[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6824-6843]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1268, which the clerk will 
report.
  The 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.
       Chambliss modified amendment No. 418, to prohibit the 
     termination of the existing joint-service multiyear 
     procurement contract for C/KC-130J aircraft.
       Bingaman amendment No. 483, to increase the appropriation 
     to Federal courts by $5,000,000 to cover increased 
     immigration-related filings in the southwestern United 
     States.
       Bingaman (for Grassley) amendment No. 417, to provide 
     emergency funding to the Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       Isakson amendment No. 429, to establish and rapidly 
     implement regulations for State driver's license and 
     identification document

[[Page 6825]]

     security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the 
     asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related 
     grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure 
     expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.
       Byrd amendment No. 463, 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.
       Warner amendment No. 499, relative to the aircraft carriers 
     of the Navy.
       Sessions amendment No. 456, to provide for accountability 
     in the United Nations Headquarters renovation project.
       Boxer/Bingaman amendment No. 444, 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.
       Lincoln amendment No. 481, to modify the accumulation of 
     leave by members of the National Guard.
       Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 443, to affirm that the 
     United States may not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman, or 
     degrading treatment under any circumstances.
       Reid (for Bayh) amendment No. 388, 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).
       Reid (for Biden) amendment No. 537, 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.
       Reid (for Feingold) amendment No. 459, 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:45 a.m. shall be equally divided with the Senator from 
Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, in control of half of the time, and the Senator 
from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, 
in control of the other half of the time.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, could I understand the time allocation? The 
Senator from Georgia has 1 hour.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia has 58 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Idaho has?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho has 29 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. And the Senator from Massachusetts has?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts has 
29 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the coauthor of our amendment, the Senator 
from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 432

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first I compliment my colleague from Idaho 
for bringing to the Nation's attention a problem which does deserve 
consideration, and that is how to both fulfill our need for workers in 
this country for difficult labor that some Americans have not been 
willing to perform and at the same time deal with the very difficult 
problem of the status of illegal immigrants who are currently in the 
country and who have been relied upon by employers in the field of 
agriculture to perform some of this work.
  Both the Senator from Georgia and I intend to work with the Senator 
from Idaho in the future to try to develop the very best kind of guest 
worker program we can to achieve the objective of providing matching, 
willing employers and willing employees and at the same time doing it 
within the construct of the rule of law. We look forward to that debate 
at a later time.
  Earlier in the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, which 
is the legislation before us, the Senate adopted overwhelmingly a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we should not be trying to deal 
with these immigration problems in this legislation. This bill is too 
important. It requires that we provide funding for our war efforts in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason it is called a supplemental 
appropriations bill is because it is supplemental to the regular 
process. It accounts for the fact that there are unforeseen 
expenditures in the conduct of this war we have to fund and we have to 
get the money to our troops as soon as we possibly can.
  With that in mind, the full Senate voted we should be deferring the 
debate on these difficult and complicated issues such as immigration 
reform to a later date when we can take that up in the full 
consideration it deserves and not delay important legislation such as 
the funding of the war effort. We are already into the second week on 
the supplemental appropriation for that purpose. We hoped to finish 
this bill last Thursday.
  I provide that as background to simply note this: We have two votes 
this morning. The first is on an alternative proposal that has been set 
out by the Senator from Georgia and myself that would provide a way to 
match these willing employers and employees but to do so without 
granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. We will then vote on a second 
alternative of the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The key point I want to make to my colleagues is if both of these 
propositions are defeated--and they both require 60 votes to pass under 
the agreement--then we can move on to complete the work on the 
supplemental appropriations bill and we might be able to finish that 
bill this week. In fact, hopefully, presumably, ideally, we will finish 
that bill this week. There is no reason why we cannot do our work and 
fund our troops. However, if the Craig-Kennedy legislation were to 
receive 60 votes, we are in for a tough time because that bill is then 
open for amendment, and we are already aware of numerous amendments 
that are going to be filed, all of which are going to delay 
consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill.
  Some of my colleagues signed on to this legislation before the bill 
was actually printed or before they realized it contained amnesty. The 
point I would make to anybody who is in that position is whether they 
support the Craig-Kennedy version or the Chambliss-Kyl version of guest 
worker legislation, it is not the time to be considering that 
legislation. We voted already to not have that debate but rather to get 
on to the supplemental appropriation bill. Therefore, anyone wishing to 
move on should vote literally against the first vote we will have on 
Chambliss-Kyl and the second vote on Craig-Kennedy. If either one of 
them gets 60 votes, then we are in for a long time of debate on 
immigration, with an awful lot of amendments on that subject and 
delaying the time that we can get back to considering the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  Even though it argues against an affirmative vote on our proposition, 
for those who are interested in moving on to the supplemental 
appropriation bill, frankly, the correct vote is a ``no'' vote on both 
of these amendments.
  Let me explain to my colleagues a second reason to vote ``no'' on the 
second vote and ``yes'' on the first vote. The first vote is Chambliss-
Kyl. What we have attempted to do in our guest worker legislation is 
provide an expedited, streamlined, simplified way for employers to hire 
the people they need in agriculture, something they are not able to do 
today. We have a law today, but they do not use it because it is so 
cumbersome, expensive, and time consuming. The idea is to make it more 
streamlined so it will work.
  In that respect, we think we have a much superior product and that is 
why I think the Farm Bureau supports our legislation, because they 
realize farmers will actually use it. I am very concerned that they 
would not use the Craig-Kennedy legislation because it has so many 
other things built into it that I believe would make it difficult, at 
least as difficult to use as the current law.
  I will cite one of the reasons now. Up to now it has been the law in 
the United States that Legal Services Corporation does not represent 
illegal immigrants or illegal aliens. It represents Americans, people 
who are here either on legal permanent residency status, green card 
status, or citizens. There is little funding available to begin 
representing illegal immigrants and I am

[[Page 6826]]

afraid the representation of American citizens who are residents would 
significantly suffer if the Legal Services Corporation is now going to 
begin representing these illegal immigrants as is called for under the 
Craig-Kennedy legislation. That represents a significant departure from 
current law and it certainly will make it more complicated for 
employers to use that law.
  I will move to the other point, because the primary question is 
whether we want to embark on a road to granting amnesty to illegal 
immigrants.
  Folks on the other side will say it is earned amnesty, but it is 
still amnesty by any name one wants to call it. It reminds me of that 
old saying, put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. The fact of 
the matter is it is still amnesty and here is why specifically Craig-
Kennedy is amnesty.
  Under section 101 of S. 359, an illegal alien shall--it is not 
``may'' but ``shall''--be given status after working, and then the 
periods of time are laid out, but essentially in as little as 2\1/2\ 
weeks, one could accomplish the accumulated 3\1/2\-month labor period, 
but a maximum of 3\1/2\ months, minimum of 2\1/2\ weeks. They then have 
a legal status in the country. One year later, they get their green 
card.
  A green card is legal permanent residency, and I underline the word 
permanent. When one gets their card in this country, they have a status 
which enables them to live here for the rest of their life. Under 
existing law, it enables them to do something else. They can also apply 
for citizenship. They can apply to chain migrate their family into the 
country.
  The point is that while that status should be available to anyone who 
desires to immigrate to the United States, we believe it should be 
available to people who abide by the law. We also do not discriminate 
against those who have violated the law and who seek to apply for this 
status. We simply urge that they not be given an advantage over those 
who have done everything right, who have followed the law, applied for 
the legal permanent residency status from their country of origin, and 
have sought to get in line the same as everybody else. As the President 
says, if one wants to come here and stay, they need to get in line with 
everybody else. They should not be given an advantage. That is what 
amnesty is. When one is given an advantage over those who have 
conformed to the law, who have abided by the law, and one is given an 
advantage because they violated the law, that is frankly a concept I 
think most Americans would deem not only very unfair but getting on a 
very slippery slope in this country where people who do it wrong, who 
violate the law, have an advantage over those who are willing to do it 
right. That is not the American way and that is the key difference 
between the Craig-Kennedy legislation and the Chambliss-Kyl 
legislation.
  We say one can work here and continue to work here. In fact, we have 
three different 3-year periods, one right after the other, in which one 
can work in the United States. But we say if they seek to become a 
legal permanent resident, as opposed to a legal temporary resident, 
that permanent residency should require them to apply for it the same 
as everybody else. They have to go home, make the application--it takes 
1 year to do it--and then they have their green card. Once they get 
their green card, it is true they can apply for citizenship, but at 
least they have to follow the rules. They have done it the same as 
everybody else and they have not gotten an advantage because they came 
here illegally and stayed in this country illegally.
  The final point I want to make is there is another provision of the 
Craig-Kennedy legislation which I do not understand. It has been 
alluded to by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and others. 
It is a provision which actually attracts people who have previously 
violated the law. They snuck in, they came into the United States 
illegally, they illegally used documents to gain employment, they have 
been employed illegally in the United States, and the fact of all of 
those illegal activities is what permits them to come back into the 
United States. In other words, they have gone home for some reason, and 
if they can establish that they were here illegally, then they get to 
come back into the country legally. I don't know of anything that 
stands the law on its head more than that. Why would somebody try to 
abide by the law if they realized that, with counterfeit documents, 
they can simply show up at the border and say, Hey, I worked in the 
United States illegally and I want to come back in now and get this new 
status you are creating for me.
  It is a magnet not only for counterfeit and fraud but for people to 
come back into the United States who are now not here illegally, 
claiming that they have a right to do so on one basis and one basis 
only--because they violated our law. It seems to me to be totally 
upside-down to grant legal status to people, to invite them into our 
country, on the basis that they violated our law when there are not 
enough visas to grant to people who are trying to do it legally.
  This is amnesty, and it is wrong. What we are saying is there is a 
perfectly legal way to do this, to get all of the employers matched up 
that we need. We have no cap on the number of people who can apply 
through our streamlined H-2A process. As many workers as we need, we 
can get. I think that is why the Farm Bureau supports this. They know 
whatever labor needs we have in this country, we can fulfill them 
through a legal process, and there will not be any magnet for illegal 
immigrants to come to the country anymore.
  To conclude, there are two reasons to vote against the Craig-Kennedy 
legislation and one good reason to vote for the Chambliss-Kyl 
legislation. The reason to vote against both, frankly, is that unless 
both of these are defeated, we are going to be on this immigration 
issue for a long, long time. Who knows when we are going to conclude 
the supplemental appropriations legislation? We are certainly not going 
to finish it this week again. This will be the second full week we have 
been on it.
  Second, I don't think at the end of the day we are going to pass 
legislation--through the Senate and House and have it signed by the 
President--that grants amnesty to illegal immigrants or invites illegal 
immigrants back into the United States because of their illegal status. 
For that reason, we suggest we have a better approach, an approach 
which can meet our labor needs but do so within the rule of law and 
without granting a reward to those who have violated our law.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Nevada for 
the purpose of the introduction of an amendment to the underlying bill. 
It would not take time from me. Then I will claim the floor for a few 
moments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 487

  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent the pending business be set aside 
and Senate amendment No. 487 be called up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 487.

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

   (Purpose: To provide for additional border patrol agents for the 
                     remainder of fiscal year 2005)

       On page 191, after line 25, insert the following:

                     CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', for 
     hiring border patrol agents, $105,451,000: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $41,500,000, 
     to remain available until

[[Page 6827]]

     expended: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. 
     Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                          Reduction in Funding

       The amount appropriated by title II for ``Contributions to 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'' is hereby reduced by 
     $146,951,000 and the total amount appropriated by title II is 
     hereby reduced by $146,951,000.

