Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the Honorable Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy, into the House Chamber for a joint meeting tomorrow.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 384, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 381 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Atlanta Gas Light on its 150th anniversary. Atlanta Gas Light was incorporated on February 16, l856, and first brought lighting to the streets of Atlanta on Christmas Day, 1855, enabling accelerated growth and the safe transportation of individuals and supplies necessary for the expansion of Atlanta and its surrounding communities. At the end of the Civil War, Atlanta Gas Light quickly rebuilt its gasworks to facilitate the rebuilding of Atlanta and contributed to the rise of that great city to a major commercial center in the Southeast. In the 1920s, it invested in the State of Georgia's future by creating the infrastructure necessary to allow natural gas to flow under the city streets and into homes, ending the need to manufacture gas and expanding the use of gas throughout the Southeast region. In the early 20th century, it began expanding its services to cities and towns throughout the State of Georgia. Atlanta Gas Light has faithfully served the State of Georgia and its citizens for each of its 150 years, delivering natural gas to customers throughout the State safely and reliably. This great company and its top-notch employees deserve special recognition. They have contributed millions of dollars and hours to improve the communities in which they work and live. Atlanta Gas Light and its Georgia parent, AGL Resources, continue to provide exemplary service to their customers and remain a vital part of the economic development of the State of Georgia. I am pleased to take this opportunity to commemorate the contributions and services rendered by Atlanta Gas Light in its 150 years of operation and look forward to its continued service for the next 150 years.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, several weeks ago, after a highly classified program was leaked to the media, the President described certain activities of the National Security Agency that he authorized in the weeks following our Nation coming under direct attack on our own soil by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorists. As described by the President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, and experts from the Department of Justice and the intelligence community, the terrorist surveillance program at NSA targets very specific international communications of suspected and known al-Qaida operatives in a foreign country who are communicating with associates around the world and, occasionally, in a limited way, with individuals inside the United States. The purpose of the program is to collect foreign intelligence in an effort to identify and prevent another devastating attack on our homeland. As we have learned, the terrorist surveillance program is designed with the goal of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States and protecting the lives of Americans. Given the imperative to reliably and immediately detect and disrupt the plots of international terrorists who are intent on killing Americans, the President is acting well within his constitutional authorities. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been, and continues to be, a valuable tool in protecting our national security interests in many cases. However, the world changed on September 11, 2001, demonstrating the importance that the President have the power and authority to protect the American people from future attacks of terrorism. Both the Constitution and the Congress grant the President that authority. FISA lacks the speed and agility necessary to fight the war on terror, and its bureaucratic requirements prevent the ``hot pursuit'' of international communications necessary to prevent attacks. As vitally important as it is to protect American lives, it is also important that Americans' rights are protected. That is exactly why the administration has put in place a system of responsible measures to ensure our civil liberties are also protected. In doing so, congressional leaders from both parties have been kept informed about the program from the start. Furthermore, this program is reauthorized approximately every 45 days to ensure it is still necessary, and that it is being used properly, and the activities conducted within this program are thoroughly reviewed by lawyers within the National Security Agency and the Department of Justice to ensure the program is only collecting the international communications of suspected terrorists here in the United States and elsewhere. Their oversight includes assuring an aggressive program is in place to assist the highly trained intelligence professionals at NSA verify that all activities are consistent with minimization procedures that weed out the identities of ordinary Americans and preserve civil liberties. I note that FISA, which has been the alternative that the critics of this program have looked to as the real program that should be used, requires a reauthorization every 90 days. Here the President and the administration have taken an additional precaution to protect the privacy rights of Americans by reauthorizing this program approximately every 45 days. On September 11, 2001, terrorists operating covertly inside the United States, and in contact with al-Qaida members overseas, perpetrated the worst attack on domestic soil in American history. Osama bin Laden recently reiterated publicly al-Qaida's intention to attack us again with operatives hiding within our borders. Congress identified al-Qaida as an enemy of this country by passing the authorization for the use of force, authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to protect our homeland. When the enemy is behind your lines, you must use every lawful tool at your disposal to find and stop them. That is why the President has authorized the terrorist surveillance program. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, and as also the joint House- Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, as well as the report from the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security in the House, which was filed in July of 2002, reported, two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, were communicating with members of al-Qaida overseas while they were inside the United States preparing for the deadly attack of September 11. Regrettably, we did not know this until it was too late. GEN Mike Hayden, the former Director of the National Security Agency and the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, indicated that had this program been in place before 9/11, these terrorists could have been detected and identified. Unfortunately, as a result of the public disclosure of this highly classified program, our enemies have learned information they should not have. Our national security has been damaged and Americans have been put at greater risk. In our recent Intelligence Committee open hearing, CIA Director Porter Goss commented that as a consequence of leaks in general, damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission. General Hayden observed that our intelligence capabilities are not immune to leaks in the public domain. It is clear that this is an important program necessary to address the previous flaws in our early warning system that allowed at least two of the 9/11 murderers to live among us while they plotted our destruction. This vital program makes it more likely that terrorists will be identified and located in time to prevent another disaster. In fact, that may have already happened. It is a program that is conducted within the President's constitutional authority and is subject to review and oversight. It is also clear that continued leaks over this program are degrading our ability to continue to protect the lives of Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we will begin today's session with a period of morning business for up to 1 hour. At the conclusion of morning business, we will begin consideration of S. 852, the asbestos legislation. Last night, we were able to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the asbestos bill. The order last night allows us to proceed to the bill for debate only. Even though amendments will not be in order today, the majority leader hopes we will use the time today constructively and Members will come to the floor to talk on the bill or their submitted amendments. We expect to move this bill forward this week by making progress on amendments. There is plenty of time this week to consider amendments and vote on various proposals. Having said that, a number of colleagues have asked about Friday. The leader reminds everybody that Friday will be a working day and Senators can expect rollcall votes. In addition to this bill, we have other issues to consider, including executive nominations that have yet to clear the calendar.