Floor Statements

Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Ambassador John D. Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence.

This is not a moment without precedent in history. President Roosevelt faced a similar situation in 1941 when he had disparate intelligence and information gathering organizations within the government, but did not have a single person in charge. President Roosevelt convinced a reluctant Colonel William J., Wild Bill, Donovan to be the first ``Coordinator of Information,'' an organization that eventually became the Office of Strategic Services, OSS, and ultimately, the Central Intelligence Agency.

I would like to read a quote from the book, ``Donovan of O.S.S.,'' by Corey Ford:

The appointment of Colonel Donovan as director of COI was

formally announced by executive order on July 11, 1941, and

his duties were defined in Roosevelt's own words: `To collect

and analyze all information and data which may bear upon

national security, to correlate such information and data and

make the same available to the President and to such

departments and officials of the Government as may the

President may determine, and to carry out when request by the

President such supplementary activities as may facilitate the

securing of information important for national security not

now available to the Government.'

The directive was purposely obscure in its wording, due to

the secret and potentially offensive nature of the agency's

functions; and the other intelligence organizations, jealous

of their prerogatives, took advantage of the vague

phraesology to set loose a flock of rumors that Donovan was

to be the Heinrich Himmler of an American Gestapo, the

Goebbels of a controlled press, a super-spy over Hoover's G-

men and the Army and Navy, the head of a grand strategy board

which would dictate even to the General Staff. In vain, the

President reiterated that Donovan's work, `is not intended to

supersede or to duplicate or to involve any direction of or

interference with the activities of the General Staff, the

regular intelligence services, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, or of other existing agencies.' The

bureaucratic war was on.

It was a war all too familiar to Washington, the dog-eat-

dog struggle among government departments to preserve their

own areas of power.

Ambassador Negroponte and General Michael Hayden, USAir Force, his deputy, face a similar situation today, and I wish them well.

Some have said the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 uses similarly ``vague phraseology'' in describing the authorities and responsibilities of the new Director of National Intelligence. Some say that Roosevelt was intentionally vague to allow the strong personality of Wild Bill Donovan to make this new intelligence organization work.

I think we have two very strong personalities in Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden who are up to the task and will make this new Office of National Intelligence work. Their work will be even more effective as they forge strong alliances with their colleagues in other departments of Government.

As Ambassador Negroponte begins this important effort, I know he is mindful on the balance that must be maintained between the needs of national policy makers, military commanders on distant battlefields, and local and national homeland security officials, who are all charged with the safety and security of the American homeland. The support these elements enjoy today has not always been the case. When General Norman Schwarzkopf testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 1991 regarding lesson learned during the first Persian Gulf War, he told the committee that responsive national intelligence support has been unsatisfactory from his perspective as the theater commander in charge of combat operations. Clearly, much has changed since 1991, but we must all remain vigilant in ensuring that intelligence support for our men and women in uniform is maintained and enhanced.

Ambassador Negroponte has a strong record of public service as the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines, the United Nations, and most recently, Iraq. He has a great reputation as a problem solver who can be counted on for the epitome of candor and integrity.

John Negroponte has served his Nation faithfully and well. His willingness to take on this daunting challenge is a testament to a man who understands service to Nation and has, once again, answered the call to serve. We are fortunate to have a citizen of such character to undertake this important and challenging task of bringing our Intelligence Community together as a coherent, well-coordinated entity.

I strongly support confirmation of Ambassador John D. Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence, and hope the spirit of Wild Bill Donovan guides and inspires his efforts.

I wish to commend the distinguished Senator for those remarks. I humbly ask the privilege of being associated with the remarks he made.

Senator Inouye has been one of the most extraordinary leaders I have had the privilege to serve with in my career in the Senate. I thank him and I thank the Senator from Nevada.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I had the opportunity to speak to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and I know he was anxious to address the Senate with regard to his desire to obtain time to speak in opposition to the Bayh amendment. Might I ask, what is the parliamentary situation with regard to that? Hopefully, we can see the appearance of the Senator from Alaska.

Will the Chair kindly repeat that?

Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from Alaska,

I ask that an additional 10 minutes be allocated to the senior Senator from Alaska.

I misunderstood. I thought the senior Senator from Massachusetts and his colleague from Indiana had adequate opportunity to speak. I am perfectly willing to ask for 15 minutes equally divided between the senior Senator from Massachusetts and the senior Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, first, I commend Senators Kennedy and Bayh. They have really fought the battle through the years, and it has been since fiscal year 2003 we have been dealing with the need for the uparmor.

As my colleague from Alaska said, and I add this, from fiscal year 2003 to 2005, the Congress added--that is additional funds--added $1.2 billion to the President's request to increase uparmored humvee production, and almost $1.9 billion was added to the President's budget request to increase the production of ballistic add-on armor for tactical-wheeled vehicles in the Army and the Marine Corps.

