Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Beth Sanford, be granted floor privileges during the remainder of this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is my honor today to pay tribute to three courageous soldiers from the city of Roswell, GA, whose service to country and community merits grateful recognition. 1SG Michael Matthews has served 21 years in the U.S. Army and Army National Guard and is currently a member of Charlie Co., 108th Armored Regiment, 48th Brigade of the Georgia Army National Guard. On August 30, 2005, Sergeant Matthews was seriously wounded when two Iraqis detonated an Improvised Explosive Device next to his convoy 25 miles south of Bagdad. Sergeant Matthews continues to recover from his injuries, and following his recovery, the Roswell Police Department will welcome him back to his position on the force. Sergeant Matthews worked for 17 years as a uniform police officer and SWAT team member and, in 2005, was named the Police Officer of the Year. SGT Kenneth Kraus served as a U.S. Marine on duty at the U.S. Embassy in Iran during February of 1979. As revolutionaries overpowered the Embassy, Sergeant Kraus successfully negotiated the release of several American civilians before he was wounded and taken hostage himself. Beaten and interrogated repeatedly, he was given a 20 minute trial and sentenced to die the next day. Sergeant Kraus was pulled from his cell in the hours after his sentence while a representative from the U.S. Embassy finally secured his release. He was flown to Germany for medical treatment and then home to the United States. The Roswell Police Department has been fortunate to have Sergeant Kraus work with them as a detective for over 11 years. SSG Jacob Long serves as Company Master Gunner in Charlie Co., First Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment, 48th Brigade of the Georgia Army National Guard. On April 22, 2006, Staff Sergeant Long returned from a year-long deployment in Iraq during which Charlie Co. became responsible for sending Baby Noor, an Iraqi infant with spinal bifida, on a flight to obtain vital treatment in the United States and Baby Noor underwent successful surgery in Atlanta. In addition to his service abroad, Sergeant Jacob has worked with the Roswell Parks and Recreation Department for over 10 years. These individuals continue to better their community and their Nation with selfless dedication to their careers in public service. I am proud to join the city of Roswell, the State of Georgia, and our Nation in honoring these brave men who have exemplified service to others on the local, national, and international level.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up an amendment of mine.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it not true, Mr. President, that today we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting alongside the Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis?

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer opening remarks on the 2007 National Defense Authorization bill. Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin, as well as the entire committee, worked very hard during the markup process to produce a bill that would support our troops and would provide what our military needs to fight and win the global war on terrorism, and I am pleased to say this bill does just that. This bill provides our service men and women with the resources necessary to continue the war on terrorism, keep our country safe, and will greatly improve the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, as well as their families. Despite what one reads or hears in the news sometimes, it is absolutely clear to me that we are winning this war on terrorism; specifically, that we are winning the war in Iraq. I have heard recently from soldiers of the Third Infantry Division at Fort Benning, GA, about the great progress they made during their recent deployment to Diyala Province in Iraq. Over the course of their year there, the security situation in Diyala Province improved dramatically, as did the rule of law and the presence and capability of Iraqi security forces and police. As we all know today, Diyala Province was where U.S. forces found and killed the leader of the anti-Iraqi insurgence, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and I believe it was the hard work that the Third ID did in improving the security and developing relationships with the Iraqis in Diyala Province that allowed for the intelligence and network of information that allowed our forces to track Zarqawi down. I am very proud of the situation of the members of the Third ID in that effort. We need to realize this is hard work that all of our troops are doing in Iraq and that successes often take a long time. But if we stick with it and follow the course we are on, that success will come, and this operation against Zarqawi proves this is the case. Mr. President, having been briefed in the Intelligence Committee at the end of last week on the takedown of Zarqawi, I think it is one of the great successes, without question, we have seen in this war. Military operations are often sophisticated. The planning is very detailed, and that was exactly the case in this situation. It was a perfectly executed plan that was carried out by our military that allowed Zarqawi--one of the meanest, nastiest killers ever to inhabit this Earth--to be taken down. We absolutely must stay the course and finish the job because the future of the Middle East, as well as our own future security, lies in the balance. I believe there might be some amendments filed to this bill that seek to immediately withdraw troops or set a timetable for troop withdrawal. Clearly, both these approaches are extremely unwise, and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting down those amendments overwhelmingly. Related to some specific issues in the bill, I have received numerous letters and phone calls from both Active-Duty soldiers and retirees who are concerned with the proposed increases in