A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude property tax rebates and other benefits provided to volunteer firefighters, search and rescue personnel, and emergency medical responders from income and employment taxes and wage withholding.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Arizona finally coming to the floor with a piece of legislation. For the last several years, I have challenged the Senate to deal with what I believe, and I think most colleagues believe, is a very urgent problem. Our borders, as much money as we have poured into them and as many new border patrolmen as we have put along them--primarily our southern border today--are still being overrun substantially by illegal people crossing.

While we have been trying, since 9/11, to understand and reform our immigration laws, there has been a great deal of talk, but very little done--some 1,300 days now of high-flying political talk about the dramatic problem that we awakened to post-9/11, and that was that there were between 8 million to 12 million undocumented illegal people in our country--most of them here and working hard to help themselves and their families. But it was obvious there were a few here with the evilest intent in mind: to destroy our country and to destroy us, too.

While I accept the argument, as most do, that comprehensive immigration reform is critical, right now we have a critical situation in front of us as it relates to agriculture. Starting about 5 years ago, and before 9/11, American agriculture was attempting to get the Congress to look at their plight. The plight was obvious and simple-- and criticize it if you will--but the reality was that 50 to 70 percent of their workforce was undocumented, and the law we had given them, as the Senator from Arizona has so clearly spoken to, was so cumbersome, costly, and so untimely--and the key to timeliness is when the crop is in the field and ripe, it has to come out or it rots--that American agriculture could not depend on it. The workforce who was seeking the work in American agriculture began to recognize it. If you will, the black market or the illegal processes began.

It should not be a surprise to any of us that when government stands in the way of commerce, stands in the way of an economy, usually people find a way around it. Tragically enough, it happened. But, by definition, it was an illegal way.

Last year, in our country, there were 2 months in which we were a net importer of food. This year, it is guesstimated it could be in as many as 6 months that we will be a net importer of food, and that will be the first time, in the history of American agriculture, that becomes the situation. So why we are here on the floor today debating a piece of a much broader overall immigration problem is because it is urgent, it is important we deal with it, and we deal with it now as thoughtfully and as thoroughly as we can. That is why I insisted that the Senate come to this issue.

I am glad my colleagues have come up with an alternative. I think the provisions in it are quickly thought up. They were criticizing my bill earlier because I offered a temporary visa. They offer a visa. They offered it for 3 years--3 years--as many as 9 years. What I am glad to hear said, for those who argue what we were doing was an amnesty issue, is that it is no longer viewed as that, that we recognize there is a legitimate need for an American agricultural workforce, and it is critically necessary we make it a legal workforce for the sake of our country, for the sake of our borders, and for the sake of American agriculture.

That is what this debate will be all about in the next several hours and tomorrow morning before we vote on this issue. Both sides have accepted a rather unusual procedure, Mr. President--a supermajority procedure. Why? Well, we are germane to this supplemental bill because of what the House did earlier with a Sensenbrenner amendment dealing with what is known as REAL ID. It dealt with immigration and, as a result of dealing with immigration in the House, we were legitimized to do so, in a germane way, in the Senate. We will do that.

At the same time, we all understand that in legislative procedures, on cloture 60 votes are required. We have agreed to do so. Tomorrow, we will vote--first on the Chambliss-Kyl amendment and then on the Craig amendment. It will require 60 votes to proceed. Whether we succeed or fail--and I think I can succeed--what is most important is that the American people are beginning to hear just a little bit about what they have deserved to hear for the last 1,300 days, since 9/11 awakened us all to the dysfunctional character and the lack of enforcement of immigration law that has been going on for well over two decades. It was so typical of a Congress that wanted to talk a lot about it but do very little about it.

The Senator from Arizona and I and the Senator from Georgia, without question, agree on the critical nature of American agriculture today. What we also agree on--symbolic by their presence on the floor today, debating the issue and offering an alternative--is that we cannot build the wall high enough along our southern border, we cannot dig its foundation deep enough to close that border off, that it requires good, clear, simple, understandable, functioning law, not unlike the old Bracero Program of the 1950s when we had a guest worker program, when we identified the worker with the work, and they came, they worked, and they went home.

Up until that time, illegal immigration was astronomically high. It dropped precipitously during that period of time when we were identifying and being able to work about 500,000 workers who were foreign national in American agriculture. It was a law that worked.

Then somehow, in the sixties, Congress got it all wrong again. Why? Because they thought they were protecting an American workforce. But what the AFL-CIO found out and why they support my legislation is that there are unique types of employment in this country with which the American workforce will not identify.

I am pleased to hear that the Chambliss-Kyl bill, along with mine, provides a first-hire American approach. We create a labor pool. The employer must first go there, but if that workforce is not available, they do not have to languish there because, in essence, they have a crop to harvest, and the crop is time sensitive. We understand all of that.

I will get to the detail of my bill over the course of the afternoon and tomorrow. This is a bill that for 5 years has been worked out between now over 509 organizations. It is interesting that the Farm Bureau supports the Kyl-Chambliss approach, but they do not oppose my approach. And last year they supported my approach. In other words, they are as frustrated as all of us are about this very real problem of immigration. First they are here and then they are there. What is most important is that we are here on the floor of the Senate this afternoon talking about an issue on which this Senate has been absent way too long.

What the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Georgia, and I and others who will be on the floor--I see my prime cosponsor Senator Kennedy is on the floor--believe is that this is an issue whose time is coming, and we believe for agriculture it is now because it is critical and it is necessary. We are learning at this moment that as much money as we throw at the border, as many Border Patrol men as we hire, if the law on the other side does not back them up, if the law on the other side does not create a reasonable pathway forward for a workforce to be legal and a workforce that is necessary in this country, then you cannot put them along the border unless they are arm length to arm length from the Gulf of Mexico to San Diego. And even then, those folks have to sleep.

The reality is, we have to get the law right, and the law has been wrong for a great long while. In the absence of a functioning, reasonable law, we have set up for our country a human disaster. Not only do we have an uncontrolled illegal population in our country, but because they have no rights, because of the way they are treated, it is not unusual in the course of a given year to see 200 or 300 lose their lives along the southern border of our country, to see our emergency rooms in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California flooded, to see the very culture and the very character and foundation of our country at risk because we do not control process, we do not control immigration, and we do not do so in an upright, legal, and responsible way.

We are here. We are going to debate this for a time, and there will be much more debate tomorrow. We will have some key votes to see whether we proceed to deal with the bill that I call AgJOBS and that 509 organizations across the country that have worked with us for the last 5 to 6 years call AgJOBS. It is a major reform in the H-2A law. It is a simplification. It is a clearer understanding. It is a reasonable process: The blue card, if you will, or the green card that is acceptable, normal, and understandable and provided in a temporary and earned way, as my bill does, is simply a point in transition, and it ought to be viewed as that.

You will hear the rhetoric that it will allow millions of people to become legal. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Labor, does not agree with that at all. The Department of Labor says there are about 500,000 who they think will responsibly and legitimately come forward, and of that, there may be dependence of around 200,000 that are already in this country because that workforce has been here 5 or 6 years or more, for that matter. So those numbers are reasonable and realistic, and that is a moment in time, a transition as we create a law and allow American agriculture to work their way into a functioning realistic H-2A program that is timely, that is sensitive, that meets their workforce needs, and recognizes the value and the production of American agriculture.

If we do not correct this law and correct it now, Americans have a choice because we already decided years ago, based on the character of the work, that most Americans would not do it. They had better jobs and alternative jobs. So American agriculture began to rely on a foreign workforce.

I say this most directly, and I mean it most sincerely. Either foreign workers will harvest America's agricultural produce for America's consumers or foreign workers will harvest agriculture in another country to be shipped to American consumers. Ask an American today what they want. They want a safe food supply. They

want an abundant food supply. They hope it would be reasonably priced. But most assuredly, they want to know that it is safe and it is reliable. The only way to guarantee that is that it be harvested in this country, as it has been from the beginning history of our great country. It was not for 2 months last year and possibly not for 6 months this year.

We have a choice to make. We either create a legal workforce, a workforce that is identifiable, or we keep stumbling down this road that no American wants us to go down, and that is to not control our borders, to not identify the foreign nationals within our borders, and to not have a reasonable, legal, and timely process. That is what the debate is all about.

I am pleased to see the other side, having been in opposition for so long, finally say, Whoa, I think maybe we ought to try to get this right. We disagree on process, we disagree on their approach, but there is similarity in many instances on reform of the H-2A program. We will work over the course of this afternoon, evening, and tomorrow to break all those differences out so all of our Senators can see these differences and sense the importance of what we debate.

There are many others who have come to the floor to discuss this legislation this afternoon. I yield the floor so the debate can proceed.

Will the Senator yield?

Because our debate time, as I understand it, is actually tomorrow, and I think we will go off and on this issue today, and because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is on the floor managing the supplemental and may have other amendments he wants to deal with, I would hope we can rely on the Chair for moving us back and forth in a balanced way from side to side before we look at a structured way to proceed. I have difficulty with that.

It is clear anybody coming to the floor to offer amendments to the supplemental would have that right.

I thank the Senator.

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

What I find very fascinating is that everyone who has come to the Senate floor this afternoon to talk about immigration agrees that our country is in near crisis at this moment for our inability to control our borders, to stem the tide of illegal movement into our country, and to fashion comprehensive or targeted immigration law that effectively works. Simply put, our Federal Government has to do better. It has to move faster in improving our border security and meeting this phenomenally large and important issue of illegal immigration.

Congress is no further along today on a comprehensive bill than it was a year ago at this time when my bill, the AgJOBS bill, had a thorough hearing before the Judiciary Committee. It is now well over 1,300 days since we woke up after 9/11 with thousands of our country men and women dead and a phenomenal frightening awakening on the part of the American people that there were millions of undocumented foreign nationals living in our country.

As I said earlier, while most of them are law-abiding, are here to work, and are extremely hard-working people, we found out tragically enough that there were some here with evil intent, and we began to control our borders. I think that is why Congress then again started beefing up border patrol and buying high-tech verification systems for the Department of Homeland Security, and that is why, whether one agrees on the specific methods or not, the House of Representatives just attached to the legislation we are talking about this afternoon a national driver's license standard and asylum changes, those seeking asylum in our country, in the so-called REAL ID provisions to the Iraq supplemental. That is why I have supported a Byrd amendment on this bill to take money away from certain portions of this bill that are not immediately necessary for our troops for their security and allow our border security to hire more investigators and enforcement agents to boost up that whole area we are so concerned about.