I think we have clearly met the demand, and it is largely owing to these two Senators who have been out on the point on this issue. But right now these additional funds, I say to my colleague from Alaska, if the Senate were to approve the amendment, would have to be taken out of other modernization programs for the Army; am I not correct?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and amendment No. 498 be called up.

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

Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished Presiding Officer, is this amendment germane?

I thank the Chair. The amendment is germane; therefore, it can be made a part of the business pending before the Senate and, hopefully, it will be acted upon by a record vote and included as a part of the underlying bill. I will seek that at an appropriate time.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that follows on an amendment that I earlier put in on this bill, which understandably failed to meet the germaneness test, and therefore just early this morning it was stricken. Nevertheless, I have carefully crafted this, and now it is confirmed by the Parliamentarian that this amendment is germane.

This amendment applies to the question of the USS John F. Kennedy, a very famous and historic ship of the U.S. Navy, which recently was designated to be retired by the Department of Defense as a consequence of a restricted budget that was placed in the waning hours of the budget process on the Department of the Navy. Quite unexpectedly, the Department of the Navy departed from its steadfast opinions, published statements, and records that this Nation required 12 aircraft carriers in our fleet. It came as a complete surprise to the Congress. I didn't feel that we had any particular consultation. Nevertheless, the executive branch has the right to make budget decisions, so that history is behind us.

I believe it is imperative that the Congress--and now, at this time, the Senate--examine this situation and determine whether at this point in time this ship should be stricken from the active force and designated for mothballs. I say that because the Department of Defense is well along in its Quadrennial Defense Review. The Congress has 180 days, once that is completed, to look at that report. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to say that this ship stays in the fleet in an active status until two things happen: the Department completes its Quadrennial Defense Review and the Congress has had 180 days to study the results of that review; and the Secretary of Defense certifies to the Congress that necessary agreements have been entered into with other nations to provide for the permanent forward deployment of aircraft carriers in the Pacific necessary to carry out the mission within the Pacific Command area of responsibility.

The reasons I am offering this amendment are simple. Congress has a constitutional role and mandate to maintain a navy. I will repeat that. Under the Constitution, we raise armies in time of need, but we maintain a navy. As I have heard many colleagues say--and I recently heard my colleague, Senator McCain, speaking to a group--a warship really has two purposes. It has its underlying missions to deter aggression and, if necessary, to repel aggression, but it also has a very valuable role as a silent ambassador wherever it is beyond the shores of the United States. Particularly when the magnificence of an American ship is in a harbor beyond our shores, people from that country come from all over to take a look. It is a silent way of saying America is there to help protect freedom. It is called ship diplomacy. It is well documented in the long history of this country. We being, in many respects, an island nation, we have always depended upon our maritime arm of defense to play a role in diplomacy and, if necessary, to take up arms.

The funds for the Kennedy's scheduled maintenance were authorized and appropriated in previous bills. Money to do the work that is necessary to keep this ship active in the fleet is in the coffers of the U.S. Navy today. For that reason, we are not trying to touch a single dollar that is in this bill. We will maintain the Kennedy in the fleet until 2018. The ship will be quite old; nevertheless, in the opinion of the sailors who sail it today and the sailors who will sail it tomorrow, it can be an effective ship and be counted upon as a full partner in the fleet of some 12 carriers.

All analyses presented to the Congress, to include the last two Quadrennial Defense Reviews, in 1997 and 2001, set the minimum number of aircraft carriers at 12. There has been no analysis to support reducing the aircraft carrier fleet to 11--that is, formal analysis. I realize there are working documents in the Department of the Navy, but I have not seen that type of analysis that I believed fully justified a decision of this importance. I think that analysis will be done in the forthcoming 2005 review.

Next, the reason the Department submitted the budget request with the decommissioning of an aircraft carrier was because the Navy was handed a budget cut in December, somewhat unexpectedly. The Navy's original budget submission included the Kennedy. I point that out. Throughout the budget process, that particular process, and the budget of the Department of Defense, the Kennedy was always included with the 12 carriers. Then, with the flick of a wrist and some very brief analysis I have seen, out she went.

The Kennedy, as I say, is in good material condition. In the words of the battle group commander who just returned on this ship from a 6- month deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in December, it is in ``outstanding material condition.''

With the scheduled decommissioning of the USS Kitty Hawk in fiscal year 2008, the Kennedy would be the only, assuming this amendment prevails, conventionally powered aircraft carrier available in the Pacific Command area of responsibility where there are nations that simply will not allow a nuclear warship to enter its waters.

Again, I believe Congress should now show its responsibility--I repeat, its responsibility--in making force structure decisions and go back and review what the Navy has done and say to the Department of the Navy: Not at this time should we be decommissioning this ship. We should await the normal processes of the QDR, the BRAC process, and other ongoing congressional and active procedures until such time, and then the decision can be made, in a balanced way, as to the fate of the carrier.