  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 432

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has come up with 
some fascinating and interesting explanations of why his is not and 
ours is amnesty. By that I simply mean there are a lot of people who 
believe that if people have broken the law and that you grant them any 
forgiveness whatsoever, that is amnesty. But now, according to Mr. 
Chambliss and Mr. Kyl, we have a whole new definition of why theirs is 
not, even though they grant those who have broken the law a blue card 
to continue to stay and work. They say there is a difference.
  You know, there really is not a difference in this respect. If I am 
not amnestied by the Chambliss-Kyl amendment, there is no stretch of 
the imagination that would suggest otherwise about the Craig-Kennedy 
bill. I do not believe our bill has amnesty, because I think when you 
ask someone who has broken the law to pay back to society and to limit 
their rights, then recognizing that they have done so and allowing them 
to earn that legal status--and certainly that is what we do in the 
Craig-Kennedy bill. We demand, if you will, 360 days over 3 to 6 years 
in the field, working hard, so you gain the right to apply for a green 
card. I do not call that amnesty; I call that hard-earned, labor-paid-
for, to get the ability to stay and work. You can have your own 
thoughts about amnesty, but nowadays I am finding out anyone can have 
his or her own definition of amnesty. Amnesty is in the eye of the 
beholder. The word is an epithet, like calling someone a communist.
  In other ways, there is a very real difference between these two 
approaches. Let me outline it. We have 200-some-odd agriculture groups, 
part of a coalition of 509 groups, supporting our bill. It is very 
bipartisan. It is a significant reform of the H-2A program. It is not 
just crafted in the last minutes as a stopgap measure to block and 
divide. It is not so narrowly crafted that it delivers almost no real 
benefit. Most important, we say something that is fundamental to 
Americans who are concerned that our border to the south is now out of 
control and people are pouring over it. We say you had to be here last 
year, working for 100 days last year, not just here on April 1 of this 
year, like the other amendment. So regarding that problem we are all 
hearing about on our borders to the south, where people are pouring 
over, if they made it by April 1, the Kyl-Chambliss bill says: You get 
a blue card. You can stay 3 years, 6 years, 9 years, and in 9 years, if 
you are capable of developing your job into a supervisory position, you 
can stay permanently.
  That is not amnesty? Again, I think I have well established, no 
matter who tries to interpret what amnesty is, that it is in the mind 
of the beholder.
  The reason I am on the floor today and the reason we have been 
allowed to come to the floor is because in this particular bill we 
became germane by an action of the House. I know the Senator from 
Arizona talks urgency. We have been 3 months producing an urgent 
supplemental. It has been 3 months since the President asked us to 
respond. That is not the fault of the Senate. The House took 2 of those 
months. The House turned this appropriations bill into an immigration 
bill. We can take a few more hours to discuss AgJOBS.
  Can't we take a day and a half to solve what Americans believe is the 
No. 1 problem in our country, or a problem that is in the top three, 
and that is uncontrolled immigration and uncontrolled borders? What we 
are trying to do with a segment of our economy and a segment of our 
workforce that works predominantly in agriculture is to gain control of 
the process, shape it, identify it, and stop the flood that is coming 
across our borders.
  Let me show you some of the work we have done. I think it better 
explains to America the urgency of the problem. They hear the reports 
on the borders. Now let's look at the statistics as to what we have 
been doing since 9/11.
  The morning of 9/11, we woke up to a rude awakening, that America had 
slacked off way too long on its immigration laws and that we had 8 to 
12 million undocumented foreign nationals in our country--undocumented. 
That meant that they were here, by definition, illegally. Most were 
hard working, and most are hard working. Most are law abiding. But some 
were here to do us evil. Some were here to kill us. We found that out 
to our great surprise.
  That was more than 1,300 days ago, and Congress has done nothing 
about the laws that were so slack as to create that problem. So over 
the last 5 years--prior to that and now after that--I have worked with 
a diverse bunch of groups across the country to come up with a 
significant change in policy specific to a segment of that larger 
group--about 1.6 million in that particular workforce. But on this 
chart is a good example of what we are attempting to do at this moment.
  Here is 1994 through the year 2005: total funding level from all 
sources in the billions of dollars that we are spending on the borders 
of America today to try to control our borders, and on enforcement of 
our immigration laws within those borders. Here this red line on this 
chart goes. Starting in 2001 and up, you see this tremendous increase 
in what we spend on enforcement. We are now, today, spending $7 billion 
a year on the borders and on internal enforcement. That is ``b,'' $7 
billion on enforcement. The Senator from Arizona would be the first to 
admit that the borders south of his State are still like sieves--people 
are pouring across them in an illegal way. Yet, today, for America's 
sake, we are spending $7 billion on our borders and on internal 
enforcement.
  Look at the green line that represents apprehensions in millions of 
individuals. Last year we apprehended more than 1.2 million individuals 
and sent them back across the border. These are dramatic increases. Did 
it stem the tide of illegality? No, it didn't. The Senator from Arizona 
is sitting there agreeing with me. They are pouring over the border. 
Seven billion dollars later, with thousands more new law enforcement 
people on the borders and with apprehensions up, more people are 
coming. What is wrong with that picture?
  Let me show you what is wrong with that picture. We could build a 
fence along the border. We could build it high and dig it deep, and we 
could man it with people every few feet, but if the laws that backed up 
the fence were not working, somebody would come through. Somebody would 
get through. They would dig under it. They would go around it. There 
are more than 7,000 miles of land borders in our country and more than 
88,000 miles of tidal shoreline and water inlets. They would come. The 
reason they would come is that the law is not effective, nor is it 
deterring them. They would come because our economy and our way of life 
are a powerful magnet and because our laws provide no reasonable way to 
match those willing workers with jobs here that would go begging.
  Here is another interesting graph. There was a time in our country 
when the laws did work. Starting in the 1950s we had a program for 
guest workers to come into our country and work. They were identified 
and the worker matched to the work. They came and worked, and they went 
home. As a result of that, this green line represents the developing of 
the Bracero Program, which did just that.
  From a humanitarian point of view, it was not a good program. Many of 
these people were not well treated. But the side of it that worked was 
the side that identified the worker and the work, and here is the 
result. The red line represents apprehensions, those illegally crossing 
the border who were caught. Look at the drop, the dramatic

[[Page 6828]]

drop in illegal activity going on in our country in the 1950s. Illegal 
immigration dropped more than 90 percent stayed low for a long period 
of time.
  Here we are in 1954: over 1 million apprehensions. What did I say 
about last year? Over a million apprehensions. Millions were coming 
across the border illegally before we changed the law. We changed it 
and, in 1953 and 1954, and we implemented it. These crossings stayed 
law all through the 1950s and into the 1960s, until somebody did not 
like it anymore because of the way people were being treated, and they 
repealed it. Eventually we wound up with the law we have today, the H-
2A program. Guest workers in the 1950s, you can see, remained 
relatively constant at a few hundred thousand, but those numbers 
dropped and flattened out because there were those in Congress who did 
not like the old law. They repealed it and up went the number of 
illegals again. Why? The system did not work. Over the years, the 
government and the people knew it. We watched it. We ignored it. That 
is why we are here today, because Americans are asking us not to ignore 
it any longer. It is almost the same scenario--my goodness, 40 years 
later, 50 years later.
  Did we learn lessons? History has a way of repeating itself, and it 
appears it is repeating itself today--1954, apprehension of illegals, 
1.2 million; last year, 1.2 million. But in the interim we had laws 
working for a period of time that clearly demonstrated that if this 
Congress has the will to deal with the problem, it can. My legislation, 
the Craig-Kennedy legislation, clearly does so. We would dramatically 
changed the underlying H-2A program in a way that has produced support 
of over 500 organizations, 200 of them agricultural organizations, and 
we do so in a bipartisan way and a broad-based way.
  The Kyl-Chambliss bill is very narrow in who benefits from limited 
changes in the current program, and it does not reflect that bipartisan 
approach, nor does it reflect a national approach in large part on this 
issue. Their bill would benefit a few employers and a few labor 
contractors in some parts of the country. We have brought all 
stakeholders, all communities of interest to the table with our bill. 
That is why it is significant for all of us to understand that there 
are very real differences in these bills. Besides, as long as you just 
made it here by April 1 of this year, you can stay under the Kyl-
Chambliss bill. You get a blue card, and you can stay 3 years, 6 years, 
9 years, and if you elevate yourself to a supervisory position, you 
stay forever.
  Under our legislation you have to have been here last year. By 
January 1, 2005, you will have to have proved you worked 100 days and 
then you get a temporary card, and then you continue to work, and meet 
a higher standard of good behavior under the law than other, legal 
immigrants, to pay for your right to stay to work, to pay for your 
right to eventually apply for a green card, to be able to move back and 
forth in a continuum and to be, if you will, a permanent employee in 
this country.
  The Senator from Arizona is talking about a quick pathway to 
citizenship in our bill. I would not suggest that 10 to 15 years of 
hard work, standing in line and making application is a quick path to 
anything. Most Americans would never stand in line for 10 years for 
anything, let alone work at least 360 days in temporary, seasonal farm 
labor, over several years in 100-degree heat in fields in Yuma, AR, or 
Twin Falls, ID. There are some who will, and they work very hard to 
earn that right. But they will work to earn the right, it will not be 
given to them unconditionally.
  There is one thing the Craig-Kennedy and Chambliss-Kyl bills have in 
common. We do not make a free gift, of citizenship regardless of 
circumstance, unconditionally. I would call that amnesty. We give 
people--our legislation gives people--the right to come here and work, 
to earn the right to stay, and the right to continue to work. So there 
is a very real difference. Don't fall off on the idea of this quick fix 
in the substitute amendment that was just produced in the last few 
weeks because they know that I knew I was going to be here on the 
Senate floor with a bill that has been 5 years in the crafting and has 
literally a nationwide base of support from all groups--from labor, 
from agriculture, from Hispanic groups, from taxpayer groups, from 
religious and community groups, and has strong bipartisanship.
  Last year, it was cosponsored by 63 Republicans and Democrats alike. 
This year, we are again building the numbers, and cosponsorship is now 
nearly 50--again, Democrats and Republicans alike--supporting this. 
That is why we are here on the Senate floor. Americans are demanding 
that we control this immigration problem. We are offering an approach, 
a solution to a portion of that.
  I hope the Congress will then continue to work its will to get to a 
much broader based, comprehensive program.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me respond to a couple of comments which 
my colleague just made. He characterized his legislation as enabling 
people to earn the right to stay. This is the earned amnesty provision. 
But the point is, there is no difference between coming across the 
border illegally and working here illegally and working under the 
Craig-Kennedy bill. You are working in the field, and after a period of 
time you get permanent legal residency. Between 2\1/2\ weeks and 3\1/2\ 
months, you get legal status. Then a year later you get legal permanent 
residency by doing the very same thing you are illegally doing today.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. There is a difference. If you come forth and say, I have 
been here and have worked 100 days and I want to get a temporary green 
card, we do a background check.
  Mr. KYL. The green card is permanent, not temporary.
  Mr. CRAIG. The temporary card is for people working 360 days over 3 
to 6 years, and then you apply for permanency. It is at least 3 years, 
and maybe 6 years before you can even apply for permanent residency. 
Then that processing and adjudication takes about 2 to 3 additional 
years, because there are backlogs. It is not immediately permanent. It 
is at least 5 years, and maybe 9 years before you have permanent 
residency. Then it takes another 5 years before citizenship, if you 
qualify. Do you do a background check? And do you make those who have a 
blue card--those whom you are giving the right to stay here legally--go 
through a full background check in full compliance with immigration law 
today? Are they drug dealers, felons, three-misdemeanor conductors? We 
do that. We do a thorough background check to make sure we have the 
right people working here and not have criminals slipping through our 
borders. Do you do the same?
  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes to me on his time?
  Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. The answer is yes. We have a much more effective way because 
we have biometric identifiers, a fingerprint check, or other kinds of 
biometric identifiers so the individual identifies himself both as 
being in legal status for employment and being the person he says he 
is. That, of course, requires documents to demonstrate legality, in the 
first instance, so we can absolutely confirm that the only people who 
are being hired are here legally. You can make the card whatever color 
you want to, but under today's law, legal permanent residency is called 
green card status. Everybody knows you get a green card when you have 
legal permanent residency.
  Under your legislation, it is, in fact, the case that with as little 
as 2\1/2\ weeks but no more than 3\1/2\ months a status of legality is 
granted. After 1 year an application can be made for legal permanent 
residency. The only question is how much time it takes to complete that 
application process. That is when you can apply for it, 1 year. It may 
take several more months to gain the status. Once the application has 
been made, you are a legal permanent resident in this country.

[[Page 6829]]


  Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator will yield, then we both have 
identification with the background check. We would require a Homeland 
Security identifier program. They are working on those kinds of efforts 
now. We would require the same.
  The real difference is your folks could work 1 hour and get a blue 
card. Ours have to work at least 100 days and have been here prior to 
January 1. I think we agree on that. I do not know where the Senator 
gets his reference to 2\1/2\ weeks. No one last year worked in 
agriculture one hour a day for 100 days. That was before AgJOBS was 
even introduced. That kind of employment arrangement would be 
irrational. If someone did show up and claim they had worked 1 hour a 
day for 100 days, that would be a reason to investigate them for fraud.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time.
  The key difference is how you gain the status of legal permanent 
resident. Under the Craig-Kennedy bill, you get that after working here 
doing the very same thing that you are doing illegally today. You are 
not doing anything different. You are just doing it now under a new 
status as opposed to the old status. Once you do that, you get legal 
permanent residency. That is the difference. Under the Chambliss-Kyl 
legislation, you never get legal permanent residency.
  Second, under the Craig-Kennedy legislation, I think the Senator from 
Idaho misspoke when he said we don't grant citizenship. I think it is 
fair to say we don't grant citizenship, but it is that status of legal 
permanent residency which entitles you to apply for citizenship under 
the United States Code--8, United States Code, section 1427(a).
  The point is, the granting of the legal permanent status under the 
Craig-Kennedy legislation automatically entitles you to apply for 
citizenship. That is the amnesty. You can't do that under the 
Chambliss-Kyl legislation. There is no path to citizenship for people 
who violated the law except to go back to the country of origin and do 
it just like everybody else--to get in line like everybody else.
  The final point I want to make is this: I think it is a very 
dangerous proposition to argue that we can't control our borders. We 
can. I have talked to the Tucson sector chief of the Border Patrol who 
says if we have enough resources, we can get control of our borders. It 
has largely been accomplished in California and Texas. It is not 
accomplished in Arizona because illegal immigrants came to where we 
don't have the control. We spent the money in California, we spent the 
money in Texas, and sure enough they are coming through Arizona. Over 
half of the illegal immigrants are coming through one sector in the 
State of Arizona.
  The statistic which the Senator from Idaho pointed out is exactly 
correct in that regard. They are mushrooming.
  He is also correct in saying we need two things. I hope he will agree 
with me we need both. We need both an effort to enforce the law--after 
all, if the country cannot protect its own borders, it cannot protect 
its sovereignty. If we do that, we need to devote the resources to do 
that. We also need enforceable legislation for people who work in this 
country. We can do that by having a simplified H-2A program and some 
language similar to what we are talking about here, matching willing 
workers and employers within the legal construct, and with combined 
efforts to control the border and enforce those laws we can end up with 
a legal regime.
  But I think it is a very dangerous proposition for us to say we 
can't, under any circumstances, control our borders. We can, and we 
must.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this is going to be a very interesting 
debate. I hope all of our colleagues are watching this.
  I wish to respond to a couple of things my friend said relative to 
our legislation.
  First of all, this is not a stop-gap measure. This is not something 
we conceived over the last several weeks--even the last several months. 
I have actually been working on this issue for the entire 11 years I 
have served in the House of Representatives and now in this body. In 
fact, on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1995, Congressman 
Richard Pombo of California and myself proposed a very similar piece of 
legislation to what the Chambliss-Kyl amendment is today to reform the 
H-2A program. We weren't as expansive back then because we didn't 
conceive the blue card concept. But we had a very similar proposition 
relative to H-2A because H-2A has been a good program, if it were 
streamlined. And if it were not so cumbersome for employees to use, it 
would be used more often than what it is today.
  Second, I want to talk about this issue relative to the control of 
the borders. Senator Kyl is exactly right. I think it is very dangerous 
for anybody to argue during this process or any other process that we 
cannot control the borders. We can control the borders, and we must 
control the borders. If we don't control the borders to our country 
during this process or conceive of some way to make sure that Homeland 
Security does so during this process, then we are going to accomplish 
nothing.
  Our goal is--I know what the goal of Senator Craig and Senator 
Kennedy is--to provide our agricultural sector in this country with a 
stable, with a quality, and with an abundant labor force pool from 
which to choose, and that they must be legal. That we can agree on. But 
we can control the border, and under our legislation--it is absent from 
Senator Craig's legislation--we demand that the Department of Homeland 
Security, within 6 months after the effective date of this amendment, 
come forward to Congress with a proposal as to how they want to seal 
the border and control it from allowing illegal immigrants to come 
across that border.
  It can be done, it should be done, and it must be done as a part of 
this process.
  I want to go back to the AgJOBS bill and talk about what is truly the 
major significant difference; that is, the issue of amnesty.
  Under the AgJOBS bill that Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy have, 
first, illegal aliens are eligible for temporary work visas if they 
have worked in agriculture a minimal amount of time. I will not go 
through what Senator Kyl just said but, basically, if they have been 
here for 100 days and worked 1 hour each day, then they can apply for 
what is known as ``temporary adjustment status'' under the Craig-
Kennedy bill. That makes them legal. We simply do not do that. We 
intentionally put the burden on the employer to make sure the employee 
is who he says he is.
  First of all, I need the workers; second, that these workers will be 
coming here as law-abiding citizens; and, they have not violated the 
law--as you can do under Senator Craig's and Senator Kennedy's 
amendment, not once, not twice, but you can have three misdemeanors on 
your record and still get the legal adjustment status.
  We have zero tolerance. We think folks who come here and say they 
want to work in the United States must be law-abiding citizens, if that 
is what they want to do. We say, unlike Craig-Kennedy, that the burden 
must be on the employer to, first of all, go out and say, I want to 
hire American workers to fill these jobs. Then, if he can't do that, it 
is the employer who comes in and says: I have tried to hire American 
workers to fill these jobs. I cannot find the American workers to do 
it. Therefore, under the H-2A reform provision, I need these workers 
for a temporary period of time--X number of days--to do this job. Then 
they will return to their native country.
  In the case of the blue card, it is a little bit different. There are 
some agricultural industries in this country--for example, the 
landscape or the nursery business--where employees are needed for a 12-
month period every time, not just for a temporary 90-day or 120-day 
period of time. In that particular instance, these employers--again, 
the burden is on the employer--make the estimation that they need these 
employees--this individual is

[[Page 6830]]

here, is law abiding, and that they want to have a blue card issued to 
that individual.
  That individual, again, can work only for that employer. When he 
leaves the employ of that individual, the burden is on the employer to 
let the Department of Labor know he has left. If he goes to work for 
another employer, which he can do in the agricultural sector, the 
employer for whom he goes to work must again file the proper 
documentation with the Department of Labor as well as with the 
Department of Homeland Security so they can track that individual. That 
is critically important.
  The major difference in that provision versus the Craig-Kennedy 
provision is they grant the temporary adjustment status which says they 
are here illegally. After a 3\1/2\ month period of time, they can then 
work for a year and get a green card, which means they basically can 
stay in the United States forever with that green card. If they want to 
apply for citizenship, they can apply for citizenship while they are in 
the United States.
  Under Chambliss-Kyl, they must comply with current law in order to 
get a green card. In order to do that, you must go back to your native 
country. You must stand in line, as everyone else is required to do 
today, in order to make application for a green card. They do not get 
any preferential treatment.
  If they want to secure what we think is the most precious asset an 
American has, and that is American citizenship, that individual, under 
the Craig-Kennedy amendment, simply can stay in this country legally 
with a green card, and while they are here under that green card--even 
though they came illegally--they can make application for citizenship. 
I don't know whether it will be granted in 5, 6, 7 years, but that is 
immaterial. They can do so outside of what is current law.
  Under the Chambliss-Kyl amendment, you cannot do that. If you are 
going to apply for a green card, you must go back to your native 
country and stand in line with everyone else and come in under the cap 
provided for in current law, make application, go through all the 
process, and maybe get your green card. If you want to apply for 
citizenship, again, you have to follow current law. You have to go back 
to your native country, you have to make the proper application, and go 
through all the appropriate steps before you can secure citizenship.
  That major difference of rewarding those people here illegally in the 
Craig-Kennedy AgJOBS amendment versus not rewarding individuals who are 
here illegally but only granting them a temporary status under the 
Chambliss-Kyl amendment is the major difference in these two bills.
  Why should we even grant anyone here illegally the right to stay in 
this country? The Department of Labor estimated 2 years ago we have 
between 8 million and 13 million people in this country illegally. We 
have no idea who they are. Sure, we see them standing on the street 
corner from time to time looking for jobs. We know, in the agriculture 
sector, about 85 percent of the employees are here illegally. They all 
have false documentations. They are pretty easy to get. You can go to 
almost any street corner, unfortunately, or across the border in 
Senator Kyl's State of Arizona and pay somebody somewhere between $300 
and $1,000--I understand is the current market rate--and you will get a 
fake Social Security card and other fake documentation that will allow 
you to stay here.
  It is illegal for an employer, before he hires somebody, whether it 
is the agricultural sector or not, to ask that person for further 
verification of the fact they are here legally in this country. That is 
a weird provision in our law, but it is a fact, so we don't know who 
these people are. The mere fact we have a 5-million gap between 8 
million and 13 million tells how serious the problem is. It is serious 
from the standpoint these people are taxing our education system, our 
judicial system, and our health care system. We need to identify who 
these people are.
  We are firing the first rifle shot. Again, on this, Senator Craig, 
Senator Kennedy, and I agree. I applaud them, particularly Senator 
Craig, for continuing to push this ball forward. We need this debate in 
the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives. Once we identify 
those people who are involved in agriculture and are here illegally, we 
have to make a fundamental determination, as legislators, and that is 
are we going to try to round those people up? Are we going to try to 
hire the hundreds of thousands of additional border patrol agents and 
INS agents, round those people up, and send them back from where they 
came and expect them to stay there? Or are we going to be practical, 
and are we going to identify those people--we will not look at them and 
say: We will give you permanent status in this country, but we will 
allow you to stay here legally for a temporary period of time if you 
are law abiding. As I say, we have zero tolerance. The AgJOBS bill will 
allow for three misdemeanors and still allow them to stay here.
  Second, we ask: Are you displacing an American worker? We agree on 
that. Both of us say we should not displace an American worker. But if 
they are not displacing American workers, if they are law abiding, and 
if their employer--one other critical difference in the two bills--if 
their employers make the attestation here he has complied with all the 
laws, he has sought to hire American workers, and he cannot do so, the 
employer will be granted the right to either have those workers come in 
under the streamlined H2-A process or the employer will be the one who 
secures the blue card for that employee that he needs on more of a 
full-time basis.
  I submit there are significant differences in these two bills but the 
basic overall difference is we think the Federal Government has the 
obligation, No. 1, to control the border. We think you can control the 
border. We think, if you did not control the border, I don't care how 
sophisticated a piece of legislation we pass in this Senate or the 
House of Representatives, or it might go to the President's desk, we 
will have accomplished nothing.
  We do request and mandate the Department of Homeland Security give us 
that plan within 6 months as to how they will control the border. As 
Senator Kyl said, they have a plan in place in Texas and California 
that is working better than what we have in place in Arizona, where it 
simply is not working. It is working much better than what we have in 
my home county of Colquitt County, GA, where it is not working. They 
are getting into our county somehow. We need a provision to control the 
border.
  Second, the major difference is a question of whether you want to 
vote to grant somebody who is here illegally, who may have violated our 
law on three separate occasions with misdemeanors, a pathway to 
citizenship or whether you want to give somebody who is here for the 
right reasons, and who has not violated the law but who is needed by an 
agricultural employer, give them the opportunity to work for that 
agricultural employer for a temporary period of time and never, during 
the whole time he stays in the United States, be given anything other 
than a temporary status.
  Mr. KYL. Might I ask the Senator from Georgia to yield for a quick 
question?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Sure.
  Mr. KYL. I was told a colleague was watching this debate from his 
office and is under the impression a point was made, under our 
legislation, a supervisor could apply for citizenship or be granted 
citizenship or legal permanent residency under the Chambliss-Kyl 
legislation. I wonder if the Senator would clarify that is not the 
case.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is absolutely not the case. There is no way, 
under the Chambliss-Kyl amendment, anyone, anybody who is here 
illegally and who gets a blue card by virtue of the employer of that 
individual requesting the blue card, ever becomes anything other than a 
temporary resident of this country.
  Under our law--and we maintain current law--under current law, there 
is no way someone who is in this country on a temporary basis can ever 
apply for a green card--and can never apply for citizenship.

[[Page 6831]]


  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask you to respond on my time. I appreciate that.
  I understand what you are saying, ``greening'' versus ``blueing,'' 
but if you give someone a blue card and he becomes a supervisor, he may 
not be a permanent resident but he is permanently in this country by 
your legislation.
  We all identify with the green card today because it has been around 
a long time. When you get a permanent green card, you can become a 
permanent resident and not a citizen. I suggest, and you may disagree, 
if you become a supervisor after 9 years of being here with a blue 
card, it is permanent, is it not?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I appreciate the question of the Senator from Idaho. 
That is exactly the opposite from what is the truth. The truth is, he 
is always a temporary employee, and if he has a supervisory position 
and if he is granted additional time after 9 years, his temporary 
status never changes.
  Mr. CRAIG. But he is permanently here if he wants to be.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is not true because if his employer ever released 
him from his employment, he has to notify the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Department of Labor, and that individual must go back 
to where he came from. Or if he secures a----
  Mr. CRAIG. So I am right, but under certain conditions I am wrong. 
Thank you.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. You are wrong, but there are exceptions to everything.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thought so.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. He is never a permanent citizen as he becomes under 
your bill after about 2\1/2\ weeks.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have to come back on that. Not after 2\1/
2\ weeks.
  He gets a temporary green card for 360 days or 5 years. Then he 
applies for permanency. That is the way the bill reads. That is an 
additional 2 years. Math is math and it adds up and that is 6 years. I 
am sorry, that is not 2 weeks. It does not work that way. That we 
disagree on.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it not true, under your bill, an individual can get 
the temporary adjustment status after working 100 hours?
  Mr. CRAIG. As of 2004, not in 2005. January 1, he had to be here last 
year working, cannot come across the border through Arizona. March 29, 
before April 1 of this year.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it true that 1 hour is defined in the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, or 1 day's work is defined as 1 hour, and it is actually 
100 days?
  Mr. CRAIG. I understand it is kind of the semantics we played a few 
moments ago. Temporary is not permanent, even though they are 
permanently here temporarily. I understand those semantics, yes.
  Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1 hour is a day. But I do require 
not 1 hour, I require 100 days. You require 1 hour.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it not true this is a fundamental difference in our 
two amendments? Under your amendment, the employee or the illegal alien 
comes in and says: I worked here for those 100 hours last year or 2 
years ago.
  Mr. CRAIG. And must demonstrate through tax returns----
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Where under our bill they come in and an employer 
says: I need this employee, and I want to make application for the H2-A 
or the blue card.
  Mr. CRAIG. That employee must demonstrate tax records and an 
employment record during that 100-hour period by an employee prior to 
January 1, 2005.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator not agree a fundamental difference 
is, under your bill, the employee is the one who makes that 
attestation. Whereas, under our bill, it is the employer--the American 
employer--says: I need you.
  Under your bill, the employee says: I have been here for this period 
of time, and therefore I deserve to receive this adjustment.
  Mr. CRAIG. In my situation, they must have worked and, of course, 
they must do that full background check we all go through.
  It is a time-consuming thing. One of the things the American people 
want that we are both doing is to control the current illegal 
population, to identify and find out who they are, to make sure they 
are not bad people, if we are going to grant them the right to stay and 
work. That we both accomplish.
  It is not just, oh, get a card because you got 100 hours or, oh, you 
get a card because you got 1 hour, in your circumstance. It is because 
you have submitted yourself to a full background check. That is 14 
pages in the current code of this country as it relates to immigration. 
That is very significant for all of us.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alabama 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I appreciate the 
debate that has been going on. It is an important debate. It is 
something we need to be discussing.
  I say, with real conviction, we can improve the immigration system in 
America. We can make it work better. We must do that.
  This is a defense supplemental bill, early in this Senate calendar. 
We are not ready, in any way, shape or form, to be debating this 
comprehensive legislation today.
  If the American people were to know what is being proposed, they 
would be very unhappy with us. I certainly hope we are not about to 
make this law.
  I understand, at one point, there were over 50 cosponsors to the 
Craig-Kennedy legislation, which is breathtaking, in a way. But I don't 
think the American people and Members of this body fully understand the 
import of it. It is a big deal.
  I say to my colleagues, you will be voting on this soon. I urge you 
to get your mind focused on what we are about to vote on and I urge you 
to say, ``I am not ready to vote on such comprehensive legislation--
this is a Defense bill''--and vote no. That is the first thing we ought 
to do.
  Let me see if I can summarize, from reading this legislation 
carefully, what I think the AgJOBS amendment says without any doubt.
  People who are here illegally, for any number of reasons, who should 
not be here contrary to the law, and, therefore, are who also working 
illegally and violating American law--under this bill, if they have 
worked 100 hours in 100 days, meaning 1 hour per day, within 18 
months--virtually no real work is required in the 18 months--they 
become, immediately, just like that, a lawful temporary resident. They 
immediately become able, legally, to stay here. If they have brought 
their families here unlawfully, their families also get to stay and can 
not be deported.
  Then, in the next 6 years, if they work 2,060 hours--this has been 
explained as somehow earning your citizenship. I want to remind us that 
these people are here voluntarily, they are working and they are being 
paid what they earn. They are simply doing what they wanted to come 
here and do. This should not earn them a path to citizenship. They are 
not doing volunteer work in the community. They are earning a living 
and being paid for their work. Some say they should be earning more 
than their pay, that they are earning amnesty as well. But if they work 
2,060 hours in 6 years--now, 2,060 hours is about 1 year's work for an 
American worker; that is how much you work a year--if they do that, 
some say they are then entitled to legal permanent resident status. At 
that point, they can bring in their family if they are out of the 
country. They can come into the country with you and also become legal 
permanent residents--even if you never intended for your family to 
follow you when you decided to come to the U.S. illegally and work 
illegally.
  Then, if you wait 5 years, as a legal permanent resident in the 
United States, and you work, and you are not convicted of a felony, you 
are not convicted of three misdemeanors--three will block you, but two 
will not. You