That is why I am cosponsoring a bill that helps States deal with undocumented criminal aliens. We must get it right everywhere if we are going to reinstate in our country secure borders and functional immigration law. That is why I have worked for the last good number of years on AgJOBS. We talk about it here today. What does it mean? It means Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act. That is why we are on the floor of the Senate today.

Some would argue we ought to be doing the Iraqi supplemental because it is urgent. None of this money is immediately necessary in Iraq. The House took 2 months to craft it. We are going to take a few days to pass it. But I must tell you as I have before, I believe the crisis in immigration today is every bit as significant. No matter the money we pour along the borders, still our borders are not under control, especially our southern border.

Senator Kennedy came to the floor a few moments ago to give a very comprehensive analysis of how he and I, and now over 500 groups, have come together to try to resolve the issue of immigration, specific to American agriculture. Those are the issues at hand at this moment. We are not in any way obstructing the process. This afternoon could have been filled with amendments on the supplemental if those who have amendments would have been here to offer them. We are simply taking time in the debate. We will have those votes tomorrow. If Senators Saxby Chambliss and Jon Kyl do not get the necessary 60 votes, or I do not on these issues, they will be set aside. But they will not go away, because I do believe, as I think most Americans believe, somehow we have to get this right. Somehow it is necessary to do so.

I am committed to making this debate as brief as possible. That is why I agreed to a unanimous consent request to conform it and to shape it, but to allow a full and fair and necessary debate. As far as I am concerned, a thorough debate on AgJOBS does not need to take a multiple of days or months. Every Senator knows this issue. Every Senator knows his and her constituents are upset at this moment because somehow Congress has failed to deal with this issue. I have received my fair share of criticism from some of my constituents for offering AgJOBS. I smiled and said: You sent me to work in Washington to solve a problem. I brought the solution to that problem. I believe it is the right one. No one else, except for those this afternoon, has brought a second solution. I welcome all Senators to get involved in this debate and understand the issues. But most importantly, we cannot do what past Congresses have done or what we have done for the over 1,300 days since 9/11, look over our shoulder and say: Oh, boy, that is a big problem; and, oh, boy, our borders are at risk and, yes, some of those illegals could be here to do us harm, but we can't seem to get our hands around it because it is such a complicated issue.

I do not dispute its complications. But I am frustrated that the Senate and the House have literally not been able to act. I believe the Senate has had enough time. As I mentioned earlier, we have seen this bill when it was

before the Judiciary Committee. I think most of my colleagues know about AgJOBS. Yes, 63 Senators supported it last year. We are now nearly at 50 at this time. Clearly a large number do support it. I think that is extremely important that we do. It is so necessary that we move appropriately to solve this problem and solve it in a timely fashion. This now gives us an opportunity to do that.

As I said to my colleagues, I have worked on this issue with numerous communities of interest for nearly 5 years to craft what we believe is one of the best approaches to solving the problem, not only recognizing that illegals, the undocumented are a problem in our country, but once they are here, and if they are here illegally, how do we treat them? How does the agricultural economy provide for them and respond to them while they are so necessary in that workforce? That is what is embodied in AgJOBS. It is not simply a threshold of how you transition through. It is in reality a major reform of the H-2A program.

Let's continue with this issue. I am going to stop at this moment. My colleague Senator Sessions is on the floor. I need to step away a few moments. I know he has important things to say--many that I agree with, but there are some I do not agree with.

Don't kick this ball down the field to another day. We look now at a comprehensive piece of legislation. It is very necessary we attempt to solve it now, get this Congress involved, and tell the American people we hear them, we know our national security is at risk, and in this instance our food security is at risk. We need to solve a very important problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The Senator is making a very interesting point. Has the Senator looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' numbers of those they believe--if the law were passed--are AgJOBS eligible?

About 500,000 is what they estimate. When you do all of the very thorough background checks we have within it that are consistent with immigration law today, they figure a certain number would fall out, and then there are the wives and dependents. A very large number of these are not married. They have no immediate family-- about 200,000 more. It is reasonable to say the Department of Labor is looking at a total number of workers, spouse, and dependents of upwards of possibly 700,000. I know millions and millions are talked about. I believe that is unrealistic based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Does the Senator disagree with those figures?

Based on what figures?

I don't disagree with that. But the criteria was entirely different. If I could be so kind, I think my colleague is mixing apples and oranges and getting an interesting blend of a new juice. An earned status approach has never been used before. The full background check, and the thoroughness of that background check as we anticipate in this legislation, is only used when you have a legal immigrant standing in line. In fact, our law is more stringent for illegal than it is for the legal immigrant because they can get the misdemeanors. We say, if you get a misdemeanor with 6 months' incarceration, that is pretty serious. The Senator from Alabama is an attorney. Would he agree with that? They are out of here. There is a much different criteria when you start comparing the total numbers. That is why I think they would be different.

Then they are deported.

That is correct. That is the current law. That is what current law says for the illegal immigrant.

It is in the law.

I thank my colleague for yielding. What is important is the bill be read very thoroughly. Extrapolations can be made. But when it says 100 hours of work, I think it is important to assume you would only work 1 hour a day for 100 days. That is not a very logical process.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, our Federal Government has got to do better, faster, in improving our border security and meeting the growing problem of illegal immigration.

That is why Congress has been beefing up the border patrol and buying high-tech verification systems for the Department of Homeland Security.

That is why, whether you agree on the specific methods or not, the House of Representatives attached national drivers' license standards and asylum changes, in the so-called REAL ID provisions, to the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill.

That is why I have supported Senator Byrd on an amendment to this bill to increase border security, hire more investigators and enforcement agents, and boost resources for detention.

That is why I am cosponsoring a bill to help States deal with undocumented criminal aliens.

And that is why I have worked to bring the AgJOBS--bill the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act--to the Senate floor.

I truly wish we did not have to have this debate on this bill on the Senate floor.

However, the House of Representatives has forced this opportunity upon us. By putting border, identification, and asylum provisions in the supplemental, the House has turned this bill into an immigration bill.

I am committed to making this debate as brief as possible, and as full and fair as necessary. As far as I am concerned, a thorough debate on AgJOBS does not need to take more than a couple hours, if we can get agreement from Senators who oppose the amendment.

The Senate has enough time for this amendment. If anyone is going to unduly delay this bill, it is not this Senator. As a member of the Appropriations Committee and on this floor, I fully support prompt appropriations for our men and women in uniform and for operations necessary in the war on terrorism.

AgJOBS is only an installment toward an overall solution to our nation's growing problem of illegal immigration. However, it is a significant installment, a logical installment, and one that is fully matured and ready to go forward.

I have worked with my colleagues and numerous communities of interest on AgJOBS issues for several years. The amendment I bring forward this week has been, in all its major essentials, well-known and much discussed in the Senate and the House for more than a year and a half.

This bipartisan effort builds upon years of discussion and suggestions among growers, farm worker advocates, Latino and immigration issue advocates, Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress, and others.

We have now built the largest bipartisan coalition ever for a single immigration bill. This letter was just delivered this week to Senate offices. There are about 100 more signatures on this letter than a similar letter delivered a year ago. Support for AgJOBS is growing.

That support reflects the fact that, in agriculture as in other sectors, the current immigration and labor market system is profoundly broken.

An enforcement-only policy is not the answer and doesn't work.

The United States has 7,458 miles of land borders and 88,600 miles of tidal shoreline. We can secure those frontiers well but not perfectly. As we have stepped up border enforcement, we have locked undocumented immigrants in this country at least as effectively as we have locked any out.

With an estimated 10 million undocumented persons in the United States, to find them and flush them out of homes, schools, churches, and work places would mean an intrusion on the civil liberties of Americans that they will not tolerate. We fought our revolution, in part, over troops at our doors and in our homes.

History has shown us what does work: A coupling of more secure borders, better internal enforcement, and a guest worker program that faces up to economic reality.

The only experience our country has had with a legal farm guest worker program--used widely in the 1950s but repealed in the 1960s-- taught us conclusive lessons. While it was criticized on other grounds, that program dramatically reduced illegal immigration from high levels to almost nothing, while meeting labor market needs.

AgJOBS is a groundbreaking, necessary part of this balanced, realistic approach. American agriculture has boldly stepped forward and admitted the problem. AgJOBS is a critical part of the solution.

Agriculture is the sector of the economy for which the problem is the worst. Fifty to 75 percent of farm workers are undocumented. As internal enforcement has stepped up, family farms are going out of business because they cannot find legal workers.

This mighty machine we call American agriculture is on a dangerous precipice--perhaps the most dangerous in our history. This year, for the first time since records have been kept, the United States is on the verge of becoming a net importer of agricultural products.

To keep American-grown food on our families' tables, we need a stable, legal, labor supply. To keep suppliers, processors, and other rural jobs alive, American agriculture needs a stable, legal, labor supply. It has been said, foreign workers are going to harvest our food; the only question is whether they do it here or in another country.

Whatever the case is in other industries, in agriculture, we really are talking about jobs that Americans can't or won't take. This physically demanding labor is seasonal and migrant in nature. Few Americans can or will leave home and family behind, to travel from State to State, crop to crop, for only part of the year, living in temporary structures. The planting, growing, and harvesting seasons occur at different times in different States--usually when students are not available.

AgJOBS is also part of a humane solution. Legal workers can demand a living wage and assert legal rights that undocumented workers--smuggled into the country and kept ``underground''--cannot. Every year, more than 300 persons die in the desert, the boxcar, or the back of a truck trailer. For a civilized, humane country, that is intolerable.

For the long term, AgJOBS reforms and streamlines the profoundly broken H-2A program that is supposed to provide legal, farm guest workers. It is now so bureaucratic and burdensome, it admits only about 40,000 workers a year--2 to 3 percent of farm workers.

However, we cannot expand the H-2A program overnight. A system of consulate system, a Homeland Security bureaucracy, and a Department of Labor bureaucracy that, today, chokes on processing 40,000 workers a year will need several years to ramp up to several times that amount. Growers, almost all of which do not use H-2A today, will need time to get into the system. Also, growers will need time to build housing and prepare for the other labor standards that H-2A has always required to prevent foreign workers from taking jobs from Americans.

As a bridge to stabilize the workforce while H-2A reforms are being implemented, AgJOBS includes a one-time-only earned adjustment program, to let about 500,000 trusted farm workers, with a proven, substantial work history here, continue working here, legally. The permanent H-2A reforms would make future farm worker adjustments unnecessary.