TRICARE premiums. So I am pleased to see that the Senate bill does not approve DOD's proposed increases in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees. In my home State of Georgia, there are a large number of military personnel and retirees living in rural areas where quality health care is often not as readily available as in more urban areas. This bill will help to improve health care access for those individuals by authorizing incentive payments for civilian health care providers who provide services to TRICARE beneficiaries in rural and medically underserved areas. This is a good provision, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for its inclusion. This legislation will authorize $45 million in supplemental education funding for local school districts that are heavily impacted by the presence of military personnel and families, including $30 million for impact aid, $5 million for educational services to severely disabled children, and an additional $10 million for districts experiencing rapid increases in the number of students due to rebasing, activation of new military units, or base realignment and closure. This provision is of particular importance to my State. As a result of the 2005 base closure and realignment round, Fort Benning and the school systems in the surrounding area will experience an influx of approximately 10,000 students into their school systems over the next several years as new troops arrive. This funding will ensure that areas such as Fort Benning have the facilities and teachers in place to provide the children of our Armed Forces members with a top-notch education when they do arrive. This bill also requires DOD to report to Congress on their plan for working with other Federal agencies and local school districts to accommodate this growth. Unfortunately, DOD has been slow to recognize the burden that such unprecedented growth places on small communities, and it is important that DOD do the necessary planning and coordination in advance to ensure that military families are taken care of when they move to a new installation. During the war in Iraq, our intra- and inter-theater airlift assets have gone above and beyond the call of duty and have been used at a much greater rate than we ever planned to use them. These airplanes played the critical role of airlifting supplies, vehicles, and other equipment to our troops. In order to recapitalize some of the losses and overuse of these airlift assets, this bill authorizes $2.6 billion for strategic airlift capability, including an increase of two C-17 aircraft above the budget request and advance procurement for continued C-17 production. These are superb airplanes and have proven to be extremely reliable and, along with the C-130, have become the backbone of the airlift fleet. This bill also provides a well-deserved pay raise of 2.2 percent for all military personnel effective January 1, 2007, and approves targeted pay raises for midcareer and senior enlisted personnel and warrant officers effective April 1, 2007. I have heard directly from troops in the field and personnel at Georgia military installations about how important these targeted pay raises are to retaining our men and women in uniform in the service and taking advantage of their hard-to-replace skills. So I commend the chairman and ranking member for including this provision in the bill. In order to clarify the role and use of the Armed Forces for domestic use during natural disasters or other events, the bill also includes a provision that would update the Insurrection Act to make explicit the President's authority to use the Armed Forces to restore order and enforce Federal law in cases where public order has been broken. In light of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes along the gulf coast last year, this provision is especially important in clarifying the role that Federal troops have in these situations. I am also pleased that the committee adds $1.4 billion for the F-22A aircraft in order to fully fund procurement of 20 aircraft, as well as fully fund the C-130J multiyear contract which this committee has worked so hard to support, even as the contract is restructured from a commercial to a traditional contract. This is a good bill that the Chairman and ranking member have crafted with the needs of our troops and the national security of our Nation foremost in their minds. I hope my colleagues will join me in expeditiously considering this legislation so that our men and women in uniform can get the equipment, the benefits, and the support they need and deserve. (The remarks of Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Warner are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments and for his leadership. It is a pleasure to serve with him in this body. It is a pleasure to serve with him as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I cannot be in the Chamber on this somewhat historic day without recognizing the fact that one of our colleagues today becomes the longest serving Member of the U.S. Senate. Senator Bob Byrd is a special Member of this body and has been a good friend to all 99 current Members, as well as all the previous Members of the Senate who have had the pleasure of serving with him. I will never forget the first week I was here making my rounds of the other Senators I did not know. When I came to Senator Byrd, he, of course, knew immediately who I was and engaged in a conversation about some facts regarding my service in the House and some other issues that were personal that let me know how much he cared about the Senate by taking the time to research the background of individuals who become Members of the Senate. I will always cherish the fact that during that conversation and in subsequent conversations I have had with him, he shared with me the fact that his favorite Member of the Senate has always been Senator Richard B. Russell of my home State. Senator Russell served in this body for 34 years, and I happen to hold the class of the seat of Senator