[[Page 6832]]

can be convicted of two misdemeanors. You can be investigated for drug 
smuggling, for murder, for child exploitation, all of these things. You 
can even be indicted for those charges. But the statute says, if you 
are not convicted, the Secretary shall make you a lawful temporary 
resident and shall make you a legal permanent resident. It is mandatory 
on the Secretary. They are not able to do a background check and say: 
Well, the FBI is investigating this guy for drug smuggling or being a 
member of some gang or involved in child sexual exploitation. It says 
``conviction'' is necessary to keep you from getting amnesty. 
Otherwise, you shall be approved as a temporary and permanent resident. 
And being a legal permanent resident puts you on the road to 
citizenship.
  That is what it is all about. If, indeed, a person has in 18 months 
met this 100-hour work status and has gone back to their home country, 
maybe without any intention of returning to America--this amendment 
will effectively be a notice to them from Uncle Sam that says: By the 
way, you once worked here illegally. We know you have left and gone 
back, but you should come back and become a temporary resident, then a 
permanent resident, and then a citizen.
  So it says: Come on back. They may not even have been intending to do 
this, but this may be an offer they feel they can't refuse because they 
may think: Well, the illegal alien is thinking--``I can go to the U.S. 
and become a lawful temporary resident, and then I can become a legal 
permanent resident. And, I can bring my family. I will move to the 
U.S.''
  That is not the way we want to be doing immigration in America. It is 
not the way we need to be doing it. There is no dispute that this is 
amnesty. How can it not be amnesty? If this is not amnesty, what is 
amnesty? You take someone who violated the law, give them a guaranteed 
path to citizenship, not subject to review by the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, 
people--a guaranteed path. You shall be made a temporary resident if 
you meet these qualities. You shall be made a permanent resident if you 
meet this standard. And if you meet the legal permanent resident 
status, you are on the road to citizenship. That is what it is all 
about.
  If we ever want to create a legal immigration system--and I know we 
do--that is generous and allows people to come here who will be 
contributors to our country, that has any integrity whatsoever, we must 
not adopt this AgJOBS bill. It is a capitulation. It is a total 
collapse of any attempt to create an enforceable legal system. I must 
say that. We absolutely do not need to be sneaking it in on a Defense 
supplemental without the American people knowing what is going on here. 
They are not going to be happy.
  Now, how do these amnesty programs work? My colleague earlier 
challenged my numbers. I said it could be a million or even more 
people. He said it would be a half a million, plus children. But Dr. 
Phillip Martin, professor of agricultural economics of UC Davis and a 
member of the Agricultural Workers Commission says that at least 
860,000 workers will come, and then their family members on top of 
that.
  We know last time we had an agricultural workers amnesty, in 1986, 
that amnesty drastically underestimated the number that would be 
approved. I think the number was two or three times as many as expected 
that were approved. So I think the numbers will be huge.
  Now, the commission that was called upon to study the 1986 amnesty 
said the program legalized ``many more workers than expected. It 
appears that the number of undocumented workers who had worked in 
agricultural seasonal services prior to the IRCA was generally 
underestimated.''
  The commission also said that the 1986 agricultural amnesty, which 
was similar to the amnesty we are voting on today in fundamental 
principles, did not solve agriculture worker problems, rather they 
found that ``six years after IRCA was signed into law, the problems 
within the system of agricultural labor continue to exist.'' That was 
an official finding of a commission created by that act. Additionally, 
the commission found that ``an increasing number of newly arriving 
undocumented workers'' were still coming to the U.S.
  And finally, they said, ``Worker-specific and/or industry-specific 
legalization programs, as contained in IRCA, should not be the basis of 
future immigration policy.'' That is exactly what we will be doing if 
we pass this amendment.
  Mr. President, I do not know how much time I have.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am going to put this chart up and make 
a couple of points in relation to some of the details in the act that 
are really breathtaking in their scope.
  I mentioned the amnesty provisions already. The AgJOBS amendment also 
overrides State law by eliminating ``at will'' employment, where an 
employer or employee can leave the employment whenever they chose. This 
says, if you come in under this act, unlike an American citizen, you 
cannot be terminated, except for just cause. To make sure that happens, 
this act has about six pages creating an arbitration situation where 
the Federal Government pays to arbitrate these disputes, an arbitration 
system that is not made available to an American citizen worker. They 
do not get that protection. It will also provide illegal aliens with 
taxpayer-funded legal assistance through the Legal Services Corporation 
to process their applications for legal status.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama has used 
10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator would not mind if I 
have 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. How about 2?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Two minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the 
Senator from Alabama.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  By the way, the AgJOBS amendment also provides they shall be given 
fully paid-for health insurance, which American workers do not get.
  It provides that the worker organizations and employer associations 
are the ones to receive the applications for temporary status. But, 
they cannot provide that application or the information in the 
application to the Department of Homeland Security unless the alien 
consents. They might receive information or evidence in the application 
pertaining to a crime, but, apparently the sponsors of this amendment 
are not concerned about that. Instead, they want the applications and 
the information that is given to the organizations and associations 
that are authorized to receive them kept from the Department of 
Homeland Security. As a matter of fact, the only way your application 
is allowed to go to the Department Homeland Security and its 
Secretary--the only way it can go there--is if you have a lawyer. If 
you do not have a lawyer, your application has to go to one of these 
groups who will send it to DHS for you. These groups are not 
independent, fair groups.
  The employer groups and the worker organizations are groups that have 
a special interest in promoting this. So this is not protecting the 
interests of the people of the United States to give this process over 
to two groups, both of which have a special interest in promoting 
people coming into this country. And, of course, there are no numerical 
limits on the number of aliens who would be given amnesty.
  Also, finally, I would note, as the Senator from Georgia is well 
aware, group after group that are said to have been in favor of this 
legislation have changed their mind or oppose it. The National Farm 
Bureau no longer supports AgJOBS. Farm groups all over the country are 
opposed to it. I know that the largest individual H2A employer in the 
country opposes the AgJOBS amendment. I also know that the largest co-
op user of the H2A program--the North Carolina Growers Association--
oppose the amendment. I

[[Page 6833]]

have received letters from Mid-Atlantic Solutions, the Georgia Peach 
Council, AgWorks, the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, 
the Virginia Agricultural Growers Association, the Vidalia Onion 
Business Council, and the Kentucky-Tennessee Growers Association all of 
which oppose the passage of AgJOBS.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used his additional 
2 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia has 11 
minutes 10 seconds. The Senator from Idaho has 9 minutes. The Senator 
from Massachusetts has 29 minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts 
will be arriving soon. His time and my time are for the same purpose. 
He has given me the ability to use up some of that time. I will not, at 
this moment, ask unanimous consent for those purposes because there is 
no one on the floor from the other side to visit with about that.
  Senator Chambliss mentioned year round work in the nursery and 
landscape industry. The nation's premiere nursery and landscape 
association is the co-chair of the vast coalition supporting AgJOBS. 
Why? Because they know AgJOBS will work. It will provide the workers 
they need. The blue card system in the substitute amendment will not. 
It is written so narrowly that there will be little incentive for 
workers to come forward and it will be cumbersome to use.
  The Senator mentioned misdemeanors. AgJOBS goes beyond current law in 
the good behavior it requires. We would deport for a single felony, for 
any three misdemeanors, however minor, and for any one serious 
misdemeanor, which involves 6 months jail time. But if you say deport 
for any misdemeanor, you are talking about some truly minor things, 
like loitering, jaywalking, parking a house trailer in a roadside park, 
depositing trash from a home or farm in a roadside trash can, having 
untethered animal stock on a highway, or making known in any manner 
what library book another person borrowed. These are misdemeanors in 
different states. We do tighten up the law. We do require better 
behavior than current law and better than that of other, legal 
immigrants. But the punishment should be proportional to the offense. 
We provide for that.
  I want to go through one thing again in some of the time we have left 
because what Americans are frustrated about today--whether it is the 
solution we have offered up or the solution our other colleagues have 
offered up--is that history has shown us what works and what does not 
work. For border security alone--and I know I have been corrected by 
the Senator from Arizona for the language I have used, and 
appropriately so--my guess is, if we did not put $7 billion on the 
border and into internal enforcement, if we put $14 or $15 or $20 
billion on the border, we could probably finally do a fairly good job 
of locking that border up. Of course, the more persons we lock out, the 
more undocumented persons we lock in. We need to deal with that, too.
  Americans are frustrated. They want that border controlled, as do all 
of us. But what we know works well is the coupling of more security 
with a law that provides for a legal work force. And that is what we 
are offering today, some $7 billion a year worth of certification and 
better internal enforcement. We are putting law enforcement money on 
the ground in the local communities. And because there is a segment of 
our economy that needs this particular type of employee, we have a 
guest worker program that faces up to the economic reality of our 
country.
  That is what we are talking about. We did that some time ago. We did 
that in the 1950s, and it worked. We were, here on this chart in 1954, 
apprehending nearly 1.2 million illegals a year and taking them back 
across the border. Then we created the Bracero Program. Now, the 
program worked because it matched employee and employer. It received a 
lot of criticism, and I will not step back from being very clear about 
it in the way the employee was treated. That is partly what brought the 
program down. But we literally saw numbers of illegals drop almost to 
nothing and flat-lined from through the 1950s into the early 1960s, as 
the Bracero Program worked.
  What had we done? We matched Border Patrol along with effective law 
enforcement along with a guest worker program that worked. Along came 
the 1960s. We changed it and eventually wound up with the current law. 
We flat-lined, by bureaucracy, the number of guest workers we allowed 
legally into the program on an annual basis.
  You can see what happened. Here it is, as shown on this chart. 
Apprehensions of illegals and illegal entry began to rise. What 
happened last year, as this very dysfunctional program all but broke 
down? We were back at 1.2 million apprehensions. America has asked for 
a solution. We have brought a solution to the floor. The only 
experience our country has had on a broad basis with the a legal guest 
worker program is the one I have outlined.
  AgJOBS is a groundbreaking, necessary part of balancing a realistic 
approach to solving this problem. American agriculture has boldly 
stepped forward and admitted they have a problem.
  They are not hiding behind lobbyists saying: Lift the lid in a 
certain program, allow more people in. They are almost in a panicked 
way saying to us: We have a 70-plus-percent illegal problem that we are 
dependent upon for the harvesting of our fruits and vegetables, for the 
supplying of the American food shelf with its food. Please do something 
about it. Please provide a vehicle that allows these people to be 
legal, and we will agree to work with you in setting up the necessary 
mechanisms to make sure they are treated right, the housing is there, 
they are paid well, and all of those kinds of things.
  If we don't have a legal work force in place, and we continue to lock 
up the border--and we should--and we do all of the other things such as 
uncounterfeitable ID cards, we literally could collapse American 
agriculture. That is something this Congress should not be responsible 
for doing simply by being negligent.
  That is why for the last 5 years and more I have worked on this 
issue. We have worked cooperatively, Democrat and Republican alike--
Congressman Howard Berman, who is on the floor at this moment from the 
House, Congressman Chris Cannon, Senator Ted Kennedy, and I--for hours 
and hours, with all the interested groups, now 509 groups, over 200 of 
them in agriculture. We have come up with this approach. We didn't come 
up with it, as my colleagues have, as a blocking measure to stop this 
legislation by throwing at the last minute something into the mix, by 
changing the color from green to blue and suggesting that it is new 
because it is blue. They do a few of the things we do, but ours is a 
much broader program and bipartisan. That is significant as we try to 
move legislation forward to solve this problem.
  As I have said, the agricultural sector is facing its worst problems 
ever. Fifty to 75 percent of its farmworkers are undocumented. As 
internal law enforcement has stepped up, farms large and small are 
going out of business because they can't get the workforce at the right 
time to plant the crop, to tend the crop, to harvest the crop. This 
mighty machine we call American agriculture, which has fed us so well 
for hundreds of years, is at a very dangerous precipice, perhaps the 
most dangerous it has ever seen in its history.
  This year for the first time since records were kept, the United 
States will be on the verge of becoming a net importer of foodstuffs. 
Hard to imagine, isn't it? The great American agricultural machine, and 
now we are at a point of being a near net importer of foodstuffs. We 
did that with energy. When I came to Congress in 1980, we supplied the 
majority of our own energy. Now we are a net importer. We