AgJOBS is not amnesty or a reward for illegal behavior.

Requiring several years of demanding, physical labor in the fields is an opportunity to rehabilitate to legal status--to earn the adjustment to legal status.

Adjusting AgJOBS workers would have to meet a higher standard of good behavior than other, legal immigrants, in the future. Once a worker is in the adjustment program, he or she has to obey all the laws that other, legal immigrants have to. In addition, an adjusting worker would be deported for conviction of one felony; or three misdemeanors, however minor; or, in the amendment before, a single serious misdemeanor, defined as an offense that results in 6 months of jail time.

Part of earning adjustment involves the immigrant surrendering to some limits on his or her legal rights--including a substantial prospective work requirement in agriculture and meeting a higher legal standard of good behavior than other, legal immigrants.

The adjusting worker can apply for permanent residence--a green card--at the end of the adjustment process. As a practical matter, obtaining a green card would take about 6 to 9 years after the worker enters the adjustment process. For the work involved, the economic contributions made, and the diligence required over a long period of time, this is fair. Sharing the American dream with persons who want to be--and will be--law-abiding members of the community, is fair.

AgJOBS workers, both adjusting and H-2A, would be free to leave the country at the end of the work season and not be ``locked in'' the country, between jobs.

Finally, AgJOBS is good for our homeland security.

With background checks, AgJOBS would let American families know who is putting the food on our tables. That means ensuring a safe and stable food supply for American families.

When we stop sending investigators and enforcement agents into the potato fields and apple orchards, we will be able to devote critical resources where they belong--hunting down real criminals and stopping terrorists.

AgJOBS is a win-win-win, for growers, workers, taxpayers, and homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several documents setting out facts about AgJOBS, the need for AgJOBS, frequently asked questions, and letters of endorsement from the New England Apple Council, Americans for Tax Reform, and from former U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Agriculture, Clayton Yeutter.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Arizona in his request. I think it is important if we are to spend most of the afternoon on the issue. If we could work out an orderly arrangement, that would be good.

Mr. President, I do not see Senator Chambliss, but I would like to enter into a discussion. We will be voting tomorrow on the AgJOBS bill and the Kyl-Chambliss bill, and maybe other bills--the Mikulski bill and who knows what else--in the next few days as we are debating the emergency supplemental. These are amendments filed to the emergency supplemental, legislation to provide funding for our magnificent soldiers who are ably serving our country in harm's way to carry out a national policy that we sent them to carry out.

We have been told that since the House of Representatives, when they passed their emergency supplemental, added several provisions to enhance our border security, recommendations that were in substance made by the 9/11 Commission to provide greater protection to our country against attacks by terrorists, such action by the House has opened the door to any immigration language and bill that we want to offer, that any Member may favor, to be added right onto a supplemental for our soldiers. There is a tremendous difference between those provisions, in my view. The Sensenbrenner language in the House bill is narrow, based on recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, related to our national defense and should have broad-based support. I hope it does. The President supports it. The AgJOBS bill, however, is controversial. It deals with a very large and complex subject that affects our economy and our legal system in a significant way. We absolutely should not be attempting to slip such legislation of such great importance, and on which our country is so divided, onto the emergency defense supplemental.

Let me speak frankly on the issue. There is no legislative or national consensus about how to fix our immigration system. I serve on the subcommittee on immigration of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have been having a series of important hearings on this subject. Our chairman, Senator John Cornyn, has been working very hard and providing sound leadership, but our subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee and this Senate are nowhere near ready to develop a comprehensive immigration proposal. This is made clear when we see that a number of outstanding Senators who worked on immigration over the years--such as Senator Kyl, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Saxby Chambliss--are working on legislation, also.

Surely no one can say this AgJOBS bill that really kicked off this debate is not a colossally important piece of legislation. Every one of us in this body knows that immigration is a matter of great importance to our country and one that we must handle carefully and properly. After the complete failure of the 1986 amnesty effort, surely we know we must do better this time.

Let me state this clearly. I believe we can improve our laws regarding how people enter our country, how they work here, and how they become citizens in this country, and we should do so. We absolutely can do that. Many fine applicants are not being accepted, applicants who could enrich our Nation.

Further, as a prosecutor of 15 years, a Federal prosecutor for almost that long, without hesitation I want to say this: If we improve our fundamental immigration laws and policies, and if at the same time we work to create an effective enforcement system, then we can absolutely eliminate this unconscionable lawlessness that is now occurring in our country and improve immigration policies across the board, serving our national interests and being certainly more sensitive to the legitimate interests of those who would like to come here, live here, work here, or even become citizens.

Any such legislation we pass should, in addition, protect our national security. Of course, we need to keep an eye on our national security--Have we forgotten that? Surely not--and allow increased approval for technically advanced, educated and skilled persons and students, as well as farm labor.

More importantly, under no circumstances should we pass bad legislation that will further erode the rule of law, that will make the current situation worse and will violate important principles that are essential for an effective national immigration policy.

Some will say, Well, Jeff, it is time to do something, even if it is not perfect. My direct answer to that is it is past time to pass laws that improve the ability of our country to protect our security from those who would do us harm. That is our duty. But we simply are not ready to legislate comprehensively on the complex issue of immigration.

We have not come close to completing our hearings in the appropriate subcommittees and the Judiciary Committee.

More importantly still, time or not, we must not pass bad legislation. The Nation tried amnesty for farmworkers in 1986 and few would deny it was a failure. That legislation, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, established within it section 304. The Commission's duty was, after the act had been in effect for some time, to study its impact on the American farming industry. The Commission issued its report and found, in every area, farm labor problems had not been improved and as many as 70 percent of the applications for amnesty were fraudulent.

I wish that weren't so. I wish we could pass laws that people conjure up

which would solve the complex problems and it will all just work like we think it might. I am sure those people, in 1986, heard the exact same argument we are hearing today why this kind of legislation is so critical. They tried it. But they put in a commission to study it.

The Commission was clear. The Commission said:

In retrospect, the concept of worker specific and industry

specific legislation was fundamentally flawed.

That is exactly what the AgJOBS bill is, industry and worker specific. Indeed, it is the same industry and the same workers-- agriculture--that the 1986 sponsors said would be fixed by their bill. It was an amnesty to end all amnesty. That is what they said. Now we are at it again in the same way.

Later, in 1997, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, an African- American leader of national renown, was authorized, by a 1990 immigration law, to chair a commission. The Commission reported to President Clinton on the status of existing immigration law. The Jordan Commission found that the guest worker programs do not ``reduce unauthorized migration. To the contrary, research consistently shows that they tend to encourage and exacerbate illegal movements by setting up labor recruitment and family networks that persist long after the guest programs end.''

The Commission further concluded that what was needed was an immigration system that had integrity where laws were enforced, including employer sanctions. I will quote from their report. They stated:

Illegal immigration must be curtailed. This should be

accomplished with more effective border controls, better

internal apprehension mechanisms, and enhanced enforcement of

employer sanctions. The U.S. Government should also develop a

better employment eligibility and identification system,

including a fraud-proof work authorization document for all

persons legally authorized to work in the United States so

that employer sanctions can more effectively deter the

employment of unauthorized workers.

Our enforcement efforts remind me of the man who builds an 8-foot ladder to try to reach across a 10-foot chasm. While he may have been close, close doesn't count in such an event. He is heading for disaster.

We are not as far away as most people think from an effective enforcement mechanism. It is absolutely not hopeless for this country to gain control of its borders, especially with the new technology we have today--biometrics and that kind of thing. We are spending billions of dollars, but we are spending that money very unwisely. The solution to our immigration situation is to review the procedures by which people come to our country, and the procedures by which people become citizens, and to then steadfastly plan a method that will work to enforce those rules. Without that enforcement, no matter what changes we make in our current law, we will be right back here discussing Amnesty III for agricultural farmworkers before this decade is out. This is plainly obvious to anyone who would look at our current system.

By all means, this Nation should not, in response to this current failure, pass a bill like what has been offered which basically says our current system has failed and we intend to give up and do nothing to fix it. It says we have failed, our system is not working so we are just going to quit trying and let everybody stay in. The American people are not going to be happy if they learn that is what we are about here. They surely will learn about it sooner or later.

Polls show huge majorities, upwards of 80 percent, want a lawful system of immigration. Why are we resistant to that?

It has been amazing to me, anytime a piece of legislation is offered that might actually work to tighten up the loopholes we have, it is steadfastly opposed and seems never to become law.

I feel very strongly about this. If it is not amnesty, I don't know what amnesty is.

This bill will bestow legal status and a guaranteed pass to citizenship for over a million individuals, perhaps 3 million, perhaps even more.

The Commissioners who studied the last bill all agreed the number that actually obtained amnesty was far greater than anticipated.

In addition, it makes no provision whatsoever for commensurate improvement of law enforcement.

It hurts me, as somebody who spent most of my professional life trying to enforce laws passed by Congress, to see us undermine the ability of our system to actually work.

The passage of this legislation will be the equivalent of placing a neon sign on our border that says: Yes, we have laws but we welcome you to try to sneak into our country, and if you are successful, we will reward you, as we have done twice before, with permanent residency and a step onto citizenship.

Under this legislation, if a person has worked within 18 months, 575 hours or 100 workdays--and a workday is defined in the act as working 1 hour--then for 100 hours within 18 months, they are eligible to apply for a temporary resident status even though they are here plainly and utterly illegally. They do not have to go home and make another application; they simply apply for this. In addition, they become a temporary resident.

It then provides they can ask for permanent resident status and that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall grant them this permanent resident status if they work 2,000 hours in a 6-year period. That is about 1 year of work period. Then they apply for a permanent resident status. In 5 years, if they have not been convicted of a felony or have not been convicted of three misdemeanors, the Secretary shall confer citizenship on them if they apply.

If they become a permanent resident citizen, they can call for their family, who may be out of the country. A family who never had any thought to come to this country is allowed to come in free. All of them are put on a guaranteed track for citizenship.

Indeed, if they have already left the country not intending to return, but did work 575 hours in 18 months before that period, or if they are willing to say they did--true or not--they get to come back in and bring their families with them. Maybe a person here never intended to bring their family, but faced with this offer, they bring them in.

I am not sure we know how broad this bill is, how dangerous this language is.

