Floor Statements

I thank Chairman Inhofe and as Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I am pleased to join him and our Committees' ranking members in supporting this order. I note that the issues for which the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is responsible fall within the jurisdiction of both the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has played an increasingly important role within the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army for homeland defense and homeland security. The Army protects and supports the American people in the event of natural and man-made disasters and emergencies. Army programs provide public works and engineering assistance to protect human life, reduce suffering, and mitigate damage, and Army response activities supplement State and local efforts. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works also has responsibilities, in concert with the Chief of Staff of the Army, in directing the foreign activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and formulating and overseeing the budget of the Arlington National Cemetery, matters of great concern to the Armed Services Committee.

I note, as well, that there are matters under the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works' purview which are of concern to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Army programs for conservation and development of national water resources, including flood control, navigation, and shore protection, come to mind. Consequently, I fully support this initiative noting that the order is identical to orders by the Senate in the 107th and 108th Congress.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to CAPT David M. Morriss, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Navy. Captain Morriss will retire from the Navy on March 11, 2005, having completed a distinguished 26-year career of service to our Nation.

Captain Morriss was born in Elizabethtown, TN and is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and the University of Virginia School of Law.

He also earned a Master of Laws degree from Harvard Law School.

During his military career, Captain Morriss excelled at all facets of his chosen professions of law and Naval service. As a line officer, he served both as Fire Control Officer onboard USS Bowen, FF-1079, and as Supporting Arms Coordinator/Assistant Operations Officer for Amphibious Squadron EIGHT. He qualified as a Surface Warfare Officer before being accepted in the law education program.

As a judge advocate, Captain Morriss has served in a variety of challenging assignments. Like many judge advocates that have come before and have followed him, Captain Morriss began his legal career as a defense counsel and legal assistance attorney at the Navy Legal Services Office, Charleston, SC. Later in his career, he was given the honor of leading young judge advocates as the commanding officer, Navy Legal Services Office National Capital Region.

As Force/Fleet Judge Advocate he provided critical legal advice for operations in the Central Command's area of operations. His keen intellect and integrity led to Captain Morriss' services as the Assistant for Legal and Legislative matters for the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. This would not be the last time Captain Morriss was asked by the Department of the Navy for his advice and counsel on legislation.

I am sure that many of my colleagues know and appreciate Captain Morriss' service as Director of Legislation in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs and his prior service as a Legislative Counsel in that same office. During these assignments, he directly contributed to clear and concise communication between Congress and the Departments of the Navy on a broad range of legislative matters. His talents, knowledge, and legal acumen are such that I have asked him to serve on the staff of the Senate Armed services Committee. The Navy's loss is certainly the Senate's gain, and we look forward to working with Dave Morriss for many years to come.

The Nation, the United States Navy, and the Judge Advocate General's Corps have been made better through the talent and dedication of CAPT David M. Morriss. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Dave, his wife Mary Elizabeth, and sons John, Will, and Graham, on the completion of an outstanding military career.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has yielded to me his time. I will take about 7 or 8 minutes.

It is so important for Members of this body to reflect on the President's most recent trip to Europe. Without being presumptuous, in my judgment, I think it was one of his best, maybe his finest, and in the years to come, I hope he can parallel the achievements of this particular trip.

My views are important, perhaps, but more important are the views of the representatives from nations in Europe to the United States. I had several of the ambassadors visit in my office this week to discuss the President's trip.

I would like to read some quotes from television programs on which these three ambassadors appeared recently. Jean-David Levitte is France's Ambassador, and I have had a particularly warm and productive relationship with this ambassador since he was posted. He has had an extraordinary career. He has been here in Washington a number of times in previous positions.

It is well known he is very close to President Chirac. When asked a question about the relationship between our country in the context of the President's trip, he said as follows:

Yes, I do think so. Wolf, I participated--I was privileged

to participate in the dinner in Brussels between the two

Presidents, and it worked very well.

That is his appraisal.

Then Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's Ambassador, when asked the question, Has the relationship, based on what you know, Mr. Ambassador, improved? he replied:

Oh, I certainly think so, Wolf. In fact, I don't really

think we really needed the meeting in minds, President Bush's

visit to Germany this past week, to improve this relationship

between the two governments. I think we've been doing quite

well over the last year already.

