Flag Protection Act of 2004

Mr. President, late last night, after several weeks of floor debate, the Senate completed action on the Defense Authorization Act. Both that legislation and the pending measure, S. 2559, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, will enable us to make great strides towards providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment, benefits, and programs they need to carry out their critical missions. I would like to applaud the efforts of both committees to ensure that these brave men and women are provided for.

Even though it passed just last night, the Appropriations Committee worked to provide funding levels that are generally commensurate with the authorization bill. This is very important, and it will enable us to continue to meet our obligations to support service members in the fight against terror. The bill includes many critical funding provisions to which I lend strong support, such as the funding to increase Army end strength by 20,000 soldiers.

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the bill also includes a large number of unauthorized and unrequested provisions. I hope that the sponsors will carefully reconsider these damaging provisions as the bill works its way through the legislative process. While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the members of the Committee, we must all be alarmed at these appropriations earmarks. They limit the ability of our Defense Department to expend needed resources according to its funding priorities.

With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with looming budget deficits at home, the Senate faces some tough choices. We must find a way to maintain our fiscal responsibility while fully providing for our military needs. The costs that go along with the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand now, more than ever, a new fiscal sanity in approaching our appropriations bills. A half-a- trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending that consumes an ever growing proportion of our Federal budget. While the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these earmarks significantly burden American taxpayers.

Not surprisingly, along with the growth in deficit spending over the past few years, there also has been a significant growth in earmarks and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in Fiscal Year 1994 to 14,040 in FY 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent in 10 years. In dollar terms, the earmarking has risen from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period.

Mr. President, based on the calculations of my office, the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act contained $3.7 billion in pork. The conference report to the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act contained $8.1 billion in pork, while the Senate version included $5.2 billion. The Fiscal Year 2004 Senate-passed Defense Appropriations Act contained well over $4 billion of pork. This year $6.9 billion was added in the bill and the report, a number which is much greater than last year's Senate version of the legislation. This is real money. Every year, countless important military and domestic programs go unfunded or underfunded. I find it hard to understand why we find the money to pay for member add ons, but then have to battle to fund important programs such as AmeriCorps.

Projects that appear on the Defense Appropriations Member Add-ons List are items that are requested by Senators but were not included in the President's budget request. They did not appear on the Joint Chiefs' Unfunded Priority List, and they were not authorized in the Defense Authorization bill. These criteria have been useful in ferreting out programs of questionable merit, and in determining the relative priority of projects requested by members for strictly parochial reasons, often at the expense of the readiness of our armed forces. But, the fact remains that throughout the years in which I have been identifying these add-ons, no offsets have been provided for any project. In a time when some of our soldiers and sailors still receive food stamps, or live in inadequate housing, we somehow found a way to provide over $4 billion in unnecessary spending to the Defense Appropriations bill. For example, the Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the President's Budget Request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2005. We should provide additional funding for defense for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need, not for programs that are important because of the state that they come from or because of the seniority of the Member of Congress.

Mr. President, this is an election year and, once again, the members of the Appropriations Committee are touting their earmarks on their websites and in their press releases. One committee member listed $102.6 million in earmarks spread over 16 different projects, while another member lauds funding for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. What is missing from these releases is the story about the authorized programs that will not receive full funding because there is not enough money to go around. Wouldn't it be more responsible to spend this money on pay raises or other important morale boosters instead of on parochial interests?

Earlier this week, I spoke at length on the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program so I will not take up much more of the Senate's time again now, except to say, that the amendment that was passed by the Senate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 is critical because Congressional guidance is needed. The Air Force's conduct on its Tanker Lease Program has, to date, been unacceptable. With regards to the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program, the Department of Defense and the Air Force leadership have obfuscated, delayed, and withheld information from Congress and the taxpayers.

Equally as unacceptable, the Appropriations Committee added $110 million in this report in--a table, under the heading ``Tanker Replacement, Advance Procurement.'' There was no money for the tanker program in the President's defense budget submitted to Congress in February. The Senate Armed Services Committee did not authorize any funding for tanker recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief Staff of the Air Force, General John P. Jumper, USAF, did not request advance procurement for tanker replacement in his ``Fiscal Year 2005 Unfunded Priority List,'' which he submitted to Congress in March 2005. The reason is simple--tanker replacement money is not needed NOW.