I have a host of specific complaints about the provisions within the statute. I will talk about them later today or tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. Senator Craig is one of my favorite Members of the Senate. We agree on many things. We have not agreed on this one.

Yes, I think we all understand we are dealing with a broad, important, and complex issue. It does require us to give it some thought. But the point of the matter is we are being asked to vote on AgJOBS tomorrow. People are going to have to cast a vote on this bill. I urge you not to vote for this legislation, because it should not be on the Defense supplemental and, second, because it is flawed, seriously flawed. It is not consistent with what I think are the views of most Members of Congress or the American people on how we ought to handle this matter.

I mentioned briefly earlier how the process toward amnesty works in this legislation. I would like to refer to this chart. I think it makes the point rather simply. I do not think it is disputed.

You have people who came here illegally. Perhaps they are in the country, perhaps they have already gone back to their home country, but they have violated our law by coming here, both in coming here and in working illegally for some firm or company.

If they have done that and if, within 18 months of December 31 of last year, 2004, they have worked 100 workdays--and they have defined a workday in the act as 1 hour, so that could be 100 hours of work--they earn what the proponents of this legislation say they are earning: their right to be here.

They are being paid for this, presumably. They didn't come here to work for not being paid. They came for a salary they are willing to accept. They work here for 100 hours. Then they become a lawful, temporary resident. Then all of a sudden someone who was here unlawfully is now converted to a lawful resident.

A number of things occur after that. If they have family here, a spouse or children--one, two, three, four, five, six--and that spouse or those children may have been here 6 weeks, the spouse and children are entitled to stay as long as the person who now has become a lawful, temporary resident; and within the next 6 years, if that person is employed in agriculture for 2,060 hours--the average worker works about 2000 hours a year, so that would be about 1 year out of 6, being paid for this--they have therefore earned legal permanent resident status. That is pretty significant, legal permanent residency, because if you become a legal permanent resident, then you are no longer an indentured servant. You are not required to work in agriculture. You can work on any job you want.

It might be this court reporting job right here.

I don't know what they want to work on. They became a legal, permanent resident. They can wait for 5 years, and then they are virtually guaranteed a citizenship unless they are convicted--charged, convicted--of a felony or convicted of three misdemeanors. A misdemeanor can be a pretty serious offense sometimes.

I am not sure we want somebody to want to come here to commit a bunch of misdemeanors. You don't usually get caught for all of them. People do things and half the time they do not get caught at all. If you catch a victim twice on a misdemeanor, that can be very serious.

Then they are given citizenship.

By the way, if their children are not here, have never been here, and they became a lawful, permanent resident, they can send for them--one, two, or five members. They can come on down and be a part of the United States and be on the road to citizenship, even though maybe that was never the intention. Maybe it was never the intention, to begin with, for their family to come here.

Yes.

About a million.

I will say it this way: I will say it is very likely to be a million.

Close to a million, if you take the figure of 700,000. I am not sure we have thought it through.

The Senator, I believe--who was here in 1987 when the 1986 amnesty was passed--would admit that the estimate of how many people would take advantage of it was very low. In fact, I believe three times as many people took advantage of that amnesty as the estimators estimated. It could happen here. I don't know.

The act says three convictions of misdemeanors. The Senator is right. It can be up to 6 months or a year.

Not if there are two convictions.

It is in the legislation.

For those here illegally and want amnesty to be given even though they have already violated immigration laws.

I agree with the Senator on that. I will disagree with the concept that somehow, by working here, coming here, and getting a job you wanted to get when you came, that that is somehow earning something, if you did it illegally. You are getting what you wanted, which was pay for the work.

That is what I would point out. Then, a family would be automatically eligible to come into the country. I don't think there is any dispute about that.

If a person came here illegally, if they worked here 18 months and met those qualifications of 100 workdays, or 565 hours, I believe-- either way, it is not very much--they can come even though they are not here now. In other words, if they did that illegally, worked here and for some reason went back home, then they are getting a letter from Uncle Sam saying, By the way, we know you violated our law but we are in a forgiving mood. You can come on back and join the process toward citizenship and bring your family, too.

I am not sure that is what we want to do. I don't think it is what we want to do. That is the fundamental of this legislation.

I think that is what you call amnesty. Not only does it give the person what they wanted in terms of being able to come into the country and get a job and be paid, that puts them on a track--unless they get seriously conflicted with the law--to be a permanent resident and then even a citizen, and their children and family can be on that same track.

That is a big deal. That is what I am saying. It is not something we need to be rushing into on this legislation today.

Under section 101(d)(8), entitled ``Eligibility for Legal Services,'' it is required under the act that free, federally funded legal counsel be afforded, through the Legal Services Corporation, to assist temporary workers in the application process for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

American workers are not always available for that. They have to meet other standards such as need and that sort of thing.

Also, the act gives several advantages to foreign workers not provided to American workers. Look at this.

Section 101(b), rights of aliens granted temporary resident status.

Right here--temporary resident status.

Terms of employment respecting aliens admitted under this section, A, prohibition.

Quoting:

No alien granted temporary resident status under subsection

A may be terminated from employment by any employer during

the period of temporary resident status except for just

cause.

Then they set up a big process for this. There is a complaint process. The subsection sets out a process for filing complaints for termination without just cause. If reasonable cause exists, the Secretary shall initiate binding arbitration proceedings and pay the fee and expenses of the arbitrator. Attorneys' fees will be the responsibility of each party. The complaint process does not preclude ``any other rights an employee may have under applicable law.''

That means they could file under this process for unjust termination and hire a plaintiffs lawyer and sue the business for whatever else you want to sue them for.

Any fact or finding made by the arbitrator shall not be

conclusive or binding in any separate action--

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

or subsequent action or proceeding between the employee and

the employer.

I submit to you, by the language of this statute, it would appear they intend for that to be admissible, if not binding. It says not binding but the implication would be it would be admissible.

This means an employer cannot allow that arbitration proceeding to go without an attorney. He will have to hire an attorney and go down there because things will go wrong and that will be used against him in any civil action that might take place. They have to pay counsel in both places.

This section will override State laws in America. In Alabama, unless you enter into a contract that states otherwise for employment, your work for an employer is at will. Contracts of employment at will mean just that: it is the will of either party. Employees can quit at will and employers can terminate at will, with cause or without cause, and for no reason, good or bad reason.

That is the way I think it is in most States. Certainly that is true in my State. This provision will mean illegal aliens who file for amnesty under the AgJOBs amendment, after coming here illegally in violation of our law, are guaranteed to have a job unless they are terminated for just cause. If the AgJOBS amendment passes, employers of aliens given amnesty will be subject to forced and binding arbitration regarding the termination of the alien, and they will have to cover their legal bills for the defense in arbitrations even if the arbitrator finds they had just cause to terminate the alien.

I suggest what we are about here is a provision for greater protection for a foreign worker, one not only who is foreign but who previously violated American law. If you were an employer and you need to lay off one person, and you have two working for you, and one would have the ability to take you through arbitration and argue that you did not have just cause, and the other one had no such rights, you might fire the American citizen first, not the foreigner.

There is another provision I will talk about later that deals with the filing of the application. The Senator says they will be doing background checks. I see nothing in here that provides for background checks. It requires an application to be filed to become a temporary resident. Get this: It can be filed with two groups who are called ``qualified designated entities.'' That can be an employer group who wants workers to come here to work for them, or a labor group. And they are qualified entities. The application is filed with them.

It prohibits giving the application to the Secretary of Homeland Security unless a lawyer has read it first. It says the entities that receive this application cannot give it to the Secretary unless they are conducting a fraud investigation. How would they know to conduct one if they haven't seen the documents? It might be fraudulent.

It is a rather weird idea, is antigovernment, and seems to be far more concerned with protecting an applicant who may be committing fraud than protecting the security and the laws of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Vermont allow me the opportunity to offer an amendment? I do not know how long he will be speaking.

Less than that.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 456.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see my friend from New Mexico who was here before I was here. Let him proceed.

Reserving the right to object, I welcome the opportunity to work this out. Can we perhaps get some time understanding as well? The Senator from Oregon mentioned he will probably need 15 minutes. Could we get some kind of understanding about the length of time? Generally we go from Republican to Democrat. Now we are looking at going from proponents to opponents. I do not mind that, but if we can limit this to 15 minutes each--I see we have a number of people--would that be agreeable? So we would go to Senator Wyden, and because the Senator from Arizona has been so persuasive, we will hear two on his side, and maybe Senator Bingaman can be recognized after Senator Wyden, and then two for the Senator's side, 15 minutes each, and then I be recognized.

If the Chair would be good enough to notify me when I have 1 minute remaining, please.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator Craig in offering the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security amendment.

America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, but our current immigration laws have failed us. Much of the Nation's economy today depends on the hard work and the many contributions of immigrants. The agricultural industry would grind to a halt without immigrant farmworkers. Yet the overwhelming majority of these workers are undocumented and are, therefore, easily exploited by unscrupulous employers.

Our AgJOBS bill corrects these festering problems. It gives farmworkers and their families the dignity and justice they deserve, and it gives agricultural employers a legal workforce.

Impressive work has been done by many grassroots organizations to make AgJOBS a reality. They have demonstrated true statesmanship by putting aside strongly held past differences to work together for the common good. We have our own responsibility to join in a similar way to approve this needed reform that is years overdue.

I commend Senator Craig and Congressmen Berman and Cannon for their leadership. I urge my colleagues to wholeheartedly endorse the AgJOBS bill.

Our bill reflects a far-reaching and welcome agreement between the United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry to meet this urgent need, and Congress should make the most of this unique opportunity for progress.

Our bill has strong support from business and labor, civic and faith- based organizations, liberals and conservatives, trade associations and immigrant rights groups. More than 500 organizations across the country support it.

AgJOBS is a bipartisan compromise reached after years of negotiations. Both farmworkers and growers have made concessions to reach this agreement, but each side has obtained important benefits.

In contrast, opponents offer a one-sided proposal that has failed to win the broad support AgJOBS has received. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It vastly favors employers at the expense of farmworkers. It makes harsh revisions to the current agricultural guest worker program and creates a new blue card program for undocumented workers without a path to permanent residence, and without any meaningful governmental oversight to prevent labor abuses.

Agricultural employers would have the freedom to avoid hiring U.S. workers, displace U.S. workers already on the job, and force both U.S. workers and guest workers to accept low wages. They could do all this by claiming they can't find any U.S. workers. Even when the few labor protections are violated, workers would have no meaningful ability to enforce their legal rights.

