Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Through the Chair.

Mr. President, I was trying, as the Senator from Pennsylvania spoke, to figure out exactly what bill it is he is speaking of. I gather this is his bill, not our bill, on which he is adding some of our bill's provisions, but he leaves out the critical part, which is reinforcing the exclusive authority of FISA; is that correct?

If I may, a second question: Will this bill allow the President to use his plenary authority to wiretap outside of FISA, first, and secondly, will it allow for program authority for wiretaps?

Again, through the Chair, if the Senator will put up with this for a moment more, is that to handle the switching issue, or would this apply to all calls coming in from outside the United States are exempt?

I thank the Senator. He has been a very distinguished chairman of the committee. This is an issue in which, as a member of the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee, I have had an intense interest. The Senator from Pennsylvania recognizes that. I appreciate that.

I am unsure whether this bill is for the purpose of judicial review of the President's article II authority--I think I understand what the Senator is doing. He is essentially exempting all those calls which come into the United States, not calls from point A to point B in the United States. I think that bears further discussion, but I trust no action will be taken on this bill in this session but that the Senator from Pennsylvania is submitting it as a marker for next year.

I thank the chairman. I would like to look very closely

at this bill. I am very reluctant to move right now. You have mentioned the case percolating up through the courts now. I am really unsure why passage of this bill now would achieve anything. It seems to me it would be better to wait and see what the court does. I would appreciate your response to that.

Except what you are doing is effectively exempting, then, a call from outside into the United States because of the change in technology.

I will be very interested to look at the bill, and I thank you very much for this dialog. And this completes my questions. Thank you.

Madam President, as I was standing here looking out at a woman presiding and a woman chairman, a woman ranking member. I thought, there has been progress.

I am very pleased to join my chairman in recommending the 2007 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill to the Senate. I thank my friend Chairman Hutchison for her hard work on this bill, and I especially thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their support and help in bringing this bill to the floor.

This past weekend the Nation observed Veterans Day, the day we set aside to honor America's veterans with ceremonies across this great land.

Today the Senate takes up a bill that backs up the speeches and ceremonies with the funding necessary to provide the services our veterans were promised and that they both need and deserve. The bill before us today is a critically important funding measure for our Nation's veterans and for the Active and Reserve Forces in the military. It is a good bill.

The bill provides a total of $94.3 billion in its three titles. The bulk of the funding, $77.9 billion, is for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of that amount, $41.4 billion is mandatory spending for veterans benefit programs, such as veterans compensation and pensions, and $36.5 billion is discretionary spending, primarily for the medical program. This means that medical service programs are funded at the level necessary to meet the needs of our veterans. Both the chairman and I believe this is so.

The funding in this bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs is equal to the President's budget request and almost $6.5 billion--that is an increase of 9 percent--over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This increase is necessary due to the Iraq and Afghanistan situation.

For veterans health, the bill provides $32.67 billion. That is an increase of 11.3 percent above the 2006 level. It includes $3.2 billion for mental health, a $340 million increase over last year's enacted level. And it includes $4.3 billion, a $228 million increase over last year's enacted level, for geriatrics and extended care to assist the Nation's aging veterans population.

For military construction, which 2 years ago was all that we did together--now we also have the veterans budget for the second year--the bill includes $16.3 billion in funding. That is for a wide range of mission-critical facilities--barracks, daycare centers, family housing projects, both within the United States and overseas. Also included in that funding is $5.24 billion to implement the most recent base realignment and closure round, not so fondly known as BRAC around here.

Last but not least, the bill includes $143 million for a group of small but essential agencies, including the American Battle Monuments Commission and the Armed Forces Retirement Home. This title of the bill also funds Arlington National Cemetery, a sacred site familiar to all Americans which in many ways is the centerpiece of our homage to those who serve the Nation and our military in war and in peace.

In a year in which the Appropriations Committee has been faced with severe budget constraints, we are fortunate to be able to bring to the Senate a bill that fully funds the President's request for veterans and meets the pressing infrastructure requirements of the military. We were able to accomplish this without imposing any new fees or copayments on veterans. Most importantly, perhaps, is we do not appear to be facing the same kind of shortfall in funding for VA health care that the Senate was confronted with last year.

Providing affordable, accessible, first-rate health care to our Nation's veterans is a priority for this Senate and for both the chairman and myself. At a time when our Nation is at war and over 155,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are seeking VA health care services, many with grievous physical and mental wounds, veterans health care must be placed at the top of the list. Money is tight, to be sure. But like America's military forces currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the veterans who have fought in those and past wars deserve the fullest measure of our support and gratitude.

Likewise, the Nation's military forces need and deserve quality facilities in which to live and work. With the new round of BRAC and the ongoing global realignment of United States forces in Europe, Korea, and elsewhere overseas, the Defense Department's base structure is undergoing change. Tens of thousands of military personnel are returning to the United States from bases that are being closed overseas, placing great demand on domestic installations that will absorb them and their families.

At the same time, the Army is in the midst of reinventing its military structure, transforming from cumbersome divisions and brigades into more mobile and agile modular units. This modularity carries with it a new set of infrastructure requirements, and new emphasis regarding new facilities is being placed on the Nation's special operations forces, including the fielding of a new Marine Corps special operations command. All of this restructuring, of course, is going on while upwards of 170,000 United States military personnel remain fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In all, there are many challenges facing the military construction budget. Yet when the $5.2 billion for a new BRAC round is taken out of the equation, the amount of military construction funding requested by the President remained nearly level with last year's funding. Nevertheless, with the budget constraints we face this year, we were able to provide sufficient military construction dollars to fund the hundreds of military construction priorities both at home and abroad that have all been authorized in the Defense authorization bill.

This is a carefully balanced, bipartisan bill that is designed to meet the health and welfare needs of America's veterans and the infrastructure requirements of America's military forces with very tight budget limitations.

I again commend Chairman Hutchison for her work in developing this package. With the passage of this bill, we will have done our work in the Senate. I firmly believe we can work quickly to complete a conference with the House and send a good bill to the President, if the leadership gives us the opportunity. There has been some speculation that no appropriations bills will emerge from this lameduck session and that we instead will be operating under a continuing resolution for months to come. I hope that speculation is wrong. It would be a serious disservice to our Nation's veterans and our active-duty military to relegate the programs funded under MilCon-VA to a continuing resolution in the new year. It will be at a $6.5 billion loss to these programs to do that. I know Chairman Hutchison, Chairman Cochran, and Senator Byrd share my desire to send a conference report on this bill to the President and see it signed into law before the end of the year. I very much hope we can do so.

A great deal of work on both sides of the aisle has gone into producing this bill. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I thank my staff--Christina Evans on my immediate left, BG Wright on my far left, and Chad Schulken who is back in the staff dock--and also Senator Hutchison's staff--Dennis Balkham, Sean Knowles, and Rose Fabia--for the long hours and great effort they have put into this bill.

The bill is a direct result of a remarkable working relationship between Senator Hutchison and myself and between her staff and my staff. I thank the chairman again for this warmth and most particularly for her leadership. I am very pleased to recommend passage of this bill to the full Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes.

Mr. President, we have an opportunity today with the border fence bill and with the concurrence of Members of this body to help an industry that right now is in deep trouble, and that industry is American agriculture.