This latest procurement earmark is disturbingly similar to the $30 billion line item included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act which gave rise to this entire controversy to begin with. The Air Force's proposal to acquire 100 Boeing KC-767A tankers was flawed from the beginning. Everything, including a complete investigation of possible Air Force misconduct, should be done to assure that this doesn't happen again.

Aspects of that deal, ranging from how the original proposal passed through Congress to the improper conduct of senior executives at the Boeing Company, have been exhaustively reviewed and fundamentally criticized by the Senate Committee on Armed Services; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; the Department of Justice; the Defense Department's Office of the Inspector General; the Defense Science Board; the Congressional Budget Office; the General Accounting Office; the Congressional Research Service; the Office of Management and Budget; the Defense Department's Office of Programs, Analysis and Evaluation; the Institute for Defense Analyses; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University and others. Notably, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and former Defense Department Comptroller General Dov Zakheim have also weighed in with serious concerns about various aspects of the tanker program.

Critically, the Defense Science Board task force found ``there is no compelling material or financial reason to initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the Analysis of Alternatives, AoA, and the Mobility Capabilities Study, MCS.'' Moreover, the task force observed that the Air Force overstated both the amount of corrosion throughout the KC-135 fleet and the KC-135's operation and support cost growth. It also found that the KC-135E can fly to 2040. In other words, the `dominating rationale' cited by the Air Force to Congress for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars more for leasing Boeing's KC- 767A tankers than they would for buying them outright, has been conclusively shown to be without merit. The Air Force's representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing investigative concern. The likelihood that the analysis of alternatives, AOA, and mobility capabilities study, MCS, if done properly, will recommend an acquisition method for these tankers now known to be wholly unsuitable here, is probably minimal. So, the Secretary's decision appears fatal to at least the lease component of the proposal.

Now what matters is that the AOA and MCS are conducted properly and objectively, and a new validated capabilities document, ORD, is completed that reflects, for the first time, the requirements of the warfighter. The Air Force's conduct to date in this matter has been egregious. The participation of the Air Force's FFRDC in the AOA is problematic. RAND has recently been receiving as much as $50 million per year from the Air Force and apparently prejudged the AOA in a recent report. Therefore, both should be disqualified from the process. The process going forward will remain an issue of continuing interest to me.

The bottom line here is this. The amendment adopted in the Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act will do much to inject needed sunlight on a program whose development has been largely insulated from public scrutiny. The tanker amendment attempts to make sure that any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the Air Force.

Some of the egregious examples of Defense pork for FY 2005, either in the bill or in the accompanying report, include:

Section 8063 of the General Provisions. The text states that, ``each contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal year for construction or service performed in whole or in part in a State which is not contiguous with another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the national average rate of unemployment as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous with another State, individuals who are residents of such State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills.'' I am not making this text up. Let's call a spade a spade. This provision directly protects the jobs of only Hawaiians and Alaskans.

As previously mentioned, $1.8 million, for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher deficits.

$120 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The Air Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15. Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.

$1 million for the Center for Political Logic Devices. I am the first one who would pay for logic if we could insert some into our political process, but this earmark won't do it.

$11 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless System. Chameleons change colors, but one thing does not change is the unrequested provisions in this bill.

$2 million for the Air Battle Captain program at the University of North Dakota. This provision sends students from West Point to North Dakota for their flight lessons. Instead of letting flight schools compete for the ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial interests over the necessity to provide the best training possible for the best price to our Army cadets.

$6 million for the LISA inspector. Who is this Lisa, and why does it cost $6 million to inspect her?

$4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey. Seems like Albert could get pretty fat off all the pork in this bill.

$4 million for Hibernation Genomics. Looking around the Senate, I see a few tired people, so maybe we a little hibernation is in order. But I'd prefer not to pay $4 million for it.

$5.5 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System. We need to improve the way we remove waste from this bill.

$700,000 for the United States Army Reserve Citizen Soldier Memorial Park.

