Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for authoring this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I agree with all the comments he has made. I believe it is a huge mistake to bypass the Judiciary Committee, to bypass the Immigration Subcommittee on bills that are big in their ramifications on the United States of America.

If we do that, we will get into a debate on the floor on the AgJOBS bill. I think very few people know, for example, that the way the bill is written you can have two misdemeanor convictions and essentially still get a temporary green card. That can be misdemeanor theft. That can be misdemeanor battery. That can be misdemeanor drugs. I will have an amendment to address that. I will take some time with it.

Most people do not know you just have to have 100 hours of work in a 12-month period. I will have an amendment to address that, and there will be other amendments to address that. But this is a very controversial bill that can have a huge impact on the number of people coming across the border. At the very least, it should have a markup in Judiciary. We should have an opportunity to make amendments in Judiciary before it comes to the floor of the Senate as an amendment on an appropriations bill.

There is also the REAL ID bill, which very well may come up. Senator Mikulski has an amendment on H-2B. I am concerned about it because it does not have a cap on the number, and the H-2B quota has been reached. I believe it is 66,000. Maryland has some problems, which are valid problems, I am sure. But just to open the bill, unless there is a specified number--I think we need to discuss it.

I will bring up the State Criminal Alien Program for reauthorization. This is paying back the States for their costs of confinement of illegals who commit felonies and misdemeanors and go to county jails and State prisons. So it will open a long and complicated debate on the floor of the Senate. We should not do that. Please. I have sat as a member of the Immigration Subcommittee now for 12 years. I come from a big immigration State, the largest, no doubt about that, in America, a State with very deep concerns.

I understand the agricultural labor needs of the States as well as anyone. And not to be able to have a markup, not to be able to make amendments in a committee and present a bill that has been scrubbed, amended, and is ready for prime time, I believe, is a huge mistake.

So I am very pleased to support the Senator's amendment. I will have another amendment in due course in this area as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wanted to make a brief response, both to the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Idaho. One of the reasons why I think it is so difficult to look at a broken immigration system is because our immigration system is so big. America takes more immigrants in its regular immigration quota a year than other industrialized countries put together.

If you take that and you take all of the other programs, H-1B, H-2B, the L visas, and all these other visas, it adds up to about 5.5 million people a year who come into our country under one visa or another. It is an enormous job to look over this whole breadth and scope of immigration programs and make the necessary changes.

I think one logical change is if a quota of people coming from Mexico is perhaps too small, people have to wait too long; therefore, there is a huge illegal immigration problem. Nonetheless, we are a nation of laws. If we have the law, we should follow the law. So I am one who believes reform should be done, but in the name of reform I don't believe we should pass a bill quickly on an appropriation bill without going through the necessary steps to adjust it and amend it in the committee.

Let me make a point in response to the Senator from Idaho, and I am pleased that he is a great expert on California agriculture. Since he is, he will know that the great bulk of the workforce is illegal. That workforce has been there for a very long time. I would accept a bill that provided for some adjustment of a workforce that had worked in agricultural labor for 3 years, that had been in California doing it, could show prior work documentation and be vouched for by employers.

According to this bill that we are going to have on the floor--and I assume people feel it is going to sweep through--you only have to work for a hundred days--that is, 575 hours--in 12 months and you are eligible for your family coming, for a temporary green card; and then if you work another time, you get a permanent green card.

Well, this is going--mark my words--to be a huge magnet. When I discuss this with people, they say: There is an eligible date. Look at it here. Do you think people across the border know the eligible date? All they know is they have to be here and work for a hundred days, so come on over. They come over and you cannot find them and they don't go home. What happens is the numbers build up, the people in southern California find people camping in their backyards, in their gullies, and in the parks; there is no housing, the schools are overcrowded, and then people go to the ballot with an initiative. That is what happened in 1994 when proposition 187, unconstitutional as it was, passed. Polls show that if put on the ballot today, it would most likely pass again.

So I have tried to be constructive. I have proposed amendments that have been rejected by the authors in the House and the Senate. I am on the Immigration Subcommittee. Why do any of us serve on a subcommittee, then, if a bill of such enormous dimension--this could be the largest immigration program in history. It could bring millions of people into this country. The workers, their spouses, their minor children are all permitted.

We should know what we do. Now, a hundred days of work, 575 hours of work--if I were on the other side, I would say I can sneak across and get a hundred hours of work, then I can bring in my family and I will have a green card. It is nirvana.

For my State, it is perhaps different--Texas might be the next State, and then Arizona--in terms of sheer numbers and problems. When the President proposed his plan, let me tell you that apprehensions at the border in February went up 14.2 percent; the next month, March, 57.8 percent; April, 79.6 percent. So the call was out there, and people thought, aha, and they tried to come across the border to get into the country. The same thing will happen.

That is why it is important that we figure a way to prevent that from happening. I will provide for an adjustment of status for people who have worked in agricultural labor for a long time, for a substantial period of time.

For a nice question or a mean one?

Mr. President, I think I have the floor. I was waiting for the question.

I thank the Senator.

Yes.

If I may conclude my discussion, and then I will yield the floor to Senator Craig. He mentioned raisins. The last time I looked, it took 40,000 workers in California to harvest the raisin crop in 4 different counties. Most of these are illegals. Most of these have done it year after year. They also go from crop to crop to crop, as we know.

The key is to take care of, in my view, the people who are already here and working and are a part of this. The demand for the agricultural jobs comes every time the employer sanctions are carried out. Then suddenly the agricultural industry says we are for bringing more people in from other countries. I think we have to find a way to have a workforce that is known, identifiable, reasonably and well paid, that can get housing, can send their children to school, that work in this industry. Probably one-half of the agricultural workforce--I would say 600,000 workers--is illegal. These are the 600,000 who I believe we should be concerned with--not opening the border to bring in more but to find a way that they then can become a responsible part of the workforce. That is where I am, because I admit that is a need.

This bill does not do that. This bill sets up a different program and does not relate to people who have been here for years working in agriculture. They may be very good citizens. They probably are. Some of them own their homes, they have children, they are responsible. They have a tough life, true. I think this can be handled. But what has happened is there is a set mentality that the bill has to be this way because we have 60 votes, and we are going to keep it this way. That is a problem and, therefore, that mentality does not let it go through Immigration, does not let amendments have exposure in committee.

Virtually everybody here who is arguing is a member of the Judiciary Committee. That is where we ought to be debating it instead of on the floor passing a piece of legislation of which no one--no one--knows the absolute effect.

I yield the floor.

That is correct.

Mr. President, can the Senator give me a page?

Absolutely. Additionally, this bill gives this special temporary green card to people with two misdemeanors on their record. I have discussed this with the authors in the House, and they do not want to amend it. My own view is there should be no misdemeanors. Why should somebody who broke a law coming here be able to break two more laws and get special consideration? We all know misdemeanor laws vary. We know there are misdemeanor drug laws, there are misdemeanor battery laws, misdemeanor theft laws, misdemeanor driving under the influence--there are all kinds of criminal misdemeanors. To say someone who broke the law who came here illegally, who was illegally employed, can have two misdemeanors on their record and have a special status is something I do not understand. Yet I have implored them for a substantial period of time, and they do not want to change.