He continued when pressed again:

I think there has also been substantive movement and

change, not only because President Bush, by visiting the

European Commission, put to rest the suspicions in this

country and in Europe that America might no longer be

supportive of the European Union, of the idea of European

integration, but also because in the meeting with the German

side, in which I had the chance of participating, President

Bush, I believe, enhanced the degree of U.S. support. He went

a step further in terms of expressing his support for

European efforts on Iran.

Then Sir David Manning of Great Britain. I have had a warm and productive relationship through the years with this fine individual, another individual who has been posted to this country on a number of occasions. When asked a similar question about the President's trip, he replied:

Well, I think we're all very encouraged by the President's

visit and, indeed, by Secretary Rice's visit, because this

has been an issue that's been discussed by all our heads of

government, and much more widely than the three of us here.

The point I make is, as I read through the press reports from these three ambassadors in the United States, they were all very strong on the issue of the success of the President's visit, together with our distinguished Secretary of State.

Then to another subject that President Bush quite properly raised, it is one of concern to this Senator and I think a number of us here in the Senate. I would like to quote from the President on his trip. He said as follows:

Well, I talked about this issue with President Chirac last

night, and Prime Minister Blair.

The issue, if I might step back, is:

Mr. President, European countries are talking about lifting

their 15-year arms embargo on China. What would be the

consequences of that? And could it be done in a way that

would satisfy your concerns?

The President replied:

Well, I talked about this issue with President Chirac last

night, and Prime Minister Blair, and I intend to talk about

it in a couple of hours at the European Union meeting. We

didn't discuss the issue at NATO, by the way. And here's what

I explained. I said there is deep concern in our country that

a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to

China, which would change the balance of relations between

China and Taiwan, and that's of concern. And they, to a

person, said, well, they think they can develop a protocol

that isn't--that shouldn't concern the United States. And I

said I'm looking forward to seeing it. . . .

Referring to the protocol.

I discussed this with several ambassadors when they came into my office and, indeed, a team is to be forthcoming from the European nations to visit the United States. I think we should hold final judgment until we have had the opportunity, in a courteous way, to reflect on those precautions that the European countries will take in the context of lifting this ban.

But I point out that in my study of the relationship between China and not only the United States and Taiwan but the entire region, they are on a very fast pace to modernize a wide array of weapons--weapons that could, for the first time, begin to pose in the outyears a threat to our fleet units.

I select the fleet units because our concept of the projection of our force forward is dependent on the protection of naval components, particularly our carriers. I see on the horizon grave concerns about lifting this embargo in terms of China's capability militarily in the outyears.

A third subject I would like to cover in the context of the President's visit is he was addressing the challenge to, indeed, all free nations as we participate to try and give support to Israel and the Palestine Government to come to a final consensus to resolve their problems and to bring about a cessation of the turmoil in that region.

I am so deeply grateful the President made the following statement:

President Bush on his recent trip to Europe stated,

``America and Europe have made a moral commitment. We will

not stand by as another generation in the Holy Land grows up

in an atmosphere of violence and hopelessness.''

Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee had a hearing. General Jones, the NATO Commander, was on the stand. I questioned him regarding a concept which General Jones and I have discussed on a number of occasions over the past several years, and that is the possibility of NATO playing a role of peacekeeping on behalf of the Palestinian and Israeli interests. That would have to be at the invitation of both of those Governments.

Why NATO? Our country is very proud of a very long relationship with

the State of Israel, an island of democracy in that part of the world. We have very strong ties there, as we should. Correspondingly, Europe has had very strong ties with the Palestinian people through the years. It goes way back. Significant portions of their population have ties to that region. So a NATO peacekeeping force comprised of both the military units from the European nations and some, I would say, proportionate amount of American forces would be perceived as a balanced force and could come, in my judgment, and provide a sense of security to support such frameworks of peace and accords as these two nations could hopefully achieve with our help and the help of other nations.

Again, it would only be at the invitation of the two Governments, but I think it is a concept that I have addressed on this floor many times. Others have likewise; indeed, some prominent journalists whom I respect. I do hope that it be given consideration.

General Jones in his testimony yesterday said it has been brought up in the North Atlantic Council of recent. Other nations are interested in this concept, and I hope our Nation, the United States, can get behind and explore the options.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide some relief for our nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars.