Russell. I have an office in the Senate Russell Building. So I have a number of ties to Senator Russell, and I also have such great respect and admiration for him. To hear Senator Byrd talk in such glowing terms about a man from my State for whom I have such respect gave me a warm feeling about this man with whom I was about to engage in service in the Senate. He is a remarkable man. He is a man who, without question, believes in the Constitution of the United States and thinks we ought to be more bold in our adherence to that Constitution. In that respect, again, in that same first week I was here, I received in my office mail a copy of the U.S. Constitution from Senator Byrd, along with a letter from him saying that as a Member of the Senate, I should always remember that this has been our guiding light and has served us well during every single day that our country has been free and democratic. As we help share and celebrate with him on this historic day, I extend my congratulations to him on his service to our country and his service in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the men and women at the CIA today represent the best intelligence professionals in the world, and they deserve the best leadership and support. I have known General Hayden for some time, and I am convinced that he is the right person for this job. My initial concern regarding a military officer directing the world's most sophisticated civilian intelligence agency have been addressed by General Hayden in private conversation as well as at the public hearing. The role and mission of the intelligence community at the Department of Defense where General Hayden has been for over 30 years is different from the role and mission of the CIA. General Hayden has convinced me that he can make the transition from the military side to the civilian side of the intelligence community while continuing to move the CIA in a positive direction of change and transition. General Hayden has been instrumental in building our intelligence capabilities to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Even before becoming the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, General Hayden has demonstrated his willingness to express his opinion and speak his mind. His credibility and integrity are second to none. He brings all these traits to his position as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He also brings with him the experience of leading an organization in transformation when he was at the National Security Agency. Today the CIA is in transformation to position itself from the preeminent intelligence organization during the Cold War to becoming an intelligence organization focused on new threats and national security issues such as countering terrorism, preventing countries such as Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons, and protecting America's interests in Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere. General Hayden will face challenges as he continues this transformation to ensure that the CIA continues to be the world class organization it must be to address these threats. This means continuing efforts to replace the old, risk adverse system that was not positioned to address the threats we are facing now and may face in the future. It also means ensuring the Agency does not reverse course by infusing ideas that previously opposed change, information sharing, or oversight. Throughout his career, General Hayden has proven his management and leadership abilities. He will provide the enthusiastic and dedicated officers at CIA the ``top cover'' necessary for them to undertake the innovative approaches to intelligence gathering that is required to penetrate the hard targets of today, and I am confident he will be able to keep the CIA moving on the right course. Finally, General Hayden will head an organization that is responsible for managing our national human intelligence effort. His military experience combined with his experience as the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence will serve him well as he integrates the human intelligence efforts of the Department of Defense, the FBI, and others into the National Clandestine Service, recognizing the requirements and capabilities of those organizations as he establishes common standards designed to further strengthen our country's intelligence capabilities. I believe General Hayden is a qualified and dedicated person to lead the CIA at this critical juncture, and I look forward to working closely with him as the Director of the CIA.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege today to pay tribute to the Georgia National Guard's 48th Brigade Combat Team. The 48th Brigade is an integral part of Georgia's widely respected National Guard and is comprised of more than 4,000 of Georgia's 9,000 guardsmen. The Georgia National Guard is the thirteenth largest in the Nation, with nearly 60 percent of its forces classified as ``high priority units'' which would be among the first to deploy during a national crisis. The 48th Brigade has a long and proud history. The 48th was originally organized on April 23rd, 1825, in Macon, and served in some capacity during the Civil War, WWII, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The unit was mobilized into Federal service on November 30th, 1990 at Fort Stewart in order to participate in Desert storm. During Desert Storm, the 48th Brigade successfully completed intense combat training at the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA. Upon completion of this training, the 48th received the distinguished honor of being the first and only National Guard combat unit deemed combat-ready for the Gulf War. Later in 2001, the 48th was deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina for a period of 8 months. This deployment established Georgia's 48th as one of the first National Guard units of its size to assume such a large multinational peacekeeping mission. The 48th Brigade recently joined the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq, making