The reason it is in deep trouble is because it does not have the workforce to harvest the crops. This is true whether it is Florida, the State of Washington, Iowa, Idaho, California, Arizona, or any other agricultural State. The reason for the shortage of workers is because agriculture dominantly depends on what is an undocumented or illegal workforce. The reason that is the case is because it has been found over the years that American workers simply will not do this work. Therefore, agriculture, the huge industry that we have in America, has come to depend on an undocumented workforce.

Just to give one example--and I wish I had a big chart--but this is the pear crop in Lake County, a farm owned by Toni Scully, and these mounds are rotting pears on the field because they cannot be harvested in time.

California is the largest agricultural State in the Nation. It is a $34 billion industry. It has 76,500 farms. California produces one-half of all of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. If these products cannot be harvested--and it is late in the harvest season today--the price of fresh produce all over this Nation is going to rise.

We have an opportunity to do something about it. I am joined on the floor by Senator Larry Craig of the State of Idaho who is the main author of the AgJOBS Program. In the Judiciary Committee in the immigration bill, we revised AgJOBS and it was part of the Senate- passed immigration bill. Along with AgJOBS, we have reformed the agricultural guest worker program called H-2A. These two programs combine to give the farmers of America the certitude they need that there will, in fact, be a workforce able to harvest their crops, plant their crops, prune, cut, pack, and sort crops in this great country.

In my State we have roughly 350 different crops: lemons, tomatoes, raisins, lettuce, prunes, onions, cotton, and many others that are grown all across the State. Growers are reporting that their harvest crews are 10 to 20 percent of what they were previously. It is a disaster, and it will be a very costly disaster for the farm community as well as for the consumers of America. And it can be solved. We could move today to put the AgJOBS bill on the border fence bill. We all recognize it isn't germane postcloture, but the body could agree to include it because of the emergency circumstances that exist in agriculture States throughout the Nation today.

In my State we employ at least 450,000 people in the peak of the harvest, with farm workers progressing from one crop to the next, stringing together as much as 7 months of work. The estimate is that the season is falling short by 70,000 workers.

It is a very serious situation. Fields in Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County are being abandoned. Farmers can't find workers to harvest strawberry, raspberry, and vegetable crops. In the Pajaro Valley, one farmer reports he has been forced to tear out 30 acres of vegetables. He has about 100 acres compromised by weeds because there is nobody to weed the field. He estimates his loss so far to be $200,000. California and Arizona farmers say they need 77,000 workers during December to May to harvest vegetables, and they estimate the shortage will be 35,000 workers.

It is amazing to me that we can't do something about this by passing a bill that has been heard in the Judiciary Committee, that has been amended, that has been discussed over a period of years.

I would ask, if I might, the Senator from Idaho a series of questions, through the Chair. The first question is how long the Senator from Idaho has been working on the AgJOBS bill?

Mr. President, if I may, through the Chair, is there a crisis in the State of Idaho?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his response.

The fact is we have a pilot program that is part of the immigration bill that would provide over a 5-year period 1.5 million undocumented workers the opportunity to become documented, and provided they do agricultural work for a period of time, over time, to earn a green card. In discussing this with some Members they said they would agree if it were a temporary program. Well, it is a temporary program, because it sunsets in 5 years. I believe, and the Senator from Idaho will correct me if I am wrong, we would be prepared to change that sunset from 5 years to 2 years, or a time that would bring about concurrence from the Members.

But the point is there is a crisis out there. The point is we can solve that crisis now with this legislation. And the point is it is not new legislation. It has been authored, debated, discussed, heard now over a 6-year period. It has been refined. Both Senator Craig and I are convinced it will work. It was part of the immigration bill.

So what we are asking this body to do is essentially suspend the rule and allow this program to go into law at this time so the remainder of the harvest season and, more importantly, the planting season for winter vegetables and crops can be handled. If we do not do this, we will go well into next year without the agricultural labor present to sustain an agricultural industry in America in an adequate way, and the costs will be enormous.

I think somebody around here should begin to think of the consumer. I don't want to say to California families they are going to go in and buy heads of lettuce at $4 a head or more or broccoli at $5 a head or anything else because of a dramatic shortage, because farmers won't plant, because farmers can't pick, because farmers can't harvest, they can't sort, they can't pack, they can't can. That labor is needed, and year after year it has been documented that Americans will not do this kind of difficult, hot, stooped labor.

So this is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for us to respond to an industry of which we are all proud, and an industry which is in deep trouble at the present time.

Let me go on with a few other examples. I mentioned that California and Arizona farmers say they need 77,000 workers during the December to May to harvest, and they estimate they may be 35,000 workers short. The estimates from my State are that illegal immigrants make up at least one-fourth of the workforce and as high as 90 percent of the farm labor payroll. It is also estimated that for every agricultural job lost, we lose three to four other related jobs. I am told that in the Senator's State, farm workers are down 18 percent, and the potato growers of Idaho want AgJOBS passed to keep the industry growing.

In the State of Washington, in Cowlitz County, one-third of one farmer's blueberry crop rotted in the field because there were no pickers. Apple growers in the central part of the State were scrambling to find someone--anyone--to do the work of thinning the apple crop. Also in Washington, production at Bell Buoy Crab in Chinook, Pacific County is down 50 percent since April.

In Florida, Citrus Mutual notes: ``There is very little doubt we will leave a significant amount of fruit on the tree.'' Orange production in the State has been predicted to be the lowest since 1992 if the worst projections are realized. Six million boxes of oranges may well go unharvested in Florida this year because of a shortage of fruit pickers.

In Wyoming, they face the imminent closure of the $8 million Wind River Mushroom farm.

And in Oregon, farm workers should be harvesting 25 tons of fruit per day from the Polk County cherry orchards.

This is some indication. We have a bill, and that bill would provide the opportunity for an undocumented worker who has worked in agriculture for a substantial period of time--there are two different formulas in the bill--to go in to register, to pay a fine, to show their tax returns, to agree to pay taxes in the future, to get a temporary work card called a blue card, which would be biometric so that that worker is identified; it would eliminate fraud, and it would enable that worker, if they continue to work in agriculture for a period of years, to then gain a green card. It is a sound program. It will give farmers certainty. They will know there is an agricultural workforce, and it will involve people already in this country who are skilled, who are professional at farm work.

I don't know what it takes to show that there is an emergency. I think next year we would be ready, willing, and able to do this, but we will have lost another agricultural season, we will have lost a spring season, a summer season. I hope that someone will listen, that the leadership of this body will allow us, and I will call up--well, I can't do it now, but at an appropriate time I will call up the amendment that is at the desk.

I thank the Chair.

I agree with the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICl. I agree.

I agree.

Mr. President, I strongly believe the true test of a nation comes when we face hard decisions and hard times. It is really not the easy decisions that test our character and our commitment to fundamental principles and values. It is when the easy answer is not the right answer, but is politically expedient.

We face one of those times right now. The war against terror has challenged our country to fight a nontraditional enemy--one that is not part of any State or military. The enemy does not wear a uniform, it has no code of ethics, and it relishes in the killing of innocents. It strikes in cowardly ways. They have also challenged us as to whether we can continue during this period in fighting this enemy to abide by the bedrock of our justice system, the Constitution.

Before us on the floor of the Senate is a bill to address how our country will interpret the Geneva Conventions, and how we will treat those we apprehend and detain in this nontraditional, asymmetric war.

I truly believe that how we answer these challenges will not only test our commitment to our Constitution, but it will also test our very foundation of justice. It sends a message, also, to other countries--a message that will ultimately dictate how our soldiers and personnel are treated should they be captured by others.

Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of Senators worked together to develop a solution to these complex issues, and the Armed Services Committee reported a compromise military commissions bill to the Senate by a vote of 15 to 9.

Unfortunately, that is not the bill that is before this body today. Instead, House and Senate Republicans met with the White House and made changes that significantly altered the impact of this legislation and changed the bill in such a manner that I cannot at present support its passage without substantial amendment.

I do not believe the bill before us is constitutional. It is being rushed through a month before a major election in which the leadership of this very body is challenged.

The first of my concerns is the issue of habeas corpus. I very much support the amendment offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The bill before us eliminates a basic right of the American justice system, and that is the right of habeas corpus review. It is constitutionally provided to ensure that innocent people are not held captive or held indefinitely.

Habeas corpus has been a cornerstone of our legal system. It goes back, as it has been said, to the days of the Magna Carta. Our Founding Fathers enshrined this right in the Constitution because they understood mistakes happen and there is need for someone to appeal a mistake or a wrong conviction.

Just a few weeks ago, a man named Abu Bakker-Qassim, who was held at

Guantanamo, described how he was held for years, even though he had never been a terrorist or a soldier. He was never even on a battlefield. He had been sold by Pakistani bounty hunters to the United States military for $5,000. Qassim said it was only because of the availability of habeas corpus that this mistake was able to be corrected. That is why Senator Specter's amendment is right.

If innocent people are at Guantanamo--and they presumably are and have been--or if abuses are taking place--and its likely some have-- there must be an avenue to address these problems. Eliminating habeas corpus rights is a serious mistake and it will open the door to other efforts to remove habeas corpus.

Next, I am very concerned about the ability to use coerced testimony. This will be the first time in modern history that United States military tribunals will be free to admit evidence that was obtained through abusive tactics so long as the judge determines it is reliable and relevant or so long as it was obtained before December 30, 2005.

We have heard from countless witnesses that coerced testimony is inherently unreliable. We don't want to send the message that coercion is an acceptable tactic to use on Americans as well.

The fact is we had testimony in the Judiciary Committee from the head of all of the Judge Advocate Corps who said they did not believe torture worked.

I am very concerned about the definition of torture and the lack of clarity on cruel and inhumane treatment--especially combined with giving the President discretion to decide what he believes interrogation methods are permissible.

We have already seen through press reports that this administration pushes the boundaries on allowable interrogation techniques and these abuses cannot continue.

Finally, I am concerned about the rules for what evidence may be used to convict someone and then their limited ability to have a court review their case.

If one is not allowed to know what the basis of conviction was and then is only given limited judicial review of their conviction, how can we be confident that we are not holding innocent people who were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time--such an outcome severely harms our standing in the global community.

I believe these issues are too important for us to rush through a bill of this magnitude.

These are difficult times and difficult issues. However, I do not believe the expediency of the moment or the political winds of an impending election should lead us to abandon our core values as a Nation.

The Founding Fathers created specific constitutional limitations. And since that time the United States has been at the forefront of demanding humane treatment of all people. We must not turn our back on these fundamental principles.

I am disappointed to be voting against this bill. I had hoped a real bipartisan compromise could be reached.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Idaho on his comments. I subscribe to them 100 percent. I congratulate him and thank him for the leadership he has provided on the AgJOBS program. I don't think there is anyone in the U.S. Senate who knows more about what the needs in agriculture are across this great land than Senator Larry Craig. He has been consistent and he has been devoted. I think his expressions here today are really the expressions of virtually everyone in the Senate who knows what is happening in their own State with respect to agriculture today.

I also rise joining you, Mr. President, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, and the one who moved the AgJOBS program on to the immigration bill that is part of the Senate bill. I come here with a plea and that plea is, if there is going to be a border security bill before the full U.S. Senate, add the AgJOBS bill to it, because it is a crisis and it is an emergency and there is a practical need to do so.

It just so happens that there are two amendments at the desk that would do this. There is a Republican amendment on AgJOBS sponsored by the Senator from Idaho, and there is a Democratic amendment on AgJOBS sponsored by the Senator from California. They are one and the same. They could be easily added by either one of us and either one of us is willing to cosponsor the amendment of the other. The reason is because it is in fact an emergency.

This is harvest season out in all the great States. I was once told-- Senator Craig, you know him well--by Manuel Cunha, of the Nisei Farmers League, just for raisins alone in my State, it is 4 counties and it takes 40,000 workers to harvest those raisins.

The Senator mentioned that California is so large in agriculture. I want the President to know that it is a $31.8 billion industry. That is in 2004. It is an enormous industry. We have 76,500 farms in California. I am asking every one of those farm owners to weigh in at this time. Let the Senate know that there is now an opportunity to see that you have a certain, stable workforce. Weigh in with the Senate and say: Put AgJOBS on the border security bill.

We have 1 million people who usually work in agriculture. I must tell you they are dominantly undocumented. Senator Craig pointed out the reason they are undocumented is because American workers will not do the jobs.

When I started this I did not believe it, so we called all the welfare departments of the major agriculture counties in California and asked, Can you provide agricultural workers? Not one worker came from the people who were on welfare who were willing to do this kind of work. That is because it is difficult work. The Sun is hot. The back has to be strong. You have to be stooped over. It is extraordinarily difficult work.

For a State as big as mine, there is an immigrant community which is professionally adept at this kind of work. They can pick, they can sort, they can prune, they can harvest--virtually better than anybody. This is what they do. This is what makes our agricultural community exist.

It is very hard for a farmer to hire a documented worker. It is very hard to find that documented worker. So if they are going to produce, they have to find the labor somewhere.

My State produces one-half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts. One-half comes from California. We produce 350 different crops. We have an opportunity now, with this bill, to get adequate labor for this harvest season on this border security bill.

We know the votes are here in the Senate. We know the votes are in the House of Representatives. We know the President would sign the bill. Why not do it? Why not do it? Both Senator Craig and I want to plead with the leadership of the Senate, allow us to put this amendment up before the Senate. We can limit our debate. We know the votes are there. Let me ask the Senator, when this matter came before the full Senate; that is, before the immigration bill, how many votes did you have for the AgJOBS program?

I actually believe, if I might respond, that there are 60 votes because of the amendments that we made in Judiciary--which certainly brought me along, and I wasn't there before.

And I think it brought others along as well.

That is correct.

If I may, through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator one question. He mentioned the H-2A Program which in my State has not been a widely used program. This is a reform, also, of the H-2A Program, to make it more broadly applicable across the line. Is that not correct?

The Senator is absolutely right. I think he has made an

excellent point. We know that many of the workers in agriculture who are undocumented have gone on to work, for example, in construction, in the service industry, in the restaurant industry, in the hotel industry, and so on and so forth. But they work in the shadows. They work with fear today.

The program that the Senator and I are speaking of is not just a pile of programs. This is a 5-year sunset program. But you would see how it would work. You would then have documentation of every individual that is legally working in that program.

In my State of California, growers are reporting that their harvesting crews are 10 to 20 percent of what they were previously due to two things: stepped up enforcement, a dwindling pool of workers, and the problem that ensues from both.

We have an opportunity to put AgJOBS on this bill, a modified AgJOBS, reforming the H-2A program, pilot AgJOBS for 5 years. I will explain very quickly how that works. I think it is important that people understand this.