This program would return us to the dark and shameful era of the Bracero Program where abuses were rampant and widely tolerated. That is unacceptable. We must learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

The Chambliss amendment also ignores the needs of many growers and farmworkers. It offers no solution to the basic problem faced by agricultural employers--the problem that an overwhelming majority of the workers are undocumented. By offering no path to permanent residence for these undocumented workers, none of the guest workers, no matter how long they have worked, will ever be able to earn their permanent status.

Perhaps more troubling is the amendment's repeal of the longstanding adverse effect wage rate under the current program. This wage rate was created during the Bracero Program as a necessary program against the depression in wages caused by guest worker programs. The Chambliss proposal would replace it with a prevailing wage standard, substantially lower than the adverse effect wage rate. It would be based on the employer's own survey of prevailing wages rather than the Labor Department's survey. Farmworkers, who are already the lowest paid workers in the United States, would see their wages drop even lower. In contrast, the AgJOBS bill preserves the adverse effect wage rate while recommendations are made to Congress to resolve these long-contested pay issues.

The Chambliss amendment also eliminates the key provision that gives U.S. workers a job preference by employers who request guest workers. It would end the longstanding 50 percent rule which requires employers to hire qualified U.S. workers who applied during the first half of the season. Studies have shown that this rule is a valid protection.

In addition, the Chambliss amendment would end what they call positive recruitment--the obligation of employers to look for U.S. workers outside of the government job service which currently provides farmworkers with agricultural jobs. This proposal creates a new guest worker program for the undocumented that would offer them visas that would be valid only for 3 years and renewable for up to 6 additional years. They would have no opportunity to earn a green card no matter how many years they worked in the United States. In fact, they would actually lose their status if they merely filed an application to become a permanent resident.

Senator Chambliss believes that undocumented farmworkers will come out of the shadows and sign up for such a temporary worker program, but they are highly unlikely to do so. The vast majority will be deported after their temporary status expires. Registering as the first step towards deportation is unfair, and it just won't work.

In contrast, the AgJOBS bill offers farmworkers a genuine earned adjustment program that will put these workers and their families on a path to permanent residence. Hard-working, law-abiding farmworkers will be able to come out of the shadows. The Chambliss amendment is far less satisfactory than the AgJOBS proposal, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Opponents of the AgJOBS bill claim that we are rushing this bill through Congress without full and careful consideration. This claim is without merit. Since 1998, the Immigration Subcommittee has held three hearings that have fully examined our agricultural workforce problems and the need to reform our immigration laws. Last year, we considered the issue once more. Legislation to address this problem has been introduced by both Republicans and Democrats in every Congress since 1996.

In September 2000, a breakthrough occurred, and both sides agreed to support compromise legislation that won broad bipartisan congressional support. Unfortunately, attempts to enact it were blocked in the lameduck session that year. The election of President Bush in 2000 changed the dynamics of the agreement, and the compromise fell apart.

A compromise was finally reached in September 2003 which led Senator Craig and me to introduce the AgJOBS bill. Last Congress, we had, as Senator Craig has pointed out, 63 Senate cosponsors, nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Despite such strong bipartisan support, the leadership last year blocked our attempt to obtain a vote on this legislation. This is the second Congress in which Senator Craig and I have introduced the AgJOBS bill. Congress has had extensive discussions of this legislation in the past, and it is long past time for us to act.

Opponents of our amendment have offered no workable solutions. We cannot be complacent any longer. It is time for a new approach.

The American people want commonsense solutions to real problems such as immigration. They want neither open borders nor closed borders. They want smart borders. They are neither anti-immigrant nor anti- enforcement. Instead, they are anti-disorder and anti-hypocrisy. They want the Federal Government to get its act together, to set rules that are realistic and fair, and to follow through and enforce these realistic rules effectively and efficiently.

AgJOBS meets these goals. It addresses our national security needs, reflects current economic realities, and respects America's immigrant heritage.

The status quo is untenable. In the last 10 years, the U.S. Government has spent more than $20 billion to enforce our immigration laws. We have tripled the number of border security agents, improved surveillance technology, installed other controls to strengthen border enforcement, especially at the southwest border. None of these efforts have been adequate. Illegal immigration continues.

The proof is in the numbers. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of undocumented immigrants doubled from 3.5 million to 7 million. Today that number is nearly 11 million, with an average annual growth of almost 500,000. Those already here are not leaving, and new immigrants keep coming in. Massive deportations are unrealistic as a policy, impractical to carry out, and unacceptable to businesses that rely heavily on their labor.

Obviously, we must control our borders and enforce our laws, but we first need realistic immigration laws that we can actually enforce. The AgJOBS bill is a significant step. By bringing these illegal workers out of the shadows, we will enable law enforcement to focus its efforts on terrorists and violent criminals. We will reduce the chaotic, illegal, all too deadly traffic of immigrants at our borders by providing safe opportunities for farmworkers and their families to enter and leave the country.

The AgJOBS bill enhances our national security and makes our communities safer. It brings the undocumented farmworkers and their families out of the shadows and enables them to pass through security checkpoints. It shrinks the pool of law enforcement targets, enables our offices to train their sights more effectively on the terrorists and the criminals. The undocumented farmworkers eligible for this program will undergo rigorous security checks as they apply for legal status. Future temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet security concerns.

The AgJOBS amendment provides a fair and reasonable way for undocumented agricultural workers to earn legal status. It reforms the current visa program so that agricultural employers unable to hire American workers can hire needed foreign workers. Both of these components are critical. They serve as the cornerstone for comprehensive immigration reform of the agricultural sector.

Undocumented farmworkers are clearly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous labor contractors and growers. They are less likely than U.S. workers to complain about low wages, poor working conditions, or other labor law violations. Their illegal status deprives them of bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farmworkers. These workers are already among the lowest paid of all workers in America. According to the most recent findings of the national agricultural workers survey issued last month, their average individual income is between $10,000 and $12,000 a year. The average annual family income is $15,000 to $17,000.

Thirty percent of their households live below the poverty line. Only half of them own a car and even fewer own a home or even a trailer. By legalizing these farmworkers, the threat of deportation is removed. They will be on equal footing with U.S. workers and the end result will be higher wages, better working conditions, and upward job mobility for all workers.

Opponents of reform continually mislabel any initiative they oppose as ``amnesty'' in a desperate attempt to stop any significant reform. Instead of proposing ways to fix our current broken system, they are calling for more of the same--increased enforcement of broken laws. However, enforcing a dysfunctional system only leads to greater dysfunction.

The AgJOBS bill is not an amnesty bill. The program requires farmworkers to earn legal status. They must demonstrate not only contributions but also a substantial future work commitment before they earn the right to remain in our country.

First, they will receive temporary resident status, based on their past work experience. They must have worked for at least 100 work days in agriculture by December 31, 2004. To earn permanent residence, they must fulfill a prospective work requirement. They must work at least 360 days in agriculture during a six-year period. At least 240 of those 360 work days must occur during the first 3 years. Temporary residents who fail to fulfill the prospective agricultural work requirement will be dropped from the program and required to leave the country.

It's not amnesty if you have to earn it. AgJOBS offers farm workers a fair deal: if they are willing to work hard for us, then we're willing to do something fair for them. It's the only realistic solution.

Contrary to statements made by its critics, AgJOBS does not provide a direct path to citizenship. Farm workers would first earn temporary residence if they provide evidence of past work in agriculture. The next step would be permanent residence, but only after they have completed thousands of hours of backbreaking work in agriculture--a process that could take up to 6 years. Once they earn permanent residence, these farm workers would have to wait another 5 years to be able to apply for citizenship. At that point, they would have to pass an English and civics exam, and go through extensive backgrounds checks. This process is long and arduous, as it should be. There is nothing direct about it.

To be eligible for legal status, applicants must be persons of good moral character and present no criminal or national security problems. Whether they are applying here or at U.S. consulates abroad, all applicants will be required to undergo rigorous security clearances. Like all applicants for adjustment of status, their names and birth dates must be checked against criminal and terrorist databases operated by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the State Department, and the CIA. Applicants' fingerprints would be sent to the FBI for a criminal background check, which includes comparing the applicants' fingerprints with all arrest records in the FBI's database.

Contrary to arguments made by detractors of AgJOBS, terrorists will not be able to exploit this program to obtain legal status. Anyone with any ties to terrorist activity is ineligible for legal status under our current immigration laws, and would be ineligible under the AgJOBS bill. Our proposal has no loopholes for terrorists.

Opponents of AgJOBS claim that this bill is soft on criminals. Wrong again. AgJOBS has the toughest provisions against those who commit crimes--tougher than current immigration law. Convictions for most crimes will make them ineligible to obtain a green card. Generally, these convictions include violent crimes, drug crimes, theft, and domestic violence. AgJOBS goes even further. Applicants can be denied legal status if they commit a felony or three

misdemeanors. It doesn't matter whether the misdemeanors involve minor offenses--three misdemeanors and you are out, no matter how minor the misdemeanors. In addition, anyone convicted of a single misdemeanor who served a sentence of 6 months or more would also be ineligible. These rules are additional requirements that do not apply to other immigrants and they cannot be waived by DHS.

There are those who would prefer to disqualify a farm worker who commits even a single minor misdemeanor, with no jail time. But that goes too far. In some States, it's a misdemeanor to put trash from your home into a roadside trash can. It's a misdemeanor to park a house trailer in a roadside park, or have an unleashed dog in your car on a State highway, or go fishing without a license.

If we're serious about this proposal, minor offenses like these shouldn't have such harsh consequences. We'd be severely punishing hard-working men and women for minor mistakes, and tearing these immigrant families apart.

It's hard to imagine any public purpose that would be served by such a severe punishment. But it's easy to imagine all the heart-wrenching stories and nightmares created by this proposal for people caught by its provisions. Many of these farm workers have lived in America with their families for many years. They've established strong ties to their communities, paid their taxes, and contributed to our economy. They deserve better than a punishment out of all proportion to their offense.

Opponents of AgJOBS also claim that it will be a magnet for further illegal immigration. Once again, they are wrong. To be eligible for the earned adjustment program, farm workers must establish that they worked in agriculture in the past. Farm workers must have entered the United States prior to October, 2004. Otherwise, they are not eligible. The magnet argument is false. New entrants who have not worked in agriculture won't qualify for this program.