Mr. President, I use humor in describing these earmarks, but the damage they do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the appropriators' perennial favorite projects include:

$5 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which directly lines the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit, is not exactly smart.

$10 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has been around for years and not once has the Department of Defense requested funding for it. While I'm sure we all would love to jump into a truck that could be in a James Bond movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the Department of Defense to pay for it.

$8.0 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply Chain. This is above and beyond the $14 million earmarked for them over the last two years.

$9 million for the Medical Free Electron Laser. The electrons might be free, but the laser sure isn't. This project was developed by the scientists at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. The budget justification used by the DoD in previous years spelled out the plan to have this program funded through NIH by FY2003. Why hasn't this happened yet?

$44 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Arizona is home to the Lowell Observatory. Why should we provide $44 million to Maui, when there are many observatories in the United States, such as Lowell, that offer many of the same benefits as the Maui site?

$1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown tree snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill. I'm sure the snakes are annoying--maybe even frightening to children and adults alike, but this funding does not belong in the Defense Appropriations Act.

Mr. President, there are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy programs, such as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be on this piece of legislation. This type of critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should be used for these defense purposes, not others. Some examples of these inappropriate earmarks include:

$200 million for Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program.

$50 million Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program.

$25 million for Hawaii Federal Health Care Network.

$2.5 million for the Alaska Federal Health Care Network.

$5 million for Pacific Island Health Care Referral.

I could go on and on--and on and on and on--listing all of the examples of pork in this legislation. We simply need to reassess our priorities.

This year's bill also includes a number of ``Buy America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and under. Another provision ensures that all carbon, alloy or steel plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we'll sleep better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.

Mr. President, I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an important element in improving relations among nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners.

Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to ``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DoD, and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. In order to maintain our troop strength and force readiness, the DoD must be able to be equipped with the best technologies available, regardless of country of origin. This would ensure both price and product competition.

Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces-- increasingly necessary as we operate in coalition warfare and peacekeeping missions. These exports also increase our influence over recipient country actions, and, in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to terminate them. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military, and provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports--well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters. We had a floor debate on this a few days ago during consideration of the Defense Authorization Act. There is no justification for including these provisions in the Appropriations Act.

Finally, one of the more egregious ``Buy America'' provisions in this legislation is a section in which we dictate that we must buy only American seafood. While this provision has been included in a previous year's funding, I must ask: What is the compelling Department of Defense need to protect the American seafood industry? Why is an entire industry singled out for protection?

Mr. President, this bill spends money on Lewis and Clark and funnels cash to a center on ``political logic devices.'' It protects the mooring chain industry and ensures that we only buy American seafood. If there is any food that should be mentioned in this bill, Mr. President, it is that Other White Meat. There is enough pork in this bill to feed an army--if only that we used our defense appropriations to do that. I suppose it is more important to pay Project Albert.

I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate floor with every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical for American taxpayers to understand where the money in their pockets is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the trough.

Mr. President, 15 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, struck down a Texas flag protection statute. The Supreme Court ruled that burning an American flag was a form of ``speech,'' and therefore protected under the first amendment of the Constitution.

I disagreed with the Court's decisions then and I still do. I don't believe that the act of desecrating a flag is an act of speech. And I believe that our flag, as our national symbol, can and should be protected by law.

In the intervening years since the Supreme Court decision, I have supported Federal legislation that would make flag desecration illegal. Yet on several occasions, I have also voted against amendments to the Constitution to do the same.

I voted that way because, while I believe that flag desecration is despicable conduct that should be prohibited by law, I also believe that amending our Constitution is a step that should be taken only rarely, and then only as a last resort.

In the past year I have once again reviewed in detail nearly all of the legal opinions and written materials published by constitutional scholars and courts on all sides of this issue. After that review, I have concluded that there remains a way to protect our flag without having to alter the Constitution of the United States. So I am joining Senator Bennett today to introduce bipartisan legislation that accomplishes that goal.

The bill we introduce today protects the flag but does so without altering the Constitution. A number of respected constitutional scholars tell us they believe this type of statute will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This statute protects the flag by criminalizing flag desecration when its intended purpose is to incite violence.

