National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3616, 3617, 3618 and 3619, en bloc

I ask that the pending amendments be laid aside and I be allowed to send to the desk two amendments.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Madam President, the U.S. Navy today very proudly has 12 aircraft carriers on active service. That is a figure that was acted upon by this body and the other body and enacted into law, instructing the Commander in Chief, the President, and the Secretary of Defense to maintain no less than 12 carriers in our fleet.

Subsequent to the legislation by the Congress, and the law enacted, the Navy has determined that the USS John F. Kennedy--a ship that bears a name in which every Member of this Chamber takes a deep and abiding pride--that ship is now 38 years old and is, in the judgment of the Chief of Naval Operations, not qualified to perform her primary mission of aviation operations. And she is not deployable without a significant investment of resources. By that I mean to return her to her primary mission would require an inordinate amount of money to go into reconstruction of the launching and arresting gear, the main powerplant, steam-powered plant. She is a conventional as opposed to a nuclear-powered carrier.

It is a decision of the Department of the Navy that those expenditures on a ship 38 years old are simply not prudent, not in the best interests of the Navy, and those funds should be directed towards new ship construction.

As to the risks inherent to naval aviation--and they are very significant risks to all of us who have been aboard those carriers and watched aircraft take off and land--and as to maintaining her at sea, at this point in time she cannot perform that primary mission. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to revise the previous legislation such that the Secretary of the Navy can retire this ship.

Now, I recognize to many it is a painful thing to realize this ship can no longer serve. But these are the consequences, if we were not to enact this legislation: Each month there is a delay on a decision--the decision being not acting on this piece of legislation--costs the Navy $20 million in operations and manpower funds, funds that are sorely needed elsewhere by the Navy.

It puts an extraordinary burden upon the sailors who are proudly attached to this ship and deep in their hearts regret that ship can no longer perform its primary mission. And it puts a burden on their families. There have to be adjustments in their new assignments--moves, transfers, and all the other personnel actions that are essential to maintain our fleets throughout the world.

Madam President, as I said, I rise today to offer an important piece of legislation related to our Navy and national security.

The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware, in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review the global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented fundamental changes to fleet deployment practices that have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have

provided appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago.

However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security requires that we modernize and expand our Navy.

The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force, to increase our expeditionary capability, to maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the open seas.

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical requirements against the backdrop of the National Defense Strategy and concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. This determination is in whole agreement with concerns raised by Congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15 years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force structure.

The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11 aircraft carriers provide the decisively superior combat capability required by the National Defense Strategy. Carefully considering this conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12 to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the naval force.

Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67.

The compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67, is not qualified to perform her primary mission of aviation operations, and she is not deployable without a significant investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and the risks inherent to naval aviation, there are very real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea.

In the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to safely operate and deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the naval force.

Meanwhile, each month that we delay on this decision costs the Navy $20 million in operations and manpower costs that are sorely needed to support greater priorities, and it levies an untold burden on the lives of the sailors and their families assigned to the Kennedy.

We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force structure, raising concerns with regard to long-term impacts on operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger, modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant seapower through the 21st century.

However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources, it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have served this country for so long.

To this end, I offer this amendment which would eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

Therefore, I urge the Senate to act favorably upon this amendment. At this time I will not seek the yeas and nays. I will defer to the manager that at such time as he believes it is appropriate that this matter be brought up.

Now, Madam President, to the second amendment. I have taken a great interest, along with other Senators--and it came into clear focus on my last trip to Afghanistan and to Iraq--that we simply have insufficient infrastructure in place from those Departments and agencies other than the Department of Defense. We are ever so proud of the courage and the dedication of the men and women in uniform who each day are assuming risks to see that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have a government of their own choosing and take their place alongside other democracies in our world community.

But they need help, those military people. The Iraqi people need help. The new government which is making considerable progress towards its formation needs help. We need people experienced in agriculture, people experienced in commerce, people who can help them devise a code of military justice, a framework of laws, the whole framework of infrastructure that must be put in place to support these emerging democracies.

I first learned of this need in testimony months ago by General Abizaid, General Casey, Ambassador Khalilzad appearing before the Armed Services Committee and, indeed, in other public appearances. I have talked to them personally.

I subsequently have had two brief meetings with the President of the United States on this subject. I am very pleased to say that he is in full support of this legislation, which legislation devised by the Office of Management and Budget enables the various Cabinet officers to give additional incentives to their employees to accept all of the risks and hardships of being transferred to Iraq to perform missions to support our military, to support the formation of the new government by the Iraqi people.

Madam President, as I said, I rise today to propose an amendment along with Senators Lugar and Clinton that will equalize authorities to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel of the U.S. Government serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many civilian agencies and Departments already have provisions to provide pay, allowances, benefits, and gratuities in danger zones. However, others do not. This amendment applies to those currently without such authorities.

Over the past few months, the President has explained candidly and frankly what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. The free nations of the world must be steadfast in helping the people of these nations to attain a level of democracy and freedom of their own choosing.

It is vital to the security of the American people that we help them succeed such that their lands never again become the breeding ground or haven for terrorism as was Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden and al- Qaida.

We have seen how terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have failed to stop Iraq's democratic progress.

They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004; they tried to stop millions from voting in the January 2005 elections; they tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October 2005 constitutional referendum; they tried to stop millions from voting in the December 2005 elections to form a permanent government under that constitution; and, in each case, they failed.

Just in the past few days, there have been significant, encouraging developments toward forming a unity government in Iraq. Clearly, the efforts of administration officials and congressional Members in meetings with Iraqi leaders and parliamentarians have contributed to these developments.

In my view, this represents important forward momentum, which has been long awaited. The new leadership in Iraq is making commitments to complete cabinet selection and take other actions to stand up a unity government. This is a pivotal moment in that critical period many of us spoke about after the December elections. We must be steadfast and demonstrate a strong show of support for Iraq's emerging government.

For 3 years now the coalition of military forces have, from the beginning, performed with the highest degree of professionalism, and they and their families have borne the brunt of the loss of life, injury, and separation.

In hearings of the Armed Services Committee this year, with a distinguished group of witnesses, and based on two--and I say this most respectfully and humbly--personal conversations I have had with the President of the United States and, indeed, the Secretary of State, I very forcefully said

to each of them that we need to get the entirety of our Federal Government engaged in our efforts to a greater degree.

The Department of Defense concurs. I was struck by the 2006 QDR that which aptly states that:

Success requires unified statecraft: the ability of the

U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements of national

power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies

and partners abroad.

I would add that General Abizaid, when he appeared before our committee this year, stated in his posture statement:

we need significantly more non-military personnel . . .

with expertise in areas such as economic development, civil

affairs, agriculture, and law.

I fully agree. I, along with five other Senators, heard the same sentiments from our field commanders and diplomatic officials during a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan last month.

The United States has a talented and magnificent Federal work force whose skills and expertise are in urgent need in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must provide our agency heads with the tools they need to harness these elements of national power at this critical time.

I have spoken about this publicly on previous occasions. I have written to each Cabinet Secretary asking for a review of their current and future programs to support our Nation's goals and objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have spoken to the President about this.

I will ask to have a copy of one of the letters printed in the Record.

The aim of this bill is to assist the U.S. Government in recruiting personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to avoid inequities in allowances, benefits, and gratuities among similarly situated U.S. Government civilian personnel. It is essential that the heads of all agencies who have personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have this authority with respect to allowances, benefits, and gratuities for such personnel.

In my conversations with President Bush and the Cabinet officers and others, there seems to be total support.

The administration, at their initiative, asked OMB to draw up the legislation, which I submit today in the form of an amendment.

I hope this will garner support across the aisle--Senator Clinton has certainly been active in this area, as have others--and that we can include this on the supplemental appropriations bill. The urgency is now, absolutely now.

Every day it becomes more and more critical that the message of 11 million Iraqi voters in December not be silenced. We want a government, a unified government, stood up and operating. To do that, this emerging Iraqi Government will utilize such assets as we can provide them from across the entire spectrum of our Government. Our troops have done their job with the Coalition Forces.