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, Dr. Leila Daughtry Denmark is truly a remarkable person; she is someone to be greatly admired. Her accomplishments as a doctor and a humanitarian are exceptional. It is with great pleasure that Julianne and I extend our warmest congratulations to her on her 109th birthday. Today, Dr. Denmark's loved ones gather around her to celebrate her birthday and recognize a lifetime of achievement. Her tireless, selfless, compassion for others is an example to all of us. Edna Jones, a friend of Dr. Denmark, said it best when she described her as truly a ``one of a kind lady.'' Edna's remarks are right on target, she is a true pioneer. After being the third woman to graduate from Georgia Medical College, she became Egleston Hospital's first intern, as well as Georgia's first pediatrician. She quickly gained expertise and respect, joining with her colleagues to develop the D.P.T. shot which immunizes against whooping cough and tetanus. This breakthrough has saved countless lives all over the world. Dr. Denmark's kindness and compassion as a human being along with her brilliance and talent as a doctor have earned her considerable praise and recognition. She has been commended by both Georgia's Senate and House legislative bodies--Dr. Denmark has even had a highway intersection named in her honor. In 1998, she was named as one of Atlanta Business Chronicle's Health Care Heroes. She also published her book, ``Every Child Should Have a Chance'' in 1971. Her message to parents was how to raise happy healthy children who are well adjusted and well mannered, children who are of virtue and of strong character. Her book and her wisdom have had an impact on numerous parents and children alike and continue to serve as a guide to many. For 56 years, Dr. Denmark volunteered once a week at Atlanta's Central Presbyterian Clinic, and chances are, if you were a patient of Dr. Denmark, she wouldn't charge you more than $10 a visit. In everything she does, Dr. Denmark exemplifies a true humanitarian and remains committed to her healing profession. We could all stand to learn from a person like her. Dr. Denmark has a sincere, no-nonsense devotion to others. She has been an example and an inspiration to generations. I am impressed by her lifetime commitment and service to others. And I know that Georgians are proud to count Dr. Denmark as one of our own. Mr. President, again, my wife, Julianne, and I are delighted to wish her a happy 109th birthday and continued happiness and health.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember an extraordinary and courageous woman, Coretta Scott King. Coretta Scott King was one of the most influential women leaders in our world. She entered the public stage in 1955 as wife of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and as a leading participant in the American civil rights movement. Born and raised in Marion, AL, Coretta Scott graduated valedictorian from Lincoln High School. She received a B.A. in music and education from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH, and then went on to study concert singing at Boston's New England Conservatory of Music, where she earned a degree in voice and violin. While in Boston she met Martin Luther King, Jr. who was then studying for his doctorate in systematic theology at Boston University. They were married on June 18, 1953, and in September 1954 took up residence in Montgomery, AL, with Coretta Scott King assuming the many functions of pastor's wife at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. During Dr. King's career, Mrs. King devoted most of her time to raising their four children. However, she balanced mothering and work, speaking before church, civic, college, fraternal and peace groups. She conceived and performed a series of favorably-reviewed Freedom Concerts which combined prose and poetry narration with musical selections and functioned as fundraisers for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the direct action organization of which Dr. King served as first president. After Dr. King's assassination in 1968, Mrs. King devoted much of her energy and attention to developing programs and building the Atlanta- based Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. For 27 years, Mrs. King devoted her life to developing the King Center. As founding President, Chair, and Chief Executive Officer, she dedicated herself to providing local, national and international programs that have trained tens of thousands of people in Dr. King's philosophy and methods; she guided the creation and housing of the largest archives of documents from the civil rights movement; and, perhaps her greatest legacy after establishing the King Center itself, Mrs. King spearheaded the massive educational and lobbying campaign to establish Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday. In 1983, an act of Congress instituted the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, which she chaired for its duration. And in January 1986, Mrs. King oversaw the first legal holiday in honor of her husband--a holiday which has come to be celebrated by millions of people world-wide and, in some form, in over 100 countries. Coretta Scott King carried the message of nonviolence around the world. She led goodwill missions to many countries in Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia. She spoke at many of history's most massive peace and justice rallies. She was the first woman to deliver the class day address at Harvard, and the first woman to preach at a statutory service at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. In 1974 Mrs. King formed a broad association of over 100 religious, labor, business, civil and women's rights organizations dedicated to a national policy of full employment and equal economic opportunity, as co-chair of the Full Employment Action Council. In 1983, she brought together more than 800 human rights organizations to form the Coalition of Conscience, sponsors of the 20th anniversary march on Washington, until then the largest demonstration in our Nation's capital. In 1988, she reconvened the Coalition of Conscience for the 25th anniversary of the March on Washington. In preparation for the Reagan-Gorbachev talks, in 1988 she served as head of the U.S. delegation of Women for a Meaningful Summit in Athens, Greece; and in 1990, as the USSR was redefining itself, Mrs. King was coconvener of the Soviet-American Women's Summit in Washington, DC. Mrs. King received honorary doctorates from over 60 colleges and universities; authored three books and a nationally-syndicated column; and served on, and helped found, dozens of organizations, including the Black Leadership Forum, the National Black Coalition for Voter Participation, and the Black Leadership Roundtable. On a very personal note, I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. King on a number of occasions, both within my great State of Georgia as well as outside of our State. Most notably, I have been to a number of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Day celebrations at Ebenezer Baptist Church and was there last year, which happened to be the last time that Ms. King was there. She was unable to be there this year. She was a remarkable lady in that, in spite of her high profile relative to the civil rights movement, as well as since Dr. King's death, she remained a very humble, a very personable, a very congenial lady who had a great sense of humor. Certainly during the time of the civil rights movement, this lady was undoubtedly one of the most admired women in the world because of what she saw her husband going through. She was loyal and steadfast in the support of her husband. She obviously loved her husband. She loved her family until her death last night. Her legacy will live on for generations, generations and generations to come. Coretta Scott King worked tirelessly to make a better world. History will judge that she did. We mourn her passing.