Hard-working migrant farm workers are essential to the success of American agriculture. We need an honest agriculture policy that recognizes the contributions of these men and women, and respects and rewards their work.

Our bill will modify the current temporary foreign agricultural worker program, while preserving and enhancing key labor protections. It strikes a fair balance. Anything else would undermine the jobs, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers.

For many employers, the current program is a bureaucratic nightmare. Few of them use the program, because it is so complicated, lengthy, uncertain, and expensive. Only 40,000-50,000 guest workers are admitted each year--barely 2 to 3 percent of the estimated total agricultural work force.

To deal with these problems, the bill streamlines the H-2A program's application process by making it a ``labor attestation'' program similar to the H-1B program, rather than the current ``labor certification'' program. This change will reduce paperwork for employers and accelerate processing.

Employers seeking temporary workers will file an application with the Secretary of Labor containing assurances that they will comply with the program's obligations. The application will be accompanied by a job offer that the local job service office will post on an electronic job registry at least 28 days before the job begins. In addition, the employer must post the position at the work site, notify the collective bargaining representative if one exists, make reasonable efforts to contact past employees, and advertise the position in newspapers read by farm workers.

Longstanding worker protections will continue in force. For example, the ``three-fourths minimum work guarantee'' will remain in effect. Employers will be required to guarantee work for at least three quarters of the employment period or pay compensation for any shortfall. The ``50% rule'' will also continue. Qualified U.S. workers would be hired as long as they apply during the first half of the season. No position could be filled by an H-2A worker that was vacant because of a strike or labor dispute. Employers will continue to reimburse workers for transportation costs and provide workers' compensation insurance coverage. Employers will be prohibited from discriminating in favor of temporary workers.

The bill will modify some current requirements in important ways. Employers must provide housing at no cost, or a monetary housing allowance in which the State governor certifies that sufficient farm worker housing is available. Employers will also be required to pay at least the highest of the State or Federal minimum wage, the local ``prevailing wage'' for the particular job, or an ``adverse effect'' wage rate.

For many years, the adverse effect wage rate has been vigorously debated, with most farm worker advocates arguing that the rate is too low, and most growers complaining that it is too high. The bill will freeze adverse effect wage rates for three years at the 2003 level, while studies and recommendations are made to Congress by the GAO and a special commission of experts. If Congress fails to enact an adverse effect wage rate formula within 3 years, this wage rate will be adjusted in 2006, and at the beginning of each year thereafter, based on the change in the consumer price index.

The Secretary of Labor will establish an administrative complaint process to investigate and resolve complaints alleging violations under the H-2A program. Violators will be required to pay back wages, and can also be given civil money penalties and be barred from the program.

In addition, the bill provides a significant new protection for H-2A workers--a private right of action in Federal court. Currently, these workers lack this right, and can seek redress in State courts only under State contract law. Such workers are also excluded from the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, which provides U.S. workers with protections and remedies in Federal court. Although the exclusion continues, our bill will permit workers to file a Federal lawsuit to enforce their wages, housing benefits, transportation cost reimbursements, minimum-work guarantee, motor vehicle safety protections, and other terms under their job offer.

Our bill will also unify families. When temporary residence is granted, a farm worker's spouse and minor children will be able to remain legally in the United States, but they will not be authorized to work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and minor children will also gain such status.

Mr. President, I have a letter from the AFL-CIO that calls AgJOBS a recent legislative compromise between farmworker advocates and agricultural employers. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this mentions:

The Chambliss-Kyl proposal would radically change the H-2A

program, stripping it of all labor protections and Government

oversight. This amendment would create a new year-round guest

worker program with no meaningful labor protections and no

role for the Department of Labor to enforce housing, pay, or

other essential worker protections. The Chambliss-Kyl

proposal would tie workers to particular employers and

require them to leave the country if their jobs ended and no

other employer petitioned for a visa for them within 60 days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, from the moment our military first attacked Osama bin Laden's hideouts in Afghanistan, through the time that our first soldiers set foot inside Iraq, continuing right up until the present day, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq have been entirely funded by what the American people might call a series of stopgap spending measures. These measures, which are called emergency supplemental appropriation bills in the parlance of our Nation's capitol, take the form of last-minute requests by the White House for Congress to approve tens of billions of dollars on an accelerated timetable.

From September 11, 2001, until today, Congress has approved $201 billion in these appropriations bills, the great majority of which the President has applied to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this bill on the Senate floor is approved, it will add another $79.3 billion to that staggering total.

With the cost of the two wars approaching $280 billion--that is a lot of money; that is your money, Mr. and Mrs. American Citizen--the American people are beginning to ask how much more will these two wars cost our country? The Congressional Budget Office estimated, in February 2005, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost the American people $458 billion over the next 10 years. The $74.4 billion in military spending contained in this supplemental appropriations bill is but a small downpayment on that staggering sum.

How accurate is this estimate of nearly half a trillion dollars more in war costs? How accurate is it? Amazingly, the administration has flatout refused to provide any estimates for the cost of the war in its annual budget request. That means, then, under the administration's budget policies, our troops are forced to continue to rely on the stopgap spending measures that are known as emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

I know the terms ``supplemental request'' or ``emergency appropriations'' mean almost nothing to the average American. But each time the White House sends a supplemental request to Congress for more funds that have never appeared in the President's budget, it reminds me of the way so many Americans pull a credit card out of their wallet when faced with unexpected costs.

Like a credit card, emergency supplemental appropriations requests can be responsibly used to cover costs that could not have been foreseen. But most Americans know, if someone starts using a credit card for everyday expenses, watch out, because that person is on the path to financial ruin. Mr. President, I have never had a credit card in my life. I don't use one. My wife doesn't use one. Using that little piece of plastic means avoiding the tough choices and tradeoffs that are necessary for fiscal responsibility, while reckless spending and increasing interest payments cause a family's debt to spiral out of control. That, in a nutshell, is exactly what is happening in Washington, DC. Just like the slick advertising slogan for credit cards, the administration's repeated requests for supplemental appropriations for the war exemplify the phrase ``buy now, pay later.''

Over the last 3\1/2\ years, at a time when the Government is swimming in red ink, the White House has charged an additional $280 billion-- that is right, $280 billion--on the national credit card, without proposing a single dime of that spending in its annual budget proposal; not one thin dime is seen or shown in the administration's annual budget proposal. This is a reckless course the administration has plotted. It is fiscal irresponsibility at the highest level. This ``take it as it comes'' approach to paying for the cost of the war in Iraq ignores sound budgetary principles, and it is a grave disservice to our troops who are serving in Iraq.

By separating the regular budget of the Defense Department and other Federal agencies from the wartime costs of military operations, the White House has effectively denied Congress the ability to get the whole picture of the needs of our troops and the other needs of our Nation, such as education, highways, and veterans medical care. Instead, Congress receives only piecemeal information about, on the one hand, what funds are required to fight the war--this unnecessary war, I say, in Iraq--and on the other, what funds are required for the regular operations of the Defense Department and other Federal agencies.

This is a misguided approach, and the net effect of this misguided approach is a thoroughly disjointed and discombobulated Federal budget. This hand-me-down process does not serve our troops well.

A unified, coherent budget for our military would allow Congress and the administration, as well as the American people, to focus on the future to evaluate what our troops might need to fight two wars--the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq--in the next 6, 12, or 18 months.

I am fully supportive of the war in Afghanistan because in that case our country was attacked, our country was invaded by an enemy. We fought back. I fully supported President Bush in that war, and I do today. I support the troops in both wars, but I do not support the policy that sent our troops into Iraq.

Instead of looking forward, however, the abuse of the supplemental appropriations process means the Congress and the administration are constantly--constantly--looking backward over our shoulder to fix the problems that might have been addressed had the cost of the wars been included in the President's budget.

Congress has had to add money to prior supplementals to buy more body armor, to buy more ammunition, to buy more armored humvees. All of these costs should have been included in earlier administration regular unified budget requests for the entire Federal Government.

What is more, this disjointed manner of paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has a tremendous effect on the entire Federal budget. By refusing to budget for the cost of the war, the President is submitting annual budgets to Congress that are downright inaccurate. These budget requests are inaccurate. They understate the actual amount of our annual deficits by scores of billions of dollars.

If the President's emergency request for 2005 is approved, the Congress will have approved over $210 billion just for the war in Iraq. While the budget deficit grows to record levels, the President tells us we have to cut domestic programs by $192 billion over the next 5 years. The President tells us we have to charge veterans for their medical care, that we have to cut grants for firefighters and first responders, that we cannot adequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act, and that we should cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. The list goes on and on.

Since the President took office, he has taken a Federal budget that was in

surplus for 4 straight years and produced deficits as far as the human eye can see. For 2006, the President is projecting a deficit of $390 billion, but that deficit estimate does not--does not, does not-- include new spending for the war in Iraq. We are not fighting that war on the cheap. It is costing you money, you citizens out there. It is your money; it is costing you money. That deficit estimate does not include new spending, I say, for the war in Iraq. Why? Why does it not? Why does that deficit estimate not include new spending for the war in Iraq? Because the President pretends he cannot project what the war will cost in 2006. Well, Mr. President, I assure you the costs will not be zero.

The President will not tell the American people what the war in Iraq will cost. By understating the deficits, the American people are being led down a primrose path. That is dishonesty. Neither the White House nor Congress is making any tough choices about how to pay for the cost of the war because the administration is not telling Congress how much it thinks the war might cost in the next year. And as a result, there is no talk of raising taxes or cutting spending in order to pay for the costs of the wars.

The United States is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, and the administration's failure to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is sending our country even deeper into red ink. For as brilliantly as our troops have performed on the battlefield, as brilliantly as they have fought and died on the battlefield, the administration's budgeteers are creating a budgetary catastrophe. But the executive branch has not always been so neglectful of the need to include in its budget the cost of ongoing wars. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is a long history of Presidents moving the cost of ongoing military operations into their annual budget requests rather than relying completely on supplemental appropriations bills.

For example, the Congressional Research Service reports President Franklin D. Roosevelt included funds for World War II in his fiscal year 1943 budget request. President Lyndon B. Johnson included funds for the Vietnam war in his fiscal year 1966 request. Military operations in Bosnia and the U.S. operations to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq were initially funded through supplemental appropriations. But in 1995, Congress forced President Bill Clinton to include those costs in his fiscal year 1997 budget, which he did. Upon assuming the Presidency, George W. Bush began to include the cost of the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo in his fiscal year 2001 budget request. I supported President Bush on that initiative because it made good fiscal sense. Twice I have offered amendments to the Defense appropriations bills to urge the President to add the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to his budget.