Now it is time for others in our Federal workforce to step forward and add their considerable devotion and expertise to make the peace secure in those nations so the lands of Iraq and Afghanistan do not revert to havens for terrorism and destruction. I know many in our exceptional civilian workforce will answer this noble call in the name of free people everywhere.

Madam President, I ask for the consideration of this amendment at such time as the distinguished manager so desires. I will reappear on the floor. Perhaps these amendments can be accepted. If not, I will ask for rollcall votes.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the before mentioned letter to Cabinet officials regarding interagency support to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about what is on everybody's mind in my State, and that is what is happening as it relates to gas prices.

First, we all know there are multiple ways in which we need to address this issue. I was in an Agriculture hearing this morning on biofuels. It is very exciting to see colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking about what we can do in the way of policy to build on what was in the Energy bill that was passed last August in terms of ethanol and biobased fuels.

I know in my home State, we will have five ethanol plants by the end of the year. We already have biobased diesel being used. There are many exciting opportunities to create jobs, to help our farmers create new markets, to address our environmental issues in a sound way that deal with protecting our environment, protecting the Earth and, at the same time, getting us off foreign oil. I believe very strongly, if we work together--and we need to do this boldly and quickly--we can start buying our fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East. That should be a goal for all of us. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle share the excitement about moving forward in this way. We have things happening in all of our States.

From my perspective, not only corn but sugar beets can be used for ethanol. Soybeans are part of what we grow in our multitude of different crops in Michigan, and there are a lot of opportunities, not just for fuel but for us to replace oil-based plastic with corn- byproduct-based plastic, and to do a number of other things that will move us off foreign oil, which needs to be one of our major goals as a Congress, and certainly working here in the Senate.

We have some short-term issues we have to deal with as well. While we move boldly--and I believe we need to move very quickly on the question of real competition--we also have to address what is happening right now without competition. We have an oil industry that has been consolidated down to five major companies. There is no real competition. It is not a regulated utility such as electricity and other basic necessities. Yet it is a necessity. Gasoline is not a luxury, it is a necessity. And the fact is, price increases for this necessity are making it harder and harder for people to be able to afford the product they need to get them to work, to get the kids to school, to be able to till the fields, to be able to do business, or to be able to take that trip up north in beautiful northern Michigan on vacation where tourism is so critical for us.

We also know it directly relates to jobs. GM executives have indicated, for example, that for every $1 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil, it costs them $4 million more to operate. So this is a question of jobs. From every angle, this is something that needs our immediate attention while we address where we go long term. Nothing would please me more than to be able to drive my American-made automobile into a service station--and by the way, they use flex fuels and E-85 ethanol and a number of products right now--right now--for our automobiles, and we see GM and Ford and Daimler Chrysler doing wonderfully bold things and advertising alternative fuels, flex fuels right now. But nothing would please me more than to see a pump with E- 85 in it that is giving competition to the other pumps where the prices are going through the roof.

It would be one thing if this was just about supply and demand, but it is not. We know there are multiple factors. It is not about an industry hard hit, an oil industry barely being able to make it because of international factors or because of the hurricanes. No, we are talking about an industry that had over $111 billion in combined profits last year. We are talking about ExxonMobile with the highest profits recorded in the history of the country. And to add insult to injury for people, that same company pays their top executive, we understand, the equivalent of $110,000 a day in salary--a day. That is more than the average person in Michigan makes in a year, $110,000 a day. Then, when he announced his retirement, he gets a combined package of $400 million.

No wonder people are outraged. No wonder they look at us and say: What are you doing? What is going on here? You have the industry with the highest profits ever paying their executives more than the revenue of some cities in my State. Yet, at the same time, the policies continue to support tax break after tax break subsidized by American taxpayers to continue to increase the profits of the oil companies. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is outrageous that the oil companies are bringing in billions of dollars in profits each year, while families are now paying over $40 every time they fill up their gas tank, and certainly it could be $50 or it could be $60. On average in Michigan right now, it is about $42. That is up $4 from last month and $10 from last year, and we know it is going to be going up and up as the summer goes on.

We also know that, unfortunately, there appears to be no relief in sight. On average, I am told that Michigan families will be paying at least $500 more in the next year for their gasoline

based on what is happening. Five hundred dollars may not sound like a lot to a lot of people. In fact, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond indicated in an interview with CNN that a single quarter or a single year of profits is ``not all that significant,'' and that what is happening evidently in the oil industry is not all that significant.

Well, it is significant when it comes to what is happening to people who are working hard every day trying to make it. Five hundred dollars is a house payment. It is the rent. It is a car payment. It is paying for food. It is making sure your kids have the opportunity to go to college, maybe pay for the books that are needed for them to be able to go to college for a year. So it is a lot of money for the average person.

I think it is outrageous that somebody who has been earning the equivalent of $110,000 a day would act like what is happening to average families and the profits that are going to the oil companies is somehow insignificant. People in my State don't know if they are going to have a job tomorrow. There are policies, unfortunately, that have caused manufacturers in our country to believe, I am concerned to say, that maybe we don't need to make things anymore in this country, which of course is what has built our middle class. And those folks who have built our middle class and created our way of life and are the consumers who buy goods so that we can be successful in this country are now feeling that they are getting hit on all sides. They may not have a job.

Health care is going up. They may not have their pension. The cost of college certainly has gone up, based on things that have been happening here, such as taking away $12 billion as it relates to student loans and other proposals, to have the cost of college go up.

Now, to add insult to injury, we have an industry that is more profitable than it has ever been, with the highest recorded profits by ExxonMobile, the highest of any publicly held company ever, and now the American consumer is being told: You are going to pay again. You are going to pay for all of the excesses that are going on right now by making it harder for you to get to work, to take the kids to school, to be able to do your job, and maybe to take a little vacation this summer. It is absolutely outrageous.

I want to also make the point that this is not about our gas station owners. I met with some terrific people on Monday who talked to me about how they are helping people literally piece together pennies, helping people who have been longtime customers of theirs, a single mom coming in with kids and the gas station owners trying to help her piece together a few dollars so they can put enough gas in the tank so she can go to work, so she can take care of her kids. I was told by one gas station owner that a gentleman came in with 69 cents trying to figure out how he could get a gallon of gas into his tank. Sixty-nine cents buys a quarter of a gallon. We are now hearing stories about pawn brokers doing great guns right now, their business is going great because people are pawning their watches, their jewelry, their cars, whatever they have, in order to get enough money to be able to drive to work.

This is in America. We can do better than this in our country. People expect us to stand up and fight for them, not an industry that is gouging the American consumer and raking in billions of profits in the meantime.

I am putting forward an amendment that will address this very thing. People say: What can we do about it right now? We need to look long term. When I began speaking, I said I know we need to look long term. This morning, in the Agriculture Committee, we had a wonderful bipartisan discussion, and there is a lot of excitement about a number of things that we can do together to look long term. We know there are ways for us to move off of foreign oil and to move off of oil period, and we can do that. There is the old saying that the first way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. We need to stop digging. Part of that right now is to stop the continuation of tax breaks that Americans, working hard every day and paying their taxes, are subsidizing for the oil companies which then turn around and are so grateful that they raise their price at the pump.

In the conference committee right now there is work being done relating to tax cuts. There is an additional $5 billion in new tax breaks for the oil companies. Some of it relates to how we subsidize their foreign activity. They do business with the Middle East and somehow we are going to give them favorable treatment through our tax policy. It makes absolutely no sense. It is an insult to the American people. That is on top of $2 billion that was put into the Energy bill that was passed last year in subsidies. It is unexplainable and unacceptable at a time when there are so many other areas where we need to provide tax relief, when we need to address middle-income people bumping up against the alternative minimum tax or small businesses that are trying to make it, businesses large and small, when we need to deal with health care costs that need a tax credit--and I am more than happy to support that. But instead of that, we have $5 billion in the conference committee report that subsidizes an industry that is raking in billions and billions of dollars in profits at the expense of the American consumer. I think that is wrong.

My amendment would take that $5 billion and instead put it right back in the pockets of the folks paying the bill. We know on average there is going to be about $500 in additional cost for the average family for the next year as a result of these high gas prices. My amendment will give an immediate $500 rebate to every individual or family, just as we did with the $300 rebate. It is the very same process that was done then, where people were given the $300 rebate when the tax cut was done. We can use that very same mechanism. It is very simple and straightforward. In fact, we can do this if we act quickly, before Labor Day, to help people pay their bills.