The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to retirees living on a fixed income. In 2005 premiums are expected to rise an average of 7.9 percent for the 8 million Federal employees, retirees and their families that are covered under the FEHBP. This legislation will help to ensure that more Federal and military retirees are able to continue their healthcare coverage with the FEHBP and supplemental TRICARE health insurance plans as premiums continue to rise.

In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability.

Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.

Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health care costs.

A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army.

My support for this legislation spans three Congresses. In the 108th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 57 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide some relief for our nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars.

The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to retirees living on a fixed income. In 2005 premiums are expected to rise an average of 7.9 percent for the 8 million Federal employees, retirees and their families that are covered under the FEHBP. This legislation will help to ensure that more Federal and military retirees are able to continue their healthcare coverage with the FEHBP and supplemental TRICARE health insurance plans as premiums continue to rise.

In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability.

Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code.

Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health care costs.

A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army.

My support for this legislation spans three Congresses. In the 108th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 57 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

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 am privileged to be the new boy on Senator Collins's committee. My mission is to try to achieve the smoothest working relationship between the Department of Defense, with which I have been privileged to work these 27 years in the Senate, and the distinguished new department and the committee for homeland defense over which my colleague presides as able chairman together with Senator Lieberman.

Just a word or two I want to speak on Judge Chertoff. I, frankly, had not met him prior to the President's very wise selection of this able individual. I rise today to urge my colleagues to give the strongest endorsement possible to this nominee.

I started my career as a young lawyer, a prosecutor, but my first job out of law school was law clerk to a Federal circuit court judge, the same position that Judge Chertoff holds today. I recall all through law school and the early part of, I guess about 8 or 10 years that I practiced law, lawyers always thought: Maybe someday I could be a judge, a Federal judge. The whole bar looks up to the judicial branch, as they should. It is the third branch of our magnificent Republic. When an individual is selected by a President and confirmed in the Senate, he or she then dons that black robe, and it is a lifetime appointment.

I was privileged to observe the life of a Federal judge. My judge was E. Barrett Prettyman, and I had the privilege of standing on this very floor several years ago and recommending the Federal courthouse here in Washington be named for Judge Prettyman. I am always grateful to the Senate for its wisdom in accepting my recommendation. But I remember that judge so well. He had the strongest influence on my life. I aspired at one time to be a Federal judge, but I hastily tell my colleagues I am not sure I ever would have been qualified, for various reasons.

But when you accept that appointment you take that oath of office for life. That is why I, and I think most if not every one of my colleagues, spend so much time working with our Presidents to find the best qualified people to assume these important jobs in the Federal judiciary. But it is a lifetime appointment.

When I looked at Judge Chertoff in my office, we compared experiences. He was a law clerk on the Supreme Court, so he had gone through some of the similar experiences that I had as a lawyer, and also I was assistant U.S. attorney as was he. I said: You have to explain to me why you gave up a lifetime appointment to a position in which you can control your hours and largely control your vacations and have a magnificent family life and everything else to take on this enormous, uncertain challenge.

He looked me in the eye, and he said: In America, you have to step up and be counted when the President and the citizens of this Nation need you. I give

up this position with great reluctance, but I accept the next position and I will give it everything I have ever been taught in terms of how to do something for this country.

That deeply touched me, Madam Chairman. I feel very confident that, with the advice and consent of this august body, we will send forth an individual eminently qualified to handle this position, and one who will bring about the necessary security that this country deserves and needs and expects.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life of CAPT Frank Albert Manson, an outstanding Virginian who served his country with valor during World War II and the Korean War. While Captain Manson passed from this earth on January 20, he has left an exceptional legacy through his humanitarian vision, his insightful observation of naval conflict, and especially in the hearts of his loving wife, three children, and ten grandchildren. His daughter Jennifer Joy Wilson was a longtime member of my staff and remains a valued advisor.

Born in Oklahoma in 1920, Frank Manson earned a bachelor of science in education from Northeastern Oklahoma State University in 1941. Following 2 years of teaching at the high-school level, he attended officer candidate school at Cornell University and gained his commission for the United States Navy.