it the first unit to utilize the Army's new concept of integrating reserve units with active units in order to form a highly effective and efficient active-reserve team. The 48th Brigade was mobilized under the Presidential Selective Reserve Call Up in October 2004 and in January 2005, under the leadership of Brigadier General Stewart Rodeheaver, the 48th was ready to serve our country in Iraq. As a ``Combat Ready'' force, the 48th was deployed to Iraq on May 22nd, 2005, after undergoing brief training in Kuwait. On June 14, 2005, the 48th Brigade officially took over its assigned area of responsibility in southern Baghdad. They were responsible for conducting full-spectrum counter-insurgency operations in an attempt to defeat anti-Iraqi insurgents. The 48th also played in important role in developing the newly formed Iraqi Security Forces. During their deployment to Iraq, Georgia's 48th Brigade was known for its bravery, effectiveness, and commitment to getting the job done. During a 12 month deployment, the 48th Brigade completed numerous missions and was responsible for offensive and defensive victories throughout Iraq. The Brigade was involved in a multitude of operations conducted over nearly 1,900 square kilometers throughout southern Baghdad. These missions were in conjunction with 5 larger U.S. operations including: Operation Safe Skies, Operation Warning Track, Operation Patriot's Call, Operation Dragon's Fire, and Operation Thunder. In total, the 48th Brigade conducted 12,647 combat patrols, 792 cordon and search missions, established 6,219 traffic control points, and conducted 3,782 convoy security missions. The soldiers of the 48th captured and detained over 500 Anti-Iraqi insurgents, trained over 2,460 Iraqi Soldiers, and established two Iraqi forward operating bases in Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq. The Brigade introduced more than 11 million dollars' worth of new and vital essential services as well as set the conditions to create over 621 new jobs in southern Baghdad. One of the most historical highlights was the Brigade's ability to work with the International Elections Commission of Iraq to establish 22 polling sites across Iraq. Due to the 48th's involvement, nearly 63,000 Iraqi citizens were able to vote on their new Constitution during the ``first ever'' Iraqi national elections. On October 2005, the 48th Brigade officially took over security operations for the Logistics Support Area, LSA, Anaconda base. LSA Anaconda is the largest operating base in Iraq and is located in the north-central Iraq province of Salah al Din. The 48th Brigade was simultaneously responsible for convoy security escort missions near Camp Adder, Iraq--located in the southern province of Nasiriyah. The 48th's ability to successfully complete these two missions located in two different areas of the country was instrumental to the success of all Multi-National Forces operating in Iraq. The 48th Brigade Combat Team successfully conducted operations throughout an area of over 1,192 miles while conducting 1,500 patrols and successfully securing the largest military operations base in Iraq. It is my great honor to commend the 48th Brigade and welcome them home as honorable Soldiers who served our country courageously. The last of the 4,200 members of the 48th Brigade arrived back in Georgia on May 11th, 2006. Following their return, they out-processed at Fort Stewart and were released from active duty to return to their hometowns throughout the State of Georgia. While we welcome the 48th Brigade back from their mission, we need to also honor the 26 soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice. My heart goes out to the families of these soldiers. They are true heroes and our Nation will be forever in debt to their sacrifice. I know I speak on behalf of our Nation, the State of Georgia, and the American people when I thank the 48th Brigade for living up to the calling of our National Guard ``Citizen Soldiers'' and making everyone in Georgia, and in America, extremely proud and grateful for their contribution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. I refer to it as an American values amendment because I think it reflects the values that all Americans hold. It is no secret that I think the approach in this bill to reform immigration as it pertains to agriculture is wrong. I don't agree with amnesty, and I don't think it is in the best interest of American agriculture. Even so, when I read the fine print of this bill, I am shocked to see who can qualify for the agricultural amnesty provisions in the bill. They are different and a separate amnesty for what exists for the 12 million or 20 million or however many millions of nonagricultural workers who are expected to adjust status under the base bill. We have heard the proponents of the bill on the floor of the Senate discuss how it is not an amnesty bill. They point to the strict requirements that current illegal workers must meet in order to adjust their status. Illegal immigrants under the base bill, in order to adjust their status, must learn English, pay back taxes, pay a stiff penalty, and go to the back of the line in order to apply for citizenship. The people who are telling the American people this are obviously not referring to the AgJOBS portion of this bill. If they read the AgJOBS portion of this bill, they will see that, in fact, there are substantial differences relative to the requirements for adjusting status. For agricultural workers to adjust status, they don't have to learn English, they have to pay a total of $500, they have to have worked a minimum of 150 hours over the past 2-year period leading up to December 31, 2005, and they don't have to wait at the back of the line. This amendment I have filed does three very simple things. First, it inserts a requirement for agricultural workers to learn English if they are going to adjust their status. This is an important standard that we should insist be met by all illegal workers who are going to be put on a new