Mr. President, I thank my principal cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from Florida. We are joined in this matter by Senator Allen, Senator Martinez, and Senator Talent, who is chairman of the Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee. This is a bipartisan approach. It is not a political matter. We are simply here in the best interests of the Department of Defense and this country in suggesting strongly to our colleagues we should have a voice in this matter, and to do so, the Senator from Florida and I and others are bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if the time is appropriate for the Senator from Florida and me to ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment?

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida. I think other Senators desire to speak on this amendment. I yield to the good judgment and fair judgment of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee as to the timing of the vote on this amendment. I do urge Senators to come and express their views on this important issue.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Therefore, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to oblige the distinguished chairman. May I hear the request again.

I am perfectly agreeable to an equal division of the time. If the Senator needs 15, we have had the opportunity, Senator Nelson, myself, and others, and I believe the Presiding Officer may wish to speak, and Senator Allen. So that is agreeable.

Mr. President, at this time, will you entertain a brief question?

The Senator has read from a transcript. We have had a discussion about it. Wouldn't you say that the Chief of Naval Operations expressed a different view at a different time?

Mr. President, I say to my good friend the funds needed, to the extent funds are needed, to keep this ship in an operational status are in the 2005 budget. The only reason we had to make reference with the sentence ``of the amount appropriated for the Department of Navy by this act'' was to get it germane so we could get it to the floor so the Senate of the United States can make a decision.

I say to the Senator most respectfully, the funds that are needed to put this ship in such condition to continue are there. However, just today the admiral, who was the battle fleet commander who brought this ship back from its most recent deployment, said as follows:

If improvements made to the JFK avionics maintenance

facility prior to deployment--

The access to this ship. And he concludes by saying:

The results from our aggressive self-sufficiency and superb

technical support, mostly via aviation technology, enabled us

to return from the deployment in outstanding material

condition.

That is the status of the ship. The reason we are trying to keep this in is not a political one, it is not relating to our various jurisdictions. It is for the interest of this country to keep a ship in port in Japan which is nonnuclear, while the Japanese Government and the local mayoral government--I think it is called a precept--make the decision as to whether they will ever allow a nuclear carrier in there.

I think there is adequate testimony in our records of the Armed Services Committee to the effect the Navy believes keeping a ship in that area of operation, particularly at this time of heightened tension, is in the interest of our national security and our ability to work with our allies and friends in that region.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, can I inquire of the time remaining under my control? My understanding is there were 15 minutes to Senator Stevens and 15 minutes given to my side.

I think, in the interest of moving this along, that we adhere to the request there be 15 minutes to each side.

We failed to achieve an agreement. So can I reinstate the original request, 15 minutes to each side--it is now less the amount of time consumed by both sides--so the Senate can get on with its business?

Mr. President, I say to Senator Nelson and my colleagues, it is clear this decision to take the Kennedy and put it in a situation where it is going into mothballs was made in the final hours of the budget process.

It was driven by the budget. The Chief of Naval Operations had testified before our committee, which testimony is before the Senate, that he always wanted 12 carriers. If we are to make a decision to go from 12 carriers to 11, that should be done in the QDR process which is underway now, which will be concluded this year, possibly impacted by the BRAC process which likewise is underway, and consequently there are orderly procedures legislated by the Congress by which a decision of this magnitude should be made.

There are three Senators who desire to speak, and I will yield 2 minutes to each of them: Senator Allen, 2 minutes; Senator Martinez, 2 minutes, and Senator Talent, 2 minutes.

Mr. President, might I inquire as to the total time remaining under my control?

I yield 30 additional seconds to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend in a very dispassionate, calm way, you read from a document that is only 10 days old. They learned that I differed with them, and they have done everything they can to build a case to stop it. But not a dollar has gone out of the Navy Treasury. It is still there. You will see that that was done just 10 days ago.

I say to my good friend, they made the decision to keep this in the budget. It was in the budget up until the last 2 days when down came a cut in dollars and they decided to go to where they maybe cut a few bucks out. They can restore them and that ship can stay alive and that ship can be added to address any problem to defend our interests in that area for an indefinite period of time because it is in good condition as certified today--am I correct, Senator?--by the admiral in charge of that ship?

So as a former Secretary of the Navy myself, I feel very strongly. I do not know of any Senator who stood on this floor more times to defend the Department of the Navy--I say with a sense of humility--than I. But I believe this time the decision was driven by the budget, and it is not a correct one given the status of forces in that area, given the uncertainty about the ability to continue the homeporting of a Navy carrier in our expensive base that we have maintained--as a matter of fact, as Secretary I put it together--in Yokosuka.

If there is more time, I yield the time back and suggest the Senate work its will.

I ask Senator Collins be added to those as cosponsor, and that the list remain open because we

have received a lot of calls from people who want to support this amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as a cosponsor, I would like to have 2 minutes.

Mr. President, as a cosponsor, may I have 2 minutes?

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland. We have in the Senate a great respect and admiration for the junior Senator from Maryland for her commitment for the little person. I cannot think of another example in her long and distinguished career in the Senate where there is a clearer case for the small business, that individual who is struggling to make an honest living and provide jobs for others.