[[Page 6834]]

did that with minerals. When I got here, we were supplying most all of 
our minerals. Now we are a net importer. Are we going to let this 
happen with food because we can't agree on a reasonable program to have 
one of the most valuable inputs into agriculture stabilized, secured, 
and legal, and that is the workforce?
  No, we have all come together, Democrats and Republicans, labor, 
farmworker organizations, Hispanic groups. That is what you have before 
you in AgJOBS. That is why it got 63 cosponsors last year. We are 
nearly at 50 today, and building. Its time is now. It is important we 
have this vote that will occur this morning. It is a critical piece of 
legislation.
  Aside from that, every year on the Arizona border, the California 
border, New Mexico, Texas border, over 300 people die trying to get 
into this country to earn a wage. They do that because of a 
dysfunctional H-2A law, because of a system that does not provide for a 
legal work force, and because of bad people who prey upon them as 
victims, and they are literally victims of a law and victims of a 
broken process. We ought not stand idly by and allow that to happen, 
either. Control our borders? You bet. Create a legal work force? 
Absolutely. Apprehend illegals after we have created this system that 
works well? Absolutely. The integrity of a country is based on the 
control of its borders and the ability to openly and fairly assimilate 
into its culture immigrants who come here for the purpose of benefiting 
not only from the American dream but by being a part of us. That is one 
side of it.
  The other side is the realistic understanding that there will be 
those who simply want to come and work and go home. There are types of 
work that they can qualify for that Americans cannot do or choose not 
to qualify for, and they ought to be allowed to do that. American 
agriculture depends on it, as do many other segments of our economy. It 
is critically important that we respond accordingly.
  Last year under the program, the broken law, about 40 plus thousand 
H-2A workers were identified and brought in legally by that law. Yet, 
in the same agricultural group, there are a total of 1.6 million 
workers. That is how we come up with those numbers of some 70-plus 
percent undocumented workers or somewhere in that area. There has been 
a great effort by the other side to confuse the argument. We believe in 
the Department of Labor Statistics. The Department of Labor statistics 
show that, under the Craig-Kennedy provision, about 500,000 workers 
would be eligible to apply for adjustment, to start the process, and 
they have about 200,000, maybe 300,000 dependents who would qualify, 
not millions and millions and millions. That is so unrealistic when we 
are looking only at a field of 1.6 million to begin with. That is the 
reality. That is the honest figure. We didn't come up with it just in 
the dark of night. This has been 5 years and more of study, working 
with the Department of Labor and analyzing and understanding what the 
workforce is, who would stay and who would go home, who would not come 
forth to be identified and who would.
  That is why it is time now that we allow this legislation to move 
forward for the purpose of it becoming law. America demands that we 
respond. Thirteen hundred days after 9/11 and we have not yet responded 
to the reality that is probably one of the most significant challenges 
the United States as a nation has ever faced--to control our borders, 
control our destiny, recognize our needs, understand our economy, be 
humane and fair to people, and do all of those things within the law. 
That is our responsibility to make that happen. It is without question 
a very important process.
  I ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be equally 
divided.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we don't have 
very much time on our side, and that would mean that we could get out 
of time without the other side even coming down here until the very 
end. May I ask the Chair--I would like to pose a parliamentary 
question--under the agreement that was entered into, the time is not 
taken equally off of both sides in a quorum call, is it?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. No, it is not. That requires 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. KYL. Further reserving the right to object, because I think there 
is only about 10 minutes left on this side and a half hour left on the 
other side, that would mean our time could be wiped out without another 
word even being spoken. I would not agree to that at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is currently 
using the time of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time, then, is left on all three?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho has consumed 
his time. The Senator from Massachusetts now has 24 minutes. The 
Senator from Georgia has 11 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will continue to consume time of the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I understand he is en route to speak on behalf of 
AgJOBS. We will continue to do that. Over the course of the last day, I 
have sent to the desk and provided to my colleagues a comprehensive 
list of over 509 organizations nationwide, some 200 of them in 
agriculture, that have been a part of this growing broad coalition of 
Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, labor, employer, and 
other groups that have recognized the very critical nature of American 
agriculture today and the importance of stabilizing its workforce and 
causing that workforce to become legal. That is exactly why the Senator 
from Massachusetts and I are here.
  We have obviously had other colleagues of ours come forward with 
legislation proposing another approach. It is nowhere near as broad 
based, nor does it solve the kinds of very real problems all of us want 
to solve; that is, clearly creating a legal workforce.
  Here are some of the frustrations I wish to talk about for a few 
moments that are important. There is an opinion in this country that if 
you just throw money at it, the problem will go away. Let me suggest 
right now that that is what we are doing. We are throwing a lot of 
money at it. In so doing, we are throwing about $7 billion a year at 
the border and at internal enforcement, $7 billion well spent. In part, 
it is beginning to build systems that are getting better as they relate 
to controlling dominantly our southern border, but our northern border, 
as well, and our shoreline.
  We did it for two reasons. Actually, we started doing it after 9/11 
for terrorist purposes because we were fearful that we would see 
terrorists coming up through Mexico and into the southern part of the 
United States or across our southern border or, for that matter, across 
our northern border. At the same time we were recognizing a near flood 
of people coming across those borders attempting to identify with work 
in our country. As you can see, the number of apprehensions of illegals 
peaked in about the year 2000. It was dropping. We started pushing 
heavy money at it. But it has begun to climb again.
  The reality is, we are now putting about $7 billion a year into it 
and last year apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegals. We are 
stepping up to that plate now and stepping up aggressively, and we will 
do more.
  I have just joined with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, to 
take money out of this supplemental in areas where we didn't think it 
was needed to put more into Border Patrol.
  But as I have said earlier, there is not just a single solution to 
this problem. We have to be able to control the numbers of people 
coming across by stopping their belief that if they get across the 
border, there is a job. We

[[Page 6835]]

have to provide a legal work force system that works. You do that by 
identifying the employees and the employers, and doing so as we did 
historically in the past, and as AgJOBS clearly does in the major 
reform of the existing law, the old H-2A program, which has allowed 
these problems to occur and is totally not functional today.
  That is what we have offered. We think it is tremendously important. 
It is not without criticism, and we certainly know that. Any time you 
touch the immigration issue, it is not without criticism because there 
are those who simply don't believe anybody ought to be allowed into the 
country under nearly any circumstance, even though we are a nation of 
immigrants. Our strength, energy, and dynamics have been based on the 
phenomenal immigration from all over the world that has produced the 
great American story as we know it. That immigration, to keep our 
economy moving, to keep our culture where it is, strong and vital, is 
going to need to continue. But we need to control it in a way that 
allows the reasonable kind of assimilation that successful cultures 
have been able to accomplish down through the centuries, as we have 
allowed controlled, managed immigration into our country. We are not 
doing that, and we have not done it for 2 decades.
  As I have said several times on the floor in the last day and a half, 
awakening from 9/11 was a clear demonstration of that reality, that 
there were 8 million to 12 million undocumented foreign nationals in 
our country whom we were ignoring. No longer can that happen, we say. 
Well, it is happening. We have let it happen for more than 1,300 days 
since 9/11. That is why we are on the floor at this moment. That is why 
we should not wait for a better day and push this back. Several 
Senators have been saying: Oh, we will get something done by late this 
year or early next year. There is nothing on the drafting table. There 
are some hearings being held. No comprehensive work is going on that 
will identify the broader picture and the very important, specific 
segment of our economy. Meanwhile, there will be crops in the fields, 
and we need a legal work force, identified and trusted, to put that 
food on the tables of American families.
  The authors of this legislation, AgJOBS, recognize this is not a 
comprehensive piece but it is a piece that deals with a segment of our 
economy that is in the most critical need of their problems being 
solved today--the economy that feeds us, puts the food on the market 
shelves for consumers in a safe, reliable, healthy fashion. That is 
what we are talking about today. We are talking about the need of 
American agriculture to be able to respond to what is so very important 
on a seasonal basis--planting, tending, harvesting of America's food 
supply.
  So that is why I am here, and I am not taking it lightly. We are most 
serious about our effort to try to respond to this problem. We have 
been attempting to gain access to the floor for well over a year for 
this debate and not to deny it as something we simply put off. That is 
the importance of what we do. That is why the Senator from 
Massachusetts--who is much different from I politically--and I have 
come together, as that broad-based coalition demonstrates. All politics 
have come together on this issue--left, right, and center, Democrat, 
Republican, labor, employer. Why? Because of the very critical nature 
of the problem before us and the importance that we effectively 
respond, for the sake of America, to control our borders, to identify 
the undocumenteds who are within, to provide American agriculture with 
a safe, identifiable and, most importantly, legal labor supply. I see 
my colleague from Massachusetts has joined us on the floor. With that, 
I retain the balance of our time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, what is the time 
allocation presently?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 13 minutes 40 
seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, Senator Craig, for his 
leadership in this area. As he just mentioned at the end of his 
comments, Senator Craig and I do not share a great many common 
positions but we both are enthusiastic about this legislation. We come 
to it from different interests, over long periods of time. He may 
remember, as I very well do, in the early 1960s, we had what was called 
the Bracero issue and problem. It was a very deep problem, where we had 
this extraordinary exploitation of workers who came across the border 
living in these absolutely inhumane conditions and being exploited like 
workers in no other part of the world. It took us a long time to get 
away from the Bracero problem and issue. There was enormous conflict 
between the workers and the growers for many years. I remember very 
distinctly the work of Cesar Chavez and the great interest that my 
brother Robert Kennedy had in the rights of immigrant workers. It was a 
poisonous atmosphere year after year.
  And now, through the hard work of many of those who were enlightened 
in the agribusiness, as well as the leadership with farmworkers, they 
came together to recommend legislation. I paid great respect to our 
House colleagues, Congressman Berman and Congressman Cannon, for their 
constancy in watching this issue develop.
  Mr. President, we have an opportunity in the Senate now to take a 
dramatic step forward toward true, meaningful, significant immigration 
reform. Agribusiness is only about 10 or 12 percent of the total 
problem. But should the Senate of the United States, in a bipartisan 
way, come to grips with this issue in a meaningful way, it will open 
the path for further action in these next few weeks and months so we 
can have a total kind of different view and way of handling immigration 
in our country.
  The current system is a disaster. It is enormously costly and 
unworkable. We have spent more than $24 billion over the period of the 
last 6 years, and the problem has gotten worse and worse. We hear talk 
about extending a fence across the borders in southern California for a 
number of miles. We have to be reminded the total border in the South 
is 1,880 miles. Are we going to have a fence that is going to extend 
that far, that long, over the period of the future? This system just 
does not work. We do not have enough border guards or policemen out 
there who are going to the borders. We have to have a dramatic 
alteration and change. We are not going to deport the 7 million or 8 
million undocumented that are here, that are absolutely indispensable, 
primarily in the agricultural sector, but are playing increasing roles 
in other sectors as well.
  So we have an extraordinary problem. With all due respect to those 
who have tried the hard-line way of doing it, they have not been able 
to demonstrate any success. We hear those voices in the Senate, again: 
Give us another 500 border guards or some more barbed wire or another 
extension of the fence, let us just provide some additional kinds of 
technology, and we will solve our problem.
  No way. We have learned that lesson. We should have learned that 
lesson. Now we have an opportunity, under the proposal Senator Craig 
and I have proposed, and in a bipartisan way, to try a different way.
  With all respect to those who oppose this, we believe this is 
absolutely consistent in terms of our national security issues. The 
dangers to national security are what happens in the shadows, the 
alleyways. What is happening in the shadows and alleyways is happening 
among the undocumented. People are able to hide in those areas. If we 
bring the sunlight of legality to an immigration policy, we are going 
to make it much more difficult. We are going to free up border guards 
to be able to go after those who might be terrorists, instead of 
constantly looking out for the undocumented that are traveling back and 
forth across the border. If we have learned something over the period 
of time, it is immigration is not the problem. The problem is the 
terrorists. The best way to deal