My amendment would give $500 back to each family or each individual filer so that they are able to help pay the price of this outrageously high-price gas. That is a short-term fix while we get our act together on what needs to be happening to create more competition and more alternatives, which I believe we can do, working together in the Senate. But I believe it is an outrageous situation when we are continuing to add $5 billion in tax breaks to an industry that is causing so much pain for American families.

My amendment is based on a bill of mine called the Oil Company Accountability Act. In total, it would repeal both the $5 billion in committee plus the $2.6 billion that was passed in the Energy bill, for a total of $7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, and provide an immediate $500 tax rebate to families to offset their energy costs.

I send the amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order, notwithstanding the point of order.

Mr. President, the people of Michigan and the people of the country deserve better than what we are doing right now. There is a sense of urgency. We can make this in order if we want it to be in order. There is no question about it.

If we come together and we want to act today, if we want to put in place the opportunity for people to have a $500 rebate before Labor Day to help pay for the high gas prices they are paying right this minute, we can do that. The choice of the majority is not to do that, but we could be doing that if there were agreement. That is very unfortunate because there is a sense of urgency on behalf of every individual, every family right now, trying to figure out what they are going to do, with gas prices that are over $3, $3.20, $3.50--in some parts of the country $4 a gallon. It is the difference between whether people will be able to pay their bills, go to work, do what they have to do for their families. The American people, certainly the people of my great State, deserve better than inaction.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when there is 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. President, as she is exiting the Chamber, I wish to commend my friend and colleague, the Senator from New York, for an excellent statement and comment about what is really at play here at noontime in the Senate; that is, a choice between meeting our responsibilities to the service men and women who are serving bravely and gallantly in Iraq and Afghanistan and also meeting our responsibilities to protect our country at our border. I have listened to her on many different occasions, and she spelled out the choice as clearly and as passionately as I have ever heard the case made. I thank her for her excellent and eloquent comments.

Mr. President, we are getting close to decision time on this particular amendment. Just to review very briefly where we are on the issues that are before us, I think all of us in this Chamber understand that we are making progress on an extremely difficult and complex issue; that is, the issue on immigration reform.

There are strong emotions, strong feelings, and strong beliefs on a variety of different aspects of immigration reform, but one which I believe has total support in this body is that what we do need to do is be able to control our borders, and to be able to do that, we have to be able to make the investment which is going to be necessary to secure our borders.

Many of us believe that just in and of itself trying to establish just a border or just a fence in one part of the country is not going to do it.

All we have to really do is look at history. We understand that 10 years ago, about 40,000 illegals were coming into the United States. Since that time, we have spent over $10 billion on border security, we have increased the number of border guards by 300 percent, and now we have some 400,000 coming into the United States.

It is going to take tough border security, but it is going to take something more in terms of law enforcement in this country for those who are eligible to be able to work and separating out those who are ineligible and also to be able to develop a program of earned citizenship for individuals who are here because they want to provide for their families, to work hard, to play by the rules, and to serve in the Armed Forces. They are prepared to pay a penalty, and they are prepared to go to the back of the line and wait their turn for up to 11 years before they would even be eligible for citizenship.

The immigration debate will continue along, and we will get back to it here in the Senate, but there is broad agreement on doing more in terms of our border security. There is some difference in how that should be shaped, but we ought to recognize that we need the resources, we need the $2 billion which is before the Senate. What is completely unacceptable is the tradeoff between trying to deal with and seal our borders and to see a reduction in the support for our military and the armed services in both Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of us have worked very hard to increase in more protective humvees and the up-armoring of the humvees over the last 3\1/2\ years.

I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We have had 12 different estimates from the Defense Department on the requirement for up-armor humvees, and after each and every time, they have raised the requirement in order to protect troops.

We have added resources, both in the Armed Services Committee and here on the floor, to ensure that we are going to provide the best protection that the humvees can provide when they are up-armored. Now we are faced with an amendment which would reduce the resources for up- armoring humvees, something I believe is completely unacceptable. The tradeoff is completely unacceptable. We need both.

We have read and Americans have understood that we need to do a great deal more on armor for our troops. We are all familiar with the stories of American servicemen going through

dumpsters in Iraq to get strips of steel and metal and strapping those onto their vehicles because we weren't providing sufficient body armor either to individuals or to the trucks that are used in convoys over there. Nonetheless, the proposal that is being offered by the Senator from New Hampshire would reduce the funds available for the kinds of protective armor which is so essential for individuals and for their vehicles.

The IED, as we have heard from General Casey, as we have heard from General Abizaid, and as we have heard from the commanders in the field, is the primary threat to American service men and women. Who of us has not watched the news virtually every single night and not seen the smoking ruins of some vehicle where young, brave, courageous American men have lost their lives? Those are primarily destroyed by IEDs.

We have not done the kind of research into IEDs necessary in order to master the technology so our servicemen will have a defense. In the very beginning, IEDs were being set off with simple signals, but we were unable to jam them because it interfered with our military's communications. We have an opportunity. We have sent men and women to the Moon and brought them back, but we are unable to develop the electronics to set off the IED before it can hurt our troops coming down the road. I don't understand it. But I know that we haven't utilized to the extent we should the entrepreneurship, the ideas, and the innovation in the private sector in terms of electronics to be able to advance this whole area of technology.

We have finally established a very interesting important task force to try to bring in the best minds in defense and the private sector together to solve this problem. But we are going to be cut back on that for border security. What possible sense does that make?

Those are a few of the very top priorities but there other priorities that will be affected, including training the Iraqi security forces to upgrade their skills so they can stand up and Americans can stand down. This amendment would cut that program, as well as training programs in Afghanistan.

Why in the world, if we have made assessments that these programs are justified, are necessary, that are included in the supplemental, is it possibly justified to say: Well, those weren't really accurate, those really didn't reflect the need? We can chip away at any number of those programs because we need border security. It is a bad choice. I would like to take note, particularly of some of the smaller dollar items but, nonetheless, items which are of enormous importance and consequence.

Family support counseling: We have read about the explosion in the number of divorces that have taken place among our service men and women who are returning from Iraq. It is now four or five times the national average of those in their generation because of the stress experienced by these individuals, both those who go to Iraq and, sadly, those who are left behind. So we provide assistance in terms of family support counseling, which is so important, so necessary.

And all of us are familiar with the stories of children who are missing their father and may have difficulties in school. We also hear of the families who have difficulties in adjusting to the fact that parents are away for a long time, come home for a brief time, and then are sent back to Iraq; come home for a brief time, and then are sent back to Iraq again. This puts enormous pressure on families who see these enormous potential dangers to the lives and well-being of their loved ones. So the resources in here to help with support counseling are very important. This amendment would reduce those services.

This amendment would also reduce the help and assistance, particularly, for patient transportation, medical services, and rehabilitation services, particularly for those severely wounded. The fact is, we have made some progress in the advancement of technology for helmets, so we have less injuries to the brain and to the head than we have seen in previous wars. And we have also made improvements in body armor. But as a result we have seen the extraordinary trauma in the extremities, and many servicemen have lost their limbs--legs and arms. We have some special provisions in this legislation to give greater focus and attention, direction and support, to programs that deal with these injuries.

I do not understand why, if we are talking about getting $2 billion for border security--which I strongly support--we ought to put at risk any of these programs. That is what this amendment will do. We know we have to do something to protect our borders. We know we need to make the improvements which are outlined in both the amendments of Senator Reid and Senator Gregg, which are areas I certainly support, but we should not do it at the cost of these essential programs which are absolutely necessary for those individuals who are fighting on the front line and risking their lives every single day in a dangerous part of the world, and their families.

It is the wrong choice to make, to put any of these programs at risk in order to support the $2 billion. We ought to be able to support that. We ought to add that and it should be a part of this Nation's obligation for the future.