Like many other brave young men who answered the call of duty in World War II, then-Lieutenant Manson was sent to combat in the Pacific Theater. Appointed as the communications officer on the USS Laffey DD724, he was responsible for providing the media with the detailed accounts that followed the Laffey's triumphant efforts of April 16, 1945. On that fateful day, the ship and its resilient crew outlasted an attack of at least twenty-two Japanese aircraft, the worst offensive endured by any United States ship that remained afloat. While bombs strafed its deck and as many as eight planes crashed into the ship, the Laffey responded with courage befitting an American vessel. Eight planes were shot down, and another six were harmed despite the extensive damage inflicted by the enemy forces upon ``the ship that would not die.'' During his briefing with reporters covering the war, the young officer recounted the infamous words of the Laffey's commanding officer, LCDR Julius T. Becton, who had stated so admirably, ``I'll never abandon ship as long as a gun will fire.''

Captain Manson distinguished himself as an excellent writer during and

after his military career. Following his noble service in World War II, Captain Manson was reassigned to the Pentagon. He coauthored three volumes of the Navy's Battle Report Series, the branch's official history of action in the war. Again, during the Korean War, he was called upon for his skills as a historian. Captain Manson traveled on a number of ships and spoke with many of his fellow seamen before co- authoring the exceptional work, ``The Sea War in Korea.'' A thoroughly researched and well written official history of the Navy's role in battle, his book was republished in seven languages and was selected for permanent inclusion in the White House Library. Before retiring from the Navy in 1968, Captain Manson served as Chief Public Affairs NATO Allied Command Europe and Chief of Public Information for the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, ADM Thomas Moorer. He was valued as a speechwriter for many naval leaders of the 1950s and '60s, including Admirals Robert Carney, Arleigh Burke, and John S. McCain, Jr. Over the course of his naval career, he assisted in high command policy formulation, strategy, and tactics through his service on the personal staff of fourteen four-star admirals and four chiefs of naval operations.

While he was a courageous sailor and a noteworthy historian, perhaps the best known of Captain Manson's efforts was his idea for the ``Great White Fleet.'' Working from the Pentagon after the Korean War, he reflected upon the poverty and disease that he had encountered as a soldier on the battlefields of World War II. Understanding that the Navy maintained a surplus of vessels, Captain Manson began to investigate previous naval capacities for hospital and auxiliary ships. From his research he developed a concept to create, in his own words, ``an entire fleet of mercy ships grain ships, hospital ships, education ships, power ships--a fleet designed to make the benefits of the free enterprise system available to the entire human race.'' Recognizing his fellow citizens' desire for peace and the willingness of Americans to contribute to ``sensible'' foreign aid, Captain Manson gained resounding support for the fleet in the United States and abroad. Championed by Senators George Aiken and Hubert Humphrey, legislation for the humanitarian ships passed in this chamber, and his vision was realized with the inaugural voyage of Project Hope, a seafaring benefactor of medical care.

Even during his years of retirement, Captain Manson provided his expertise to the American Legion, the Reserve Officers Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. A dedicated family man throughout his life, Captain Manson wrote a children's book to fulfill his grandson's intent curiosity about dinosaurs, and he was the primary caregiver for his wife, Lee, after she was disabled severely following a stroke.

Captain Frank Albert Manson is to be commended for his love of family and his service to our country. I appreciate this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy on the occasion of his passing, and I join with his friends and loved ones in celebrating the remarkable life of this outstanding American.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of small and seasonal businesses across the country, many of which are significant employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Virginia, Senator George Allen. I particularly would like to thank Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Judd Gregg, the sponsors of this bipartisan bill, for their leadership in this area.

Our legislation is simple. It makes common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business. Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running.

The H-2B visa program is designed to allow nonagricultural businesses to supplement their workforce with non-immigrant workers when American workers cannot be found. The cap is set at 66,000 per fiscal year, which begins on October 1 of each year. Employers can only apply for a visa 120 days before the work is needed.

For each of the last two years, this statutory cap was reached soon after the fiscal year began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20. As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas.

Consequently, these businesses sustained significant economic losses.

This year the H-2B visa cap was reached on January 3, 2005. Now, even more businesses, especially in the seafood industry which has a long history in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay, are susceptible to significant losses.

The hardships in these and other businesses are very real. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses aren't going to make it another year if something isn't done. Only through passage of this legislation can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these business can be saved.

There are three main criticisms of this program which I am certain some will raise: these H-2B workers are taking jobs away from Americans; automation of these jobs makes H-2B workers unnecessary; and finally, these workers come into the U.S. under the guise of returning home after they've finished, but they never do. In my view, these criticisms of the H-2B program simply do not reflect the reality.

