Floor Statements

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Most VA hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and research facilities have ongoing needs for maintenance, repair, and modernization to promote patient and employee safety and provide a higher standard of care for our Nation's veterans. Earlier this month, I held a hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on these needs, at which VA and a service organization representative delivered testimony about what is required in the next phase of addressing the needs of health care facilities for our Nation's veterans. In addition, several committee members and noncommittee colleagues remarked about the significance of these projects to their States. It is my belief that this bill will expand VA's ability to provide health care services to this group of deserving Americans. I will take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation.

First, the bill authorizes three major medical facility projects in immediate need of fiscal year 2006 authorization; the restoration of VA's health care infrastructure in the Biloxi and New Orleans areas following Hurricane Katrina, and the cost of land acquisition for replacement of the current Denver VA Medical Center with a new facility at the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. The Denver facility was constructed over a half-century ago and many of the core facilities have been deemed to be past or near the end of their useful life.

Second, this legislation reauthorizes 18 major medical facility construction projects that were authorized under Public Law 108-170, but for which it is unlikely that contract awards will be accomplished by September 30, 2006, as required by that law. Therefore, for each of these projects, the draft bill extends the date by which contracts must be awarded, from September 30, 2006, September 20, 2009. These projects were identified and prioritized under the capital asset realignment for enhanced services process. CARES, as it has become known, is a market- based national assessment of infrastructure needs that VA has developed into a schedule for completion. These projects represent the most pressing CARES-identified needs that VA has undertaken in order to improve access-to-care and provide services in areas of recent, current, and projected growth in veterans population, such as Las Vegas and Orlando. To allow a lapse in VA's authority to move forward on these projects would result in tremendous setbacks, and conceivably, additional taxpayer expense.

Third, the legislation authorizes major medical facility leases that did not receive. authorization in the current fiscal for outpatient clinics in Baltimore, MD, Marion, IL, and the Dallas, TX, area. In addition, five major medical facility leases fiscal year 2007 are included for outpatient clinics in Austin, TX, Lowell, MA, Grand Rapids, MI, Las Vegas, NV, and Parma, OH.

This legislation represents the administration's request of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Congress, with a significant exception. I have chosen not to authorize the six requested fiscal year 2007 major medical facility construction projects at this time. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that my intent is not to micromanage VA's construction budget or to delay the Department's capital plan. And no one in the Senate is more committed to seeing that we are not diverting important resources away from facilities that are extremely important to our veterans. But as chairman of this committee, my approach

puts Congress on record as expecting progress with the 18 CARES projects on which we are extending authorizations, attaching a reasonable amount of money to those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the Veterans' Committee. As we have seen with the need for significant and expensive Katrina-related construction, VA's capital plan requires consistent monitoring, frequent review and, at times, significant modification. But VA must finish some of what it has started before taking on new major projects.

Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be taking up this bill and other legislation introduced to improve the range of services and benefits available to our Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the rest of this Congress on these and other important efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Most VA hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and research facilities have ongoing needs for maintenance, repair, and modernization to promote patient and employee safety and provide a higher standard of care for our Nation's veterans. Earlier this month, I held a hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on these needs, at which VA and a service organization representative delivered testimony about what is required in the next phase of addressing the needs of health care facilities for our Nation's veterans. In addition, several committee members and noncommittee colleagues remarked about the significance of these projects to their States. It is my belief that this bill will expand VA's ability to provide health care services to this group of deserving Americans. I will take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation.

First, the bill authorizes three major medical facility projects in immediate need of fiscal year 2006 authorization; the restoration of VA's health care infrastructure in the Biloxi and New Orleans areas following Hurricane Katrina, and the cost of land acquisition for replacement of the current Denver VA Medical Center with a new facility at the former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. The Denver facility was constructed over a half-century ago and many of the core facilities have been deemed to be past or near the end of their useful life.

Second, this legislation reauthorizes 18 major medical facility construction projects that were authorized under Public Law 108-170, but for which it is unlikely that contract awards will be accomplished by September 30, 2006, as required by that law. Therefore, for each of these projects, the draft bill extends the date by which contracts must be awarded, from September 30, 2006, September 20, 2009. These projects were identified and prioritized under the capital asset realignment for enhanced services process. CARES, as it has become known, is a market- based national assessment of infrastructure needs that VA has developed into a schedule for completion. These projects represent the most pressing CARES-identified needs that VA has undertaken in order to improve access-to-care and provide services in areas of recent, current, and projected growth in veterans population, such as Las Vegas and Orlando. To allow a lapse in VA's authority to move forward on these projects would result in tremendous setbacks, and conceivably, additional taxpayer expense.

Third, the legislation authorizes major medical facility leases that did not receive. authorization in the current fiscal for outpatient clinics in Baltimore, MD, Marion, IL, and the Dallas, TX, area. In addition, five major medical facility leases fiscal year 2007 are included for outpatient clinics in Austin, TX, Lowell, MA, Grand Rapids, MI, Las Vegas, NV, and Parma, OH.

This legislation represents the administration's request of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Congress, with a significant exception. I have chosen not to authorize the six requested fiscal year 2007 major medical facility construction projects at this time. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that my intent is not to micromanage VA's construction budget or to delay the Department's capital plan. And no one in the Senate is more committed to seeing that we are not diverting important resources away from facilities that are extremely important to our veterans. But as chairman of this committee, my approach

puts Congress on record as expecting progress with the 18 CARES projects on which we are extending authorizations, attaching a reasonable amount of money to those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the Veterans' Committee. As we have seen with the need for significant and expensive Katrina-related construction, VA's capital plan requires consistent monitoring, frequent review and, at times, significant modification. But VA must finish some of what it has started before taking on new major projects.

Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will be taking up this bill and other legislation introduced to improve the range of services and benefits available to our Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the rest of this Congress on these and other important efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on legislation introduced yesterday, S. 3122, the Patriot Loan Act of 2006. It is called the Patriot Loan Act for that is who the legislation is intended to benefit, patriot citizen-soldiers who are called from their employment at America's small businesses to serve our country in uniform. I am proud to join with Senator Olympia Snowe, who serves as the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as an original cosponsor of this important bill.

All of us in the Senate come from States affected by the mobilization of our Guard and Reserve personnel. In my home State, the Idaho National Guard's 116th Brigade Combat Team turned last fall from its 18-month deployment to Iraq. I visited members of the 116th while they were in Iraq and discovered that a good number of them

left jobs at small businesses across Idaho. I also held a hearing in Idaho last August regarding the reemployment rights of returning Guard and Reserve members, with particular focus on how those rights would impact members of the 116th. At that hearing it was emphasized that, while legal rights to reemployment are critical, they do little good for those who have no employer, or no small business, to return to. I resolved then to find some way to assist small businesses to cope with the financial hardships of frequent and lengthy mobilizations of its employees or owners during the war on terrorism. I believe S. 3122 will provide some of that needed assistance.

The legislation would enhance the U.S. Small Business Administration's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, or ``MREIDL,'' Program. That program provides loan assistance to small businesses to help them meet ordinary and necessary operating expenses after essential employees are called to active duty in their roles as citizen soldiers.

S. 3122 would raise the maximum military reservist loan amount from $1.5 million to $2 million. It would also allow the Small Business Administration's administrator, by direct loan or through banks, to offer unsecure loans of up to $25,000, an increase from the current $5,000 loan limit: So that there are no processing delays, S. 3122 would require the SBA administrator to give these loan applications priority, and would require that loan applicants be adequately assisted during the application process by utilizing existing support networks, such as Small Business Development Centers.

Finally, S. 3122 would ensure proactive outreach about the MREIDL Program for Guard and Reserve members by requiring SBA and the Department of Defense to develop a joint Web site and printed materials with information about the program, and it would require a joint SBA and DD feasibility study on other methods of possible assistance.