I just remind ourselves of a recent excellent report by a Nobel laureate, Professor Stiglitz, at Columbia, whose estimate is that this war in Iraq--just in Iraq--is going to cost $1 trillion--$1 trillion-- before the end of it. A Nobel laureate estimating it will cost $1 trillion. We are being asked here for just about $2 billion to provide vital support services to those men and women who fight this war. It seems to me we have seen extraordinary expenditures already to date. I had my reservations, and I opposed going to this war, and I still believe it has not enhanced our national security or the security of Americans, but, nonetheless, what I am sure of is that it does not make sense for us to see a reduction in these programs that are so vital for our service men and women.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for his kind words about aircraft carrier named for my brother. The chairman has long been a friend of my family, and his support is deeply appreciated and reciprocated.

All of us in our family are proud of the USS John F. Kennedy, and to her many years of outstanding service to our country. The keel for the carrier was laid on October 22, 1964, in the chairman's home State of Virginia. She was christened on May 27, 1967, by President Kennedy's daughter Caroline, when she was just 9 years old, the carrier came to be affectionately known to her crew as ``Big John.''

In 1983, the JFK was called upon to support U.S. forces during the growing crisis in Beirut. Six years later, at the height of the cold war, F-14 Tomcats assigned to the Kennedy shot down two Libyan Mig-23s that were threatening the battle group.

Afterward, the JFK returned to the U.S. and visited New York City for Fleet Week and then returned home to Boston for the Fourth of July, to the state that my brother was so proud to represent. Soon after that, she was assigned to the Red Sea, and stayed to support Gulf War I in Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

The following year, she was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea and monitored the turmoil in the former Yugoslavia. Later returning to the U.S. for routine maintenance, she was designated as the Reserve Operational Carrier.

In 1996, the carrier made a dramatic visit to the port of Dublin in Ireland.

More than 10,000 visitors were able to tour the ship and learn about her history. I was honored to be there for that visit and awed by love the Irish people showed her. Before she left, 16 planes from the JFK took off from the flight deck and performed a thank-you flyover of Cork and Dublin, in gratitude for the affection shown by people.

From September 1999 through March 2000, the JFK was back in the Mediterranean, and her aircraft patrolled Iraq's southern no-fly-zone. In 2002, in the Mediterranean and in the Arabian Gulf, she supported our troops in Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom. She was called on again in 2004 to support U.S. troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom. She was relieved by the USS Harry S Truman. She returned to her homeport in Mayport, FL, that December and last year, she made what may be her final visits to Boston and New York.

It is bittersweet to know she will be retired, but the people of Massachusetts and the Kennedy family are very proud of her service and know she holds a special place in the hearts of the Navy and the Nation.

Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have consumed 12 minutes.

Mr. President, I didn't expect to hear the Democratic leader talk about the immigration bill this morning and his and Senator Kennedy's desire to rush it through the House of Representatives, calling for action now. It is a very bad bill, and it impacts directly the issues we are talking about today--wages for working Americans. I am going to talk about that issue and ask our colleagues to give serious thought to the matters I will raise.

With regard to our colleagues who claim they are concerned about poverty among American workers, I ask those Members--Senator Reid and Senator Kennedy--who proposed the immigration bill and tried to rush it through this Senate without any amendments to consider some of the concerns of their own allies, economists and professors, who believe that if passed, it would damage the wages of American workers.

I agree that we have a troubling condition in our country. People have referred to it often as the wage gap, that higher income people seem to be doing well, but there has been a lag in performance among lower income workers. That has caused quite a bit of concern. I am not sure exactly what the economic numbers show on that, but repeatedly, we have been told often from our Democratic colleagues--but not so much lately--that there is a growing gap in income. Why is this occurring? I wish to share some thoughts about it because I believe it is important.

Let me mention this: I don't want the American worker to have a $7.25-an-hour job; I want them to have a $15-an-hour job, a $30-an-hour job. That is what we want in an economy that is growing and prosperous. We want a full-employment economy where people can choose jobs that fulfill their highest aspirations and pay them a good wage, with good retirement and good health care, and we are creating a growing economy that nurtures that. But for some reason, the wages in some job markets have not kept up as well as they should.

I will read from a number of experts on this matter and ask my colleagues to think about it, not what I say but what the experts say. I am looking at a Washington Post article from Jonathan Weisman, March 31, dealing with this precise issue of minimum wage and immigration. It is titled ``Immigration Divides Allies, Guest Worker Plan Sets Democratic Supports Against Organized Labor.'' It starts off saying this:

A growing body of economic research contends that the

recent surge of foreign workers has depressed wages for low-

skilled workers, especially for high school dropouts, and has

even begun displacing native-born workers.

Then the article quotes Professor George Borjas, an economist at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He has written a definitive book on immigration, ``Heaven's Door.'' He says:

What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away

from workers toward employers.

I did mention my good friend Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has been a champion for civil rights, and a champion for helping us fight poverty, and he cares about this issue very deeply. He sincerely does. But I suggest he is not always perfectly correct on how to fix it. We can have a legitimate debate about how to improve the wages of working Americans, and that is what we need to be talking about.

The article says:

Kennedy, the Senate's liberal lion and an unflagging ally

of organized labor, says the [immigration] legislation he co-

wrote would help all low-wage workers by applying minimum-

wage laws and other . . . protections.

The AFL-CIO disagrees. According to John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO President:

Guest-worker programs cast [American] workers into a

perennial second-class status and unfairly put their fates

into their employers' hands, creating a situation ripe for

exploitation. . . .

He goes on:

``They encourage employers to turn good jobs into temporary

jobs at reduced wages and diminished working conditions and

contribute to the growing class of workers laboring in

poverty.''

That was Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Weisman, the staff writer for the Washington Post, then quotes Professor Borjas:

But some of those macroeconomic gains have come at the

expense of low-wage workers, especially the 10 percent of the

labor force that dropped out of high school. In recent years,

competition from low-skilled immigrant workers has reduced

the wages of high school dropouts by as much as 8 percent,

Borjas said.

How about another professor, Andrew Sum, director of Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. The article says quotes him:

Looking at annual earnings, the percentage losses are in

the double digits, said Andrew Sum, director of Northeastern

University's Center for Labor Market Studies, because jobs

that once provided year-round employment are increasingly

becoming temporary.

A Northeastern University study found that nearly 86

percent----

Listen to this, I say to my colleagues, this is important for us.

A Northeastern study found that nearly 86 percent of all

newly employed workers hired from 2000 to 2005 were

immigrants. For men, the statistics were more stark. In that

time, the labor market for men rose by 2.66 million while

2.77 million foreign-born men found work.

Listen to that: The Northeastern study found that foreign-born workers filled all of the new jobs created for men between 2000 and 2005, plus some other jobs.

In other words, Sum said, immigrants have begun replacing

native-born male workers.

In the immigration bill floor debate, if we not forced the Democratic side to allow us to have some amendments and reduce some of the incredible increases in immigration under the bill as presented, it would have been shocking what the immigration bill would have done to the jobs and wages of American workers. Even after successful amendments that cut the numbers of low-skilled workers allowed to come in the future, the Senate bill will still, over 20 years, virtually triple the number of people coming into our country legally, not counting those who will continue to come illegally. That will undoubtedly impact our economy. That is why the House of Representatives needs to examine this bill very carefully before we go to conference.

How about this one? Professor Sum is quoted again in the Post article: ``Young guys are being displaced by immigrants,'' he said. ``Some of my good liberal friends take issue, but if you're a young worker under 25, poorly educated, probably African American, the higher the share of new immigrants in your community, the worse your employment prospects are becoming.''

How about Carol Swain, a law professor and political scientist at Vanderbilt University? She is also quoted in the Post article:

``What they're doing is increasing the pool of people

eligible to compete for the very limited resources that are

available for the people at the bottom. . . .The obligation

of the nation should be for the people who have been here for

decades.''

How about the famous economics professor Robert Samuelson? He wrote an article in May in the Washington Post titled ``Still Dodging Immigration's Truths.'' He quotes approvingly

from the testimony before our Judiciary Committee of Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois, an immigration scholar, most respected, who said the presence of immigrants in the labor market:

Increases competition for low-skilled jobs, reducing the

earnings of low-skilled native-born workers. Because of their

low earnings, low-skilled immigrants also tend to pay less in

taxes than they receive in public benefits. . . . Hardly

anyone is discussing these issues candidly. We can be a

lawful society and a welcoming society simultaneously [as

President Bush has said] but we cannot be a welcoming society

for limitless numbers . . . without seriously compromising

our own future.