The first step would require the undocumented agricultural workers apply for a ``blue card,'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the prior of 2 years. The second step requires that a blue cardholder must work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years and work 100 days a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year; again, a blue card, biometric, would be documented. For the first time you would know who the worker is. The farmer would have certainty that he can hire that worker. If the worker meets this expected work requirement, they will then be eligible for a green card. Employment would be verified through the employer-issued itemized statement, pay stub, W-2 forms, employer letters, contracts, or agreements, employer-sponsored health care, timecards, or payment of taxes. The program is capped at 1\1/2\ million blue cards over 5 years. It will not have an annual cap.

I have explained it. My State alone has a million agricultural workers. How many does Idaho have? I ask he Senator through the Chair.

I thank the Senator very much. That may be a much smaller amount.

But virtually every State represented in this Chamber can come forward with a like amount of people. Virtually every Member in this Chamber can come forward with problems they are having with harvesting at this particular point in time.

I am told there are problems harvesting citrus in Florida, apples in New Hampshire, strawberries in Washington, and cherries in Oregon. In Wyoming, it has been reported that the labor shortage played a central role in the eminent closure of the $8 million Wind River Mushroom Farm.

Let me quickly run through a couple of other things.

Perhaps the most impacted are the organic farms, which are highly labor-intensive. Hand-picked crops such as at Lakeside Organic Gardens, which happens to be in my State, are suffering as fields go untended and acres have been torn up because there is no one to harvest them. The situation is so bad that this particular farmer, Dick Peixoto, has been forced to tear out nearly 30 acres of vegetables and has about 100 acres that are compromised because there is no one to weed them. He estimates his loss so far this season to be $200,000. That is worse than anything he has seen in 31 years of farming.

Some fields in the Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County are being abandoned because farmers can't find enough workers. Farmers in that area say there are 10 to 20 percent fewer workers available to harvest strawberries, raspberries and vegetable crops. That is the great Pajaro Valley that produces artichokes and acres and acres of row crops. They say we have sustained strawberry and raspberry losses due to shortage of labor.

Strawberries lost are approximately 100,000 cartons for the

fresh market, raspberries approximately 50,000 cartons. Due

to the shortage of labor, we were unable to harvest 900,000

pounds of lemons and 128,000 pounds of grapefruit.

These are some examples of what is happening. You can pick up newspapers, the San Jose Mercury News, headline: ``Worker Shortage Crippling Farmers.'' It goes on and depicts it.

Morgan Hill: Farmers are reporting a shortage of labor to

harvest crops forcing them to take huge losses. The impact is

mixed, varying with the amount and type of crops a farmer is

growing. Those growing more fragile crops such as

strawberries and peppers have been scrambling to find enough

workers to pick the harvest.

This goes on to say they cannot harvest their yields. Labor pains increasing for the great San Joaquin Valley that Senator Craig spoke about. Manuel Cunha said symptoms of labor shortages are showing up with fewer pickers in the Valley's orchard.

Between the tree fruit guys, the crew sizes are varying

from a crew of 20 to 22, down to 9 to 15. What is happening

now is we are starting to see a trend going toward table

grapes. The Valley is starting to get into the table grape

harvest in the Arvin area. The word I am hearing is that the

table grapes may take workers from tree fruits because the

free fruit workers are only working so many hours in the day

because of the demand. Union-produced labor shortages became

more pronounced in the coming weeks with the start of the

raisin grape harvest.

It goes on like this in article after article.

The Farm Bureau Federation of my State: Headline: ``Labor

Shortage Teeters on Critical Edge.''

As the border with Mexico tightens, and Congress continues to drag its feet on passing comprehensive immigration reform, farmers and labor experts say that the California farm labor pool is rapidly shrinking. A lag in reporting labor statistics makes it hard to pinpoint exactly how short the labor supply really is, but many growers put the gap again at about a 10 to 20 percent shortage Statewide.

This goes on and on, report after report.

There is rarely a time where issues come together and it is possible to move aggressively on something such as this. This is one of those times. AgJOBS has been debated on the floor of the Senate. It has been debated in the Judiciary Committee. It has been amended. It has come out of part of the immigration bill.

Senator Craig and I have worked to see that the amendment at the desk remedies all the problems that were brought up in the last floor discussion. It is ready to go. It can be added to this bill. It will pass in the House.

Why won't the leadership allow this amendment? It would be one thing if there was not a crisis out there. It is another thing if there is a crisis. And there is a crisis. Everyone in this body knows that. Everyone knows farmers are scrambling. Everyone knows farmers are losing their crops. Everyone knows there is produce on the ground that can't be harvested. Why don't we do something about it? And everyone knows that agricultural labor in the United States of America is virtually dependent on undocumented workers. This is a way to document them. This is a way to enhance security. This is the way to get the workforce for our farming communities that we need.

I went to ports, and I saw boxes and carton after carton of export products at the ports. We depend on exporting our fruit. You can't do it if you can't harvest it. What happens when the prices begin to rise in the markets? And they will. Lettuce that can't be harvested, tomatoes that can't be harvested, almonds, raisins, grapes. We had a chance to do something about it, and you have Senators standing here on the floor saying we could do something about it now, it will pass, it will be signed, it will go into law.

AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everybody in both bodies knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration tightens up, and they begin to pull people and deport them, as farmers have trouble finding them, as they hide in the shadows more, the result is our crops go unharvested.

We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is so easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted and vetted and vetted. Senator Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill. Why don't we pass it? What kind of a plea will be heard? How

many farmers have to be ruined to prove a point that I don't understand, that I can't fathom, that I can't believe we turned down this opportunity to solve a real problem.

If you want a Republican amendment, it is at the desk. If you want a Democrat amendment, it is at the desk. They are both the same.

I am simply here to say, Mr. Leader, let this come to the floor. Mr. Leader, take the steps that can save American agriculture right now. Leader, pass this bill which has be vetted, which has been debated, which has been discussed in both Houses, several committees and on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Simply bring this amendment to the floor. Don't fill the tree and now allow this amendment.

I say once again, the 75,000 farmers in my State, if there ever was a time to weigh in, this is it. If there was ever a time for you to pick up that phone and call every Member of this body and anyone you can and say, Hey, I am a farmer, and I can't find labor to harvest my crop, this is a bill that can help me, and I want you to pass it now. In my State, 76,000 farms. If half would do it, if a quarter would do it, if a tenth would do it, we would get this bill passed. For farms in other States, this is your moment. Stand up, weigh in. We are, after all, a representative democracy. We represent people. We represent States. These people and these States have weighed in, in the press, and said: We are in trouble. We need help.

Now is the time. I say to the Republican leader of the Senate, do not turn your back on the farm community of America. This community needs undocumented labor to plant, to prune, to clear out weeds, and to harvest. That has been the case for years. Give it certitude. A pilot program; 5 years; 1.5 million blue cards over the 5 years; specific requirements; taxes paid; filing with the Government; fines paid. But people can work and harvest the crops. I say to the Members of this Senate, it would be a terrible tragedy if we turn our backs on the breadbaskets of America. We have an opportunity. It is so simple. Just enact this AgJOBS program now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on rollcall No. 250, I voted ``yea''; it was my intention to vote ``nay''. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote since it will not change the outcome.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the port security bill being considered before the Senate. This legislation is of particular importance to my home State of California, and I am deeply grateful to Senators Collins and Murray and all the others who have worked so diligently to craft this comprehensive and bipartisan effort to better protect our Nation's ports.