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 don't want them. The jobs we are talking about here are seasonal, labor intensive, and require a certain amount of skill, mainly in the areas of oyster and crab harvesting, seafood processing, landscaping, reforestation, and seasonal resorts and other hospitality services.

Furthermore, most of these jobs cannot be automated. What kind of machine will you use to fully landscape a yard, to arrange and plant flowers? Some in the seafood industry already tried to automate parts of crab harvesting, but it was a complete failure. The machines failed to remove most of the bits of crab shells from the meat, and the consumers flat out rejected it.

As for the criticism that these temporary workers won't leave, 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 don't, employers aren't 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.

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 bill introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair.

First, the bill will reward good workers and employers by exempting from the cap H-2B workers who have participated in the program successfully in one of the past three years. These are companies and employees that have faithfully abided by the law, and they have a successful track record of working together.

Second, the bill will 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 will pay an additional fee that will be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor can use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas.

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

These seasonal businesses just can't 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 isn't treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business.

In closing, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 352, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act. This legislation, which I'm proud to cosponsor, would provide emergency relief to thousands of small and seasonal businesses across the country, many of which are significant employers in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Virginia, Senator George Allen. I particularly would like to thank Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Judd Gregg, the sponsors of this bipartisan bill, for their leadership in this area.

Our legislation is simple. It makes common-sense reforms to our H-2B visa program that will allow our small and seasonal companies an opportunity to remain open for business. Without these modifications, these employers will continue to struggle in their efforts to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses running.

The H-2B visa program is designed to allow nonagricultural businesses to supplement their workforce with non-immigrant workers when American workers cannot be found. The cap is set at 66,000 per fiscal year, which begins on October 1 of each year. Employers can only apply for a visa 120 days before the work is needed.

For each of the last two years, this statutory cap was reached soon after the fiscal year began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20. As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled prior to the day they could even apply for the visas.

Consequently, these businesses sustained significant economic losses.

This year the H-2B visa cap was reached on January 3, 2005. Now, even more businesses, especially in the seafood industry which has a long history in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay, are susceptible to significant losses.

The hardships in these and other businesses are very real. Many in the seafood industry in Virginia have come to my office, looked me straight in the eye, and told me that their businesses aren't going to make it another year if something isn't done. Only through passage of this legislation can this detrimental cycle be interrupted and these business can be saved.

There are three main criticisms of this program which I am certain some will raise: these H-2B workers are taking jobs away from Americans; automation of these jobs makes H-2B workers unnecessary; and finally, these workers come into the U.S. under the guise of returning home after they've finished, but they never do. In my view, these criticisms of the H-2B program simply do not reflect the reality.

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 don't want them. The jobs we are talking about here are seasonal, labor intensive, and require a certain amount of skill, mainly in the areas of oyster and crab harvesting, seafood processing, landscaping, reforestation, and seasonal resorts and other hospitality services.

Furthermore, most of these jobs cannot be automated. What kind of machine will you use to fully landscape a yard, to arrange and plant flowers? Some in the seafood industry already tried to automate parts of crab harvesting, but it was a complete failure. The machines failed to remove most of the bits of crab shells from the meat, and the consumers flat out rejected it.

As for the criticism that these temporary workers won't leave, 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 don't, employers aren't 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.

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 bill introduced today helps fix this problem by focusing on three main objectives to help make the H-2B program more effective and more fair.

First, the bill will reward good workers and employers by exempting from the cap H-2B workers who have participated in the program successfully in one of the past three years. These are companies and employees that have faithfully abided by the law, and they have a successful track record of working together.

Second, the bill will 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 will pay an additional fee that will be placed in a Fraud Prevention and Detection account. The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Labor can use these funds to educate and train their employees to prevent and detect fraudulent visas.

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

These seasonal businesses just can't 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 isn't treating small and seasonal businesses fairly and must be reformed if we want these employers to stay in business.

In closing, I strongly support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join with me to help these small and seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, come 2007, Virginia, along with the rest of our great Nation, will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the historic founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World. At this site, back in 1607, an adventurous band of Englishmen, led by Captain John Smith, pitched down their stakes on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, tired from a long journey across the blue ocean, but full of hope for the possibilities that lay ahead. And although they primarily came in search of economic gain, they brought with them many of the principles that were integral to the formation of our American Democracy. Free enterprise, the entrepreneurial spirit, and respect for the principles of representative government and the rights of man would guide these settlers through the trials and tribulations of those tough, early years.

