minutes each--I see we have a number of people--would 
that be agreeable? So we would go to Senator Wyden, and because the 
Senator from Arizona has been so persuasive, we will hear two on his 
side, and maybe Senator Bingaman can be recognized after Senator Wyden, 
and then two for the Senator's side, 15 minutes each, and then I be 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to have my unanimous consent request amended 
along the lines of what the Senator from Massachusetts said.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is clear anybody coming to the floor to offer 
amendments to the supplemental would have that right.
  Mr. KYL. They could ask unanimous consent to intervene, and obviously 
it will be granted.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KYL. Let me propound the unanimous consent request again, if I 
can. I ask unanimous consent that in 15-minute blocks of time Senator 
Wyden proceed without any of this time coming off his, there then be 
two 15-minute blocks for the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from 
Georgia, followed by a 15-minute block for the Senator from 
Massachusetts, but in the meantime, Senator Bingaman be able to offer 
his amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a remarkable coalition of agricultural 
employers and farm workers has come together behind the Craig-Kennedy

[[Page 6729]]

amendment. I commend them for all of their efforts. I simply wanted to 
spend a few minutes and talk about a bit of lineage behind this whole 
effort.
  To some extent, this began on the afternoon of July 23, 1998, when I 
had the opportunity to join with my friend and colleague Senator Gordon 
Smith and we offered an amendment to overhaul this program. It was, in 
fact, entitled the AgJOBS amendment. It had the strong support of 
Senator Craig at that time. We received 68 votes for that legislation. 
I think it was an indication then, as we see today, how the system 
works for no one.
  To a great extent, we see so many who feel we have lost control of 
our borders. The system surely does not work for the honest 
agricultural employer, and the vast majority certainly meet that test, 
and for many farm workers who work hard and contribute every single 
day. The system simply does not work for anyone. So what Senator Smith 
and I tried to do that July day in 1998 was to begin to address the 
foundation of a sensible immigration policy based on the proposition 
that what we have been doing does not work for anybody. It does not 
work for our country.
  We live under a contradiction every day with respect to immigration. 
We say we are against illegal immigration. One can hear that in every 
coffee shop in the United States. Then we look the other way so as to 
deal with agriculture or perhaps motels, hotels, restaurants, and a 
variety of other establishments. We have to resolve that contradiction. 
We ought to resolve it by making the kind of start the Craig-Kennedy 
legislation does by saying we are going to put our focus on legal 
workers who are here in compliance with the law. That is what we sought 
to do that July day in 1998, requiring the growers to hire U.S. 
farmworkers first before they could seek alien workers. Then we took 
steps to try to ensure a measure of justice that would be required in 
our legislation for the migrant farmworkers by providing employment, 
housing, transportation, and other benefits, access to Head Start. I 
think Senator Kennedy remembers this well from 1998. One would have 
thought Western civilization was going to end when that amendment 
offered by Oregon's two Senators got 68 votes in the Senate. I think it 
was an indication of how the animosity and fear that has surrounded 
this issue has enveloped the whole debate over the last few years, and 
that is why I commend Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy for the 
thoughtful way they have worked since 1998 in order to build a 
coalition for this idea and to refine what the Senate voted for in 
1998.
  For example, in 1999, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, 
the employer group that helped start the process that led to the first 
AgJOBS bill of 1998, started reaching out directly to the Hispanic 
community representing agricultural workers, as well as churches and 
community groups. A dialog was begun then about how reform could 
benefit everyone.
  In 2000, people from the agricultural employer community and those 
representing the farmworkers started talking more publicly about some 
of the issues that were particularly contentious. All of a sudden, 
there was an extended and thoughtful debate among people who were 
avowed enemies with respect to the topic of H-2A reform. Those people 
who had fought each other so bitterly began to come together and form a 
coalition that is behind the Craig-Kennedy amendment today.
  In 1996, I formulated certain beliefs with respect to this issue that 
still hold true today. First, I believe willing and able American 
workers always should be given a chance to fulfill the needs of 
employers seeking agricultural labor. This was addressed in 1998 and it 
remains in the language before the Senate today. The amendment offered 
by Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy requires employers seeking to use 
the H-2A program to first offer the job to any eligible U.S. worker who 
applies and who is equally or better qualified for the job, and then 
issue notice to local and State employment agencies, farmworkers 
organizations, and also through advertising.
  We also said back then we wanted to have recommendations for a more 
straightforward, less cumbersome, less unwieldy process to address the 
shortage of primary foreign workers.
  I commend Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy because what we had been 
concerned about then--the need for simplicity and certainty--is now 
embodied in a number of aspects in this amendment. Employers are 
required to provide actual employment to the worker, a living wage and 
proof of that employment so the worker can move freely between jobs. 
The employee is required to show proof of legal temporary worker status 
in the United States to the employer before becoming employed. Each 
party shoulders the burden of ensuring their documentation is legal. 
That is the way we said it ought to be in 1998. That is the way it is 
in the Craig-Kennedy proposal.
  Third, I have always maintained and still maintain that a farmer 
using the H-2A program should not be able to misuse it to displace U.S. 
agricultural workers or make U.S. workers worse off. The language 
before us today meets that test by ensuring that H-2A workers must be 
paid the same wage as the American worker. There is no incentive to 
seek a guest worker because there is no opportunity to indenture that 
worker by paying lower wages or not providing enough work.
  Fourth, and perhaps most important, we said then and it is clear in 
this amendment as well that any program must not encourage the illegal 
immigration of workers. This bill addresses that by requiring 
agricultural workers to show they are legally in the United States in 
order to collect the benefits available under this program, such as 
housing, transportation, and the civil right to sue their employers for 
back wages or for wrongful dismissal.
  So the goal of this legislation is to take out some of the 
uncertainty and the lack of predictability that has been in this 
program, and that uncertainty would be removed for both growers and 
workers.
  Certainly my State has a great interest in agriculture. There are 
certainly billions of dollars of direct economic output in this sector 
and there is a need to enact H-2A programs for my State, where we feel 
we do a lot of things well, but what we do best is we grow things, and 
the need for enacting this program is as great today as it was in 1998. 
Both sides in this debate are going to continue to have their 
differences, and my guess is, as the Senator from Idaho knows, there 
are probably some residual and historical grudges. This Craig-Kennedy 
proposal shows that in a very contentious area that has been gridlocked 
in the Senate since a July date in 1998, we can still find a creative 
process that brings people together to solve mutual problems.
  I hope my colleagues will support this historic effort. I look 
forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle on this 
matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business? Is there 
an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Chambliss 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 483

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set that 
aside so I can call up an amendment numbered 483.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 483.

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

(Purpose: To increase the appropriation to Federal courts by $5,000,000 
  to cover increased immigration-related filings in the southwestern 
                             United States)

       On page 202, strike line 24, and insert ``$65,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2006, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be

[[Page 6730]]

     made available for costs associated with increases in 
     immigration-related filings in district courts near the 
     southwestern border of the United States:''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an 
additional $5 million for the U.S. district courts along our southwest 
border with Mexico. Due to the increased immigration enforcement 
efforts along that border, southwest border courts have seen an 
extraordinary increase in immigration-related filings. This amendment 
would help border courts cover those expenses as we continue allocating 
resources to secure our Nation's borders.
  Since 1995, immigration cases in the five southwest border 
districts--that is, the District of Arizona, District of New Mexico, 
Southern District of California, and the Southern and Western Districts 
of Texas--have grown approximately 828 percent. In 2003, overall 
immigration filings in all U.S. district courts surged 22 percent. In 
2004, they jumped 11 percent. Of those cases, 69 percent of them came 
from these five districts I have listed.
  In recent years, Congress has appropriated millions of dollars to 
hire additional Border Patrol officers. Obviously, the more Border 
Patrol officers you have, the more cases you have coming into the 
Federal district courts. We need to recognize this. We need to 
recognize the enormous impact this is having on our courts in this part 
of the country.
  This amendment would add an additional $5 million to southwest border 
courts to the existing $60 million that is currently allocated under 
the supplemental to cover expenses related to recent Supreme Court 
decisions and the class action bill. The Administrative Office of the 
Courts should be free to allocate the funds as it deems necessary among 
the various courts. I hope my colleagues will support that amendment.


                           Amendment No. 417

  At this point I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up 
amendment No. 417, the Grassley-Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mr. 
     Grassley, for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 417.

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

  (Purpose: To provide emergency funding to the Office of the United 
                      States Trade Representative)

       On page 200, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses of the 
     Office of the United States Trade Representative, $2,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering on 
behalf of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and myself. It would 
provide an additional $2 million in funding to the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative for the balance of the current fiscal year. The 
reasons for the amendment are straightforward. As many of us have 
heard, because of the lack of funding, the Office of the Trade 
Representative has been forced to eliminate a substantial portion of 
its foreign travel. It has placed a freeze on all its hiring. It is 
essentially no longer able to do the job we are requiring it to do.
  In my opinion, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office is chronically 
underfunded and understaffed as it is. It is the principal agency in 
charge of negotiating and enforcing our trade agreements, and it 
certainly deserves our support, particularly in this time of 
unprecedented trade imbalances.
  We talk a lot about holding our partners to their obligations in 
trade agreements. We talk about protecting U.S. jobs. Unfortunately, we 
have not dedicated a proper amount of resources to this effort.
  This fiscal year, the Trade Representative's Office has faced 
unexpected additional constraints as a result of the WTO Ministerial, 
travel related to enforcement, the need for more staff to pursue 
congressionally mandated enforcement actions, and substantial 
fluctuations in the exchange rate, almost all of which fluctuations, I 
would point out, have been adverse to the dollar.
  This amendment will provide the Trade Representative's Office with 
the emergency funding needed to get through this fiscal year. It is an 
investment well worth making. It will add to U.S. competitiveness and 
economic security. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
  I ask that amendment be set aside and the earlier amendment by 
Senator Chambliss be brought up again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 483

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do not see Senator Chambliss, but I 
would like to enter into a discussion. We will be voting tomorrow on 
the AgJOBS bill and the Kyl-Chambliss bill, and maybe other bills--the 
Mikulski bill and who knows what else--in the next few days as we are 
debating the emergency supplemental. These are amendments filed to the 
emergency supplemental, legislation to provide funding for our 
magnificent soldiers who are ably serving our country in harm's way to 
carry out a national policy that we sent them to carry out.
  We have been told that since the House of Representatives, when they 
passed their emergency supplemental, added several provisions to 
enhance our border security, recommendations that were in substance 
made by the 9/11 Commission to provide greater protection to our 
country against attacks by terrorists, such action by the House has 
opened the door to any immigration language and bill that we want to 
offer, that any Member may favor, to be added right onto a supplemental 
for our soldiers. There is a tremendous difference between those 
provisions, in my view. The Sensenbrenner language in the House bill is 
narrow, based on recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, related to our 
national defense and should have broad-based support. I hope it does. 
The President supports it. The AgJOBS bill, however, is controversial. 
It deals with a very large and complex subject that affects our economy 
and our legal system in a significant way. We absolutely should not be 
attempting to slip such legislation of such great importance, and on 
which our country is so divided, onto the emergency defense 
supplemental.
  Let me speak frankly on the issue. There is no legislative or 
national consensus about how to fix our immigration system. I serve on 
the subcommittee on immigration of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We 
have been having a series of important hearings on this subject. Our 
chairman, Senator John Cornyn, has been working very hard and providing 
sound leadership, but our subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee 
and this Senate are nowhere near ready to develop a comprehensive 
immigration proposal. This is made clear when we see that a number of 
outstanding Senators who worked on immigration over the years--such as 
Senator Kyl, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Saxby Chambliss--are 
working on legislation, also.

  Surely no one can say this AgJOBS bill that really kicked off this 
debate is not a colossally important piece of legislation. Every one of 
us in this body knows that immigration is a matter of great importance 
to our country and one that we must handle carefully and properly. 
After the complete failure of the 1986 amnesty effort, surely we know 
we must do better this time.
  Let me state this clearly. I believe we can improve our laws 
regarding how people enter our country, how they work here, and how 
they become citizens in this country, and we should do so. We 
absolutely can do that. Many fine applicants are not being accepted, 
applicants who could enrich our Nation.

[[Page 6731]]

  Further, as a prosecutor of 15 years, a Federal prosecutor for almost 
that long, without hesitation I want to say this: If we improve our 
fundamental immigration laws and policies, and if at the same time we 
work to create an effective enforcement system, then we can absolutely 
eliminate this unconscionable lawlessness that is now occurring in our 
country and improve immigration policies across the board, serving our 
national interests and being certainly more sensitive to the legitimate 
interests of those who would like to come here, live here, work here, 
or even become citizens.
  Any such legislation we pass should, in addition, protect our 
national security. Of course, we need to keep an eye on our national 
security--Have we forgotten that? Surely not--and allow increased 
approval for technically advanced, educated and skilled persons and 
students, as well as farm labor.
  More importantly, under no circumstances should we pass bad 
legislation that will further erode the rule of law, that will make the 
current situation worse and will violate important principles that are 
essential for an effective national immigration policy.
  Some will say, Well, Jeff, it is time to do something, even if it is 
not perfect. My direct answer to that is it is past time to pass laws 
that improve the ability of our country to protect our security from 
those who would do us harm. That is our duty. But we simply are not 
ready to legislate comprehensively on the complex issue of immigration.
  We have not come close to completing our hearings in the appropriate 
subcommittees and the Judiciary Committee.
  More importantly still, time or not, we must not pass bad 
legislation. The Nation tried amnesty for farmworkers in 1986 and few 
would deny it was a failure. That legislation, the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act, established within it section 304. The Commission's 
duty was, after the act had been in effect for some time, to study its 
impact on the American farming industry. The Commission issued its 
report and found, in every area, farm labor problems had not been 
improved and as many as 70 percent of the applications for amnesty were 
fraudulent.
  I wish that weren't so. I wish we could pass laws that people conjure 
up which would solve the complex problems and it will all just work 
like we think it might. I am sure those people, in 1986, heard the 
exact same argument we are hearing today why this kind of legislation 
is so critical. They tried it. But they put in a commission to study 
it.
  The Commission was clear. The Commission said:

       In retrospect, the concept of worker specific and industry 
     specific legislation was fundamentally flawed.

  That is exactly what the AgJOBS bill is, industry and worker 
specific. Indeed, it is the same industry and the same workers--
agriculture--that the 1986 sponsors said would be fixed by their bill. 
It was an amnesty to end all amnesty. That is what they said. Now we 
are at it again in the same way.
  Later, in 1997, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, an African-
American leader of national renown, was authorized, by a 1990 
immigration law, to chair a commission. The Commission reported to 
President Clinton on the status of existing immigration law. The Jordan 
Commission found that the guest worker programs do not ``reduce 
unauthorized migration. To the contrary, research consistently shows 
that they tend to encourage and exacerbate illegal movements by setting 
up labor recruitment and family networks that persist long after the 
guest programs end.''
  The Commission further concluded that what was needed was an 
immigration system that had integrity where laws were enforced, 
including employer sanctions. I will quote from their report. They 
stated:

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

  Our enforcement efforts remind me of the man who builds an 8-foot 
ladder to try to reach across a 10-foot chasm. While he may have been 
close, close doesn't count in such an event. He is heading for 
disaster.
  We are not as far away as most people think from an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It is absolutely not hopeless for this country 
to gain control of its borders, especially with the new technology we 
have today--biometrics and that kind of thing. We are spending billions 
of dollars, but we are spending that money very unwisely. The solution 
to our immigration situation is to review the procedures by which 
people come to our country, and the procedures by which people become 
citizens, and to then steadfastly plan a method that will work to 
enforce those rules. Without that enforcement, no matter what changes 
we make in our current law, we will be right back here discussing 
Amnesty III for agricultural farmworkers before this decade is out. 
This is plainly obvious to anyone who would look at our current system.
  By all means, this Nation should not, in response to this current 
failure, pass a bill like what has been offered which basically says 
our current system has failed and we intend to give up and do nothing 
to fix it. It says we have failed, our system is not working so we are 
just going to quit trying and let everybody stay in. The American 
people are not going to be happy if they learn that is what we are 
about here. They surely will learn about it sooner or later.
  Polls show huge majorities, upwards of 80 percent, want a lawful 
system of immigration. Why are we resistant to that?
  It has been amazing to me, anytime a piece of legislation is offered 
that might actually work to tighten up the loopholes we have, it is 
steadfastly opposed and seems never to become law.
  I feel very strongly about this. If it is not amnesty, I don't know 
what amnesty is.
  This bill will bestow legal status and a guaranteed pass to 
citizenship for over a million individuals, perhaps 3 million, perhaps 
even more.
  The Commissioners who studied the last bill all agreed the number 
that actually obtained amnesty was far greater than anticipated.
  In addition, it makes no provision whatsoever for commensurate 
improvement of law enforcement.
  It hurts me, as somebody who spent most of my professional life 
trying to enforce laws passed by Congress, to see us undermine the 
ability of our system to actually work.
  The passage of this legislation will be the equivalent of placing a 
neon sign on our border that says: Yes, we have laws but we welcome you 
to try to sneak into our country, and if you are successful, we will 
reward you, as we have done twice before, with permanent residency and 
a step onto citizenship.
  Under this legislation, if a person has worked within 18 months, 575 
hours or 100 workdays--and a workday is defined in the act as working 1 
hour--then for 100 hours within 18 months, they are eligible to apply 
for a temporary resident status even though they are here plainly and 
utterly illegally. They do not have to go home and make another 
application; they simply apply for this. In addition, they become a 
temporary resident.
  It then provides they can ask for permanent resident status and that 
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall grant them this permanent 
resident status if they work 2,000 hours in a 6-year period. That is 
about 1 year of work period. Then they apply for a permanent resident 
status. In 5 years, if they have not been convicted of a felony or have 
not been convicted of three misdemeanors, the Secretary shall confer 
citizenship on them if they apply.
  If they become a permanent resident citizen, they can call for their 
family, who may be out of the country. A family who never had any 
thought to come to this country is allowed to come in free. All of them 
are put on a guaranteed track for citizenship.

[[Page 6732]]

  Indeed, if they have already left the country not intending to 
return, but did work 575 hours in 18 months before that period, or if 
they are willing to say they did--true or not--they get to come back in 
and bring their families with them. Maybe a person here never intended 
to bring their family, but faced with this offer, they bring them in.
  I am not sure we know how broad this bill is, how dangerous this 
language is.
  I have a host of specific complaints about the provisions within the 
statute. I will talk about them later today or tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I concur in about everything my friend 
from Alabama has said. Initially, he made a comment relative to 
debating immigration law on a Defense supplemental bill where we are 
trying to provide funds for our men and women who are serving so 
bravely overseas today. I concur in that.
  I had hoped we would have an expansive debate on this very sensitive 
and complicated issue. I know my friend, the Senator from Idaho, feels 
exactly as I do on this, but unfortunately we have been dictated to by 
the rules of the Senate relative to this issue. That is why we have 
both of these amendments up for discussion today.
  The Senator from Alabama is exactly right. He is also right on one 
other thing. There are two amendments we are debating, AgJOBS, filed by 
the Senator from Idaho and Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, and the 
Chambliss-Kyl amendment. Both of these amendments recognize, as the 
Senator from Alabama said, we have a problem. We have a problem in the 
agriculture community relative to providing our farmers all across 
America a stable, secure, and lawful pool from which to choose for 
their labor needs.
  We can argue over how many hundreds of thousands or how many millions 
of individuals are illegally in this country today working on our 
farms. The Senator from Idaho said the Department of Labor says there 
will only be a few hundred thousand who will try to take advantage of 
this. I don't think that is right. I don't have a lot of faith in the 
numbers coming out of some of the studies that have been done.
  For example, there was a study by GAO a couple of years ago which 
said there were some 600,000 farmworkers in the United States today who 
are here illegally. In my State, there are hundreds of thousands of 
illegal aliens who are working in agriculture as well as working in 
other industries today. Those who are working in other industries 
probably started out working in agriculture. That is 1 out of 50 
States. Our number is dwarfed by Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, 
California, by those States that are on the border with our friends to 
the South in Mexico, where thousands of illegal aliens are crossing the 
border every day.
  However, we do recognize there is a certain number--and it is not 
material as to what that number is--but the fact is we agree there are 
hundreds of thousands or millions of folks here illegally.
  The basic difference between the Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy 
AgJOBS amendment and the Chambliss-Kyl amendment is this: Which 
direction do we want to go with regard to identifying those folks here 
illegally? Do we want to reward those folks here illegally, as the 
AgJOBS amendment proposes to do, or do we want to identify those people 
and those who are here illegally who are making a valuable contribution 
to the economy of the United States and who, most significantly, are 
not displacing American workers--and I emphasize that--and who have not 
broken the law in this country? Do we want to make an accommodation for 
those folks so they can continue to contribute to the economy of the 
United States by virtue of working in the agriculture community?
  We both agree we ought to regulate these folks. The difference is the 
Craig-Kennedy AgJOBS amendment gives those individuals who are in this 
country illegally a direct path to citizenship. The Chambliss-Kyl 
amendment recognizes those folks are here illegally and it says to 
them, we are going to grant you a temporary status to remain here if 
you are not displacing American workers, if you are law abiding, and if 
your employer makes an attestation that he needs you--whether it is for 
a short period of time, as the H-2A reform portion of our amendment 
calls for, or whether it is the longer term, or the blue card 
application. Unlike in the AgJOBS amendment where the illegal alien can 
make the application, in our amendment the application has to be made 
by the employer who does have to say he needs that individual in his 
employ.
  Another significant difference between these two amendments is this: 
Under the AgJOBS bill it is pretty easy in the scheme of things to 
become legal--not maybe an American citizen off the bat, but to 
position yourself to be placed in line ahead of other folks who are 
going through the normal course as set forth in our Constitution today 
to become a citizen, for these folks to make that type of application.
  Here is why. The AgJOBS bill says if you are an illegal alien, you 
shall be given status as one lawfully admitted for temporary residence 
if the illegal alien has worked 575 hours, or 100 workdays, whichever 
is less, during an 18-month period ending on December 31, 2004. Mr. 
President, 575 hours is 14.3 weeks of labor if they work 40 hours, or 
71.8 days, or approximately 3\1/2\ months. An alien can get immigration 
status after working only 3\1/2\ months of full-time employment.
  Under Senate bill 359, section 2, paragraph 7, a workday means a day 
in which an individual has worked as little as 1 hour. So 100 workdays 
can amount to, literally, 1 hour per day for 100 straight days which 
would amount to 2\1/2\ weeks. That may not be the practicality of this, 
but in actuality, that is what the bill says.
  Coming from a very heavy agriculture area, as I do, these people for 
the most part who are here working in agriculture are here for the 
reason they want to improve the quality of life for themselves as well 
as their families. They are basically law-abiding people who are simply 
hard workers and are here because they have that opportunity to better 
themselves in this country versus their native country.
  But still, are we going to recognize those folks for what they are--
and that is an illegal alien--or are we going to grant them this legal 
status after being here for 3\1/2\ months?
  I do not think the American people ever intended for the Constitution 
of the United States, and for us operating under that Constitution, to 
grant legal status to anybody who breaks the law, to come into this 
country, and who may break the law not once, not twice, but three times 
during that 3\1/2\-month period under the AgJOBS bill, as they can do, 
and get legal status. I cannot conceive that America wants us to enact 
that type of legislation.
  A basic difference between the AgJOBS bill and the Chambliss-Kyl 
amendment relative to those issues is we do not put anybody on a path 
to legal status. We grant them temporary status under the H-2A bill. If 
the farmer comes in and says, ``I need 100 workers for 90 days to work 
on my farm, and here is what they are going to do,'' we will have that 
application processed in a streamlined fashion, compared to the way the 
application would have to be processed today, and those workers can 
come in, and whether they are cutting lettuce or cutting cabbage or 
picking cucumbers, they will be able to come in for that 100 days, and 
at the end of that 100 days, they will return to their native land.
  If there are other operations, other farming operations, whether it 
is a landscaper or somebody in the nursery business, that need 
individuals 12 months out of the year, they will have the opportunity 
under our bill to apply for the blue card--again, a temporary status. 
It must be applied for by the employer, not the illegal alien, as you 
can do under the AgJOBS bill. The employer must make the application 
for those individuals. No preferential status toward citizenship is 
given.