Part of the future he is talking about, is the future of the American worker. Samuelson goes on to say, and I quote the line from Professor Samuelson's article: ``Competition among them [low-skilled workers] depresses wages.'' He is talking about the additional flow of illegal immigrants into our country, or legal immigrants, for that matter. Increasing competition for the American worker by increasing the number of immigrant workers available in the labor market will depress the wages for the American worker.

In another article, Professor Samuelson, says this. He notes that illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force, and in no major occupation are immigrants a majority. They are 36 percent of insulation workers, 28 percent of drywall installers, and 20 percent of cooks who are drawn here by wage differences, not labor shortages. He writes about how most new illegal immigrants get work by accepting wages below the prevailing rates. What would happen, he asks, if new, illegal immigration stopped and wasn't replaced by guest workers? Well, some employers would raise wages to attract U.S. workers.

I thank the Chair. He goes on to say: Facing greater labor costs, some would find ways to minimize costs. But he goes on to ask this question, and let me quote Professor Samuelson:

What is wrong with higher wages for the poorest workers?

From 1994 to 2004, the wages of high school dropouts rose

only 2.3 percent after inflation, compared with 11.9 percent

for college graduates. The number of native high school

dropouts with jobs declined by 1.3 million from 2000 to 2005.

Some lost jobs to immigrants. Unemployment remains high for

some groups; 9.3 percent for African Americans.

I know that is true in my State. Although we have a great unemployment rate in Alabama--under 4 percent--we still have a far too high rate among the African-American community. And 12.7 percent for white teenagers, he notes. He says this: Poor immigrant workers hurt the wages of unskilled Americans; the only question is how much. One estimate, he said, was 10 percent.

We discussed these issues in the Judiciary Committee. We had one hearing on it. We had a number of professors, including Professor Freeman, the Ascherman Professor of Economics at Harvard. He said these things about the jobs and wages of American workers:

One of the concerns when immigrants come in is they may

take jobs from some Americans and drive down the wages of

some Americans and obviously, if there are a large number of

immigrants coming in, if they are coming in at a bad economic

time, that is very likely to happen.

Professor Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago said the following:

The large increase in low-skilled immigration has had the

effect of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities

of low-skilled workers who are currently resident in the

United States.

He said this:

Over the past two decades, the real earnings of high-

skilled workers has risen substantially. The real earnings of

low-skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased.

These economists are telling us what other people will not. We are being told by the business community that there is this incredible shortage out there--they can't find workers so they have to have foreign workers--but now we know the earnings of low-skilled workers have stagnated and decreased. Why? If a business wants to find more workers, they will usually increase wages, not decrease them.

He goes on to say--my time is about up, but I have quite a number of others.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I would note we wrestled before Y2K as to how many high-skilled foreign workers the U.S. needed to let in for that period--you and I both discussed that in the Judiciary Committee and whether it would adversely impact the wages of high-skilled American workers. I would say that the current rate of immigration, legal and illegal--and I believe there is a growing consensus that supports this view--has depressed the wages of low- skilled American workers. I would ask the Senator if he would dispute the fact that the immigration bill he introduced would have greatly increased the number of immigrants into the country and wouldn't that have further adversely impacted the wages of low-skilled American workers?

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the Democratic side?

Mr. President, the news this morning tells us Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is in Iraq. That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the leaders of our Government to be in touch in the field to let them know we are on their side. I am glad the Secretary is there. I know when he visits there, he often learns things--things that help us wage this war more effectively.

Do you remember not so long ago when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had an open meeting with the soldiers in Iraq? He invited them to comment on how the war was going. A member of the Tennessee National Guard stood up and said: Mr. Secretary, why as a soldier do I have to dig through a dump to find a piece of metal to put in my humvee to protect me and my fellow soldiers? Why has it come to this?

It was a moment of great embarrassment for the Secretary. It was a moment of embarrassment for our Nation. We ask these young men and women to take an oath to defend this country and risk their lives in uniform for us every day. We stand and sit in the comfort of this Chamber on Capitol Hill with all of the protection around us, and they wake up every morning putting on a uniform knowing it may be their last day on Earth.

Now take a look at this amendment. Take a close look at this amendment. This amendment is designed to give us better control of our borders, and we need it. Our borders are out of control. There are 500,000 illegal people crossing

them every year, at least. We know that has to change, not just because of the immigration issue, a terrible challenge to America to get it right, but because of security. So we all support, on both sides of the aisle, more resources at the borders, more people, more technology, better efforts to stop this illegal flow of immigration.

It is a serious problem, and we should take it seriously. That is why the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, has offered this amendment, an amendment which provides the resources for the border. He says it is an emergency; it should be treated as such. I couldn't agree with him more.

But listen to the other side of the aisle. Senator Gregg on the Republican side said we can only pay for border security at the expense of soldiers in the field. He takes the roughly $2 billion out of the military account to make our borders stronger. That is not fair to the soldiers. It is not fair to the men and women who are risking their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We know we have failed them many times. This administration has failed to provide the body armor these troops needed. Senator Dodd of Connecticut had to offer an amendment to allow ordinary American families to deduct from their taxes the cost of body armor that they would buy for their soldiers which they sent overseas. I have met them in Illinois, families who said: I got tired of waiting for the Army to give my son protection; my wife and I bought it ourselves.

Another one said: We had a little potluck supper at church to raise money for body armor for our soldiers.

Think about that. We know about these humvees. They were death traps for entirely too long. They were not well protected. We know what happened. We had helicopters in the field that didn't have good defense devices, and they were shot down.

Now the Republican side says let's take more money away from the defense of our soldiers so our borders are more secure. What a terrible choice to ask of this Senate, but what an easy choice for many of us.

I am not going to take money away from these soldiers. This Senator voted against this war in Iraq, but I have voted to give this President and this administration every penny they have asked for to wage this war for one basic reason. I thought to myself: What if it were my son or daughter, would I want them to have the best equipment and best supplies, even if I felt the foreign policy was wrong? You bet. And when it comes to this choice in this amendment, it is very clear. We can take the Republican approach of making our borders safer while making our soldiers less safe, or we can take the approach which Senator Reid is suggesting: Declare this an emergency at our borders that deserves emergency status.

Isn't it interesting, when it comes down to these choices, so many on the Republican side of the aisle say: Now we are going to be fiscal conservatives, fiscal conservatives at the expense of our soldiers. It is plain wrong.

I ask my colleagues: Read these amendments carefully. Understand the stark choice we are being given. Support Senator Reid's amendment which declares it an emergency to have strong enforcement at the borders but not at the expense of our men and women in uniform who risk their lives while we stand in the safety of this Capitol Building.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is absent due to illness in family.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Massachussetts (Mr. Kerry) is absent due to illness in the family. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachussetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is absent due to illness in the family.

I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I ask unanimous consent to set aside all pending amendments and call up amendment No. 3632.

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

Mr. President, more than half the men and women serving the United States now in Iraq and Afghanistan are members of Guard and Reserve units. Not that long ago they were working civilian jobs with regular payroll and, of course, performing their responsibilities in the Guard and Reserve on weekends and during summer duty. They understood when they volunteered that they could be activated. They have been. In my State, 80 percent of the Guard units have been activated. They have served this Nation bravely, selflessly. They have done it at great sacrifice to themselves and their families: The pain of separation to be away from your family for a whole year, sometimes longer, to be gone when important family events occur, and an additional hardship that comes with this service.

Some of these service men and women find that when they are activated in the Guard and Reserve units, they are paid less by the military than they were receiving in their civilian capacity. So the expenses they incur, the bills they have to pay--whether it is for a mortgage, utility bills, education expenses for their children--continue, even though as they serve our country they receive less money. We are fortunate that many of their civilian employers have stepped up and said: We will protect you. If you will stand up for America, we will stand up for you. We will make up the difference between your pay as you serve our country in the Guard and Reserve and what you would have earned if you would have stayed here.