We have before us today a tremendous challenge as it relates to immigration on a wide range of issues. This program works. It is very small in comparison to others, but it works. It serves the small businesses, not only seafood, which we have talked about before in the context of this amendment, but other small things--the bed and breakfasts, the small hotels that are so important in our respective States and elsewhere in America.

I say to our colleagues, as they come to join us, it is essential that we pass this to help this category of small businesspersons and to lend credence to a program that works. For every one of these individuals who is brought in, it would be my judgment--and I concur, with my distinguished colleague--that there are two or three permanent American workers whose jobs are supported by their efforts. Oftentimes most of these come in for a short period, some several months, largely in the summertime; some in the fall. Then they go back to their homes beyond the borders of the United States. But the American worker then takes their work product and it enables them to have a full-time, 12- month means of employment.

This is one on which my colleagues will be proud to vote for cloture. In effect, it will enable this legislation to pass.

On behalf of the leadership of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be extended until the beginning of the cloture vote on the Mikulski amendment.

Do I not have a bit of time on mine? On behalf of my colleague from Virginia, I ask unanimous consent that he proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, the two Senators from Virginia accept the challenge of the Senator from Maryland to a cookoff on crabcakes. Before we started this, the Senator talked about her mother's formula. We have ours.

With that, I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague from West Virginia if it would be in order to lay the amendment aside so I can send to the desk another amendment.

Mr. President, I send amendment No. 499 to the desk.

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

I am joined by the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, Senator Allen, Senator Martinez, Senator Talent, and Senator Collins. I am prepared to give my statement in support.

I see the Senator from Vermont.

I think the Senator is asking that he be recognized at the conclusion of the introduction of this amendment. Senator Nelson and I will be brief to accommodate our colleagues.

Mr. President, this amendment ensures that all necessary repair and maintenance be accomplished on the USS John F. Kennedy to keep that ship in active status. The amendment also requires the Navy to keep 12 aircraft

carriers until the later of several situations comes to the attention of the Senate and the Congress: 180 days after the next Quadrennial Defense Review is delivered to Congress, or the Secretary of Defense has certified to Congress the necessary agreements have been entered into to provide the port facilities for the permanent forward deployed aircraft carriers deemed necessary to carry out the mission in their area of responsibility.

The ship, the USS Kennedy, was scheduled to start overhaul this coming summer. There was $334.7 million authorized and appropriated in the fiscal year 2005 for that purpose. So none of the funds in the underlying bill in any way are garnered by this amendment.

In the last-minute budget cut in late December, the decision was made by the Department of Defense to defer maintenance and to decommission the Kennedy.

The Chief of Naval Operations testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 10 of this year that all 12 aircraft carriers were in his original budget request. He stated, however, that ``this action was driven by guidance'' from the office of Management and Budget that ``led to the reduction of our overall budget.''

That repair and maintenance should go forward, starting this summer as originally planned. It is premature to decommission this ship, which was until this past December scheduled to remain in the fleet until 2018.

The great ship, the John F. Kennedy, returned from deployment on December 13, 2004. I understand the ship is in good shape. In fact, in the words of the battle group commander, whose flagship was the Kennedy, the ship returned from deployment in ``outstanding material condition.''

The primary analytical document on military force structure is the Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR. The QDR is, in the end, a compilation of detailed analyses of what the Nation requires to execute the National Military Strategy.

I believe Congress should show restraint when it comes to making force structure decisions, and only do so in the context of the reports and the analyses produced by the Department of Defense and such other reports that may be relevant. In this case, however, the analyses that are available to us supports a force structure of 12 aircraft carriers, not 11.

I also believe that, at some point, the number of aircraft carriers matters. If the aircraft carrier is not where the President needs it to be when a crisis erupts, its capabilities, however awesome, are not very meaningful.

The deliberations on the next QDR have already begun, in accordance with the law, and it should be delivered by this time next year. It may show, with analytical rigor, that the number of aircraft carriers can be reduced. It may not.

Nowhere is naval power more important to the National Military Strategy than in the Pacific Command Area of Responsibility.

After retirement of the USS Kitty Hawk in fiscal year 2008, the Kennedy, if retained, would be the last remaining conventional aircraft carrier.

This amendment ensures we have the aircraft carriers necessary to keep this area of the world covered until such time that the QDR, the Global Posture Review, and other uncertainties have been resolved.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, the CNO appeared before our committee here of recent.

Now I will yield to my distinguished colleague from Florida, who was present during the course of that testimony, to insert that part which was in open session, which I think we should share with our colleagues. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Florida, my principal cosponsor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague along the Chesapeake Bay, Senator Mikulski. This amendment would make minor, temporary changes to the non- immigrant, seasonal visa program known as the H-2B visa program. This program allows small businesses in the Commonwealth of Virginia to hire temporary workers for non-agricultural jobs.