If we had a chance to discuss this in the Judiciary Committee in a markup, this would be brought out, and we could debate it back and forth. People could say why they want it, we could say why we do not think it should be included, and there would be a vote. At least a bill would have been vetted by a committee process.

I will be happy to yield.

This has been and is today a huge problem. Additionally, there is another problem on our southern border, if the Senator would give me a minute, and that is, other than Mexicans crossing the border being picked up illegally. I think it was up to 88,000 last year. So it is shooting up. And when you ask the Border Patrol about it, they say this is very difficult for them to sort it all out because there is such pressure on the border. The Senator, certainly, in Arizona knows that pressure on the border.

The fraud of documents is well known. One can buy a driver's license, a Social Security card fraudulently in places that I know of and have seen it happening in southern California for $15 or $20. So that is not a big problem.

I thank the Senator very much.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Yes. If I may, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I ask unanimous consent--

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following the Senator from Maryland for the purpose of offering an amendment.

If I might, how long will this be?

I would object since I have been waiting.

Two minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

What I would like to do is put forward an amendment. I gather there will be no more votes tonight.

Yes, that is fine. I will not take long. I will just put the amendment in. I will not ask for a vote tonight.

Mr. President, I want the Senator to know it is my intention to vote for her amendment. I obviously did not want it on this bill, but since it is, it is my intention to vote for it.

Amendment No. 395

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that text of the REAL ID

Act of 2005 should not be included in the conference report)

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that the amendment be read.

I thank the clerk. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Alexander, Leahy, Clinton, and Boxer.

As the clerk has read, it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It relates directly to the REAL ID Act. It is the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that attempts to bind the Senate conferees to oppose the REAL ID Act in the conference on this bill. I would like to take a minute to explain why.

First of all, this was presented to the Senate in February. It has not yet been heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, once again, a very controversial bill will be considered in conference on this bill. It was put in the House bill in a preemptive way. It is there, and we have to deal with it.

I want everyone to know this bill is major in scope in what it does to change immigration hearings and much to do with immigration. It very much tightens the standards for asylum and withholding of removal. It would give judges broad discretion to deny asylum claims based on the credibility of the applicant. And possibly one reason alone could mean a negative credibility finding.

It changes the statutory requirement that an applicant must demonstrate to be granted asylum, making it much more difficult, and it eliminates judicial review by barring a court from reversing the decision of the judge or other adjudicator about the availability of corroborating evidence.

It would give the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the ability to unilaterally waive all laws to construct the border fence, including possibly wage and hour laws, criminal laws, labor laws, civil rights, and so on.

Now, the problem with this section--I happen to be for finishing this 3-mile stretch of California border with a border fence--is the wording in this is so broad that it appears to provide waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads not just to finish the fence in Southern California but anywhere in the United States. And it would allow for no review or appeal of the decisions of the Secretary of Homeland Security relating to this.

In terms of judicial review of orders of removal, it would limit, if not eliminate, stays of removal while cases are pending. Most importantly, it would eliminate, for the first time in our Nation's history, any habeas corpus review of removal orders for both criminal and noncriminal immigrants. This is a major change. It would limit the ability of the courts of appeal to review mixed questions of law, even in cases of longtime, lawful permanent residents, if virtually any crime led to the deportation.

Further, the restrictions on reviewing mixed questions of law would apply to asylum and claims under the Convention Against Torture. Now, here is a section that causes great concern. I believe it does to Republicans as well as Democrats.

The REAL ID Act appears to essentially create bounty hunters. Let me tell you how it does that. It increases the authority of bail bondsmen to arrest and detain anyone they believe is illegal, including a financial incentive by leaving it up to a bondsman's opinion that an alien poses a flight risk which necessitates them being turned over to the Department of Homeland Security. If that is the case, the alien

forfeits his or her bond premium under very broad circumstances. Illegal aliens turned over to the Department of Homeland Security must be detained.

Now, this is at a time when immigration officials have not proven they can detain all of the aliens they apprehend today.

What this does is, it says to the bail bondsman, if you think someone is illegal, you can go after them. You can maintain custody over them and you turn them in, and they have to be detained. This is on a bail bondsman's opinion of illegality. It also would provide bail bondsmen with unfettered access to information on illegal aliens and to influence Government processes with noncitizens subject to bonding. I don't know that we should be giving bail bondsmen this authority without any hearing in the Senate or any consequential discussion in the House on this point.

It sets minimum bonds for aliens in removal proceedings at $10,000, and it prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from releasing anyone on their own recognizance who is in removal proceedings. We don't even know if we can hold everybody. This particular section, actually more than any other, causes me enormous concern, and obviously the cosponsors of this sense of the Senate.

It does a number of other things. It holds spouses and children of an alien accountable for an alien's involvement in a terrorist organization or activity, even if they didn't know about it. I don't know that we should do that without understanding what we are doing.

With respect to driver's licenses, it creates a large unfunded mandate on the States. The CBO did a cost estimate of the costs associated with implementing the driver's license provisions and estimated that DHS would spend $20 million over the 5-year period to reimburse States for the cost of complying with the legislation. But in addition, it would require States that participate in the driver's license agreement, which is an interstate database, to share driver information at a cost of $80 million over 3 years, to reimburse States for the cost to establish and maintain the database. The grand total is $100 million over 3 to 5 years.

The just-passed intelligence reform law sets up a process whereby States, the Federal Government, and interested parties will make recommendations for establishing minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The REAL ID Act essentially countermands the rights of States in this process. Both the current law, pursuant to the intelligence reform bill, and the REAL ID Act require that States set certain minimum document requirements as well as minimum issuance standards. The difference is that the REAL ID Act eliminates the stakeholder process and proscribes a very complicated and burdensome set of requirements on States.

It also has differences between the intelligence reform bill and the REAL ID Act on the issue of driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The intelligence bill gives States 2 years to comply with minimum standards. The REAL ID Act gives States 3 years in order for these documents to be accepted by a Federal agency for official purposes.

Secondly, the intelligence reform bill requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation work together to establish minimum standards for driver's licenses and personal identification documents. The REAL ID Act imposes on States what must be done.

I don't think we should do this. We passed an intelligence reform bill. We dealt with some standards in that bill. Here, without a hearing, without any committee consideration, this bill is put, by the House of Representatives, on to this supplemental and is in conference.

I don't think we should do this. The sponsors agree with me. So we have proposed a sense of the Senate that would seek to bind conferees to eliminate the REAL ID Act from this bill. That doesn't mean it is eliminated for all time. I also believe the Judiciary Committee should promptly hear the bill. We should consider amendments. We should be able to compare it in this house with the intelligence reform bill just passed and, therefore, make a decision. This is what the Senate is set up for. We are meant to be a deliberative body. We are meant to consider major and controversial pieces of legislation and, if necessary, slow them down. This is added unilaterally on this supplemental bill with no consideration by this house whatsoever. It is going to resolve itself with a very few Members of this body dealing with an enormously complicated, controversial bill that conflicts with other legislation passed by this body. We don't do our work if we let this happen.