We appreciate that. As a nation, we should be grateful, thankful that these companies stand by these men and women when they need it most so that as they worry about the pain of separation and coming home safely, they don't have to worry about whether the bills will be paid. We create Federal Government Web sites paying tribute to these companies that stand by Guard and Reserve Units. Some of the companies and some of the entities involved include Ford Motor Company, IBM, Verizon, Safeway, the State of California, Los Angeles County, and Austin, TX. The list goes on and on. There are some 23 different States that have said: If any of our State employees are activated, we will make up the difference in pay.

So why do I rise today with this amendment? Because the largest single employer of Guard and Reserve members in the United States fails to make up that difference in pay. There is one huge employer that will not say to these activated men and women: We will stand by you. If you are going to lose money, we will make up the difference.

Who could that employer possibly be? The United States Government. The Federal Government does not make up the difference in pay for these Guard and Reserve members. Why? If we value their service, if we praise these private entities and State governments and local governments that stand by these men and women, if we say they are setting a great example for America, why aren't we setting an example as the Federal Government? Why aren't we making up the difference in pay?

Some would argue there may be a disparity, that you may have two sergeants serving in the same place: one is in the active military being paid less than one who is having a supplemented salary as a former Federal employee, now activated as a sergeant serving overseas. Think about the current disparity, a disparity where this soldier, in private life a few weeks or months before, incurred expenses for his family which he thought he would be able to pay, and now, because he is serving his country, he cannot. I don't think the active military soldier will resent this. They will understand it and be glad they have a fellow soldier standing by them, leaving the comfort and security

of a civilian life to serve our country so well.

What this amendment says is that the Federal Government will stand behind its employees activated in the Guard and Reserve to make up the difference in pay for them. It is a reasonable suggestion--in fact, so reasonable it has passed in the Senate several times, last time by an overwhelming vote. More than 90 Senators voted for it. Sadly, when it goes to conference where the House and Senate come together, it doesn't have a good fate. It turns out the Department of Defense and this administration don't care for the idea much, and they usually kill it once it gets to conference.

I am going to give them another chance for this Government to stand behind these soldiers. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me, as well as my other colleagues--Senator Mikulski of Maryland, who is a cosponsor, Senator Allen of Virginia, Senators Biden, Bingaman, Landrieu, and Lautenberg. We offer this amendment and hope that it will be adopted.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is absent due to family illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is absent due to family illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is absent due to family illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. President, sitting here listening to my colleague from Tennessee reminds me of that old story about the boy who kills his parents and then stood before the judge and asked for mercy because he was an orphan. This is an unbelievable narration we have just heard.

The other side of the aisle has been expert in running up the largest deficits we have ever had. We had a balanced budget, we had a surplus 5 years ago. We were on the right track economically. We were fiscally responsible. But the combination of this White House and this Republican majority has blown all of that to smithereens.

This President has never vetoed anything and now we finally get a veto threat on an emergency supplemental. This President has used emergency supplementals in order to avoid the budget realities that would confront anyone who knows elementary arithmetic about how much we are spending that we do not have.

With all due respect to my colleague, this is a rather strange argument to be making at this point in time as though none of the history of the previous 5 years had occurred.

The debate between these two amendments is a worthy debate; however, it is an unnecessary debate. The President sent a budget to this Congress just a few months ago. It could have had much of what is in this emergency supplemental in the budget. They chose not to do so because even they are getting a little embarrassed about the ocean of red ink we are all swimming in these days.

What this supplemental appropriations bill does is provide vital support for our men and women currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This emergency supplemental provides body armor, tools to defeat improvised explosive devices, the so-called IEDs that are killing and maiming young Americans every single day. This supplemental provides money for training for the Iraqi security forces. Maybe, finally, we will have a government in Iraq that knows how to do that. They certainly need to get the message that we are not there for the long term unless they start defending themselves and providing security for their own people.

These funds are to replenish the money we are spending in our military to make sure our young men and women who are bravely serving us have the resources, the equipment, the tools they need to do the job we sent them to do.

The bill also includes funds to continue the rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina. As we approach yet another month of debris, confused leadership, failure to supervise and monitor expenditures from this administration, we know how much more needs to be done to rebuild New Orleans and the gulf coast region.

Here we are, about to have a vote in a few hours on an amendment-- really, two amendments--as to whether we are also going to face up to our responsibilities along our border, and how we are going to pay for that. Both the Gregg amendment and the Reid amendment recognize the critical need for increased border security.

I have long maintained it is unconscionable to think that in our post-September 11 world we still do not know the identities of people who enter our country, stay illegally in our country, and may or may not exit our country. Over the past several weeks, we have seen agreement in the Senate that securing our borders must be a top priority and a major component of whatever immigration reform we consider.

Now, there are those who are, frankly, misguided and demagogic in their claims that all we need is border security. We know that is not the case. Senator Kennedy, who is in the Chamber at this moment, has been a leader on immigration reform for decades. He knows if you do not have comprehensive immigration reform, you do not deal with the challenges we confront.

We all are in agreement we have to do more to secure our porous borders. The Reid amendment is a step in the right direction because it does provide $1.9 billion to strengthen our borders. These funds would be used to replace and upgrade law enforcement communications, provide Border Patrol agents with air and land vehicles, expand air operations for Customs and border protection, invest $100 million in sensor and surveillance technology that will help our Border Patrol agents be more effective.

If we can succeed in securing our borders, something that we have not yet succeeded in doing, then we can turn our attention as a nation and focus our energies and our resources on other credible threats against our homeland.

I commend Senator Reid's efforts to direct resources to strengthening our borders. I know he would agree with me that obtaining these additional funds should not be mistaken for comprehensive immigration reform. We still need comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, creates a better set of agreements and understandings with our neighbors to the south as to what they are going to do to stop the flow of illegal immigrants through their countries, particularly Mexico, and imposes and enforces tough sanctions against employers who employ illegal immigrants. After all, these people would not be risking their lives if there wasn't a job waiting for them at the other end of their dangerous journey; make sure we don't disadvantage people who have waited legally for their opportunity to come here to join a family member and to get a job that has been promised.

We need to do something to help alleviate the financial burden on local communities--not just along the border but, frankly, in New York--that are paying health care and education and law enforcement costs because this Federal Government can't figure out how to run an immigration system.

Yes, we need an earned pass to citizenship to bring out of the shadows the 11 or 12 million hard-working immigrants who are here and give them a chance through paying back taxes, going through a background check, learning English, and waiting their turn to become legal. We know what comprehensive reform looks like. And border security is absolutely paramount, but passing the Gregg amendment is not the end of immigration reform. I hope everyone understands that.

My colleague from New Hampshire agrees that we need to increase border security, but he would cut needed funds for our troops in the name of border security. The Gregg amendment would take money from troop pay, body armor, and even from the joint improvised explosive device funds. That is a false choice, and it is a wrong choice.

I do not believe that we should be engage in deficit spending. That is why I have voted against many of the provisions that have come from the other side--tax cuts which we can't afford, spending that should be under control. But it is an odd moment indeed that all

of a sudden my friends have found a conversion experience and they want to take money from our troops to secure our borders. I will take that comparison any time. I will be on any list that says don't take money from our troops; don't cut the research which we finally have as to how we are going to defeat improvised explosive devices because you now decide you want to do border security when you have been presenting budgets for 5 years after 9/11.

We need to get serious about defending this country and the men and women who serve on its behalf. We shouldn't be cutting funds for our troops in the name of border security. It is wrong to cut funds for body armor or for efforts to defeat IEDs. It is wrong to cut money from Iraqi security force training when they are finally about to have an Iraqi Government, something we have all been waiting for. It is wrong to cut the defense health program which provides medical assistance to our troops on the battlefield. And it is wrong to cut the death gratuity which assists the families of fallen soldiers.

If I sound a little passionate about this, it is because I am. I find this a false, cheap choice to score political points. And I think it is wrong.

The most important obligation of our Government is to provide for the security of the American people. Border security is an urgent need. It should and must be addressed by this Congress. But our security and our values are not served by choosing between protecting our troops and protecting our homeland, nor by playing support for our men and women in uniform against our need for border security. The Gregg amendment undermines both. I urge my colleagues to support the Reid amendment.