[[Page 6836]]

with that is to focus both manpower and technology to be able to deal 
with that.
  Now, our effort also responds to and rebuts the idea that this is 
amnesty. That is the quickest way to kill the legislation. People can 
say, look, this is amnesty, and then go back to their offices, and that 
shakes people up enough to say they are not going to support that. We 
are talking about men and women who have lived and worked here, paid 
their taxes here, and they have to have done it some time ago. We are 
not talking over the last year; we are talking about people who have 
worked and have been a part of the communities a number of years ago, 
to permit them a long period of time, probably stretched over a period 
of 7 to 9 years before they would even be eligible to start down the 
path toward citizenship--a long period of time, Mr. President. It just 
seems to me that these issues have been debated and discussed. Some 
have been misrepresented.
  Finally, this has a dramatic impact in terms of both working 
conditions and labor conditions for those who are going to be impacted 
by this issue. It is going to have a similar kind of impact in terms of 
American workers. You have undocumented, you have illegal workers; they 
are going to be exploited, and they are going to drive wages down, they 
are going to fear their boss or their employer might tell on them. 
Therefore, they are going to settle for less in terms of payment. That 
is only natural. We can understand that. We have the figures and 
statistics to demonstrate that. But when you drive those wages down, 
you drive the wages down for American workers in related industries in 
those areas, and we have the figures to show that, too. This has a 
depressing impact in terms of legitimate American workers as well.
  So I think this is an enormously important vote. If we are able to 
get support for this legislation, this will be a pathway to try to deal 
with the rest of the scene on immigration. If we are able to get the 
downpayment, which this is, this will open a new day and new 
opportunity.
  I don't often agree with the President of the United States, but he 
has at least addressed this issue. We come to different conclusions 
with regard to the ability to be able to earn their way into legitimacy 
on this issue. Nonetheless, he understands. We can understand why; he 
has been a Governor of a border State. I hope we can find a way of 
developing a common ground here--Republicans and Democrats, those who 
have been interested and have followed the challenges out there in 
terms of agribusiness, those of us who have been proud to represent the 
workers who, over a long period of time, have been exploited in too 
many instances and who have suffered. All they are looking for is 
fairness and respect and some ability to rejoin with members of their 
families. Not long ago, the Senate considered fast-track legislation 
regarding those individuals who were serving in the Armed Forces 
overseas--a number of them had actually lost their lives--who were 
permanent resident aliens--not even citizens, but were permanent 
resident aliens who served in our Armed Forces. The President gave 
citizenship to some who were killed in Iraq. We were able to try to 
provide for those going into the military at least some ability to 
faster citizenship. They were prepared to go to Iraq to die and fight 
for this country. All they wanted to do was be able to live in this 
country as well. If they were going to do that, we were going to 
understand and respect their service to this Nation. We provided an 
opportunity to move their process toward citizenship faster, if they 
were going to serve in the Armed Forces or be in the Guard and Reserve, 
with the real prospects of going to Iraq. Are we going to say those 
individuals, they are going to be able to get consideration, and their 
brothers and sisters who may not have gone into the service are still 
going to have to live in the shadows of illegality?
  It seems to me we ought to be able to find common ground. We ought to 
be able to provide common ground here when we recognize the current 
process and system is a disaster.
  We have an unregulated system where illegality is running rampant 
and, quite frankly, those who are opposed to us and offer alternatives 
are offering more of the same.
  This is an opportunity for a breakthrough. This is an opportunity for 
a new start. This is an opportunity for a bipartisan effort that is 
going to do something significant about the challenges we are facing 
with immigration. I hope it will be successful.
  I withhold the remainder of our time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the AgJOBS bill, which 
will do a world of good for farmers and farmworkers in Vermont and 
around our Nation.
  First, this amendment would reform the H2A program for temporary 
agricultural labor. As it currently exists, this program is cumbersome 
and deeply unpopular with farmers. As a result, it is underused and 
promotes the widespread use of illegal labor on our Nation's farms. 
Indeed, experts estimate that more than half of our Nation's 
farmworkers are here illegally.
  Second, this amendment would provide an opportunity for that illegal 
workforce to come out of the shadows and obtain legal permanent 
residency in return for the contributions they have made and will make 
to American agriculture, both before and after enactment. It would 
allow undocumented aliens who can demonstrate that they have worked in 
agriculture for 100 or more days in a 12-month period during the last 
18 months to apply for legal status. Eligible applicants would be 
granted temporary resident status. If the farmworker then works at 
least 360 days in agriculture during the next 6 years, he or she may 
apply for permanent resident status. Workers would be free to choose 
from any employer. These provisions would create a substantially larger 
legal, stable workforce from which farmers around the country could 
hire. And without these provisions, it is difficult to see why 
farmworkers currently here illegally would come forward and announce 
their presence.
  The AgJOBS bill is supported by a broad coalition of the agriculture 
industry and farmworker union and advocacy groups. It has broad 
bipartisan support in the Senate, and I urge all Senators to vote for 
cloture.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia has 11 
minutes. The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we are coming to the close of the 
debate on this issue. I think it is important that we review for those 
of our colleagues who are listening, as well as to the American people 
who are listening relative to this issue, concerning whether we should 
grant amnesty to illegal aliens who are in this country, who are 
working in the agricultural field and given a pathway to citizenship, 
or should we grant to those individuals an accommodation to stay here, 
assuming they are law abiding, assuming they are working in agriculture 
for an employer who needs them and they are not displacing an American 
worker, and where they will always be categorized as a temporary 
worker. That is the fundamental difference between our two bills.
  I say to the Senator from Idaho, as well as the Senator from 
Massachusetts, again, I appreciate the debate we have had this morning 
because we have struck at the nerve of this issue relative to the 
agricultural sector.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is right. This is, in all probability, 
going to lay the groundwork for the broader overall issue we will deal 
with relative to immigration. I hoped we could have dealt with this 
issue in a broader immigration bill, but with the rules of the Senate 
being what they are, we are here today talking about the supplemental 
for the Iraq war, and this is an issue which, under our rules, can be

[[Page 6837]]

brought forth, has been brought forth, and that is obviously why we are 
here.
  There are a number of organizations on both sides that have come out 
in favor of the AgJOBS bill, as well as the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. I 
want to make sure that all of my colleagues understand that the most 
recognized agricultural group in America, the American Farm Bureau, has 
endorsed the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. They have sent a letter to every 
Member of the Senate. They have sent letters to all of their membership 
around the country, as well as being on the telephone calling those 
folks today asking that they contact their Senators and request that 
they vote for the Chambliss-Kyl amendment.
  The reason the American Farm Bureau has done that is the American 
Farm Bureau knows and understands that we do need that stable, quality 
supply of agricultural employees for our farmers and ranchers around 
America, and they agree with Senator Kyl and myself that we need to do 
it in a way that gives these workers a temporary status, does not 
displace American workers, allows our employers--our farmers and 
ranchers--to only hire those individuals who have had a background 
check by the Department of Homeland Security and have no criminal 
record whatsoever, as we provide for in the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. 
Only then can you come to the United States and be recognized as an 
eligible agricultural employee under the Chambliss-Kyl amendment.
  Under the AgJOBS bill, you can have up to three misdemeanors and 
still qualify for the adjusted status, which means you are here 
legally, which means you can apply for a green card while you are here, 
which then means you can apply for citizenship while you are here, even 
though you came to this country illegally to start with and even though 
you have committed up to three misdemeanors and have been convicted of 
three misdemeanors while you have been here.
  We know a supply of agricultural workers is needed. Senator Kyl and I 
have worked very hard on this measure over the last several months to 
try to ensure that we accommodate all of our farmers' and ranchers' 
needs across America. Today we think streamlining the H-2A process, 
which will give us a prevailing wage rate that our employers can pay to 
their agricultural employees, will provide a streamlined paperwork 
process to allow our H-2A employers to have that ready supply of labor 
in a short period of time and to make sure that when they complete the 
job they have been allowed to come here to do, they go back to their 
country as available to our farmers and ranchers.
  Also, with the blue card provision we have in our bill, farmers and 
ranchers who need employees for a period in excess of a small window 
will have available to them employees who can be here for up to 3 years 
provided the Department of Homeland Security has done a background 
check and determined that they have never violated the law in this 
country, provided that those employees never be given anything but a 
temporary status, and provided that those employees agree and 
acknowledge that they will never be allowed to apply for a green card 
for permanent status or for citizenship in any way whatsoever, other 
than under what is existing law today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time situation again?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts has 
2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The other side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Four minutes 51 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the favorite techniques around 
here is people misstate what is in a particular proposal and then 
differ with it. I do not accuse anyone of doing that on this particular 
legislation, but I do believe they ought to listen to Senator Craig and 
myself as to exactly what our bill does and what it is intended to do. 
If there are some changes that will make these points clear, we are 
glad to do it. We want to free ourselves from distortions and 
misrepresentations.
  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.
  To be eligible for legal status, applicants must present no criminal 
or national security problems. All applicants will be required to 
undergo rigorous security clearances. Their names and birth dates have 
to be checked against our Government's criminal and terrorist 
databases. Applicants' fingerprints will 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 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 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. Applicants can 
also be denied legal status if they commit a felony or three 
misdemeanors. It does not matter whether the misdemeanors involve minor 
offenses. In addition, anyone convicted of a single misdemeanor who 
served a sentence of 6 months or more would also be ineligible.
  Finally, opponents of the AgJOBS bill also claim it will be a magnet 
for further illegal immigration. Once again, they are wrong. To be 
eligible for the earned adjustment program, farmworkers must establish 
that they worked in agriculture in the past. Farmworkers must have 
entered the United States prior to October 2004; otherwise, they are 
not eligible. The magnet argument is false. New entrants who have 
worked in agriculture will not qualify for this program.
  This is a sensible, responsible, well-thought-out program that has 
had days of hearings and weeks and months of negotiations. It is a 
sensible answer, a downpayment to a problem this country needs to 
address. I believe, with all respect to my friends and colleagues on 
the other side, their proposal is more of the same. I hope the Senate 
will support our amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields the time?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to 
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me try to summarize the status of this 
debate over the last couple of hours as pertains to both of these 
propositions.
  The first to be voted on is the Chambliss-Kyl proposal, and then the 
second will be the Craig-Kennedy proposal. Both need 60 votes to 
proceed.
  The first point I make to my colleagues is that we voted in this body 
on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying we should have this 
immigration debate later when we can do it right and can take all the 
time we need, where everybody can participate in it and know how to 
approach the problem not just from the standpoint of agriculture, in 
fact, but for a total attempt to solve our immigration reform issues in 
this country.
  We decided that it would not be a good idea to try to have that 
debate on the supplemental appropriations bill because it would hold up 
the bill. Guess what has happened. We are in the second week of debate 
on this bill to fund

[[Page 6838]]

our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is still no end in sight. 
If either one of these proposals gets 60 votes, we are off to the races 
with lots more amendments, debate time, and I do not know when we will 
get to finish the supplemental appropriations bill, which the 
distinguished chairman of the committee has been urging us to get about 
the business doing. In that sense, it would be a shame if either one of 
these two propositions got the 60 votes. That is my first point.
  The second point is that as between the two, both attempt to reform 
our immigration system and match willing employer with willing 
employee, but one of them does so in a way that is going to, in fact, 
attract people to this country who have been here illegally in the past 
and under the provisions of the bill would enable them to come back.
  People who have already gone home would be able to present themselves 
at the border and simply claim and try to document that they worked in 
this country illegally in the past and, therefore, they get to come 
back in again. I do not know of anything that makes less sense than 
having an illegal immigrant who worked here illegally go back home and 
then we invite them to come back into the country to get legal status 
simply by working in the fields again. That makes no sense.
  Secondly, it is very clear that one version is amnesty and the other 
version is not. One simply cannot argue that when you give an advantage 
to people who broke the law in terms of obtaining legal permanent 
residency, which Chambliss-Kyl does not do, and, therefore, a path to 
citizenship, which Chambliss-Kyl does not do, you cannot argue that 
advantage given to these people who have broken our laws is not a form 
of amnesty.
  That is the key substantive difference between these two bills. Both 
try to match willing employer and willing employee. One does it without 
amnesty and the other does it with amnesty. What we mean by that is 
amnesty meaning legal permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship 
which is achieved by virtue of the fact that somebody worked here 
illegally in the past. That is not, we believe, a good idea and a way 
to start off with a new guest worker program that we all agree needs to 
be enforceable and enforced.
  We need to control our borders. We need to have a workable law. It 
needs to be a law that matches willing employer and willing employee 
and does not do so with amnesty, and until we are ready to do that, I 
suggest we should defer that debate, get on with our supplemental 
appropriations bill, and have that debate when we consider it in the 
context of overall immigration reform.
  Therefore, how do people vote on the first vote? As I said, the first 
vote is on the Chambliss-Kyl proposal. We urge a ``yes'' vote on that 
proposal. The second vote is on the Kennedy-Craig proposal. We urge a 
``no'' vote on that. If they both fail, then we can get on with the 
business of the supplemental appropriations bill to fund our troops in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Mr. President, if there is no other speaker, I suggest we yield back 
all time and proceed with the votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture 
motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 432, offered by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, 
shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the 
rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW announced that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 21, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

                                YEAS--21

     Allard
     Bond
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     DeMint
     Dole
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Warner

                                NAYS--77

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Durbin
     Obama
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 21, the nays are 
77. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KYL. I move to lay the motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Committee Meetings

  Mr. FRIST. Before we vote, I have 10 unanimous consent requests for 
committees to meet. The request has been cleared on both sides, and I 
ask for these requests and ask that the requests be printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, does this include--
  Mr. FRIST. This is for 10 requests for committees to meet, other than 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. I add that there was one committee left out of this 
request due to an objection on the other side of the aisle. Chairman 
Lugar is holding a business meeting in the Foreign Relations Committee 
at 2:15, and there is an objection. I ask unanimous consent that 
committee request be granted and the committee be allowed to meet at 
2:15.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mr. FRIST. I am disappointed there is an objection to allowing this 
important committee to do its work. That will make it necessary to 
recess for a period this afternoon to give Chairman Lugar an 
opportunity to have his committee meeting. I understand there may be a 
request from the other side for a vote on the motion to recess. 
Senators should be on notice that if we are unable to work out this 
objection, we will vote at 2:15 this afternoon. Unfortunately, this 
recess will not allow debate and votes on additional amendments to the 
underlying emergency appropriations prior to this afternoon's cloture 
vote.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the

[[Page 6839]]

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on 
amendment No. 375, offered by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, shall 
be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Corzine
     Craig
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Durbin
     Obama
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have several amendments that have been 
cleared on both sides, and I am prepared to bring those to the 
attention of the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 547

  Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Mr. Bond 
regarding Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight, and I ask that it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Bond, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 547.