We have proposed this sense of the Senate, and I am hopeful there will be enough votes in this body so that the conferees on the Senate side will simply not accept business being done this way. Who would have thought a major piece of immigration legislation would be placed, without hearing, on this emergency supplemental which deals with the war in Iraq and critical emergency matters? It is a big mistake.

I ask for the yeas and nays, and I understand the vote will not be tonight, but this will be put in the order.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Amendment No. 387

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I realize the Senator from Texas has been recognized to offer his amendment. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to offer my amendment after the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment.

Withholding the right to object, I have no objection to how long you wish to speak on your amendment, Senator. I wanted to be sure I got to offer my amendment this afternoon.

Mr. President, reluctantly, I rise to oppose this amendment, even though I agree with many of the principles expounded in it. No. 1, to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the sponsors of this amendment, I too, agree, that our immigration system is badly broken. It does fail to serve the interests of our national security and our national economy. We do need to enact the critical appropriations bill to support our troops and help people who are tsunami victims and some other important aspects. At the same time, though, the sense of the Senate really should be directed to the House. For someone like myself, who has a very serious crisis because of something called the H-2B visas, which I will explain in more detail at another time, the fact is this is our only vehicle.

Immigration, as an issue, was introduced in the supplemental appropriation bill in the House of Representatives with an enormously controversial and prickly concept, the so-called REAL ID card. I know that my colleague from Tennessee has proposed some creative solutions to deal with that. I know that others want to talk about this. If we can talk about comprehensive immigration reform, I am all for it. But the question is, When are we going to do it? It has been over 1,000 days since 9/11, and we have not done comprehensive immigration reform, nor have we looked at what aspects of immigration are working. There are certain aspects that are working in certain areas of the guest worker programs; college students who come from abroad, who work in our country and learn in our country and go back home, what a tremendous exercise in public diplomacy the so-called J visas have accomplished.

In my own State, the H-2B visa, which allows guest workers to come

into this country for seasonal employment to take jobs that are certified as not being held by American workers, with a mandated return to their own home, has worked well. It has worked so well that the cap is now bursting at the seams.

I am all for comprehensive immigration reform, but No. 4 says Congress should not short circuit the discussion by attaching amendments to this supplemental. We have had no discussion. There is nothing to short circuit. What we do have is a series of, as Senator Durbin has said, these rifle-shot crisis situations.

It would be wonderful if we could have comprehensive reform. I look forward to participating in that comprehensive reform. For now, we have to look at those States that are facing a crisis because of the flawed immigration system we have now and for which we are advocating modest and temporary legislative remedies.

I salute our colleagues. They have a big job ahead of them. Anybody willing to undertake comprehensive immigration reform needs to be encouraged, supported and worked with. We need elasticity in this bill to deal with those things related to our economic viability. In many ways, a guest worker program that is working needs to be addressed, and I hope to offer an amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment. I understand my colleague from California is seeking a unanimous consent.

This is without yielding the floor.

Yes, without losing my floor privileges.

Mr. President, I am now confused. As a courtesy to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, I yielded to him so he could offer his technical amendment. Are we now laying my amendment aside?

Where are we?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in the interest of following the regular order and engaging in senatorial courtesy, we really need order. I could not hear the distinguished Senator and, therefore, was concerned that we were having some slippage in our process.

Amendment No. 386

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, today I rise to offer an amendment that is desperately needed by small and seasonal business throughout the country. This amendment is identical to the bipartisan bill I introduced in February called Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act. It is designed to be a 2-year temporary solution to the seasonal worker shortage that many coastal States and resort States are facing.

I wish to acknowledge the need for comprehensive immigration reform, but right now small and seasonal businesses all over this Nation are in crisis and need our help. These businesses need seasonal workers before the summer begins so they can survive.

For years, they have relied on something called the H-2B visa program to meet their needs. This is a temporary guest worker program. But this year they cannot get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out of the H-2B visa program because the cap has been reached. This is a program that lets businesses hire temporary guest workers when no American workers are available.

This amendment modeled after the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business helps employers by doing four things:

It temporarily exempts the good actor workers--those who do

return home after they have worked a season--from the H-2B

cap. Employers apply for and actually name those good

compliant workers who have complied with the law, they name

them so that they are allowed them to reenter for this

temporary period.

It protects against fraud within the H-2B program.

It provides a fair and balanced allocation for the H-2B

visas.

And it reports to Congress how the program is working and where the beneficiaries are.

I urge my colleagues to help small businesses by passing this amendment and save these businesses and actually save thousands of American jobs.

Thousands of small and seasonal businesses are facing a worker shortage as we approach the summer. In my home State, this is primarily in the seafood industry. This year, because the cap of 66,000 workers was reached earlier in the year, my small businesses have been effectively shut out. We have had a lot of summer seasonal business in Maryland on the Eastern Shore and Ocean City, people working on the Chesapeake Bay, and many of these businesses use the program year after year.

First of all, they do hire American workers. They hire all the American workers they can find. But at this time of the year, we need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because that cap was reached for the second year in a row, I might add, these employers are at a disadvantage. They cannot use the program. What will it mean? It will mean that some of our businesses will actually have to close their doors.

My amendment is supported on both sides of the aisle. It does not change existing requirements for employers. Employers cannot just turn to the H-2B visa whenever they want. First of all, employers must try vigorously to recruit those workers. Then they must demonstrate to the Department of Labor that they have no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with the H-2B visas.

The workers they bring in often participate in the program year after year. They often work for the same companies. They do not stay in the United States and are prohibited by law from doing so. They return to their home country, to their families, and their U.S. employer starts all over the following year.

Let me just say this: Right now in certain villages in Mexico, there are many women--mothers and their adult daughters, aunts--who are packing their bags. They are ready to come back to Maryland where they have come before to work in Clayton Seafood or Phillips Crab House, which so many of you have enjoyed in your visits to the bay, or Harrison's seafood. Some of them have been in business 100 years. Some of them are major employers. A lot of college kids work their way through college working at Phillips Seafood, but Phillips Seafood

needs these guest workers to help these kids and to help the restaurant stay open.

These workers are not taking the jobs, they are helping American workers keep their jobs and American companies keep their doors open and, I might add, to the delight of many of you here, to the delight of people who enjoy our products, and to the delight of the people who collect the sales tax, Social Security, and so on from those American workers.

I know we need comprehensive reform, but while we are waiting for that, I have a temporary fix. By the way, working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we looked for regulatory relief. We consulted with the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Chao could not have been more gracious, more cooperative, more forthcoming, but when it came down to it, her legislative counsel said, you need to change the law. She could not change the regulations on this cap.

What does my amendment do? First, my amendment continues to protect those American jobs. It is a short-term fix because it is a 2-year solution. This amendment will only be in place for 2 years. So it allows this comprehensive reform to go forward.