I know that supporters of a constitutional amendment will be disappointed by my decision to support this statutory remedy to protect the flag, rather than support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I know they are impatient to correct a decision by the Supreme Court that they and I believe was wrong.

I have wrestled with this issue for a long time, and I wish I were not, with my decision, disappointing those, including many of my friends, who passionately believe that we must amend the Constitution to protect the flag. But, in the end, I know that our country will be better served reserving our attempts to alter the Constitution only for those things that are, in the words of James Madison, ``extraordinary occasion.''

More than 11,000 constitutional amendments have been proposed since our Constitution was ratified. However, since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 only 17 amendments have been enacted. These 17 include 3 reconstruction era amendments that abolished slavery and gave African Americans the right to vote.

The amendments included giving women the right to vote, limiting Presidents to two terms, and establishing an order of succession in case of a President's death or departure from office. The last time Congress considered and passed a new constitutional amendment was when it changed the voting age to 18, more than a quarter of a century ago. All of these matters were of such scope they required a constitutional amendment to be accomplished. They could not have been accomplished otherwise.

But protecting the American flag can be accomplished without amending the Constitution, and that is a critically important point.

The bill we are introducing today, on a bipartisan basis, outlaws three types of illegal flag desecration.

First, anyone who destroys or damages a U.S. flag with a clear intent to incite imminent violence or a breach of the peace may be punished by a fine of up to $100,000, or up to 1 year in jail, or both. Second, anyone who steals a flag that belongs to the United States and destroys or damages that flag may be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned up to 2 years, or both. And third, anyone who steals a flag may also be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned up to 2 years, or both.

Constitutional scholars, including those at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, and Duke University's Professor William Alstyne, have concluded that this statute passes constitutional muster, because it recognizes that the same standard that already applies to other forms of speech applies to burning the flag as well.

This is the same standard which makes it illegal to falsely cry ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Reckless speech that is likely to cause violence is not protected under the ``fighting words'' standard, long recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.

So we are offering this bipartisan legislation with the confidence that its passage would meaningfully and effectively protect our cherished flag.

I believe that future generations, and our Founding Fathers, would agree that it is worthwhile for us to find a way to protect our flag without altering the Constitution. And so I ask those colleagues who, like me, care deeply about both our flag and our Constitution, to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, 15 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, struck down a Texas flag protection statute. The Supreme Court ruled that burning an American flag was a form of ``speech,'' and therefore protected under the first amendment of the Constitution.

I disagreed with the Court's decisions then and I still do. I don't believe that the act of desecrating a flag is an act of speech. And I believe that our flag, as our national symbol, can and should be protected by law.

In the intervening years since the Supreme Court decision, I have supported Federal legislation that would make flag desecration illegal. Yet on several occasions, I have also voted against amendments to the Constitution to do the same.

I voted that way because, while I believe that flag desecration is despicable conduct that should be prohibited by law, I also believe that amending our Constitution is a step that should be taken only rarely, and then only as a last resort.

In the past year I have once again reviewed in detail nearly all of the legal opinions and written materials published by constitutional scholars and courts on all sides of this issue. After that review, I have concluded that there remains a way to protect our flag without having to alter the Constitution of the United States. So I am joining Senator Bennett today to introduce bipartisan legislation that accomplishes that goal.

The bill we introduce today protects the flag but does so without altering the Constitution. A number of respected constitutional scholars tell us they believe this type of statute will be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This statute protects the flag by criminalizing flag desecration when its intended purpose is to incite violence.

I know that supporters of a constitutional amendment will be disappointed by my decision to support this statutory remedy to protect the flag, rather than support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I know they are impatient to correct a decision by the Supreme Court that they and I believe was wrong.

I have wrestled with this issue for a long time, and I wish I were not, with my decision, disappointing those, including many of my friends, who passionately believe that we must amend the Constitution to protect the flag. But, in the end, I know that our country will be better served reserving our attempts to alter the Constitution only for those things that are, in the words of James Madison, ``extraordinary occasion.''