Do we need to get back to fiscal responsibility? You bet we do. Let us talk about that when it comes to cutting even more taxes for people making more than $1 million a year. Let us talk about that when we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us talk about that when we borrow $60 billion a month from foreign lenders, such as the Governments of China, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and India.

How do we protect our security against an increasingly dangerous world? How do we stand up to the threats from unstable regimes and from competition from China and elsewhere for scarce natural resources when we can't even get our own fiscal house in order because the other side of the aisle and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are addicted to tax cuts for the wealthy regardless of the costs for anything else, regardless of the costs for our country?

We need an energy policy that moves us toward energy independence. We get rhetoric, we don't get budget priorities. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed money. We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel--not just $75. We have no leadership. We are not asked to sacrifice anything. The only people who sacrifice on a daily basis are the young men and women wearing our uniform.

Now we are standing up here with a straight face saying we are going to cut funds for body armor, we are going to cut the IED research program, we are going to cut the death gratuity so we can score political points and act all of sudden as if we have become fiscally responsible. I am sorry, I find that a sad commentary about what should be expected from each and every one of us.

I hope we will begin to seek common ground and try to figure out how we get ourselves out of the dangerous situation we are in today. All one has to do is pick up the morning newspapers or turn on the news. It is beyond me why we would want to have a political debate pitting border security against the needs of our men and women in uniform.

There are other ways to pay for this. There is money for construction that could be postponed until a real budget emerges. There are other kinds of options. But, no, we are going to have a debate about two serious, urgent requirements that we should be stepping up to meet.

I hope we will support the Reid amendment and do what is right by our troops and our border needs, and then let's get down to a serious discussion that is long overdue in this Chamber about where this country is headed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, for those of us who have served in the Senate for the past 5 years, the irony of the amendments before us today is inescapable. Had the Bush administration fulfilled its promises over those years and lived up to its rhetoric about bolstering our Nation's border security, there would be no need for the emergency supplemental spending amendments proposed by the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and the Democratic leader.

The administration's failure on this front has not gone unnoticed. In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Report Card gave the Bush administration a `D' grade for its efforts on border security, and specifically, for its failures in fostering international collaboration to improve border security. This is particularly disappointing in light of the grandiose statements in February 2001 in which the President heralded a new era of cooperation with President Vicente Fox on immigration and border issues.

For all its talk and swagger about security, the Bush-Cheney administration has not lived up to its public promises. Just last month we heard about nuclear material being successfully smuggled across our borders in a sting operation. Not long after that bombshell, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employee, Michael Maxwell, testified before a House subcommittee about an astonishing culture of corruption, and misdirected priorities in the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with processing immigration applications. For an administration that has regularly touted its commitment to national security, it is incomprehensible that the type of behavior Mr. Maxwell testified about was occurring in one of our most critical border security agencies.

You do not have to take my word for it or read the New York Times to see criticism of this administration's competence when it comes to border security. Take just one day's worth of reports from the Washington Times, one of the most conservative papers in the country. On Tuesday, that paper ran a front page story in which it reported that U.S. law enforcement officials say that ``[h]undreds of Mexican nationals who wear government-issued uniforms, carry official identification cards and are authorized to use weapons are helping smugglers move tons of drugs into the United States.'' This follows numerous reports of uniformed incursions into the United States.

On page 3 we read that the Homeland Security Department's inspector general has completed a 22-month investigation ``into Syrian nationals suspected of practicing to hijack a plane during a Detroit-to-Los Angeles flight.'' The inspector general's public summary says that the Department needs to better coordinate information on suspicious passengers, and on the conflicting jurisdictions of the FBI and Federal Air Marshal Service that can

compromise investigations of in-flight incidents. Because the 40-page inspector general report is classified, its detailed contents have not been made public, but it involves an incident from June 2004. According to the paper, the suspects were traveling under expired visas on one- way tickets bought with cash, but that immigration officials had failed to report to the airport to detain them.

Then on page 13, Tuesday's Washington Times reports about the case of a high-ranking Iranian official travels in and out of the United States on a U.S. green card, even though he carries an Iranian passport and is reported to be ``an economics and technology aide to Iran's top nuclear negotiator,'' and is reported to have ``joined the Iranian government last year'' and to be a ``high-ranking Iranian official.''

The three incidents I have just described are all possible border security scandals reported in just one newspaper on just 1 day.

Just as gas prices for American consumers have doubled during the Bush-Cheney administration so, too, have the number of undocumented immigrants within the United States doubled. I do not think that I need to remind the American people that the same Government Department that so mishandled Katrina and its aftermath is in charge of border security. Nor will any of us forget that after 9/11 the immigration authorities were still sending cordial correspondence to dead suicide hijackers.

Here in Congress, we have met the President's calls for increased border enforcement with authorizations across the board. Indeed, we have often acted, as we are now, to provide additional authorities and resources that the administration did not request in order to try to force progress on border security. The administration, however, has not lived up to its end of the bargain. Despite the funding mandates of the intelligence reform bill that provided for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents annually, the President's budget request for 2006 would have provided enough funding to add only 210 Border Patrol agents. That is 10 percent of what Congress mandated, and not a single new agent would have been assigned to help protect our northern border.

What the President has said and what the administration has done couldn't be more different. He has talked about border security, but his priorities in the budget proposals he has sent to Congress shows that his administration values tax cuts for the rich over robust border security.

It is incomprehensible that almost 5 years after the horrific attacks of September 11, only 6 percent of shipping containers entering U.S. ports are screened. Despite the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and despite Coast Guard recommendations that $5.4 billion is needed for port security over a 10-year period, the Republican Congress has appropriated only $800 million in grants during the last 5 years. I commend Senator Byrd for the port security additions he has made over time and to this bill. Following its failed effort to approve the Dubai Ports deal, the administration has recently made a big show of arrests of undocumented workers at one company. Ironically, those recent raids emphasize how little this administration has done over the last 5 years in terms of interior enforcement and enforcement of prohibitions against employers' illegal hirings. Where is the President's leadership on these critical issues?

I was pleased to see an increase in the President's proposed budget to allow for the hiring of 1,500 or more Border Patrol agents in 2007. The Judiciary Committee reported a bipartisan bill that calls for even more agents and investigators than that. But even the 1,500 new agents proved to be another hollow promise from the Bush administration. On closer scrutiny, it is clear that the funds to pay for these agents do not exist. The administration's budget also fails to specify whether any of these new positions are allocated to the northern border.

The President's budget priorities for fiscal year 2007 raise other serious concerns, including a proposal to eliminate grants dedicated to port security. This short-sighted proposal inexplicably shortchanges what we know is already a critically vulnerable aspect of our border security. It is difficult to reconcile what this President says about border security and what his administration does or does not do.

The lack of effectiveness of this administration is represented for many Americans by the Department of Homeland Security's failures to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina. It was a disgrace and a human tragedy. It has been 6 months since the hurricane hit. We know that 1,604 lives were lost, but approximately 1,840 individuals are still listed as ``missing'' or ``whereabouts unknown.'' These numbers are astonishing. Is it possible that more lives were taken by Hurricane Katrina--a storm that we knew was coming for several days before it hit--than on September 11, 2001, when we were attacked without warning? What is being done to locate these persons and discover if they are living or if their lives were taken in the storm? It is no surprise that Congress is required to force action on border security when we consider how the Bush administration has performed.

I support the additional funding for border security in these amendments, though I do so with the regret that the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this critical issue has brought us to this point. Many of the items are the types of expenditures that we are now categorizing as ``emergency spending'' because of more than 5 years of neglect and incompetence in making them part of our regular budget and spending priorities as they should have been.

I conclude by commending the Democratic leader for his amendment. He has recognized a serious concern with the way that the alternative amendment was drafted. Both amendments contain the same funding. Both provide for long overdue law enforcement communications upgrades. Senator Gregg and I have worked on these matters since the tragic Drega incidents that affected our States demonstrated this critical need. Both amendments contain funding for border patrol vehicles and surveillance technology. Years ago it was a Vermont agent who helped develop remote sensors for border patrol purposes. Both contain almost $800 million for helicopter replacement and other air patrol and surveillance needs. Both contain $600 million for the Coast Guard vessels, aircraft, and equipment that is needed. Some of the other inclusions are less essential but I will not quibble with the subcommittee chairman or the Democratic leader who both include the same items and dollar amounts.