What it does is exempt returning seasonal workers from the cap. That means there are no new workers. It means those people who have worked before and have gone back home are the only ones who would be eligible. In other words, in the last 3 years, they had to have worked here under the law, come in under the law, and returned home as the law requires. So it is not new people. It is not an amnesty program. It is an employment program for them and for us. These workers receive a visa, and it requires their employers to list them by name. So in all probability, they will return to the same employer. Then, at the end of the year, they will do it all over again. Remember, the only people eligible are those who have used the program in the past--the employer and the actual person coming in.

I worry about fraud, too. So we have an antifraud fee that ensures that Government agencies processing the H-2B visa will get added resources in their new sanctions. The bill creates a fair allocation of visas. Some summer businesses lose out because winter employers get all the visas. This will make the system more fair. We also simplified the reporting requirements.

I could give example after example of businesses that have been impacted. Clayton Seafood started over a century ago. They work the water of the bay supplying crab, crabmeat, and seafood. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world, and by employing 65 H-2B visa workers they have been able to retain all of their full-time workers.

The Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago, is the last corn cannery left out of 300. When they could not find local workers, they turned to the H-2B visa. Since then, that business is open and thriving. Each year this program helps the company not only maintain its workforce, but 75 Americans have good paying full-time jobs in accounting and marketing and other areas, and it keeps 190 seasonal workers going and 70 farmers who would not have a cannery to go to are also able to keep their jobs.

So that is what my legislation is all about. It is a quick and simple legislative remedy. It has strong bipartisan support. It is realistic. It is specific. It is immediate, achievable, and does not exacerbate our immigration problem.

Every Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents, whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, or other people in resort areas, know the urgency in their voice. They know the immediacy of the problem. Our companies feel urgency. They feel immediacy. They feel desperation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this amendment and keeping the doors of American companies open while we also maintain control of our borders.

I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

The Senator from Massachusetts has accurately assessed what has created the crisis: that given the time of application and when they want the people to work, the winter needs then take up practically all 66,000. We acknowledge our colleagues who do need the winter help, but we need their help for the summer help. You are also correct that my legislation would create a more even playing field between the two and, again, this is a temporary legislative remedy while we assess the entire situation of the need for comprehensive reform, how we keep American jobs, how we keep American companies open, and yet retain control of our borders.

The Senator, again, has made an accurate assessment. This bill is only applicable to employers and guest workers who have complied with the law. If a worker has not been here before and they have not demonstrated that they have complied with the law, not returned to their home country, they would not be eligible. That is why I say we need to help American business but keep control of the border.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her remarks, along with her and her colleague from Maine for their advocacy on behalf of Maine workers. We know Maine has been hard hit with many issues.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator DeWine of Ohio as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I hope the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations would take my amendment or, at the very least, have an amendment tonight. There needs to be a discussion on how we proceed.

I note there seems to be no one here. I could speak on this bill, I have such passion, such fervor about the need for it that I could speak for an extended period of time, but I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my amendment is pending.

My amendment is pending and I recognize the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to speak. The Senator from California has an amendment.

Yes.

If the Senator wishes to speak on another matter, perhaps as if in morning business, I have no objection to that.

Perhaps I could clarify this, Mr. President. The reason I asked for a quorum call, reclaiming my right to the floor, is so the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and I could discuss how we were going to proceed for the rest of the evening. Therefore, the Senator from California would know how

to exercise her right as the next in line.

So if the Senator from California could be patient for a minute to get clarification, he could be a time-filler.

Would that be a good way to do it?

It is a klutzy way of talking about it, but it is, nevertheless, where we are.

Reserving my right to object, may I ask what the Senator would like to do?

Well, that is what we are trying to determine. That is what I am trying to determine. I would like to have a quorum call.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order.

As I understand the regular order, the H-2B amendment I have offered is pending. I note that there are other speakers on the other side of the aisle but on the same side of the issue who wish to speak. I note the Senator from Wyoming is here and he wishes to speak. I want to continue the debate on this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments in articulating the economic issues facing Wyoming. I have had the occasion to visit there myself and I know what a wonderful State it is. I am not much of a skier; I am built a little too close to the ground for that. But this shows this is not only a coastal State issue, and it also shows it is not only a seafood processing issue; this is an issue that affects our entire country, particularly those who depend upon summer seasonal workers. We understand some of our States enjoy-- whether it is Massachusetts, Wyoming, or Idaho--both summer and winter. Either way, the Senator knows that we depend on summer workers. We thank him and the Senator from Idaho who spoke, as well as others.

Mr. President, I note that the hour is late and now that the Senator from Wyoming has spoken, I am not sure if there are other people who wish to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe of Maine be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I want to get a vote on my amendment, but it is not possible tonight. Therefore, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, do I have the floor?

I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, for not to exceed 10 minutes, without losing my right to the floor.

Madam President, I ask if the Senator will add my name as a cosponsor to both amendments.

Madam President, the bill before us contains funding for a number of items that can hardly be described as emergencies, despite the fact that they are contained in an emergency supplemental funding bill.

One of those items that fairly leaps off the page is a $36 million earmark, tucked away in the report under military construction for the Army, to build a new, permanent prison at Guantanamo, Cuba. Why is this tucked away as an emergency? It is to house detainees from the war on terrorism.

What struck me about this item is that the American people are being asked to build a permanent prison to house 220 prisoners from the war on terrorism when the courts have not yet determined the legal status of the detainees or whether the United States can continue to hold these individuals indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

We are walking on thin ice here--thin ice. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the horse, this seems to be it. Construction of a new

permanent prison in Guantanamo assumes that the United States has in place a solid policy and a valid requirement for the long term internment of detainees at that site when in fact neither the policy nor the requirement has been validated.

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled last year that U.S. law applied to Guantanamo, and that prisoners held there could challenge their detentions in Federal Court, the status of the detainees at Guantanamo has been a matter of open debate. A flurry--we have reached beautiful spring weather now, but a flurry of subsequent legal challenges mixed with allegations of prisoner abuse have only muddied the waters further.

In August, a Federal district judge ruled that the military tribunals being conducted at Guantanamo must be halted because they did not provide minimally fair procedures and violated international law. Hey, look out here. Look what we are doing. Where are we going? Meanwhile, another Federal judge recently stopped the Government from transferring detainees from Guantanamo to other countries pending a review of the process.

What is wrong with that? At the heart of the Guantanamo detention controversy is whether the detainees are entitled to prisoner of war status under the 1949 Geneva Convention, or are they, as the administration contends, ``enemy combatants'' who are entitled to no judicial oversight. It is a complex legal debate that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

And yet the White House has determined that the construction of a $36 million maximum security prison at Guantanamo is such an urgent requirement that it cannot allow the courts to rule on the validity of the administration's detainee policy or even wait for the regular appropriations process. Not even wait for the regular bill--put it in the supplemental.