Just as the Guard and Reserve are serving us now, we must do what we can to ensure that their sacrifices do not place them in financial harm's way on their return home. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I, again, thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in introducing it.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on S. 1235, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Act of 2006. This legislation is the product of a compromise agreement reached between the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs. The legislation cleared the House on Monday by a unanimous vote of 372 to 0. Its passage today in the Senate will continue the tradition of cooperation between the two Houses of Congress and among all political parties when it comes to legislation to improve the benefits and services available for our nation's veterans.

Before I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked diligently on the provisions of this bill, I would like to take a few moments to comment on provisions that I was particularly interested in seeing enacted in that they will impact the lives of servicemembers returning from the global war on terrorism who have severe disabilities.

It is quite natural, and in many cases necessary for therapeutic or rehabilitative reasons, for a young servicemember who is severely wounded to spend some time convalescing at the home of his or her family before moving on to live a fully independent life. The nature of some severely wounded servicemembers' wounds require adaptations to the homes in which they live--such as larger doorways, ramps, hand rails, and other modifications. VA has a grant program to assist servicemembers and veterans with expenses associated with these modifications, but the program needs greater flexibility to address the reality of how young wounded warriors convalesce. Section 101 of the legislation provides that flexibility. It authorizes VA to equip a family member's home using a partial grant--with some portion, or all, of the remainder of the grant available for later use--of between $2,000 and $14,000. I was proud to join Senator John Sununu on an amendment that cleared the Senate earlier this year that contained this provision. I am even prouder that we were able to include it in the final bill.

Section 301 of S. 1235 is another provision that makes a reasonable accommodation in a benefit program to meet the realities faced by convalescing, severely disabled servicemembers. Servicemembers adjudicated as totally disabled at the time of their separation from service have up to one year after separation to apply to receive premium-free Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage during the 1-year, post separation period, and to convert their coverage to Veterans' Group Life Insurance, or an individual plan or policy. Taking advantage of the conversion option is especially critical for totally disabled veterans who, because of their disabilities, may not be insurable at competitive commercial rates after military service. Through a targeted outreach effort to this population, VA learned that many totally disabled veterans do not convert their coverage to VGLI because they may have neglected post-separation financial planning due to the effects of their disabilities, or because they were simply unaware of the extension option. To give these convalescing servicemembers as much time as possible to make informed decisions about their future financial security, section 301 would extend from 1 to 2 years the available conversion period.

There are many other enhancements contained in this legislation. They cover housing, insurance, employment and other miscellaneous benefit programs. And, not a small point in this time of fiscal austerity, the legislation is budget neutral.

I would like to take a moment to thank those who are responsible for bringing this compromise agreement to the brink of enactment. First, the committee's ranking member, Senator Daniel Akaka, provided his customary--and indispensable--cooperation and leadership. He and his staff worked very closely with me and my staff to shepherd the original legislation through the Senate, and then to work together with my House colleagues on this compromise. Veterans in Hawaii should be proud to have Senator Akaka at the helm. And I am proud to have him as the committee's ranking member.

I salute Chairman Steve Buyer and Ranking Member Lane Evans of the House Veterans' Committee; Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller and Ranking Member Shelley Berkley; and Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Chairman John Boozman and Ranking Member Stephanie Herseth for their work and for their spirit of accommodation. They and their staffs are to be commended for a job well done.

Yesterday, the Congress sent bipartisan legislation, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, to the President for his signature. Today, I am also asking my colleagues in the Senate to send the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Act of 2006, to the President. I am thankful that our celebration of Memorial Day on Monday coincides with the Congress sending so strong a message of support to those who have worn the uniform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the attached joint explanatory statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if the chairman will yield, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for handling this amendment in this fashion. It is an important amendment. We have moved it before. We are doing so very well in the area of adoption, both domestically and internationally, at this moment. This is a great facilitator. We thank the chairman for its consideration in this fashion.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4114

Mr. President, first, how much time remains for the proponents of the bill?

I ask that I be yielded up to 10 minutes of the 20 minutes, and I be notified when my 10 minutes is expired.

Mr. President, I once again stand in opposition to a Chambliss amendment, and I do so not with any great pride--frankly, with disappointment--because I went to the Senator to see if we could work out a few differences. But it was obvious that the Senator was intent on doing one thing, and that was to destroy the transitional tool that creates stability in the American agricultural workforce that is within this bill. That tool is right here. That tool is called the blue card.

We attempt to recognize those in this country who are illegal, who are working in American agriculture, who have been here for 3 years and say: Come forward, and we will allow you then to work in a temporary status with a blue card--no, I am sorry, you do have to take a background check, and if you are a felon, you are out, and if you have three misdemeanors, you are out, and, oh, by the way, now that we just passed Byrd-Gregg, you have to now pay a fine to enter to get the blue card, not of $100, but $600. It is important we do the math on this bill and we get it right.

Once you have qualified for the 150 hours to get a permanent work status, then you pay another fine, not $400, but $900. That is what the new math is as a result of the votes of just a few moments ago.

So I am not so sure we are making it easy on anyone who toils in the hot sun of America's agricultural fields, who create the stability in the American agricultural workforce today. I don't think we are making it easy on anybody. But let's talk about the key to it, and I think the Senator from Georgia said it was the key, and that is the number of hours in the field.

When this negotiated package was put together, we used the Fair Labor Standards Act definition which said 1 hour of work in agriculture creates the day. But we also knew the facts and the reality. Nobody hires any one worker for 1 hour and then they walk off the field. You just don't do that.

The Senator just admitted that the average time in the field was 40 hours a week. Those are the facts, those are the realities of the American agricultural workforce. He requires in his amendment 8 hours a day, but here is what he didn't tell you. If you worked 7\1/2\ hours a day, it doesn't count. It is not an aggregate, it is an 8-hour work day.

What about the tomato harvesters in California? They average 6.3 hours per work day, but it doesn't count. It is not an aggregate. It is 8 hours under the Chambliss amendment.

What about Lake County in California? They work 5 to 7 hours per day for orange pickers, not 8. Those are national statistical facts.

What about the Oregon strawberry pickers? They work 7.3 hours per day, not 8. So they could labor in the field 4, 5, 6, 7\1/2\ hours a day, and as I read the Chambliss amendment, it doesn't count. They have to work 8 hours a day to begin to develop the standard established in this bill, and that is fundamentally wrong.

What about the peach harvesters in the State of Georgia? Those are H- 2A qualified farmers. They, by their own admission--and I have their paperwork--do not work their pickers 7 hours a day.

I think we are being phenomenally fair, but it is important that we don't make this an easy test. These people did enter our country illegally, but they have been here, they have been working hard, they are the backbone of American agriculture, and we are saying: If you come forward and you are honest and you haven't broken the law and you pay a fine going in, you can begin to work, and over a period of 2 to 3 years, 150 hours, you can get permanent work status. Then you can work, you can go home, but you can work in other jobs, too, during the off season of agriculture, if you want. That is the reward of what we are offering. It is fundamentally important that we get this right.

I would like to agree with the Senator from Georgia on his English language requirement. The English language requirement that is in the bill that we just adopted, that was offered as an amendment and a qualifier for the bill, is not as tough as the provision the Senator from Georgia puts in his amendment.

I must say that when I read these facts that are in the amendment, I have to make the determination that this amendment is not to modify the bill; this amendment is to destroy the transitional tool that creates the stability in American agriculture. We know that nearly 70 percent of American agriculture is premised on an illegal employment base. American agriculture knows it, and they want to fix it. They want to get it right.

The Senator from Georgia and I know that H-2A doesn't work. It identifies 40,000-plus; we have over a million in the workforce. We are not going to take them all, and we shouldn't, because we are saying those who have been here for 3 years and can prove it and meet all of these tests and continue to work in the fields are going to

earn the right to stay and work, and that is the stabilizing factor in American agriculture.