path to citizenship. Why should agricultural workers be exempt from learning English when every other illegal worker under the base bill must demonstrate not only knowledge of English, but also a knowledge of U.S. history and Government? The answer is that they should not be. We know it is important for the folks to learn English. We also know it is far more likely that if the requirement to learn English exists, then a far greater number of agricultural workers will learn it than not. In addition, this body voted just last week to make English the official language of our country. The least we can do is require folks who are obtaining an enormous benefit and privilege--the right to be U.S. citizens despite having broken our laws--to learn English. They have to do that under the base bill. They ought to be required to do that under the AgJOBS portion of this bill. Second, this amendment would bring about the amount of fines that must be paid by illegal agricultural workers into conformance with what other illegal workers must pay in order to stay in the United States while on a path to citizenship. The nonagricultural worker must pay a penalty of $2,000 to remain in the United States and work despite their current illegal presence; whereas, agricultural workers must only pay $100. Well, $100 is not what I call a stiff penalty; $100 is one trip to the grocery store; $100 is two tanks of gasoline; $100 is a new pair of fancy tennis shoes; $100 is 33 gallons of milk; $100 is not the blue light special price of U.S. citizenship. Third, this amendment strengthens the prior work requirements for illegal agricultural workers to obtain blue card status, which puts them on a new path to citizenship. Strengthening this requirement is important for two main reasons. First, because we know that agriculture is a traditional gateway for illegal immigration. Many illegal immigrants come to the United States to work in agriculture for a period of time and then move on to other areas of the country and to other industries. We also know that the number of agricultural workers who can adjust status under this bill is capped at 1.5 million. If the threshold requirements, cost, future work and language requirements for adjustment of status are so much lower for agricultural workers than for the rest of the illegal population, there will be a significant incentive for those folks who spent a minimal amount of time in agriculture and have since moved on to try to adjust their status through the agricultural amnesty provision. After all, we all tend to choose the cheapest and easiest means of obtaining the things we want. The folks who are here illegally will not do otherwise. I believe this incentive will result in a situation in which many folks who are currently working in agriculture will be beat to the punch in obtaining a blue card by those no longer in agriculture, or who work only part time agricultural jobs. At the end of the day, it is very likely that this amnesty won't benefit those it is intended to help. So while I wholeheartedly disagree with granting amnesty, if we are going to do it for agricultural workers, let's make sure it is reserved for those working permanently in agriculture. The second reason it is important to strengthen the past work requirements is because they are generally reflective of future work requirements. If someone cannot be employed for more than 150 days per year, then they should not become a permanent U.S. citizen, but they should be under a temporary worker program. Again, the three things that this amendment does are: First, require that agricultural workers learn English, just like everyone else, in order to be able to adjust status. Second, increase the penalty fees necessary for agricultural workers to adjust status into conformity with the fees paid by every other illegal worker under the base bill. Third, strengthen the work requirements an illegal agricultural alien must meet in order to adjust status. Because the first two goals are relatively clear, I will explain further the third one, the strengthened work requirements. If you look on page 397 of the bill, you will see some important definitions for the AgJOBS title. One that I am seeking to change with this amendment is the definition of a workday. The term ``workday'' means any day in which the individual is employed for 1 or more hours in agriculture in the AgJOBS title. A 1- hour workday will allow illegal aliens to meet their workday requirements. There are many hard-working Americans across this country who work long hours each day, some in multiple jobs, to provide for their families. It doesn't seem fair to those hard-working Americans to allow illegal immigrants to obtain the prized possession of U.S. citizenship for a 1-hour workday. That is not an American value, and most people spend 1 hour getting ready for work. You can wash and dry a load of clothes in 1 hour. You can watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith show in 1 hour. One hour is not a full workday, and I don't know of a single farm in this country that requires folks to work for 1 hour per day--yet under this bill, that is possible. Therefore, a key provision of this amendment changes the definition of a workday from 1 hour to 8 hours. This reflects what a workday is to most Americans. Not only that, it is in line with what many agricultural workers are already doing. According to the latest National Agricultural Workers Survey, published by the U.S. Department of Labor in March 2005, the average number of hours worked per week by agricultural workers was 42 hours. A Congressional Research Service report, entitled ``Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy'' reveals that ``recent data reveal no discernible year-to-year variation in the average number of weekly hours that hired farmworkers are employed in crop or livestock production.'' According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service Farm Labor Survey, ``the average work week of hired farmworkers has ranged around 40 hours since