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of a fellow Georgian, Dr. Ben Bernanke, to serve as not only a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, but to succeed Dr. Alan Greenspan as the next Chairman of the Board. Dr. Greenspan has served America well for more than 18 years. During his service as Chairman, he guided the U.S. economy through a number of challenging hurdles including the stock market crash of 1987, the financial crises in Mexico and Asia, recessions in the United States and other spikes in the economy from corporate scandals, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters. Dr. Greenspan's tenure also includes the longest economic expansion in U.S. history which lasted from 1991- 2001. For these reasons, it is clear why many refer to Chairman Greenspan as one of the greatest central bankers of all time. While his footsteps will be difficult to follow, I am fully confident that Dr. Bernanke will continue Chairman Greenspan's legacy by guiding our economy in the right direction, and making the best decisions not only for the American people, but for the role of the United States in the global marketplace. The Federal Reserve Board guides the Nation and its economy with a safe, flexible, and stable monetary and financial system. As the U.S economy continues to grow, so does the role of the Federal Reserve Board in the global marketplace. Therefore, the qualifications for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System must be held to the highest standard. I feel Dr. Bernanke's impeccable qualifications and financial expertise make him an excellent candidate to succeed Dr. Greenspan. Dr. Bernanke graduated from Harvard University with the highest honors and later received his Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most recently he served as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, CEA, where he ``provided the President with obiective economic analysis and advice on the development and implementation of a wide range of domestic and international economic policy issues.'' Prior to serving as Chairman of the CEA, Dr. Bernanke served 4 years on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Dr. Bernanke's expertise is well respected in the academic community. He was a professor of Economics at Stanford University and later served as a professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, where he also served as Chairman of their Economics department for 6 years. Dr. Bernanke also served as the Director of the Monetary Economics Program of the National Bureau of Economics Research, as a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee, and he has also worked for two terms as a member of New Jersey's Montgomery Township Board of Education, and as the Editor of the American Economic Review. Dr. Bernanke is also one of the most cited authors in the financial community. He has also given several important lectures at the London School of Economics on monetary theory and monetary policy. Dr. Bernanke has also been the recipient of many prestigious fellowships and awards including the renowned Guggenheim Fellowship, the Sloan Fellowship and the Econometric Society Fellowship. I have no doubt that with such an impressive background, Dr. Bernanke will serve with impartiality and will continue to guide our economy, as Dr. Greenspan has done for the last 18 years, down a stable and prosperous path. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this distinguished nominee, and confirm Dr. Bernanke to the Board of Governors, and as Chairman of the Board for the next 4 years.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Probably not that long, but certainly no more than that.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, I am.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I will say nice things about the Senator from North Dakota, so it can come from either side. I rise in support of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. Yet I must express some serious concern about the final results of the agriculture title which was negotiated by the House and Senate leadership. It was ultimately decided upon, frankly, by the leadership of the other body, but we would not be where we are today without the leadership of Senator Gregg as chairman of the Budget Committee. This has been a long and very arduous process that we have gone through. It has taken us literally almost 12 months to get to where we are today. I think, at the end of the day, we are hopefully going to pass a meaningful deficit reduction package that, while not perfect, does move us down the road to getting our fiscal house in order. I say to Senator Conrad, who is a member of the Agriculture Committee, that while he didn't agree with what we were doing relative to budget reductions in the agriculture title of the bill, during the committee markup, he was very cooperative and allowed the committee to expeditiously report our title to the budget committee. That is a sign of leadership where, even when we disagree, we can still do what is best and that is bring up issues such as this for debate. For that I commend Senator Conrad and thank him for his cooperation in that regard. The good news is that the reductions contained in the conference report will reduce the Federal Government's overall deficit and borrowing. Unfortunately, the reductions in the agriculture title are not balanced nor fair. I stated throughout the reconciliation process that my ultimate goal was for all components of the farm bill-- commodities, conservation, and nutrition--to be fairly treated. This package does not accomplish that goal. I am pleased the final package maintained the Senate position of no reduction in the Food Stamp Program. At the end of the day, we decided that was fair and equitable because the Food Stamp Program benefits not just those people who need food stamps, but it is also extremely beneficial to farmers. However, continued insistence of no extension of the commodity title of the farm bill by the leadership of the other body, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has resulted in a package that now contains obvious inequities. The Senate strived to preserve the agriculture baseline for all farm bill programs with temporary cuts over multiple years. In doing so, commodity programs, conservation, research, and rural development would have contributed in an equitable manner to deficit reduction. These options, along with the extension of the farm bill, would have protected the baseline, treated all components of the farm bill equally, and provided security for farmers in future years. However, the leadership of the other body insisted on concentrating deep temporary cuts in the 2006 crop-year only, rather than slight multiyear, across-the-board cuts to commodities which would allow us to have several options to extend the commodity program baseline as with conservation. I cannot agree to impose such a heavy financial burden that hits producers still reeling from a season of crop loss and double costs for irrigation, fertilizer, and diesel. Until the bitter end, the leadership of the other body rejected several Senate alternatives, forcing the conference committee to drop multiple-year commodity program reductions. The imbalance of this package is apparent on its face. While the