It is no secret that I have long considered security at our Nation's ports to be a significant hole in homeland security. The global maritime supply chain system is a vast network consisting of hundreds of ports worldwide moving millions of containers each year, and frankly I don't believe this Nation has done nearly enough since 9/11 to improve the security of our ports.

As has been repeated many times on this floor, only 5 percent of containers entering the country are inspected, meaning that millions of tons of cargo move through our ports without serious scrutiny.

With its long coastline, California is vulnerable. My home State receives containers from more than 750 different ports worldwide and is home to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which is the busiest container port complex in the entire United States, processing 7.2 million containers in 2005.

To highlight the risk we face, I cite a Rand Corporation report released last month. If a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb, hidden in a shipping container, were to explode at the Port of Long Beach, it could kill 60,000 people instantly, expose another 150,000 to hazardous levels of radiation, and cause $1 trillion in economic losses.

Needless to say, this is an issue of great importance to my constituents and the economic welfare of the State. I believe strongly that the need for action to better protect our ports is essential and it must happen now.

I am glad to say that this port security measure takes a number of critical steps toward filling the gaps in security at our Nation's ports.

This legislation directs the Department of Homeland Security to work with State and local governments to create a strategic plan to secure our ports and prepare for a swift resumption of trade in the event of an attack. We learned by devastating experience during Hurricane Katrina what happens when Federal, State, and local governments do not have an integrated plan for responding to and recovering from a catastrophic event.

The bill authorizes $400 million in competitive grants to help ports address security vulnerabilities, $1.2 billion for rail security improvements, and $3.4 billion for mass transit security.

In addition, 1,000 more Customs and Border Protection agents will be patrolling our Nation's ports of entry thanks to this legislation.

But despite the advances of this legislation, there still remains much work to do.

We cannot stop until all containers are fully scanned for radiation and by other means including full x-rays of all containers. It was a disappointment that amendments to initiate a plan for 100 percent scanning were rejected this week.

In fact, this bill does nothing substantive to increase the number of containers inspected before reaching our shores. It is clear to me that only inspecting 5 percent of containers is unacceptable.

Moving forward, a clear test of this Congress will come when the time arrives to appropriate funds for many of the programs authorized in this bill, including grants for port security. To tell the truth, much of what is accomplished will be for naught if we don't provide the funds necessary to get the job done.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I plan to do whatever I can to make these funds available. They are simply too important to my State and too important to this Nation.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this bill and express my hope that we can continue to work towards filling the gaps in security at our ports.

Mr. President yesterday, we lost a great politicial great woman with an incredibly energy who helped to change the attitude of Texas politics.

Ann Richards was born in Lakeview, TX, in 1933. She died yesterday, September 13, in Austin, TX, at the age of 73.

She battled cancer in the last months of her life, being diagnosed with esophageal cancer in March and undergoing chemotherapy treatments.

I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to her four children-- Cecile, Daniel, Clark and Ellen--who were with her when she passed away.

Ann Richards was a homemaker and teacher before beginning her political career as a county commissioner in Travis county, TX, in 1976. Six years later, in 1982, she ran for State treasurer and won. She was reelected in 1986. Winning the office of Texas State treasurer made her the first woman elected statewide in nearly 50 years.

Like so many female politicians of our time, running for office in a male-dominated political environment took courage and determination. But Ann didn't take on these challenges only to prove that she was a worthy candidate. She wanted to show Texas, and the Nation, that all women could succeed in the same way that men had for many years. She blazed a trail for women, in politics and in life.

Two years later, in 1990, Ann Richards narrowly won the election to Governor, winning by a margin of 49 to 47 percent. Again, she fought a tough campaign battle against a male opponent. But with her fierce determination, she came out on top.

During her 4 years in the Governor's office, Ann Richards made a strong effect, championing what she referred to as the ``New Texas.''

As Governor, Ann Richards promoted women and minorities who historically were ignored in Texas politics; reformed the Texas prison system; backed proposals to reduce the sale of semiautomatic firearms and ``cop-killer'' bullets in the State; instituted the Texas State lottery to provide funding for education; revitalized the State's economy; and worked to protect the environment, particularly with a veto of legislation that would have allowed for the destruction of the Edwards Aquifer in south central Texas.

She was defeated in her 1994 reelection campaign by George W. Bush.

Near the end of her term as Governor, Ann Richards said: ``I think I'd like them to remember me by saying, `She opened government to everyone.' ''

She was a popular figure in Texas politics, known for her white head of hair and her great sense of humor.

And she was daring, on the political stage and off. At the age of 60, she learned to ride a motorcycle.

Ann Richards will be missed. For her charisma, for her integrity, and for her honesty.

Mr. President, I join with friends and associates across the country to honor the 100th birthday on September 17 of Dr. Edgar Wayburn of San Francisco. From the time that his appreciation of the American landscape began in Macon, GA, to his role today as honorary president of the Sierra Club, Dr. Wayburn has built a lifetime of conservation activism that has immeasurably benefited our country and the world.

Across our Nation, 100,000,000 acres of some of the most beautiful landscape in the world are protected for future generations thanks in large part to the dedicated efforts of Dr. Wayburn. Never a full-time conservationist, Dr. Wayburn has dedicated weekends and hours away from his medical practice to protecting our wild lands and wildlife.

From the Mount Tamalpais State Park in California to Admiralty Island in southeastern Alaska, Dr. Wayburn's accomplishments read as an honor roll of conservation achievements. He has been a true visionary in promotion of conservation and has inspired countless other Americans.

One example in particular uniquely epitomizes Dr. Wayburn's legacy. Driving out of San Francisco International Airport, you face west toward the hills of San Mateo County. Beyond those hills, along the coast for more than 10 miles to the south and for 75 miles to the north stands one or our country's most majestic national parks--the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The park encompasses 80,000 acres in 3 counties and lies adjacent to Point Reyes National Seashore; thus more than 150,000 acres are preserved for habitat and wildlife and are enjoyed by more than 20 million people every year. Dr. Wayburn played an instrumental part in the founding of both of these national parks.

For over 100 years, the U.S. military fortified the region now home to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. But in the 1960s the military became aware that its bunkers and missiles had little value for our Nation's defense and made plans to sell parts of the area's installations and fortifications.

Bay Area residents were determined that this magnificent landscape not be

lost to ordinary development. Here was the chance for people to see the natural world in an urban context, to look upon the wilderness from the city, and Dr. Wayburn helped lead the way. When he learned of a farsighted Interior Department proposal to preserve underused military land across the Nation for public use and enjoyment, he became the leader of the citizens' group organized to save the land at his doorstep. He also insisted upon enlargement of the original 8,000-acre proposal.

Thanks to widespread support and the indefatigable efforts of Dr. Wayburn, the campaign to protect this invaluable natural treasure was a resounding success. Congress authorized the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in 1972, which now stands as a monument to the committed efforts of so many like Dr. Wayburn.

The story of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area stands as just one of many achievements that mark Dr. Wayburn's inimitable career.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton recognized Dr. Wayburn's lifetime of service by awarding him our Nation's highest civilian honor--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In honoring his achievements, President Clinton counted Dr. Wayburn as the person who had saved ``more of our wilderness than any other person alive.'' I can think of no more fitting praise to offer Dr. Wayburn.

Dr. Wayburn has created a legacy that will live on for generations to come, and he has made our Nation and our world a better place. I commend him on his efforts and offer my heartfelt gratitude for his service.