As many of my colleagues know that for each fiscal year, which starts on October 1, there has been a statutory limitation on the number of admissions to the U.S. under the H-2B visa category since 1990. In 2004, the statutory cap of 66,000 H-2B visas was reached on March 9. This year the H-2B cap was reached much earlier on January 3.

As a result of reaching this cap for the second year in a row, many businesses, mostly summer employers, have been unable to obtain the temporary workers they need because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas. Consequently, these businesses have and will continue to sustain significant economic losses unless Congress acts.

Our amendment helps fix this problem by making common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business.

First, the bill would reward good workers and employers. Those workers who have faithfully abided by the law for one of the past 3 years would be exempted from the cap. This exemption will help keep together workers and employers who have had a successful track record of working together.

Second, the bill would make sure that the Government agencies processing the H-2B visas have the resources they need to detect and prevent fraud. Starting on October 1, 2005, employers participating in the program would pay an additional fee that would be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor could use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas.

Finally, the bill would implement a visa allocation system that would be fair for all employers. Half of the 66,000 visas would be reserved for employers needing workers in the winter and the other half would be reserved for companies needing workers for the summer. This provision would allow both winter employers and summer employers an equal chance to obtain the workers they desperately need.

Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses are not going to make it another year if something is not done soon. Only through passage of this amendment can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these businesses can be saved.

Unfortunately, the only real opposition to this legislation is ``perception.'' I have the utmost respect for those in this Chamber that may not fully support this amendment. Their perception on this matter stems from good principles. Illegal immigration has grown to be a substantial problem in this country, especially in the area of domestic security, and I agree that changes must be made to make our policy work.

However, the temporary changes this amendment proposes does not belong in the debate on immigration or illegal immigration. The H-2B program is a seasonal, non-immigrant worker visa program. In fact, it may be one of the last programs we have to provide a legal, seasonal workforce for our small businesses, allowing them to fill the gaps where domestic workers cannot be found.

More importantly, these changes do not belong in the immigration debate because they deal with an economic issue. Over 75 percent of net new jobs in this country come from small businesses. This amendment proposes changes to help save our small businesses. In many parts of the country, for every temporary H-2B worker that is hired, two more full-time domestic workers are sustained.

There are some criticisms of this program which I am sure some will raise. Let's take a moment and examine some of these mis-perceptions surrounding the H-2B program.

H-2B employers do not do enough to recruit U.S. workers. They could just pay more. Virginia employers have not found this to be the case. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor set stringent guidelines on recruitment and wages.

First, U.S. employers must prove that they have exhausted all opportunities to hire U.S. workers. One H-2B employer agent in Virginia, who assists employers in this process, have told me that they have already spent in excess of $250,000 on such ads on behalf of its 300 plus clients for the 2005 employment season. This was out of over 6,000 job openings for 300 plus employers in 30 plus States.

Even after this campaign, they only succeeded in locating and hiring less than 50 U.S. workers who expressed an interest in the H-2B jobs. They were all hired, but unfortunately, less than half of these workers started work and even less completed the entire season.

In regard to the seafood industry, over the past 15 years, Americans have slowly withdrawn from their workforce. It is common for motivated workers to make $75-$100 dollars in a 7-hour day shucking oysters, picking crabs, or packing the product. Those in the seafood industry have told me that despite this earning potential, ``frequently U.S. workers will work for a day or two and then never return. It is difficult to function on the uncertainty of our local work force, but we never give up on them.''

In addition, the Department of Labor requires H-2B workers and U.S. workers to be paid the same wages for the same work. Additionally, all of the same taxes taken out of a domestic worker's salary are taken out of the H-2B worker's salary; however, the H-2B worker by regulation are ineligible to receive any benefits from the taxes withheld from their paycheck.

The H-2B program encourages illegal immigration; or, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary worker, a long review of the management of this program reveals otherwise. The employers have successfully ensured that the workers return to their home country. If they do not, employers are not able to participate in the program next year, and neither are the workers. Most consulates in their home countries require the workers to present themselves personally to prove that they have returned home.

Believe me, I am a strong supporter of efforts to help those Americans who want to work get the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. But these H-2B workers are not taking jobs from Americans, they are filling in the gaps left vacant by Americans that do not want them. Like I have said before, this program actually helps to sustain domestic jobs.

The future success of the H-2B visa program rests on the ability of businesses to participate in it, but right now, many will be denied access to the program for the second year in a row. The amendment introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair.

These seasonal businesses just cannot find enough American workers to meet their business needs. And ultimately, that is why this program is so important. Without Americans to fill these jobs, these businesses need to be able to participate in the H-2B program. The current system is not treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business.

I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maryland for raising this issue. I have joined her as a cosponsor on this amendment. In my some quarter of a century that I have been privileged to be in the Senate I have watched in my State the loss of the textile industry and the furniture industry. Peanuts have disappeared, tobacco has disappeared, and now the seafood industry is disappearing.