[[Page 6733]]

  They can have that blue card for 3 years, and reapply on two separate 
occasions following that first application. Technically, they could 
stay here for 9 years, if they continue to be law abiding and if their 
employer makes the proper attestation that says he needs them, that 
they have been important to the economy of this country, and they are 
not displacing American workers. It is significantly different from 
actually the legal status given after 3\1/2\ months under the AgJOBS 
bill.
  Where does the AgJOBS bill move this individual relative to the 
pathway to citizenship? What current immigration law says is for 
somebody who is here legally, if they work for 2,060 hours under the 
AgJOBS bill, at the end of that 1 year, which is approximately 2,060 
hours of work, they can apply for a green card, and they are going to 
be given preferential treatment in getting that green card.
  What current immigration law says is anybody who has maintained a 
green card for 5 years can apply for citizenship. That is the pathway 
to citizenship that is being granted to folks who are in this country 
illegally today, who can have broken the law in this country today, not 
once, not twice, but three times, and still be looked at as somebody 
who is given preferential treatment over those individuals who are 
outside of this country who want to become citizens of the United 
States, who want to come here legally and do it the right way.
  It simply is not fair. It is not equitable. I cannot believe the 
American people want to see us enact a law that will reward those 
individuals who have come into this country illegally in that way.
  Lastly, let me mention one other point that is critically different 
between the AgJOBS bill and the Chambliss-Kyl amendment; and that is 
the issue relative to control of the border. The AgJOBS bill is 
basically silent when it comes to control of the border. But what it 
does do is it says if you have previously worked in the United States, 
and you are now back in your home country, you can come and make 
application for the adjusted status by saying you did work 575 hours 
within a certain period of time and, therefore, you should be given 
legal status in this country. And that will happen.
  The difference in our provisions relative to control of the border is 
we mandate that the Department of Homeland Security come back to 
Congress within 6 months after the effective date of this legislation 
and report to us on a plan they are going to put in place to control 
our borders. Because, let me tell you, I don't care what bill we pass, 
which of these amendments we pass, or any future bill we may pass 
relative to the immigration laws of this country, if we do not control 
our borders, we have not made one positive step in the right direction.
  We simply must figure out a way to control our borders. We think 
rather than us legislating a way in which that be done, those folks who 
deal with the issue every day, those folks at the Department of 
Homeland Security, are better suited to determine how we can come up 
with a plan to control the border. We mandate that they come back to us 
with that plan to control the border within 6 months after the 
effective date of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I would simply say in closing, we agree, No. 1, there 
is a problem. I commend Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy for 
continuing to move this ball down the field, as they have done. While I 
do not necessarily agree that the Iraq supplemental is the right place 
to do it, we are here today. But it simply is a matter of in which 
direction we are going to go.
  Is it going to be looking at folks who are in this country illegally 
and rewarding them, rewarding them with a path to citizenship? Or is it 
going to be in the direction of saying, OK, we know you are here 
illegally, but if you are here and are a law-abiding individual in this 
country, and you are making a contribution to this society, and you are 
not displacing an American worker, then we are going to give you a 
temporary status? We are not going to say you are here illegally. We 
are going to say you are here legally, temporarily.
  That is a critical difference. We are going to make sure our farmers 
and our ranchers have the workforce necessary to carry out the job they 
must do of feeding Americans as well as other folks around the world, 
but we are simply not going to use that tool to put people who are here 
illegally on a pathway to one of the most precious rights every 
American citizen has, and that is citizenship of this country.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair would be good enough to notify me when I 
have 1 minute remaining, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will be happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator 
Craig in offering the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and 
Security amendment.
  America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation 
of laws, but our current immigration laws have failed us. Much of the 
Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many 
contributions of immigrants. The agricultural industry would grind to a 
halt without immigrant farmworkers. Yet the overwhelming majority of 
these workers are undocumented and are, therefore, easily exploited by 
unscrupulous employers.
  Our AgJOBS bill corrects these festering problems. It gives 
farmworkers and their families the dignity and justice they deserve, 
and it gives agricultural employers a legal workforce.
  Impressive work has been done by many grassroots organizations to 
make AgJOBS a reality. They have demonstrated true statesmanship by 
putting aside strongly held past differences to work together for the 
common good. We have our own responsibility to join in a similar way to 
approve this needed reform that is years overdue.
  I commend Senator Craig and Congressmen Berman and Cannon for their 
leadership. I urge my colleagues to wholeheartedly endorse the AgJOBS 
bill.
  Our bill reflects a far-reaching and welcome agreement between the 
United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry to meet this urgent 
need, and Congress should make the most of this unique opportunity for 
progress.
  Our bill has strong support from business and labor, civic and faith-
based organizations, liberals and conservatives, trade associations and 
immigrant rights groups. More than 500 organizations across the country 
support it.
  AgJOBS is a bipartisan compromise reached after years of 
negotiations. Both farmworkers and growers have made concessions to 
reach this agreement, but each side has obtained important benefits.
  In contrast, opponents offer a one-sided proposal that has failed to 
win the broad support AgJOBS has received. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it. It vastly favors employers at the expense of farmworkers. It 
makes harsh revisions to the current agricultural guest worker program 
and creates a new blue card program for undocumented workers without a 
path to permanent residence, and without any meaningful governmental 
oversight to prevent labor abuses.
  Agricultural employers would have the freedom to avoid hiring U.S. 
workers, displace U.S. workers already on the job, and force both U.S. 
workers and guest workers to accept low wages. They could do all this 
by claiming they can't find any U.S. workers. Even when the few labor 
protections are violated, workers would have no meaningful ability to 
enforce their legal rights.
  This program would return us to the dark and shameful era of the 
Bracero Program where abuses were rampant and widely tolerated. That is 
unacceptable. We must learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.
  The Chambliss amendment also ignores the needs of many growers and 
farmworkers. It offers no solution to the basic problem faced by 
agricultural employers--the problem that an overwhelming majority of 
the workers are

[[Page 6734]]

undocumented. By offering no path to permanent residence for these 
undocumented workers, none of the guest workers, no matter how long 
they have worked, will ever be able to earn their permanent status.
  Perhaps more troubling is the amendment's repeal of the longstanding 
adverse effect wage rate under the current program. This wage rate was 
created during the Bracero Program as a necessary program against the 
depression in wages caused by guest worker programs. The Chambliss 
proposal would replace it with a prevailing wage standard, 
substantially lower than the adverse effect wage rate. It would be 
based on the employer's own survey of prevailing wages rather than the 
Labor Department's survey. Farmworkers, who are already the lowest paid 
workers in the United States, would see their wages drop even lower. In 
contrast, the AgJOBS bill preserves the adverse effect wage rate while 
recommendations are made to Congress to resolve these long-contested 
pay issues.
  The Chambliss amendment also eliminates the key provision that gives 
U.S. workers a job preference by employers who request guest workers. 
It would end the longstanding 50 percent rule which requires employers 
to hire qualified U.S. workers who applied during the first half of the 
season. Studies have shown that this rule is a valid protection.
  In addition, the Chambliss amendment would end what they call 
positive recruitment--the obligation of employers to look for U.S. 
workers outside of the government job service which currently provides 
farmworkers with agricultural jobs. This proposal creates a new guest 
worker program for the undocumented that would offer them visas that 
would be valid only for 3 years and renewable for up to 6 additional 
years. They would have no opportunity to earn a green card no matter 
how many years they worked in the United States. In fact, they would 
actually lose their status if they merely filed an application to 
become a permanent resident.
  Senator Chambliss believes that undocumented farmworkers will come 
out of the shadows and sign up for such a temporary worker program, but 
they are highly unlikely to do so. The vast majority will be deported 
after their temporary status expires. Registering as the first step 
towards deportation is unfair, and it just won't work.
  In contrast, the AgJOBS bill offers farmworkers a genuine earned 
adjustment program that will put these workers and their families on a 
path to permanent residence. Hard-working, law-abiding farmworkers will 
be able to come out of the shadows. The Chambliss amendment is far less 
satisfactory than the AgJOBS proposal, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  Opponents of the AgJOBS bill claim that we are rushing this bill 
through Congress without full and careful consideration. This claim is 
without merit. Since 1998, the Immigration Subcommittee has held three 
hearings that have fully examined our agricultural workforce problems 
and the need to reform our immigration laws. Last year, we considered 
the issue once more. Legislation to address this problem has been 
introduced by both Republicans and Democrats in every Congress since 
1996.
  In September 2000, a breakthrough occurred, and both sides agreed to 
support compromise legislation that won broad bipartisan congressional 
support. Unfortunately, attempts to enact it were blocked in the 
lameduck session that year. The election of President Bush in 2000 
changed the dynamics of the agreement, and the compromise fell apart.
  A compromise was finally reached in September 2003 which led Senator 
Craig and me to introduce the AgJOBS bill. Last Congress, we had, as 
Senator Craig has pointed out, 63 Senate cosponsors, nearly evenly 
divided between Democrats and Republicans. Despite such strong 
bipartisan support, the leadership last year blocked our attempt to 
obtain a vote on this legislation. This is the second Congress in which 
Senator Craig and I have introduced the AgJOBS bill. Congress has had 
extensive discussions of this legislation in the past, and it is long 
past time for us to act.
  Opponents of our amendment have offered no workable solutions. We 
cannot be complacent any longer. It is time for a new approach.
  The American people want commonsense solutions to real problems such 
as immigration. They want neither open borders nor closed borders. They 
want smart borders. They are neither anti-immigrant nor anti-
enforcement. Instead, they are anti-disorder and anti-hypocrisy. They 
want the Federal Government to get its act together, to set rules that 
are realistic and fair, and to follow through and enforce these 
realistic rules effectively and efficiently.
  AgJOBS meets these goals. It addresses our national security needs, 
reflects current economic realities, and respects America's immigrant 
heritage.
  The status quo is untenable. In the last 10 years, the U.S. 
Government has spent more than $20 billion to enforce our immigration 
laws. We have tripled the number of border security agents, improved 
surveillance technology, installed other controls to strengthen border 
enforcement, especially at the southwest border. None of these efforts 
have been adequate. Illegal immigration continues.
  The proof is in the numbers. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of 
undocumented immigrants doubled from 3.5 million to 7 million. Today 
that number is nearly 11 million, with an average annual growth of 
almost 500,000. Those already here are not leaving, and new immigrants 
keep coming in. Massive deportations are unrealistic as a policy, 
impractical to carry out, and unacceptable to businesses that rely 
heavily on their labor.
  Obviously, we must control our borders and enforce our laws, but we 
first need realistic immigration laws that we can actually enforce. The 
AgJOBS bill is a significant step. By bringing these illegal workers 
out of the shadows, we will enable law enforcement to focus its efforts 
on terrorists and violent criminals. We will reduce the chaotic, 
illegal, all too deadly traffic of immigrants at our borders by 
providing safe opportunities for farmworkers and their families to 
enter and leave the country.
  The AgJOBS bill enhances our national security and makes our 
communities safer. It brings the undocumented farmworkers and their 
families out of the shadows and enables them to pass through security 
checkpoints. It shrinks the pool of law enforcement targets, enables 
our offices to train their sights more effectively on the terrorists 
and the criminals. The undocumented farmworkers eligible for this 
program will undergo rigorous security checks as they apply for legal 
status. Future temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet 
security concerns.
  The AgJOBS amendment provides a fair and reasonable way for 
undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status. It reforms the 
current visa program so that agricultural employers unable to hire 
American workers can hire needed foreign workers. Both of these 
components are critical. They serve as the cornerstone for 
comprehensive immigration reform of the agricultural sector.
  Undocumented farmworkers are clearly vulnerable to abuse by 
unscrupulous labor contractors and growers. They are less likely than 
U.S. workers to complain about low wages, poor working conditions, or 
other labor law violations. Their illegal status deprives them of 
bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farmworkers. These 
workers are already among the lowest paid of all workers in America. 
According to the most recent findings of the national agricultural 
workers survey issued last month, their average individual income is 
between $10,000 and $12,000 a year. The average annual family income is 
$15,000 to $17,000.
  Thirty percent of their households live below the poverty line. Only 
half of them own a car and even fewer own a home or even a trailer. By 
legalizing these farmworkers, the threat of deportation is removed. 
They will be on equal footing with U.S. workers and the end result will 
be higher wages,

[[Page 6735]]

better working conditions, and upward job mobility for all workers.
  Opponents of reform continually mislabel any initiative they oppose 
as ``amnesty'' in a desperate attempt to stop any significant reform. 
Instead of proposing ways to fix our current broken system, they are 
calling for more of the same--increased enforcement of broken laws. 
However, enforcing a dysfunctional system only leads to greater 
dysfunction.
  The AgJOBS bill is not an amnesty bill. The program requires 
farmworkers to earn legal status. They must demonstrate not only 
contributions but also a substantial future work commitment before they 
earn the right to remain in our country.
  First, they will receive temporary resident status, based on their 
past work experience. They must have worked for at least 100 work days 
in agriculture by December 31, 2004. To earn permanent residence, they 
must fulfill a prospective work requirement. They must work at least 
360 days in agriculture during a six-year period. At least 240 of those 
360 work days must occur during the first 3 years. Temporary residents 
who fail to fulfill the prospective agricultural work requirement will 
be dropped from the program and required to leave the country.
  It's not amnesty if you have to earn it. AgJOBS offers farm workers a 
fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us, then we're willing 
to do something fair for them. It's the only realistic solution.
  Contrary to statements made by its critics, AgJOBS does not provide a 
direct path to citizenship. Farm workers would first earn temporary 
residence if they provide evidence of past work in agriculture. The 
next step would be permanent residence, but only after they have 
completed thousands of hours of backbreaking work in agriculture--a 
process that could take up to 6 years. Once they earn permanent 
residence, these farm workers would have to wait another 5 years to be 
able to apply for citizenship. At that point, they would have to pass 
an English and civics exam, and go through extensive backgrounds 
checks. This process is long and arduous, as it should be. There is 
nothing direct about it.
  To be eligible for legal status, applicants must be persons of good 
moral character and present no criminal or national security problems. 
Whether they are applying here or at U.S. consulates abroad, all 
applicants will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. 
Like all applicants for adjustment of status, their names and birth 
dates must be checked against criminal and terrorist databases operated 
by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the State Department, 
and the CIA. Applicants' fingerprints would be sent to the FBI for a 
criminal background check, which includes comparing the applicants' 
fingerprints with all arrest records in the FBI's database.
  Contrary to arguments made by detractors of AgJOBS, terrorists will 
not be able to exploit this program to obtain legal status. Anyone with 
any ties to terrorist activity is ineligible for legal status under our 
current immigration laws, and would be ineligible under the AgJOBS 
bill. Our proposal has no loopholes for terrorists.
  Opponents of AgJOBS claim that this bill is soft on criminals. Wrong 
again. AgJOBS has the toughest provisions against those who commit 
crimes--tougher than current immigration law. Convictions for most 
crimes will make them ineligible to obtain a green card. Generally, 
these convictions include violent crimes, drug crimes, theft, and 
domestic violence. AgJOBS goes even further. Applicants can be denied 
legal status if they commit a felony or three misdemeanors. It doesn't 
matter whether the misdemeanors involve minor offenses--three 
misdemeanors and you are out, no matter how minor the misdemeanors. In 
addition, anyone convicted of a single misdemeanor who served a 
sentence of 6 months or more would also be ineligible. These rules are 
additional requirements that do not apply to other immigrants and they 
cannot be waived by DHS.
  There are those who would prefer to disqualify a farm worker who 
commits even a single minor misdemeanor, with no jail time. But that 
goes too far. In some States, it's a misdemeanor to put trash from your 
home into a roadside trash can. It's a misdemeanor to park a house 
trailer in a roadside park, or have an unleashed dog in your car on a 
State highway, or go fishing without a license.
  If we're serious about this proposal, minor offenses like these 
shouldn't have such harsh consequences. We'd be severely punishing 
hard-working men and women for minor mistakes, and tearing these 
immigrant families apart.
  It's hard to imagine any public purpose that would be served by such 
a severe punishment. But it's easy to imagine all the heart-wrenching 
stories and nightmares created by this proposal for people caught by 
its provisions. Many of these farm workers have lived in America with 
their families for many years. They've established strong ties to their 
communities, paid their taxes, and contributed to our economy. They 
deserve better than a punishment out of all proportion to their 
offense.
  Opponents of AgJOBS also claim that it will be a magnet for further 
illegal immigration. Once again, they are wrong. To be eligible for the 
earned adjustment program, farm workers must establish that they worked 
in agriculture in the past. Farm workers must have entered the United 
States prior to October, 2004. Otherwise, they are not eligible. The 
magnet argument is false. New entrants who have not worked in 
agriculture won't qualify for this program.
  Hard-working migrant farm workers are essential to the success of 
American agriculture. We need an honest agriculture policy that 
recognizes the contributions of these men and women, and respects and 
rewards their work.
  Our bill will modify the current temporary foreign agricultural 
worker program, while preserving and enhancing key labor protections. 
It strikes a fair balance. Anything else would undermine the jobs, 
wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers.
  For many employers, the current program is a bureaucratic nightmare. 
Few of them use the program, because it is so complicated, lengthy, 
uncertain, and expensive. Only 40,000-50,000 guest workers are admitted 
each year--barely 2 to 3 percent of the estimated total agricultural 
work force.
  To deal with these problems, the bill streamlines the H-2A program's 
application process by making it a ``labor attestation'' program 
similar to the H-1B program, rather than the current ``labor 
certification'' program. This change will reduce paperwork for 
employers and accelerate processing.
  Employers seeking temporary workers will file an application with the 
Secretary of Labor containing assurances that they will comply with the 
program's obligations. The application will be accompanied by a job 
offer that the local job service office will post on an electronic job 
registry at least 28 days before the job begins. In addition, the 
employer must post the position at the work site, notify the collective 
bargaining representative if one exists, make reasonable efforts to 
contact past employees, and advertise the position in newspapers read 
by farm workers.
  Longstanding worker protections will continue in force. For example, 
the ``three-fourths minimum work guarantee'' will remain in effect. 
Employers will be required to guarantee work for at least three 
quarters of the employment period or pay compensation for any 
shortfall. The ``50% rule'' will also continue. Qualified U.S. workers 
would be hired as long as they apply during the first half of the 
season. No position could be filled by an H-2A worker that was vacant 
because of a strike or labor dispute. Employers will continue to 
reimburse workers for transportation costs and provide workers' 
compensation insurance coverage. Employers will be prohibited from 
discriminating in favor of temporary workers.
  The bill will modify some current requirements in important ways. 
Employers must provide housing at no cost, or a monetary housing 
allowance in which the State governor certifies that sufficient farm 
worker housing is

[[Page 6736]]

available. Employers will also be required to pay at least the highest 
of the State or Federal minimum wage, the local ``prevailing wage'' for 
the particular job, or an ``adverse effect'' wage rate.
  For many years, the adverse effect wage rate has been vigorously 
debated, with most farm worker advocates arguing that the rate is too 
low, and most growers complaining that it is too high. The bill will 
freeze adverse effect wage rates for three years at the 2003 level, 
while studies and recommendations are made to Congress by the GAO and a 
special commission of experts. If Congress fails to enact an adverse 
effect wage rate formula within 3 years, this wage rate will be 
adjusted in 2006, and at the beginning of each year thereafter, based 
on the change in the consumer price index.
  The Secretary of Labor will establish an administrative complaint 
process to investigate and resolve complaints alleging violations under 
the H-2A program. Violators will be required to pay back wages, and can 
also be given civil money penalties and be barred from the program.
  In addition, the bill provides a significant new protection for H-2A 
workers--a private right of action in Federal court. Currently, these 
workers lack this right, and can seek redress in State courts only 
under State contract law. Such workers are also excluded from the 
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, which provides 
U.S. workers with protections and remedies in Federal court. Although 
the exclusion continues, our bill will permit workers to file a Federal 
lawsuit to enforce their wages, housing benefits, transportation cost 
reimbursements, minimum-work guarantee, motor vehicle safety 
protections, and other terms under their job offer.
  Our bill will also unify families. When temporary residence is 
granted, a farm worker's spouse and minor children will be able to 
remain legally in the United States, but they will not be authorized to 
work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and 
minor children will also gain such status.
  Mr. President, I have a letter from the AFL-CIO that calls AgJOBS a 
recent legislative compromise between farmworker advocates and 
agricultural employers. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the AFL-CIO I urge you to 
     support cloture on and passage of an amendment to the FY 2005 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill offered by Senators Craig 
     and Kennedy--the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and 
     Security Act (AgJOBS). I also strongly urge you to oppose an 
     amendment offered by Senators Chambliss and Kyl as a 
     substitute to AgJOBS. This amendment has inadequate worker 
     protections and must be defeated.
       The AgJOBS bill is a reasoned legislative compromise 
     between farm worker advocates and agricultural employers. 
     AgJOBS enjoys strong bipartisan support and would provide an 
     avenue for 500,000 undocumented farm workers to qualify for 
     an earned adjustment program that has a path to permanent 
     residency. AgJOBS would both streamline the current H-2A 
     agricultural guest-worker program and provide additional 
     legal protections for migrant workers who hold H-2A visas. 
     AgJOBS addresses both the growing concern over the high 
     number of undocumented farm workers and the need for 
     adjustments to the H-2A program so that we do not confront a 
     similar crisis in the future. The Kennedy-Craig AgJOBS 
     amendment is necessary immigration reform that will protect 
     the rights and economic well-being of both immigrant and U.S. 
     workers.
       The Chambliss-Kyl proposal would radically change the H-2A 
     program--stripping it of all labor protections and government 
     oversight. This amendment would create a new year-round guest 
     worker program with no meaningful labor protections and no 
     role for the Department of Labor to enforce housing, pay, or 
     other essential worker protections. The Chambliss-Kyl 
     proposal would tie workers to particular employers and 
     require them to leave the country if their jobs ended and no 
     other employer petitioned for a visa for them within 60 days. 
     It would allow employers to bring in a large numbers of 
     vulnerable guest workers to fill year-round jobs for up to 
     nine years without the ability to be united with their family 
     members.
       Also troubling is that the Chambliss-Kyl amendment would 
     broaden the definition of seasonal agricultural workers to 
     include ``related industries,'' which could include 
     landscaping and food processing. Currently, the use of guest 
     workers in these industries is capped and subject to 
     additional labor market tests. The H-2A program is not 
     subject to a cap. This further jeopardizes essential labor 
     protections for a broader segment of the U.S. workforce. The 
     Chambliss-Kyl proposal is bad for both U.S. and immigrant 
     workers, bad for employers who want to employ a stable 
     workforce, and it is a dangerous precedent in immigration and 
     labor policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                              Director, Department of Legislation.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this mentions:

       The Chambliss-Kyl proposal would radically change the H-2A 
     program, stripping it of all labor protections and Government 
     oversight. This amendment would create a new year-round guest 
     worker program with no meaningful labor protections and no 
     role for the Department of Labor to enforce housing, pay, or 
     other essential worker protections. The Chambliss-Kyl 
     proposal would tie workers to particular employers and 
     require them to leave the country if their jobs ended and no 
     other employer petitioned for a visa for them within 60 days.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 464

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on future requests for 
        funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, from the moment our military first attacked 
Osama bin Laden's hideouts in Afghanistan, through the time that our 
first soldiers set foot inside Iraq, continuing right up until the 
present day, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have been 
entirely funded by what the American people might call a series of 
stopgap spending measures. These measures, which are called emergency 
supplemental appropriation bills in the parlance of our Nation's 
capitol, take the form of last-minute requests by the White House for 
Congress to approve tens of billions of dollars on an accelerated 
timetable.
  From September 11, 2001, until today, Congress has approved $201 
billion in these appropriations bills, the great majority of which the 
President has applied to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this bill 
on the Senate floor is approved, it will add another $79.3 billion to 
that staggering total.
  With the cost of the two wars approaching $280 billion--that is a lot 
of money; that is your money, Mr. and Mrs. American Citizen--the 
American people are beginning to ask how much more will these two wars 
cost our country? The Congressional Budget Office estimated, in 
February 2005, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost 
the American people $458 billion over the next 10 years. The $74.4 
billion in military spending contained in this supplemental 
appropriations bill is but a small downpayment on that staggering sum.
  How accurate is this estimate of nearly half a trillion dollars more 
in war costs? How accurate is it? Amazingly, the administration has 
flatout refused to provide any estimates for the cost of the war in its 
annual budget request. That means, then, under the administration's 
budget policies, our troops are forced to continue to rely on the 
stopgap spending measures that are known as emergency supplemental 
appropriations bills.
  I know the terms ``supplemental request'' or ``emergency 
appropriations'' mean almost nothing to the average American. But each 
time the White House sends a supplemental request to Congress for more 
funds that have never appeared in the President's budget, it reminds me 
of the way so many Americans pull a credit card out of their wallet 
when faced with unexpected costs.
  Like a credit card, emergency supplemental appropriations requests 
can be responsibly used to cover costs that could not have been 
foreseen. But most Americans know, if someone starts using a credit 
card for everyday expenses, watch out, because that person is on the 
path to financial ruin. Mr.

[[Page 6737]]

President, I have never had a credit card in my life. I don't use one. 
My wife doesn't use one. Using that little piece of plastic means 
avoiding the tough choices and tradeoffs that are necessary for fiscal 
responsibility, while reckless spending and increasing interest 
payments cause a family's debt to spiral out of control. That, in a 
nutshell, is exactly what is happening in Washington, DC. Just like the 
slick advertising slogan for credit cards, the administration's 
repeated requests for supplemental appropriations for the war exemplify 
the phrase ``buy now, pay later.''
  Over the last 3\1/2\ years, at a time when the Government is swimming 
in red ink, the White House has charged an additional $280 billion--
that is right, $280 billion--on the national credit card, without 
proposing a single dime of that spending in its annual budget proposal; 
not one thin dime is seen or shown in the administration's annual 
budget proposal. This is a reckless course the administration has 
plotted. It is fiscal irresponsibility at the highest level. This 
``take it as it comes'' approach to paying for the cost of the war in 
Iraq ignores sound budgetary principles, and it is a grave disservice 
to our troops who are serving in Iraq.
  By separating the regular budget of the Defense Department and other 
Federal agencies from the wartime costs of military operations, the 
White House has effectively denied Congress the ability to get the 
whole picture of the needs of our troops and the other needs of our 
Nation, such as education, highways, and veterans medical care. 
Instead, Congress receives only piecemeal information about, on the one 
hand, what funds are required to fight the war--this unnecessary war, I 
say, in Iraq--and on the other, what funds are required for the regular 
operations of the Defense Department and other Federal agencies.
  This is a misguided approach, and the net effect of this misguided 
approach is a thoroughly disjointed and discombobulated Federal budget. 
This hand-me-down process does not serve our troops well.
  A unified, coherent budget for our military would allow Congress and 
the administration, as well as the American people, to focus on the 
future to evaluate what our troops might need to fight two wars--the 
war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq--in the next 6, 12, or 18 
months.
  I am fully supportive of the war in Afghanistan because in that case 
our country was attacked, our country was invaded by an enemy. We 
fought back. I fully supported President Bush in that war, and I do 
today. I support the troops in both wars, but I do not support the 
policy that sent our troops into Iraq.
  Instead of looking forward, however, the abuse of the supplemental 
appropriations process means the Congress and the administration are 
constantly--constantly--looking backward over our shoulder to fix the 
problems that might have been addressed had the cost of the wars been 
included in the President's budget.
  Congress has had to add money to prior supplementals to buy more body 
armor, to buy more ammunition, to buy more armored humvees. All of 
these costs should have been included in earlier administration regular 
unified budget requests for the entire Federal Government.
  What is more, this disjointed manner of paying for the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan has a tremendous effect on the entire Federal budget. 
By refusing to budget for the cost of the war, the President is 
submitting annual budgets to Congress that are downright inaccurate. 
These budget requests are inaccurate. They understate the actual amount 
of our annual deficits by scores of billions of dollars.
  If the President's emergency request for 2005 is approved, the 
Congress will have approved over $210 billion just for the war in Iraq. 
While the budget deficit grows to record levels, the President tells us 
we have to cut domestic programs by $192 billion over the next 5 years. 
The President tells us we have to charge veterans for their medical 
care, that we have to cut grants for firefighters and first responders, 
that we cannot adequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act, and that 
we should cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. The list 
goes on and on.
  Since the President took office, he has taken a Federal budget that 
was in surplus for 4 straight years and produced deficits as far as the 
human eye can see. For 2006, the President is projecting a deficit of 
$390 billion, but that deficit estimate does not--does not, does not--
include new spending for the war in Iraq. We are not fighting that war 
on the cheap. It is costing you money, you citizens out there. It is 
your money; it is costing you money. That deficit estimate does not 
include new spending, I say, for the war in Iraq. Why? Why does it not? 
Why does that deficit estimate not include new spending for the war in 
Iraq? Because the President pretends he cannot project what the war 
will cost in 2006. Well, Mr. President, I assure you the costs will not 
be zero.
  The President will not tell the American people what the war in Iraq 
will cost. By understating the deficits, the American people are being 
led down a primrose path. That is dishonesty. Neither the White House 
nor Congress is making any tough choices about how to pay for the cost 
of the war because the administration is not telling Congress how much 
it thinks the war might cost in the next year. And as a result, there 
is no talk of raising taxes or cutting spending in order to pay for the 
costs of the wars.
  The United States is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, and the 
administration's failure to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
is sending our country even deeper into red ink. For as brilliantly as 
our troops have performed on the battlefield, as brilliantly as they 
have fought and died on the battlefield, the administration's 
budgeteers are creating a budgetary catastrophe. But the executive 
branch has not always been so neglectful of the need to include in its 
budget the cost of ongoing wars. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, there is a long history of Presidents moving the cost 
of ongoing military operations into their annual budget requests rather 
than relying completely on supplemental appropriations bills.
  For example, the Congressional Research Service reports President 
Franklin D. Roosevelt included funds for World War II in his fiscal 
year 1943 budget request. President Lyndon B. Johnson included funds 
for the Vietnam war in his fiscal year 1966 request. Military 
operations in Bosnia and the U.S. operations to enforce the no-fly zone 
over Iraq were initially funded through supplemental appropriations. 
But in 1995, Congress forced President Bill Clinton to include those 
costs in his fiscal year 1997 budget, which he did. Upon assuming the 
Presidency, George W. Bush began to include the cost of the 
peacekeeping mission in Kosovo in his fiscal year 2001 budget request. 
I supported President Bush on that initiative because it made good 
fiscal sense. Twice I have offered amendments to the Defense 
appropriations bills to urge the President to add the costs of the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan to his budget.
  These amendments were approved by strong bipartisan majorities of the 
Senate. The first time I offered the amendment on July 17, 2003, it was 
approved 81 to 15. The second time I offered the amendment on June 24, 
2004, it received even broader support and was approved 89 to 9. Each 
time, this sense-of-the-Senate provision was included in the Defense 
Appropriations Act and signed into law by the President.
  Today, I offer an amendment that follows up on the Senate's call for 
the President to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Let us just have truth in accounting. This is honest 
accounting. We are letting the American people know how much they are 
paying for these wars.
  This amendment builds on the sense-of-the-Senate language that has 
been approved by strong bipartisan majorities of the Senate in each of 
the last 2 years. Once again, this provision urges the President to 
budget for the cost of the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. 
However, my amendment today

[[Page 6738]]

goes further and urges the President to submit an amended budget 
request for the cost of the wars to Congress no later than September 1, 
2005.
  Although the White House should have budgeted for this war long ago, 
this provision ratchets up the pressure on the administration to submit 
to Congress an estimate of the cost of the war for fiscal year 2006. 
Hopefully, this will be the first step in restoring some sanity to the 
President's budget request that has so far ignored the enormous costs 
of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This amendment also contains a section of findings that illustrate 
many of the points I have already made in urging the President to 
budget for the war. These findings emphasize the legislative history of 
the Senate urging the President to budget for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The findings also present some of the conclusions reached 
by the Congressional Research Service about the funding of previous 
military operations through the regular appropriations process.
  Finally, this amendment includes a reporting requirement that would 
help keep Congress informed--help keep us informed. We are elected by 
``we the people,'' the first three words in the preamble of the 
Constitution. We are hearing a lot about the Constitution these days, 
and we are going to hear more. I am going to have a few things to say 
about it before it is over.
  As I said, this amendment includes a reporting requirement that would 
help to keep Congress informed about the real costs of the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. This provision would require the Department of Defense 
to provide Congress with the specific amounts that have been spent to 
date--what is wrong with that?--for each of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Currently, the Pentagon prefers to report only a single 
figure that combines the cost of these two wars, but Congress and the 
American people ought to know the exact cost of the war in Afghanistan. 
They ought to know the exact cost of the war that was forced upon our 
country in Afghanistan, and they need to know the cost of the war in 
Iraq, the war that the administration chose to begin, the invasion that 
the administration chose to set forth. These wars should not be 
confused one with the other. They are two different wars, and we should 
say so right up front. We should know the amount of money we spend in 
each.
  In addition, this report would require the Pentagon to keep the 
Congress continually informed of estimates of military operations in 
Iraq and in Afghanistan for the next year so that Congress can have the 
better lens with which to look upon future budgets for our military.
  This is nothing but right. The elected representatives of the people 
sitting in this body ought to know these things. We are representing 
the American people in our States and throughout the country. What is 
wrong with our telling them right up front? We need to know these 
things. I have a responsibility to my people back home. Not only that, 
but I have a responsibility to my children, my grandchildren, and to 
their children. Each of us has that responsibility, and we ought to ask 
for this information. We ought to insist on it.
  Once again, the Senate should send a message to the administration 
that it ought to budget for the costs of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. My amendment sends that message in clear terms. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in approving this sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
with another strong bipartisan vote.
  I call up my amendment No. 464.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 464.