  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 appropriate $5,000,000 for OFHEO to meet emergency funding 
 needs; these funds are supported by fees collected from the regulated 
                                 GSEs)

       Insert the following on page 203, after line 17:

 OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT SALARIES AND EXPENSES 
                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For an additional amount of the ``Office of Federal Housing 
     Enterprise Oversight'' for carrying out the Federal Housing 
     Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, 
     $5,000,000 to remain available until expended, to be derived 
     from the Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund: 
     Provided, That not to exceed the amount provided herein shall 
     be available from the general fund of the Treasury to the 
     extent necessary to incur obligations and make expenditures 
     pending the receipt of collections to the Fund: Provided 
     further, That the general fund amount shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at not more than $0..

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 547) 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. 527

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 527 on behalf of 
Ms. Landrieu regarding oil and gas fabrication ports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Ms. 
     Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 527.

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

  (Purpose: To modify the provision relating to offshore oil and gas 
                           fabrication ports)

       On page 209, lines 15 and 16, strike ``benefits'' and 
     insert ``value''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 527) 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. 441

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 441 on behalf of 
Mr. Santorum regarding loan guarantees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 441.

  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 allow certain appropriated funds to be used to provide 
                            loan guarantees)

       On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 6047. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds that have been appropriated to and awarded by the 
     Secretary of Energy under the Clean Coal Power Initiative in 
     accordance with financial assistance solicitation number DE-
     PS26-02NT41428 (as described in 67 Fed. Reg. 575) to 
     construct a Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-oil project may be used 
     by the Secretary to provide a loan guarantee for the project.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 441) 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. 407

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 407 on behalf of 
Mr. Reid regarding the Walker River Basin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Reid of 
     Nevada, proposes an amendment numbered 407.

  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.

[[Page 6840]]

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide assistance for the conduct of agricultural and 
  natural resource conservation activities in the Walker River Basin, 
                                Nevada)

       On page 211, strike lines 3 through 8 and insert the 
     following:


      Agricultural and Natural Resources of the Walker River Basin

       Sec. 6017. (a)(1) Using amounts made available under 
     section 2507 of the Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (43 U.S.C. 2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary 
     of the Interior (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary''), acting through the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation, shall provide not more than $850,000 to pay the 
     State of Nevada's share of the costs for the Humboldt Project 
     conveyance required under--
       (A) title VIII of the Clark County Conservation of Public 
     Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2016); and
       (B) section 217(a)(3) of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1853).
       (2) Amounts provided under paragraph (1) may be used to 
     pay--
       (A) administrative costs;
       (B) the costs associated with complying with--
       (i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (ii) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.); and
       (C) real estate transfer costs.
       (b)(1) Using amounts made available under section 2507 of 
     the Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 
     2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary shall provide 
     not more than $70,000,000 to the University of Nevada--
       (A) to acquire from willing sellers land, water, and 
     related interests in the Walker River Basin, Nevada; and
       (B) to establish and administer an agricultural and natural 
     resources center, the mission of which shall be to undertake 
     research, restoration, and educational activities in the 
     Walker River Basin relating to--
       (i) innovative agricultural water conservation;
       (ii) cooperative programs for environmental restoration;
       (iii) fish and wildlife habitat restoration; and
       (iv) wild horse and burro research and adoption marketing.
       (2) In acquiring land, water, and related interests under 
     paragraph (1)(A), the University of Nevada shall make 
     acquisitions that the University determines are the most 
     beneficial to--
       (A) the establishment and operation of the agricultural and 
     natural resources research center authorized under paragraph 
     (1)(B); and
       (B) environmental restoration in the Walker River Basin.
       (c)(1) Using amounts made available under section 2507 of 
     the Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 
     2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary shall provide 
     not more than $10,000,000 for a water lease and purchase 
     program for the Walker River Paiute Tribe.
       (2) Water acquired under paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) acquired only from willing sellers; and
       (B) designed to maximize water conveyances to Walker Lake.
       (d) Using amounts made available under section 2507 of the 
     Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 
     2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary shall provide--
       (1) $10,000,000 for tamarisk eradication, riparian area 
     restoration, and channel restoration efforts within the 
     Walker River Basin that are designed to enhance water 
     delivery to Walker Lake, with priority given to activities 
     that are expected to result in the greatest increased water 
     flows to Walker Lake; and
       (2) $5,000,000 to the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the Walker River Paiute Tribe, and the Nevada 
     Division of Wildlife to undertake activities, to be 
     coordinated by the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, to complete the design and implementation 
     of the Western Inland Trout Initiative and Fishery 
     Improvements in the State of Nevada with an emphasis on the 
     Walker River Basin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 407) 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. 476

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 476 on behalf of 
Mr. Byrd regarding the Upper Tygart Watershed project.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 476.

  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 transfer funds relating to certain watershed programs of 
                     the Department of Agriculture)

       On page 198, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       Sec. 5134. Of the amount provided to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-447) for the Lost River Watershed project, 
     West Virginia, $4,000,000 shall be transferred to the Upper 
     Tygart Watershed project, West Virginia, to be used under the 
     same terms and conditions under which funds for that project 
     were appropriated in section 735 of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 36).

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is 
technical in nature in that it will provide for the transfer of 
previously appropriated funds from one ongoing Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, NRCS, project in West Virginia to another. The 
two projects involved are the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed project and 
the Lost River Watershed project. The Upper Tygart project will, once 
completed, provide water service to at least 16,000 residents in 
Randolph County, WV. The Lost River project is a series of dams that 
were designed to provide flood control, water supply, and recreation in 
Hardy County, WV.
  The Upper Tygart Valley Watershed project requires a final $4 million 
in funding to initiate construction. The additional funds are necessary 
due to the fact that the project design was not yet completed when cost 
estimates for the project were formed. There has also been a dramatic 
rise in the cost of building materials for the project.
  Funding in the amount of $4.2 million was provided to the Lost River 
Watershed project in the fiscal year 2005 Agriculture Appropriations 
bill. However, the project cannot proceed to construction in the 
current fiscal year due to a change in the project purpose requested by 
the project sponsor and subsequent requirements for the NRCS to 
reevaluate the project.
  Due to these circumstances, I am offering this amendment which will 
provide the Natural Resources Conservation Service authority to 
transfer the previously appropriated construction funds from the Lost 
River Watershed project to the Upper Tygart Valley Watershed project. 
This action will enable the NRCS to initiate construction of the Upper 
Tygart project during the coming months. Again, I would like to 
reemphasize to my colleagues that this amendment does not appropriate 
new funds but instead transfers previously appropriated funds between 
two existing Natural Resources Conservation Service projects in West 
Virginia.
  I thank my colleagues for their support of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 476) 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. 548

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Mr. Leahy regarding the protection of the Galapogas.
  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 548.

  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:

   To encourage the Government of Ecuador to take urgent measures to 
               protect the biodiversity of the Galapagos.

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

[[Page 6841]]



                      PROTECTION OF THE GALAPAGOS

       Sec._. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings--
       (1) The Galapagos Islands are a global treasure and World 
     Heritage Site, and the future of the Galapagos is in the 
     hands of the Gqvernment of Ecuador;
       (2) The world depends on the Government of Ecuador to 
     implement the necessary policies and programs to ensure the 
     long term protection of the biodiversity of the Galapagos, 
     including enforcing the Galapagos Special Law;
       (3) There are concerns with the current leadership of the 
     Galapagos National Park Service and that the biodiversity of 
     the Galapagos and the Marine Reserve are not being properly 
     managed or adequately protected; and
       (4) The Government of Ecuador has reportedly given 
     preliminary approval for commercial airplane flights to the 
     Island of Isabela, which may cause irreparable harm to the 
     biodiversity of the Galapagos, and has allowed the export of 
     fins from sharks caught accidentally in the Marine Reserve, 
     which encourages illegal fishing.
       (b) Whereas, now therefore, be it
       Resolved, That--
       (1) the Senate strongly encourages the Government of 
     Ecuador to--
       (A) refrain from taking any action that could cause harm to 
     the biodiversity of the Galapagos or encourage illegal 
     fishing in the Marine Reserve;
       (B) abide by the agreement to select the Directorship of 
     the Galapagos National Park Service through a transparent 
     process based on merit as previously agreed by the Government 
     of Ecuador, international donors, and nongovernmental 
     organizations; and
       (C) enforce the Galapagos Special Law in its entirety, 
     including the governance structure defined by the law to 
     ensure effective control of migration to the Galapagos and 
     sustainable fishing practices, and prohibit long-line fishing 
     which threatens the survival of shark and marine turtle 
     populations.
       (2) The Department of State should--
       (A) emphasize to the Government of Ecuador the importance 
     the United States gives to these issues; and
       (B) offer assistance to implement the necessary policies 
     and programs to ensure the long-term protection of the 
     biodiversity of the Galapagos and the Marine Reserve and to 
     sustain the livelihoods of the Galapagos population who 
     depend on the marine ecosystem for survival.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 548.
  The amendment (No. 548) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no further amendments to present 
to the Senate at this time.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 499

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, of which I am a 
cosponsor as well as the two Senators from Florida.
  The Department of Defense is on an ill-timed course to weaken our 
military strength by reducing the number of aircraft carriers from 12 
to 11 and maybe even more. This decision is completely inconsistent 
with recent past statements on the absolute number of carriers needed 
to conduct operations.
  According to ADM Vernon Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, just a 
little over 2 years ago:

       The current force of 12 carriers and 12 amphibious groups 
     is the minimum we can have and sustain the kind of operations 
     we are in.

  According to the 2002 Naval Posture Statement:

       Aircraft carrier force levels have been set at 12 ships as 
     a result of fiscal constraints; however, real-world 
     experience and analysis indicate that a carrier force level 
     of 15 ships is necessary to meet the warfighting Commander in 
     Chief's requirements for carrier presence in all regions of 
     importance to the United States.

  I am not convinced that reducing our carrier fleet is the best 
strategic decision in the midst of our global war against terrorism. 
Realistically, it looks like the Department of Defense and the Navy are 
maneuvering quickly to negate any legislative oversight. But we in 
Congress should make sure that all considerations are taken into 
account before we rush into a decision that may hamper our military's 
ability to fight this global war on terrorism. That is why this 
amendment is being offered.
  What does this amendment achieve? First, the amendment ensures that 
the Navy proceeds on the scheduled necessary maintenance of the USS 
John F. Kennedy so that the carrier is kept in active status. In 
addition, this amendment requires the Navy to keep 12 carriers until 
the latter of the following: 180 days after the quadrennial defense 
review comes before Congress or that the Secretary of Defense has 
certified to Congress that agreements have been entered into to provide 
port facilities for the permanent forward deployment of such numbers of 
aircraft carriers that are necessary in the Pacific Command Area of 
Responsibility to fulfill the roles and missions of that command.
  Moreover, it is important that we keep the Kennedy available because 
Admiral Clark stated that it is essential to have a carrier home ported 
in Japan. However, we know that Japan has serious reservations--in 
fact, prohibitions--about allowing us to port a nuclear carrier there, 
and currently there is no sign that that prohibition would be removed 
for nuclear carriers. Therefore, with Japan's prohibition on nuclear 
vessels, it is unwise to limit our options by retiring one of the only 
two nonnuclear aircraft carriers. The other is the Kitty Hawk, which is 
actually an older vessel than the JFK.
  The bottom line is that the United States must have maximum 
flexibility in protecting our security interests in the Pacific and the 
Indian oceans. I believe any plan to mothball the Kennedy is 
shortsighted, especially during this time of war and with China's rapid 
naval buildup. In addition, as far as China is concerned, with the 
continued tension between China and Taiwan, it is imperative that we 
have a carrier in the region that can respond quickly to any possible 
conflict that may arise.
  In that regard, the Washington Post published a story written by 
Edward Cody on April 12, 2005, entitled ``China Builds A Smaller, 
Stronger Military; Modernization Can Alter Regional Balance Of Power 
Raising Stakes For The U.S.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 12, 2005]

 China Builds a Smaller, Stronger Military; Modernization Could Alter 
           Regional Balance of Power, Raising Stakes for U.S.

                            (By Edward Cody)

       A top-to-bottom modernization is transforming the Chinese 
     military, raising the stakes for U.S. forces long dominant in 
     the Pacific.
       Several programs to improve China's armed forces could soon 
     produce a stronger nuclear deterrent against the United 
     States, soldiers better trained to use high-technology 
     weapons, and more effective cruise and anti-ship missiles for 
     use in the waters around Taiwan, according to foreign 
     specialists and U.S. officials.
       In the past several weeks, President Bush and his senior 
     aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, 
     Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Director of Central 
     Intelligence Porter J. Goss, have expressed concern over the 
     recent pace of China's military progress and its effect on 
     the regional balance of power.
       Their comments suggested the modernization program might be 
     on the brink of reaching one of its principal goals. For the 
     last decade--at least since two U.S. aircraft carrier battle 
     groups steamed in to show resolve during a moment of high 
     tension over Taiwan in 1996--Chinese leaders have sought to 
     field enough modern weaponry to ensure that any U.S. decision 
     to intervene again would be painful and fraught with risk.
       As far as is known, China's military has not come up with a 
     weapon system that suddenly changes the equation in the 
     Taiwan Strait or surrounding waters where Japanese and U.S. 
     forces deploy, the specialists said. China has been trying to 
     update its military for more than two decades, seeking to 
     push the low-tech, manpower-heavy force it calls a people's 
     army into the 21st-century world of computers, satellites and 
     electronic weapons. Although results have been slow in 
     coming, they added, several programs will come to fruition 
     simultaneously in the next few years, promising a new level 
     of firepower in one of the world's most volatile regions.
       ``This is the harvest time,'' said Lin Chong-pin, a former 
     Taiwanese deputy defense minister and an expert on the 
     Chinese military at the Foundation on International and 
     Cross-Strait Studies in Taipei.