These amendments were approved by strong bipartisan majorities of the Senate. The first time I offered the amendment on July 17, 2003, it was approved 81 to 15. The second time I offered the amendment on June 24, 2004, it received even broader support and was approved 89 to 9. Each time, this sense-of-the-Senate provision was included in the Defense Appropriations Act and signed into law by the President.

Today, I offer an amendment that follows up on the Senate's call for the President to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us just have truth in accounting. This is honest accounting. We are letting the American people know how much they are paying for these wars.

This amendment builds on the sense-of-the-Senate language that has been approved by strong bipartisan majorities of the Senate in each of the last 2 years. Once again, this provision urges the President to budget for the cost of the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. However, my amendment today goes further and urges the President to submit an amended budget request for the cost of the wars to Congress no later than September 1, 2005.

Although the White House should have budgeted for this war long ago, this provision ratchets up the pressure on the administration to submit to Congress an estimate of the cost of the war for fiscal year 2006. Hopefully, this will be the first step in restoring some sanity to the President's budget request that has so far ignored the enormous costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This amendment also contains a section of findings that illustrate many of the points I have already made in urging the President to budget for the war. These findings emphasize the legislative history of the Senate urging the President to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The findings also present some of the conclusions reached by the Congressional Research Service about the funding of previous military operations through the regular appropriations process.

Finally, this amendment includes a reporting requirement that would help keep Congress informed--help keep us informed. We are elected by ``we the people,'' the first three words in the preamble of the Constitution. We are hearing a lot about the Constitution these days, and we are going to hear more. I am going to have a few things to say about it before it is over.

As I said, this amendment includes a reporting requirement that would help to keep Congress informed about the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This provision would require the Department of Defense to provide Congress with the specific amounts that have been spent to date--what is wrong with that?--for each of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, the Pentagon prefers to report only a single figure that combines the cost of these two wars, but Congress and the American people ought to know the exact cost of the war in Afghanistan. They ought to know the exact cost of the war that was forced upon our country in Afghanistan, and they need to know the cost of the war in Iraq, the war that the administration chose to begin, the invasion that the administration chose to set forth. These wars should not be confused one with the other. They are two different wars, and we should say so right up front. We should know the amount of money we spend in each.

In addition, this report would require the Pentagon to keep the Congress continually informed of estimates of military operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan for the next year so that Congress can have the better lens with which to look upon future budgets for our military.

This is nothing but right. The elected representatives of the people sitting in this body ought to know these things. We are representing the American people in our States and throughout the country. What is wrong with our telling them right up front? We need to know these things. I have a responsibility to my people back home. Not only that, but I have a responsibility to my children, my grandchildren, and to their children. Each of us has that responsibility, and we ought to ask for this information. We ought to insist on it.

Once again, the Senate should send a message to the administration that it ought to budget for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment sends that message in clear terms. I urge my colleagues to join me in approving this sense-of-the-Senate amendment with another strong bipartisan vote.

I call up my amendment No. 464.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I might call up the amendment at the desk, No. 463.

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

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

Mr. President, with this supplemental appropriations bill, Congress will have appropriated $300 billion for military operations and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is an enormous sum of money. We say it is for the troops in the field, for armor, weapons, equipment, and other mechanisms necessary to wage a war. But a significant portion does not make it to the troops. Much of it goes to defense contractors, corporate giants such as Halliburton that profit from the military operations and defense expenditures of the U.S. Government.

Halliburton reportedly has been awarded $11 billion in Iraq contracts. The war in Iraq may symbolize a time of sacrifice for American families, but for some--not all but for some--defense contractors, the cold, hard truth is that Iraq has become an opportunity to reap an enormous profit from American's decision to send America's sons and daughters into war. It is incumbent upon the Congress to be diligent in how these moneys are allocated to defense contractors. It is incumbent upon the Congress to be thorough in its oversight and to be meticulous in its accounting.

The administration has submitted five emergency supplemental spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. The size of these supplemental requests is massive, exceeding $80 billion this year, $25 million last year, and $160 billion the year before that. Most of these costs are being considered outside the checks and oversight of the regular budget and appropriations process. It is a confusing and, at times, a beguiling process that results in enormous sums of money flowing to contractors in Iraq, oftentimes without adequate oversight. Such a process invites waste, abuse, and fraud.

I don't belittle the role of defense contractors in Iraq. I belittle the circumstances that the administration has fostered. I belittle the suspicion that this administration has created by veiling its contractor negotiations in secrecy, and the whirlwind of allegations of misconduct and fraud that the administration has invited by not sharing information with the people of the United States, the American public.

The American people have good reason to question the costs emanating from contractors in Iraqi oil fields and Iraqi communities.

Three separate Government auditors have criticized contractor waste in Iraq. Government investigators point

to unsubstantiated costs and to sloppy accounting. Fortune magazine's analysis of Government reports found $2 billion of unjustified or undocumented charges. The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency has cited inadequacies and deficiencies in contractor billing systems, along with unreasonable and illogical cost justification. The Wall Street Journal reports that Pentagon auditors are investigating whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers by $212 million for delivering fuel to Iraq.

Questions have arisen in the House of Representatives about why these costs had been concealed from international auditors. The Government Accountability Office has cited the risks of inadequate cost controls for contractors in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority's inspector general cited millions of dollars in overcharges from Halliburton employees indulging themselves at the Kuwait Hilton. Imagine U.S. soldiers in the field forced to survive on military rations and suffering the unbearable heat of the desert while Halliburton employees enjoy the breakfast buffet in an air-conditioned Hilton.

The House Government Reform Committee reported hundreds of millions of dollars in waste by some contractors. A glance at the committee Web site reveals tens of millions of dollars in questionable charges--task order after task order showing $86 million in unexplained charges, $34 million in unsupported costs, $36 million in unjustified expenditures, and so on and so on. Incredibly, the Defense Department--your Defense Department, my Defense Department--is paying these charges, even though their own auditors are telling them that the charges are unjustified.

One example reported in the Wall Street Journal: Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root charged taxpayers for dining facility services in Iraq and Kuwait. Pentagon auditors flagged $200 million of unsupported costs--that is a lot of money--$200 million of unsupported costs, but the Defense Department released $145 million in compensation to Kellogg, Brown & Root despite auditors' reservations and despite Halliburton's inability to justify the charge.

It is the taxpayers--you people out there watching through those lenses, those electronic lenses, watching the Senate floor, I am talking about you--it is the taxpayers, your constituents, Mr. President, my constituents, who are being charged for this tripe. It is they who must bear the costs of such rip-offs. It is your money.

Our constituents read in the newspapers how lucrative contracts are awarded without competition, how enormous rewards are handed to campaign donors. Mention the name Halliburton, and, as Fortune magazine quips, an image flashes in the public's mind of ``a giant corporation engaged in shameless war profiteering--charging outrageous prices to provide fuel for Iraqis and meals for American troops.''

Our constituencies, the people who send us here, are crying out for Congress to assume a stronger oversight role and to assure them, the people, that their moneys are being spent wisely. The amendment I have offered today does exactly that. My amendment requires the Defense Secretary to provide the Committee on Appropriations and the Armed Services Committee with a quarterly report that lists and describes questionable and unsupported contractor charges identified by Pentagon auditors for Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment requires the Defense Secretary to withhold 100 percent of the payment for these charges and to assess a penalty by withholding an additional amount equal to 15 percent of the unsupported charge. If Pentagon auditors can verify the charges assessed by the contractor, that they are justifiable, then the Defense Secretary can release the payment.

My amendment is common sense. We ought not to be paying for services that have not been rendered. The American people ought not be paying for services that have not been rendered. The American people ought not be paying more than a fair market price. The American people ought not allow contractors to think they can hoodwink the American citizen and get away with it.

The American public is being asked to sacrifice to pay for this war. The President's budget cuts investments in education, in health care, in domestic priorities that impact every State of the Union in order to pay for these military and reconstruction activities. Congress ought to ensure--that is us--we ought to ensure that sacrifice is not wasted. We ought to slap the knuckles--and slap them hard--of any contractor, whether because of sloppy accounting or because of outright fraud, that results in the American taxpayer being bilked.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I urge its adoption.

I yield the floor.

I have no objection.

Amendment No. 499

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we begin today a historic debate on the floor of this House that commences the annual authorization process for the Department of Homeland Security. This annual process is designed to recognize that the function of the Department of Homeland Security is the essence of our government's national security mission, protecting the American people and our territory.

This is the same national security mission ultimately that is performed in different ways by the Pentagon and by the intelligence community. Both the Pentagon and the intelligence community for this same reason undergo an annual authorization process in the Congress. That is a collaboration between the executive and the legislative branches that is necessary to ensure that we fulfill this most vital function.

We must remember that the Department of Homeland Security in the executive branch and the Committees on Homeland Security in this House and in the other body were formed because the congressional leadership and the President recognized that neither branch of government as then constituted was properly organized to deal with the 21st century threat of terrorism directed against Americans on our own territory. On an ongoing basis, the Congress and the executive need to focus together on this vital process and the annual authorization is the means for doing so.

The Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that is before the House today reflects an impressive bipartisan effort. That is due, in large part, to the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). The Members on both sides of the aisle have never forgotten for a single day since September 11, 2001, that the security of the American people must be placed above politics.

So as we meet today to consider the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill for fiscal year 2006, we find that we have forged agreement on many important challenges facing our country and the Department, and on ways to begin to address them. In establishing the procedures for bringing this annual authorization bill to the floor, we have been guided by the long-standing practices of the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Those committees have always brought to the floor bills that live within the spending boundaries established in the House-passed budget. H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill also does exactly that.

To have credibility, a national security authorization bill must set the executive's priorities within the framework of its actual budgetary resources. It does little good for us to pretend that the Department of Homeland Security has infinite budget resources, and then give it mandates that it cannot carry out. So this bill funds priorities within the overall DHS budget, not on top of it.

Within that constraint, we have been able to accomplish a great deal more for the security of the American people and for this country. We fully fund the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for in the Intelligence Reform Act passed last year, and we increase the Department of Homeland Security's funding by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars for this purpose.