  Mr. BYRD. 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:

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


requests for future funding for military operations in afghanistan and 
                                  iraq

       Sec. 1122. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 
     (Public Law 108-87) and the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287) each contain a 
     sense of the Senate provision urging the President to provide 
     in the annual budget requests of the President for a fiscal 
     year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     an estimate of the cost of ongoing military operations in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan in such fiscal year.
       (2) The budget for fiscal year 2006 submitted to Congress 
     by the President on February 7, 2005, requests no funds for 
     fiscal year 2006 for ongoing military operations in Iraq or 
     Afghanistan.
       (3) According to the Congressional Research Service, there 
     exists historical precedent for including the cost of ongoing 
     military operations in the annual budget requests of the 
     President following initial funding for such operations by 
     emergency or supplemental appropriations Acts, including--
       (A) funds for Operation Noble Eagle, beginning in the 
     budget request of President George W. Bush for fiscal year 
     2005;
       (B) funds for operations in Kosovo, beginning in the budget 
     request of President George W. Bush for fiscal year 2001;
       (C) funds for operations in Bosnia, beginning in budget 
     request of President Clinton for fiscal year 1997;
       (D) funds for operations in Southwest Asia, beginning in 
     the budget request of President Clinton for fiscal year 1997;
       (E) funds for operations in Vietnam, beginning in the 
     budget request of President Johnson for fiscal year 1966; and
       (F) funds for World War II, beginning in the budget request 
     of President Roosevelt for fiscal year 1943.
       (4) The Senate has included in its version of the fiscal 
     year 2006 budget resolution, which was adopted by the Senate 
     on March 17, 2005, a reserve fund of $50,000,000,000 for 
     overseas contingency operations, but the determination of 
     that amount could not take into account any Administration 
     estimate on the projected cost of such operations in fiscal 
     year 2006.
       (5) In February 2005, the Congressional Budget Office 
     estimated that fiscal year 2006 costs for ongoing military 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could total 
     $65,000,000,000.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) any request for funds for a fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 2006 for an ongoing military operation overseas, 
     including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, should be 
     included in the annual budget of the President for such 
     fiscal year as submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code;
       (2) the President should submit to Congress, not later than 
     September 1, 2005, an amendment to the budget of the 
     President for fiscal year 2006 that was submitted to Congress 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     setting forth detailed cost estimates for ongoing military 
     operations overseas during such fiscal year; and
       (3) any funds provided for a fiscal year for ongoing 
     military operations overseas should be provided in 
     appropriations Acts for such fiscal year through 
     appropriations to specific accounts set forth in such 
     appropriations Acts.
       (c) Additional Requirements for Certain Reports.--(1) Each 
     semiannual report to Congress required under a provision of 
     law referred to in paragraph (2) shall include, in addition 
     to the matters specified in the applicable provision of law, 
     the following:
       (A) A statement of the cumulative total of all amounts 
     obligated, and of all amounts expended, as of the date of 
     such report for Operation Enduring Freedom.
       (B) A statement of the cumulative total of all amounts 
     obligated, and of all amounts expended, as of the date of 
     such report for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
       (C) An estimate of the reasonably foreseeable costs for 
     ongoing military operations to be incurred during the 12-
     month period beginning on the date of such report.
       (2) The provisions of law referred to in this paragraph are 
     as follows:
       (A) Section 1120 of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of 
     Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106; 117 Stat. 
     1219; 10 U.S.C. 113 note).
       (B) Section 9010 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 1008; 
     10 U.S.C. 113 note).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about immigration and the 
issue that will be before us for two very important votes tomorrow. My 
colleague from Alabama is also in the Chamber. I will take the allotted 
time under the unanimous consent, and then I think he wants to spend 
more time on these issues.

[[Page 6739]]

  What I find very fascinating is that everyone who has come to the 
Senate floor this afternoon to talk about immigration agrees that our 
country is in near crisis at this moment for our inability to control 
our borders, to stem the tide of illegal movement into our country, and 
to fashion comprehensive or targeted immigration law that effectively 
works. Simply put, our Federal Government has to do better. It has to 
move faster in improving our border security and meeting this 
phenomenally large and important issue of illegal immigration.
  Congress is no further along today on a comprehensive bill than it 
was a year ago at this time when my bill, the AgJOBS bill, had a 
thorough hearing before the Judiciary Committee. It is now well over 
1,300 days since we woke up after 9/11 with thousands of our country 
men and women dead and a phenomenal frightening awakening on the part 
of the American people that there were millions of undocumented foreign 
nationals living in our country.
  As I said earlier, while most of them are law-abiding, are here to 
work, and are extremely hard-working people, we found out tragically 
enough that there were some here with evil intent, and we began to 
control our borders. I think that is why Congress then again started 
beefing up border patrol and buying high-tech verification systems for 
the Department of Homeland Security, and that is why, whether one 
agrees on the specific methods or not, the House of Representatives 
just attached to the legislation we are talking about this afternoon a 
national driver's license standard and asylum changes, those seeking 
asylum in our country, in the so-called REAL ID provisions to the Iraq 
supplemental. That is why I have supported a Byrd amendment on this 
bill to take money away from certain portions of this bill that are not 
immediately necessary for our troops for their security and allow our 
border security to hire more investigators and enforcement agents to 
boost up that whole area we are so concerned about.
  That is why I am cosponsoring a bill that helps States deal with 
undocumented criminal aliens. We must get it right everywhere if we are 
going to reinstate in our country secure borders and functional 
immigration law. That is why I have worked for the last good number of 
years on AgJOBS. We talk about it here today. What does it mean? It 
means Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act. That 
is why we are on the floor of the Senate today.
  Some would argue we ought to be doing the Iraqi supplemental because 
it is urgent. None of this money is immediately necessary in Iraq. The 
House took 2 months to craft it. We are going to take a few days to 
pass it. But I must tell you as I have before, I believe the crisis in 
immigration today is every bit as significant. No matter the money we 
pour along the borders, still our borders are not under control, 
especially our southern border.
  Senator Kennedy came to the floor a few moments ago to give a very 
comprehensive analysis of how he and I, and now over 500 groups, have 
come together to try to resolve the issue of immigration, specific to 
American agriculture. Those are the issues at hand at this moment. We 
are not in any way obstructing the process. This afternoon could have 
been filled with amendments on the supplemental if those who have 
amendments would have been here to offer them. We are simply taking 
time in the debate. We will have those votes tomorrow. If Senators 
Saxby Chambliss and Jon Kyl do not get the necessary 60 votes, or I do 
not on these issues, they will be set aside. But they will not go away, 
because I do believe, as I think most Americans believe, somehow we 
have to get this right. Somehow it is necessary to do so.
  I am committed to making this debate as brief as possible. That is 
why I agreed to a unanimous consent request to conform it and to shape 
it, but to allow a full and fair and necessary debate. As far as I am 
concerned, a thorough debate on AgJOBS does not need to take a multiple 
of days or months. Every Senator knows this issue. Every Senator knows 
his and her constituents are upset at this moment because somehow 
Congress has failed to deal with this issue. I have received my fair 
share of criticism from some of my constituents for offering AgJOBS. I 
smiled and said: You sent me to work in Washington to solve a problem. 
I brought the solution to that problem. I believe it is the right one. 
No one else, except for those this afternoon, has brought a second 
solution. I welcome all Senators to get involved in this debate and 
understand the issues. But most importantly, we cannot do what past 
Congresses have done or what we have done for the over 1,300 days since 
9/11, look over our shoulder and say: Oh, boy, that is a big problem; 
and, oh, boy, our borders are at risk and, yes, some of those illegals 
could be here to do us harm, but we can't seem to get our hands around 
it because it is such a complicated issue.
  I do not dispute its complications. But I am frustrated that the 
Senate and the House have literally not been able to act. I believe the 
Senate has had enough time. As I mentioned earlier, we have seen this 
bill when it was before the Judiciary Committee. I think most of my 
colleagues know about AgJOBS. Yes, 63 Senators supported it last year. 
We are now nearly at 50 at this time. Clearly a large number do support 
it. I think that is extremely important that we do. It is so necessary 
that we move appropriately to solve this problem and solve it in a 
timely fashion. This now gives us an opportunity to do that.
  As I said to my colleagues, I have worked on this issue with numerous 
communities of interest for nearly 5 years to craft what we believe is 
one of the best approaches to solving the problem, not only recognizing 
that illegals, the undocumented are a problem in our country, but once 
they are here, and if they are here illegally, how do we treat them? 
How does the agricultural economy provide for them and respond to them 
while they are so necessary in that workforce? That is what is embodied 
in AgJOBS. It is not simply a threshold of how you transition through. 
It is in reality a major reform of the H-2A program.
  Let's continue with this issue. I am going to stop at this moment. My 
colleague Senator Sessions is on the floor. I need to step away a few 
moments. I know he has important things to say--many that I agree with, 
but there are some I do not agree with.
  Don't kick this ball down the field to another day. We look now at a 
comprehensive piece of legislation. It is very necessary we attempt to 
solve it now, get this Congress involved, and tell the American people 
we hear them, we know our national security is at risk, and in this 
instance our food security is at risk. We need to solve a very 
important problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. Senator 
Craig is one of my favorite Members of the Senate. We agree on many 
things. We have not agreed on this one.
  Yes, I think we all understand we are dealing with a broad, 
important, and complex issue. It does require us to give it some 
thought. But the point of the matter is we are being asked to vote on 
AgJOBS tomorrow. People are going to have to cast a vote on this bill. 
I urge you not to vote for this legislation, because it should not be 
on the Defense supplemental and, second, because it is flawed, 
seriously flawed. It is not consistent with what I think are the views 
of most Members of Congress or the American people on how we ought to 
handle this matter.
  I mentioned briefly earlier how the process toward amnesty works in 
this legislation. I would like to refer to this chart. I think it makes 
the point rather simply. I do not think it is disputed.
  You have people who came here illegally. Perhaps they are in the 
country, perhaps they have already gone back to their home country, but 
they have violated our law by coming here, both in coming here and in 
working illegally for some firm or company.
  If they have done that and if, within 18 months of December 31 of 
last year, 2004, they have worked 100 workdays--and they have defined a 
workday in the

[[Page 6740]]

act as 1 hour, so that could be 100 hours of work--they earn what the 
proponents of this legislation say they are earning: their right to be 
here.
  They are being paid for this, presumably. They didn't come here to 
work for not being paid. They came for a salary they are willing to 
accept. They work here for 100 hours. Then they become a lawful, 
temporary resident. Then all of a sudden someone who was here 
unlawfully is now converted to a lawful resident.
  A number of things occur after that. If they have family here, a 
spouse or children--one, two, three, four, five, six--and that spouse 
or those children may have been here 6 weeks, the spouse and children 
are entitled to stay as long as the person who now has become a lawful, 
temporary resident; and within the next 6 years, if that person is 
employed in agriculture for 2,060 hours--the average worker works about 
2000 hours a year, so that would be about 1 year out of 6, being paid 
for this--they have therefore earned legal permanent resident status. 
That is pretty significant, legal permanent residency, because if you 
become a legal permanent resident, then you are no longer an indentured 
servant. You are not required to work in agriculture. You can work on 
any job you want.
  It might be this court reporting job right here.
  I don't know what they want to work on. They became a legal, 
permanent resident. They can wait for 5 years, and then they are 
virtually guaranteed a citizenship unless they are convicted--charged, 
convicted--of a felony or convicted of three misdemeanors. A 
misdemeanor can be a pretty serious offense sometimes.
  I am not sure we want somebody to want to come here to commit a bunch 
of misdemeanors. You don't usually get caught for all of them. People 
do things and half the time they do not get caught at all. If you catch 
a victim twice on a misdemeanor, that can be very serious.
  Then they are given citizenship.
  By the way, if their children are not here, have never been here, and 
they became a lawful, permanent resident, they can send for them--one, 
two, or five members. They can come on down and be a part of the United 
States and be on the road to citizenship, even though maybe that was 
never the intention. Maybe it was never the intention, to begin with, 
for their family to come here.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is making a very interesting point. Has the 
Senator looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' numbers of those they 
believe--if the law were passed--are AgJOBS eligible?
  Mr. SESSIONS. About a million.
  Mr. CRAIG. About 500,000 is what they estimate. When you do all of 
the very thorough background checks we have within it that are 
consistent with immigration law today, they figure a certain number 
would fall out, and then there are the wives and dependents. A very 
large number of these are not married. They have no immediate family--
about 200,000 more. It is reasonable to say the Department of Labor is 
looking at a total number of workers, spouse, and dependents of upwards 
of possibly 700,000. I know millions and millions are talked about. I 
believe that is unrealistic based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  Does the Senator disagree with those figures?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will say it this way: I will say it is very likely to 
be a million.
  Mr. CRAIG. Based on what figures?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Close to a million, if you take the figure of 700,000. 
I am not sure we have thought it through.
  The Senator, I believe--who was here in 1987 when the 1986 amnesty 
was passed--would admit that the estimate of how many people would take 
advantage of it was very low. In fact, I believe three times as many 
people took advantage of that amnesty as the estimators estimated. It 
could happen here. I don't know.
  Mr. CRAIG. I don't disagree with that. But the criteria was entirely 
different. If I could be so kind, I think my colleague is mixing apples 
and oranges and getting an interesting blend of a new juice. An earned 
status approach has never been used before. The full background check, 
and the thoroughness of that background check as we anticipate in this 
legislation, is only used when you have a legal immigrant standing in 
line. In fact, our law is more stringent for illegal than it is for the 
legal immigrant because they can get the misdemeanors. We say, if you 
get a misdemeanor with 6 months' incarceration, that is pretty serious. 
The Senator from Alabama is an attorney. Would he agree with that? They 
are out of here. There is a much different criteria when you start 
comparing the total numbers. That is why I think they would be 
different.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The act says three convictions of misdemeanors. The 
Senator is right. It can be up to 6 months or a year.
  Mr. CRAIG. Then they are deported.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Not if there are two convictions.
  Mr. CRAIG. That is correct. That is the current law. That is what 
current law says for the illegal immigrant.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It is in the legislation.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is in the law.
  Mr. SESSIONS. For those here illegally and want amnesty to be given 
even though they have already violated immigration laws.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague for yielding. What is important is 
the bill be read very thoroughly. Extrapolations can be made. But when 
it says 100 hours of work, I think it is important to assume you would 
only work 1 hour a day for 100 days. That is not a very logical 
process.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I agree with the Senator on that. I will disagree with 
the concept that somehow, by working here, coming here, and getting a 
job you wanted to get when you came, that that is somehow earning 
something, if you did it illegally. You are getting what you wanted, 
which was pay for the work.
  That is what I would point out. Then, a family would be automatically 
eligible to come into the country. I don't think there is any dispute 
about that.
  If a person came here illegally, if they worked here 18 months and 
met those qualifications of 100 workdays, or 565 hours, I believe--
either way, it is not very much--they can come even though they are not 
here now. In other words, if they did that illegally, worked here and 
for some reason went back home, then they are getting a letter from 
Uncle Sam saying, By the way, we know you violated our law but we are 
in a forgiving mood. You can come on back and join the process toward 
citizenship and bring your family, too.
  I am not sure that is what we want to do. I don't think it is what we 
want to do. That is the fundamental of this legislation.
  I think that is what you call amnesty. Not only does it give the 
person what they wanted in terms of being able to come into the country 
and get a job and be paid, that puts them on a track--unless they get 
seriously conflicted with the law--to be a permanent resident and then 
even a citizen, and their children and family can be on that same 
track.
  That is a big deal. That is what I am saying. It is not something we 
need to be rushing into on this legislation today.
  Under section 101(d)(8), entitled ``Eligibility for Legal Services,'' 
it is required under the act that free, federally funded legal counsel 
be afforded, through the Legal Services Corporation, to assist 
temporary workers in the application process for adjustment to lawful 
permanent resident status.
  American workers are not always available for that. They have to meet 
other standards such as need and that sort of thing.
  Also, the act gives several advantages to foreign workers not 
provided to American workers. Look at this.
  Section 101(b), rights of aliens granted temporary resident status.
  Right here--temporary resident status.
  Terms of employment respecting aliens admitted under this section, A, 
prohibition.

[[Page 6741]]

  Quoting:

       No alien granted temporary resident status under subsection 
     A may be terminated from employment by any employer during 
     the period of temporary resident status except for just 
     cause.

  Then they set up a big process for this. There is a complaint 
process. The subsection sets out a process for filing complaints for 
termination without just cause. If reasonable cause exists, the 
Secretary shall initiate binding arbitration proceedings and pay the 
fee and expenses of the arbitrator. Attorneys' fees will be the 
responsibility of each party. The complaint process does not preclude 
``any other rights an employee may have under applicable law.''
  That means they could file under this process for unjust termination 
and hire a plaintiffs lawyer and sue the business for whatever else you 
want to sue them for.

       Any fact or finding made by the arbitrator shall not be 
     conclusive or binding in any separate action--

  That is the action filed in the court by plaintiffs' lawyer--

       or subsequent action or proceeding between the employee and 
     the employer.

  I submit to you, by the language of this statute, it would appear 
they intend for that to be admissible, if not binding. It says not 
binding but the implication would be it would be admissible.
  This means an employer cannot allow that arbitration proceeding to go 
without an attorney. He will have to hire an attorney and go down there 
because things will go wrong and that will be used against him in any 
civil action that might take place. They have to pay counsel in both 
places.
  This section will override State laws in America. In Alabama, unless 
you enter into a contract that states otherwise for employment, your 
work for an employer is at will. Contracts of employment at will mean 
just that: it is the will of either party. Employees can quit at will 
and employers can terminate at will, with cause or without cause, and 
for no reason, good or bad reason.
  That is the way I think it is in most States. Certainly that is true 
in my State. This provision will mean illegal aliens who file for 
amnesty under the AgJOBs amendment, after coming here illegally in 
violation of our law, are guaranteed to have a job unless they are 
terminated for just cause. If the AgJOBS amendment passes, employers of 
aliens given amnesty will be subject to forced and binding arbitration 
regarding the termination of the alien, and they will have to cover 
their legal bills for the defense in arbitrations even if the 
arbitrator finds they had just cause to terminate the alien.
  I suggest what we are about here is a provision for greater 
protection for a foreign worker, one not only who is foreign but who 
previously violated American law. If you were an employer and you need 
to lay off one person, and you have two working for you, and one would 
have the ability to take you through arbitration and argue that you did 
not have just cause, and the other one had no such rights, you might 
fire the American citizen first, not the foreigner.
  There is another provision I will talk about later that deals with 
the filing of the application. The Senator says they will be doing 
background checks. I see nothing in here that provides for background 
checks. It requires an application to be filed to become a temporary 
resident. Get this: It can be filed with two groups who are called 
``qualified designated entities.'' That can be an employer group who 
wants workers to come here to work for them, or a labor group. And they 
are qualified entities. The application is filed with them.
  It prohibits giving the application to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security unless a lawyer has read it first. It says the entities that 
receive this application cannot give it to the Secretary unless they 
are conducting a fraud investigation. How would they know to conduct 
one if they haven't seen the documents? It might be fraudulent.
  It is a rather weird idea, is antigov-
ernment, and seems to be far more concerned with protecting an 
applicant who may be committing fraud than protecting the security and 
the laws of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition 
to the AgJOBS bill as it is currently drafted.
  This is a very complicated bill. It is a magnet for illegal 
immigration. It has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. We do 
not know how many people would be affected by it.
  Rather, it has come to the floor as an amendment to the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  This is not the place for this bill. I believe it is a mistake to 
pass this bill on an emergency supplemental that is designed to provide 
help for our military, fighting in extraordinary circumstances.
  That is why I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Cornyn saying 
that the place to do these amendments is through the regular order, 
beginning in the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. 
This amendment passed by a vote of 61 to 38.
  And that is why I will vote against cloture on the AgJOBS bill and on 
the other complicated immigration amendment, the Chambliss-Kyl 
amendment.
  If, however, cloture is invoked, then I plan on offering several 
amendments that I believe will improve the bill.
  If these amendments are approved by the full body, or are later 
incorporated into the bill through an appropriate Judiciary Committee 
markup, then I would be prepared to support the bill.
  But otherwise, it is my intention to vote against the bill. I simply 
cannot support the bill in good conscience as it is.
  I believe the bill as drafted is a huge magnet. The Judiciary 
Committee has not had a chance to review it, amend it, mark it up. And 
it does not belong on a supplemental appropriations bill.
  We know that people come to this country illegally.
  They come for many different reasons. Some out of fear of 
persecution, some for work, all for opportunity.
  In 2000, it was estimated that there were 7 million unauthorized 
aliens in this country. And by 2002, this number had grown to 9.3 
million. These are Census numbers reported in the CRS Report on 
Immigration, updated 4/08/05.
  In agriculture, approximately 1.25 million, or about 50 percent of 
the agricultural work force, are illegal workers--600,000 of whom live 
and work in California. These numbers are from the Department of Labor.
  Many of these workers have been here for years, have worked hard, 
brought their families here, and have built their lives here.
  With respect to agricultural work, I know that it is extraordinarily 
difficult, if not impossible, to get Americans to work in agricultural 
labor.
  I did not believe it. Several years ago we contacted every welfare 
office in the State. And every welfare office in the State told us that 
once they put a sign up, no one responded.
  So I think it is the right thing to do to give the workers who have 
been here for a substantial period of time, who have been working in 
agriculture, who have been good members of society, and who will 
continue to work in agriculture, a way to adjust their status.
  What I do not support is creating a magnet that draws large 
additional numbers of illegal immigration. Not only would this have a 
detrimental effect on our society, but it would harm the people we are 
trying to help through this bill.
  Here is why: An influx in illegal immigrants would flood the labor 
market, make jobs more difficult to find, and drive down wages.
  For those of you who doubt the magnet effect, you have only to 
examine what happened when President Bush announced his guest worker 
proposal early last year.
  Despite the fact that the President's proposal had no path to 
legalization, the mere announcement of the proposal fueled a rush along 
the Southwest border.
  The Los Angeles Time on May 16, 2004, reported: ``detentions of 
illegal immigrants along the border . . . have risen 30% over the first 
seven months of the fiscal year, a period that includes the four months 
since Bush announced his plan.''