I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, before I make my statement, which will be on the Reid amendment, I would like to congratulate Senator Collins, Senator Inouye, Senator Murray, and all of the Members who worked in committee on this bill. Although one doesn't often tell tales of what happened in a Democratic caucus, I would like to quote Senator Murray in that caucus. She said, ``This bill will make a difference.''

I think that is a very dispositive, definitive, and positive statement. So I would like to offer my congratulations to the chairman of the committee and all who worked on it and thank them very much.

Amendment No. 4936

Mr. President, I would like to speak about this very long Reid amendment which has been offered to be part of this bill. The amendment, much like the Real Security Act introduced last week, is a comprehensive package of ways to strengthen our national security through improved intelligence, military, diplomatic, and homeland security tools. But in particular I would like, as a member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, to address the issue of electronic surveillance to identify and prevent terrorist attacks.

All Democrats support giving the President the tools he needs to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways. It is a fact, and I have never heard anything to the contrary.

We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools, especially electronic surveillance of telephone content--the content of a phone call or wiretapping of a phone call--can and should be done in a way that protects constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans, because whatever is done here will go on for decades and because whatever is done here will likely impact tens of thousands of persons in the United States.

I am pleased that the minority leader has endorsed these concepts, as they are the key pillars of legislation that Senator Specter and I have introduced. That is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act. I thank the minority leader for ``Rule 14'ing'' my bill, which now appears as the Feinstein-Specter bill as hotlined, S. 3877.

Tomorrow in Judiciary we will be marking up FISA bills. This same bill but under a different bill number, namely S. 3001, will be subject to markup along with the other bills. Senator Specter's Administration bill, Senator DeWine's bill, and a bill by Senator Schumer will be marked up tomorrow morning and Thursday morning.

My legislation, which is pretty simple and pretty limited, is aimed at providing our intelligence agencies with more authority, more resources, and more flexibility to conduct electronic surveillance. In doing so, the legislation reaffirms that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence in the United States. I believe this is very important.

We have had hearings in Judiciary. The Attorney General has testified. The head of the NSA program has testified. It is pretty clear to me that this terrorist surveillance program can be fit into the confines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed in 1978. What has to be done is a streamlining of the process leading up to it and some revised provisions for emergency hot pursuit. So what I have tried to do is take what the Attorney General has said to the committee were obstructions to using FISA and solve those obstructions but keep FISA because it is so important.

The legislation that I have introduced would recognize that further changes are needed in this shadowy world of asymmetric terror. That is why the legislation would give the executive branch the authority to listen in to conversations between terrorists and their conspirators inside and outside the United States.

At the same time, we preserve the cornerstone of FISA, and that is that it is by warrant, that a Federal judge reviews and approves every individual warrant request for content to ensure the Government is not spying on innocent Americans.

I think it is useful to remind ourselves why this body wrote and enacted FISA in the first place. In 1976 a committee headed by Frank Church, which became known as the Church committee, provided a report to the Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities.

There are three books just like this, on what went on in our Nation prior to 1976. It is startling. I will get to it in a moment. But it was the genesis for the 1978, very carefully considered Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This committee reported--and please read it, Members--on a series of excesses and abuses that had taken place in the intelligence community. These included some of the worst civil rights violations our Government has ever committed, such as the secret campaign to smear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and domestic targeting of Americans peacefully advocating civil disobedience in areas such as civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam war.

The Church committee found these abuses stemmed from a lack of oversight and checks on Government power. Watch lists were established on people whose views ranged from Joan Baez on the left to members of the John Birch Society on the right.

The Church committee's report led not only to FISA but also to the establishment of the Permanent Intelligence Committees in both Houses of the Congress. It was a historic report.

So discussions today that the President has the authority to go around FISA and doesn't need court approval should cause Members of this great body serious concern. It was a surprise to almost every Senator to learn last December that the President had authorized the National Security Administration to electronically surveil U.S. persons without following the law.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have received many briefings on the President's program. There are still some unanswered questions, and the administration has a responsibility to provide Congress with answers. But basically the Senate Intelligence Committee has been briefed on the program in the main.

But from what I have learned to date, I am convinced of two things: First, the work that NSA is doing is important to prevent terrorists from attacking us again--and I support it. Second, the surveillance that is done under the ``terrorist surveillance program'' can be done under FISA's framework with some changes. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I participated in the hearings, and I thank my chairman, Senator Specter, for holding these hearings.

The conclusion I draw from them, and from the briefings, is that fairly modest changes can be made to FISA which would remove the barriers standing in the NSA's way while also restoring the FISA Court oversight that is necessary to protect a citizen's constitutional right.

Let me briefly tell you what we have done.

We have expanded hot pursuit. Currently, the law states that during specified ``emergency'' periods surveillance can proceed without a warrant for 72 hours. At the recommendation of former FISA judges, we have extended the time for hot pursuit to 7 days. So if something happens and the NSA wants to immediately wiretap someone, they can, provided they notify the Attorney General within 24 hours that it is happening, and then go to the FISA Court.

Attorney General Gonzales testified to us that he personally has to approve applications before they go to the FISA Court. That was a problem. So we created additional flexibility to handle the increased caseload by allowing the Attorney General to delegate this authority to two Senate-confirmed officials: the Deputy Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

Wartime authority: Currently, FISA provides the President with authority to wiretap without a warrant for 15 days after a declaration of war. That is a good thing, I believe.

Our bill would expand Presidential authority by allowing the President to also order wiretaps without a warrant for 15 days following a congressional authorization to use military force and a terrorist attack on the United States.

Additional resources: The staff and court need additional resources, and Members have expressed concern about a backlog of FISA applications. We would authorize additional judges as necessary, additional OIPR assistant United States attorneys as necessary, and additional NSA and FBI staff as necessary, so that this problem would be taken care of.

Then we clarify ``foreign to foreign.'' It has often been said that in the 28 years since FISA was written changes in technology have made the law outdated. Communications that start and end outside of the United States but may switch through the United States--communications that FISA never attempted to cover--are now regularly put before the FISA Court.

General Alexander expressed his frustration that foreign-to-foreign communications impede the FISA process.

This bill--which again has been ``Rule 14'd''--would explicitly exempt these telephone calls and e-mails from FISA while preserving the existing process for the appropriate handling of communications involving a U.S. party that were inadvertently wiretapped.

We believe these provisions will go a long way. We also would mandate that briefings on electronic surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes be given to the full Intelligence Committee of both the House and the Senate, really to prevent what was happening, which was the beginning of a major wiretapping program where only eight Members of Congress knew very early on about the program, and therefore there was virtually no congressional oversight that was meaningful in any way, shape, or form.

In this bill is a two-page sense of the Senate beginning on page 313 of the Reid amendment and going through pages 314 and 315. Essentially, it states up front that the U.S. Government should have the legal authority to engage in electronic surveillance of any telephone conversation in which one party is reasonably believed to be a member or an agent of a terrorist organization.

It goes on to say that absent emergency or other appropriate circumstances, domestic electronic surveillance should be subject to judicial review in order to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens or Americans with no ties to terrorism.

I strongly support the Reid amendment. I support the Sense of the Senate. And I look forward to being able to debate the bill which Senator Reid has agreed to cosponsor, as well as Senator Specter--it is a bipartisan bill--at the appropriate time when bills to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are before the body.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Once again, I indicate my very strong support for the bill before the U.S. Senate today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Inhofe, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation is crucial to respond to the expanded scope of terrorist activity that has threatened to impede important medical research and scientific innovation.