baseline is preserved for some conservation programs through extension in the law, the House Agriculture Committee opposed similar treatment for the commodity title. This final package contains a short-term reprieve from cutting crop payments, which means commodities will not be protected like conservation during reauthorization. This will be a big problem for farmers as Congress begins to write the farm bill in 2007. The constant critics of agricultural programs will blame farmers for escaping their share of deficit reductions, as commodity support programs are about to be considered for reauthorization. In addition, budgetary pressures on the next farm bill will be enhanced just as negotiations should be concluded in the World Trade Organization. We have already seen our trading partners and nongovernmental organizations target one commodity, cotton, which is widely grown in my home State of Georgia, with many other commodities within their target sights. With little shared sacrifice in budget reconciliation, I am concerned that critics at home and abroad will note that the United States has not moved forward on true reform and will call for deeper and more binding commitments in order to enforce the minimal amount of discipline. We cannot say with the same vigor as we did when the Senate passed S. 1932 that the United States is already reducing the overall level of trade- distorting domestic support. Those who have successfully challenged our farm programs will be given added incentive to attack other commodities, and this may, and likely will, have an even more serious and severe impact on family farms across the country. The conference agreement includes reductions for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for commodities, conservation, energy, research, and rural development programs. Specifically, it includes no extension of commodity programs and no across-the-board cuts for commodity programs. It reduces direct advance payments to 40 percent for the 2006 crop-year and to 22 percent for the 2007 crop-year. The Cotton Step 2 Program is terminated effective August 1, 2006. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program is extended for 2 years at a cost of $998 million but is not subject to the 2.5-percent reduction offered and proposed by the Senate. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is extended in law to 2010, but the funding is reduced $1.27 billion in fiscal years 2007 through 2009. It is increased to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2010. The Conservation Security Program is extended in law to 2011, but baseline funding is kept at $1.954 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 and at $5.65 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2015. Additionally, funding for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is rescinded. The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program is limited to $3 million in fiscal year 2007. Unspent obligated funds from prior years from the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grant Program and the Enhanced Access to Broadband Telecommunications Services in Rural Areas Program are rescinded. Funding for the Rural Business Investment Program and the Rural Strategic Investment Program and the Rural Firefighters and Emergency Personnel Grant Program are also rescinded. Authorized funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems is eliminated for fiscal years 2007 through 2009. Had the commodity title shared more equitably in the deficit reductions, these programs that are being rescinded, would not have experienced such deep cuts. My deepest disappointment is with the lost opportunity of this negotiation. We had the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to balancing the equities among all interests involved in the farm bill and establishing the trust that will be needed to reauthorize the farm bill in 2007. However, this process, once again, confirms my steadfast admiration for America's farmers and ranchers who are willing to share in reducing the deficit burden on their children and their grandchildren. I want to reiterate my intent in reauthorizing the next farm bill to provide a balance to all of America's agricultural interests and end with a product that protects all of agriculture in rural America. I close with one quick comment on the WTO negotiations which concluded in Hong Kong over the weekend but are not totally concluded at this point in time. I commend Ambassador Rob Portman, our U.S. Trade Representative, and his staff, particularly his Chief of Staff, Rob Lehman, who have worked so hard since Ambassador Portman was appointed to this position to try to ensure that while American agriculture participated in the discussions relative to trade-distorting issues at the WTO, he never, ever made a commitment that would sacrifice the interests of American agriculture. It is unfortunate that once Ambassador Portman put a meaningful proposal on the table to end the discussions with the European Union, the European Union made a conscience decision that they did not want to see any change in their substantive program from an agricultural perspective. Therefore, the European Union basically brought down the talks leading up to Hong Kong, and I do not think we could say in any way that anything meaningful came out of the discussions that were concluded in Hong Kong over the weekend. It is my hope that the European Union will go back to the table and engage in meaningful discussions that hopefully will lead to some agreements that will be of benefit both to farmers in the European Union and obviously, from a parochial standpoint, farmers in the United States. I firmly believe that the future of American agriculture lies in our ability to export what we know to be the finest agricultural products grown anywhere in the world. I yield the floor to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Chairman Specter and Chairman Roberts for their extraordinary work in forging a conference report on the reauthorization of certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. I remain disappointed that many concessions were made to minority members of the conference which not only did not result in their support of the conference report but which, in my judgment, are unwise on the merits. On November 17, I wrote to the conferees identifying some of these unwise concessions. They included: a three-part test for relevance in section 215; additional reporting requirements and inspector general audit provisions; sunsetting the ``lone-wolf'' wolf FISA warrant provisions; thirty day initial limit on delayed notice search warrants; applying minimization provisions to subpoenas; and the deletion of important death penalty provisions which were contained in the House version. In my letter, I urged that no further concessions be made. Yet further concessions were made. These additional concessions include stripping a criminal penalty of up to 1 year imprisonment for a knowing and willful violation of the nondisclosure provision of national security letters. This makes a mockery of the nondisclosure provision itself. Despite these significant accommodations which were made in the interest of bipartisan compromise, I am distressed to learn that, even now, certain of my colleagues are not only still opposing this bill, but are urging further delay, further compromise, and further weakening of the bill. This effort should be soundly rejected by this body. However, should there be a delay, and the opportunity for additional changes to the conference report, I will urge that we revisit these ill-advised concessions already made and that they be deleted from the bill. That said, I hope that we do not go down that road. I hope that both sides will rise above our particular preferences for a perfect bill, and vote for the good of the Nation and its citizens who have been protected by this historic legislation for the last 5 years. I am also disappointed that certain of my colleagues have seen fit to oppose the conference report over a single issue--the appropriate standard of judicial review