Already, instability is showing up in the workforce of agriculture. Why? Because the borders are tightening, as they should be, and it is critically important that we assure and create the transitional tool. So the Senator comes with key plans, key ideas, key amendments. I agreed with his fines, but now we have fines already built in the bill that are equal to his because of the Byrd-Gregg amendment. So that shouldn't be a factor of determination anymore.

I dramatically believe the workday is misrepresented. Let me tell you why. I have an interesting work form here from the Tifton Peach Farmers of Springfield, SC. They by their own admission don't work 8 hours a day; they work 7. No qualification for the hard-working person in the field picking the peaches. That is just fundamentally unfair. Are they illegal? Yes. Did they break the law? Yes. We know that. Yes. Are we forgiving? Well, we fined them. We make them continue to work to qualify, and anybody who has been out there in that farm field knows it is awfully hard work and it is hot and it is dirty. I grew up bucking bails of hay in a farm field. I know a bit of what it is like. And if we are going to require 150 days of work to get through this status into a permanent work status and have the ability to come and go as a legal worker, then we ought to have a well-defined program. Transition is what is important. Cut it off now and create instability.

In the Imperial Valley of California and in Yuma, AZ, we harvest nearly 10,000 crates of green vegetables a day. This past year, we did 2,800 a day. Why? No workers. At some point, if we don't get this right, we will tip American agriculture on its head, and then who pays the price? Who pays the price? The consumer ultimately pays the price, and the green vegetable industry goes south of the border where the workers are available.

That is why, when we sat down to look at American agriculture 5 years ago, we knew we had to have a transitional tool. We knew we had to assure the stability of the existing workforce while we secured the border and while we made sure we got the hard-working illegal ones who hadn't broken laws right, and those who had broken laws, they leave the country. If you came in yesterday or if you came in last June or if you came in the year before, you don't qualify for this. You had to have been here several years already--3 years. You have to prove that. You have to go through a background check. All of that is part of what we do.

Is it different from the other H-plus programs? Yes, it is, a little bit, because agriculture is different. It is the threshold work that the Senator from Georgia talks about. It is where the foreign immigrant enters the country to work. They gain their experience there, oftentimes before they move on or if they were to qualify for other programs that are within this bill.

My effort is to secure and to stabilize. It is not to throw out the blue card. It is my opinion that the Chambliss amendment guts the agricultural provision by destroying the transitional tool we call the blue card, and I believe that is fundamentally important to creating stability to America's agricultural workforce.

Mr. President, if the Senator now plans to close, I don't believe we have anything else to say on this issue, and I yield back the remainder for his closing statement.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on an amendment I am offering with Senators Inhofe and Frist to H.R. 5037, the ``Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. H.R. 5037 passed the House a couple of weeks ago by an overwhelming margin--408 to 3. It was conceived in response to hateful, intolerant demonstrations taking place at the funeral services of deceased servicemembers of the global war on terror. The fringe group responsible for these demonstrations believes that 2,752 of our Nation's finest have lost their lives in defense of America because, unbelievably, God is exacting His revenge on the United States for its permissive laws respecting homosexuality. It is a sad irony that the same 2,752 servicemembers who fought to guarantee the right of this fringe group to hold and express their beliefs are, along with the families of deceased servicemembers, now the victims of those same hateful, but protected, ideas.

First, it is important to point out that the House, led by Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan and Chairman Buyer, went to great lengths to carefully craft the House-passed legislation to preserve the dignity of military funerals while at the same time balancing first amendment rights. I applaud them, and Senator Jim Inhofe, the original sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, for being proactive in addressing a problem that no military family should experience at a VA national cemetery or at Arlington National Cemetery. Let me describe in brief the many provisions of their legislation that are left untouched by this amendment. We retain the prohibition on unapproved demonstrations on VA or Arlington cemetery grounds. We retain the language used to describe exactly what kind of demonstrations are prohibited. We retain the criminal penalties attached to those who violate the prohibitions. And we retain the language expressing the sense of the Congress that States enact legislation to restrict demonstrations near any military funeral. My amendment would only modify the language of the underlying bill that restricts demonstrations that are within 500 feet of cemetery property. Let me explain why.

Many VA cemeteries are tucked in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Thus, the reach of the proposed Federal law in the underlying bill would extend to all private residences located within 500 feet of any VA cemetery property or Arlington National Cemetery. I am always sensitive to expanding zones of Federal influence or regulation, especially to cover lands that are not its own, unless it is absolutely necessary. And, furthermore, in a report by the Congressional Research Service and analyses from constitutional law experts, it was concluded that a 500-foot buffer zone around the perimeter of all cemetery lands may not be sufficiently narrow to pass constitutional muster. Constitutional questions surrounding the language are, of course, open to debate. But my goal here was to move legislation that was as narrowly tailored as possible and that didn't take away any of its effectiveness in prohibiting these offensive demonstrations at our national shrines.

There have yet to be any unapproved demonstrations either on VA cemetery property or outside of its grounds. There have been demonstrations at Arlington National Cemetery, but those demonstrations have been limited to the gates outside the front entrance of the cemetery. Practically speaking, if there were to be any demonstrations at VA cemeteries they would likely be at cemetery access points, just as at Arlington. It is VA's policy to hold funeral ceremonies at committal shelters located on its cemetery grounds. By design, those shelters at open national cemeteries are a minimum of 300 feet from any property line. And the line of sight from the property line is, also by design, typically obstructed by trees, shrubs, or other foliage. In addition, each national cemetery has three or four committal shelters, on average, which could be used for ceremonies. According to VA officials, only the cemetery superintendent knows beforehand where the committal shelter to be used for a particular funeral ceremony is located. So it is unlikely that demonstrators could effectively ``disrupt'' a cemetery funeral ceremony at any point other than an access point when a funeral procession was entering or leaving cemetery grounds. There simply are too many distance, visual, and logistical obstructions to overcome.

Therefore, my amendment would do the following. It would prohibit individuals who, as part of any demonstration, and within 150 feet of any point of ingress to or egress from cemetery property, be it by road, pathway, or otherwise, willfully make, or assist in the making, of any noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony. This language will ensure that as a funeral procession is entering or exiting any cemetery that there is sufficient distance between the procession and the demonstrators, and that no slowdown of the procession is precipitated by a large gathering of demonstrators near the gates of cemetery property. Furthermore, my amendment would prohibit any demonstration, irrespective of its character, that is within 300 feet of cemetery property that would impede access to or egress from the property.

The principles behind my amendment are simple: As a funeral procession approaches a national cemetery, there should be no obstruction of that procession for any reason. The closer the procession is to the gates of the cemetery, the tighter the restrictions on demonstrations should necessarily be to ensure a dignified, solemn, and respectful burial at our national shrines.

Again, I thank Representative Rogers of Michigan and Senator Inhofe for their leadership on this issue. And I ask my colleagues for their support.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand from the chairman we will not do any further work on the bill this evening. I would, therefore, ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be allowed to speak for up to 8 minutes, immediately following this statement, and that I then be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes following that.

I ask the Senator, how much time would she like?

I follow Senator Shelby. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana be allowed up to 30 minutes following me.

Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate briefly this evening to visit with my colleagues about an issue that we all now know about to some degree; and that, of course, is the very serious breach of security that occurred within the VA earlier this month.

My office, like yours, is lighting up with phone calls from concerned veterans wanting to know how this could happen and what type of risk they are facing.

So I thought I would take this moment, as the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the Senate, to visit with my colleagues about it: No 1, to lay out the facts as we know them--they are limited because this is an ongoing investigation and, therefore, the FBI has denied VA the right to talk in any great detail about this breach of security--and, No. 2, to provide all of you with some context in which to think about this issue.