[[Page 6742]]

  Similarly, the San Diego Union Tribune on January 27, 2004, reported: 
``U.S. Border Patrol officials report a 15 percent increase in the use 
of fraudulent documents at the world's busiest land border crossing 
[San Ysidro]. And more than half of those caught using phony documents 
say the president's offer of de facto amnesty motivated them to attempt 
to sneak into the United States.''
  Does anyone doubt that this increase was related to anything but the 
President's proposal? Of course not.
  When I raised the concern with the authors of the legislation, that 
this legislation would be a magnet that would attract large numbers, 
they seemed to believe that the fact that the bill only applies to 
those who were in this country and working in agriculture as of 
December 31, 2004, would be sufficient to deter people from illegal 
entry.
  I do not believe that is the case. I think people will see that they 
only need 100 days of work to qualify for temporary residence; they 
will not be deterred by the operative date, and will say, ``I'll find a 
job, work 100 days, and then I'm legal and can bring my family.''
  The first two of these amendments I would like to offer would 
increase the time someone must demonstrate he or she has been in the 
United States working in agriculture in order to qualify for temporary 
and permanent residence.
  This would discourage others from coming to this country, and help 
those who have been here for many years.
  Here is what the first amendment would do. In order to qualify for 
temporary residence, workers would have to demonstrate that they have 
worked for at least three years in agricultural work prior to December 
31, 2004.
  For each of the 3 years, the worker would be required to show 100 
work-days, or 575 hours, per year in agriculture.
  Here is what the second amendment would do. In order to qualify for 
permanent residence, a green card, workers would have to show that they 
have worked at least 5 years in agricultural work following enactment 
of the bill. For each of the five years, the worker would again have to 
demonstrate 100 work-days, or 575 hours, per year.
  So by extending the length of time a worker needs to have worked both 
in the past and the future, these amendments reduce the incentives for 
more illegal immigration.
  The next amendment addresses another major concern that I have.
  The bill currently allows someone with one or two misdemeanor 
criminal convictions in the United States to apply for temporary 
residence or a green card. I think this is a mistake.
  So the amendment I am offering strikes this language and ensures that 
those with criminal records do not qualify for benefits--if they have 
even one criminal conviction in the United States, or anywhere.
  I believe that no one who has a criminal conviction should be the 
recipient of temporary residence or a green card under this program.
  Misdemeanors include petty theft, simple assault against persons, 
driving under the influence, certain drug offenses, and misdemeanor 
battery.
  In some States, they include cases of child abuse or domestic abuse, 
public assistance fraud, or abandonment of a child under the age of 10.
  I do not believe we should allow anyone to apply for a benefit as 
significant as a green card under this bill if they have committed any 
crime, let alone the two misdemeanors that the bill currently allows.
  The final amendment I am offering would prohibit workers who are 
living outside the United States from applying for temporary residence 
under this bill.
  The bill allows those living in other countries to apply for benefits 
under this bill--as long as they can demonstrate the appropriate time 
spent in agricultural work in the United States prior to their 
departure from this country.
  This means that someone could come to the United States illegally, 
work here illegally, return to their home country, and still apply for 
a green card under this bill. This simply makes no sense.
  If we are going to give agricultural workers a way to adjust their 
status, let us limit it to those who are living and working in this 
country.
  California is the No. 1 agriculture-producing State in the Nation.
  I recognize that this status is based on the hard work of people who 
have been living on the edges of our society, living in fear, and 
constantly worried about being removed from this country.
  It is time for the Government to recognize that these people have 
made a substantial contribution to our country and offer them a way to 
adjust their status.
  Remember, there are already 1.25 million agricultural workers here 
illegally, 600,000 in California.
  These amendments would concentrate on their adjustment of status, 
thereby moving the workers and their families from the shadows and 
allowing them temporary, and subsequently, permanent legal status.
  But I think that we have to be careful in how we proceed--if we do it 
the right way, we can help those who have been working in agriculture 
for many years and who have been good, upstanding members of society.
  These are the people we should be trying to help: They have children, 
many of whom are born here and are U.S. citizens. They have paid taxes. 
Some have bought homes. They have worked hard for everything they have 
gotten. They have been good, productive members of society.
  But if we do it the wrong way--we will actually cause great harm to 
the agriculture workers who have been here for years--we will create a 
magnet, flooding the borders, pushing down wages, and making it more 
difficult to find work.
  These are simple, commonsense amendments.
  As I said before, I would have preferred to do this in committee 
where we could have the time necessary to consider such complicated 
legislation.
  But if we are to pass an agricultural workers bill, let it be one 
that helps those who have contributed to our society and one that will 
not cause great harm to our Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was looking on our desks at the bill 
that is actually supposed to be the subject of this debate. It is 231 
pages long. It provides an emergency appropriation to help pay for our 
ongoing global war on terror. I remind my colleagues that is the stated 
purpose for this Senate time.
  Indeed, last week 60 of my colleagues joined me in saying that 
national security demands the passage of this bill unencumbered by a 
premature debate on immigration reform.
  Listening to our colleague from Alabama and others who have spoken to 
this subject, we are getting a better sense of how complicated this 
issue is and why it is so important, as 61 of us said last week, that 
we proceed with this emergency appropriation for the ongoing global war 
on terror and reserve enactment of comprehensive immigration reform for 
a few months hence, after we have had a chance to go through the 
appropriate committees of the Congress, the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship that I chair in the 
Judiciary Committee. Chairman Specter of the full committee has 
promised an expedited markup once we are able to go through the regular 
order and develop a comprehensive plan.
  Notwithstanding the sense of the Senate by 61 Members that we should 
not engage in this premature debate and risk bogging down this 
important bill to provide financing to our troops in the battlefield, 
here we are.
  What is it that the problem of this bill, the so-called AgJOBS 
amendment, seeks to fix? I suggest it does not purport to fix our 
porous borders. It does nothing to provide additional resources to our 
beleaguered Border Patrol and others who are doing the very best they 
can to try to secure our borders. We know not only do people come 
across those borders to work, but the

[[Page 6743]]

same people who will smuggle those workers across the border are the 
same people who can smuggle terrorists or criminals or others who want 
to do us ill across those borders. So AgJOBS, just so everyone 
understands, does not purport to deal with that problem.
  Does this bill purport to deal with another glaring deficiency we 
have; that is, a lack of detention facilities for those people our 
Border Patrol do catch and detain at the border so we do not have to 
continue in what is sometimes called a catch and release program where 
detainees, people who cross illegally are detained but because we do 
not have adequate facilities are released and they merely try again, 
and perhaps try and try and try until they finally make their way 
across the border and into the interior of the United States and simply 
melt into the landscape? This bill does not have anything to do with 
that. It will not fix that problem. Nor does this bill provide 
additional resources and equipment to our Border Patrol who, as I 
indicate, are outmanned and underequipped.
  This AgJOBS amendment, nor the alternative offered by Senator 
Chambliss and Senator Kyl, does not purport to deal with the problem of 
40 percent of the illegal immigration in this country coming from 
overstays. By that I mean people who come here legally on a student 
visa or a tourist visa or some other short-term legal authorization but 
simply blow past that deadline and, here again, become part of that 
population estimated to be somewhere on the order of 10 million 
people--although we really do not know--who are currently living in the 
United States outside of our laws. This bill does not purport to even 
address that.
  It does not do a better job of helping identify who is in our country 
and why they are here, why they chose to come outside of our laws and 
live in the shadows. It does not help us do a better job of identifying 
them and asserting what their purposes are in our country--whether they 
are criminals, whether they are potential terrorists, or whether they 
are people coming here simply to work.
  This AgJOBS bill also does not deal with the difficulty involved with 
employers who want to try to ascertain the legal status of their 
workforce. It does not help them by providing them a database of 
workers who are lawfully in the country and who are authorized to 
accept employment. So employers have to persist in doing the best they 
can in trying to fill the jobs that go wanting for lack of workers by 
hiring people they perhaps do not know but would have to admit, perhaps 
in private conversations, are people who are here illegally outside of 
our laws. This bill does not help them one bit. This bill does not 
provide a database of workers who are actually authorized to work and 
who are legally present in the country.
  My point is, there are a lot of problems that confront our national 
security, a lot of problems that confront our immigration system that 
need to be addressed that are not addressed in this legislation. To the 
contrary, rather than trying to address immigration reform 
comprehensively, rather than trying to improve our border security, our 
homeland security, by knowing who is in our country and why, rather 
than providing us a better means of identifying those who, although 
they begin in this country legally, overstay their time and become part 
of the population that is here illegally, rather than help employers, 
this bill does none of that. Instead, what it does is it deals with one 
segment of the industry that has grown to depend on undocumented 
workers, and that is the agriculture industry.
  While I am sympathetic to their concerns, the problem is that it is 
only one of the industries that relies on undocumented workers. You 
could as easily file a bill and rather than call it an AgJOBS bill, you 
could call it a restaurant workers bill, or a residential construction 
workers bill, or a hotel workers bill, or any one of the number of 
different industries that has, over time, grown to depend on 
approximately 6 million people who constitute the illegal workforce 
currently in the United States.
  This bill does not purport to deal with any of those other industries 
and thus chooses one over the other in a way that I think violates one 
of the fundamental principles of American law, and that is that persons 
similarly situated ought to be treated as equally as possible and not 
in any favorable or discriminatory fashion.
  So I think this bill, as premature as it is, as well intended as it 
may be, does not help us solve a lot of the problems that can only be 
addressed by comprehensive immigration reform. It actually does harm by 
violating some of our basic principles of equal justice under the law. 
It is important we deal with these problems.
  I failed to mention one of the problems is we have approximately 
400,000 absconders present in the country now and we simply do not have 
the adequate human or other resources necessary to find out where they 
are and to show them the way out of the country. Among these 
absconders, unlike the rest of the population I mentioned, the some 10 
million people, are individuals who have been convicted of serious 
crimes, about 80,000 of them, and who simply have melted into the 
landscape. As I say, we have about 400,000 absconders, including those 
80,000, the difference being those who have simply exhausted all means 
of appeal and review in our immigration system, who are under final 
orders of deportation, but who, rather than be deported, have simply 
gone underground. Here again, this is another issue this bill does not 
deal with that comprehensive immigration reform would and that we 
should.
  What I fear will happen, because it may be tempting to try to fix our 
immigration problems on a piecemeal basis, is piecemeal solutions and 
efforts will risk undermining the larger effort and the need to enact 
comprehensive reform. Indeed, I would venture a guess that if the 
AgJOBS bill were successful, or even if the alternative offered by the 
Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Arizona were to be 
successful, there would be many in this Chamber, and perhaps around 
this country, who would say: OK, now we have finished that job. We do 
not need to look at any further immigration reform.
  The only problem with that is they would be wrong, given the glaring 
problems that do exist in our country and the challenges to our 
national security and our ability to look ourselves in the mirror and 
say, yes, we are a nation of laws, when, in fact, we have such 
lawlessness existing among us for any one of us to see, if we take the 
time to look at it.
  Well, besides dealing with one industry, the AgJOBS bill also has 
some very troublesome provisions which I think undermine its claimed 
status as a temporary worker provision. Indeed, an estimated 860,000 
illegal alien agricultural workers could qualify, and it also permits 
them to bring their spouses and children, which could bring the total 
number of AgJOBS beneficiaries to as many as 3 million people.
  Now, the interesting thing about that is it does not stop at the 
people who are already here who came into the country in violation of 
our laws. Another startling provision of this bill actually invites 
back to the United States certain aliens who were here illegally and 
who performed the requisite 100 hours of agricultural work between July 
2003 and December 2004 but who have already left. These aliens would be 
allowed, under this AgJOBS bill, to drop off a ``preliminary 
application'' at a designated port of entry along the southern land 
border, pick up a work permit, and reenter the United States.
  So not only are we dealing with people who are here now but people 
who were here illegally and who have left. We are now saying: Come on 
back and pick up a work permit and reenter this pathway toward full 
American citizenship ahead of all of the other people who are playing 
by the rules and waiting in line. That is wrong.
  Another provision of this bill which I have some concerns about is 
entitled ``Eligibility for Legal Services,'' which requires free, 
federally funded legal counsel be afforded--that is, paid for--by 
American taxpayer dollars through

[[Page 6744]]

the Legal Services Corporation to assist temporary workers in the 
application process for legal permanent residency.
  Not only does this bill deal with a specific industry and ignore the 
rest of the industries that have come to rely, in significant part, on 
undocumented workers, this invites into our country the spouses and 
children of these workers--a total of some 3 million people 
potentially. And these workers, of course, will not be here temporarily 
if they are essentially setting up home in the United States.
  There is a difference between an approach that says we will set up a 
framework for people to come and work but then return to their country, 
which is truly a temporary worker program, and one such as this which 
says, don't just work and return, but work and stay and break in ahead 
of the line of all the other people who have applied to come to this 
country legally, even though you have chosen to do so otherwise. Beyond 
that, we are going to provide you with a free lawyer.
  I think it is not a stretch to say the AgJOBS bill will invite even 
more lawsuits since it expands the ability of the Legal Services 
Corporation to sue growers in several areas.
  The reasons the current provisions of the law which deal with 
agricultural workers have been unsuccessful are, No. 1, because the 
caps are set too low and, No. 2, because it has become so bureaucratic 
and burdened by regulation that it basically is not a viable 
alternative for the agricultural industry, and growers have come to 
expect excessive litigation as a result, which this AgJOBS bill would 
do nothing to fix but would aggravate.
  Let me speak briefly about the bill Senators Kyl and Chambliss have 
offered today. It does compare favorably with some of the provisions in 
the AgJOBS bill because it does not provide for amnesty. It does not 
provide a path to U.S. citizenship automatically ahead of all of the 
other people who have played by the rules and who have applied in the 
regular course of our laws. It has many of the same failings I 
mentioned earlier about being a partial solution to a real and 
comprehensive problem.
  I hope my colleagues will recall the vote they cast just last week, 
when 61 of us voted on a sense of the Senate to say that this 
appropriations bill, providing emergency funds for the warfighters, the 
people risking their very lives to defend us in the global war on 
terrorism, ought to take the front seat and that we ought to reserve 
comprehensive immigration reform to a later date and not slow this bill 
down because of that.
  Having not resisted the temptation to get embroiled in an immigration 
debate, I hope our colleagues will listen carefully to the half 
solutions and the special interest legislation this represents. I don't 
begrudge employers who need workers from trying to find a legal 
solution to that. I am for doing that but on a comprehensive basis, not 
just an industry-specific basis and particularly not on a basis that 
provides additional benefits to these workers in the form of amnesty 
that they would not otherwise be entitled to and denies other people 
equal opportunity to participate in a temporary worker program.
  As complicated as this issue is and as important as the debate is, 
now is not the time to be engaging in it. Certainly now is not the time 
to pass a partial solution which will undermine our ability to get 
comprehensive immigration reform done.
  It is my distinct impression that there is a big difference between 
the thinking on the part of the advocates of the AgJOBS bill in this 
Chamber and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. 
Realistically, as part of this emergency appropriations bill, to get 
the warfighters what they need in order to do the job we have asked 
them to do and which they volunteered to do, I cannot see the other 
Chamber agreeing to this ill-considered and premature immigration 
legislation at this time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against both the AgJOBS bill, to vote 
against the alternative offered by the Senators from Georgia and 
Arizona, but at the same time to say, you are more than welcome, as we 
work together for comprehensive reform, to work with us. We will try to 
meet you halfway in working out a consensus on this very tough and 
complex but important issue that should not be handled in the way they 
have proposed to handle it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 429

  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the 
amendment, and I ask that we call up amendment No. 429.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 429.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of April 14, 2005 under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 
today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Byrd amendment 
No. 464, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment 
prior to the vote. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, given the pending time prior to the vote 
we will have in a few minutes, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Isakson are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 464

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
464 offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Montana, (Mr. 
Burns), and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell.
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. STABENOW. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama), are necessarily absent. I further announce 
that, if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and 
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) would each vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman

[[Page 6745]]


     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Alexander
     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thomas
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Bond
     Burns
     Durbin
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     McConnell
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 464) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senators from Illinois, Mr. Durbin and 
Mr. Obama, are necessarily absent today to attend the dedication and 
opening of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in 
Springfield, IL.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I might call up the amendment at the desk, 
No. 463.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 463

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

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 463.

  Mr. BYRD. 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 require a quarterly report on audits conducted by the 
 Defense Contract Audit Agency of task or delivery order contracts and 
 other contracts related to security and reconstruction activities in 
 Iraq and Afghanistan and to address irregularities identified in such 
                                reports)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


          audits of defense contracts in iraq and afghanistan

       Sec. 1122. (a)(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency, shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations and 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives a report that lists 
     and describes audits conducted by the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency of task or delivery order contracts and other 
     contracts related to security and reconstruction activities 
     in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall identify in the report 
     submitted under paragraph (1)--
       (A) any such task or delivery order contract or other 
     contract that the Director of the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency determines involves costs that are unjustified, 
     unsupported, or questionable, including any charges assessed 
     on goods or services not provided in connection with such 
     task or delivery order contract or other contract; and
       (B) the amount of the unjustified, unsupported, or 
     questionable costs and the percentage of the total value of 
     such task or delivery order contract or other contract that 
     such costs represent.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee 
     on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the House of Representatives an update 
     of the report submitted under paragraph (1) every 90 days 
     thereafter.
       (b) In the event that any costs under a contract are 
     identified by the Director of the Defense Contract Audit 
     Agency as unjustified, unsupported, or questionable pursuant 
     to subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of Defense shall withhold 
     from amounts otherwise payable to the contractor under such 
     contract a sum equal to 115 percent of the total amount of 
     such costs.
       (c) Upon a subsequent determination by the Director of the 
     Defense Contract Audit Agency that any unjustified, 
     unsupported, or questionable cost for which an amount payable 
     was withheld under subsection (b) has been justified, 
     supported, or answered, as the case may be, the Secretary of 
     Defense may release such amount for payment to the contractor 
     concerned.
       (d) In each report or update submitted under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of Defense shall describe each action 
     taken under subsection (b) or (c) during the period covered 
     by such report or update.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with this supplemental appropriations bill, 
Congress will have appropriated $300 billion for military operations 
and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is an 
enormous sum of money. We say it is for the troops in the field, for 
armor, weapons, equipment, and other mechanisms necessary to wage a 
war. But a significant portion does not make it to the troops. Much of 
it goes to defense contractors, corporate giants such as Halliburton 
that profit from the military operations and defense expenditures of 
the U.S. Government.
  Halliburton reportedly has been awarded $11 billion in Iraq 
contracts. The war in Iraq may symbolize a time of sacrifice for 
American families, but for some--not all but for some--defense 
contractors, the cold, hard truth is that Iraq has become an 
opportunity to reap an enormous profit from American's decision to send 
America's sons and daughters into war. It is incumbent upon the 
Congress to be diligent in how these moneys are allocated to defense 
contractors. It is incumbent upon the Congress to be thorough in its 
oversight and to be meticulous in its accounting.
  The administration has submitted five emergency supplemental spending 
bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. The size of these supplemental requests 
is massive, exceeding $80 billion this year, $25 million last year, and 
$160 billion the year before that. Most of these costs are being 
considered outside the checks and oversight of the regular budget and 
appropriations process. It is a confusing and, at times, a beguiling 
process that results in enormous sums of money flowing to contractors 
in Iraq, oftentimes without adequate oversight. Such a process invites 
waste, abuse, and fraud.
  I don't belittle the role of defense contractors in Iraq. I belittle 
the circumstances that the administration has fostered. I belittle the 
suspicion that this administration has created by veiling its 
contractor negotiations in secrecy, and the whirlwind of allegations of 
misconduct and fraud that the administration has invited by not sharing 
information with the people of the United States, the American public.
  The American people have good reason to question the costs emanating 
from contractors in Iraqi oil fields and Iraqi communities.
  Three separate Government auditors have criticized contractor waste 
in Iraq. Government investigators point to unsubstantiated costs and to 
sloppy accounting. Fortune magazine's analysis of Government reports 
found $2 billion of unjustified or undocumented charges. The Pentagon's 
Defense Contract Audit Agency has cited inadequacies and deficiencies 
in contractor billing systems, along with unreasonable and illogical 
cost justification. The Wall Street Journal reports that Pentagon 
auditors are investigating whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers by 
$212 million for delivering fuel to Iraq.
  Questions have arisen in the House of Representatives about why these 
costs had been concealed from international auditors. The Government 
Accountability Office has cited the risks of inadequate cost controls 
for contractors in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority's 
inspector general cited millions of dollars in overcharges from 
Halliburton employees indulging themselves at the Kuwait Hilton. 
Imagine U.S. soldiers in the field forced to survive on military 
rations and suffering

[[Page 6746]]

the unbearable heat of the desert while Halliburton employees enjoy the 
breakfast buffet in an air-conditioned Hilton.
  The House Government Reform Committee reported hundreds of millions 
of dollars in waste by some contractors. A glance at the committee Web 
site reveals tens of millions of dollars in questionable charges--task 
order after task order showing $86 million in unexplained charges, $34 
million in unsupported costs, $36 million in unjustified expenditures, 
and so on and so on. Incredibly, the Defense Department--your Defense 
Department, my Defense Department--is paying these charges, even though 
their own auditors are telling them that the charges are unjustified.
  One example reported in the Wall Street Journal: Halliburton's 
Kellogg, Brown & Root charged taxpayers for dining facility services in 
Iraq and Kuwait. Pentagon auditors flagged $200 million of unsupported 
costs--that is a lot of money--$200 million of unsupported costs, but 
the Defense Department released $145 million in compensation to 
Kellogg, Brown & Root despite auditors' reservations and despite 
Halliburton's inability to justify the charge.
  It is the taxpayers--you people out there watching through those 
lenses, those electronic lenses, watching the Senate floor, I am 
talking about you--it is the taxpayers, your constituents, Mr. 
President, my constituents, who are being charged for this tripe. It is 
they who must bear the costs of such rip-offs. It is your money.
  Our constituents read in the newspapers how lucrative contracts are 
awarded without competition, how enormous rewards are handed to 
campaign donors. Mention the name Halliburton, and, as Fortune magazine 
quips, an image flashes in the public's mind of ``a giant corporation 
engaged in shameless war profiteering--charging outrageous prices to 
provide fuel for Iraqis and meals for American troops.''
  Our constituencies, the people who send us here, are crying out for 
Congress to assume a stronger oversight role and to assure them, the 
people, that their moneys are being spent wisely. The amendment I have 
offered today does exactly that. My amendment requires the Defense 
Secretary to provide the Committee on Appropriations and the Armed 
Services Committee with a quarterly report that lists and describes 
questionable and unsupported contractor charges identified by Pentagon 
auditors for Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment requires the Defense 
Secretary to withhold 100 percent of the payment for these charges and 
to assess a penalty by withholding an additional amount equal to 15 
percent of the unsupported charge. If Pentagon auditors can verify the 
charges assessed by the contractor, that they are justifiable, then the 
Defense Secretary can release the payment.
  My amendment is common sense. We ought not to be paying for services 
that have not been rendered. The American people ought not be paying 
for services that have not been rendered. The American people ought not 
be paying more than a fair market price. The American people ought not 
allow contractors to think they can hoodwink the American citizen and 
get away with it.
  The American public is being asked to sacrifice to pay for this war. 
The President's budget cuts investments in education, in health care, 
in domestic priorities that impact every State of the Union in order to 
pay for these military and reconstruction activities. Congress ought to 
ensure--that is us--we ought to ensure that sacrifice is not wasted. We 
ought to slap the knuckles--and slap them hard--of any contractor, 
whether because of sloppy accounting or because of outright fraud, that 
results in the American taxpayer being bilked.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I urge its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague from West 
Virginia if it would be in order to lay the amendment aside so I can 
send to the desk another amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.


                           Amendment No. 499

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 499 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allen, Mr. Talent, Ms. Collins, and 
     Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 499.

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

        (Purpose: Relating to the aircraft carriers of the Navy)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


                     aircraft carriers of the navy

       Sec. 1122. (a) Funding for Repair and Maintenance of U.S.S. 
     John F. Kennedy.--Of the amount appropriated to the 
     Department of the Navy by this Act, and by the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 
     Stat. 954), an aggregate of $288,000,000 may be available 
     only for repair and maintenance of the U.S.S. John F. 
     Kennedy, and available to conduct such repair and maintenance 
     of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy as the Navy considers 
     appropriate to extend the life of U.S.S. John F. Kennedy.
       (b) Limitation on Reduction in Number of Active Aircraft 
     Carriers.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act, or any other Act, may be obligated or expended 
     to reduce the number of active aircraft carriers of the Navy 
     below 12 active aircraft carriers until the later of the 
     following:
       (1) The date that is 180 days after the date of the 
     submittal to Congress of the quadrennial defense review 
     required in 2005 under section 118 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (2) The date on which the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     certifies to Congress that such agreements have been entered 
     into to provide port facilities for the permanent forward 
     deployment of such numbers of aircraft carriers as are 
     necessary in the Pacific Command Area of Responsibility to 
     fulfill the roles and missions of that Command, including 
     agreements for the forward deployment of a nuclear aircraft 
     carrier after the retirement of the current two conventional 
     aircraft carriers.
       (c) Active Aircraft Carriers.--For purposes of this 
     section, an active aircraft carrier of the Navy includes an 
     aircraft carrier that is temporarily unavailable for 
     worldwide deployment due to routing or scheduled maintenance.

  Mr. WARNER. I am joined by the distinguished Senator from Florida, 
Mr. Nelson, Senator Allen, Senator Martinez, Senator Talent, and 
Senator Collins. I am prepared to give my statement in support.
  I see the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, and I are waiting to speak about the tragic 
death of Marla Ruzicka over the weekend in the form of eulogies. I 
don't want to interrupt the work of the distinguished senior Senator 
from Virginia, but when he is finished I am going to seek the floor--
both Senator Boxer and I--to give the eulogies, which will not take a 
great deal of time, but they are important.
  Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator is asking that he be recognized at 
the conclusion of the introduction of this amendment. Senator Nelson 
and I will be brief to accommodate our colleagues.
  Mr. President, this amendment ensures that all necessary repair and 
maintenance be accomplished on the USS John F. Kennedy to keep that 
ship in active status. The amendment also requires the Navy to keep 12 
aircraft carriers until the later of several situations comes to the 
attention of the Senate and the Congress: 180 days after the next 
Quadrennial Defense Review is delivered to Congress, or the Secretary 
of Defense has certified to Congress the necessary agreements have been 
entered into to provide the port facilities for the permanent forward 
deployed aircraft carriers deemed necessary to carry out the mission in 
their area of responsibility.
  The ship, the USS Kennedy, was scheduled to start overhaul this 
coming summer. There was $334.7 million authorized and appropriated in 
the fiscal year 2005 for that purpose. So none of the funds in the 
underlying bill in

[[Page 6747]]

any way are garnered by this amendment.
  In the last-minute budget cut in late December, the decision was made 
by the Department of Defense to defer maintenance and to decommission 
the Kennedy.
  The Chief of Naval Operations testified before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee on February 10 of this year that all 12 aircraft 
carriers were in his original budget request. He stated, however, that 
``this action was driven by guidance'' from the office of Management 
and Budget that ``led to the reduction of our overall budget.''
  That repair and maintenance should go forward, starting this summer 
as originally planned. It is premature to decommission this ship, which 
was until this past December scheduled to remain in the fleet until 
2018.
  The great ship, the John F. Kennedy, returned from deployment on 
December 13, 2004. I understand the ship is in good shape. In fact, in 
the words of the battle group commander, whose flagship was the 
Kennedy, the ship returned from deployment in ``outstanding material 
condition.''
  The primary analytical document on military force structure is the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR. The QDR is, in the end, a 
compilation of detailed analyses of what the Nation requires to execute 
the National Military Strategy.
  I believe Congress should show restraint when it comes to making 
force structure decisions, and only do so in the context of the reports 
and the analyses produced by the Department of Defense and such other 
reports that may be relevant. In this case, however, the analyses that 
are available to us supports a force structure of 12 aircraft carriers, 
not 11.
  I also believe that, at some point, the number of aircraft carriers 
matters. If the aircraft carrier is not where the President needs it to 
be when a crisis erupts, its capabilities, however awesome, are not 
very meaningful.
  The deliberations on the next QDR have already begun, in accordance 
with the law, and it should be delivered by this time next year. It may 
show, with analytical rigor, that the number of aircraft carriers can 
be reduced. It may not.
  Nowhere is naval power more important to the National Military 
Strategy than in the Pacific Command Area of Responsibility.
  After retirement of the USS Kitty Hawk in fiscal year 2008, the 
Kennedy, if retained, would be the last remaining conventional aircraft 
carrier.
  This amendment ensures we have the aircraft carriers necessary to 
keep this area of the world covered until such time that the QDR, the 
Global Posture Review, and other uncertainties have been resolved.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, the CNO appeared before our committee here of recent.
  Now I will yield to my distinguished colleague from Florida, who was 
present during the course of that testimony, to insert that part which 
was in open session, which I think we should share with our colleagues. 
Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Florida, my 
principal cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, because Senator Leahy is 
waiting to speak, I will make very brief comments. The comments to 
which the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
has referred is the Chief of Naval Operations saying it is absolutely 
essential that he have a carrier home ported in Japan. The fact is, as 
he projects his forces in the defense of our country in the Pacific 
area of operations, he needs a carrier in that region so if it has to 
respond to an emergency, say, off of the coast of Taiwan, it is within 
a day and a half of sailing to respond to the emergency instead of a 
week's sailing from a port on the west coast of the United States.
  Now, how all this ties in to the John F. Kennedy is that we do not 
know at this point that the Government of Japan--since so much of this 
decision is influenced by the municipal government in the region of the 
port--is going to receive a nuclear carrier. Therefore, when the 
present, conventionally powered carrier, the Kitty Hawk, in Japan, is 
ready to go out of service in 2008, if Japan's posture is they will not 
accept a nuclear carrier, then we do not have another one that could 
replace it.
  So what the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is 
suggesting in this amendment that many of us are sponsoring with him is 
to keep alive the John F. Kennedy through its drydocking, with the 
funds that have already been appropriated, the $335 million, of which 
there are some $287 million left, to go on through the overhaul process 
so we have it as a backup.
  This, of course, also keeps us then with two major ports for carriers 
on the east coast so that all of our east coast carrier assets are not 
in one port. In this era of terrorism, that clearly is one of the 
lessons we should have learned way back in December of 1941 in the 
experience of Pearl Harbor: Keep your assets spread out.
  I am very grateful to Senator Warner, who has offered this amendment 
for the sake of the defense of our country. And for the sake of those 
of us who have been working this problem, we are very grateful in order 
to get this in front of the Senate so a policy decision can be made.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me the opportunity 
to offer an amendment? I do not know how long he will be speaking.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct that the Senator from Alabama 
only needs a minute or so?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Less than that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will withhold my recognition so he can do 
that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized to 
offer an amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 456

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 456.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 456.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 for accountability in the United Nations 
                    Headquarters renovation project)

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


              UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS RENOVATION LOAN

       Sec. 2105. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and subject to subsection (b), no loan in excess of 
     $600,000,000 may be made available by the United States for 
     renovation of the United Nations headquarters building 
     located in New York, New York.
       (b) No loan may be made available by the United States for 
     renovation of the United Nations headquarters building 
     located in New York, New York until after the date on which 
     the President certifies to Congress that the renovation 
     project has been fairly and competitively bid and that such 
     bid is a reasonable cost for the renovation project.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from California, Mrs. Boxer, be recognized following me, and that the 
two of

[[Page 6748]]

us be recognized as in morning business to speak about the tragic death 
this weekend of Marla Ruzicka.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.