As we Virginians know, nobody was more influential in this founding endeavor, than their leader: Captain John Smith. Captain Smith was not just the man famously saved from death by Pocahontas, and he was more than the mere commander of a small group of pioneers. John Smith, as Virginians learn at a young age, was the first ambassador to the native peoples of the Chesapeake, exchanging cultural customs, trading goods necessary for the fledgling colonists survival. John Smith was also the first English explorer of the many creeks and rivers

that populate the Maryland and Virginia of today. From 1607 to 1609, Captain Smith plied the briny Bay waters, recording history and surveying the land, even this patch of Earth where our Nation's Capitol stands today. In honor of Captain Smith's historic 3,000 mile journey through the choppy Chesapeake's main stem and tributaries, I rise today, joined by Senator Sarbanes and my colleagues from the Bay States, to propose a bill authorizing the study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

What would this trail accomplish? What would be its purpose? Outside of the obvious tourism it would bring to the region, and besides the fact that its creation would complement the existing Chesapeake Gateways Network, the Watertrail would educate Americans on the perils of our first English settlers, on their interaction with the numerous Native tribes, on the voyages they undertook to better understand the New World they had come to inhabit. First hand, students and seniors, parents and children, would be able to retrace the paddle strokes and footsteps of Captain John Smith, to see what he saw, to learn what he learned, to know what he meant when he wrote in his diary that ``oysters lay thick as stones'' and fish could be caught ``with frying pan(s).''

Ultimately, this trail would allow for a deeper appreciation for the Chesapeake, for a better understanding of the settlers hardships, and for the distinct cultures, English and Indian, that came to pass, in that historic era, at this historic place. Today I rise to celebrate Captain Smith's foresight, to celebrate the founding steps of America, and to celebrate the bounty of the Bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this feasibility study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

Mr. President, come 2007, Virginia, along with the rest of our great Nation, will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the historic founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World. At this site, back in 1607, an adventurous band of Englishmen, led by Captain John Smith, pitched down their stakes on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, tired from a long journey across the blue ocean, but full of hope for the possibilities that lay ahead. And although they primarily came in search of economic gain, they brought with them many of the principles that were integral to the formation of our American Democracy. Free enterprise, the entrepreneurial spirit, and respect for the principles of representative government and the rights of man would guide these settlers through the trials and tribulations of those tough, early years.

As we Virginians know, nobody was more influential in this founding endeavor, than their leader: Captain John Smith. Captain Smith was not just the man famously saved from death by Pocahontas, and he was more than the mere commander of a small group of pioneers. John Smith, as Virginians learn at a young age, was the first ambassador to the native peoples of the Chesapeake, exchanging cultural customs, trading goods necessary for the fledgling colonists survival. John Smith was also the first English explorer of the many creeks and rivers

that populate the Maryland and Virginia of today. From 1607 to 1609, Captain Smith plied the briny Bay waters, recording history and surveying the land, even this patch of Earth where our Nation's Capitol stands today. In honor of Captain Smith's historic 3,000 mile journey through the choppy Chesapeake's main stem and tributaries, I rise today, joined by Senator Sarbanes and my colleagues from the Bay States, to propose a bill authorizing the study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

What would this trail accomplish? What would be its purpose? Outside of the obvious tourism it would bring to the region, and besides the fact that its creation would complement the existing Chesapeake Gateways Network, the Watertrail would educate Americans on the perils of our first English settlers, on their interaction with the numerous Native tribes, on the voyages they undertook to better understand the New World they had come to inhabit. First hand, students and seniors, parents and children, would be able to retrace the paddle strokes and footsteps of Captain John Smith, to see what he saw, to learn what he learned, to know what he meant when he wrote in his diary that ``oysters lay thick as stones'' and fish could be caught ``with frying pan(s).''

Ultimately, this trail would allow for a deeper appreciation for the Chesapeake, for a better understanding of the settlers hardships, and for the distinct cultures, English and Indian, that came to pass, in that historic era, at this historic place. Today I rise to celebrate Captain Smith's foresight, to celebrate the founding steps of America, and to celebrate the bounty of the Bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this feasibility study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to pay tribute to an able and valued member of the Senate family, Larry Janezich, who retires this month after nearly four decades of service to this institution.