First, what we know is that the information was taken to the home of a VA employee in violation of VA policy. We also know that the employee who took the information was authorized to view it. So this was not a case of unauthorized personnel looking at sensitive information. We also know that the employee was the person who brought the loss of the information to the attention of VA officials.

So what we have is an employee, authorized to view information, who took the information home, apparently to do work in violation of agency policy, and then immediately informed the agency when the theft of the data became apparent.

Certainly, the employee should face some consequence for his or her action. Obviously, he or she should have known not to remove that type of information from VA's protected data system. However, at this point, the actual removal of the data does not appear to be a crime at all.

Of course, the FBI is still investigating whether any criminal behavior occurred. At this point, they do not suspect any foul play on the part of this longtime Federal employee. Rather, they only suspect a random act of burglary at the employee's home that, unfortunately, compromised this very important information.

I must tell you that I struggle--a little--with the question of whether VA, or any Government agency, should keep information like the type that was lost without any real reason to do so. But I also know that when Americans contact their Government or veterans file a claim, they expect, in this day and age, that they will have their information. So there is a disconnect with what we expect and the security we expect it to be held with or if that information should be held at all.

So given the expectations of our consumers, in this case our constituents, I think we need to make sure we have a uniform set of guidelines for training our employees all across Government, and that then we work on putting in place a system with enough checks and balances to be sure that no employee can abuse information data bases of any agency.

Frankly, this problem is not likely limited to VA. Many Federal agencies keep records on citizens that contain sensitive information. It is not just IRS or HHS. There is information maintained by the Department of Education, that comes from the free application for Federal student loans or the Department of Agriculture, which provides crop assistance plans and crop insurance and a variety of other kinds of things.

All of these agencies have names and addresses and Social Security numbers. They must be secure. At the same time, we need employees who can use that information for legitimate purposes to serve our constituencies in a timely fashion.

All of this will require thoughtful balancing on the part of this Congress. We have to balance every doctor's need to see a veteran's medical records with the legitimate concern that one too many nurses on the floor have access to those records for no reason.

I hope what took place at the VA a few weeks ago is only an isolated incident of bad judgment by a dedicated employee seeking to do a little work at home on his or her own time. But we must not ignore the fact that it appears, at this time, that getting that information to his or her home was very easy. That cannot be tolerated because it may well have been a breach of policy but not a violation of law.

So my committee will hold hearings this Thursday with VA officials to examine what their policies and practices are with respect to sensitive information and how we can assure that a breach of security such as this does not happen in the future.

We will also be asking the right questions about the security of veterans themselves and if VA is doing all they possibly can do at this time now, along with the IRS and the Social Security Administration, to make sure that veterans whose names were on that list--some 26 million, of which 19 million had critical information--be treated fairly and responsive to assure, if we can, the protection of their information base.

It is fundamentally important that our Government and the Veterans' Administration respond as quickly as they can. And there is every indication, at least at this moment--which our hearing, I trust, will bear out--that they are moving in the right direction to assure that.

This may have been the largest breach of ID in our Nation's history. We need to make sure, as a Congress and as a Senate, that this cannot happen in the future and that there are exacting guidelines to assure this will not occur. In a day of electronic data and access that is unique and sometimes very easy, we need to make sure we are current with all of our needs, without providing names and information that is not necessarily needed to be held by our Government.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New Mexico. He has approached this very contentious and very complicated issue in a very thoughtful way, looking at realities and numbers. I appreciate his observations today. His proposal, and an amendment he offered that was adopted last week, changes the numbers. I am not going to stand here on the floor as an advocate of the legislation and suggest we have gotten it right, but we spent a great deal of time attempting to get it right, recognizing the importance of the migrant labor force inside the American economy and, at the same time, recognizing the wishes of the American people to make it a transparent legal process with secured borders. That is what they are asking of us. I hope, as we finalize this legislation this week, that is the outcome of it before we send the bill to the President for his signature.

I have come to the Chamber this afternoon to talk once again about an issue that is before us. The Presiding Officer is the author of the amendment. Again, it is one that, in part, is a bit technical. I suggest this afternoon in my opposition to the amendment that it is predicated on what I hope are appropriately the unforeseen consequences of this amendment and the impact it would have on American agricultural employment.

Last Thursday night, Senator Chambliss opened the debate on his

amendment, and I talked about its impact on the users of the H-2A agricultural guest worker program. To get right to the bottom line, my argument is that the Senate should keep the provision that is in the bill now and deny Senator Chambliss the success of his amendment. Why? A deal doesn't necessarily have to be a deal, but at the same time, over the course of the last 4 years, in negotiating with agricultural employees and agricultural employers, we attempted to bring some rationale to a method of compensation under the H-2A program that simply in most opinions was out of touch with reality. It was escalating on an automatic basis every year, and it simply was not fitting the need, especially when more and more in agriculture were illegal and were not under that program.

Now a small minority actually, some 40,000-plus a year, are under the H-2A program and identified with the wage set by that program. It is possible--and we are not sure--but a million-plus are not and are simply out there in the marketplace bidding for a salary that, in most instances, is below the H-2A adverse wage that is proposed.

So what did we do? Recognizing that disparity, we reached back, with the agreement of all of the parties involved, and said that one of the pieces of getting this puzzle right was to freeze that wage in 2003 at the 2002 level, and that is what is in the bill. So that pushes that wage scale back substantially for a period of 3 years while we look at what Senator Chambliss has attempted to do in his legislation in developing a prevailing wage for American agricultural employers and employees that fit into this guest worker category.

I don't know that we, with all of the different categories of wages, can automatically put it all under one at this time. Of course, that is what the Senator attempts to do. The agriculture section of S. 2611, as I said, immediately drops that wage down, and then over a period of 3 years, we look at it and adjust as the program is adjusting because we are not going to have everybody inside the program once it becomes law for a period of several years as the program adjusts and as we work our way through and people begin to qualify under the blue card system that we proposed to become legal workers and have permanent visas for the purpose of moving back and forth across the border as guest workers to work in American agriculture.

What I have attempted to do and what I am attempting to understand is what in the bill is now the best deal for American agriculture. That is one reason I believe a vote on the Chambliss amendment is not a good deal for American agriculture at this moment. But that is not the only reason. Let me talk about the rest of agriculture, the million-plus who will now be affected by the Chambliss amendment if it is to become law, because I see that as the rest of the story, and the rest of the story deals with the blue card and the blue card transitional program, the earned status which is a part of the whole of this program. It isn't just a matter of putting in a wage; it is a matter of how that wage ultimately affects the transition into a blue card status.

We have done a pictorial chart tonight that I think better explains what we are talking about.

We believe the blue card built within the agricultural jobs is that transitional tool which allows American agriculture to cross the chasm, if you will, and allow a reformed H-2A program, a guest worker program, to come into being. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen under the law, and it will happen with a wage scale that is pushed back as we make sure we get it right. That is under the reform program.

The second part of the agricultural jobs is a one-time-only program, right here, a blue card. It will last for a specific period of time while we are transitioning the illegals here today into a legal status so they can continue to work and move back and forth across the border in a guest worker program.

The blue card program is a critical piece of the agricultural job solution. It is an essential transition program. Let me repeat, agriculture needs this blue card if we don't want to throw it immediately into havoc because agriculture, whether we like it or not, based on an H-2A law that didn't work at all well and a very transparent border, has grown increasingly dependent on an illegal workforce. There are no wage requirements for blue card workers in the bill. It is only the 40,000-plus H-2A we shove back. They are paid whatever the farmer is paying, whatever the current wage is in the area, and other workers are gaining. And those wages would differ from place to place and job to job, farm to farm.

What the Chambliss amendment does, however, is it says that blue card workers must be paid a prevailing wage. It pushes the base up substantially. The Chambliss amendment doesn't just deal with the wages of the H-2A program, the 40-plus, it applies the same fix to every farmer who employs a blue card transitional worker.