The bill authorizes $40 million so that immigration and customs enforcement can expedite illegal alien removal. It provides $5 million in new funding to implement the Safety Act so we can more quickly deploy anti-terrorism technologies to protect the American people from terrorism. It adds $20 million for interoperable communications and technical assistance for our first responders. It increases funding for cybersecurity research and development and for cybersecurity education and training.

Within the Department of Homeland Security budget that this House has already approved, we have authorized $40 million in additional funds to support the training of State and local law enforcement personnel so they can help enforce Federal immigration laws. This provision is contained in a separate amendment that I will offer today with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary.

On these and all other funding decisions in the bill, we have had to make hard choices and set priorities. That is our responsibility. As a result, we have not funded every initiative to protect against every conceivable means by which terrorists might mount an attack. But what we have done is based our funding decisions on the best intelligence available, on terrorist capabilities and intentions, and on the actual risk of terrorist attack. The bill also advances our prime objective of preventing terrorism by improving our intelligence capability within the Department of Homeland Security.

Prevention of terrorism requires that information sharing about terrorist threats be seamless, that it be timely, and that that communication be secure. That is exactly what this bill accomplishes, both within the Department of Homeland Security and across the Federal Government and with our State, local and private sector partners. It provides the Department of Homeland Security with new tools to build a robust intelligence capability. It strengthens the partnership with these other stakeholders.

Those partnerships are essential in sustaining the counterterrorism mission into the foreseeable future, and the bill will help the Department of Homeland Security to streamline and integrate the multitude of different background checks and security screenings that are conducted for travelers, workers and other critical personnel who are required to undergo security checks by the Department.

The bill revises the color-coded homeland security advisory system to make sure that threat warnings are specific and informative, and wherever possible, that these warnings be targeted. By targeting these warnings to the areas of the country or sectors of the economy that are threatened, we can be sure that we are warning the right people and not needlessly scaring the wrong people. We also need to make sure that the Federal Government gives clear guidance and speaks with one voice when it issues such warnings. This bill will ensure this happens.

This authorization bill is shorter this year than it will ever be in future years. That is because, first, the Department itself is only 2 years old, and Congress has just recently written the entire legislative charter for the Department.

Second, we have a new homeland security Secretary who is just concluding his top to bottom 90-day review of the entire department. We want to give Secretary Chertoff the opportunity to draw his own road map, both organizationally and programatically, of where this Department should go.

We will proceed on additional authorizing legislation later this year once we have had the opportunity through hearings and oversight to evaluate the Secretary's proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking the Members on both sides of the aisle and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for their foresight in creating the Committee on Homeland Security within the House of Representatives and for allowing us to initiate this annual authorization process on the floor. This is a significant milestone on our long journey toward keeping America safe from terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on our side, and I reserve the balance of the time for closing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for purposes of closing debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), both for his generous remarks but, more importantly, for his hard work on this piece of legislation over a period of several months and, as he pointed out, through ultimately a very long, arduous markup in the committee where members on both sides had an unlimited opportunity to offer amendments and consider a variety of topics.

As we conclude general debate and prepare to move into debate on the specific amendments on this bill, I think we can recognize one important fact, and that is that we are all agreed on the essence of the underlying bill. We have some things, each of us, that we might like to add to this bill, and I predict that in due course, over the rest of this year, we will have an opportunity again on this House floor to take up issues, including aviation security, chemical security, port security, and so on.

But the entirety of what we do accomplish in this bill is bipartisan in nature and agreed upon by the members on both sides of the aisle, at least in the Committee on Homeland Security, and we will soon see about the House as a whole. That is because we have allocated the $32 billion, for what is now the third largest Cabinet department, in a way that demonstrably advances our number one goal of preventing terrorism in the future on American soil, directed against American citizens, protecting America's most critical infrastructure against terrorist attack, and being prepared to respond and recover should, against all our best preparations, that ever occur in the future.

In order to bring us to this point, we have had to have a great deal of bipartisan assistance, all motivated by the best interests of the country from Members on both sides.

I specifically want to mention the vice chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon); the chairmen and ranking members of our five subcommittees, and the Staff Directors on both sides, Ben Cohen on the Majority side and Calvin Humphreys on the minority side. The staffs have done extraordinary professional work, and their staffs are drawn from, in many cases, the executive branch, with experience about precisely the work and the programs that we are overseeing in this legislation. Many of them have come from the intelligence community, others come from the Coast Guard and other branches of the armed services.

We can be very proud in this House about the institutionalization of the role of homeland security oversight and authorization that has been set in motion as a result of a decision of leadership on both sides, and I want to conclude by taking this opportunity, once again, to thank the House leadership for its very wise decision to create permanent authorizing and oversight responsibility in this Congress on an institutionalized basis, and then, today, taking the next important step of institutionalizing an annual authorization process so that together the legislative branch and the executive branch will closely collaborate on what is the essence of our national security responsibility to all Americans: making sure that we are safe and secure on American territory for the American citizens.

So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will draw this general debate to a conclusion, and I look forward to working with the body on the several amendments that have been made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I will at this time introduce into the Record a series of letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and other standing committees, including the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, concerning jurisdictional issues raised by this legislation.

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.

Hon. Christopher Cox,

Chairman, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to

consult and work with me as you guided H.R. 1817, ``the

Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2006'' from introduction, through

the Homeland Security Committee, and to the floor. As you

know, the Committee on Government Reform has been interested

in a number of provisions within H.R. 1817. The Committee has

been concerned that the expansion of the Department's

responsibilities for information sharing in Title II,

Subtitle B, Homeland Security Information Sharing and

Analysis Enhancement, not lessen the Department's

responsibility to follow government-wide policies and

procedures for the sharing of information. In addition to the

information sharing provisions of Subtitle B, the Committee

has specific jurisdictional interests in the following

provisions of your substitute: Sec. 201--Consolidated

Background Check Process; Sec. 216--Coordination of homeland

security threat analysis provided to non-Federal officials;

Sec. 217--9/11 Homeland Security Fellows Program; Sec. 221--

IAIP Personnel Recruitment; Sec. 302--Technology Development

and Transfer; Sec. 303--Review of Antiterrorism Activities;

Title III, Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security

Cybersecurity Enhancement; Sec. 334--Protection of

Information; and Sec. 502--GAO Report to Congress.

I would like to confirm our mutual understanding with

respect to the consideration of H.R. 1817. As you know, H.R.

1817 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Government

Reform. Because of your willingness to work with us to

resolve issues of concern to the Committee and to include

those improvements to the bill in your amendment in the

nature of a substitute on the floor, the Committee on

Government Reform did not consider H.R. 1817. However, the

Committee has done so only with the understanding that this

procedural route would not prejudice the Committee on

Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives

on this bill or similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform

should this bill or a similar Senate bill be considered in

conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you

include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Congressional Record during the House debate of this

bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do

not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this

matter.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), who is a very able and well-informed Member of the committee and serves as the ranking member on the committee on oversight, which has particular responsibilities in this area. I support his view of the importance of the Inspector General's function inside the Department of Homeland Security and of the mission of fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, and specifically in the Department of Homeland Security, because it is a critical mission.

The reason, however, that I cannot support the amendment is different than what I have just said. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) about the Inspector General's function and fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. First, I cannot support it because the authorization of $200 million, which is a tripling of the current budget, has no offset. It is therefore a budget buster.

As I stated in general debate, what has characterized our efforts on the underlying bill is that we are operating within the parameters of the House-passed budget, and specifically the allocation for the overall Department of Homeland Security of $32 billion.

When we make changes in the priorities in the bill by doing something else that is good, we have got to find somewhere to take the money from, and this amendment simply does not do it. It pulls the money from thin air.

Second, the new level of funding that this would establish, the enormous increase from $83 million at present to $200 million, would create an IG office and staff and administration virtually identical in size to that which exists in the largest Cabinet Department, the Department of Defense, even though DOD's budget and empire and responsibilities are 10 times larger than the Department of Homeland Security. So there is a problem of scale.

Third, not withstanding the testimony, correctly cited by my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), of former IGs about their experience and their need for more staff, the current IG has more staff.

The staffing level of the Office of Inspector General already has grown significantly over the last 3 years from 475 full-time employees in fiscal year 2004, to 502 in fiscal 2005, to 540 in fiscal year 2006.

And for that reason, neither the administration nor the Inspector General himself has asked for this increase that is before us in this amendment.

For all of these reasons, I regretfully oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on oversight and investigation. I will commit to continuing to work with him on the full committee and to make sure that the IG gets the resources that he needs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) with whom I am offering this amendment.

Our amendment will authorize funds to reimburse States for training costs that they incur if they voluntarily participate in the training of their law enforcement agents for the purposes of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws.

In 1996, I authored section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section is now codified as section 287(G) of the INA. It provided and continues to provide as a piece of our permanent legislation local and State law enforcement officers with the option of being trained and deputized by the Federal Government so that they can assist with the enforcement of our immigration laws in the pursuit of their normal duties of protecting citizens from crime.

Over the last 8 years, slowly but surely, we have learned how to use this facility so that the Department has entered into several memoranda of understanding, for example, with the State

of Florida in September 2002, the State of Alabama in September of 2003, and very recently the County of Los Angeles in pursuit of specific authorization by the elected officials of the County of Los Angeles in February of 2005.

So the reason that we are offering this amendment today is that inasmuch as this is a purely voluntary program, offering aid to State and local law enforcement that wants it that is asking for it and is volunteering for it, they should be reimbursed for their costs as first responders of helping us enforce Federal law and achieving the national mission of protecting our borders.

We need to capitalize on existing law enforcement resources by ensuring that State and local law enforcement have the opportunity to receive this training that will help them to protect their local communities.

In turn, those enforcement efforts will help protect the Nation from threats of terrorism. I want to emphasize just a few things. First, this amendment does not alter the fundamental voluntary nature of the participation of States and Federal Government. So no State and no subdivision of the State that does not wish in any way to be involved in the enforcement of our immigration laws will be required to do so, either under existing law or under this fund provision.

Second, the purpose of the law, of the training, and of the reimbursement is to focus on crime and on people who are not only unlawfully in this country but who are committing other crimes, in particular felonies.

Third, the training that is provided by the Federal Government specifically includes training in the areas of civil rights and the prevention of profiling.

I want to reiterate that this amendment does not change or alter any authority that already exists in law. It merely provides funding for States for their first responders who should be reimbursed for this training.

I fully support this program, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this amendment is offered jointly by myself as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.