of the national security letters nondisclosure provisions. These opponents would ask courts to assess potential damage to national security rather than the officials in our Government in the intelligence and diplomatic community who are the only ones capable of making such determinations based on all available intelligence and investigative information. While I am not pleased with every provision of this final bill, some of which I have just reviewed, on balance I am satisfied that overall the final language agreed to represents a reaffirmation of the Nation's commitment to modernization of our criminal and intelligence investigative laws and commonsense law enforcement The USA PATRIOT Act provisions, which Congress wisely passed following the terrorist attacks on our soil and the callous murder of innocent civilians, have stood the test of time. The act's provisions have helped to keep us safe and to protect our liberties which were jeopardized, not by expanded governmental authority, but by violent attacks against our way of life by terrorists. Those who urge further changes and further weakening are, in my judgment, playing a dangerous political game, intended or not, at the expense of our national security and our personal liberties--liberties protected by the commonsense provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Provisions of the act have been utilized to accomplish amazing victories in the war on terrorism and to keep us safe and free. Let me highlight just a few from information provided by the Department of Justice: The Department of Justice successfully dismantled a Portland, OR, terror cell known as the ``Portland Seven.'' Members of this terror cell had attempted to travel to Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 to take up arms with the Taliban and al-Qaida against United States and coalition forces fighting there. The USA PATRIOT Act information-sharing provisions were critical in taking down the Portland cell. The Department of Justice successfully convicted members of an al- Qaida cell in Lackawanna, NY, that involved several residents of Lackawanna who traveled to Afghanistan in 2001 to receive training at an al-Qaida-affiliated camp near Kandahar. Five of the Lackawanna Six pleaded guilty to providing material support to al-Qaida, and the sixth pleaded guilty to conducting transactions unlawfully with al-Qaida. The USA PATRIOT Act information-sharing and national security letter provisions were critical to this case. The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted the so-called Virginia Jihad case involving members of the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center, who trained for jihad in Northern Virginia, including eight individuals who traveled to terrorist training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan between 1999 and 2001. Six of the defendants have pleaded guilty and three were convicted in March 2004 of charges including conspiracy to levy war against the United States and conspiracy to provide material support to the Taliban. The USA PATRIOT Act was critical to this case. In May of 2003, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was arrested after having sought out and joined an al-Qaida cell in Medina, Saudi Arabia, where he received training in weapons, explosives, and document forgery. He, along with other members of the cell, began to develop plans for several potential terrorist attacks against the United States, including a plot to assassinate President Bush. Abu Ali was recently convicted in Federal district court. On November 23, 2005, Uzair Paracha was convicted in New York of all five counts in an indictment that included charges of conspiracy and providing material support to al-Qaida. Paracha traveled to the United States in February 2003 to assist al-Qaida, including posing as a person Paracha knew to be an al-Qaida associate, obtaining immigration documents that would permit that al-Qaida member to enter the United States, and conducting financial transactions involving the al-Qaida associate's bank accounts. The Department of Justice also indicted Mohammed Junaid Babar for material support of al-Qaida after he arranged for a month-long jihadi training camp, at which attendees received training in basic military skills, explosives and weapons. Among the attendees were individuals who were plotting to bomb targets abroad. Babar pleaded guilty to providing material support, among other charges, and cooperated with ongoing investigations. New York defense attorney Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar were recently convicted by a jury of material support charges in connection with passing messages to a terrorist organization, known as the Islamic Group, from Sheik Abdel Rahman, the Islamic Group's imprisoned leader. Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence plus 65 years for his role in terrorist activities, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Sattar was also convicted of conspiring to kill persons in a foreign country and for solicitation of crimes of violence. On October 24, 2005, the Department of Justice announced the historic extradition of the notorious Taliban-linked narcoterrorist Baz Mohammad. Mohammad has been indicted for allegedly manufacturing and distributing tens of millions of dollars worth of heroin in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was closely aligned with the Taliban and other Islamic-extremist groups in Afghanistan, providing financial support to the Taliban with proceeds from heroin sales in the United States. John Walker Lindh, the ``American Taliban'' captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, pleaded guilty to supporting the Taliban and has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. As part of his plea agreement, Lindh has provided information about training camps and fighting in Afghanistan. Another potentially devastating attack was averted when Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, was foiled in his attempt to detonate a bomb on American Airlines flight 63 during flight. Reid was charged as a trained terrorist for this attempted terrorist attack. He pled guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life imprisonment on January 30, 2003. The Department of Justice successfully detected and disrupted sinister plans in Lodi, CA. Hamid Hayat was indicted and charged with material support to terrorists after he allegedly attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2004 and returned to this country with the intent of committing jihad against America. Additional associates have been deported and one charged with two counts of lying to Federal agents. In United States v. Odeh, a naroterrorism case, investigators used a court-issued delayed-notice search warrant to search an envelope mailed to a target of the investigation. The search confirmed that the target was operating an illegal money exchange to funnel money to the Middle East, including to an associate of an apparent Islamic Jihad operative in Israel. The delayed-notice provision allowed investigators to conduct the search without compromising an ongoing wiretap on the target and several confederates. The information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement personnel made possible by USA PATRIOT Act section 218 was useful in the investigation of two Yemeni citizens, Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad and Mohshen Yahya Zayed, who were charged in 2003 with conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida and Hamas. Following their indictment, Al-Moayad and Zayed were extradited to the United States from Germany, and both were convicted in March 2005 of conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. The Department of Justice used USA PATRIOT Act section 218 to gain access to intelligence that facilitated the indictment of Enaam Amaout, the executive director of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation, BIF. Arnaout had a long-standing relationship with Osama bin Laden and used his charity organization both to obtain funds illicitly from unsuspecting