Now, why is that significant? Here is why: By definition, the prevailing wage is neither the lowest nor the highest wage; it is just about in the middle or between the two. It is the 51st percentile in wages. So even if a farmer is paying a lower wage for a particular job, if he hires a blue card worker, if the Chambliss amendment becomes law, he is going to have to pay the blue card worker a higher wage than he is currently paying today. And if the Chambliss amendment is adopted, the lower 50th percentile of wages, that is the figure that becomes the calculating base for the next year. While you freeze for 3 years and let the wage scale work as it is, the Chambliss amendment begins to ratchet the wages up, setting them at a 51st percentile level. I don't think American agriculture has that one figured out yet.

What could ultimately happen is that we lose the value of the transition of the blue card, especially when it comes to vegetable crops and crops that can move very quickly out of this country that aren't mechanized and are labor intensive. Already, we are beginning to lose those farmers because the worker isn't there. If all of a sudden that wage scale shoots up under the Chambliss bill, as I propose it will, to a prevailing status, my guess is not only will you not have the worker but you will not have the producer out there in the field simply because they will not be able to afford to pay that wage in a competitive way. More and more of our production, tragically enough, I believe will go south of the border in some of these areas. Much of that production today happens outside the United States.

So I think when we are talking about what sounds like a good idea, we better put it in the context of what the bill is really about; that is, the transitional time of 2 to 3 years of blue card workers who are in the market today working at a variety of wages, depending upon the particular job, the particular type of agriculture, and all of a sudden establishing a whole new wage base substantially above where they are being paid but, as the Senator from Georgia would argue, below H-2A. But remember, once again, only about 45,000 workers are in H-2A, and there are well over a million who are all of a sudden going to be affected by the blue card status and by the Chambliss amendment. So it is tremendously important that we bring this into context.

Now, that is not going to be just a couple of workers, as I said. That is nearly 70 percent of the current agricultural workforce we believe to be undocumented. Not all of those workers are going to qualify for the blue card program, but a lot of them will. Our blue card program envisions that it could go as high as, over a 3-year period, 1.5 million, and if I am not mistaken, those higher wages won't be limited to the blue card worker.

But what the Senator from Georgia is doing is setting a new, higher floor for all agricultural employment. Somehow, you are talking about inflating the wages of a large percentage of the American agricultural workforce. I am not against higher salaries. I am for a fair salary. What I am concerned about in particular is labor-intense areas, and those crops will simply cease to exist and they will go south of the border, to Chile or somewhere else. In areas of agriculture that are highly mechanized, there will be limited to no effect. And it is that which I believe we have to put into context.

So what is the result? The result is that employers, in my opinion, won't be able to afford blue card workers. Is

that the intent of the Senator from Georgia? I don't think so, but I believe it is the unintended consequence we are talking about and something I think my colleagues need to understand.

Part of that was the discussion over the last 4 years. This is something which didn't just come up yesterday. There were 4 years of negotiation between the employer and the employees as to how to get an H-2A wage right. We had the adverse wage for a lot of reasons, such as because of where agriculture was located and because housing wasn't available. There were a lot of things that were brought into that discussion. We know our country has changed since the creation of the first H-2A law. And while there are still other benefits tied to the wage, that is why we could effectively negotiate rolling that wage back and allowing American agriculture and the employers in American agriculture to effectively look at what we were doing and strike the kind of balanced margin that is necessary.

What happens? What happens if the blue card is removed? I am going to argue tonight that the Chambliss amendment has the effect of removing the blue card substantially because it inflates that lower wage base significantly. What happens if it is removed? The bridge that is the chasm we cross as we transition with American agriculture into a legal--a legal--guest worker program goes away. That is what I am worried about, dramatically worried about, and that is why I am urging my colleagues to vote against the Chambliss amendment because I think if that goes away, there is no transition. Within a very short time, even under tight labor conditions today, because our borders are getting tighter and because of shifts in the workforce, this drives that workforce even further out of the ability to be hired by much of American agriculture. I think it is tremendously important that we look at all of that and understand it.

Here is something else that is ironic. The Chambliss amendment creates a federally mandated wage base for American agriculture. Some will argue that we have done it in a couple of other areas, but most of us will say the market ought to work. It was only in the unique status of H-2A that we had a different kind of wage base. I will argue today, and I think appropriately so, that we are setting an entirely new standard for 70 percent of the American workforce. Instead of allowing us to make sure that it fits right in the program, looks at the diversity, looks at the kind of representation that is reflected all over the United States when it relates to where you are working, how you are working, the type of work you are doing--is it piecework, are you doing it by the amount produced instead of by the hour of work--all of that kind of thing works today, and I am not so sure it is not effectively distorted by the proposal which is being offered by the Senator from Georgia.

That is why I hope my colleagues would stay with us and stay with what is in the bill and in the provision that we call AgJOBS, that rolls back--on 40,000-plus workers qualified under the H-2A program, rolls their wage back to the 2002 level, freezes it for 3 years, while the Department of Labor, working with American agriculture, can get this right because I am convinced that the unintended consequences of now mandating a Federal floor, if you will, to American agriculture is not where we want to go.

If we want American agriculture to transition across this chasm, to get its workforce legalized, as it wants and as the Senator from Georgia and I want, then we have to make sure the transition which allows that to happen effectively uses this tool, the blue card, which will allow that kind of transition to go forward in a way that causes us to adjust.

We can't take the blue card off the table. I will argue that in the end, if the Chambliss amendment passes, we have taken that worker out of the workforce. That is not going to be good for American agriculture. That is not going to be good for the crops that are rotting in the fields today if, by that action, we now have a Federally mandated prevailing wage which brings that wage rate up across the board in a way that disallows American agriculture from being competitive.

I believe those are the critical points involved in the difference between where we are and where we know we need to get. We need to get there in a way that allows the worker to be treated fairly, the producer to be treated fairly, and most importantly that we have an available, legal workforce to meet the needs of American production agriculture. That workforce is at risk today, and with the passage of the Chambliss amendment, significantly changing the base rate, it will be at even greater risk as production agriculture looks where it needs to farm to be competitive in a world market. It may not be on the soil of this great country, and that would be the wrong thing for us, the wrong thing for our country, and certainly for our consumers. So I hope my colleagues will look at that and consider it as we deal with this issue.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I don't think he and I disagree. My concern is you are affecting 1.5 million workers by your immediate action, and I am affecting 40,000-plus in rolling them back. And we are giving a period of transition of 3 years to get right what you have proposed. My concern is that in getting right what you proposed, you have an immediate effect on the next phase of agricultural jobs, and that is the transitional period of time in qualifying the blue card worker to become a permanent worker or a permanent legal worker, and that immediately inflates the wage base. And then immediately upon inflating it once, you inflate it again the next year and the next year because you have lifted the base, ratcheted it up by each year's calculation. I think that is a very legitimate concern. So I ask you, is that not the impact of what you do? I am affecting 40,000-plus; you are affecting 1.5 million.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

Inside the AgJOBS Act there is a U.S. labor pool established. They would pay the going wage. They have to make sure that pool is exhausted so U.S. citizen agricultural workers are protected. You go there first before you go to hire a blue card worker or a H-2A- qualified worker.

I hope the Senator understands that they are protected in that sense, as it relates to making sure that they are the first in line, if you will, for a job that is available if they would choose to work in that field at the wage that exists at that point.

OK.

I believe it is fair and balanced. The reason it is is because we pushed a wage scale that is already there back 3 years. We do it this time to get right what the Senator from Georgia has proposed. He has shown the disparity that already exists out there--and it exists in all formulations when it relates to agriculture and agricultural jobs. We have never focused on agriculture except in the H-2A area. We believe it did get out of line, and that is why it is shoved back. Then we proceed, just as the Senator mentioned, in a methodical way to examine the country and get the wage scale rate right.