As a former chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, it was my pleasure to work closely with Larry and his staff as they managed coverage for Senate hearings, news conferences, and other media events during my time as head of that panel.

As chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Presidential Inauguration in 1997, I had the opportunity to observe firsthand Larry's great skill in balancing the demands of the press who covered that historic event with the security concerns required by the Secret Service.

During that time, and for more than a quarter century, Larry served the news correspondents of the Senate and House with distinction. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following thoughtful tribute to Larry from his colleague, Mike Viqueira, chairman of the Executive Committee of Correspondents of the Congressional Radio-TV Galleries.

Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that each of us in the Senate joins Larry's colleagues in offering this tribute and we wish him best of luck in his retirement.

Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect that I now have the privilege to speak to my colleagues with regard to the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to serve as U.S. Attorney General. I do so with a great sense of pride. I compliment our distinguished, strong President for having selected this outstanding American to serve in this exceedingly important position.

Article II of the Constitution provides that the President:

. . . shall nominate, and by and with Advice and Consent of

the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court,

and all other Officers of the United States. . . .

Thus the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in the process. And that is precisely what this August body is now undertaking, their constitutional responsibilities of giving advice and consent of a President's nomination of a principal Cabinet officer.

In fulfilling the constitutional role of the Senate, I have tried throughout my career to give fair and objective consideration to both Republican and Democratic Presidential Cabinet level nominees. There are times when I have voted for nominees whom I, frankly, perhaps, if I had been in the position, would have picked others. But the leader of the opposition party, the President, in those instances chose those individuals. I searched in my heart to find those qualifications which I felt justified the President's decision. I have no difficulty whatsoever finding in my heart and knowledge more than adequate reasons to support this distinguished nominee.

His personal story is a compelling one. He was of seven children that were raised in a two-bedroom household in Humble, TX, that his family built and in which his mother still lives.

From these modest roots, Mr. Gonzales became the first in his family to go to college, graduating from Rice University and then later graduating from Harvard law school.

Throughout his life, Alberto Gonzales has demonstrated a strong commitment to public service, beginning with his service in the United States Air Force between 1973 and 1975. Then, after a number of years in private practice at a Houston, TX law firm, Mr. Gonzales served as Texas' Secretary of State from 1997 to 1999. In 1999, he was appointed to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Texas.

In 2001, Judge Gonzales left the Texas bench and was commissioned as Counsel to President Bush. In this capacity, I have had the opportunity to work with Judge Gonzales on a number of matters, particular matters related to the Department of Defense. I have come to know him as a conscientious, soft-spoken man with a brilliant legal mind.

While our next Attorney General will continue to face the unique challenges that many in law enforcement have faced since September 11, 2001, I am confident that Judge Gonzales will meet these challenges head on with a respect for our Constitution, and the laws and traditions of the United States.

I look forward to voting in support of Judge Gonzales's nomination and look forward to working with him on the challenges that lay ahead.

I say to those who have spoken in opposition, I respect that right and on the whole I feel this debate has been a good one, a proper one, and shortly we are going to vote. I am confident a strong majority of the Senate will approve this distinguished American for this post.

I would like to talk about some personal experiences I have had with this

distinguished nominee. I go back, with a sense of modesty in my humble career--I guess it was in the late 1950s and 1960s. I was privileged to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney. I met literally the first Attorney General I had ever met, having been summoned to his office with regard to some matters. I remember walking up into that vast chamber in the upper floors of the Department of Justice, and there was Bill Rogers, the Attorney General of the United States under President Eisenhower. I got to know him. As a matter of fact, he had a great deal to do with influencing me to remain in public office and I am everlastingly grateful to him. In the ensuing years I had the privilege of working with a classmate at the University of Virginia Law School. Although he was a year or so ahead of me, that classmate, Robert Kennedy, later became Attorney General.

So I have been privileged through my modest career in public office to have had an association with many Attorneys General. What stands out in my mind about Alberto Gonzales is this interesting observation. When we debate on this floor, as we are obligated to do, and do so often with a sense of fairness, we talk about judicial temperament. In many respects, you can go into the dictionaries and into the case studies, you can look wherever you want and there isn't any precise definition of what judicial temperament is. But it is an essential quality of those individuals who ascend to the bench.