This despite the fact that there is currently no overcrowding at Guantanamo, that the prison population is steadily declining--down to approximately 540 from a high of about 750--and that the Pentagon has already built a $16 million, permanent, state-of-the-art maximum security prison at Guantanamo to hold 100 prisoners. At the same time, according to an article last month in The New York Times, the Defense Department is trying to enlist the aid of the State Department and other agencies to transfer more prisoners out of Guantanamo, in an effort to cut by more than half the current population at Guantanamo.

The fact is, the Pentagon has no idea at this point how many detainees from the war on terrorism are facing long term detention, or where they will eventually end up.

As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it at a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee in February, ``The Department of Defense would prefer not to have the responsibility for any detainees.''

For once, I agree with Secretary Rumsfeld, particularly given the allegations of abuse that have dogged the Defense Department's treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Guantanamo. The Defense Department should not automatically assume an open-ended burden of being the world's jailer of foreign enemy combatants.

Given all the uncertainties concerning the future requirements for detention facilities at Guantanamo, where--oh where, tell me--is the urgency in this request? The Defense Department insists that prisoners currently in custody at Guantanamo are in conditions that are safe, secure, and humane. The current detention facilities at Guantanamo include Camp 4, where detainees live in 10-man bays with nearly all-day access to exercise yards and other recreational privileges; Camp 1, where detainees are housed in individual cells with a toilet and sink in each cell; and Camp 5, the new 100-bed maximum security prison that the Pentagon boasts would be envied by many States. Camp Delta also boasts a 19-bed detainee hospital, which military officials describe as a state-of-the-art facility, complete with first-rate dental care.

With the exception of the existing maximum security prison, these are temporary facilities, but according to the Defense Department, they are designed to provide safe, secure, and humane housing for the prisoners. As the Pentagon is quick to point out, the concrete slab and open-air chain-link enclosures that originally housed prisoners when the Guantanamo detention facilities opened in January of 2002 are long gone.

The Defense Department, in its justification for the new prison, asserts that the existing temporary facilities are nearing the end of their useful life, will not meet Geneva Convention requirements, and will be subject to continued scrutiny by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, until facility standards are raised.

Playing the Geneva Convention card is a curious tactic coming from an administration that selectively cherry-picks which of the Geneva Convention standards it chooses to apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo. The only Geneva Convention requirements cited by the Defense Department in its justification for the new prison are that housing units and core functions should be contiguous and allow for communal conditions where practical--certainly nice-to-have amenities but hardly a core requirement for the humane treatment of prisoners.

In fact, the ICRC's main concern about Guantanamo, according to the organization's website, is not contiguous detention units but the fact that the administration has attempted to place the detainees in Guantanamo beyond the law. Building a new prison will not address that concern, and it will not exempt the Guantanamo detention center from the watchful eyes of the Red Cross. Nor will allegations of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo be resolved by trading one set of cell blocks for another.

There may indeed be advantages to moving more Guantanamo prisoners from temporary into permanent detention facilities, but until we have a clearer picture of the number of prisoners who will be housed there over the long term, there is no compelling reason to rush into spending $36 million of your money--it is your money--the taxpayers' dollars to build a prison based on guesstimates instead of facts.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen Bantz Craddock, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo, was asked what the Pentagon was doing to improve the quality of life for the U.S. military personnel assigned to Guantanamo. General Craddock replied that he had submitted a list of unfunded requirements of several million dollars for U.S. military facilities. But, he continued, ``we are watching this closely because we don't want to get out in front of the policy with regard to the long-term detainee issue down there.''

That is good advice from General Craddock, and I would suggest that we apply it to the detention facilities at Guantanamo as well. It is the policy that should drive the construction, not the other way around. Before we ask the American taxpayers--before we ask you, the people out there who are watching the Senate Chamber here with open eyes, with open ears and probably with open mouths, you, it is your money--before we ask you, the American taxpayers to spend $36 million to build a brand new permanent prison for foreign detainees at Guantanamo we should make sure that we have an ironclad requirement for that prison. Until the courts have resolved the legal status of the prisoners and until the Department of Defense and the administration determine the role of the department in the long-term detention of the prisoners, building a permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo is premature.

Madam President, are there any pending amendments ahead of this amendment?

I will take my amendment in the order in which the amendment has been called up.

I ask unanimous consent ahead of time if it may be in order to have the yeas and nays on my amendment, even though it won't be voted on at this moment.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators.

Mr. President, Senator Durbin's amendment touches on a critical issue: the strains being placed upon the National Guard and the Reserve by the long deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He correctly points out that these deployments have resulted in a financial crisis for unknown numbers of American families who have loved ones called to duty, pulled out of their civilian careers, and sent half a world away for long periods of time.

The amendment pending before the Senate would compensate those members of the National Guard and the Reserve who suffer a loss of income because they are away from their civilian jobs--but only if those jobs are with the Federal Government. The many Guardsmen and Reservists who work in the private sector would not be helped by the amendment.

I am very sympathetic to the plight of the families of National Guardsmen and Reservists who have found themselves in dire financial straits because of a long, unexpected deployment that takes the family breadwinner away from his job. I have heard from families in West Virginia who could be facing financial ruin because of a soldier's drop in income due to a protracted, 18-month deployment.

However, the Congress is approaching this problem from the wrong end. The heart of this matter is not how much Uncle Sam may pay our citizen- soldiers. The problem is that our National Guard and Reserve are being deployed, and re-deployed, for such long periods at a time. The United States hasn't sent so many part-time soldiers overseas in half a century. In addition to causing financial hardships for many American families, the pace of these deployments is threatening to break the back of the National Guard and the Reserve.

In 2003, I offered two amendments to limit the deployment and re- deployment of the National Guard and Reserve. Unfortunately, the Senate voted down those amendments, and the strains on the National Guard and the Reserve continue and, in some cases, are worsening. Until Congress limits the excessive deployments of our citizen-soldiers, or until our troops start coming home from Iraq, there will continue to be myriad strains on our troops and their families. It is not reasonable to expect the government to

compensate our troops and families for each difficulty or strain that this foolish war in Iraq has caused, because our national treasure is finite.

What's more, I am concerned that the amendment on which the Senate will soon vote will have financial consequences for many years down the road. Our country is neck deep in red ink, and Congress must be judicious in enacting benefits that grow to have a life of their own well after the Senate has voted. This problem is compounded by the refusal of the President to budget for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the White House does not budget for the war, there is no way to increase revenues or lower other spending in order to balance the budget. In the coming days of debate on this emergency supplemental appropriations bill, I will offer an amendment on this crucial point.

Despite these reservations about the pending amendment, the bottom line is that the families of many National Guardsmen and Reservists are experiencing real financial hardships. Although this amendment will only take care of some of those families, it will provide a lifeline to families who are struggling to make ends meet because of the demands of the war in Iraq. I commend the Senator from Illinois for his commitment to the National Guard, and I will support him on this amendment.

However, when the Senate next considers relieving the strains caused by the long deployments of the Guard and Reserve, the Senate should not adopt a piecemeal approach. The heart of the matter is our open-ended mission in Iraq. Unless that matter is addressed head-on, Congress will continue to find more and more ways to spend our nation's scarce treasure. That is not a wise fiscal course.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, am I recognized?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the Pentagon defends the current facilities for the incarceration of prisoners at Guantanamo as being safe, secure, and humane. There

is no emergency, unforeseen or otherwise, that requires the immediate construction of a 220-bed maximum security prison to relieve existing deficiencies at Guantanamo, and so it is premature.