The difference between the amendments is a significant one, however, as the Democratic leader has explained. He supports, we all support, increased border security. But his amendment ensures that these additions are not paid for by taking funds from the emergency funding recommended for the needs of troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or from the needs of those victimized by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf region. We should not be cutting pay and benefits for our National Guard, Active Duty and Reserve troops. We should not be cutting Iraqi security force training funding. We should not be cutting the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund that is intended to protect our troops from the scourge of deadly IEDs that threaten them in Iraq. We should not be cutting but should be improving health programs for out veterans and, sadly, the death benefits for their families. I agree with Senator Reid and will support his amendment to better secure our borders and years of neglect but will do so without shortchanging the needs of the troops whom the President has committed to fighting in Iraq, and that we all authorized be sent to Afghanistan.

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

Mr. President, earlier today, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss, and the ranking member, Senator Harkin of Iowa, held a very important hearing on the biofuels industry. I hope it will be the first and not the last because biofuels, specifically ethanol and biodiesel, are real, viable, here- and-now alternatives to the ever-increasing cost of gasoline and diesel fuels.

We are in the midst of another price crisis for the gasoline, diesel, and oil upon which our citizens, our industries, and our lifestyles and our entire national economy depend.

Most Americans want their fuel prices to be lower, but they do not want to change their fuels in order to make them so. People say, understandably: Solve our energy problems right now, but don't make us do anything differently. That is why I respectfully disagree with people who say: We do not have a national energy policy. We do. And it is to maintain the status quo for as long as possible.

That is actually a rational policy because our existing energy sources, over 95 percent of which are oil and oil-derived products, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, have been and, in most cases, continue to be cheaper, more available, more convenient, and certainly more familiar than any of their alternatives.

The sources of supplies, their production, transportation, distribution systems, and retail networks are all well established and well protected by everyone who profits from them. Those industries and companies that control and profit from our country's enormous and almost exclusive dependence upon their sources of energy have enormous stakes in preserving their control and protecting their profits by destroying any real competitive threats to their energy monopolies.

Nowhere are the stakes higher than in our Nation's transportation sector. Over 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption is of oil and petroleum products, and over two-thirds of that oil is used for transportation. Our country now consumes almost 30 percent of all the oil produced in the entire world each year, which means that 20 percent, or one out of every five barrels of oil produced in the entire world, goes into an American car, truck, train, or airplane. Up until recently, oil was the only fuel that those cars, trucks, trains, and airplanes could run on. What a gigantic energy monopoly that is. It is the largest monopoly of any in the world. And like most monopolies, it is hugely profitable for the monopolists and hugely expensive for everyone else. Like every other source of enormous profits and financial power, it is not going to be surrendered voluntarily by the profitable and the powerful.

The huge oil and oil products monopoly is not going to willingly surrender sales or market share or profits, not to a competitor such as the biofuels industry. Like any other established energy monopolies, they may give lip service to those energy alternatives, but they don't really mean it. That was very clear when the Senate considered its energy bill last year. There were full-page ads in the Hill and Roll Call newspapers, run by the American Petroleum Institute, which smeared the biofuels industry with the same misrepresentations, distortions, and fearmongering that they tried to use a decade ago to defeat a 10- percent ethanol mandate in the Minnesota Legislature.

Back then, the oil industry claimed that biofuels, particularly ethanol, would raise the price of every gallon of gasoline, that the supply would be impure and unreliable, and that people's gas tanks would explode or their carburetors would implode or the cars would be damaged or destroyed. None of those occurred. Yet almost 10 years after Minnesota required every gallon of gasoline sold in our State to contain at least 10 percent ethanol, we were still the only State to do so. Nationwide, the use of ethanol is only about 2.5 percent that of gasoline.

It turns out that regular automobile, SUV, and small truck engines not only run very well, with no modifications at all, on 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol, but they can also, with factory- modified engines, run as well or even better on a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline called E-85 fuel. In Brazil, where I visited 2 weeks ago, automobiles run very effectively on 100 percent ethanol.

This week's U.S. News and World Report magazine contains a two-page ad by General Motors touting its flex fuel engines which could run on either 100 percent regular unleaded gasoline, 85 percent ethanol, or a combination of the two. Yesterday, Daimler-Chrysler announced that in model year 2008, 500,000--or one-fourth of its vehicles--are going to be produced with flex fuel engines.

The flex fuel engine is the key to unlocking the gasoline monopoly. With a flex fuel engine, as I have in both my Minnesota and Washington cars, the consumer has a choice at every service station offering both regular unleaded gasoline and E-85 fuel. It is that price competition which will do more than anything else to stop the price gouging and profiteering by the oil and gasoline companies.

For the past 3 years, I have introduced legislation requiring that every car, truck, and SUV sold in this country have a flex fuel engine, beginning with the model year 2005, 2007, 2009--you can pick the year. Some people say that simply isn't possible, but last year over 70 percent of all automobiles sold in Brazil had flex fuel engines. I met last year in Detroit with General Motors and Ford company engineers. They told me they can design and install flex fuel engines at a production cost of between $100 and $300 per vehicle. They are better engines. However, until now, most American consumers haven't known about them or even wanted them.

We in the Federal Government can take one of two positions: We can do nothing and let the markets eventually change manufacturers' and consumers' behaviors, as they are starting to do now, or we can act to accelerate that transition. It seems clear that our constituents are clamoring for us to make available alternatives to the rising cost of gasoline and other fuels. We have before us right now the opportunity to do so--right now, not 10 years from now with hybrid engines, not 20 years from now with hydrogen engines. They may ultimately be more energy efficient and environmentally friendly, but ``ultimately'' is years away. Right now, we can give Americans a real energy alternative, the first large-scale, readily available alternative to a traditional energy source in many years, because ethanol--and behind it, biodiesel--is not just a substitute for the gasoline additive MTBE, it is a substitute for gasoline. It is not perfect. No energy source yet is. There are transition costs, production and distribution challenges, and similar susceptibilities to supply manipulation, price gouging, and profiteering as with oil, gasoline, or other fossil fuels. The key is the competition, consumers' ability to choose the lower priced, better option.

Last week, traveling around Minnesota, I could choose, with my vehicle with the flex fuel engine, between E-85, which was costing about $2.39 a gallon, and regular unleaded gasoline, which was costing about $2.79 a gallon. Both of those prices were significantly higher than they were in Minnesota 6 months or a year ago. Both prices are too high. Americans are being taken advantage of at the gas and the E-85 stations in Minnesota and other places around the country, and this Congress has a choice whether to do something about it or to do nothing.

President Bush said last weekend that his administration would investigate and prosecute price gouging and profiteering at the gasoline pump. I am glad to hear the President say that. I only question whether he really means it because he said the same thing last September when gasoline prices skyrocketed after Hurricane Katrina. Yet as far as I know, there is not a single charge that has been brought against anyone. In fact, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission subsequently testified before a Senate committee that no ``Federal statute makes it illegal to charge prices that are considered to be too high, as long as companies set those prices independently.'' She went on in her prepared statement to state that an oil company's ``independent decision to increase price is and should be outside the purview of the law.''

As my mother used to say to me, actions speak louder than words. Price gouging investigations and prosecutions for now are just words. I urge the President to turn them into actions.

The President yesterday touted his support for biofuels. However, in the last 2 years, he has signed into law cuts of almost 50 percent in bioenergy grants. His fiscal year 2007 budget calls for a 57-percent reduction for renewable energy grants. I urge the President and the Congress to turn their words into actions by increasing Federal funding for biofuels and other renewable energy research and development.

Another important action Congress should take this year is to pass a new energy bill. Some progress toward increasing the supply and use of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel was achieved in last year's energy bill but, as a nation, we are tiptoeing when we should be running. A new energy bill should accelerate this transition away from our Nation's increasing dependence on foreign oil which, even after last year's legislation, is projected to increase from 62 percent now to 67 percent in 2012. If we are really serious about reversing our growing energy dependence on oil and its products and not being held captive to rising oil, gasoline, and diesel prices here and around the world, we must act again by passing energy legislation, and we must act this year in doing so.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.