That is correct.

Frankly, the adverse wage issue was one of the more contentious, for a variety of reasons--first of all, because producers saw it as being complicated with a lot of requirements other than just a wage, and obviously employment saw it as an advantage but limited. As a result, we were able to agree to shove it back.

As I say, that rarely happens in American history, to actually by law push the wage scale back but to do so with the understanding that we would get equity and fairness through the approach that the Senator has outlined. That was the approach we used. A coalition of well over 500, including agriculture, a lot of agricultural producers.

About 3 years--2\1/2\ years, actually, as we formulated it.

Mr. President, standing in opposition to the amendment, it is fascinating to me that we now want to play a game of what groups and whose associations. I find it fascinating that the California Farm Bureau, which supports the position, isn't quite good enough. The California Apple Commission, the California Avocado Commission, the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers, the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the California Canners and Peach Association, the California Citrus Mutual--we have nearly 500 groups that have endorsed this.

The reason they have endorsed it is because they see the need to do it right and get a reasonable transition.

The Web site the Senator from Georgia is talking about has to be right. It has to be effective and reflective. It doesn't do that today. That information is now not available in that context.

Let me go back to the transition. We are talking about those who are illegal today and wanting them to come forward, get a background check, show us their credentials, qualify for a transitional status, called earned adjustment status, and a blue card, and to do so in a fair and responsible fashion.

They can stay and continue to work. While they are doing that, we are going to work to get the wage scale right. In our work over the last good number of years, literally hundreds and hundreds of agricultural groups and associations have stepped forward and said: Help us fix this. Help us use this blue card to get across, in a transitional way, for a legal workforce, in a reformed H-2A program. The compromise that the Senator from California talked about was just that. It was a transitional wage to get this fair and equitable.

What the Senator from Georgia is doing is not affecting the 40,000- plus of H-2A under adverse wage. We are doing that. We are shoving those wages back. He is affecting the 1.5 million that may cause agriculture to become noncompetitive if we don't get the wage scale rate right and involve agriculture along with the Department of Labor, as our studies would do, to make sure we get an equitable and fair wage. Fair means two sides. For the worker, it means certainty; for the producer, absolutely, the product that is produced--especially in the vegetable crops, in the intensified labor crops--has got to be competitive against a world market crop, or we will shove those producers and that kind of production out of the country.

We have to do it in a balanced way. What we have offered allows the Senator from Georgia, as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, to participate. He did not participate in these negotiations because he did not agree with them. He did not agree with the transition of getting through what we attempted to do in AgJOBS. That was his choice. In the end, both he and I agreed on many of the provisions except this one. It is important we stay with the work product.

Literally hundreds and hundreds of farm groups and associations across

the Nation that deal with this type of workforce recognize the need of the transitional period of time and the legality of the workforce, as do we. It is reflected in the bill. I hope our colleagues continue to support it.

Mr. President, as of April of 2006, the average fieldworker in the United States was paid $8.96 an hour. The average livestock worker was paid $9.30 an hour. The minimum wage is $5.15. Do the math. That is why, when we put this bill together, we said we have to get it right for all parties involved.

I agree with the Senator from Georgia, producers are willing to pay a fair wage. And they should. And workers who work as hard as agricultural workers ought to be paid a fair and good wage. At the same time, we compete in a world market, and I hope we stay there.

I don't think you can meet with one farm organization and establish what the prevailing wage is going to be. That is why we mandated in our bill that the Department of Labor work with agriculture to get it right because we conclude that the H-2A adverse effect wage rate got out of line. I don't know what the right wage is. I wager that the Senator from Georgia probably doesn't know where it ought to be, either, in every segment of agriculture in our country.

I wish the Senators would stay with the bill and vote down the Chambliss amendment because in the end we want to get it right for all involved. We want to keep American agriculture competitive in a world market.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I approach this part of the debate on a critical piece of legislation with due caution. I say that because of my respect for my colleagues from Arizona and from the State of Texas and the work they have done as members of the Judiciary Committee and the due diligence they have always put into this critical issue.

I believe there is a component missing from this debate that speaks to the need for this country to be in a continual and progressive mode of training and shaping a permanent stable workforce.

Unlike all of the demographic studies of the last decade or two, there is something upon us as a nation that we have never experienced before. I am a 1945 baby. I am 60 years old. I am just 1 year ahead of a great class of people--77 million Americans--called baby boomers. They, similar to myself, because of their age, will soon be leaving the American workforce. There are demographic studies out there today which suggest that if we are to sustain a 3.5- to 4- percent growth economy, we have to have about 500,000 new, non-U.S. citizen workers in our workforce on an annual basis.

Yes, we will have ups and downs in the economy. We always have. But in the last downtrend we had, in the final days of the Clinton administration and the early days of the Bush administration, it was about 3.5 million in the downturn before it came back. In the 5.2 million jobs created since that time, one-third of them have been claimed by foreign nationals. It speaks to an economic growth pattern that now requires for the first time in our history a sustained, incoming, trainable, and permanent workforce of the kind that the American citizen, by birthrate, is not providing.

If we deny that as a country, if we create instability as a country, we deny ourselves the ability to continue to grow. And if we do not grow, this Senate is going to be faced with public policy decisions we are not yet brave enough to make: Social Security reform, Medicare reform, Medicaid reform--all of those things which, without a sustained economic growth cycle, become phenomenally expensive and maybe unaffordable.

That does not sound like part of the debate that would tie itself to the Kyl-Cornyn amendment, but I suggest it does. I suggest it behooves this country to create a legal transparent immigration system with a secured border that allows America's employers to train and sustain a permanent workforce, a constantly growing permanent workforce, because the American, by birth, is no longer going to do that. It is the nature of our country. It is the maturity of our country. It is, in fact, the wealth of our country. That is, in part, what all of this debate is about.

Americans said: Get your borders secured and get the illegal flow under control; identify them, control them. That is what we are trying to do.

I do not believe that a constant temporary environment is a stable environment. For those who work for long periods of time and get a green card, does it mean they will become a citizen? No, it does not. Does it mean they are eligible? In this bill, it says: Yes, if you go to the end of the line and apply, and that is 6 years, another 5 years, that is 11 years, and it goes on and on.

I don't believe this is an appropriate amendment to this bill. There is enough temporariness to the bill itself by the nature of H-2A's, H- 2B's and H-2C's, and that is written in. There has to be some stability of permanency. That is critical to the American economic scene and to the stability of America's workforce. And even in that, we will have the down cycles that the Senator from Arizona talks about. I am not sure at that point, when trained workers are at hand and have supplied the American economy with its growth, that you say: The lights are out, leave the country.

Somehow, we have to balance that out. That is what we are attempting to do. That is why tonight I ask my colleagues to oppose the Kyl-Cornyn amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing this issue before the Senate. Yesterday the Senator from Nevada and I were in attendance at a hearing of the Armed Services Committee chaired by Senator Warner, with the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of the National Guard, the lieutenant general of the Army, and the Chief of the Border Patrol. What we saw was the coming together of a complete unit, a complete unit to secure our border and build an orderly process on the border.

What the Senator from Nevada speaks to tonight is a reality that is very doable, and it is done in the normal activity of the summer training of our Guard. The Senator knows that we are not putting Guardsmen out on the front lines. They will facilitate those of the Border Patrol who are the frontline officers in this defensive securing mechanism that we will call the southwestern border of our country.

So I thank the Senator for bringing this to the floor. It is critical and important. It fits well into what our President has proposed, responsibly so, for our country.

Mr. President, the hour is late. I know those at the desk, including the Chair, would like to dim the lights and say good evening. I will do that in just a few moments.