The legislation we introduce today would: clarify that it is a crime to damage or interfere with an ``animal enterprise''--which includes legitimate companies and non-profit organizations that use animals for education, research or testing; expand Federal law to also make it illegal to harm or cause property loss to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Criminalize threats, harassment, and other illegal activity that uses interstate commerce to intentionally cause fear of death or injury to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Establish graded penalties of up to 20 years depending on the financial damage or level of bodily injury caused by such illegal conduct, and up to life imprisonment if death results; establish that a convicted animal enterprise terrorist can also be ordered as restitution to pay the animal enterprise's cost of repeating experiments and other losses resulting from the criminal conduct; and clarify that all legitimate protest activities protected by the First Amendment are exempted out from any prosecution under the bill.

The need for this bill is obvious.

On June 30 of this year, extremist activists, acting in the name of animal rights, attempted to firebomb a Los Angeles home thought to belong to a prominent UCLA primate researcher.

The home actually belonged to a 70-year-old woman, and thankfully, the device did not ignite. But the desired impact was nonetheless achieved.

Just weeks later, a colleague of the targeted researcher announced that he will discontinue his important research at UCLA. He had two words for the terrorists who orchestrated the failed bombing: ``You win.''

While I recognize that reasonable people might disagree about animal research, and believe in the right to legitimate protest, it is outrageous that violent acts, threats and extortion have ended a legitimate medical research career.

Unfortunately, similar incidents have occurred throughout the State of California for several years, including the two bombs placed at the Emeryville offices of Chiron Corporation, a pharmaceutical company in the Bay area, that employs 4400 employees as our Nation's 2nd largest manufacturer of flu vaccines.

Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first- responders arrived.

Yet extremist organizations, such as the Animal Liberation Front, defend these actions around the country as morally justifiable, and shamelessly take credit for these heinous acts.

Their tactics have evolved in the face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of their terror is widening.

In recent years, animal rights extremists have expanded their campaigns to include secondary and tertiary targets, such that businesses and associates who maintain even highly-attenuated relationships with animal research facilities have found themselves the targets of terror and harassment.

These targets include banks, insurance companies, stockbrokers, customers, construction services, food services, Internet service providers, telecom companies, and even janitorial services.

No matter how remote the relationship, anyone who does business with an organization engaged in animal research is at risk.

But these indirect attacks are outside the scope of our current laws, and threaten to slow the progress of one of our Nation's largest and most valuable industries.

We must recognize that scientific research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical advancement, conducted by respectable professionals deserving of our support.

The deplorable actions of these terrorists threaten to impede important medical progress toward lifesaving cures and medical innovation.

They threaten to dishearten noble researchers, and to discourage promising young scientists and graduate students from ever entering these important fields of research.

It is in light of these dangerous threats that Senator Inhofe and I today introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

This legislation addresses the changing tactics of these terrorists, and provides law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to protect our Nation's researchers more effectively.

This new legislation will expressly outlaw the targeting of secondary and tertiary targets, by including within the scope of prosecution terrorists who act against any ``person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.''

This is an important step toward combating the modern tactics of animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists, and toward protecting vital business relationships that foster and support the research industry.

At the same time, however, this legislation confronts these terrorist threats in manner that gives due protections under the First Amendment.

I fully recognize that peaceful picketing and public demonstrations against animal testing should be recognized as part of our valuable and sacred right to free expression.

For this reason, all conduct protected by the First Amendment is expressly excluded from the scope of this legislation. This law effectively protects the actions of the law-abiding protestor while carefully distinguishing the criminal activity of extremists.

The bill is also mindful and respectful of State efforts to address these problems. For this reason, the bill makes clear that it does not preempt State or local laws that address such conduct.

We are keenly aware of our responsibility to protect legitimate businesses and educational institutions from the damaging effects of this new breed of domestic terrorism. It is with this goal in mind that we introduce this bill today.

Biomedical research is a multi-billion dollar industry, but more importantly, it is a lifesaving industry. With the passage of this legislation, we can help to ensure both the productivity of this important field, and the protection of our scientists and their associates.

I would like to express my thanks to Senator Inhofe for his hard work and support on this important issue. I would also like to thank Senator Hatch for his early initiative and continued support for this goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Inhofe, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation is crucial to respond to the expanded scope of terrorist activity that has threatened to impede important medical research and scientific innovation.

The legislation we introduce today would: clarify that it is a crime to damage or interfere with an ``animal enterprise''--which includes legitimate companies and non-profit organizations that use animals for education, research or testing; expand Federal law to also make it illegal to harm or cause property loss to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Criminalize threats, harassment, and other illegal activity that uses interstate commerce to intentionally cause fear of death or injury to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Establish graded penalties of up to 20 years depending on the financial damage or level of bodily injury caused by such illegal conduct, and up to life imprisonment if death results; establish that a convicted animal enterprise terrorist can also be ordered as restitution to pay the animal enterprise's cost of repeating experiments and other losses resulting from the criminal conduct; and clarify that all legitimate protest activities protected by the First Amendment are exempted out from any prosecution under the bill.

The need for this bill is obvious.

On June 30 of this year, extremist activists, acting in the name of animal rights, attempted to firebomb a Los Angeles home thought to belong to a prominent UCLA primate researcher.

The home actually belonged to a 70-year-old woman, and thankfully, the device did not ignite. But the desired impact was nonetheless achieved.

Just weeks later, a colleague of the targeted researcher announced that he will discontinue his important research at UCLA. He had two words for the terrorists who orchestrated the failed bombing: ``You win.''

While I recognize that reasonable people might disagree about animal research, and believe in the right to legitimate protest, it is outrageous that violent acts, threats and extortion have ended a legitimate medical research career.

Unfortunately, similar incidents have occurred throughout the State of California for several years, including the two bombs placed at the Emeryville offices of Chiron Corporation, a pharmaceutical company in the Bay area, that employs 4400 employees as our Nation's 2nd largest manufacturer of flu vaccines.

Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first- responders arrived.

Yet extremist organizations, such as the Animal Liberation Front, defend these actions around the country as morally justifiable, and shamelessly take credit for these heinous acts.

Their tactics have evolved in the face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of their terror is widening.

In recent years, animal rights extremists have expanded their campaigns to include secondary and tertiary targets, such that businesses and associates who maintain even highly-attenuated relationships with animal research facilities have found themselves the targets of terror and harassment.

These targets include banks, insurance companies, stockbrokers, customers, construction services, food services, Internet service providers, telecom companies, and even janitorial services.

No matter how remote the relationship, anyone who does business with an organization engaged in animal research is at risk.

But these indirect attacks are outside the scope of our current laws, and threaten to slow the progress of one of our Nation's largest and most valuable industries.

We must recognize that scientific research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical advancement, conducted by respectable professionals deserving of our support.

The deplorable actions of these terrorists threaten to impede important medical progress toward lifesaving cures and medical innovation.

They threaten to dishearten noble researchers, and to discourage promising young scientists and graduate students from ever entering these important fields of research.

It is in light of these dangerous threats that Senator Inhofe and I today introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

This legislation addresses the changing tactics of these terrorists, and provides law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to protect our Nation's researchers more effectively.

This new legislation will expressly outlaw the targeting of secondary and tertiary targets, by including within the scope of prosecution terrorists who act against any ``person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.''