The distinguished Senator from Maryland and I have paralleled our careers, and my recollection is there used

to be about 150 oyster-picking and crab-picking small businesses in my State. If there is one thing about this legislation, it is for the small person operator, man and woman. I doubt if there is now more than 40 out of the 150 or more picking houses remaining in my State, and these folks have come to see me. They are very quiet when they come in. They do not have any high-paid lobbyist. They come up themselves. Maybe they take off their overalls, but by and large they come right in the office in a very courteous way and they do not beg for anything. They just want to have an opportunity to remain in existence. Most of these small operations have been handed down from family to family.

Throughout Virginia, we take great pride in the Virginia crabcake. We are in competition with the Maryland crabcake. Now, I know Marylanders will come over and steal the Virginia crabmeat to put in their crabcakes. I say to my dear friends, the two Senators from Maryland, they know that, but pretty soon there may not be any crabmeat left for the crabcakes from either State to put on their menus.

Likewise, the oysters have declined, but that, I cannot say, is entirely due to this labor situation. It is more because of the Chesapeake Bay and the problems we are having with the balance of nature. The oysters are disappearing for a variety of reasons, but I will not get into that. Then a number of the seafood houses that provide bait for fishing are dependent on these workers.

I ask my colleagues to listen carefully to two letters that were written to me, and then I will yield the floor. The first one is from Cap'n Tom's Seafood. He states:

My name is Tom Stevens, I am owner and operator of Cap'n

Tom's Seafood located in Lancaster County in the Northern

Neck of Virginia.

By the way, that is one community I have tried to help because those counties have great pride, but they do not have as strong an economy as they once did. He continues:

I'm located less than 30 minutes from businesses like The

Tides Inn, Indian Creek Yacht Club and Windmill Point. These

business are large consumers of seafood. I also have many

customers in the Richmond area.

When I opened my plant, for years I tried to operate using

local help. However, it has become much harder to operate.

Not only is the local force scarce and unreliable, but the

younger generation is not interested, in learning the trade.

On holidays, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas when oysters

are in demand, shuckers are nowhere to be found.

As you are aware, in this business, oysters must be shucked

and crabs must be picked soon after they arrive. I have tried

to get local help by advertising in the local newspapers and

through the employment agency without success. I finally got

help through the H2 B workers program.

Speaking for myself and several others in the industry, we

could not operate our businesses if it weren't for the H2 B

program. I can not emphasize enough how important this

program is for the seafood industry of Virginia. These

workers are reliable, hard working, and with excellent work

ethics. Their main purpose is to earn money to improve their

lives and the lives of their families in their country of

origin. I pay them as I do my other workers, not the minimum

I was told I could, but the top of the pay scale for the

seafood industry. I deduct their taxes including Social

Security and pay unemployment, even though they do not claim

it.

I sincerely hope that you will continue to support the H2 B

workers program and to strengthen the program by increasing

the quota. The future of the seafood industry is dependent

entirely on this program. It is important that our industry

remains strong and healthy for the welfare of the State of

Virginia.

Sincerely,

Tom Stevens.

The other letter is from Bevans Oyster Company, Inc., in Kinsale, VA, a small community:

I am Ronald Bevans, President and owner of Bevans Oyster

Company. My company relies on the Federal H2-B temporary

foreign visa program to provide the legal, reliable, seasonal

labor which my company needs in order to stay in business. We

have used this program since 1996 to obtain fish packers from

March 1 to December 31. Our workers, for the most part,

return to us each year. Some of them have been with us since

we started the program in 1996.

And on and on it goes. One sentence in here stands out:

Our seafood business cannot survive without the H2-B

workers.

Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by agreeing to this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter and other letters printed in the Record and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object to that statement.

Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to H.R. 1268 which would require the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress by July 15, 2005, on the Government's processes and policies for disposal of property at military installations proposed to be closed or realigned as part of the 2005 round of base closure and realignment, and the assistance available to affected local communities for reuse and redevelopment decisions.

This report will be of tremendous assistance to States and local communities affected by BRAC, and faced with difficult decisions about the redevelopment and economic revitalization of their areas. The report required by this amendment is similar to Community Guides to base reuse, which were published by the Department of Defense in all four previous BRAC rounds during the Commission's deliberations. These guides served a vital purpose for affected communities by explaining existing Federal law pertaining to property disposal and by endorsing a proactive and cooperative relationship between military departments and local communities, without appearing to be directive in nature. I ask support for this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Durbin, an important bipartisan bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. My good friend and colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf, is introducing the same legislation today in the House.

Without a doubt, our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism.

Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.

The situation America faces today is not unlike almost 50 years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility; afterwards our Nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.

In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed legislation creating the National Defense Education Act, which was designed to stimulate advancement in science and mathematics. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade.

These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet.

Why is any of this important to us today? Because, as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.

The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future.

The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries. While a little bit better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.

Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.

In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.

Moreover, in the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks. We cannot run the risk of having to out-source the security of this country simply because we don't have enough highly trained U.S. citizens to meet our America's needs.

The legislation we are introducing today is a targeted measure that will help America meet its needs by providing strong incentives to students and graduates to pursue studies and careers in these important scientific and technical fields.