We are going to have an opportunity to debate in detail what the Senator from Georgia has put before the Senate as it relates to a wage rate for agricultural workers that is embodied within the bill that is before us in comprehensive immigration reform.

I must tell you that after having worked on the agriculture portion of this bill for nearly 5 years, and as a farmer and rancher, I totally agree with the Senator from Georgia, that those who were under the H-2A program and those who weren't were very different, and those who weren't were placing the farmer-producer who had adhered to the H-2A program at a true competitive disadvantage because of the adverse effect wage rate that the Senator spoke to.

As we work to reform and change the character of the H-2A program, and for those Senators who aren't quite aware of that--that is the agricultural portion--we recognize that the adverse affect wage was out of step. It was skewed in large part by comparative and competitive disadvantaged margins that the Senator speaks to. The Senator has proposed moving to a prevailing wage, which, in my opinion, is in itself a minimum wage.

Let me make those points. What the Senator from Georgia has failed to suggest is after an examination of the adverse effect wage rate and recognizing the problems, we changed it dramatically. We said let's freeze it at the 2003 level, January 1, which is actually the 2002 level, and keep it flat for 3 years while we adjust the agricultural workplace into a true prevailing wage.

That is what the bill does. Let me show you what I believe the effects are. I will go into those in more detail on Monday because they are significant, and in many instances what the bill does for American agriculture is better than what the Senator from Georgia is proposing. It causes us to focus on what is appropriate and right in bringing about equity and balance in the agricultural workforce and in that wage rate.

In 2006, the adverse effect wage rate was $8.63 an hour. This bill drops it to $8.19. In 2010, $10.25 and drops it to $9.06, and many examples on a State-by-State basis drop it more than that. But more than dropping the wage rate down and bringing equity in it, we bring equity in a sense by going in and looking at it and making sure that we effectively change the indices, immediately upon the enactment of the agriculture portion known as AgJOBS of this bill.

In California, the wage rate will drop by 11 percent; in New Hampshire, 13 percent; South Carolina, 13 percent; Montana, 12 percent; Pennsylvania, 16 percent.

I wish the Senator would check his numbers. The numbers he talks about tonight are not prevailing wage. That is minimum wage. And minimum wage will not stand. That is something we are all going to have to look at as we focus on the Chambliss amendment to see if those numbers are truly accurate. I am not in any way suggesting the Senator is wrong, but I am suggesting those who did the research used the Nation's lowest indices possible. I challenge those numbers. It is appropriate to do so.

By 2016, the average farm wage is projected to be $12.81 but the projected adverse effect wage is $10 or down 17.5 percent below the average farm wage if we look at those kinds of indices. It is important we understand we are proposing significant changes in the wage rate and in the market.

The Senator is suggesting, and appropriately so, embodied within adverse effected wage were a variety of other things that agricultural producers had to supply, in some instances, housing, or housing certificates, and other types of amenities at the workplace. That will still happen, whether it is a transitional blue card employment force or an H2-A force because, clearly, once we have transitioned the modified and reformed H2-A program embodied within the bill before the Senate, will be the effective guest worker law portion of it dealing specifically with agriculture.

Agriculture is a different workforce. And it is a different wage scale. We know that.

Had the Senator embodied within it the advantage of piecework, the adverse effect wage rate does that. Do you know some workers who are getting $7 an hour, if they work piecework, get $12 an hour? It is their advantage to do is. There is a higher level of productivity when you bring them all to a common denominator that goes away. There are a variety of things that are critically important to look at.

I do not mean to suggest in any way that the numbers offered were offered in an untruthful way but the numbers that were provided to the offeror are the lowest common denominator at a minimum wage rate and not the 50th medium talked about by the Department of Labor in their analysis and in the establishment of an appropriate wage rate that would be a true prevailing wage rate.

I want a prevailing wage rate. That is what the bill proposes, a transitional pattern of time, a 3-year pattern of time with a frozen adverse effect wage rate, to move us to prevailing. The Farm Bureau asserts that the prevailing crop wage in Ohio ranges from $5.85 to $7.13 an hour. They compare this to the wage rate of $8.38 per hour which would apply during the AgJOBS wage freeze. Those are the kind of numbers that were being offered this evening. However, the medium hourly wage, which would be the prevailing wage under the amendment before the Senate, was $8.57 for crop workers in Ohio in the data sourced by the Farm Bureau.

I am still digging into the numbers because I cannot quite understand it.

There is a disparity that is troublesome if we are to arrive at a fair, responsible, and accurate measurement to establish an effective prevailing wage that is fair to the worker, but more importantly, and as importantly, fair to the producer so that we get out of this competitive disadvantage the Senator from Georgia has recognized and sees as critically important.

In other words, if this data source represented agriculture prevailing wage, which in my opinion it does not, the prevailing crop rates I mentioned for Ohio would be at least 19 cents an hour higher than the AgJOBS minimum wage even in 2006 before we tamp it down in the law. The projected Ohio prevailing crop wage in 2010, based on the data source, would be $10.33 per hour compared to the AgJOBS minimum wage of $9.29.

In all sincerity, I offer to the Senator from Georgia a time for us to look at numbers and do some comparisons. There is a disparity. I know what the bill does because the bill is accurately and effectively represented in these charts because we knew what the effected adverse wage was going to be, and there is a very clear projection line. What we do not know are the indices given and provided as it relates to the Chambliss amendment.

I will spend the weekend looking at it and looking at those numbers. They do concern me. It is important we get it right, not that we want to treat anyone in a disadvantaged way, but what we do has to be accurate, it has to create stability, it has to take away the competitive disadvantage the Senator from Georgia is talking about, that is real today in this disparity between those H-2A workers and, if you will, the undocumented workers out there in the American workforce that the provision of the bill that deals with agriculture attempts to get its arms around and legalize through the blue card transition period the Senator and I have spoken to.

It is a very important part of the bill. Both the Senator from Georgia and I have been concerned for some time and have compared numbers about an American agricultural work base built on a faulty employment base. You cannot be working 75 percent undocumented workers and be wholly dependent upon them to bring the perishable crop to the market and then have them swept out from under you.

Yet we also know that when there is 1.2 to 1.5 million people in the American agricultural workforce that are foreign nationals, yet annually, the H-2A as a program only effectively identifies 42,000 to 45,000, something was and is dramatically wrong. That is why the Senator is here with his amendment. That is why I am here with a major reform package within the bill. We both agree that the wage part of this is skewed. That is why we rolled it back dramatically and we are proposing establishing a prevailing wage. And he has proposed a prevailing wage.

We have to get the numbers right. I disagree with his numbers. It is important that in the effort to bring stability and equity we get them right.

I hope the Senate would get the Chambliss amendment, stay with the freeze that is actually the 2002 wage scale for 3 years, while we get the numbers right as it relates to the effective establishment of a prevailing wage.

In the end, I would argue that during that period of time we have substantially lessened the competitive disadvantage and improved the overall wage base for agricultural workers in a sense of equity and balance.

We will be back to this amendment, I understand, Monday afternoon to debate it before a vote on Monday evening at 5:30. It is a challenge for all of us. More than one Senator over the course of the last week has said this is a very complicated bill. And the area that Senator Chambliss and I have ventured into is a very complicated portion of the bill.

I know what the bill does because I helped write it and spent a good number of years attempting to negotiate it. I am yet to clearly understand what I believe the Senator from Georgia is attempting to do as to the accuracy of his numbers and what they would mean on a State- by-State basis based on the indices he proposes to be used if this were to become law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do have to stand in opposition to the Vitter amendment and hope my colleagues will oppose it. We are all finding out that what we are attempting to do is phenomenally complicated, with all the different kinds of categories of work status and reality that we as the Senate and the American people are awakening to.

There is one reality. We have a lot of undocumented foreign nationals in our country. By definition, they are illegal. Some--and many--have been here 5 and 6 years or more or less. They are law abiding. They are hard working. They have not violated the laws, other than they walked across the border. And they did violate a law when they did that.