I have had a number of meetings over the years with Judge Gonzales, some in the White House. Often he would say, Senator, I will come to your office. In addition, Judge Gonzales has always given me, and I am sure others in the Congress, the courtesy of promptly returning my telephone calls. That is something sometimes members of the executive branch don't do often with Members of Congress. But he returned the calls and returned them promptly. Throughout my interactions with Judge Gonzales, he always manifested to me in his mannerisms, the courtesies that he extended to me, and I presume other Members of Congress, the quiet manner in which he would listen to your points of view, or express his point of view. To me, his thoughtfulness and the courtesy emulate the very essence of what judicial temperament should be and the qualities an Attorney General should have.

It is so important that I bring that forward because he is instrumental in advising, and as Attorney General he will continue to be instrumental in advising, the President of the United States with regard to his Constitutional power with respect to judicial and executive branch nominees. I often say, yes; the power, but it is a responsibility that the Constitution places on the President to fill the vacancies in the third branch of Government, the judicial branch.

I can't think of a more important framework of appointments than the members of the Federal judiciary. So often they continue in office long after a President's term has been completed--or terms, as the case may be--and expound upon interpretations of the law. They often continue some of the goals for the President--not writing, hopefully, new law, which a jurist should not do, that is the function of the Congress, but interpreting the law within the framework of the Constitution and the several statutes of our Government.

But this man, to me, stands out as one who brings a great sense of dignity, a great sense of inspiration, particularly to those in the Department of Justice who continue and come to serve. I am confident that in his continuing interactions with the Congress of the United States he will not change what I view as the extraordinary and, indeed, magnificent manner in which he performs his duties, formally as chief counsel to the President, and hopefully soon to be, with the advice and consent of this distinguished body, as Attorney General of the United States of America.

I wish him and his family well. I thank them for their continued public service. I recount the other portions of my remarks today about his extraordinary background. He overcame such impediments and hardship to receive and to be grateful for what this country offered to him and his family by way of opportunities of education and public service.

This has been a very important moment in the history of the Senate as we begin to give our advice and consent on an Attorney General, one who is imminently qualified and able to fulfill this office with that degree of dignity and intellect, fairness, and firmness that is needed to serve our President, but most importantly to serve Congress and the Nation.

We are a nation of laws. That separates us from so many other nations in the world. We believe in the fairness of the law as it relates to every citizen--I repeat, every citizen.

I am proud to have the privilege to give these brief remarks on his behalf and indicate my strong support. I hope I encourage others to likewise support this important nomination.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am deeply humbled by the comments of the Senator. It has been a privilege. I have had an awful lot of good luck, and a lot of people have given me the wisdom and counsel in which I have put together this modest career. I thank the Senator for his service and I enjoy working with him.

Mr. President, I compliment my colleague for his thoughts about Ronald Reagan. With a great sense of humility and modesty, I recount one story of an experience I had with him. He loved our State of Virginia, by the way. So often on the weekends he would come down into the vicinity of where I, in those days, had a farm. He would call up and say: Hey, let's go riding.

He was the President of the United States. I said: Fine, Mr. President, where and when?

He said: Right there, on your place, just set it up.

Just as you said, Senator Allen, he loved the outdoors. But I remember one day we brought the horses in and were getting them ready-- I had a wonderful man who used to be working for me, and my man was putting the saddle on my horse and cinching him up. Along came the President's horse. I said to my man: Let's go over there and help the President put his saddle on the horse. We walked over there and the President said: I do my own saddle. No one touches my tack. I am going to do it.

He grabbed that big old western saddle he had, put it on the horse, cinched him down, and then he went over to help Nancy put her gear on, and off we rode, across the hills of Virginia. Eventually, we stopped up on a hill. It was a hot day in August and the flies were bothering the horses, and the Secret Service guys were having a dickens of a time staying on the horses.

He checked the horse and looked down in the valley. Senator Allen, he recounted to me with great specificity every step of the valley campaign. How the northerners marched down the valley and then the southern troops, Confederates, would drive them back up, and Stonewall Jackson, and on and on.

Frankly, as much time as I have spent in that valley--I went to school at Washington & Lee University--I learned facts from our President at that time about the history of Virginia.

He loved America. He loved the outdoors. He loved his history and he loved his people. You captured him beautifully in your remarks. I congratulate you, my friend.