                             Marla Ruzicka

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join my good friend, the Senator from 
California, in paying tribute to a remarkable young woman from 
Lakeport, CA, Marla Ruzicka.
  There are times when we are called upon to give speeches such as this 
on the floor. They are never easy. Sometimes they are speeches given 
about somebody at the end of a long and full life. Here we are speaking 
about a young woman at the beginning of a life already full but with 
promise for decades to come.
  Marla was the founder of a humanitarian organization called Campaign 
for Innocent Victims in Conflict which is devoted to helping the 
families of Afghan and Iraqi citizens who have been killed or suffered 
other losses, such as their homes destroyed, businesses destroyed, as a 
result of U.S. military operations. We know such suffering occurs no 
matter how careful the military may be.
  But Saturday, Marla died in Baghdad. She died from a car bomb, a car 
bomb not directed at her but directed at a convoy. She was doing the 
work she loved and which so many people around the world admired her 
for. She was on her way to help somebody else. It was the case of being 
at the wrong place at the wrong time. But it was not unusual because 
she had risked her life so many times in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I met Marla 3 years ago when she first came to Washington. She was 
barely 26 years old. She had been in Afghanistan. She had seen the 
effects of the U.S. bombing mistakes that destroyed the homes and lives 
of innocent Afghan citizens. In one or two incidents, wedding parties 
had been bombed. In others, the bombs missed their targets and instead 
destroyed homes and neighborhoods.
  I remember one incident she spoke of where every member of a family--
16 people--was killed except a young child and that child's 
grandfather. These were the cases Marla spoke about. She spoke about 
them passionately because she felt passionately that the United States 
should help those families put their lives back together.
  She met with me. She met in my office with Tim Rieser, who works on 
appropriations for me in the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. It did 
not take her long to convince either Tim or myself that she was so 
obviously right. We knew we not only had a moral responsibility to 
those people who had suffered because of the mistakes of the United 
States, we also had an interest in mitigating the hatred, the 
resentment toward Americans that those incidents had caused.
  It was Marla's initiative--going to Afghanistan, meeting those 
families, getting the media's attention, coming back here and meeting 
with me and Tim and others--that led to the creation of a program that 
has contributed more than $8 million for medical assistance, or to 
rebuild homes, provide loans to start businesses, and provide other aid 
to innocent Afghan victims of the military operations.
  From Afghanistan, Marla went to Iraq. She arrived, as I recall, a day 
or two after Saddam's statue fell. She and her Iraqi colleague, Faiez 
Ali Salem, who died at the same time, the same place as Marla, 
organized dozens of Iraqi volunteers to conduct surveys around the 
country of civilian casualties. Then she returned to Washington and 
again her efforts--I have to emphasize, her efforts, her personal 
efforts, her pounding on doors, her going person to person with her 
irrepressible energy--led to the creation of a program now known as the 
Civilian Assistance Program which has provided $10 million to the 
families and communities of Iraqi citizens killed by the U.S. and other 
coalition forces--another $10 million was allocated for this program 
last week--all by this happy, young woman you see depicted here, 
sitting with the people she helped.
  To my knowledge, this is the first time we have ever provided this 
type of assistance to civilian victims of U.S. military operations. It 
would never have happened without the initiative, the courage, the 
incomparable force of character of Marla Ruzicka.
  In my 31 years as a Senator, I have met a lot of interesting, 
accomplished people from all over the world, as all of us do--Nobel 
Prize recipients, heads of State, people who have achieved remarkable 
and even heroic things in their lives. I have never met anyone like 
Marla. She made sure we knew what she was doing and how we could help. 
Tim Rieser received an e-mail from her within an hour of the time she 
was killed. He sent it on to me during the middle of the night, 
Saturday night, with the photographs of Marla and the little girl she 
had helped.
  I know how both my wife Marcelle and I felt, looking at those 
pictures, knowing we would never see another. There are so many stories 
about her, and some of them are being recounted now in the hundreds of 
press articles that have appeared in just the past 48 hours.
  One story I remember the day after Marla arrived in Washington from 
Kabul. She had heard there was a hearing in the Senate where Secretary 
Rumsfeld and General Franks were going to testify. Thinking, perhaps a 
bit naively, that they might talk about the problem of civilian 
casualties, she decided to go hear what they would say. After the 
hearing was over, obviously disappointed that the issue she cared so 
deeply about hadn't even been mentioned, Marla walked straight up to 
Secretary Rumsfeld at the witness table and started talking to him.
  He heads down the hallway; she heads down the hallway with him. I can 
imagine what the security people felt. She followed him right outside 
to his car, and she did not stop talking to him about the families of 
civilians she had met who had been killed and injured and the need to 
do something to help them.
  Anybody who knew Marla can see that. Secretary of Defense? Secretary 
of State, Senator, it didn't make any difference. She had a story to 
tell and, by golly, you were going to hear that story. You could run 
down the hall, you could go to the elevator, but you were going to hear 
her story. She was not someone who was easy to say no to.
  Not easy? It was almost impossible to say no to her. That was not 
simply because she was insistent. We all have insistent people who come 
to our offices. We have all developed ways to say no. But in her case, 
she was not just insistent, she was credible. She had been there. She 
knew what the war was about. She had seen the tragic results, and she 
was not about blaming anyone. She wasn't there to blame others. She 
just said: Look, there are people who need help. I want to help in 
whatever way I can.
  That is what made it different. She saw her work as part of the best 
of what this country is about. It was the face of a compassionate 
America she believed in. She wanted the people of Afghanistan and Iraq 
to see the face of the America she believed in, a compassionate, 
humanitarian face.
  It took time for some of us to realize she was not just a blond 
bundle of energy and charisma, which she was, but she was also a person 
of great intellect and courage who realized she wanted to help more 
victims. It wasn't enough to protest; that you can do easily. She 
needed to work with people who could help her do it. Of course, that 
meant the Congress, the U.S. military, the U.S. Embassy, the press, 
everybody else involved. She understood that. So she put aside politics 
and focused on the victims. But she made sure the Congress, the U.S. 
military, the U.S. Embassy and the press and everybody else heard from 
her. It didn't take long before the U.S. military saw the importance of 
what she was doing and they started to help. There were several civil 
affairs officers with whom Marla worked as a team. She would find the 
cases. They would arrange for the plane to airlift a wounded child to a 
hospital or some other type of assistance. She became one of our most 
beloved ambassadors because she was doing what our ambassadors want to 
do--put the good face, the humanitarian face, the loving and caring 
face of America first and foremost.

[[Page 6749]]

  I think one of the reasons so many people around the world feel 
Marla's loss so deeply is because we saw how important her work was, 
and that meant taking risks the rest of us are unwilling take. In a 
way, she was not only helping the families of Iraqi war victims; she 
was also helping us, until she finally became an innocent victim of war 
herself. Yesterday, my phone rang so many times, people calling from 
Baghdad, calling me at home. Every one of them had a different story of 
something she had done, some way in which she had made somebody's life 
different. She has been called many things: an angel of mercy, a ray of 
sunshine in an often dangerous and dark world.
  One person who knew her well described Marla as being as close to a 
living saint as they come. I suspect that is how many of us feel. She 
probably didn't feel that way herself. Many of us feel that way.
  I don't think I have ever met, and I probably will never meet again, 
someone so young who gave so much of herself to so many people and who 
made such a difference doing it. Our hearts go out to her parents, 
Cliff and Nancy. I talked to her father yesterday. I said: Think how 
much she did in her short lifetime, more than most of us will get to do 
in a lifetime. But I thanked them for having the courage to let her be 
the person she wanted to be--not that I suspected anybody could have 
stopped her from being what she wanted to be.
  One of the articles talks about her going to a checkpoint and the 
guard stopping her and she didn't have the proper papers. She stuck her 
head forward and pulled back the scarf. They saw the blond hair. She 
started talking to them about why she had to go here and there. Next 
thing you know, she is being sent on her way.
  So our job is really to carry on the work Marla started not just in 
memory of a wonderful and heroic young woman, although that should be 
enough reason, but because the work is so important. That is what I am 
committed to. I know I will work with my friend from California to 
honor Marla in that way. I think it would be safe to say to my friend 
from California, I suspect there will be others in this Chamber who 
will do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy, from the bottom of 
my heart, for his words about this extraordinary young woman; more than 
that, to him and his staff for believing in her. That took a leap of 
faith, that a woman so young could come in and present as compelling a 
case as she did.
  Of course, she went right to the Senator, that is for sure, because 
of the work he has done for human rights in the world. She knew what 
she was doing. But you heard her and Tim and you rolled up your sleeves 
and created a program that the entire Senate backed and the entire 
Congress backed to help the innocent victims of war--those who are 
unfortunately sometimes called ``collateral damage''; we have names for 
that.
  Clearly, what Marla did, by recognizing that these people needed 
help, she was doing God's work. But she also, as the good Senator 
pointed out, was helping the United States of America because we are in 
the battle for the hearts and minds of the world. Marla understood 
that.


                           Amendment No. 444

  Mrs. BOXER. Before I make further remarks, I ask unanimous consent 
that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside so I can call up 
amendment No. 444.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 444.

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

     (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $35,000,000 for Other 
 Procurement, Army, and make the amount available for the fielding of 
            Warlock systems and other field jamming systems)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


     deployment of warlock systems and other field jamming systems

       Sec. 1122. (a) Additional Amount for Other Procurement, 
     Army.--The amount appropriated by this chapter under the 
     heading ``Other Procurement, Army'' is hereby increased by 
     $35,000,000, with the amount of such increase designated as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this chapter under the heading 
     ``Other Procurement, Army'', as increased by subsection (a), 
     $60,000,000 shall be available under the Tactical 
     Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) program to 
     facilitate the rapid deployment of Warlock systems and other 
     field jamming systems.

  Mrs. BOXER. My amendment would increase funding for jamming devices 
that would deactivate roadside bombs. They are one of the leading 
causes of the casualties in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I will get back to the tribute I want to give to 
Marla. I thank Laura Schiller, my staff member, who is sitting here 
with me. She helped me put together these remarks. She was a friend of 
Marla's, and it was very hard for her to get through writing these 
remarks.
  This morning, in northern California, where I was--I just got here--
the people woke up to the San Francisco Chronicle's front page. It is 
this magnificent picture of Marla and a little girl she helped, along 
with an Iraqi woman who had clearly also been working with this little 
child.
  It is interesting because on either side of this beautiful photograph 
of Marla and this little girl are two very negative stories about the 
world we live in--Medicare fraud and oil companies trying to lower 
their taxes in light of their highest profits ever--and it just spoke 
to me about Marla because there she was in the middle of all these 
negative forces, the worst kinds of negative forces--war, hatred, 
sectarian violence, all these things, there she was right in the 
middle, something good for us to cling to.
  My heart breaks for Marla's family and her friends. Some of them were 
here, so many whose lives she touched. One of Marla's friends was my 
daughter Nicole who called me with the news of Marla's death on 
Saturday night. It was hard to understand her at first, so heavy were 
her tears. Between sobs, she told me Marla had been killed along the 
treacherous road leading to the Baghdad airport. It was a road so 
dangerous that when Senators travel there--and I just got back from 
there a couple weeks ago--they don't go on that road. Instead, they go 
on a Blackhawk helicopter and speed through a city with machine guns on 
either side looking down to the ground. It is a road so dangerous that 
even limited protection costs thousands of dollars--tens of thousands 
of dollars just to go one way on that road, if you were to hire people 
to help protect you. That is how dangerous it is.
  Who among us would have found the courage to travel on that road on 
Saturday, or the road that Marla had traveled during her courageous, 
committed, and very short life? Who among us can say we have spent so 
much of our lives serving other people in the way that truly makes a 
difference? How many 28-year-olds can say that?
  Imagine, in this the most powerful and greatest country in the world, 
it was this remarkable woman who went door to door counting Iraqi 
civilian victims, when nobody else would. It was this young woman who 
lobbied the Senate for assistance for these families, and we heard from 
Senator Leahy about how incredible she was when she made the case. She 
risked her own life to make sure they received the support they 
deserved.
  ``Marla was something close to a saint,'' one friend wrote this 
morning, ``but a very realistic saint.'' I personally met Marla for the 
first time recently when she and her mother came to my home in 
California to celebrate an occasion for my daughter. When Marla walked 
through our front door

[[Page 6750]]

with her mom, she had an infectious smile, and my daughter's face lit 
up. ``This is the amazing woman I've been telling you about, Mom,'' she 
said.
  This is how it always was for the thousands around the world lucky 
enough to call Marla a friend. It didn't matter if you lived in the 
streets of Baghdad or the dusty villages of Afghanistan or the 
corridors of power in Washington, DC. It didn't matter whether you knew 
Marla. She would come up to you and you would feel as if you had known 
her for a lifetime.
  She treated every conversation as a chance to tell you about the 
righteousness of her cause, and she treated everyone with the same 
respect, openness, and unconditional love.
  We so often hear:

       And now three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the 
     greatest of these is love.

  My office was flooded today with e-mails and phone calls from the 
people whose lives were touched by Marla's faith, hope, and love. 
Everyone has a story to tell, and I brought a few photos to share with 
you because words are not enough.
  In this photo she sent hours before her death, we see her holding 
tightly an Iraqi child who was thrown from a vehicle just before it was 
blown up in a rocket attack. The child's entire family was killed. 
Marla saved that child.
  Here we see one of the countless civilians brutally injured and now 
beaming and healthy next to the person, Marla, who helped her heal.
  We see Marla's trusted Iraqi colleague, Faiz, whom she wrote, ``was 
sent to me by angels from the sky.'' He worked tirelessly beside her, 
and he died bravely beside her.
  And we see this beautiful, vibrant, young woman, red scarf around her 
neck, surrounded by the soldiers she befriended and entreated in her 
quest to help Iraqi civilians. Senator Leahy made the point that 
everyone wanted to help Marla--everyone. The U.S. military wanted to 
make up for the damage that was caused. They desperately wanted to do 
that, but they needed someone who could give them accurate information, 
and she did that.

       Inside the green zone--

  One friend wrote last night--

     she would encourage military officers and U.S. officials to 
     hug each other--just to remember that they were still human, 
     and reward them with a big smile if they actually did it.

  There are many other pictures that her friends wanted to share of a 
woman who was a great friend to all and a beloved Ambassador for the 
United States at a time when our actions may not be so popular.
  There were images of the notes she sent, when their spirits were at 
their lowest, telling them how beautiful they are, how much their work 
mattered, how much she cared.
  I think we are going to leave this picture up because it is 
exquisite. There are other pictures of Marla sleeping on the floor for 
nights on end so she could use her limited resources to help Iraqi 
victims. Behind her happy-go-lucky demeanor, there was a picture of an 
effective advocate cornering a Defense Secretary, a general, or, yes, a 
U.S. Senator, and refusing to go away until our country helped care for 
the innocent victims of war.
  There was a picture of the room full of journalists waiting that last 
night for their host to show up for another party she had planned to 
buoy their spirits, and no doubt try to persuade them to write about 
the victims she saw suffering terrible damage--not collateral damage 
but critical damage.
  A few days before she died, Marla wrote her own op-ed for the 
Washington Post. She talked about her most recent discovery--that the 
U.S. military was counting Iraqi civilian casualties in some places, 
despite its claims to the contrary. She ended with these words:

       . . . To me, each number is a story of someone whose hopes, 
     dreams, and potential will never be realized, and who left 
     behind a family.

  The same can be said of Marla. Her hopes, her dreams, and her 
potential will never be realized, and she left behind a family. In all 
the years I have lived, I do not know too many people who have made an 
impact the way she has in those 28 short years. But I guarantee you, if 
Marla were here, she would not want us to weep, she would not want us 
to hide our heads. She would want us to keep fighting for the people 
and causes she had championed even before she was old enough to drive a 
car. She would want us to remember the words of encouragement and 
action she sent constantly to friends and colleagues. Once she wrote, 
``Their tragedies are my responsibilities,'' and now her work must be 
ours.
  I hope a message goes out to the suicide bombers to stop what they 
are doing, to stop it now, and to those who would put together these 
roadside bombs to stop it now because everyone who is injured by this--
everyone--has hopes and dreams and families and potential.
  So her work must be ours. She was the voice of these victims to whom 
no one seems to pay much attention. We need to be her voice now.
  ``And now these three remain: Faith, hope and love: But the greatest 
of these is love.''
  Mr. President, may we join the grieving Ruzicka family and thousands 
around the world in paying tribute to a young woman of great faith, 
hope, and love by finishing the work she so courageously began and by 
working to make sure this war will soon come to an end.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. First, I commend my colleagues from California and 
Vermont for recognizing such a remarkable woman, someone who represents 
everything that is good and peaceful about America and who set an 
example in such a tumultuous time and place but clearly giving all of 
the love she had to give at a time when it was needed the most. I thank 
my colleagues for taking the time to recognize that.


                           Amendment No. 481

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 481.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 481.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. 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 modify the accumulation of leave by members of the 
                            National Guard)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


         accumulation of leave by members of the national guard

       Sec. 1122. Section 701(a) of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``In the case of a member of the Army National Guard of the 
     United States or the Air National Guard of the United States 
     who serves on active duty for more than 179 consecutive days, 
     full-time training or other full-time duty performed by such 
     member during the 5-year period ending on the 180th day of 
     such service under a provision of law referred to in the 
     preceding sentence, while such member was in the status as a 
     member of the National Guard, and for which such member was 
     entitled to pay, is active service for the purposes of this 
     section.''.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment of 
great importance to the returning guardsmen and reservists in my home 
State and in many other States. I think many of my colleagues, in 
understanding what I am trying to do, will agree that it is the right 
approach and the right thing to do for the men and women from our 
States who have done such an incredible job serving our Nation in Iraq 
and on behalf of not just Americans but the Iraqi people.
  When our soldiers return home, some of them are finding they might 
only have a week or less before they are expected to reenter the 
workforce and return to civilian life. It is confusing at best to know 
with what they are going to be faced. The price of gasoline has gone up 
tremendously since they deployed almost 2 years ago. They have seen a 
lot of changes in their communities, perhaps changes in their work,

[[Page 6751]]

changes in their families, the loss of loved ones, certainly the 
growing of their little biddies. But many of the soldiers of Arkansas's 
39th Infantry Brigade found they had absolutely no leave left when they 
returned to our home State of Arkansas. This left them with very few 
options other than to return to work immediately or, in some cases, to 
begin looking for work immediately, within a week of when they returned 
to their home soil.
  These soldiers had just spent nearly 18 months in Iraq, risking their 
lives to defend the freedoms we cherish as Americans. They witnessed 
scenes of tragedy and violence they never expected to encounter but 
willingly accepted as part of their mission in service of this great 
Nation. It is part of our job as legislators to make sure they are 
taken care of when they return home, that we honor their sacrifices, 
their duty, and their courage. We are not doing our job if soldiers are 
forced to return to civilian life within a week of returning home from 
theater.
  I have been out to Walter Reed, as have many of my colleagues, and 
seen our soldiers recovering from horrific wounds suffered in this 
conflict. One of the soldiers from Arkansas had taken a rocket-
propelled grenade directly to his chest. You would not have known it, 
though, from talking to him. He was proud of the work he and his fellow 
soldiers had been doing in Iraq. He missed his unit and was ready to 
return to them and finish the rebuilding process they had begun.
  As I left his room, one of the nurses approached one of my staffers 
and said that while many of the soldiers were doing very well, she was 
very concerned for them once they got back to their homes, into their 
communities, trying to readjust themselves to a way of life from which 
they had been absent while they were in Iraq, while they were 
experiencing events that oftentimes only they could think of in their 
own hearts.
  Many of them underwent daily therapy sessions where they discussed 
these experiences with their fellow soldiers. Unfortunately for our 
guardsmen and reservists, they do not come back to a base where they 
are surrounded by people who have had a similar experience, people to 
whom they can talk, people with whom they can empathize, those who can 
understand the unbelievable circumstances and situations they 
experienced in Iraq.
  The nurse was also concerned that what they were receiving in the 
hospital there would all end once they returned to their hometowns--the 
therapy, the discussions, certainly the medical treatment.
  Imagine you are a soldier who, thankfully, has made it home from Iraq 
or Afghanistan without serious injury, the joyousness of coming home to 
your home, to your family, to your community, and upon returning to a 
pace of life 180 degrees from anything you have witnessed within the 
last year and a half, you are expected to turn on a dime and adjust 
immediately to the world you left behind. This is a great injustice and 
one that cannot be ignored.
  My amendment is very simple. It would allow a guardsman to accrue 
bonus leave when he or she was placed on active duty for 6 months. This 
would give guardsmen more leave by altering how training days for the 
National Guard and Reserve are counted for the purposes of determining 
their leave. Currently, any training less than 29 consecutive days does 
not count toward accruement of leave.
  This amendment would change current policy when a guardsman is placed 
on active duty for a period of 180 consecutive days. Upon that 180th 
consecutive day of active duty, all previous days spent training in the 
past 5 years, no matter their duration, would be counted for the 
purpose of determining how many days of leave the guardsmen would have. 
This would effectively give the guardsmen and reservist a bonus period 
of leave when they were deployed for longer than 6 months.
  The look-back period for determining the new leave, as I mentioned, 
would be capped at 5 years. This would prevent substantial disparities 
in accrued leave from occurring between a guardsman with 20 years of 
service and a guardsman with only 3, perhaps.
  We must do all we can to ensure our guardsmen are given every 
opportunity to readjust to life outside of the combat zone. When they 
return to our arms, we must embrace them and give them the time and the 
elements they need to readjust themselves. For some, it may be as 
simple as getting their finances back in order or perhaps spending time 
with their spouse or their children or their extended family. Maybe it 
is getting re-equipped back in their household or in their community. 
Maybe it is getting re-engaged, remembering those people who surround 
them who can provide them the unconditional love and support they need 
to put behind them the experiences they may have had, so they can look 
forward and be proud of the service they have given and know their 
country embraces them.
  For others, it may be more difficult. Either way, they deserve an 
opportunity to deal with these issues without having to worry about 
returning to or finding work in order to put food on the table so soon 
after giving so much in service to this great country.
  Our guardsmen found themselves in two circumstances where they were 
given passes, but were required to take leave when they have returned 
now from that 180-plus days of service, of giving their heart and soul 
to make sure the freedoms we enjoy are protected.
  We should do all we can to make sure as they come back into our 
American communities, they come back into their families, they can do 
it with dignity and the support of this great country and the military 
service they have served.
  I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment. I ask my colleagues to take 
a look at it. I think it is very simple and something we could do 
without much folderol. We could get it done and make sure all these 
soldiers are well taken care of.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit regretfully 
about the issue of immigration--regretfully, because the supplemental 
Defense bill that came out of the House of Representatives included the 
issue of immigration and therefore has opened it up for discussion here 
in the Senate.
  Tonight I rise in support of the Craig amendment which will enact 
important reforms to the H-2A program that will help ensure Ohio's 
agricultural industry remains strong and vibrant. That has a lot to do 
with immigration.
  Agribusiness is the largest industry in the State of Ohio, 
contributing $73 billion to our economy each year. I would like to keep 
it that way. My State ranks sixth nationally in the production of 
nursery and greenhouse crops, with a value of over a half billion 
dollars. We grow almost a quarter of a billion dollars worth of fruits 
and vegetables each year.
  I want to stress how important these businesses are to Ohio and how 
vulnerable they are. These industries live and die in a very 
competitive marketplace, and having a stable and sufficient workforce 
is vital to their competitiveness in the global marketplace. 
Unfortunately, right now they have a major labor crisis. Without the 
guest workers who are essential to getting work done during peak 
seasons, agribusiness in Ohio as well as the rest of the country simply 
would not have the workforce necessary to do their work and their 
customers would have to look elsewhere, very likely to overseas 
businesses for agricultural products.
  I am told in the early 1990s our Nation exported twice the value of 
nursery and greenhouse crops to Canada than we imported. In the last 
decade, Canada has overtaken us, and now the numbers have reversed, 
adding to our Nation's trade deficit. I would like to note that our 
neighbor, Ontario, has a very good guest worker program.
  If we offshore our fruit, vegetable, nursery crops, and other 
production to Mexico and Canada, think of what we lose. We lose control 
of our food supply, and you know that is a national security issue. We 
lose jobs, and not just farmworker jobs. Agricultural economists tell 
us each farmworker job

[[Page 6752]]

in these industries supports 3\1/2\ jobs in the surrounding economy: 
processing, packaging, transportation, equipment, supplies, lending, 
and insurance. They are good jobs, filled by Americans. We lose them if 
we do not do this the right way.
  Work in these industries in Ohio is seasonal, demanding, and out in 
the weather. Many of our producers have tried to use the existing H-2A 
program. This is especially true of our nursery, sod, and Christmas 
tree growers. They represent 79 percent of the H-2A use in Ohio.
  The program is expensive, bureaucratic, and a litigation nightmare--
that is the current program. The program is failing and it needs 
fixing. Many agricultural employers would like to use the program but 
do not because of the uncertainty associated with the program. Not 
having access to legal, timely workers hurts these businesses. Crops 
are lost because workers are not available for the harvest. I 
understand from my colleague Senator Craig that out in California 
lettuce is rotting in the field because there are not workers there to 
pick it.
  Many of my H-2A-user growers and producers have been closely involved 
in the negotiations of AgJOBS, the amendment before us. They know 
immigration and guest worker reform cannot be a partisan undertaking. 
They have been creative and determined in finding common ground and 
producing bipartisan legislation. Their survival depends on this Senate 
passing AgJOBS.
  The toughest issue is what to do about the trained and trusted farm 
workforce, 70 percent or more working without proper documents. Their 
labor is critical to Ohio and America. These farmworkers are hard-
working, law-abiding people. They are paying Federal and State taxes 
and Social Security. They are part of the fabric of our society already 
in so many ways.
  AgJOBS allows them to come forward and rehabilitate their status over 
time through the time-honored values of hard work and good behavior. 
The failure of this country to create a practical agricultural guest 
worker program has forced most of the country's agribusiness to live 
between a rock and a hard place. It has been said our farmers have one 
foot in jail and the other in the bankruptcy court. Every day, each 
time my constituents open the door in the morning, they know this much, 
if and when the Government decides to get serious about Social Security 
mismatch letters, about enforcement, it is all over.
  They tell me: We are following the law in our hiring. Yet we know if 
Immigration enforcement came in tomorrow, our business would be 
irreparably damaged. My constituents and yours could lose their 
workforce tomorrow.
  Some of my colleagues are critical of this legislation because they 
claim it provides amnesty. I disagree. Amnesty is an unconditional 
pardon to a group of people who have committed an illegal act, and 
Webster's Dictionary agrees that is the definition. There is nothing 
unconditional about the path to rehabilitation provided in AgJOBS. To 
earn adjustment to legal status, a worker must have worked in U.S. 
agriculture before January 1, 2005. Accordingly, this legislation 
imposes conditions on obtaining adjustment to legal status, including, 
more importantly, a work history.
  These are people who have worked in the United States, many of them 
for many years. A lot of them are not legal. What this legislation does 
is it provides an opportunity for them to become legal, after 
supporting certain conditions.
  If you believe that any forgiveness at all constitutes amnesty, then 
every serious proposal that comes forward to solve this problem will be 
amnesty. But in the end, isn't the worst amnesty of all the status quo? 
Ignoring and tacitly condoning this problem will not provide a 
solution. It has been going on too long. Let us take a step forward now 
toward reconciling our laws with reality.
  This legislation will help illegal immigrants working in agriculture 
to come clean and become part of our legal workforce, allowing this 
country to focus its efforts on more serious immigration problems. 
Furthermore, providing a means for such workers to obtain legal status 
provides a real incentive for them to participate in this program.
  I read a portion of a letter Senator Craig and Congressman Cannon 
received from Grover Norquist, chairman of the Americans for Tax 
Reform. He said:

       I'd like to take this opportunity to commend for you the 
     introduction of S. 1645 and H.R. 3142. The AgJOBS bill is a 
     great step in bringing fundamental reform to our Nation's 
     broken immigration system. AgJOBS would make America more 
     secure. Fifty to seventy-five percent of the agriculture 
     workforce in this country is underground due to the highly 
     impractical worker quota restrictions. Up to 500,000 workers 
     would be given approved worker status screened by the 
     Department of Homeland Security and accounted for while they 
     are here. Any future workers coming into America looking for 
     agriculture work would be screened at the border where 
     malcontents can most easily be turned back. The current H2-A 
     agriculture worker program only supplies about 2 to 3 percent 
     of the farm workforce.