Americans for terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida, and to serve as a channel for people to contribute money knowingly to such groups. Arnaout ultimately pleaded guilty to a racketeering charge, admitting that he diverted thousands of dollars from BIF to support Islamic militant groups in Bosnia and Chechnya. He was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison. The broader information sharing made possible by USA PATRIOT Act section 218 also assisted the prosecution in San Diego of several persons involved in an al-Qaida drugs-for-weapons plot, which culminated in two guilty pleas. Two defendants, Muhamed Abid Afridi and Ilyas Ali, admitted that they conspired to distribute approximately five metric tons of hashish and 600 kilograms of heroin originating in Pakistan to undercover U.S. law enforcement officers. Additionally, they admitted that they conspired to receive, as partial payment for the drugs, four Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that they then intended to sell to the Taliban, an organization they knew at the time to be affiliated with al-Qaida. Afridi and Ali pleaded guilty to the felony charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to distribute heroin and hashish. The lead defendant in the case is currently awaiting trial. Section 218 of the PATRIOT Act was critical in the successful prosecution of Khaled Abdel Latif Dumeisi, who was convicted by a jury in January 2004 of illegally acting as an agent of the former government of Iraq as well as two counts of perjury. Before the gulf war, Dumeisi passed information on Iraqi opposition members located in the United States to officers of the Iraqi Intelligence Service stationed in the Iraqi mission to the United Nations. During this investigation, intelligence agents conducting surveillance of Dumeisi pursuant to FISA coordinated and shared information with law enforcement agents and prosecutors investigating Dumeisi for possible criminal violations. Because of this coordination, law enforcement agents and prosecutors learned from intelligence agents of an incriminating telephone conversation that took place in April 2003 between Dumeisi and a coconspirator. This phone conversation corroborated other evidence that Dumeisi was acting as an agent of the Iraqi government and provided a compelling piece of evidence at his trial. The use of cigarette smuggling to fund terrorism has been of grave concern. On January 23, 2003, in United States v. Akhdar, et al., the Department of Justice indicted members of an organization that smuggled low-taxed and untaxed cigarettes from State to State to evade sales tax. The defendants produced counterfeit tax stamps, obtained counterfeit credit cards, laundered money, obstructed justice, and committed arson, and many are suspected of having links to and financing the terrorist organization Hizballah. As the investigation has continued, additional indictments have been filed, and many defendants have pleaded guilty to charges including RICO violations and material support. Investigators have also been able to avert potentially devastating attacks on our children. Ahmed Hassan al-Uqaily, an Iraqi national, spoke of ``going jihad,'' and arranged to procure pistols, machine guns, grenades and a ``tank missile,'' while suggesting he might target several Jewish schools in the Nashville area. An undercover agent completed the deal, posing as the weapons supplier, and the Iraqi national agreed to pay $1,000 for two machine guns, ammunition and inert grenade components. The aspiring terrorist was arrested on October 7, 2004, and was sentenced on October 24, 2005, to 57 months in prison. The PATRIOT Act has kept us free and kept us safe, and is doing so day in and day out. It is essential that this Congress renew this historic legislation and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. We owe no less to the future generations of Americans and the freedom- loving peoples of the world. The stakes are too high to ignore our obligation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agricultural Employment and Workforce Protection Act. My home State of Georgia is one of the most diversified agricultural producing States east of the Mississippi. The livelihood of many of my constituents and many Americans across the country depends on the quality of the crop, the bounty of the harvest, and the health of the livestock. In drafting this legislation I am introducing today, I was guided by four principles: 1. Prevention--if we do not stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming into our country then there is no point in Congress attempting to have a positive impact on our immigration policy. Strict enforcement of our immigration laws is essential and we should demand no less. 2. Protection--the United States has always been a welcoming country to immigrants, and many non-immigrants are admitted for temporary periods to perform necessary jobs--particularly in the field of agriculture--that employers cannot fill. However, any temporary worker program must provide adequate protections for American jobs. Employers should not view alien workers as a way to get cheaper labor--it is not fair to Americans willing to work hard and looking for a well-paying job and it is not fair to the aliens who are exploited by working for sub-standard wages. 3. Accountability--if Congress, through reform legislation, provides employers with an avenue to obtain legal temporary workers, there should be no tolerance for employers who hire illegal aliens. We all know that many illegal immigrants come to the United States seeking employment. Employers who flaunt the rule of law by hiring illegally are hampering our efforts to secure the border by providing incentives for people to illegally come to the United States, and they must be held accountable. 4. Compassion--We are a Nation of immigrants and immigrants have made many wonderful contributions to our country--not the least of which is helping ensure there is a stable supply of food in the grocery stores for all Americans. We need to ensure that those workers who come to the United States on a temporary basis to perform agricultural work are not exploited and are treated with fairness and respect. The best way to show compassion for illegal immigrants is to stop illegal immigration. I know the Senate is planning to take up debate on comprehensive immigration reform early next year, and I think it is important that we engage in this discussion. The purpose of my legislation is to ensure that reform for the agricultural community is included in whatever reforms Congress considers. The agricultural sector of our economy has been historically plagued by illegal immigration. We already have an avenue for agricultural employers to obtain legal temporary workers-- the H-2A program. However, many agricultural employers do not use the program because its bureaucracy is difficult to navigate, it is costly, and it is litigious. In addition, it excludes certain occupations from agriculture. My legislation provides needed reforms to the H-2A program, provides for the creation of a temporary blue card program, establishes an H-2AA worker program for cross-border commuter workers, and, above all, provides for increased border security. First, it mandates that the Department of Homeland Security establish and present to Congress a comprehensive plan for increased border security and stricter enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws, including detailed strategies, timelines, and estimated costs. Until such time the Secretary presents and Congress approves the plan, some interim measures would apply. Second, the legislation streamlines and modernizes the H-2A program. H-2A is not a new guestworker program. It has been around for many years, but underutilized because of its high costs, red tape, and risks of drawn out litigation. To increase the use of the program, the bill expands the definition of ``agriculture'' to include industries that have been excluded from use of the program previously--industries such as poultry, seafood, and meat processors, landscapers, and