Our bill simply allows the Federal Government to pay the interest on undergraduate student loans for certain graduates of math, science, or engineering programs who agree to work in the United States in these fields for 5 consecutive years. Priority will be given to those students with degrees in majors that are key to protecting our national, homeland and economic security as a nation.

Almost 50 years ago our Nation learned a lesson about the cost of complacency in science and technology. While we responded with immediate vigor and ultimately prevailed, today, new dangers are upon us.

Once again, America must rise to meet a new challenge. In my view, this initiative is an important step forward that will encourage Americans to enter important fields of study that are crucial to the national, homeland, and economic security of this country.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Durbin, an important bipartisan bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. My good friend and colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf, is introducing the same legislation today in the House.

Without a doubt, our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism.

Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.

The situation America faces today is not unlike almost 50 years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility; afterwards our Nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.

In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed legislation creating the National Defense Education Act, which was designed to stimulate advancement in science and mathematics. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade.

These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet.

Why is any of this important to us today? Because, as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.

The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future.

The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries. While a little bit better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.

Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.

In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.

Moreover, in the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks. We cannot run the risk of having to out-source the security of this country simply because we don't have enough highly trained U.S. citizens to meet our America's needs.

The legislation we are introducing today is a targeted measure that will help America meet its needs by providing strong incentives to students and graduates to pursue studies and careers in these important scientific and technical fields.

Our bill simply allows the Federal Government to pay the interest on undergraduate student loans for certain graduates of math, science, or engineering programs who agree to work in the United States in these fields for 5 consecutive years. Priority will be given to those students with degrees in majors that are key to protecting our national, homeland and economic security as a nation.

Almost 50 years ago our Nation learned a lesson about the cost of complacency in science and technology. While we responded with immediate vigor and ultimately prevailed, today, new dangers are upon us.

Once again, America must rise to meet a new challenge. In my view, this initiative is an important step forward that will encourage Americans to enter important fields of study that are crucial to the national, homeland, and economic security of this country.

Mr. President, this amendment has the effect of placing a serious impediment, if not an absolute block, against the United States proceeding to fulfillment of a contract entered into by the Department of Defense--more specifically, the Navy Department having been the executive agent on this contract--for the procurement of the replacement helicopters commonly referred to as marine I. It is the fleet that serves the President primarily and others associated with the White House.

This contract was in negotiation for over a year. It was an open and free competition. So far as I know there was no question raised against the contract being awarded to the winning company, a U.S. company, together with a consortium of overseas participants with, nevertheless, the U.S. company being the lead company.

The amendment was drafted to the Arms Export Control Act and it is intended to prevent the Navy from going forward with this acquisition program. This is a matter that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. Normally, we consult committees before acting.

I do not fault the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I think at the time this was done very hastily, it was not clear to the staff and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that it was within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. Otherwise, I would have come over to the floor earlier.

Now, the amendment having been adopted, I, together with my two distinguished colleagues from New York, Senators Clinton and Schumer, will address this matter tomorrow or during the course of the further consideration of the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act. But I can assure you, we will employ every parliamentary device available to us to see that this matter is rectified because I think it was not done in a manner that is consistent with what we normally do around here by way of procedures. Secondly, I think it is detrimental to the whole performance of the contracting and procurement responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense.

So for the moment, for those interested in this contract, let it be known there is a group of us who are going to have this reexamined and, if necessary, take it to the full Senate for consideration before this bill is finally acted upon.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to ADM Carlisle A.H. Trost, U.S. Navy, Retired, as he steps down after 17 faithful, diligent, and honorable years as the chairman of the board of directors of the George and Carol Olmsted Foundation of Falls Church, VA. In years past it was a privilege to have worked closely with both George Olmsted and Admiral Trost.

Admiral Trost, who ascended to the position of Chief of Naval Operations during his long and distinguished career as a naval officer, offered his services first as a director, then as chairman of the board, of the prestigious Olmsted Foundation. Demonstrating a vital understanding of this complex world, he led the foundation in its expanding role to educate young, talented, and dedicated military officers in learning foreign languages and in understanding foreign cultures through the awarding of scholarships to study overseas for 2 years. With our military deployed for wars in over 100 countries across the globe, the importance of having officers imbued with the cultural sensitivities and language capabilities provided by this special education is essential. Thanks to Admiral Trost's innate understanding of the importance of the training provided to Olmsted scholars and his visionary leadership, the number of scholars studying annually doubled and the foundation's endowment increased dramatically.

Admiral Trost also established the Tri-Service Academy Cadet and Midshipman Overseas Travel and Cultural Immersion Program at our three service academies in 2001. He later extended this important training and educational program to the three Service Reserve Officer Training Commands, ROTC, and the six senior military colleges, title 10 schools. Admiral Trost graduated from the Naval Academy in 1953, where he was first in his class of 925 midshipmen. He went on to become an Olmsted Scholar in 1960, studying in the German language at the University of Freiburg from 1960 to 1962. From there he had a most successful tour as a submarine officer, eventually commanding the blue crew of the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, USS Sam Rayburn, SSBN 635.