That is part of the case I am making, it is premature. Why have this item in this bill? Why in an emergency supplemental bill? It is premature to ask the American taxpayers to spend $36 million--it is your money, I say to the taxpayers--to build a permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo when the courts have not yet determined the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo or have not determined whether the United States can continue to hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime.

The prison population at Guantanamo is steadily declining, down to about 540 from a high of 750. The Department of Defense reportedly hopes to further cut the current population by at least half. However, DOD has not given a firm estimate of how many detainees it expects will require long-term incarceration.

Why all the hurry? The 220-bed prison is a guesstimate--a guesstimate--not an estimate.

The Department of Defense has already built one permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo, a $16 million state-of-the-art facility completed less than a year ago that has the capacity to hold 100 prisoners.

Temporary detention facilities at Guantanamo include several camps in which prisoners are housed in individual cells with a toilet and sink in each cell, and one camp where detainees who are considered the least dangerous are housed in 10-man bays with all-day access to exercise yards.

The Department of Defense contends that these temporary facilities are nearing the end of their useful life, but the Department does not argue they are unsafe or uninhabitable.

The U.S. military has many urgent unmet needs, some of which are emergency status needs. Construction of a second permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo is not among these urgent, unmet needs. This is a decision that should be deferred until the courts have resolved the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo and until the Defense Department determines the number of detainees it expects to hold in custody for the long term.

What I am saying right now is the request is premature. Let us wait until the courts do their job. Then we will have a picture of what we need to do. Let us not be premature in spending the taxpayers' money when there are too many unanswered questions that ought to be answered and which in time will certainly present us with a clear picture of the permanent needs.

I thank the Chair and thank all Senators.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor to Senate amendment No. 333 and Senate amendment No. 334.

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced two amendments to help our military families to be able to contend with the death of a loved one and the problems that flow to these families when one of America's service people are lost either in combat or in the course of duty. The disruptions are obviously enormous and unimaginable in many ways, but one of those disruptions is that after a period of 180 days, even in the middle of a school year, a widow would have to move off the base notwithstanding the kids are in the middle of a school year. I can give the names of people I have met in a number of instances over the course of the last couple of years traveling the country, people who talked about the incredible disruption to their family because of this.

What we have learned listening to the commanders in the military and also to the families is that when we recruit, we are not just recruiting individual soldiers, and when we equip, we don't just equip by giving them the weapons and the technology they need to fight a war. We recognize we recruit a whole family and we retain a whole family. We need to have policies that are family thoughtful, family sensitive, so we can retain people in the military, particularly in a volunteer force where we expend enormous public dollars in order to train people to provide us with the superb capacity we have in our military.

One of my amendments would provide an extension of that 180-day period of time so you get a year for the school year issue and other issues of finding a suitable home and figuring out whether you are going to go back and live with your parents, what your job is going to be, and where you are going to live, so all of these things are not providing added pressure to families who are already remarkably disrupted.

The second is an amendment that would extend the death benefits, the total death benefits to families so those families who are unfortunate enough to lose a loved one are not suffering for the rest of their lives as a consequence of that contribution to their Nation.

These amendments would be the first strong steps in what I call the military families bill of rights. I am not going to go through all of the details and the arguments for that, but I would like to say to my colleagues that yesterday I sent out an e-mail asking Americans to send stories in about their personal struggles with these issues, or those of their friends and friends' families that they heard about.

In less than 24 hours over 2,000 families responded. They took the time out of their busy days in the hopes that we would listen, so I would like to share a few of those stories with my colleagues.

The first is a couple in Austin, TX, who e-mailed me about one of their two young children who has Job's syndrome. When their father was called to duty, Home Depot stopped paying his salary and cut his health insurance. His wife, who was a schoolteacher, had to purchase insurance on the open market, leaving her finances in complete disarray. Her daughter was in the hospital so often that she eventually used up all of her sick and vacation days. The school docked her pay for lost time, and her financial situation went from bad to worse.

This is because her husband was serving his country, but the Government did nothing for his family to make up that difference.

I got an e-mail from a pharmacist whose nurses were upset about a woman who could not afford medication for her child because her husband had been called to duty in Iraq. They eventually found a way to get the mother the medication that her daughter needed, but the pharmacist was left questioning his Nation's leadership. Here is what he said:

I was dismayed that there apparently was no help available

for this mother whose husband was serving his country.

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

Nathan's family is getting by because of their love and

faith in God and each other, but after losing a son in

service to America, they should not have to struggle to see

that his wife and children will get by. His wife has already

lost her husband, and his children will already grow up

without their father. His daughter Courtney will not have her

Dad to walk her down the aisle when she marries. They will

not have a Dad at their High School graduations or at the

birth of their children. They should not have to sacrifice

anymore.

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

On November 29, 2004, his Blackhawk crashed, killing Jim and six other soldiers. Listen to what Amy wrote:

Consider our predicament. But for the grace of God, my

husband would not have survived a deployment to Iraq and then

was working to ready the Fourth Infantry Division for its

next deployment. Why should it matter where he was killed

while serving proudly in the military? Why should we as his

surviving wife and children not be entitled to the increased

death gratuity and life insurance? I have been a full time

mom, managing the home front of a career soldier and it is

now up to me as a widow and a single parent to provide for

our children. These benefits would greatly assist me in doing

that and frankly, without them, we will have a serious

challenge in the days and months and years ahead without Jim.

I know that compensation in any form will in no way make up

for the loss of a loved husband and father and all the missed

moments that we would have shared as a family, but nothing is

more important to me right now than trying to take care of my

children, and it is on their behalf that I make this request.

We have heard from military families. We have heard from friends. There are thousands more such stories across the Nation. The test is whether we, as a matter of conscience and common sense, are going to do what is right for those who serve our country.

I thank the Appropriations Committee for fixing part of this, for going beyond the administration's request to limit the benefit to combat. But now I ask my colleagues to heed the advice of uniformed military leaders about those on active duty today and their families in the military. We need to provide this benefit to all Active-Duty personnel.

Amy Beth Moore is right. What difference does it make where he was killed? He was killed preparing the troops to do what we need to do in Iraq, and his loss is as real whether he was killed in Iraq or elsewhere. If we fail to adopt these amendments we are going to confirm the greatest fears of Amy Beth Moore and the over 2,000 Americans who e-mailed their stories to me, that Washington talks a good game but doesn't really care about these families.

For the survivors of our Nation's fallen heroes, much of life remains. Although no one can ever put a price on the loss of the life of any loved one, it is up to us to try to be generous, and I think correct, in helping them to put their lives back together. I urge my colleagues to join me in working toward a strong bipartisan military families bill of rights that does right by those who serve and by their families. I hope we can start that by taking the right direction in adopting these two important amendments today.