the mid 1990s.'' Now, on page 398 of the bill, it tells you who can get a blue card, which is the amnesty mechanism for agricultural workers in this bill-- because once you get a blue card, you are all but assured to get a green card. It says: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall confer blue card status upon an alien who qualifies under this subsection if the Secretary determines that the alien has performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours, or 150 work days, whichever is less, during the 24-month period ending December 31, 2005. If a workday is defined as one or more hours in agriculture and an illegal agricultural worker must have worked 150 days in agriculture over a 2-year period, then illegal aliens who work 150 hours in agriculture automatically become eligible for a blue card and then virtually are assured of a green card after that. Doesn't that seem like a low threshold requirement for getting permanent resident status in the United States, is the question I ask my colleagues? For many around the world, U.S. citizenship is the pot at the end of the rainbow that they spend their lives chasing, and in this bill, we are going to give that away to those who worked 150 hours over a 2-year period in agriculture. I don't think that is right, and I don't think it is reflective of the values that most Americans hold. Another key provision of this amendment, therefore, changes the past work requirement necessary for an illegal agricultural worker to obtain a blue card from 863 hours, or 150 days, over a 2-year period, whichever is less, to 150 work days per year over a 2-year period. Some might say this is an impossible requirement to meet, but according to the National Agriculture Workers Survey published in March 2005, only 8 percent of agricultural workers had worked on U.S. farms for less than 2 years. Even if that were not the case, let's think about what the bill proposes to do. The bill proposes to confer permanent resident status on folks who do not work more than 150 days per year. According to my calculations, that is about 7 months per year. That leaves these agricultural workers unemployed for 5 months out of the year, and it seems to make more sense to me to make folks who work less than 150 days per year temporary workers rather than legal permanent residents. How are they going to support themselves working less than 8 hours per day and for less than 150 days per year? We already know that employers of blue card workers do not have to pay more than minimum wage, and we also know that they don't qualify for public assistance for the first 5 years they are here. So what are they to do? This is a crisis waiting to happen. We have a temporary agricultural worker program that can and should be used by these employers who have jobs that last less than 150 days per year. While this amendment only changes three main things to try to provide parity between the agricultural adjustment program and other adjustment programs within the bill, there are a number of other differences that make the agriculture amnesty program much more attractive to illegal immigrants. Let me run through some of the major discrepancies between what is required of illegal agricultural workers compared to what is required of the general population of illegal workers in order to adjust status under the base bill. For those here illegally for 5 years or more who receive green cards, they must have worked at least 3 years during the 5-year period ending April 5, 2006, and must work for 6 years after the date of enactment of this bill. In contrast, agricultural workers only must have worked 150 hours over a 2-year period and going forward only have to work 575 hours per year. In addition to learning English, nonagricultural illegal aliens must demonstrate a knowledge of history and Government in the United States in order to adjust to that status. In contrast, agricultural workers under the bill do not have to learn English, nor do they need to have a knowledge of the history and Government of the United States. For nonagricultural workers, there is a requirement that illegal aliens register with the Selective Service if within the age period required, but agricultural workers do not have to do this. Nonagricultural illegal aliens cannot adjust status until the earlier of either, one, the consideration of all green card applications filed before the date of enactment of this bill or, two, 8 years after the date of enactment of this bill. In the AgJOBS portion of this bill, illegal aliens can get a green card in as short as 3 years without having to go to the back of the line. Nonagricultural illegal aliens and their spouses and children must submit fingerprints to relevant Federal agencies to be checked against existing databases relating to information for criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions that would render the alien ineligible for adjustment of status. This is not the case for agricultural workers. Illegal agricultural workers must submit proof of their prior work to qualify for a blue card, and the Department of Homeland Security is affirmatively barred from sharing that information with anyone unless a law enforcement entity asks for it in writing to use in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution or an official coroner asks for it in order to identify a deceased person. And lastly, before a nonagricultural illegal alien is granted employment authorization or permission to travel, the alien must undergo a name check against exiting databases for information relating to criminal, national security, or other law enforcement actions. Not so for agricultural workers. In the AgJOBS portion of the bill, an alien is given employment authorization in the same manner as if that alien is a green cardholder and can travel freely without such a background check around our country. For those nonagricultural workers here illegally between 2 and 5 years, they must have been employed in the U.S. before January 7, 2004, and not unemployed