[[Page 6842]]

       U.S. and Taiwanese military officials pointed in particular 
     to China's rapid development of cruise and other antiship 
     missiles designed to pierce the electronic defenses of U.S. 
     vessels that might be dispatched to the Taiwan Strait in case 
     of conflict.
       The Chinese navy has taken delivery of two Russian-built 
     Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers and has six more 
     on order, equipped with Sunburn missiles able to skim 4\1/2\ 
     feet above the water at a speed of Mach 2.5 to evade radar. 
     In addition, it has contracted with Russia to buy eight Kilo-
     class diesel submarines that carry Club anti-ship missiles 
     with a range of 145 miles.
       ``These systems will present significant challenges in the 
     event of a U.S. naval force response to a Taiwan crisis,'' 
     Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense 
     Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee 
     in testimony March 17.
       Strategically, China's military is also close to achieving 
     an improved nuclear deterrent against the United States, 
     according to foreign officials and specialists.
       The Type 094 nuclear missile submarine, launched last July 
     to replace a trouble-prone Xia-class vessel, can carry 16 
     intercontinental ballistic missiles. Married with the newly 
     developed Julang-2 missile, which has a range of more than 
     5,000 miles and the ability to carry independently targeted 
     warheads, the 094 will give China a survivable nuclear 
     deterrent against the continental United States, according to 
     ``Modernizing China's Military,'' a study by David Shambaugh 
     of George Washington University.
       In addition, the Dongfeng-31 solid-fuel mobile ballistic 
     missile, a three-stage, land-based equivalent of the Julang-
     2, has been deployed in recent years to augment the 
     approximately 20 Dongfeng-5 liquid-fuel missiles already in 
     service, according to academic specialists citing U.S. 
     intelligence reports.
       It will be joined in coming years by an 8,000-mile 
     Dongfeng-41, these reports said, putting the entire United 
     States within range of land-based Chinese ICBMs as well. 
     ``The main purpose of that is not to attack the United 
     States,'' Lin said. ``The main purpose is to throw a monkey 
     wrench into the decision-making process in Washington, to 
     make the Americans think, and think again, about intervening 
     in Taiwan, and by then the Chinese have moved in.''
       With a $1.3 trillion economy growing at more than 9 percent 
     a year, China has acquired more than enough wealth to make 
     these investments in a modern military. The announced defense 
     budget has risen by double digits in most recent years. For 
     2005, it jumped 12.6 percent to hit nearly $30 billion.
       The Pentagon estimates that real military expenditures, 
     including weapons acquisitions and research tucked into other 
     budgets, should be calculated at two or three times the 
     announced figure. That would make China's defense 
     expenditures among the world's largest, but still far behind 
     the $400 billion budgeted this year by the United States.
       Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China insists must 
     reunite with the mainland, has long been at the center of 
     this growth in military spending; one of the military's chief 
     missions is to project a threat of force should Taiwan's 
     rulers take steps toward formal independence.
       Embodying the threat, the 2nd Artillery Corps has deployed 
     more than 600 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan 
     from southeastern China's Fujian and Jiangxi provinces, 
     according to Taiwan's deputy defense minister, Michael M. 
     Tsai. Medium-range missiles have also been developed, he 
     said, and much of China's modernization campaign is directed 
     at acquiring weapons and support systems that would give it 
     air and sea superiority in any conflict over the 100-mile-
     wide Taiwan Strait.
       But the expansion of China's interests abroad, particularly 
     energy needs, has also broadened the military's mission in 
     recent years. Increasingly, according to foreign specialists 
     and Chinese commentators, China's navy and air force have set 
     out to project power in the South China Sea, where several 
     islands are under dispute and vital oil supplies pass 
     through, and in the East China Sea, where China and Japan are 
     at loggerheads over mineral rights and several contested 
     islands.
       China has acquired signals-monitoring facilities on Burma's 
     Coco Islands and, according to U.S. reports, at a port it is 
     building in cooperation with Pakistan near the Iranian border 
     at Gwadar, which looks out over tankers exiting the Persian 
     Gulf. According to a report prepared for Rumsfeld's office by 
     Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, China has developed 
     a ``string of pearls'' strategy, seeking military-related 
     agreements with Bangladesh, Cambodia and Thailand in addition 
     to those with Burma and Pakistan.
       Against this background, unifying Taiwan with the mainland 
     has become more than just a nationalist goal. The 13,500-
     square-mile territory has also become a platform that China 
     needs to protect southern sea lanes, through which pass 80 
     percent of its imported oil and tons of other imported raw 
     materials. It could serve as a base for Chinese submarines to 
     have unfettered access to the deep Pacific, according to 
     Tsai, Taiwan's deputy defense minister. ``Taiwan for them now 
     is a strategic must and no longer just a sacred mission,'' 
     Lin said.
       Traditionally, China's threat against Taiwan has been 
     envisaged as a Normandy-style assault by troops hitting the 
     beaches. French, German, British and Mexican military 
     attaches were invited to observe such landing exercises by 
     specialized Chinese troops last September.
       Also in that vein, specialists noted, the Chinese navy's 
     fast-paced ship construction program includes landing vessels 
     and troop transports. Two giant transports that were seen 
     under construction in Shanghai's shipyards a year ago, for 
     instance, have disappeared, presumably to the next stage of 
     their preparation for deployment.
       But U.S. and Taiwanese officials noted that China's 
     amphibious forces had the ability to move across the strait 
     only one armored division--about 12,000 men with their 
     vehicles. That would be enough to occupy an outlying 
     Taiwanese island as a gesture, they said, but not to seize 
     the main island.
       Instead, Taiwanese officials said, if a conflict arose, 
     they would expect a graduated campaign of high-tech pinpoint 
     attacks, including cruise missile strikes on key government 
     offices or computer sabotage, designed to force the 
     leadership in Taipei to negotiate short of all-out war. The 
     1996 crisis, when China test-fired missiles off the coast, 
     cost the Taiwanese economy $20 billion in lost business and 
     mobilization expenses, a senior security official recalled.
       A little-discussed but key facet of China's military 
     modernization has been a reduction in personnel and an 
     intensive effort to better train and equip the soldiers who 
     remain, particularly those who operate high-technology 
     weapons. Dennis J. Blasko, a former U.S. military attache in 
     Beijing who is writing a book on the People's Liberation 
     Army, said that forming a core of skilled commissioned and 
     noncommissioned officers and other specialists who can make 
     the military run in a high-tech environment may be just as 
     important in the long run as buying sophisticated weapons.
       Premier Wen Jiabao told the National People's Congress last 
     month that his government would soon complete a 200,000-
     soldier reduction that has been underway since 2003. That 
     would leave about 2.3 million troops in the Chinese military, 
     making it still the world's biggest, according to a report 
     issued recently by the Defense Ministry.
       Because of pensions and retraining for dismissed soldiers, 
     the training and personnel reduction program has so far been 
     an expense rather than a cost-cutter, according to foreign 
     specialists. But it has encountered competition for funds 
     from the high-tech and high-expense program to make China's 
     military capable of waging what former president Jiang Zemin 
     called ``war under informationalized conditions.''
       The emphasis on high-tech warfare, as opposed to China's 
     traditional reliance on masses of ground troops, was 
     dramatized by shifts last September in the Communist Party's 
     decision-making Central Military Commission, which had long 
     been dominated by the People's Liberation Army. Air force 
     commander Qiao Qingchen, Navy commander Zhang Dingfa and 2nd 
     Artillery commander Jing Zhiyuan, whose units control China's 
     ballistic missiles, joined the commission for the first time, 
     signaling the importance of their responsibilities under the 
     modernization drive.
       Striving for air superiority over the Taiwan Strait, the 
     air force has acquired from Russia more than 250 Sukhoi Su27 
     single-role and Su-30 all-weather, multi-role fighter planes, 
     according to Richard D. Fisher, vice president of the 
     International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington. 
     The Pentagon has forecast that, as the Sukhoi program 
     continues to add to China's aging inventory, the air force 
     will field about 2,000 warplanes by 2020, of which about 150 
     will be fourth-generation craft equipped with sophisticated 
     avionics.
       But specialists noted that many of China's Su-27s have 
     spent most of the time on the ground for lack of maintenance. 
     In addition, according to U.S. and Taiwanese experts, China 
     has remained at the beginning stages of its effort to acquire 
     the equipment and skills necessary for midair refueling, 
     space-based information systems, and airborne reconnaissance 
     and battle management platforms.
       A senior Taiwanese military source said Chinese pilots 
     started training on refueling and airborne battle management 
     several years ago, but so far have neither the equipment nor 
     the technique to integrate such operations into their order 
     of battle. Similarly, he said, China has been testing use of 
     Global Positioning System devices to guide its cruise 
     missiles but remains some time away from deploying such 
     technology.
       Buying such electronic equipment would be China's most 
     likely objective if the European Union goes ahead with plans 
     to lift its arms sales embargo despite objections from 
     Washington, a senior European diplomat in Beijing said. A 
     Chinese effort to acquire Israel's Phalcon airborne radar 
     system was stymied in 2000 when the United States prevailed 
     on Israel to back out of the $1 billion deal.

  Mr. ALLEN. At a time when our military is already stretched thin, why

[[Page 6843]]

would we want to eliminate one of the most effective methods of 
projecting our power and possibly opening up an area of vulnerability 
for the United States and our allies. The decision is clear: We must 
preserve at least a 12-carrier minimum for the safety of Americans and 
for the rest of the world, particularly our allies.
  I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the 
same. This amendment offers a lifeline to the USS John F. Kennedy, and 
I am pleased that my good partner, Senator Warner, was able to offer 
this commonsense approach to keeping the Kennedy viable as well as our 
deterrence and our ability to protect our interests in the western 
Pacific.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                     Amendment No. 407, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in the amendments we cleared and approved 
a moment ago, there were two modifications which I neglected to send to 
the desk. The first was a modification of the Reid amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Reid amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as 
previously agreed to, is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 211, strike lines 3 through 8 and insert the 
     following:


      Agricultural and Natural Resources of the Walker River Basin

       Sec. 6017. (a)(1) Using amounts made available under 
     section 2507 of the Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (43 U.S.C. 2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary 
     of the Interior (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary''), acting through the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation, shall provide not more than $850,000 to pay the 
     State of Nevada's share of the costs for the Humboldt Project 
     conveyance required under--
       (A) title VIII of the Clark County Conservation of Public 
     Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2016); and
       (B) section 217(a)(3) of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1853).
       (2) Amounts provided under paragraph (1) may be used to 
     pay--
       (A) administrative costs;
       (B) the costs associated with complying with--
       (i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (ii) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.); and
       (C) real estate transfer costs.
       (b)(1) Using amounts made available under section 2507 of 
     the Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 
     2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary shall provide 
     not more than $70,000,000 to the University of Nevada--
       (A) to acquire from willing sellers land, water, and 
     related interests in the Walker River Basin, Nevada; and
       (B) to establish and administer an agricultural and natural 
     resources center, the mission of which shall be to undertake 
     research, restoration, and educational activities in the 
     Walker River Basin relating to--
       (i) innovative agricultural water conservation;
       (ii) cooperative programs for environmental restoration;
       (iii) fish and wildlife habitat restoration; and
       (iv) wild horse and burro research and adoption marketing.
       (2) In acquiring land, water, and related interests under 
     paragraph (1)(A), the University of Nevada shall make 
     acquisitions that the University determines are the most 
     beneficial to--
       (A) the establishment and operation of the agricultural and 
     natural resources research center authorized under paragraph 
     (1)(B); and
       (B) environmental restoration in the Walker River Basin.
       (c)(1) Using amounts made available under section 2507 of 
     the Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 
     2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary shall provide 
     not more than $10,000,000 for a water lease and purchase 
     program for the Walker River Paiute Tribe.
       (2) Water acquired under paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) acquired only from willing sellers; and
       (B) designed to maximize water conveyances to Walker Lake.
       (d) Using amounts made available under section 2507 of the 
     Farm and Security Rural Investment Act of 2002 (43 U.S.C. 
     2211 note; Public Law 107-171), the Secretary, acting through 
     the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide--
       (1) $10,000,000 for tamarisk eradication, riparian area 
     restoration, and channel restoration efforts within the 
     Walker River Basin that are designed to enhance water 
     delivery to Walker Lake, with priority given to activities 
     that are expected to result in the greatest increased water 
     flows to Walker Lake; and
       (2) $5,000,000 to the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the Walker River Paiute Tribe, and the Nevada 
     Division of Wildlife to undertake activities, to be 
     coordinated by the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, to complete the design and implementation 
     of the Western Inland Trout Initiative and Fishery 
     Improvements in the State of Nevada with an emphasis on the 
     Walker River Basin.


                     Amendment No. 476, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make the same request with respect to 
modification of the amendment previously agreed to by the Senate on 
behalf of Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as 
previously agreed to, is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 198, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       Sec. 5134. Of the amount provided to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-447) for the Lost River Watershed project, 
     West Virginia, $4,000,000 may be transferred to the Upper 
     Tygart Watershed project, West Virginia, to be used under the 
     same terms and conditions under which funds for that project 
     were appropriated in section 735 of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 36).

  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________