I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia again for his courtesy.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Durbin as a cosponsor.

I am honored to have the Senator from West Virginia as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, point of inquiry.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Alaska, or the manager, is prepared to accept one of the amendments, I think. Am I correct?

Mr. President, that is amendment No. 334, which extends the period of time that spouses can remain on a base after their spouse has died in action.

Amendment No. 333.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor.

To amendment No. 333 and amendment No. 334.

Mr. President, there is confusion.

Thank you.

Mr. President, the second amendment is an amendment to raise the death benefit for those who die while in service to our country. Currently, it is $12,000 plus change. We want to take it up to $100,000.

The Senator is going to tell you that the Pentagon is opposed to this. Secretary Rumsfeld is opposed to this. The uniformed leadership at the Pentagon is overwhelmingly in favor of it.

Air Force GEN Michael Moseley said:

I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women

should be represented that way.

Army GEN Richard Cody said:

It is about service to this country and I think we need to

be very, very careful about [drawing a] distinction.

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

I think a death gratuity that applies to all service

members is preferable to one that's targeted just to those

that might be in a combat zone.

Let me say to our colleagues, you can be driving a car and have a car accident in a combat zone, and you qualify for the upper level. But if you are serving on an aircraft carrier or elsewhere and you are training personnel, and you die from a catapult that falls or you have an accident, you do not get the same benefit, even as you are preparing to send troops to war.

That is wrong. We believe you ought to apply it according to the desire of the uniformed generals, which is to treat all members of the service the same say.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for having supported amendment No. 334 to extend the $100,000 death gratuity to the survivors of all who die on active duty.

I want the record to show what the amendment will accomplish and why what it accomplishes is important.

Current law provides $12,000 to all members of the military who die on active duty, regardless of circumstance.

Earlier this year, President Bush proposed increasing the death gratuity to $100,000 for those who die in Iraq, Afghanistan, or designated combat zones.

The supplemental legislation reported by the Appropriations Committee increases the death gratuity to $100,000 for those who die in combat and those classified under circumstances classified as warranting Combat Related Special Compensation, CRSC, if they had lived. CRSC was a compromise brokered a few years ago in lieu of concurrent receipt. Using CRSC, the $100,000 death gratuity would go to those who die ``as a direct result of armed conflict; while engaged in hazardous service; in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war; or through an instrumentality of war.'' For all others, the death gratuity remains $12,000.

My amendment is very simple. It changes the existing law to say $100,000 shall be paid in death gratuity under all circumstances in which $12,000 is now paid. It eliminates the provisions in the legislation that distinguish between the manner and place of deaths. It eliminates any connection to combat related special compensation. It does not extend the death gratuity to anyone who doesn't already receive the $12,000.

The amendment simply heeds the advice of the uniformed leadership of the military who said, unambiguously, that a death is a death is a death, and Congress should not try to parse them.

General Richard A. Cody, U.S. Army, said:

It is about service to this country and I think we need to

be very, very careful about making this $100,000 decision

based upon what type of action. I would rather err on the

side of covering all deaths rather than try to make the

distinction.

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

This has been about . . . how do we take care of the

survivors, the families and the children. They can't make a

distinction; I don't believe we should either.

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

I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women

should be represented that way.

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

I think we need to understand before we put any

distinctions on the great service of these wonderful young

men and women. . . . they are all performing magnificently. I

think we have to be very cautious in drawing distinctions.

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

I think a death gratuity that applies to all service

members is preferable to one that's targeted just to those

that might be in a combat zone.

I also want to note that the practical effect of my amendment is identical to the provisions of the House-passed supplemental. The underlying bill, H.R. 1268, passed the House on March 16, 2005, and in section 1113 it would require an equal death gratuity of $100,000 for all service members, regardless of the circumstance and location of their death. Like my amendment, it does not treat one military family differently than others.

Lastly, my amendment has been endorsed by the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, EANGAUS; the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA; the National Guard Association of the United States, NGAUS; the National Military Family Association, NMFA; the Reserve Enlisted Association, REA; and the Reserve Officers Association, ROA.

I thank my colleagues again for their support and look forward to working with them to hold this mark in conference.

Mr. President, I stand at this moment to very cautiously oppose the resolution and to express my reason. I say ``cautiously'' because of my respect for the Senator from Texas and respect for the Senator from California and all of the work they are putting into immigration and the need for comprehensive reform.

None of us in the Senate argue about it, but we certainly are willing to talk about it. In fact, we have talked about it now for 1,201 days since 9/11. Mr. President, 9/11 was that day of awakening when we found out there were millions of foreign nationals in our country without documentation, and some of them were here with evil intent. Not many but some. Most are here and hardworking.

Tragically enough, because of the character of an obsolete package of immigration laws, they are living in the back streets and shadows of America. They have no rights. They work hard. Many of them take their money back to their birth country. Some of them attempt to stay. That is where we are. We all know that.

The Senator from California has talked about the numbers. Her State has a very big problem. I hope we can get into that debate.

Let me also talk about the timing of it. I think you are going to see, if it is extended, only those who would want to extend the time of this debate. The issue of the Senator from Maryland is a very small, sensitive, important debate. It is very time sensitive. That law should have been in place the first of April so the hires could have gone forth at the first of May. In my State, the resorts open June 1. It is critical that workforce be in place by June 1.

Comprehensive debate, according to the Senator from Texas, should probably take place late summer, early fall, when they have finally done their

work. I do not criticize them for that. But I must tell you, long before 9/11 I was looking at the very tragic situation of American agriculture. American agriculture has admitted openly that they have a very large problem. It is quite simple. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics will tell you the workforce may have as many as, well, 1.6 million workers, and 70 percent of them are not documented and therefore, by definition, illegal. By surveys alone, the workers admit it. Yet we now say: Gee whiz, we will talk about it now.

It is too late now. It can't be done now. It is time sensitive to the industry, very time sensitive to the food on the shelf of the American consumer, time sensitive to humane support of those who toil in our fields.

No, there is never the right time. And, oh, about this supplemental, this ``urgent'' supplemental--I am sorry, I do not mean to criticize the Senator from Texas--we have been urgently working on this for 2 months. That is how long ago the President proposed it, 2 months ago. We will have this on the President's desk by the first of May. That is when they want it. We do not need to debate immigration for 4, 5 days unless the Senator from California wants to drag it out.

There will be amendments on the floor of the Senate to my bill, and there should be. It is open for amendment. I would hope I could convince Senators to take it as it is. It has had hearings before the Judiciary Committee. It is well vetted. It has been 8 years in the crafting. Last year, I had 509 groups supporting it. This year I will have 600.

This issue's time has come, and it is time the Senate deal with it openly and forthrightly. I was willing to step back for a moment. I told the leader so. The leader worked on it but could not put that package together. I will be on the floor of the Senate later today, hopefully, offering my amendment. It has been filed at the desk. We can deal with this in a day, unless there are Senators who want to drag it out by throwing in amendments that ought to go in the substantive comprehensive package that the Senator from Texas, chairing the committee, is working on and attempting to do at this moment.