for longer than 60 days. In contrast, an agricultural worker only has to have been employed for 150 hours. To qualify, the alien must complete an application that requires answering questions concerning his physical and mental health, criminal history, gang membership, renunciation of gang affiliation, immigration history, involvement with groups or individuals who engage in terrorism, genocide, persecution, or to seek to overthrow the Government of the United States, voter registration history, claims to U.S. citizenship, and tax history. No such requirement is levied on agricultural workers under the AgJOBS title. Illegal aliens who fall under the category of deferred mandatory departure status must be personally interviewed by the Department of Homeland Security. There is no similar requirement for agricultural workers under the AgJOBS title. The alien cannot obtain the deferred mandatory status until he submits biometric data to the Department of Homeland Security and all appropriate background checks are completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. President, I could go on and on, but there is a clear differential in how illegal agricultural workers are treated in the AgJOBS title and how illegal workers are treated under the base bill. We should treat them all the same if we are going to give to them the pathway to one of the greatest treasures in the history of this world, and that is American citizenship. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4084.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I have 1 minute 20 seconds; is that correct?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I heard the response to the presentation made relative to my amendment. It is interesting to note that a couple of things were not responded to. First of all, as I said earlier, this amendment is pretty basic. It requires everybody involved in agriculture who gets on a pathway to citizenship to learn English. Apparently there is no disagreement with that, and this bill does not, in the present way it is written, require that. Apparently there is no disagreement to that. The Fair Labor Standards Act does say that 1 hour constitutes a workday. But the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to labor laws in the United States. It has nothing to do with the most cherished prize in the world, and that is the citizenship of the United States of America. Senator Craig is my friend, and I appreciate his hard work for the last 5 years or whatever it has been. I had my first vote on modifying H-2A in the House of Representatives 11 years ago. That is how long I have been working on this issue. When he says H-2A does not work, he is wrong. H-2A does work. But what this base bill does is it encourages farmers--and I emphasize this--it encourages farmers to hire illegal workers, and they are going to do that unless we give them the incentive to hire legal workers. The H-2A program will work if we continue to modify it and make it better, streamline it, and allow our farmers to have a quality pool of workers under H-2A. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues support the amendment. Let's make this base bill better.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I simply say to my friend from Massachusetts, I hear what the Senator is saying relative to the numbers the Senator just addressed, but here is what you are doing. You are taking 40,000 agricultural employees who now operate under H-2A and you are reducing their wages immediately. The chart Senator Craig had up here Thursday night showed what the numbers are. I don't remember what they are, but it is a significant reduction because you are rolling that wage back to what it was 4 years ago. Now, that is 40,000 agricultural workers. Here is what you are doing to 1.5 million agricultural workers under your bill. You are going to allow farmers across America who do not participate in H-2A to pay those blue card workers $5.15 an hour. We can argue whether minimum wage is high enough, whether it ought to be more, but that is the effect of what you are doing with your blue card workers. So if the $7 number is good enough for H-2A or not good enough for H-2A, whatever it is, it ought to be good for those 1.5 million workers who will have a blue card. That is what fairness in my amendment is all about. When Senator Craig says let's get it right, let's do get it right. We agree the adverse effect wage rate is wrong. There is no disagreement about that. The question is, How do we correct it? How do we get to the point where it is fair? The way we get to the point where it is fair is we take the same method of calculation we do under every other labor bill, including the one we just passed last week, the H-2C bill that Senator Obama said: Let's put a prevailing wage rate on H-2C. I say let's put a prevailing wage rate on H-2A. We understand we are not the ones to calculate that. It is calculated by the Department of Labor. It is calculated by the Department of Labor based upon the fair and accurate wages paid to individuals in different parts of the country who perform different jobs within agriculture. It is very easy to ascertain by the farmer what that wage rate ought to be. It will remove the ability of the next door neighbor to come in and undercut that farmer, whether he is a blue card worker or whether they continue to be here illegally. It will depress the wages for those farmers rather than raising the standard for all workers to be paid a fair wage. It will encourage farmers--this is what we want to do--to participate in the H-2A program. If we had every farmer in America doing that, they would have a quality supply of labor from which to choose. They would have to pay those workers a reasonable rate, and America would never be in a position of being dependent upon foreign imports for our food supply. We cannot afford to get there. This is a national security issue. We need to make sure farmers have those workers from whom to choose to make sure their crops are harvested. Mr. President, I