More than 11,000 constitutional amendments have been proposed since our Constitution was ratified. However, since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 only 17 amendments have been enacted. These 17 include 3 reconstruction era amendments that abolished slavery and gave African Americans the right to vote.

The amendments included giving women the right to vote, limiting Presidents to two terms, and establishing an order of succession in case of a President's death or departure from office. The last time Congress considered and passed a new constitutional amendment was when it changed the voting age to 18, more than a quarter of a century ago. All of these matters were of such scope they required a constitutional amendment to be accomplished. They could not have been accomplished otherwise.

But protecting the American flag can be accomplished without amending the Constitution, and that is a critically important point.

The bill we are introducing today, on a bipartisan basis, outlaws three types of illegal flag desecration.

First, anyone who destroys or damages a U.S. flag with a clear intent to incite imminent violence or a breach of the peace may be punished by a fine of up to $100,000, or up to 1 year in jail, or both. Second, anyone who steals a flag that belongs to the United States and destroys or damages that flag may be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned up to 2 years, or both. And third, anyone who steals a flag may also be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned up to 2 years, or both.

Constitutional scholars, including those at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, and Duke University's Professor William Alstyne, have concluded that this statute passes constitutional muster, because it recognizes that the same standard that already applies to other forms of speech applies to burning the flag as well.

This is the same standard which makes it illegal to falsely cry ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Reckless speech that is likely to cause violence is not protected under the ``fighting words'' standard, long recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.

So we are offering this bipartisan legislation with the confidence that its passage would meaningfully and effectively protect our cherished flag.

I believe that future generations, and our Founding Fathers, would agree that it is worthwhile for us to find a way to protect our flag without altering the Constitution. And so I ask those colleagues who, like me, care deeply about both our flag and our Constitution, to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, as ranking democrat on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I want to discuss two amendments that were included in the Defense Department Fiscal Year 2005 authorization bill, which passed yesterday. These amendments will ensure that small businesses are included in the analysis of policies that affect the procurement strategies or affect the technology and industrial base of this Nation. Before I discuss these amendments, however, I would like to thank the committee's chair, Senator Olympia Snowe, for her leadership, and for working hand-in-hand with me on these amendments that are vital to ensuring that small businesses continue to have a voice in the Federal procurement arena.

The Department of Defense is the largest purchaser of goods and services

in the Federal Government. As a result, they are the driving force behind Federal agencies' ability to meet the Government-wide small business contracting goal of 23 percent. The Defense Authorization Act of 2004 included a provision requiring the administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OFPP, to establish an advisory panel to review the laws and regulations regarding the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of acquisition functions across agency lines, and the use of Government- wide acquisition contracts, also known as GWACS.

Many small businesses have contacted my office regarding the negative impact these GWACS have been having on their ability to compete for Federal contracts. They are concerned that GWACS are being disproportionately awarded to larger firms, denying small business their fair share of contracts. The amendment, offered by Senators Snowe, Coleman and myself, expands the authority of the advisory panel to include a report on the impact these tools have on small business concerns. It also allows the panel to offer recommendations regarding laws, regulations and policies they believe would afford small businesses increased opportunities to participate in the Federal procurement arena.

With respect to the second amendment, I want to commend Senator Byrd for taking the initiative to develop an amendment to ensure that small businesses have a voice with respect to Federal Government work on the future of the national technology and industrial base.

The DoD Authorization bill includes a provision establishing a Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial Base. The duties of this 12-member, Presidentially-appointed commission include studying the issues associated with the future of the national technology and industrial base in the global economy. This study is particularly important with respect to the effect of our national technology and industrial base on United States national security and for assessing the future ability of meeting the objectives outlined in the bill. This amendment adds a provision to the study that will require that the role of small business concerns in strengthening the national technology and industrial base is incorporated in the report, due no later than March 1, 2007.

Small businesses have proved time and time again that they can provide the goods and services needed by the Federal Government, often more efficiently and more cost effectively than their large competitors. Unfortunately, they are consistently treated as an afterthought or completely ignored when the Federal Government considers procurement policies outside of the Small Business Administration. While the SBA is essential for providing access to capital, training and counseling, and for assistance in gaining access to the Federal marketplace, the vast majority of contracts for goods and services come from other agencies, such as the Department of Defense.