reforestation contractors. The bill also bases the definition ``temporary'' on the duration a worker is allowed to be in the United States rather than tying it to seasonality. Some agricultural occupations, like poultry producers and dairy producers, do not follow seasons but require workers year round. If these employers in occupations previously excluded from the H-2A program were offered a viable alternative to an illegal workforce, I have no doubt they would seize it. Third, my legislation creates a cross-border commuter worker program, called the H-2AA program. This program is modeled after the H-2A program, but recognizes that many farms located close to the Canadian and Mexican borders seek to employ workers who prefer to live in their home countries and simply come to the U.S. each day. The H-2AA program exempts farmers who employ these H-2AA workers from the housing and transportation requirements of the H-2A program, and requires those who use it to enter and exit the United States each day. It allows these agricultural operations to attract workers who live close to the borders but do not desire to move to the United States. Finally, my legislation establishes a blue card program. This is a temporary program that provides for the transition of employees who are currently here in an undocumented status filling needed jobs. To qualify for a blue card, aliens must have worked at least 1600 hours in agriculture in 2005, have never been convicted or a felony or a misdemeanor in the United States, and must have a petition filed on their behalf by their employer. Only after a background check is conducted by the Department of Homeland Security would these blue card workers be allowed to work in the United States for a period of 24 months before they must return to their home country. The blue card allows employers who are currently utilizing an illegal workforce to transition their workforce into a legal one by having their employees leave the country and return on the legal H-2A temporary worker program without experiencing a complete work stoppage. There is no amnesty with the blue card program--all workers must return to their home country. The underlying premise of any guestworker program and explicitly provided for in my proposed legislation is that United States employers should not be allowed to utilize a guestworker program unless and until they have actively recruited American workers and are unable to find enough to fill needed jobs. We don't want to stifle American businesses but more importantly we don't want to disadvantage American workers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting practical needed reforms for the agricultural community and I look forward to the time early next year in which this vital issue will be debated here in the United States Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agricultural Employment and Workforce Protection Act. My home State of Georgia is one of the most diversified agricultural producing States east of the Mississippi. The livelihood of many of my constituents and many Americans across the country depends on the quality of the crop, the bounty of the harvest, and the health of the livestock. In drafting this legislation I am introducing today, I was guided by four principles: 1. Prevention--if we do not stem the tide of illegal immigrants coming into our country then there is no point in Congress attempting to have a positive impact on our immigration policy. Strict enforcement of our immigration laws is essential and we should demand no less. 2. Protection--the United States has always been a welcoming country to immigrants, and many non-immigrants are admitted for temporary periods to perform necessary jobs--particularly in the field of agriculture--that employers cannot fill. However, any temporary worker program must provide adequate protections for American jobs. Employers should not view alien workers as a way to get cheaper labor--it is not fair to Americans willing to work hard and looking for a well-paying job and it is not fair to the aliens who are exploited by working for sub-standard wages. 3. Accountability--if Congress, through reform legislation, provides employers with an avenue to obtain legal temporary workers, there should be no tolerance for employers who hire illegal aliens. We all know that many illegal immigrants come to the United States seeking employment. Employers who flaunt the rule of law by hiring illegally are hampering our efforts to secure the border by providing incentives for people to illegally come to the United States, and they must be held accountable. 4. Compassion--We are a Nation of immigrants and immigrants have made many wonderful contributions to our country--not the least of which is helping ensure there is a stable supply of food in the grocery stores for all Americans. We need to ensure that those workers who come to the United States on a temporary basis to perform agricultural work are not exploited and are treated with fairness and respect. The best way to show compassion for illegal immigrants is to stop illegal immigration. I know the Senate is planning to take up debate on comprehensive immigration reform early next year, and I think it is important that we engage in this discussion. The purpose of my legislation is to ensure that reform for the agricultural community is included in whatever reforms Congress considers. The agricultural sector of our economy has been historically plagued by illegal immigration. We already have an avenue for agricultural employers to obtain legal temporary workers-- the H-2A program. However, many agricultural employers do not use the program because its bureaucracy is difficult to navigate, it is costly, and it is litigious. In addition, it excludes certain occupations from agriculture. My legislation provides needed reforms to the H-2A program, provides for the creation of a temporary blue card program, establishes an H-2AA worker program for cross-border commuter workers, and, above all, provides for increased border security. First, it mandates that the Department of Homeland Security establish and present to Congress a comprehensive plan for increased border security and stricter enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws, including detailed strategies, timelines, and estimated costs. Until such time the Secretary presents and Congress approves the plan, some interim measures would apply. Second, the legislation streamlines and modernizes the H-2A program. H-2A is not a new guestworker program. It has been around for many years, but underutilized because of its high costs, red tape, and risks of drawn out litigation. To increase the use of the program, the bill expands the definition of ``agriculture'' to include industries that have been excluded from use of the program previously--industries such as poultry, seafood, and meat processors, landscapers, and reforestation contractors. The bill also bases the definition ``temporary'' on the duration a worker is allowed to be in the United States rather than tying it to seasonality. Some agricultural occupations, like poultry producers and dairy producers, do not follow seasons but require workers year round. If these employers in occupations previously excluded from the H-2A program were offered a viable alternative to an illegal workforce, I have no doubt they would seize it. Third, my legislation creates a cross-border commuter worker program, called the H-2AA program. This program is modeled after the H-2A program, but recognizes that many farms located close to the Canadian and Mexican borders seek to employ workers who prefer to live in their home countries and simply come to the U.S. each day. The H-2AA program exempts farmers who employ these H-2AA workers from the housing and transportation requirements of the H-2A program, and requires those who use it to enter and exit the United States each day. It allows these agricultural operations to attract workers who live close to the borders but do not desire to move to the United States. Finally, my legislation establishes a blue card program. This is a temporary