yield back my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from California for her comments, and I tell her that I dialog with many farmers in her State on a regular basis, particularly as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I am hearing from a large number of her farmers in strong support of my amendment. Again, when you say that a majority number of farmers in America think this is the way to go, you can't say that. That is simply not right. There are only--by Senator Craig's numbers--less than 50,000 farmers in America--and I happen to agree with him on this--who currently utilize H-2A. I daresay the rest of the farmers in America don't even know what ``adverse effect wage rate'' means. But I can tell you they know what ``prevailing wage rate'' means. They know when they hire a tractor driver in the southwest part of Texas what their neighbors are paying for a tractor driver. And that is how you calculate a prevailing wage. That is not how adverse effect wage rate says you will pay that tractor driver. Whether farmers in California or farmers in Georgia or the northeast part of our country, the market should dictate, and the market dictates under the prevailing wage rate. It simply does not dictate under the adverse effect wage rate. That is why, in the Senator's bill, the adverse effect wage rate is rolled back 4 years. There is a flaw in the way the wage rate is calculated. If you are going to roll back the wage rate, which is actually going to move toward the utilization of the prevailing wage rate, let's do it now. Let's require that all farmers in America pay a reasonable wage rate for their employees based upon what other farmers in that region pay for employees. For example, I know in northern California there are different crops grown than in southern California. There are different types of jobs. But today, under the AgJOBS bill, a farmer in northern California will pay exactly the same wage rate as a farmer in southern California. Here is the chart. This shows how wage rates under this bill are calculated. They use the entire State of California. It is a different type of farming. There is a different skill required in northern California than there is in southern California. There is a different skill required in a tractor driver versus somebody who goes into the field and cuts lettuce or cuts cabbage or cuts squash or whatever it may be. Under the adverse effect wage rate in the base AgJOBS bill, that is not taken into consideration. Under the prevailing wage under my amendment, it is taken into consideration. If anyone says it is difficult to determine, how do I know in my example of Thomasville, GA, what it takes to hire that worker? Let me tell you what you have to do. You simply have to go to the computer and plug into a Web site, the Department of Labor. And you designate the area. You put into the computer where you are located, what the job is, and the computer immediately gives you what the Department of Labor has determined to be a prevailing wage. It is very simple and very easy. It ensures that one farmer next door to another farmer is paying employees the same wage rate. You don't have a farmer who is paying $8.37 currently required by the adverse effect wage rate and the farmer next door paying $5.15 an hour for the same job. This is about fairness. It is about equity. It is about ensuring that farm workers who come here under the base bill, which I, frankly, don't agree with, but if we are going to pass this, then let us be fair to those employees who come here and work in agriculture. Let us pay them the rate that is prevailing in the area in which they work. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. What happens is these wage earners in the fields in Georgia and all over the country go out and they take a bucket out into the field. They cut squash, cucumbers, or they cut whatever the crop may be, they put it in that bucket, they dump that bucket in a bin, and they are given a chip. At the end of the day, those chips add up to dollars. They are required to be paid the minimum of either the minimum wage or, in this case, the adverse effect wage rate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Senator from California was not involved in those negotiations, and I chair the Agriculture Committee. I do not know how to respond to that other than by saying that certain segments of agriculture were involved in the negotiations, I assume. My dear friend from Massachusetts was involved, and I daresay that I have more farmers in my home county than we have in the vast majority of Massachusetts. My point is not that these discussions did not take place over a long period of time between farmers--I don't know who they were. But I can tell you this: The American Farm Bureau has looked at the AgJOBS provision. They have looked at my amendment. They have looked at the bill that I submitted which was somewhat contrary to AgJOBS. The American Farm Bureau--which, as I said earlier, has access to virtually every farm in America, particularly from the standpoint of the calculation of wages--has concluded that my amendment is fair and reasonable. And the American Farm Bureau is recommending a ``yes'' vote on the Chambliss amendment. To say that this has been discussed over a period of time by a group, or a large group--whatever the term was--of farmers across America, my farmers were not involved in those negotiations. Senator Craig and I have had any number of conversations about the bill and about our various amendments. But we were not involved in those negotiations. I see my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He comes from the Farm Belt of America. I daresay that his farmers were not involved in those negotiations. Let us be very clear about this. There was not a discussion or a negotiation by America's farmers for what they thought was best.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time remains?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The minimum wage in Georgia is $5.15 an hour.