  It goes on to say:

       Workers that are here to work in jobs Native Americans are 
     not willing to do must stay if food production is to remain 
     adequate. However, those already here and new workers from 
     overseas should have a screening system that works, both for 
     our States' safety and for their human rights. Your bill does 
     just that.

  Mr. President, I would also like to point out that AgJOBS is endorsed 
by a historic bipartisan coalition of 500 and counting, national, 
State, and local organizations, including 200 agricultural 
organizations representing fruit and vegetable growers, dairy 
producers, nursery and landscape, ranching and others, as well as the 
National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture; that is, 
the national association of all of the 50 States' agriculture 
departments have come forward to support this. There is bipartisan 
support of this legislation by elected and appointed State directors of 
agriculture.
  Yesterday I received a letter from Ambassador Clayton Yeutter. 
Clayton Yeutter has been a tireless advocate for American agriculture. 
You will remember that he served as Secretary of Agriculture under 
Ronald Reagan and as U.S. Trade Representative under George H.W. Bush. 
In his letter, he started out by saying:

       History demonstrates that there are moments in time when 
     special opportunities arise for political action that 
     successfully addresses multiple challenges. Today is one of 
     those occasions.

  I agree.
  He went on to describe the substance and the partisanship of the 
AgJOBS bill.
  He ended as follows:

       As President Bush has stated, we can and must do better to 
     match a willing and hardworking immigrant worker with 
     producers who are in desperate need of a lawful workforce. It 
     is in our country's best interest to enact these reforms and 
     reap the harvest of political action at a special moment in 
     time.

  That is what our President had to say.
  Again, I agree.
  I stand ready to take a first and most important step on this 
difficult issue that has plagued this Nation for too long.
  As I stated, I would have preferred that immigration would not have 
been a part of this legislation that is before us. But as I mentioned, 
it came before us because of the fact that the House decided to make 
immigration a part of the emergency supplemental bill.
  Those of us who have been concerned about immigration are taking this 
opportunity to clearly state what we think needs to be done. I am 
hopeful that tomorrow 59 of my colleagues will vote for cloture so we 
can get on and deal with this issue and bring the relief to thousands 
of people, thousands of businesses, and agribusiness in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Edmun-
do Garcia said he had heard that the new Bush immigration plan, which 
would grant work visas to millions of illegal immigrants inside the 
United States and to others who can prove they have a job, was 
``amnesty,'' and he wondered why he was arrested.

       He said he would try to cross [the border from Mexico to 
     the U.S. through the Sonoran Desert] again in a few days.


[[Page 6753]]


  This quote from the New York Times on May 23, 2004, shows just how 
bad things have gotten since the administration's initial immigration 
policy proposal was announced.
  The New York Times article goes on to say:

       Apprehensions of crossers in the desert south of Tucson 
     have jumped 60 percent over the previous year.

  Nearly 300,000 people were caught trying to enter the U.S. through 
the desert border since last October 1st (that's October 2003).''
  It continues:

       After a four-year drop, apprehensions which the Border 
     Patrol uses to measure human smuggling are up 30 percent over 
     last year along the entire southern border, with over 660,000 
     people detained from October 1st through the end of April.

  There are an estimated 8 to 12 million illegal immigrants in this 
country, with about 1 million new illegal aliens coming into this 
country every year. Legal immigration is even at unprecedented levels 
about five times the traditional levels. We now have about 1.2 million 
legal immigrants coming into this country each year, as opposed to an 
average of about 250,000 legal immigrants before 1976.
  S. 359, the AgJOBS bill, could offer amnesty to at least 800,000 more 
illegal aliens, and if they all bring family members, which they would 
be eligible to do, it could be up to 3 million more, according to 
Numbers USA.
  I greatly respect my friend and colleague, the Senator from Idaho, 
Mr. Craig, and I understand he has many cosponsors for his bill, but I 
firmly believe S. 359 has some major flaws and is not the way to remedy 
our problem with illegal immigration.
  Even though there are certain criteria these illegal aliens must meet 
to qualify for temporary work status and eventual citizenship under 
this bill, it still rewards them by allowing them to stay in this 
country and work rather than penalizing them for breaking the law this 
is amnesty.
  I also agree with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, the 
chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, who said in Tuesday's 
Congress Daily when asked about the supplemental bill H.R. 1268, said 
that he did not want it to ``be a magnet for other unrelated 
immigration proposals . . . regular order is the best way. . . .''
  I agree with my colleague and think we should focus on the 
supplemental and debate immigration reform separately.
  Furthermore, in section 2, paragraph 7, the AgJOBS bill defines a 
workday as ``any day in which the individual is employed one or more 
hours in agriculture.''
  In order for an alien to apply for temporary work status, section 
101, subsection A, subparagraph A states that the aliens ``must 
establish that they have performed agricultural employment in the 
United States for at least 575 hours or 100 work days, whichever is 
less, during any 12 consecutive months. . . .''
  So if a workday is defined as working at least 1 hour and the alien 
only has to work 100 work days in a year to qualify for temporary 
status under the AgJOBS bill, then illegal aliens only have to find 
some kind of agricultural work, and not necessarily be paid, for 100 
hours, or merely 2 weeks, in a year in order to stay temporarily, while 
robbing Americans of these jobs.
  An article from May 18, 2004, by Frank Gaffney, Jr., from the 
Washington Times entitled ``Stealth Amnesty'' states that once an 
illegal alien has established lawful temporary residency, ``they can 
stay in the U.S. indefinitely while applying for permanent resident 
status.''
  ``From there it is a matter of time before they can become citizens, 
so long as they work in the agricultural sector for 675 hours over the 
next 6 years.''
  Furthermore, in referring to the REAL ID Act, which was attached to 
the supplemental in the House, and I believe is true reform, another 
article from the week of April 6, appeared in the Washington Times 
stating:

     . . . REAL ID is a bill that will strengthen homeland 
     security, while Mr. Craig's AgJOBS bill will not.

  One more article in the Washington Times, again by Frank Gaffney, 
Jr., from April 5 refers to the REAL ID Act as well as AgJOBS says:

       The REAL ID legislation is aimed at denying future 
     terrorists the ability exploited by the September 11, 2001, 
     hijackers namely, to hold numerous valid driver's licenses, 
     which they used to gain access to airports and their targeted 
     aircraft.
       It is no small irony, therefore, that the presence of the 
     REAL ID provisions on the military's supplemental funding 
     bill is being cited by the Senate parliamentarian as grounds 
     for Senator Larry Craig, Idaho Republican, to try to attach 
     to it legislation that would help eviscerate what passes for 
     restrictions on illegal immigration.

  The article continues:

       The agriculture sector of the US economy needs cheap labor.

  So let's legalize the presence in this country of anyone who can 
claim to have once worked for a little more than three months in that 
sector.
  We must not reward lawbreakers especially while we have so many 
people coming to this country legally.
  Last summer, I had an intern in my office from Rwanda. She fled 
during the genocide in 1994. She then came to this country as a refugee 
and became a legal permanent resident. It took her a year to get all 
her paperwork for becoming a legal resident and she will probably have 
to wade through similar bureaucracy to become a citizen as well. It 
frustrates me that people like her follow the rules and have to wait in 
the lines and wait for all the paperwork to be processed, while the 
illegal aliens can sneak into our country, and then, if they do apply 
for legal status, they slow down the process for those who came here 
legally. Not only does AgJOBS reward lawbreakers, it also robs many 
Americans of jobs they are willing to do.
  Roy Beck from Numbers USA in his testimony on March 24, 2004, before 
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, quoted 
Alan Greenspan from February of last year as saying that America has an 
``oversupply of low-skilled, low-educated workers.'' In fact, according 
to Mr. Beck's testimony, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 
the number of unemployed Americans includes a majority of workers 
without a high school diploma.
  Basically, we have a great supply of lower educated American workers 
without jobs, while ironically, the main purpose of the AgJOBS bill is 
to bring in low-educated, low-skilled foreign workers for jobs that 
these Americans are able and willing to fill.
  A recent article from March 31 of this year in the San Diego Union-
Tribune entitled ``Importing a Peasant Class'', written by Jerry 
Kammer, emphasizes this point by saying:

       Nearly two decades after a sweeping amnesty for illegal 
     immigrants [referring to the 1986 Amnesty] gave Gerardo 
     Jimenez a ticket out of a San Diego County avocado orchard, 
     he worries that the unyielding tide of low-wage workers from 
     Latin America might pull the economic rug out from under his 
     feet.

  Jimenez, who is from Mexico and supervises a drywall crew that worked 
all winter remodeling an office building three blocks from the White 
House says, ``There are too many people coming.''
  The article goes on to say:

       Jimenez's concern reflects an ambivalence about immigration 
     among established immigrants in America.
       It also challenges a key assumption of President Bush's 
     proposal for a massive new guest-worker program: that the 
     United States has a dearth of low-skill workers.

  This is not true, we do not have a dearth of low-skill workers.
  Not only does S. 359 keep able Americans from performing these jobs; 
it also drives down wages and stifles innovation and technology for 
these jobs.
  The same San Diego Union-Tribune article I just quoted from continues 
saying:

       In Atlanta, house painter Moises Milano says competition 
     for jobs is so stiff among immigrants that house painters' 
     wages have been flat since he came to the United States in 
     the late 1980.
       They're still $9 an hour, he said, which would mean they've 
     actually fallen significantly when adjusted for inflation.
       And yet many more aspiring house painters arrive every day 
     from Latin America.

  Similar concerns can be heard throughout low-wage industries that

[[Page 6754]]

Latino immigrants have come to dominate during recent decades, 
including housekeeping, landscaping, janitorial, chicken processing, 
meat packing, restaurants, hotels and fast food.
  The article goes on to say:

       Jimenez says his company competes for contracts against 
     subcontractors using illegal workers who are prepared to work 
     for less and who don't expect health insurance, overtime or 
     other employment benefits.

  ``It puts pressure on his employer to cut labor costs, he said.''
  Jimenez explains why the migrants come and how it hurts current 
immigrants: ``The migrants come because of hunger, because of necessity 
. . . but I would benefit if someone imposed order,'' he says. ``My 
work would be worth more.''
  Jimenez says that he won't be able to compete with companies that 
hire illegal workers so that they can pay lower wages.
  Not only are workers like Jimenez facing tough competition from 
companies who hire illegals, but a GAO study from 1988 found that other 
fields, such as cleaning office buildings, were also experiencing lower 
wages and more competition as a result of foreign workers.
  Cleaning office buildings used to pay a decent wage, however as more 
foreign workers entered the field, wages, benefits and working 
conditions began to collapse.
  Other labor-intensive fields, such as the construction and the 
meatpacking industry, have also experienced a drop in pay after an 
influx of foreign workers. By allowing employers to flood the labor 
market with foreign workers in these sectors, wages and working 
conditions have gone down drastically and made these jobs much less 
attractive to American workers; while making them much more attractive 
to alien workers.
  As for stifling technological advances, according to a February 9, 
2004, article appearing in National Review:

     the huge supply of low-wage illegal aliens encourages 
     American farmers to lag technologically behind farmers in 
     other countries.

  The article continues:

       Raisin production in California still requires that grapes 
     be cut off by hand and manually turned on the drying tray.
       In other countries, farmers use a labor-saving technique 
     called drying on the vine.
       A cutoff of the illegal-alien flow would encourage American 
     farmers to adopt many of these technological innovations, and 
     come up with new ones.

  Another, and possibly more important problem with S. 359, is the risk 
it poses to our homeland security. It has some of the same loopholes 
that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA, contained.
  It also overwhelms the already burdened immigration system, not to 
mention that there are no criminal or terrorist records for these 
people. For example, an Egyptian illegal immigrant named Mahmud 
Abouhalima came to America on a tourist visa in 1985. The visa expired 
in 1986, but Abouhalima stayed here, working illegally as a cab driver.
  Abouhalima received permanent residency, a green card, in 1988, after 
winning amnesty under the 1986 IRCA law. Although he had never worked 
in agriculture in the United States, Abouhalima acquired legal status 
through the special agricultural workers program--which is essentially 
what the AgJobs bill does. Once he had become legalized, Abouhalima was 
able to travel freely to Afghanistan. He received combat training 
during several trips there. Abouhalima used his amnesty/legalization 
and his terrorist training as a lead organizer of the 1993 plot to bomb 
the World Trade Center and other New York landmarks.
  The special agricultural worker amnesty program enacted as part of 
the 1986 Amnesty saw many ineligible illegal aliens fraudulently apply 
for, and successfully receive, amnesty. Up to two-thirds of illegal 
aliens receiving amnesty under that program had submitted fraudulent 
applications, just like Abouhalima. We cannot afford to allow ourselves 
to be vulnerable to terrorists by allowing these people to stay in our 
country. I want to work with my colleague to address this problem of 
illegal immigration.
  Over the last century, several Presidential and congressionally 
mandated Commissions including the 1907 Roosevelt Commission on Country 
Life to the 1990 Barbara Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform have 
been appointed to study immigration to the United States. These seven 
Commissions each possessing different mandates, membership makeup, 
studies and historical context in which their work was performed had 
some similar findings including: U.S. policy should actively discourage 
the dependence of any industry on foreign workers.
  Dependence on a foreign agricultural labor force is especially 
problematic because of the seasonal nature of the work, which leads to 
high un- and under-employment and results in the inefficient use of 
labor.
  Strict enforcement of immigration and labor laws is the key to a 
successful immigration policy that benefits the nation. Unfortunately, 
AgJOBS violates each of these principles.
  It ensures the dependence of the agricultural industry on foreign 
workers by eliminating any possibility that wages and working 
conditions in agriculture will improve sufficiently to attract U.S. 
workers, whether citizens or lawful permanent residents.
  AgJOBS actually reduces wages statutorily by freezing the required 
wage rate for new foreign workers, known as H-2A nonimmigrants, at its 
January 1, 2003, level for 3 years. In Oklahoma it is currently $7.89.
  It also actually discourages agricultural employers from pursuing 
innovations, such as mechanization, that would reduce their reliance on 
seasonal labor.
  AgJOBS guarantees employers an ``indentured'' labor force for at last 
the first 6 years after enactment. Employers can pay as little as 
minimum wage while the newly amnestied workers have no choice but to 
accept whatever the employer offers them since they are required to 
continue working in agriculture in order to get a green card.
  Additionally, AgJOBS requires the American taxpayer to foot the bill 
for maintaining this large, seasonal workforce by allowing: Illegal 
aliens who apply for amnesty under AgJOBS to receive taxpayer-funded 
counsel from Legal Services Corporation to assist them with filling out 
their applications; the amnestied aliens to be eligible for 
unemployment insurance benefits if they are unable to find other 
unskilled work during the off-season, the amnestied aliens to use 
publicly funded services like education and emergency health care this 
is almost free since many of these aliens have artificially low wages 
thus making their tax contributions extremely low.
  Finally, AgJOBS does not contain any provisions to tighten 
enforcement of U.S. immigration or labor laws. In fact, by rewarding 
illegal aliens with amnesty, AgJOBS will encourage even more illegal 
immigration.
  By the time the amnestied aliens are released from ``indentured 
servitude'' under AgJOBS, agricultural employers will have access to a 
whole new population of illegal-alien workers and the cycle will be 
well on its way to repeating itself, just as it did after the ``one-
time-only'' amnesty for agricultural workers in 1986.
  I also believe both the REAL ID Act, sponsored by my colleague in the 
House, Congressman Sensenbrenner, as well as a bill I supported in the 
last Congress, are sound ways to strengthen our immigration system. The 
REAL ID Act would make it more difficult for people who are violating 
our laws by being in our country illegally, as well as engaging in 
terrorist activities, to stay in the United States. Unfortunately, I 
was forced to vote against the intelligence bill in December because 
the provisions that are in the REAL ID Act were excluded from the 
intelligence bill.
  One such provision in the current REAL ID Act has to do with a 3.5-
mile gap in a border fence between San Diego and Tijuana. People are 
able to come and go as they please. This is where many illegal 
immigrants are coming through; some of them could even be terrorists.
  Apparently, this gap has been left open because of a maritime 
succulent shrub, which is the environment in which two pairs of 
endangered birds

[[Page 6755]]

live. These two pairs of birds, the vireo and the flycatcher, might be 
harassed--not killed--but harassed if the fence is completed.
  I checked with the U.S. Geological Survey and found that there are an 
estimated 2,000 vireos and 1,000 flycatchers in existence today, and at 
the most, not building the fence prevents two pairs of birds from being 
harassed. Is it better to harass two pairs of birds or leave this 3.5-
mile gap open for terrorists or other law-breakers to come through? I 
assume that not building the fence, leaving it open for aliens to 
trample on this environment, the home to these birds causes more 
harassment than actually building a fence.
  Another provision in the REAL ID Act is the requirement for proof of 
lawful presence in the United States. This requirement applies to 
immigration law provisions passed in 1996, which I supported.
  The temporary license requirement, including a requirement that the 
license term should expire on the same date as a visa or other 
temporary lawful presence-authorizing document, is in the REAL ID Act. 
This means if you are here on a document--such as a visa--and it 
expires, your driver's license should expire at the same time. Under 
current law, this is not the case
  The REAL ID Act requires official identification to expire on the 
same date as a person's visa or other presence-authorizing document. 
Electronic confirmation by various State departments of motor vehicles 
to validate other States' driver's licenses is another important item 
in the REAL ID Act. Had Virginia officials referenced the Florida 
records of Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers and masterminds behind 
9/11, when he was stopped in Virginia, it is likely they would have 
discovered that his license was not current. The REAL ID Act will make 
it difficult for instances such as this to take place.
  While I strongly support the steps taken in the REAL ID Act to 
strengthen our immigration laws, I remain vigilant, and look forward to 
working with my colleagues to ensure that American citizens' individual 
liberties are not infringed upon.
  I also want to be aware of and oppose efforts to explicitly create a 
national ID card which could contain all of a person's personal 
information.
  Finally, in the 108th Congress, I cosponsored S. 1906, the Homeland 
Security Enhancement Act of 2003, which was introduced by my colleague 
from Alabama, Senator Sessions, and my former colleague from Georgia, 
Senator Miller, and was also cosponsored by my colleague from Idaho, 
Senator Craig. S. 1906 would give our law enforcement and immigration 
and border officers the tools and funding they need to do their jobs. 
More specifically, S. 1906 would: clarify for law enforcement officers 
that they have the legal authority to enforce immigration violations 
while carrying out their routine duties; increase the amount of 
information regarding deportable illegal aliens entered into the FBI's 
National Crime Information Center database, making the information more 
readily available to state and local officials; supply additional 
facilities and beds to retain criminal aliens once they have been 
apprehended, instead of releasing them, which occurs quite frequently; 
require the Federal Government to either take illegal aliens into 
custody or pay the locality or State to detain them, instead of telling 
those officials to release the aliens because no one is available to 
take custody; require that criminal aliens be retained until 
deportation under the Institutional Removal Program, so that they are 
not released back into the community; mandate that States only give 
driver's licenses to legal immigrants and make the license expire the 
same day the alien's permission to be in the country expires.
  In conclusion, let's work to improve and enforce our laws and not 
reward those who break them.
  I ask unanimous consent that several pertinent articles be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 23, 2004]

                Border Desert Proves Deadly for Mexicans

                           (By Timothy Egan)

       At the bottleneck of human smuggling here in the Sonoran 
     Desert, illegal immigrants are dying in record numbers as 
     they try to cross from Mexico into the United States in the 
     wake of a new Bush administration amnesty proposal that is 
     being perceived by some migrants as a magnet to cross.
       ``The season of death,'' as Robert C. Bonner, the 
     commissioner in charge of the Border Patrol, calls the hot 
     months, has only just begun, and already 61 people have died 
     in the Arizona border region since last Oct. 1, according to 
     the Mexican Interior Ministry--triple the pace of the 
     previous year.
       The Border Patrol, which counts only bodies that it 
     processes, says 43 people have died near the Arizona border 
     since the start of its fiscal year on Oct. 1, more than in 
     any other year in the same period.
       Leon Stroud, a Border Patrol agent who is part of a squad 
     that has the dual job of arresting illegal immigrants and 
     trying to save their lives, said he had seen 34 bodies in the 
     last year. In Border Patrol parlance, a dead car and a dead 
     migrant are the same thing--a ``10-7''--but Mr. Stroud said 
     he had never gotten used to the loss of life.
       ``The hardest thing was, I sat with this 15-year-old kid 
     next to the body of his dad,'' said Mr. Stroud, a Texan who 
     speaks fluent Spanish. ``His dad had been a cook. He was too 
     fat to be trying to cross this border. We built a fire and I 
     tried to console him. It was tough.''
       If the pace keeps up, even with new initiatives to limit 
     border crossings by using unmanned drones and Blackhawk 
     helicopters in the air and beefed-up patrols on the ground, 
     this will be the deadliest year ever to cross the nation's 
     busiest smuggling corridor. The 154 deaths in the Border 
     Patrol's Tucson and Yuma sectors last year set a record.
       ``This is unprecedented,'' said the Rev. John Fife, a 
     Presbyterian minister in Tucson who is active in border 
     humanitarian efforts. ``Ten years ago there were almost no 
     deaths on the southern Arizona border. What they've done is 
     created this gauntlet of death. It's Darwinian--only the 
     strongest survive.''
       For years, deaths of people trying to cross the border 
     usually occurred at night on highways near urban areas, 
     killed by cars. But now, because urban entries in places like 
     San Diego and El Paso have been nearly sealed by fences, 
     technology and agents, illegal immigrants have been forced to 
     try to cross here in southern Arizona, one of the most 
     inhospitable places on earth.
       They die from the sun, baking on the prickled floor of the 
     Sonoran Desert, where ground temperatures reach 130 degrees 
     before the first day of summer. They die freezing, higher up 
     in the cold rocks of the Baboquivari Mountains on moonless 
     nights. They die from bandits who prey on them, in cars that 
     break down on them, and from hearts that give out on them at 
     a young age.
       The mountainous Sonoran Desert, between Yuma in the west 
     and Nogales in the east, is the top smuggling entry point 
     along the entire 1,951-mile line with Mexico, the Border 
     Patrol says. Through the middle of May, apprehensions of 
     crossers in the desert south of Tucson had jumped 60 percent 
     over the previous year. Nearly 300,000 people were caught 
     trying to enter the United States through the desert border 
     since last Oct. 1.
       After a four-year drop, apprehensions--which the Border 
     Patrol uses to measure human smuggling--are up 30 percent 
     over last year along the entire southern border, with 660,390 
     people detained from Oct. 1 through the end of April, federal 
     officials said.
       The crossing here, over a simple barbed-wire fence, is 
     followed by a walk of two or three days, up to 50 miles on 
     ancient trails through a desert wilderness, to reach the 
     nearest road, on the Tohono O'odham Nation Indian 
     Reservation, a wedge of desert the size of Connecticut that 
     is overrun with illegal immigrants, or on adjacent federal 
     park or wildlife land. Most people start off with no more 
     than two gallons of water, weighing almost 17 pounds, in 
     plastic jugs. In recent days, with daytime temperatures over 
     100 degrees in the desert, a person needed a gallon of water 
     just to survive walking five miles.
       The desert is littered with garbage--empty plastic jugs, 
     discarded clothes, toilet paper.
       ``My feet hurt and I'm thirsty, but I will try again after 
     a rest,'' said Edmundo Saenz Garcia, 28, who was apprehended 
     on the reservation one morning near the end of his journey. 
     His toes were swollen and blistered. He walked in cowboy 
     boots. After being fingerprinted for security, he will be 
     sent back to Mexico, agents said.
       Mr. Garcia said he had heard that the new Bush immigration 
     plan, which would grant work visas to millions of illegal 
     immigrants inside the United States and to others who can 
     prove they have a job, was ``amnesty,'' and he wondered why 
     he was arrested. He said he would try to cross again in a few 
     days.
       ``It's like catch-and-release fishing,'' Mr. Stroud, the 
     Border Patrol agent, said with a shrug after helping Mr. 
     Garcia with his blisters. ``One week, I arrested the same guy

[[Page 6756]]

     three times. If I dwell on it, it can be frustrating.''
       Agents and groups opposed to open borders say the spike in 
     crossings and deaths are the fault of the Bush proposal, 
     which is stalled in Congress and unlikely to be acted on this 
     year. But it has created a stir in Mexico, they say.
       ``They've dangled this carrot, and as a result 
     apprehensions in Arizona are just spiking beyond belief,'' 
     said T. J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol 
     Council, which represents about 9,000 agents. ``The average 
     field agent is just mystified by the administration's 
     throwing in the towel on this.''
       Mr. Bonner, who is not related to the border commissioner, 
     said the people were crossing in huge numbers, even at the 
     high risk of dying in the desert, because ``they're trying to 
     get in line for the big lottery we've offered them.''
       With an estimated 8 million to 12 million immigrants in 
     this country illegally--and only a handful of prosecutions of 
     employers who hire them--the southern border is more broken 
     now than at any time in recent history, said Mark Krikorian, 
     executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a 
     research group opposed to increased immigration.
       ``We've created an incentive to take foolish risks,'' Mr. 
     Krikorian said. ``In effect, we're saying if you run this 
     gauntlet and can get over here, you're home free.''
       Bush administration officials say there is only anecdotal 
     evidence, from field agents, that their proposal has caused 
     the spike in crossings. They point to a new $10 million 
     border initiative and indications in recent weeks that 
     apprehensions have leveled off as evidence that they are 
     getting the upper hand on the Arizona border. It is the last 
     uncontrolled part of the line between Mexico and the United 
     States, they said.
       ``Unfortunately, there have always been deaths on the 
     border,'' said Mario Villareal, a spokesman for the Border 
     Patrol in Washington.
       It was 3 years ago this month that 14 people died trying to 
     walk cross the desert near this small tribal hamlet, dying of 
     heat-related stress in what the poet Luis Alberto Urrea 
     called ``the largest death event in border history.'' Mr. 
     Urrea is the author of ``The Devil's Highway'' (Little, Brown 
     and Company), an account of the crossing and border policy.
       He wrote that the Sonoran Desert here ``is known as the 
     most terrible place on earth,'' where people die ``of heat, 
     thirst and misadventure.''
       To curb deaths, the American government has been running an 
     advertising campaign in Mexico, warning people of the 
     horrors.
       ``The message is, `No mas cruces en la frontera,' `no more 
     crosses on the border,''' Commissioner Bonner said in 
     unveiling the new plan earlier this month in Texas. He said 
     80 percent of the deaths in a given year happen between May 
     and August.
       The government has also increased staffing of Border Patrol 
     Search Trauma and Rescue Units, called Borstar, which deploys 
     emergency medical technicians like Mr. Stroud, to assist 
     people found in desperate condition in the desert.
       The publicity campaign seems to have had little effect, say 
     border agents and illegal immigrants.
       Raminez Bermudez, 26, walked for four days in 100-degree 
     heat, and said he knew full well what he was getting into. He 
     had been caught four times before his apprehension this week, 
     he said.
       Though he has a 25-acre farm in southern Mexico, Mr. 
     Bermudez said he could earn up to $200 a day picking cherries 
     in California. He was distressed, though, at getting caught 
     and at the failure to meet a coyote, or smuggler, who had 
     agreed to pick him up and members of his group for $1,200 
     each.
       Mr. Stroud has developed a ritual to cope with the 
     increased number of bodies he has seen among the mesquite 
     bushes and barrel cactus of the Sonoran. He has seen children 
     as young as 10, their bodies bloated after decomposing in the 
     heat, and mothers wailing next to them.
       ``I say a little prayer for every body,'' he said. ``You 
     try not to let it get to you. But every one of these bodies 
     is somebody's son or daughter, somebody's mother or father.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, May 18, 2004]

                            Stealth Amnesty

                       (By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.)