This is an important step toward combating the modern tactics of animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists, and toward protecting vital business relationships that foster and support the research industry.

At the same time, however, this legislation confronts these terrorist threats in manner that gives due protections under the First Amendment.

I fully recognize that peaceful picketing and public demonstrations against animal testing should be recognized as part of our valuable and sacred right to free expression.

For this reason, all conduct protected by the First Amendment is expressly excluded from the scope of this legislation. This law effectively protects the actions of the law-abiding protestor while carefully distinguishing the criminal activity of extremists.

The bill is also mindful and respectful of State efforts to address these problems. For this reason, the bill makes clear that it does not preempt State or local laws that address such conduct.

We are keenly aware of our responsibility to protect legitimate businesses and educational institutions from the damaging effects of this new breed of domestic terrorism. It is with this goal in mind that we introduce this bill today.

Biomedical research is a multi-billion dollar industry, but more importantly, it is a lifesaving industry. With the passage of this legislation, we can help to ensure both the productivity of this important field, and the protection of our scientists and their associates.

I would like to express my thanks to Senator Inhofe for his hard work and support on this important issue. I would also like to thank Senator Hatch for his early initiative and continued support for this goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I understand it is appropriate for me now to speak on an amendment I offered yesterday having to do with cluster bombs.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss again the amendment offered by myself and Senator Leahy to this bill on the use of a munition called a cluster bomb. Our amendment is very simple. It prevents any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians.

That is not a difficult requirement. It seems to me, because of the widespread damage caused by these munitions, that there ought to be specific rules of engagement which ban their use in areas where civilian death or maiming might result.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations, and they release these small

bomblets over the radius of a half mile. In practice, they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bomblets over a large area, and they are often inaccurate. In some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.

Bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball, so they are attractive to small children who pick them up to play with them. Then the bomblet explodes and the individual is either killed or maimed.

I would like to show three photographs.

On March 25, 2003, a youngster by the name of Abdallah Yaqoob was sleeping in his bed in his home in Basra, Iraq when he was hit with shrapnel from a cluster munitions strike that hit his neighborhood. He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely damaged. He was hit by a British L20A1/M85 munition--a cluster bomb.

Second, Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground- launched submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003. The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel throughout his body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs.

This is a photo of an unexploded M42 cluster submunition found on a barbed-wire fence in southern Iraq in August 2006. As you will see, this is the bomblet and this is a small pinecone. You will see how small this bomblet is, hanging on the barbed wire.

These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, de facto landmines.

The issue was first brought to my attention by a 2005 PBS documentary entitled ``Bombies'' which chronicled the impact of unexploded cluster bombs in Laos. This is startling. In Laos alone, there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster bombs. They are leftovers from U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured since that war ended--11,000 killed or injured by cluster bombs. So 40 to 50 years after these munitions were used, their deadly force remains active.

As the documentary showed, these unexploded cluster bombs have ended up in bamboo trees, in playgrounds, in houses, on rice paddies, and in schools. They have been found in the ground where farmers prepare their fields to plant. They have threatened their lives and their livelihood. As one farmer from northern Laos put it, ``Working in these fields is a problem. There are lots of bombies. But we work very carefully. If we work fast, we are afraid we'll hit a bombie.''

These farmers have to tend the fields and put their lives at risk because they have to grow food to feed their families. Decades after the last bomb was dropped, they are still threatened by death and serious injury. A cluster bomb is lethal for up to 150 yards. It will kill or maim the person who picks it up and those nearby.

I remind my colleagues, these munitions have been used in many battles in many wars.

In the first gulf war, 60,000 cluster bombs were used, containing 20 million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500.

In Afghanistan in 2001, 1,228 cluster bombs with nearly a quarter of a million--248,056--bomblets were used.

Between October of 2001 and November of 2002--that is just 1 year-- 127 civilians were killed, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with nearly 2 million bomblets were used. Combining the first and second gulf wars, the total number of unexploded bomblets in the region is approximately 1.2 million. An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1991 by these discarded munitions.

Here we have it: In Iraq, 13,000 cluster bombs, two million bomblets; in Afghanistan, 1,200 cluster bombs, a quarter of a million bomblets, numbers killed in a year, 127 civilians; in the first gulf war, 61,000 used, 20 million bomblets lying around, 1,600 innocent, men, women, and children killed, more than 2,500 wounded since 1991.

This gives rise to recent developments in Lebanon. Throughout southern Lebanon, more than 405 cluster bomb sites containing approximately 100,000 unexploded bomblets have been discovered. Each site covers a radius of 220 yards. As Lebanese children and families return to their homes and begin to rebuild, they will be exposed to the danger of these unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble. Thirteen people already, including three young children, have been killed, and 48 injured. One United Nations official estimates that the rate of unexploded bomblets is 40 percent in southern Lebanon. So far, more than 2,900 exploded bomblets have been destroyed. It will take 12 to 15 months to complete that effort.

The State Department is looking into charges that the cluster bombs found in southern Lebanon were American-made and that they were used in violation of agreements between the United States and Israel that govern their use. I do not know whether that is true. We have tried to find out. At this time, and despite repeated inquiries, I am unaware what those agreements actually say and what conditions they place on Israel. It seems to me we ought to know. It seems to me this information ought to be transparent and that the Congress of the United States, in the process of lawmaking, is entitled to that information.

By passing this information and codifying this language in statute we will help ensure that civilian populations will be protected by adequate rules of engagement that accompany the sale or transfer of these weapons to another country and the rules of engagement that condition their use by our military in foreign countries.

Each death that results from an unexploded bomblet weakens American diplomacy and American values. How do people in Laos feel when they live and farm with the daily threat of running into one of these bomblets? How do they feel in Afghanistan, Iraq, in southern Lebanon, in any other place where civilians can be wounded and killed by these bomblets?

Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment. They make security, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts that much harder.

Senator Leahy and I are not the only ones that feel this way. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen recognized the threat that cluster bombs pose to civilians and U.S. troops alike because they litter a battlefield. He issued a memorandum which became known as the Cohen policy. It stated that beginning in 2005 all new cluster bombs would have a failure rate of less than 1 percent.

This was an important step forward. But we still have 5\1/2\ million cluster bombs containing 728 million bomblets. They are aging in the American arsenal. This indicates we are still prepared to use, transfer, or sell an enormous number of cluster bombs that have significant failure rates.

I ask this question: Is this the source of legacy we want to leave behind in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Let me be clear, this amendment does not place a ban on cluster bombs. It is a simple step that will give the Pentagon time to develop specific guidelines to ensure that cluster bombs are not used in or near populated areas. Does anyone in this Senate believe that a cluster munition should be used in a civilian populated area? That person can stand up and talk to that point of view. It is unconscionable. It is immoral. It is beyond the laws of warfare. If somebody wants to argue that point of view, so be it. If that is the kind of country a Member wants to represent, so be it. It is not the country I want to represent.

This is a simple amendment which says no funds will be used until there are rules of engagement that say that these munitions will not be used in civilian areas where death and maiming is apt to result.

This amendment will go a long way toward ensuring only prudent battlefield use. I hope this amendment has an opportunity to pass.

I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time remains?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee is here, Senator Leahy of Vermont, someone whose leadership on the landmine issue has been unparalleled in the Senate. He is a cosponsor of this amendment.

I yield the Senator the remainder of my time.