Small businesses should be provided the greatest opportunity to compete. When our national defense is in the process of regeneration and transitioning into a military of the future, as it is now, small businesses should be tapped to maximize the innovation, cost savings and efficiency they can contribute to the effort. Small businesses are critical to maintaining and strengthening the overall economy of the Nation and are the cornerstone of the Government's policy of ensuring a diverse supplier base. They should be included when the Government is developing industrial policy and considered in the analysis of policies that affect the procurement strategies or affect the technology and industrial base of this Nation. These amendments do just that. Again, I thank Senators Snowe and Byrd for their leadership and my colleagues for their support for this Nation's small businesses. I would also like to thank Chairman Warner and my colleague on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Levin, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services for working closely with us and for making these amendments a part of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Summer Operations and Services or ``SOS'' Relief and Reform Act, S. 2258.

Across our Nation, there are businesses, many of which are small, which look forward to the summer time each year as an opportunity to conduct their seasonal operations. From Utah to Alaska to New England and down to the Southern States, innkeepers, swimming pool operators, and fishermen rely on the income generated during the summer months to feed their families, employ their neighbors, and contribute to their local economies. Individually, these businesses may not be big operations, but collectively, they are an integral part of the American economy.

Because of the nature of our country's labor market, and perhaps because of the unattractiveness of seasonal versus permanent work, these operations have traditionally relied upon the H-2B visa program to bring needed workers from abroad. For those who may not understand the purpose for this program, let me explain it. An employer is only allowed to request an H-2B worker when no American worker is available for the same job. An employer is not allowed to pay lower wages to these foreign visa holders. Throughout our immigration history, the H- 2B program has remained noncontroversial.

This year, perhaps as a sign of our economy's increasing vitality, the H-2B annual cap of 66,000 visas has already been reached. Meanwhile, small businesses across the country warn that if Congress does not make some sort of accommodation, they stand to suffer immeasurable losses. Failing to act would not only be detrimental to these small businessowners, many of whom simply cannot afford to lose an entire year's worth of profit, but would hurt the Americans whose jobs also depend on the stability of these businesses. The negative impact upon the hospitality and tourism sectors would be severe as well. In other words, unless we act quickly and give these seasonal operations the resources they need, we are facing a very bleak summer for many hard-working Americans and entrepreneurs.

That said, as much as I want to do all that I can to save this summer of seasonal work, I also want to make sure that in our haste, we do not establish unsound policy and set a bad precedent for the future. Many immigration reformists oppose increasing numbers in any immigration program. I oppose simply raising the numbers indiscriminately. Instead, what we need is a program that is tied to the realities of our economy and our job market. The reform I propose in ``SOS'' will bring us closer to this ultimate goal.

Specifically, S. 2258 does not raise the visa cap number. Instead, it exempts those who were admitted on an H-2B visa during the past 2 fiscal years from the cap for the remainder of this year. This is a good reform approach for several reasons: First, the number of actual workers admitted will be dictated by the strength of the economy, and not by a random number that resulted from political compromise. Second, it gives preferential treatment to those who have used the program before, and who have complied with the law and returned to their home countries at the end of the season. Third and finally, it would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to delegate to the Secretary of Labor the specific as well as inherent authority to investigate fraudulent immigration and employment practices. No immigration reform can be complete without addressing that issue. Of course, this bill does not represent all of the reforms that are needed, but is it a step in the right direction, while providing immediate relief for our seasonal businesses.

I thank Chairman Chambliss of the Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee for his valuable input and for being our lead cosponsor on this bill. I also want to thank the administration for its contribution and expertise in reforming the H-2B visa program in an administratively feasible manner. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the contribution made by the other original cosponsors, Senators Allen, Gregg, Collins, Murkowski, Warner, and Thomas.

Let me conclude by emphasizing that without our immediate attention to this pressing problem, local economies will face substantial losses. Let us work together to prioritize the health of America's seasonal businesses, and safeguard the livelihood of all the people who depend on them. I ask my colleagues for their bipartisan cooperation in the timely passage of this bill.