       The issue that has the potential to be the most volatile 
     politically in the 2004 election is not Iraq, the economy or 
     same-sex marriages. At this writing, it would appear to be 
     the wildly unpopular idea of granting illegal aliens what 
     amounts to amnesty--the opportunity to stay in this country, 
     work, secure social services, become citizens and, in some 
     jurisdictions, perhaps vote even prior to becoming citizens.
       So radioactive is this idea across party, demographic, 
     class and geographic lines that President Bush has wisely 
     decided effectively to shelve the immigration reform plan he 
     announced with much fanfare earlier this year. With the 
     lowest job approval ratings of his presidency, the last thing 
     he needs is a legislative brawl that will at best fracture, 
     and at worst massively alienate his base.
       It appears unlikely to help him much with Americans of 
     other stripes, either. Significant numbers of independents 
     and Democrats (although, to be sure, not John Kerry's left-
     wing constituency)--even Hispanic ones--feel as conservative 
     Republicans do: Rewarding those who violate our immigration 
     statutes is corrosive to the rule of law, on net detrimental 
     to our economy and a serious national security vulnerability.
       Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, one of his most loyal friends 
     in the U.S. Senate, Republican conservative Larry Craig of 
     Idaho, is poised to saddle the president's re-election bid 
     with just such a divisive initiative: S. 1645, the 
     Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of 
     2003 (better known as the AgJobs bill). AgJobs is, in some 
     ways, even worse than the president's plan for temporary 
     workers. While most experts disagree, at least Mr. Bush 
     insists that his initiative will not amount to amnesty for 
     illegal aliens.
       No such demurral is possible about S. 1645. By the 
     legislation's own terms, an illegal alien will be turned into 
     ``an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence,'' 
     provided they had managed to work unlawfully in an 
     agricultural job in the United States for a minimum of 100 
     hours--in other words, for just 2\1/2\ workweeks--during the 
     18 months prior to August 31, 2003.
       Once so transformed, they can stay in the U.S. indefinitely 
     while applying for permanent resident status. From there, it 
     is a matter of time before they can become citizens, so long 
     as they work in the agricultural sector for 675 hours over 
     the next six years.
       The Craig bill would confer this amnesty not only on 
     farmworking illegal aliens who are in this country--estimates 
     of those eligible run to more than 800,000. It would also 
     extend the opportunity to those who otherwise qualified but 
     had previously left the United States. No one knows how many 
     would fall in this category and want to return as legal 
     workers. But, a safe bet is that there are hundreds of 
     thousands of them.
       If any were needed, S. 1645 offers a further incentive to 
     the illegals: Your family can stay, as well. Alternatively, 
     if they are not with you, you can bring them in, too--cutting 
     in line ahead of others who made the mistake of abiding by, 
     rather than ignoring, our laws. And just in case the illegal 
     aliens are daunted by the prospect of filling out such 
     paperwork as would be required to effect the changes in 
     status authorized by the AgJobs bill, S. 1645 offers still 
     more: free counsel from, ironically, the bane of 
     conservatives like Sen. Larry Craig and many of his 
     Republican co-sponsors--the highly controversial, leftist and 
     taxpayer-underwritten Legal Services Corp.
       Needless to say, such provisions seem unlikely to be well-
     received by the majority of law abiding Americans. Nor, for 
     that matter, do they appear to have much prospect of passage 
     in the less-self-destructive House of Representatives.
       Yet, if Mr. Craig presses for action on his legislation, 
     the Senate leadership might be unable to spare either 
     President Bush or itself the predictable blow-back: As of 
     today, the Senate Web site indicates the Idahoan has 61 
     cosponsors, two more than are needed to cut off debate and 
     bring the legislation to a vote; 11 more than would be needed 
     for its passage.
       In short, thanks to intense pressure from an unusual 
     coalition forged by the agricultural industry and illegal 
     alien advocacy groups, the Senate might endorse the sort of 
     election altering initiative that precipitates voter 
     response--like that made famous by the movie ``Network 
     News'': ``I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it 
     anymore.'' Some, perhaps including the normally shrewd Mr. 
     Craig, may calculate that such voters will have nowhere to go 
     if the alternative to Republican control of the White House 
     and Senate would be Democrats who are, if anything, even less 
     responsible when it comes to amnesty (and social services, 
     voting rights, etc.) for illegal aliens.
       The truth of the matter, though--as President Bush's 
     political operatives apparently concluded after they trotted 
     out their amnesty-light initiative last January--is voters 
     don't have to vote Democratic to change Washington's 
     political line-up. They just have to stay home on Election 
     Day. And S. 1645 could give them powerful reason to do so.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 22, 2004]

             In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines

                          (By Eduardo Porter)

       Immokalee, Fla.--Chugging down a row of trees, the pair of 
     canopy shakers in Paul Meador's orange grove here seem like a 
     cross between a bulldozer and a hairbrush, their hungry steel 
     bristles working through the tree crowns as if untangling 
     colossal heads of hair.
       In under 15 minutes, the machines shake loose 36,000 pounds 
     of oranges from 100 trees, catch the fruit and drop it into a 
     large storage car. ``This would have taken four pickers all 
     day long,'' Mr. Meador said.
       Canopy shakers are still an unusual sight in Florida's 
     orange groves. Most of the crop is harvested by hand, mainly 
     by illegal Mexican immigrants. Nylon sacks slung across their 
     backs, perched atop 16-foot ladders, they pluck oranges at a 
     rate of 70 to 90 cents per 90-pound box, or less than $75 a 
     day.

[[Page 6757]]

       But as globalization creeps into the groves, it is 
     threatening to displace the workers. Facing increased 
     competition from Brazil and a glut of oranges on world 
     markets, alarmed growers here have been turning to labor-
     saving technology as their best hope for survival.
       ``The Florida industry has to reduce costs to stay in 
     business,'' said Everett Loukonen, agribusiness manager for 
     the Barron Collier Company, which uses shakers to harvest 
     about half of the 40.5 million pounds of oranges reaped 
     annually from its 10,000 acres in southwestern Florida. 
     ``Mechanical harvesting is the only available way to do that 
     today.''
       Global competition is pressing American farmers on many 
     fronts. American raisins are facing competition from Chile 
     and Turkey. For fresh tomatoes, the challenge comes from 
     Mexico. China, whose Fuji apples have displaced Washington's 
     Golden Delicious from most Asian markets--and whose apple 
     juice has swamped the United States--is cutting into American 
     farmers' markets for garlic, broccoli and a host of other 
     crops.
       So even while President Bush advances a plan to invite 
     legal guest workers into American fields, farmers for the 
     first time in a generation are working to replace hand 
     laborers with machines.
       ``The rest of the world hand-picks everything, but their 
     wage rates are a fraction of ours,'' said Galen Brown, who 
     led the mechanical harvesting program at the Florida 
     Department of Citrus until his retirement last year. Lee 
     Simpson, a raisin grape grower in California's San Joaquin 
     Valley, is more blunt. ``The cheap labor,'' he said, ``isn't 
     cheap enough.''
       Mr. Simpson and other growers have devised a system that 
     increases yields and cuts the demand for workers during the 
     peak harvest time by 90 percent; rather than cutting grapes 
     by hand and laying them out to dry, the farmers let the fruit 
     dry on the vine before it is harvested mechanically.
       Some fruit-tree growers in Washington State have introduced 
     a machine that knocks cherries off the tree onto a conveyor 
     belt; they are trying to perfect a similar system for apples. 
     Strawberry growers in Ventura County, Calif., developed a 
     mobile conveyor belt to move full strawberry boxes from the 
     fields to storage bins, cutting demand for workers by a 
     third. And producers of leaf lettuce and spinach for bag 
     mixes have introduced mechanical cutters.
       American farmers have been dragging machines into their 
     fields at least since the mid-19th century, when labor 
     shortages during the Civil War drove a first wave of 
     mechanical harvesting. Mechanization grew apace for the 
     following 100-plus years, taking over the harvesting of crops 
     including wheat, corn, cotton and sugar cane.
       But not all crops were easily adaptable to machines. Whole 
     fruit and vegetables--the most lucrative and labor intensive 
     crops, employing four of every five seasonal field workers--
     require delicate handling. Mechanization sometimes meant 
     rearranging the fields, planting new types of vines or trees 
     and retrofitting packing plants.
       Rather than make such investments, farmers mostly focused 
     on lobbying government for easier access to inexpensive 
     labor. California growers, the biggest fruit and vegetable 
     producers in the nation, persuaded the government to admit 
     Mexican workers during World War I. Later, from 1942 to 1964, 
     4.6 million Mexican farm workers were admitted into the 
     country under the bracero guest-worker program.
       Investment in technology generally happened when the 
     immigrant spigot was shut. After the bracero program ended 
     and some farm wages began to rise, scientists at the 
     University of California at Davis began work on both a 
     machine to harvest tomatoes mechanically and a tomato better 
     suited to mechanical harvesting.
       By 1970, the number of tomato-harvest jobs had been cut by 
     two-thirds. But the tomato harvester's success proved to be a 
     kiss of death for mechanical harvesting. In 1979, the farm 
     worker advocacy group California Rural Legal Assistance, with 
     support from the United Farm Workers union of Cesar Chavez, 
     sued U.C. Davis, charging that it was using public money for 
     research that displaced workers and helped only big growers.
       The lawsuit was eventually settled. But even before that, 
     in 1980, President Jimmy Carter's agriculture secretary, Bob 
     Bergland, declared that the government would no longer 
     finance research projects intended to replace ``an adequate 
     and willing work force with machines.'' Today, the 
     Agricultural Research Service employs just one agricultural 
     engineer: Donald Peterson, a longtime researcher at the 
     Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, W. Va.
       ``At one time I was told to keep a low profile and not to 
     publicize what I was doing,'' Mr. Peterson said.
       As the government pulled out, growers lost interest as 
     well, refocusing on Congress instead. In 1986, farmers were 
     instrumental in winning passage of the Immigration Reform and 
     Control Act, which legalized nearly three million illegal 
     immigrants--more than a third under a special program for 
     agriculture.
       Farmers' investments in labor-saving technology all but 
     froze, and gains in labor productivity slowed. From 1986 to 
     1999, farm labor inputs fell 2.4 percent, after a drop of 35 
     percent in the preceding 14 years. Meanwhile, farmers' 
     capital investments fell 46.7 percent from their peak in 1980 
     through 1999.
       About 45 vegetable and fruit crops planted over 3.6 million 
     acres of land, and worth about $13 billion at the farm gate, 
     are still harvested by hand, by a labor force made up mostly 
     of illegal immigrants. On average, farm workers earned $6.18 
     an hour, less than half the average wage for private, nonfarm 
     workers, in 1998, the year of the Labor Department's most 
     recent survey of agricultural workers.
       Florida's orange groves have reflected the broader trends. 
     In the 1980's, a 20-year research effort into mechanical 
     harvesting ground to a halt. With frosts upstate taking 
     200,000 acres out of production, orange prices soared and the 
     demand for labor fell.
       But as is often the case in agriculture, farmers 
     overreacted to the market's strength, flocking to plant 
     groves among the vegetable patches, pastures and swamps in 
     the southwestern part of the state. By the early 1990's, the 
     market looked poised for a glut. With the prospect of bumper 
     crops in Brazil, where harvesting costs are about one-third 
     as high as in Florida, a crisis loomed--driving orange 
     growers back into technology's embrace.
       In 1995, the growers decided to plow $1 million to $1.5 
     million a year into research in mechanical harvesting. By the 
     1999-2000 harvest, the growers had achieved their 
     technological breakthrough, with four different harvesting 
     machines working commercially. Last year, machines harvested 
     17,000 acres of the state's 600,000 acres planted in juice 
     oranges, said Fritz M. Roka, an agricultural economist at the 
     University of Florida.
       ``Mechanical harvesting is the biggest change in the 
     Florida citrus industry since we switched to aluminum 
     ladders,'' said Will Elliott, general manager of Coe-Collier 
     Citrus Harvesting, one of seven commercial contractors that 
     are shaking trunks and brushing canopies around the state.
       Mr. Brown, the retired Department of Citrus official, 
     estimates that in five years, machines will harvest 100,000 
     acres of oranges here. But there are obstacles. Machines work 
     best on the big, regularly spaced, groomed young groves in 
     the southwest, and some do not work at all on the smaller, 
     older, more irregular acreage in central Florida. Machines 
     are hard to use on Valencia orange trees, because shaking 
     them risks prematurely dislodging much of the following 
     year's harvest.
       Still, the economics are in mechanization's favor. A tariff 
     of 29 cents per pound on imports of frozen concentrated 
     orange juice lets Florida growers resist the Brazilian 
     onslaught--but not by much. According to Ronald Muraro and 
     Thomas Spreen, researchers at the University of Florida, 
     Brazil could deliver a pound of frozen concentrate in the 
     United States for under 75 cents, versus 99 cents for a 
     Florida grower.
       Mechanical harvesting can help cut the gap. Mr. Loukonen of 
     Barron Collier estimates that machine harvesting shaves costs 
     by 8 to 10 cents a pound of frozen concentrate.
       The spread of mechanization could redraw the profile of 
     Immokalee, which today is a rather typical American farming 
     town. Seventy-one percent of the population of 20,000 is 
     Latino--with much of the balance coming from Haiti--and 46 
     percent of the residents are foreign born, according to the 
     2000 census. About 40 percent of the residents live under the 
     poverty line, and the median family income is below $23,000--
     less than half that of the United States as a whole.
       Philip Martin, an economist at U.C. Davis, points to the 
     poverty as an argument in favor of labor-saving technology. 
     He estimates that about 10 percent of immigrant farm workers 
     leave the fields every year to seek better jobs. Rather than 
     push more farmhands out of work, he contends, introducing 
     machines will simply reduce the demand for new workers to 
     replenish the labor pool.
       And there are some beneficiaries among workers: those lucky 
     enough to operate the new gear. Perched in the air-
     conditioned booth of Mr. Meador's canopy shaker, a jumpy 
     ranchera tune crackling from the radio, Felix Real, a former 
     picker, said he can make up to $120 a day driving the 
     contraption down the rows, about twice as much as he used to 
     make.
       Yet many Immokalee workers are nervous. ``They are using 
     the machines on the good groves and leaving us with the 
     scraggly ones,'' said Venancio Torres, an immigrant from 
     Mexico's coastal state of Veracruz who has been picking 
     oranges in Florida for three years.
       Mr. Loukonen, the Barron Collier manager, said the farm 
     workers were right to be anxious. ``If there's no demand for 
     labor, supply will end,'' he said. ``They will have to find 
     another place to work, or stay in their country.''

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, our Federal Government has got to do 
better, faster, in improving our border security and meeting the 
growing problem of illegal immigration.
  That is why Congress has been beefing up the border patrol and buying

[[Page 6758]]

high-tech verification systems for the Department of Homeland Security.
  That is why, whether you agree on the specific methods or not, the 
House of Representatives attached national drivers' license standards 
and asylum changes, in the so-called REAL ID provisions, to the Iraq 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  That is why I have supported Senator Byrd on an amendment to this 
bill to increase border security, hire more investigators and 
enforcement agents, and boost resources for detention.
  That is why I am cosponsoring a bill to help States deal with 
undocumented criminal aliens.
  And that is why I have worked to bring the AgJOBS--bill the 
Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act--to the 
Senate floor.
  I truly wish we did not have to have this debate on this bill on the 
Senate floor.
  However, the House of Representatives has forced this opportunity 
upon us. By putting border, identification, and asylum provisions in 
the supplemental, the House has turned this bill into an immigration 
bill.
  I am committed to making this debate as brief as possible, and as 
full and fair as necessary. As far as I am concerned, a thorough debate 
on AgJOBS does not need to take more than a couple hours, if we can get 
agreement from Senators who oppose the amendment.
  The Senate has enough time for this amendment. If anyone is going to 
unduly delay this bill, it is not this Senator. As a member of the 
Appropriations Committee and on this floor, I fully support prompt 
appropriations for our men and women in uniform and for operations 
necessary in the war on terrorism.
  AgJOBS is only an installment toward an overall solution to our 
nation's growing problem of illegal immigration. However, it is a 
significant installment, a logical installment, and one that is fully 
matured and ready to go forward.
  I have worked with my colleagues and numerous communities of interest 
on AgJOBS issues for several years. The amendment I bring forward this 
week has been, in all its major essentials, well-known and much 
discussed in the Senate and the House for more than a year and a half.
  This bipartisan effort builds upon years of discussion and 
suggestions among growers, farm worker advocates, Latino and 
immigration issue advocates, Members of both parties in both Houses of 
Congress, and others.
  We have now built the largest bipartisan coalition ever for a single 
immigration bill. This letter was just delivered this week to Senate 
offices. There are about 100 more signatures on this letter than a 
similar letter delivered a year ago. Support for AgJOBS is growing.
  That support reflects the fact that, in agriculture as in other 
sectors, the current immigration and labor market system is profoundly 
broken.
  An enforcement-only policy is not the answer and doesn't work.
  The United States has 7,458 miles of land borders and 88,600 miles of 
tidal shoreline. We can secure those frontiers well but not perfectly. 
As we have stepped up border enforcement, we have locked undocumented 
immigrants in this country at least as effectively as we have locked 
any out.
  With an estimated 10 million undocumented persons in the United 
States, to find them and flush them out of homes, schools, churches, 
and work places would mean an intrusion on the civil liberties of 
Americans that they will not tolerate. We fought our revolution, in 
part, over troops at our doors and in our homes.
  History has shown us what does work: A coupling of more secure 
borders, better internal enforcement, and a guest worker program that 
faces up to economic reality.
  The only experience our country has had with a legal farm guest 
worker program--used widely in the 1950s but repealed in the 1960s--
taught us conclusive lessons. While it was criticized on other grounds, 
that program dramatically reduced illegal immigration from high levels 
to almost nothing, while meeting labor market needs.
  AgJOBS is a groundbreaking, necessary part of this balanced, 
realistic approach. American agriculture has boldly stepped forward and 
admitted the problem. AgJOBS is a critical part of the solution.
  Agriculture is the sector of the economy for which the problem is the 
worst. Fifty to 75 percent of farm workers are undocumented. As 
internal enforcement has stepped up, family farms are going out of 
business because they cannot find legal workers.
  This mighty machine we call American agriculture is on a dangerous 
precipice--perhaps the most dangerous in our history. This year, for 
the first time since records have been kept, the United States is on 
the verge of becoming a net importer of agricultural products.
  To keep American-grown food on our families' tables, we need a 
stable, legal, labor supply. To keep suppliers, processors, and other 
rural jobs alive, American agriculture needs a stable, legal, labor 
supply. It has been said, foreign workers are going to harvest our 
food; the only question is whether they do it here or in another 
country.
  Whatever the case is in other industries, in agriculture, we really 
are talking about jobs that Americans can't or won't take. This 
physically demanding labor is seasonal and migrant in nature. Few 
Americans can or will leave home and family behind, to travel from 
State to State, crop to crop, for only part of the year, living in 
temporary structures. The planting, growing, and harvesting seasons 
occur at different times in different States--usually when students are 
not available.
  AgJOBS is also part of a humane solution. Legal workers can demand a 
living wage and assert legal rights that undocumented workers--smuggled 
into the country and kept ``underground''--cannot. Every year, more 
than 300 persons die in the desert, the boxcar, or the back of a truck 
trailer. For a civilized, humane country, that is intolerable.
  For the long term, AgJOBS reforms and streamlines the profoundly 
broken H-2A program that is supposed to provide legal, farm guest 
workers. It is now so bureaucratic and burdensome, it admits only about 
40,000 workers a year--2 to 3 percent of farm workers.
  However, we cannot expand the H-2A program overnight. A system of 
consulate system, a Homeland Security bureaucracy, and a Department of 
Labor bureaucracy that, today, chokes on processing 40,000 workers a 
year will need several years to ramp up to several times that amount. 
Growers, almost all of which do not use H-2A today, will need time to 
get into the system. Also, growers will need time to build housing and 
prepare for the other labor standards that H-2A has always required to 
prevent foreign workers from taking jobs from Americans.
  As a bridge to stabilize the workforce while H-2A reforms are being 
implemented, AgJOBS includes a one-time-only earned adjustment program, 
to let about 500,000 trusted farm workers, with a proven, substantial 
work history here, continue working here, legally. The permanent H-2A 
reforms would make future farm worker adjustments unnecessary.
  AgJOBS is not amnesty or a reward for illegal behavior.
  Requiring several years of demanding, physical labor in the fields is 
an opportunity to rehabilitate to legal status--to earn the adjustment 
to legal status.
  Adjusting AgJOBS workers would have to meet a higher standard of good 
behavior than other, legal immigrants, in the future. Once a worker is 
in the adjustment program, he or she has to obey all the laws that 
other, legal immigrants have to. In addition, an adjusting worker would 
be deported for conviction of one felony; or three misdemeanors, 
however minor; or, in the amendment before, a single serious 
misdemeanor, defined as an offense that results in 6 months of jail 
time.
  Part of earning adjustment involves the immigrant surrendering to 
some limits on his or her legal rights--including a substantial 
prospective work requirement in agriculture and meeting a higher legal 
standard of good behavior than other, legal immigrants.
  The adjusting worker can apply for permanent residence--a green 
card--at

[[Page 6759]]

the end of the adjustment process. As a practical matter, obtaining a 
green card would take about 6 to 9 years after the worker enters the 
adjustment process. For the work involved, the economic contributions 
made, and the diligence required over a long period of time, this is 
fair. Sharing the American dream with persons who want to be--and will 
be--law-abiding members of the community, is fair.
  AgJOBS workers, both adjusting and H-2A, would be free to leave the 
country at the end of the work season and not be ``locked in'' the 
country, between jobs.
  Finally, AgJOBS is good for our homeland security.
  With background checks, AgJOBS would let American families know who 
is putting the food on our tables. That means ensuring a safe and 
stable food supply for American families.
  When we stop sending investigators and enforcement agents into the 
potato fields and apple orchards, we will be able to devote critical 
resources where they belong--hunting down real criminals and stopping 
terrorists.
  AgJOBS is a win-win-win, for growers, workers, taxpayers, and 
homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several 
documents setting out facts about AgJOBS, the need for AgJOBS, 
frequently asked questions, and letters of endorsement from the New 
England Apple Council, Americans for Tax Reform, and from former U.S. 
Trade Representative and Secretary of Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Facts About AgJOBS


 the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2005--
                            S. 359/H.R. 884

       The Problem: Some 50 to 75 percent of America's farm work 
     force is undocumented. As border and internal enforcement 
     improves, work force disruptions are increasing and some 
     operations are simply shutting down because growers cannot 
     find a reliable, legal labor supply. This comes at a time 
     when American agriculture is in perhaps its most precarious 
     condition in our history, and we are on the verge of 
     importing more food than we grow, for the first time since 
     records have been kept.
       Long-Term Solution: A permanently reformed H-2A program 
     would be streamlined, easier to use, and more economical, 
     providing a legal work force for farm jobs Americans won't 
     take. Legal guest workers would go back to their home 
     countries when the work season is over. The current H-2A 
     system is profoundly broken and supplies only 2 to 3 percent 
     of farm workers (30,000 to 40,000 a year out of a work force 
     of 1.6 million).
       Short-Term ``Bridge'': A one-time-only earned adjustment 
     program would allow growers to retain trusted, tax-paying 
     employees with a proven work history, to stabilize the ag 
     work force as the industry (and the government bureaucracy) 
     transitions to greater use of a reformed H-2A program. Based 
     on DOL statistics, about 500,000 workers would be eligible to 
     apply.
       Rehabilitation, not ``amnesty'': A significant prospective 
     work requirement (at least 360 days over 3 to 6 years, 
     including at least 240 days in the first 3 years) in 
     agriculture--among the most physically demanding work in the 
     country--means adjusting workers could earn the right to stay 
     and work toward legal status. Adjusting workers would have to 
     meet a higher standard of good behavior than other, legal 
     immigrants, being subject to deportation for any 3 
     misdemeanors, regardless how minor.
       Good for homeland security: Hundreds of thousands of 
     undocumented workers would be brought out of the shadows and 
     given background checks. DHS could re-focus more resources on 
     fighting more dangerous threats.
       Good for American consumers: American families would be 
     more certain of a safe, stable, food supply grown in America, 
     and we would know who is growing our food.
       Not a ``magnet'' for new illegal immigration: Only workers 
     with a substantial, proven work history (at least 100 days) 
     in agriculture in the USA before January 1, 2005, would be 
     eligible to apply for the earned adjustment program.
       Not ``taking jobs away'' from American workers: H-2A labor 
     standards (including wages, housing, and transportation) 
     ensure that American workers are not ``underbid'' for H-2A 
     jobs. Whatever arguments some may make about other 
     industries, most of the work in labor-intensive agriculture 
     is seasonal and migrant in nature. Most American workers 
     cannot and will not leave their families and homes behind, to 
     move from farm to farm, living in temporary quarters, 
     following temporary work.
       Humane, good for workers: It is intolerable that, every 
     year, hundreds of workers die packed in boxcars or truck 
     trailers or crossing the desert. Many thousands are preyed 
     upon by human smugglers. Stepped-up border enforcement has 
     locked in as many as it has locked out, as returning home at 
     the end of the work season becomes as treacherous and deadly 
     as entering the country. Workers with legal status can assert 
     legal rights against exploitation and safely leave the 
     country when the work is done.

                  The Need for AgJOBS Legislation--Now

       Americans need and expect a stable predictable, legal work 
     force in American agriculture. Willing American workers 
     deserve a system that puts them first in line for available 
     jobs with fair, market wages. All workers deserve decent 
     treatment and protection of basic rights under the law. 
     Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. 
     American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders, a 
     safe homeland, and a government that works. Yet we are being 
     threatened on all these fronts, because of a growing shortage 
     of legal workers in agriculture.
       To address these challenges, a bipartisan group of Members 
     of Congress, including Senators Larry Craig (ID) and Ted 
     Kennedy (MA) and Representative Chris Cannon (UT) and Howard 
     Berman (CA), is introducing the Agricultural Job Opportunity, 
     Benefits, and Security (AgJOBS) Act of 2005. This bipartisan 
     effort builds upon years of discussion and suggestions among 
     growers, farm worker advocates, Latino and immigration issue 
     advocates, Members of both parties in both Houses of 
     Congress, and others. In all substantive essentials, this 
     bill is the same as S. 1645/H.R. 3142 in the 108th Congress.


                              THE PROBLEMS

       Of the USA's 1.6 million agricultural work force, more than 
     half is made up of workers not legally authorized to work 
     here--according to a conservative estimate by the Department 
     of Labor, based, astoundingly, on self-disclosure in worker 
     surveys. Reasonable private sector estimates run to 75 
     percent or more.
       With stepped up documentation enforcement by the Social 
     Security Administration and the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement (the successor to the old INS), persons 
     working here without legal documentation are not leaving the 
     country, but just being scattered. The work force is being 
     constantly and increasingly disrupted. Ag employers want a 
     legal work force and must have a stable work force to 
     survive--but federal law actually punishes ``too much 
     diligence'' in checking worker documentation. Some growers 
     already have gone out of business, lacking workers to work 
     their crops at critical times.
       Undocumented workers are among the most vulnerable persons 
     in our country, and know they must live in hiding, not 
     attract attention at work, and move furtively. They cannot 
     claim the most basic legal rights and protections. They are 
     vulnerable to predation and exploitation. Many have paid 
     ``coyotes''--labor smugglers--thousands of dollars to be 
     transported into and around this country, often under 
     inhumane and perilous conditions. Reports continue to mount 
     of horrible deaths suffered by workers smuggled in enclosed 
     truck trailers.
       Meanwhile, the only program currently in place to respond 
     to such needs, the H-2A legal guest worker program, is 
     profoundly broken. The H-2A status quo is slow, bureaucratic, 
     and inflexible. The program is complicated and legalistic. 
     DOL's compliance manual alone is over 300 pages. The current 
     H-2A process is so expensive and hard to use, it places only 
     about 30,000-50,000 legal guest workers a year--2 percent to 
     3 percent of the total ag work force. A General Accounting 
     Office study found DOL missing statutory deadlines for 
     processing employer applications to participate in H-2A more 
     than 40% percent of the time. Worker advocates have expressed 
     concerns that enforcement is inadequate.