As a young captain, he was selected by his superiors to serve as a naval aide to the Under Secretary and, later, Secretary of the Navy. It was my good fortune to have served in these positions and to have learned from this great teacher, peer, and life-long friend. Whether as a submarine group commander, a numbered fleet commander, Commander of the Atlantic Fleet, or as Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Trost always served his country with honor and dignity.

Admiral Trost has provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on many critical issues and at many key levels of decision making for both the Navy and the Nation. Indeed, his actions and wise counsel over the years have been of enduring importance to the U.S. Congress. Though he is a modest man, he truly is an extraordinary individual and leader who has contributed so much to this country and the cause of freedom. He has been dedicated fully to mission accomplishment, education, leadership, and professionalism in the highest traditions of the American spirit.

Mr. President, the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are

reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is a principle of Federalism which, I believe, is not being followed by Congress in enacting this legislation.

That the misfortunes of life vested upon Theresa Marie Schiavo are a human tragedy, no one can deny. I said my prayers, as did many Americans, as we attended religious services this Palm Sunday.

I believe it unwise for the Congress to take from the State of Florida its constitutional responsibility to resolve the issues in this case.

The Florida State court system has adjudicated the issues to date. This bill, in effect, challenges the integrity and capabilities of the State courts in Florida.

That the Federal system of courts can move properly and fairly ajudicate the equities among the diverse parties in this particular case is a conclusion with which I cannot agree.

Greater wisdom is not always reposed in the branches of the Federal Government.

Apart from constitutional issues, I am concerned for the institution of the Senate, a body in which I have been privileged to serve for over a quarter of a century.

I view service in the Senate as that of a trustee--preserve this venerable body, its traditions and time-tested precedents, for future generations. It is one of a kind in their troubled world.

The drafters of this bill endeavored to write in provisions to prevent this unique law--a private relief bill is the term used in our procedures--from becoming a ``precedent for future legislation'' (section 7).

I do not believe the legislation can, or will, block further petitions from our citizens. Who can say there are not other tragic situations across our land today; who can predict what the future may inflict by way of personal hardship upon our citizens?

I fear the door has opened and Congress, which by constitutional mandate is entrusted to pass laws for the Nation, will again and again be petitioned to deal with personal situations which are the responsibility of the several States.

I respect the views of those who drafted and moved this bill swiftly, with limited debate, through the Senate. I value the sanctity of life no less fervently than they, for I had the great fortune of being the son of a doctor who devoted his entire life to healing and caring for the sick and injured. My father's principles have been my compass for my life.

It is not easy to be in opposition to this legislation, but I have a duty to state my views in keeping with my oath to support the Constitution as I interpret it.

in defense of senate tradition

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Leahy amendment No. 83 to the bankruptcy reform bill. This amendment offers a common- sense solution to a thorny issue in current bankruptcy law.

While I am a strong supporter of the underlying bankruptcy reform bill, and look forward to voting for its final passage, I am concerned about section 414, which amends the disinterested person definition in the conflict of interest standards of the Bankruptcy Code.

Under current law, a firm that serves as an underwriter for a company's securities may be barred absolutely from advising that company in a bankruptcy reorganization. The existing law is probably an over-broad response to the fear of potential abuse. For example, there is little potential for abuse in bankruptcy if an investment bank underwrote securities for a company 50 years ago, and had not done so since.

Section 414 in this bankruptcy reform bill essentially does away with the current ban, and gives bankruptcy judges the discretion to determine whether the investment bank has a material adverse interest. If the judge decides that no such adverse interest exists, then the bank would be able to advise the debtor company, even if some of the bank's advice helped contribute to the bankruptcy in the first place.

In my view, while the current law is over-broad, section 414 swings the pendulum too far the other way. I agree with the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, William Donaldson, who recently wrote to Members of the Senate on behalf of the SEC. Chairman Donaldson noted that the SEC believes that ``it would be a mistake to eliminate the exclusion in a similar one-size-fits-all manner at a time when investor confidence is fragile.''

Given the number of high-profile corporate bankruptcies over the past few years, it is paramount that we completely avoid the slightest appearance of impropriety in these bankruptcies. In my view, the Leahy amendment achieves that goal, and strikes a solid middle ground in this important debate.

On the one hand, the amendment does not attempt to reinstate the overly broad current law. On the other hand, the amendment recognizes that it is important for Congress to set out some uniform policy in this area rather than leaving it up to hundreds of individual bankruptcy judges.

Instead, the Leahy amendment imposes a reasonable 5-year waiting period under which an investment bank that underwrote securities for a company would be precluded from advising that same company in bankruptcy.

In my view, this amendment would protect against any possibility of abuse, would safeguard against the appearance of impropriety, and would not unduly harm investment banks from rightfully participating in the bankruptcy process.