Earned adjustment is an attempt to bring some reality to this by saying, if you have been here and you worked a while, then you can stay and work: You will pay a fine, you will have a background check, but we will provide you with a legal status to stay and to work--not citizenship. If you want citizenship, you go to the back of the line and you qualify.

But we are talking about a legal work status. Some call that amnesty. I call it earned adjustment because we are beginning to find out who is here, why they are here. There is a background check. Are they legal in the sense, did they violate laws, other than walking across the border? And I do not mean to take that lightly.

The Vitter amendment wipes out all of that. It wipes out the work of the committee. It wipes out how you deal with 10 million undocumented people in our country in a systematic, legal, and responsible fashion.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment. There may be a better idea than earned adjustment. But after having worked on this issue for 5 years and attempting to work with all of the interest groups to bring about some equity, stability of workforce--assuring that those who are out in the field now working or in our processing plants working can stay and work and keep our economy moving--I ask my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2821, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006. Today, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, and this afternoon, I am making good on a promise I made on the Senate floor last week--to repeal the expanded withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297 to ensure that the bill does what its title claims, that is, prevents tax Increases.

Americans have been asking for tax relief. Congress answered this call, in part, when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts-- contained in H.R. 4297 will assist small businesses, encourage the kind of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensure fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be left footing the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy.

Alongside these tax relief provisions, however, conferees inserted a sweeping new withholding requirement that will raise taxes by nearly $7 billion. This bill seems to have a history of that. When the original tax reconciliation bill came before the Senate, it contained a windfall profits tax provision that would have imposed an additional $4.923 billion tax on the energy industry. I voted against it because the bill that was supposed to provide tax relief actually raised taxes. Although the conferees stripped this provision in conference, they replaced it with an even bigger tax hike--section 511's expanded withholding requirement.

Section 511 of H.R. 4297 imposes a new mandatory 3 percent withholding requirement on all payments for goods and services made to Federal, State, and local contractors. The provision, which is the largest revenue raiser in the bill, represents a significant shift in U.S. tax policy.

Withholding has not always been around. Despite predominant public opposition, Congress enacted mandatory withholding on Federal income tax in 1943 in order to fund World War II. As a result, tax collections jumped from $7.3 billion in 1939 to $43 billion in 1945. That is an increase of $35.7 billion in just 4 years. In congressional hearings on the issue, Congressmen spoke candidly of the revenues that needed to be ``fried out of the taxpayers.'' There was no doubt in the minds of lawmakers that the result of withholding would be an increase in the tax burden on the public.

Congress sought to expand withholding to dividends and interest in 1982, and public opposition was so profound that it was repealed 1 year later. Now, proponents of section 511's expanded withholding requirement say that it is necessary to close a ``tax loophole'' that allows taxpayers to avoid their tax obligations. There is no such ``loophole''--the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has simply failed to do its job of collecting.

Information-reporting requirements are already in place to assist the IRS in its collection duties. Government entities are required to make an information return, reporting payments to corporations as well as individuals. Moreover, every head of every Federal executive agency that enters into contracts must file an information return reporting the contractor's name, address, date of contract action, amount to be paid to the contractor, and other information. Expanding withholding would now not only have the Federal Government spend taxpayers' dollars, but it would make taxpayers bear the burden and costs of collecting them, too.

The costs of section 511 are high--so high, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office said that the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the State and local governments, exceeding the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The provision will also cause the cost of doing business to go up. A 3- percent withholding on multibillion dollar contracts--for as long as 15 months, held interest-free--will affect cash flows, investment, and cause businesses to raise prices in order to make up for losses, thereby putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage. Consider the Federal contract totals for Idaho and California alone. In fiscal year 2004, Idaho's nondefense contracts totaled $1.1 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State's defense contracts added up to $154 million. In fiscal year 2004, California's nondefense contracts totaled $9.4 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State had $30.9 billion in defense contracts.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006, will repeal the $7 billion withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297. Tax relief should not be coupled with tax increases, and I will continue to work to give more meaning to the phrase in the bill's title, ``Tax Increase Prevention.'' This bill is a first step. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2821, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006. Today, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, and this afternoon, I am making good on a promise I made on the Senate floor last week--to repeal the expanded withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297 to ensure that the bill does what its title claims, that is, prevents tax Increases.

Americans have been asking for tax relief. Congress answered this call, in part, when it passed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The lower taxes on capital gains and dividends--and the higher alternative minimum tax exemption amounts-- contained in H.R. 4297 will assist small businesses, encourage the kind of investment that creates jobs and makes our economy grow, and ensure fairer tax treatment for middle-income families who would otherwise be left footing the bill for a tax intended for the wealthy.

Alongside these tax relief provisions, however, conferees inserted a sweeping new withholding requirement that will raise taxes by nearly $7 billion. This bill seems to have a history of that. When the original tax reconciliation bill came before the Senate, it contained a windfall profits tax provision that would have imposed an additional $4.923 billion tax on the energy industry. I voted against it because the bill that was supposed to provide tax relief actually raised taxes. Although the conferees stripped this provision in conference, they replaced it with an even bigger tax hike--section 511's expanded withholding requirement.

Section 511 of H.R. 4297 imposes a new mandatory 3 percent withholding requirement on all payments for goods and services made to Federal, State, and local contractors. The provision, which is the largest revenue raiser in the bill, represents a significant shift in U.S. tax policy.

Withholding has not always been around. Despite predominant public opposition, Congress enacted mandatory withholding on Federal income tax in 1943 in order to fund World War II. As a result, tax collections jumped from $7.3 billion in 1939 to $43 billion in 1945. That is an increase of $35.7 billion in just 4 years. In congressional hearings on the issue, Congressmen spoke candidly of the revenues that needed to be ``fried out of the taxpayers.'' There was no doubt in the minds of lawmakers that the result of withholding would be an increase in the tax burden on the public.

Congress sought to expand withholding to dividends and interest in 1982, and public opposition was so profound that it was repealed 1 year later. Now, proponents of section 511's expanded withholding requirement say that it is necessary to close a ``tax loophole'' that allows taxpayers to avoid their tax obligations. There is no such ``loophole''--the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has simply failed to do its job of collecting.

Information-reporting requirements are already in place to assist the IRS in its collection duties. Government entities are required to make an information return, reporting payments to corporations as well as individuals. Moreover, every head of every Federal executive agency that enters into contracts must file an information return reporting the contractor's name, address, date of contract action, amount to be paid to the contractor, and other information. Expanding withholding would now not only have the Federal Government spend taxpayers' dollars, but it would make taxpayers bear the burden and costs of collecting them, too.

The costs of section 511 are high--so high, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office said that the provision constitutes an unfunded mandate on the State and local governments, exceeding the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The provision will also cause the cost of doing business to go up. A 3- percent withholding on multibillion dollar contracts--for as long as 15 months, held interest-free--will affect cash flows, investment, and cause businesses to raise prices in order to make up for losses, thereby putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage. Consider the Federal contract totals for Idaho and California alone. In fiscal year 2004, Idaho's nondefense contracts totaled $1.1 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State's defense contracts added up to $154 million. In fiscal year 2004, California's nondefense contracts totaled $9.4 billion, and in fiscal year 2005, the State had $30.9 billion in defense contracts.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2006, will repeal the $7 billion withholding tax contained in H.R. 4297. Tax relief should not be coupled with tax increases, and I will continue to work to give more meaning to the phrase in the bill's title, ``Tax Increase Prevention.'' This bill is a first step. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that S. 2788, a bill to direct the exchange of certain land in Grand, San Juan and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes has been added to the agenda of the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366. This will replace S. 1135 which has been removed from the agenda.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics, Dick Bouts, or Sara Zecher.