                      THE SOLUTION--AGJOBS REFOrms

       AgJOBS legislation provides a two-step approach to a 
     stable, legal, safe, ag work force: (1) Streamlining and 
     expanding the H-2A legal, temporary, guest worker program, 
     and making it more affordable and used more--the long-term 
     solution, which will take time to implement; (2) Outside the 
     H-2A program, a one-time adjustment to legal status for 
     experienced farm workers already working here, who currently 
     lack legal documentation--the bridge to allow American 
     agriculture to adjust to a changing economy.
       H-2A Reforms: Currently, when enough domestic farm workers 
     are not available for upcoming work, growers are required to 
     go through a lengthy, complicated, expensive, and uncertain 
     process of demonstrating that fact to the satisfaction of the 
     federal government. They are then allowed to arrange for the 
     hiring of legal, temporary, nonimmigrant guest workers. These 
     guest workers are registered with the U.S. Government to work 
     with specific employers and return to their home countries 
     when the work is done. Needed reforms would:
       Replace the current quagmire for qualifying employers and 
     prospective workers with a streamlined ``attestation'' 
     process like the one now used for H-1B high-tech workers, 
     speeding up certification of H-2A employers and the hiring of 
     legal guest workers.

[[Page 6760]]

       Participating employers would continue to provide for the 
     housing and transportation needs of H-2A workers. New 
     adjustments to the Adverse Effect Wage Rate would be 
     suspended during a 3-year period pending extensive study of 
     its impact and alternatives. Other current H-2A labor 
     protections for both H-2A and domestic workers would be 
     continued. H-2A workers would have new rights to seek redress 
     through mediation and federal court enforcement of specific 
     rights. Growers would be protected from frivolous claims, 
     exorbitant damages, and duplicative contract claims in state 
     courts.
       The only experience our country has had with a broadly-used 
     farm guest worker program (used widely in the 1950s but 
     repealed in the 1960s) demonstrated conclusive, and 
     instructive, results. While it was criticized on other 
     grounds, it dramatically reduced illegal immigration while 
     meeting labor market needs.
     Adjustment of workers to legal status
       To provide a ``bridge'' to stabilize the ag work force 
     while H-2A reforms are being implemented, AgJOBS would create 
     a new earned adjustment program, in which farm workers 
     already here, but working without legal authorization, could 
     earn adjustment to legal status. To qualify, an incumbent 
     worker must have worked in the United States in agriculture, 
     before January 1, 2005, for at least 100 days in a 12-month 
     period over the last 18 months prior to the bill's 
     introduction. (The average migrant farm worker works 120 days 
     a year.)
       This would not spur new immigration, because adjustment 
     would be limited to incumbent, trusted farm workers with a 
     significant work history in U.S. agriculture. The adjusting 
     worker would have non-immigrant, but legal, status. 
     Adjustment would not be complete until a worker completes a 
     substantial work requirement in agriculture (at least 360 
     days over the next 3-6 years, including 240 days in the first 
     3 years).
       Approximately 500,000 workers would be eligible to apply 
     (based on current workforce estimates). Their spouses and 
     minor children would be given limited rights to stay in the 
     U.S., protected from deportation. The worker would have to 
     verify compliance with the law and continue to report his or 
     her work history to the government. Upon completion of 
     adjustment, the worker would be eligible for legal permanent 
     resident status. Considering the time elapsed from when a 
     worker first applies to enter the adjustment process, this 
     gives adjusting workers no advantage over regular immigrants 
     beginning the legal immigration process at the same time.
       AgJOBS would not create an amnestv program. Neither would 
     it require anything unduly onerous of workers. Eligible 
     workers who are already in the United States could continue 
     to work in agriculture, but now could do so legally, and 
     prospectively earn adjustment to legal status. Adjusting 
     workers may also work in another industry, as long as the 
     agriculture work requirement is satisfied.


                    agjobs is a win-win-win approach

       Workers would be better off than under the status quo. 
     Legal guest workers in the H-2A program need the assurance 
     that government red tape won't eliminate their jobs. For 
     workers not now in the H-2A program, every farmworker who 
     gains legal status finally will be able to assert legal 
     protection--which leads to higher wages, better working 
     conditions, and safer travel. Growers and workers would get a 
     stable, legal work force. Consumers would get better 
     assurance of a safe, stable, American-grown, food supply--not 
     an increased dependence on imported food. Law-abiding 
     Americans want to make sure the legal right to stay in our 
     country is earned, and that illegal behavior is not rewarded 
     now or encouraged in the future. Border and homeland security 
     would be improved by bringing workers out of the underground 
     economy and registering them with the AgJOBS adjustment 
     program. Overall, AgJOBS takes a balanced approach, and would 
     work to benefit everyone.

       Frequently Asked Questions on Agjobs and Earned Adjustment

       Q. Amnesty doesn't work. Why try it again?
       A. Amnesty doesn't work. That's why I never have supported 
     it. The country has tried amnesty in the past and it's 
     failed. Our current immigration law is flawed and enforcement 
     has been a miserable failure. The government has pretended to 
     control the borders while the country has looked the other 
     way and ignored the problem. That's precisely why we need to 
     try a new, innovative approach like AgJOBS.
       Q. How can you justify rewarding people who came here 
     illegally by allowing them to become legal?
       A. The only workers who apply for the adjustment program 
     will be those who want to become law-abiding in every 
     respect. They will have to register with the government and 
     verify their continued employment. Their adjustment to legal 
     status will be complete only after they earn it with 
     continued, demanding labor in agriculture for the next 3-6 
     years. If an adjusting worker breaks other laws, he or she is 
     out. The Adjustment Program would be there to benefit hard-
     working, known, trusted farm workers who did and will obey 
     our laws in every other way. This is not a reward, but 
     rehabilitation.
       Q. Won't the promise of status adjustment encourage more 
     illegal immigration?
       A. Not in our AgJOBS bill. If someone wants to enter the 
     United States to take advantage of our bill, they are already 
     too late. To begin applying for adjustment, the worker must 
     have been here before January 1, 2005--3 weeks before the 
     bill was introduced--with a substantial record of work in 
     agriculture. We are talking about stabilizing the current 
     farm work force--working with persons who already are here.
       Q. Why should agriculture get this special treatment?
       A. That's the sector of our economy most impacted by 
     illegal immigration. The crisis in agriculture must be 
     addressed immediately--and it took us years just to get 
     agreement between growers and labor, between key Republicans 
     and Democrats, on this new approach. If AgJOBS works--and I 
     believe it will--it will help us figure out how to solve the 
     much bigger problem of an estimated million illegal aliens in 
     this country.
       Q. Illegal aliens have broken the law. Why not just round 
     them up and deport them?
       A. (1) We can't, as a practical matter. The official 2000 
     Census estimated that there are more than 8.7 million illegal 
     aliens in the U.S. There are more today. That's the 
     consequence of looking the other way for decades. Finding and 
     forcibly removing all of them would make the War on Terrorism 
     look cheap and would disrupt communities and work places to 
     an extent most Americans simply wouldn't tolerate. If a law 
     has failed, you can ignore it or fix it. Looking the other 
     way only encourages more disrespect for the law. We need a 
     new, innovative solution. AgJOBS is the pilot program.
       (2) Up to 85 percent of all farm workers are here 
     illegally. If we could round up and deport every illegal farm 
     worker, that would be pretty much the end of American 
     agriculture--the end of our safe, secure, home-grown food 
     supply. That's how I first got involved in this issue, 
     because agriculture is critical to the economy of Idaho--and 
     the nation. We need to bring these workers out of the 
     shadows, out of the underground economy, and turn them into 
     law-abiding workers.
       Q. Won't more illegals to sneak across the border, claim 
     they were already here as farm workers, and abuse this new 
     program?
       A. Unlike the 1986 program--which was amnesty and was very 
     different--our bill requires workers to provide documentary 
     proof that they already were established here as farm 
     workers--for example, tax records or employers' records.
       Q. Once this wave of ``adjusting workers'' settle in, 
     what's to prevent the demand for ANOTHER amnesty program in a 
     few years?
       A. Our bill would help stabilize the farm work force in the 
     short term so that American farmers can adjust to the economy 
     of the 21st Century for the long term. The Adjustment Program 
     would give us the time we need to reform and significantly 
     grow the other program in the bill, the H-2A Program, which 
     employs legal, temporary ``guest workers'' who enter the U.S. 
     only under government supervision and leave when the work is 
     done. Because the H-2A Program has been broken for decades, 
     there's been no effective vehicle for workers to come here 
     legally to work in agriculture when domestic workers aren't 
     available.
       Q. Aren't these illegals stealing jobs from Americans?
       A. I hear about that in other industries. I don't know that 
     I've ever received one complaint from an American citizen who 
     wanted to do the physically demanding labor of a migrant farm 
     worker and felt an illegal alien had kept him or her out of 
     that job. But I have heard from farmers who have gone out of 
     business because they couldn't find a legal work force. This 
     is why many of our legal visa programs are industry-
     specific--because the economy and labor markets are different 
     for different industries. This is precisely the reason to try 
     the AgJOBS solution in agriculture.
       Q. How will this bill help us control our borders?
       A. We can't possibly seal off thousands of miles of borders 
     and coastlines. But we can control them better and improve 
     our homeland security. Thousands of AgJOBS workers would be 
     registered with, and in a job program supervised by, the 
     Federal Government. This would be a major step forward toward 
     a longer-term, more comprehensive solution.
       Q. Who's going to pay for the medical bills and social 
     services for adjusting workers?
       A. Remember, in the AgJOBS Adjustment Program, we are 
     talking only about workers who already are here, with 
     substantial jobs in agriculture. So, AgJOBS does not add one 
     bit to this burden. In fact, if anything, it starts helping 
     to provide relief. When these workers gain legal status, they 
     will be in a better position to earn more and do more to 
     provide for themselves than they can today.
                                  ____



                               New England Apple Council Inc.,

                                                   April 18, 2005.
     Hon. Senator Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: The New England Apple Council was 
     formed more than 35 years ago, at the end of the Bracero 
     program. Our

[[Page 6761]]

     185 growers, me included, have used H2A workers or workers 
     under previous programs for more than 50 years. The first 
     foreign workers to come to New England to harvest crops were 
     in 1943. Over the last decade we have been struggling to keep 
     the H2A program working. I don't need to tell you the program 
     is broken and in order for our growers to keep a legal 
     workforce the program needs fixing.
       I listened to Senators Sessions and Byrd speaking against 
     Ag-Jobs on Friday and was extremely disturbed by what they 
     were saying. They read from letters sent by a few 
     associations and agents who are opposed to Ag-Jobs. The 
     growers using the H2A program ARE IN FAVOR OF AG-JOBS!! Some 
     associations and agents are not. Why? Because if we reform 
     H2A so that it really works many growers will be able to use 
     it without an association or agent. That's what H2A reform is 
     all about, and we are in favor of it!! Workers who have held 
     H2A jobs and meet the required days of employment will be 
     rewarded for playing by the rules. Senator Sessions stated 
     Friday that ``only people who break the law will be 
     rewarded'', that is not true!! We have many workers who for 
     many years, some since before 1986, have been coming yearly 
     and going home at the end of their contract. Nationwide 
     between 7 and 10% of the adjusting workers will be those H2A 
     workers who have obeyed the law, and they will finally be 
     rewarded. Some agents and some associations see that as a bad 
     move, which will cause disruption in the workforce, most 
     growers say it's time to reward those workers who have obeyed 
     the law.
       As a longtime user of H2A workers and Executive Director of 
     New England Apple Council and past President of the National 
     Council of Agricultural employers I believe I have the feel 
     of most agricultural employers in the United States. They are 
     overwhelmingly in favor of Ag-Jobs. The Jamaica Central 
     Labour Organization, which supplies most of the H2A workers 
     to employers in the Northeast, is in favor of Ag-Jobs. The 
     Association of Employers of Jamaican Workers, which I am 
     Chairman of, supports Ag-Jobs. And lastly the 520 
     Organizations who signed the letter to congress sent on April 
     11th. Support Ag-Jobs. Please tell the Senate that an 
     overwhelming number of the U.S. employers of H2A labor 
     support Ag-Jobs.
       Thank you for your support on this very difficult issue.
       Sincerely,
     John Young.
                                  ____



                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.
     Hon. Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chris Cannon,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig and Congressman Cannon: I would like to 
     take this opportunity to commend you for the introduction of 
     S. 1645 and H.R. 3142, ``The Agricultural Job Opportunity, 
     Benefits, and Security Act of 2005.'' The ``AgJobs'' bill is 
     a great first step in bringing fundamental reform to our 
     nation's broken immigration system.
       AgJobs would make America more secure. 50 to 75 percent of 
     the agricultural workforce in this country is underground due 
     to highly-impractical worker quota restrictions. Up to 
     500,000 workers would be given approved worker status, 
     screened by the Department of Homeland Security, and 
     accounted for while they are here. Any future workers coming 
     into America looking for agricultural work would be screened 
     at the border, where malcontents can most easily be turned 
     back.
       The current H-2A agricultural worker program only supplies 
     about 2-3 percent of the farm workforce. That means that the 
     great majority of workers who pick our fruit and vegetables 
     have never been through security screening. In a post-9/ll 
     world, this is simply intolerable. Workers that are here to 
     work in jobs native-born Americans are not willing to do must 
     stay if food production is to remain adequate. However, those 
     already here and new workers from overseas should have a 
     screening system that works, both for our safety and for 
     their human rights. Your bill does just that.
           Sincerely,
                                               Grover G. Norquist,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                  Potomac, MD,

                                                   April 13, 2005.
     Hon. Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: History demonstrates that there are 
     moments in time when special opportunities arise for 
     political action that successfully addresses multiple 
     challenges. Today is one of those occasions. The opportunity 
     is Senator Larry Craig's AgJobs bill, S. 359.
       News headlines are alerting American voters of concerns 
     about our trade deficit, American jobs lost to off-shore 
     competition, long-term funding of the Social Security system, 
     and a seemingly irreversible pattern of increasing illegal 
     immigration. A significant opportunity for political action 
     that begins to address all of these challenges is within 
     reach.
       That opportunity, if taken, will strengthen American labor-
     intensive agriculture and ensure its future role as a major 
     U.S. export industry. A growing agriculture sector will keep 
     jobs in America, because studies show that every laborer in 
     production agriculture generates 3.5 additional jobs in 
     related businesses. The workers in all these jobs will be 
     participants in the Social Security system that is dependent 
     upon a large workforce. Perhaps most significantly, reputable 
     studies confirm that the best solution for stemming the tide 
     of illegal immigration is guest worker programs that 
     function.
       Government statistics and other evidence suggest that at 
     least 50 percent and perhaps 70 percent of the current 
     agricultural workforce is not in this country legally. The 
     immediate reaction of some is to say that these workers have 
     broken the law and should be deported, and that U.S. farmers 
     would not have a labor problem if wages were increased.
       That ``easy'' answer ignores the reality that few Americans 
     are drawn to highly seasonal and physically demanding work in 
     agriculture. At chaotic harvest times, a stable, dependable 
     workforce is essential. My experience over many years tells 
     me that agricultural employers do not want to hire illegal 
     immigrants. What they want is a stable, viable program with 
     integrity that will meet their labor force needs in a timely, 
     effective way. What they do not want is a program with major 
     shortcomings, for which they will inevitably be blamed. 
     Unfortunately, that is what our laws have imposed upon them.
       As a Nation, we can and must do better--for agricultural 
     employers, for immigrant workers, and as insurance to secure 
     a strong agriculture business sector. Many of these workers 
     have come to the U.S. on a regular basis. Many have lived 
     here for years doing our toughest jobs, and some would like 
     to earn the privilege of living here permanently. Why not 
     permit them to do so, over a specified timeframe, thereby 
     keeping the best workers here? That has the additional 
     advantage of permitting our government to better focus its 
     limited monitoring/enforcement resources, particularly where 
     security may be a concern. Let's use entry/exit tracking, 
     tamper proof documentation, biometric identification, etc. 
     where it will truly pay security dividends, and let's stop 
     painting all immigrants with the same brush.
       A limited, earned legalization for agriculture is nothing 
     like an amnesty program. It would apply only to immigrants 
     who are at work, paying taxes, and are willing to earn their 
     way to citizenship so that they too can share in the American 
     dream. These workers form the foundation of much of our 
     Nation's agricultural workforce. We need them!
       Agricultural employers need an updated guest work program 
     to replace the antiquated ``H2A'' temporary worker system, 
     which is too expensive and too bureaucratic to be of 
     practical use. Necessary reforms include fair and stronger 
     security and identification measures, market-based wage 
     rates, and comprehensive application procedures.
       The reform program I have outlined already has broad 
     bipartisan support, thanks to the good work and leadership of 
     Senators Larry Craig and Ted Kennedy, among others, and a 
     bipartisan group of House colleagues. Their approach deserves 
     immediate and serious consideration by the Senate. The status 
     quo is simply unacceptable. The reforms now being proposed 
     are a practical solution to a serious problem that is a 
     genuine threat to the future of American agriculture.
       As President Bush has stated, we can and must do better to 
     match a willing and hardworking immigrant worker with 
     producers who are in desperate need of a lawful workforce. It 
     is in our great country's interest to enact these reforms and 
     reap the harvest of political action at a special moment in 
     time.
           Sincerely,

                                              Clayton Yeutter,

                               Former Secretary of Agriculture and
     Former U.S. Trade Representative.
                                  ____

                                                   April 11, 2005.
       Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations and 
     individuals, representing a broad cross-section of America, 
     join together to ask you to support enactment of S. 359 and 
     H.R. 884, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and 
     Security Act of 2005 (AgJOBS). This landmark bipartisan 
     legislation would achieve historic reforms to our nation's 
     labor and immigration laws as they pertain to agriculture. 
     The legislation reflects years of negotiations on complex and 
     contentious issues among employer and worker representatives 
     and leaders in Congress.
       A growing number of our leaders in Congress, as well as the 
     President, recognize that our nation's immigration policy is 
     flawed and that, from virtually every perspective, the status 
     quo is untenable. America needs reforms that are 
     compassionate, realistic and economically sensible--reforms 
     that also enhance the rule of law and contribute to national 
     security. AgJOBS represents the coming together of historic 
     adversaries in a rare opportunity to achieve reforms 
     supportive of these goals, as well as our nation's 
     agricultural productivity and food security.

[[Page 6762]]

       AgJOBS represents a balanced solution for American 
     agriculture, a critical element of a comprehensive solution, 
     and one that can be enacted now with broad bipartisan 
     support. For these reasons, we join together to encourage the 
     Congress to enact promptly S. 359 and H.R. 884, the 
     Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 
     2005.
       Thank you.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 496

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have requests to make in behalf of the 
managers of the bill with respect to amendments that have been cleared 
on both sides of the aisle.
  I call up amendment No. 496 on behalf of Mr. Reid of Nevada which is 
technical in nature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 496.

  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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make a 
technical correction regarding the entities eligible to participate in 
   the Health Care Infrastructure Improvement Program, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO THE MEDICARE HEALTH CARE 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1897(c) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395hhh(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``or an entity described in paragraph (3)'' after ``means a 
     hospital''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by inserting ``legislature'' after ``State'' the first 
     place it appears; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and such designation by the State 
     legislature occurred prior to December 8, 2003'' before the 
     period at the end; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Entity described.--An entity described in this 
     paragraph is an entity that--
       ``(A) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) 
     of such Code;
       ``(B) has at least 1 existing memorandum of understanding 
     or affiliation agreement with a hospital located in the State 
     in which the entity is located; and
       ``(C) retains clinical outpatient treatment for cancer on 
     site as well as lab research and education and outreach for 
     cancer in the same facility.''.
       (b) Limitation on Review.--Section 1897 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395hhh(c)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Limitation on Review.--There shall be no 
     administrative or judicial review of any determination made 
     by the Secretary under this section.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     1016 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 
     2447).

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we can have a voice vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 496) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 473

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 473 on my own 
behalf regarding the business and industry loan program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 473.

  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 limit the use of funds to deny the provision of certain 
           business and industry direct and guaranteed loans)

       On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 6047. None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to deny the provision of assistance 
     under section 310B(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(1)) solely due to the 
     failure of the Secretary of Labor to respond to a request to 
     certify assistance within the time period specified in 
     section 310B(d)(4) of that Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 473) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 536

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Mr. Bond regarding insurance fee requirements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 536.

  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: Make technical correction to mortgage insurance fee 
   requirements contained in the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill)

       Insert the following (and renumber if appropriate) on page 
     231, after line 3:
       ``Sec. 6047. (a) Section 222 of title II of Division I of 
     Public Law 108-447 is deleted; and
       (b) Section 203(c)(1) of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1709(c)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``subsections'' and inserting ``subsection'', 
     and
       (2) striking ``or (k)'' each place that it appears.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 536) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 491

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 491 on behalf of 
Mr. McConnell regarding debt relief 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. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 491.

  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 deferral and rescheduling of debt to tsunami 
                          affected countries)

       On page 194, line 19 after the colon insert the following:
       Provided further, That the President is hereby authorized 
     to defer and reschedule for such period as he may deem 
     appropriate any amounts owed to the United States or any 
     agency of the United States by those countries significantly 
     affected by the tsunami and earthquakes of December 2004, 
     including the Republic of Indonesia, the Republic of Maldives 
     and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka; Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     up to $45,000,000 may be made available for the modification 
     costs, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, if any, associated with any deferral and 
     rescheduling authorized under this heading: Provided further, 
     That such amounts shall not be considered ``assistance'' for 
     the purposes of provisions of law limiting assistance to any 
     such affected country:

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 491) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page 6763]]


  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 492

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 492 on behalf of 
Mr. Leahy regarding Nepal.
  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 492.

  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 express the Sense of the Senate in support of the 
    immediate release from detention of political detainees and the 
    restoration of constitutional liberties and democracy in Nepal)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:


                                 NEPAL

       Sec. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings--
       That, on February 1, 2005, Nepal's King Gyanendra dissolved 
     the multi-party government, suspended constitutional 
     liberties, and arrested political party leaders, human rights 
     activists and representatives of civil society organizations.
       That, despite condemnation of the King's actions and the 
     suspension of military aid to Nepal by India and Great 
     Britain, and similar steps by the United States, the King has 
     refused to restore constitutional liberties and democracy.
       That, there are concerns that the King's actions will 
     strengthen Nepal's Maoist insurgency.
       That, while some political leaders have been released from 
     custody, there have been new arrests of human rights 
     activists and representatives of other civil society 
     organizations.
       That, the King has thwarted efforts of member of the 
     National Human Rights Commission to conduct monitoring 
     activities, but recently agreed to permit the United Nations 
     High Commissioners for Human Rights to open an office in 
     Katmandu to monitor and investigate violations.
       That, the Maoists have committed atrocities against 
     civilians and poses a threat to democracy in Nepal.
       That, the Nepalese Army has also committed gross violations 
     of human rights.
       That, King Gyanendra has said that he intends to pursue a 
     military strategy against the Maoists.
       That, Nepal needs an effective military strategy to counter 
     the Maoists and pressure them to negotiate an end to the 
     conflict, but such a strategy must include the Nepalese 
     Army's respect for the human rights and dignity of the 
     Nepalese people.
       That, an effective strategy to counter the Maoists also 
     requires a political process that is inclusive and democratic 
     in which constitutional rights are protected, and government 
     policies that improve the lives of the Nepalese people.
       (b) It is the Sense of the Senate that King Gyanendra 
     should immediately release all political detainees, restore 
     constitutional liberties, and undertake good faith 
     negotiations with the leaders of Nepal's political parties to 
     restore democracy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 492) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
that three amendments en bloc be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 388, 443, 459, and 537

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendments on behalf of 
Mr. Durbin, No. 443; Mr. Bayh, No. 338; Mr. Biden, No. 537; and Mr. 
Feingold, No. 459; and I ask unanimous consent that they be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 388

     (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $742,000,000 for Other 
 Procurement, Army, for the procurement of up to 3,300 Up Armored High 
           Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (UAHMMVs))

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


         up armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles

       Sec. 1122. (a) Additional Amount for Other Procurement, 
     Army.--The amount appropriated by this chapter under the 
     heading ``Other Procurement, Army'' is hereby increased by 
     $742,000,000, with the amount of such increase designated as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this chapter under the heading 
     ``Other Procurement, Army'', as increased by subsection (a), 
     $742,000,000 shall be available for the procurement of up to 
     3,300 Up Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles 
     (UAHMMVs).
       (c) Reports.--(1) Not later 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter until the 
     termination of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report setting forth the current requirements of the Armed 
     Forces for armored security vehicles.
       (2) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report setting forth the most effective 
     and efficient options available to the Department of Defense 
     for transporting Up Armored High Mobility Multipurpose 
     Wheeled Vehicles to Iraq and Afghanistan.


                           Amendment No. 443

Purpose: To affirm that the United States may not engage in torture or 
    cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under any circumstances)

       On page 231, after line 3, insert the following:


 AFFIRMING THE PROHIBITION ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING 
                               TREATMENT

       Sec. 6047. (a)(1) None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended to subject any person in the custody or under the 
     physical control of the United States to torture or cruel, 
     inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that is 
     prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 
     United States.
       (2) Nothing in this section shall affect the status of any 
     person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any person is 
     entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
       (b) As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``torture'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 2340(1) of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 
     punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment 
     or punishment prohibited by the fifth amendment, eighth 
     amendment, or fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States.


                           amendment no. 459

   (Purpose: To extend the termination date of Office of the Special 
  Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, expand the duties of the 
    Inspector General, and provide additional funds for the Office)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


    Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction

       Sec. 1122. (a) Subsection (o) of section 3001 of the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for 
     the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 
     108-106; 117 Stat. 1234; 5 U.S.C. App. 3 section 8G note), as 
     amended by section 1203(j) of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 
     108-375; 118 Stat. 2081) is amended by striking ``obligated'' 
     and inserting ``expended''.
       (b) Subsection (f)(1) of such section is amended in the 
     matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting ``appropriated 
     funds by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq during 
     the period from May 1, 2003 through June 28, 2004 and'' after 
     ``expenditure of''.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     amount appropriated in chapter 2 of title II of the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the 
     Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-
     106; 117 Stat. 1224) under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL 
     ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE'' and under the subheading ``iraq relief 
     and reconstruction fund'', $50,000,000 shall be available to 
     carry out section 3001 of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of 
     Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106; 117 Stat. 
     1234). Such amount shall be in addition to any other amount 
     available for such purpose and available until the date of 
     the termination of the Office of the Special Inspector 
     General for Iraq Reconstruction.

[[Page 6764]]




                           amendment no. 537

 (Purpose: To provide funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq 
and Afghanistan and for other defense-related activities by suspending 
     a portion of the reduction in the highest income tax rate for 
                         individual taxpayers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Provision of Funds for Security and 
     Stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan and for Other Defense-
     Related Activities Through Partial Suspension of Reduction in 
     Highest Income Tax Rate for Individual Taxpayers.--The table 
     contained in paragraph (2) of section 1(i) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to (relating to reductions in 
     rates after June 30, 2001) is amended to read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The corresponding percentages shall
                                     be substituted for  the following
  ``In the case of taxable years                percentages:
 beginning during calendar year:  --------------------------------------
                                     28%      31%      36%       39.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.............................   27.5%    30.5%    35.5%      39.1%
2002.............................   27.0%    30.0%    35.0%      38.6%
2003, 2004, and 2005.............   25.0%    28.0%    33.0%      35.0%
2006 and thereafter..............   25.0%    28.0%    33.0%      38.6%''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2005.
       (c) Application of EGTRRA Sunset to This Section.--The 
     amendment made by this section shall be subject to title IX 
     of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2001 to the same extent and in the same manner as the 
     provision of such Act to which such amendment relates.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________