A comprehensive bill? You bet. Rifle shots, targeted? You bet. We have to do it now and should do it now--H-2B, H-2A, critical to Americas's workforce and food supply now, not this fall or this winter or next year. We almost collapsed the raisin industry in the Central Valley in California last year. Why? Because Social Security was doing its work and checking Social Security numbers. And 72 percent of them were mismatches. That is a phrase for ``illegal.'' The Senator from California knows it. She has admitted she has a major problem in the heart of America's agricultural food basket.

Shame on us for not having the time to deal with the problem and deal with it forthrightly, honestly, and fairly. I am willing to subject my work to amendments, if the Senator from California wants to bring all of the amendments she can. I would hope she would target it to those specific two, the AgJOBS bill. She is right about misdemeanors, but I am only following the current Federal law, the current law for immigration. I haven't changed it at all. If she doesn't like it, she will bring amendments, and maybe we can adjust that a little.

I have worked with the Senator from California. I am not disagreeing with the premise of some of her arguments. But if she wants to throw the whole baby in with the bath water, then she had better be careful because she will collapse her agricultural economy if we make a misstep.

We are doing something right now that is critical to America and to America's culture. We are trying to control our borders. We are trying to apprehend and deport those in our country who are illegal. We ought to do that. I have voted for everything along the way. But as we work to get all of this done and clean up the inheritance of the last 20 years of bad law or law that wasn't enforceable--and we learned all about it in a post-9/11 environment--we have to remember one thing: As we do the right things, we have to do all of it the right way or we will collapse certain segments of America's economy because we destroyed the workforce that is out there at this moment, toiling in America's agricultural fields or in America's processing plants, working hard to take money home to their children and wives--not here, dominantly in Mexico. Some here.

That is the reality that I bring to the floor, and I am very willing to debate. I hope we can get into that debate later on today.

When you think about the Cornyn-Feinstein resolution, that this is not the right thing, then when is it? Twelve hundred days from now, 1,300, 1,400 days from the day that America awoke to the problem as America's people were killed and our trade center fell and our Pentagon was attacked? That is the reality. We are doing all the right things. We are moving in the right direction. But let's make sure that as we do, we do it in a package that doesn't start collapsing segments of our industry or mistreating people who work hard for themselves and for the American economy.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I have never been mean to the Senator from California, nor has she to me. She obviously makes very important points. None of those have been disputed and none of them have been dismissed out of hand. California is a unique situation. Texas is a unique situation. My State of Idaho has a large number of undocumenteds during the year, but it is equal to one county in the Central Valley of California. I understand that.

I don't understand California agriculture as well as the Senator from California, but I spent a good deal of time down there because I work on a broad variety of issues dealing with California and water. California has a very real problem. The Senator has a right to be concerned and alarmed. Any amendments she would wish to offer that are viewed as constructive I will take a very hard look at to make sure that what we do works.

Yes, we have a January 1, 2005, date. I will not get into the details of my bill. We will debate that. So the rush of the border would already have had to occur. But it hasn't. It has increased simply because there is a demand for workers in this country.

If the Senator wants to help me shape that more, I am willing to listen to that and see what we can do with amendments that deal with the misdemeanor issue she is concerned about and a time certain. None of us wants to create a rush at the border. What we want to create for California and the rest of the country is a legal workforce that is there, real, and honors those here for 3, 4, 5 years, who are married and have families here. We say: Go back to Mexico, and you may get back across the border.

The question is quite simple: Offer your amendments, and I will take a serious look at them. You make very important issues for your State and many other States, and I

hope you will do that in a fair and responsible way, as you have always been on this issue.

Mr. President, I will be brief, but at the same time I think what we have all said is very important to this issue. The H-2B class of workers is a critical component to not just the seafood industry of our coasts but to the resort industry of our country. For any of you who have ever skied in the West and met this nice young lady or man who speaks with a Norwegian brogue and they are helping you up and down the ski lift, my guess is they are class 2B. If you have met a young man or woman waiting on tables at a resort, possibly in Sun Valley, ID, they are a class 2B. The reason they are there is because they come, they build a stable presence, they are there for the period of time our resort hospitality industries need them, and it is most important that we have them.

Both Senators from Maryland have already talked about the dynamics of first that employer must seek domestic workers, U.S. citizens, and when that labor supply is exhausted they must seek elsewhere because they simply need that workforce. They come, they stay, they go home. It is a program that works well.

I am going to be on the floor later debating another program that doesn't work well: H-2A. The reason it doesn't--and it used to years ago in the 1950s; identified the worker and the work necessary and the employer. We had nearly 500,000 in those days of H-2A, known only then as the Bracero Program. It was out of the great wisdom of the Congress, and it has not worked since. This one works.

But what the Senator from Maryland is doing is bumping up the cap a little bit. Why? Because we have a growing economy, and we have a growing need. It isn't a static workforce; it is a dynamic workforce-- whether it is the seafood industry, whether it is the hospitality industry, or whether it is a stone quarry mining semiprecious stones in the State of Idaho to be polished and placed in the countertops of high-end kitchens of new homes across America. That is the diversity of this particular workforce.

She has identified it. She has recognized it. It is a cap of 65,000. The cap for 2005 was reached on the first day of the fiscal year. That not only speaks to the need but it speaks to the reality of the problem.

The amendment is very specific. This amendment would temporarily exempt returning workers who have good records and play by the rules from the H-2A cap, protect against fraud for H-2B, protect against fraud in the H-2B program by adding a $150 antifraud fee, and on and on. In other words, it has some safety checks in it, but it rewards those who play by the rules--and most do. They come, they work, they go home.

That is not only ideal for our country, it is ideal for these foreign nationals who can benefit themselves and their families by coming here to work for a salary that is, of course, better than the salary they can earn in their own home country and working in conditions that meet all of the standards of our labor laws in this country. That is fundamentally what is so important.

My conclusion is simply this: This amendment provides a fair and balanced allocation system for H-2B visas. Currently, many summer employees lose out as winter employers tend to be the first in line for the B's. That was already expressed, both by the Senator from Massachusetts and by others who have spoken on this issue.

I strongly support the amendment. It is the right time. It needs to be done. We simply cannot wait. This is an issue that is very time sensitive. We can't wait until October to hire folks who are needed the first of May.

I hope that we move it quickly through the Congress and get it to the President's desk.

I yield briefly, yes.

I thank the Senator from Maryland for bringing that up. What he demonstrates by that statement is a system that works. But he also demonstrates that the other Senator from Maryland has recognized that when pressures build and limits are met, you turn the valve a little bit and let the pressure off and let the legal system work, quite often in H-2A.

Last year, 45,000 people were identified. But 1.6 million are in the workforce. We had a system in H-2A that worked like this, and we were sensitive and constantly working to adjust it. And we wouldn't have an illegal, undocumented problem that we will debate later tomorrow or next week. This is a system that works, but it also is one that we have been sensitive to and have been willing to adjust the cap so everybody can effectively play by the rules and meet the employment needs they have.

I yield the floor.