program that provides for the transition of employees who are currently here in an undocumented status filling needed jobs. To qualify for a blue card, aliens must have worked at least 1600 hours in agriculture in 2005, have never been convicted or a felony or a misdemeanor in the United States, and must have a petition filed on their behalf by their employer. Only after a background check is conducted by the Department of Homeland Security would these blue card workers be allowed to work in the United States for a period of 24 months before they must return to their home country. The blue card allows employers who are currently utilizing an illegal workforce to transition their workforce into a legal one by having their employees leave the country and return on the legal H-2A temporary worker program without experiencing a complete work stoppage. There is no amnesty with the blue card program--all workers must return to their home country. The underlying premise of any guestworker program and explicitly provided for in my proposed legislation is that United States employers should not be allowed to utilize a guestworker program unless and until they have actively recruited American workers and are unable to find enough to fill needed jobs. We don't want to stifle American businesses but more importantly we don't want to disadvantage American workers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting practical needed reforms for the agricultural community and I look forward to the time early next year in which this vital issue will be debated here in the United States Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the POPs, LRTAP POPs and PIC Implementation Act of 2005. This bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to implement the United States' pesticide- related obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Convention), the Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the Geneva Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs Protocol) and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention). POPs are certain chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment for an extended period of time and can bioaccumulate in the human food chain. POPs have been linked to adverse health effects on humans and animals. Due to their persistent characteristics and ability to circulate globally, POPs that are released in one part of the world can travel to neighboring regions and negatively affect environments where they are not produced or used. The United States has taken a leading role in reducing and eliminating the use POPs. For example, in the late 1970s, the United States prohibited the manufacture of new PCBs and severely restricted the use of remaining stocks. And over the past 35 years, the United States has had a strong regulatory process that restricted the production and use of dangerous pesticides. Even prior to signing the POPs Convention, the United States prohibited the sale of all the POPs pesticides initially targeted by the convention. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the POPs Convention. Its ultimate goal is the safe management of hazardous chemicals. Over time, the convention will help bring an end to the production and use of dangerous pollutants around the world and to positively affect the U.S. environment and public health. Specifically, the convention requires all signatory nations to stop the production and use of 12 listed POPs, including DDT, PCBs and dioxins. Parties to the convention also agree to control sources of POPs by-products to reduce releases and provide for the safe handling and disposal of POPs in an environmentally sound manner. The convention includes a science-based procedure to allow other POPs to be added and provides technical and financial assistance to help developing countries manage and control POPs. In 1998, the United States and members of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) negotiated a regional protocol on POPs under the auspices of the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP). Informally, the agreement is called the LRTAP POPs Protocol. The goal of the protocol is to eliminate production and reduce emissions of POPs in North America and Europe. The LRTAP POPs Protocol was the basis for the POPs Convention. The two agreements are similar in purpose, except that the LRTAP treaty is regional and it does not include trade restrictions or the technical and financial assistance available to developing nations under the POPs Convention. Also, the LRTAP POPs Protocol includes four additional chemicals to the 12 listed in the POPs Convention. In 1998, the PIC Convention established an information-sharing process to promote cooperative efforts among the parties to the convention regarding trade in chemicals. The process is designed to help nations decide whether to allow a chemical to be imported. Basically, the PIC Convention provides for prior notification to potential importing countries by nations exporting chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in the exporting country. Countries exporting the chemicals listed in the convention must generally ensure that the importing country has consented to import the chemical. The bill we are introducing today would prohibit the sale, distribution, use, production or disposal of any listed POPs pesticides or LRTAP POPs pesticide. It would establish notice and reporting procedures to ensure the American public is aware of potential actions and decisions made by the parties to the conventions. The bill also would add new export reporting and labeling requirements to ensure compliance with U.S. obligations under the PIC Convention. In order for the United States to become a party to the conventions, the Senate must ratify the POPs and PIC Conventions. Congress also must pass implementing legislation. This bill does not include a ratification resolution and it does not amend the Toxic Substances Control Act. At this time, the United States is not a party to the conventions and does not have a seat at the negotiating table. This weak position hampers the ability of our technical experts and negotiators to protect our leadership role in international pesticide policy and regulation. Our observer-only status also limits our ability to participate in the critical decisions that affect U.S. businesses and economic interests and our environment and public health. The delay in ratifying the conventions serves to marginalize us. The U.S. delegation was unable to fully participate in the first meeting of parties to the POPs Convention held in May 2005 in Punta del Este, Uruguay. The next meeting of the parties to the POPs Convention is May 2006. I urge my colleagues to ratify the conventions and pass implementing legislation so that the United States can reclaim its rightful place as a world leader in the safe management of hazardous chemicals. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee on this matter.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today, Senator Harkin and I are introducing the POPs, LRTAP POPs and PIC Implementation Act of 2005. This bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to implement the United States' pesticide- related obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Convention), the Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the Geneva Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP POPs Protocol) and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention). POPs are certain chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment for an extended period of time and can bioaccumulate in the human food chain. POPs have been linked to adverse health effects on humans and animals. Due to their persistent characteristics and ability to circulate globally, POPs that are released in one part of the world can travel to neighboring regions and negatively affect environments where they are not produced or used. The United States has taken a leading role in reducing and eliminating the use POPs. For example, in the late 1970s, the United States prohibited the manufacture of new PCBs and severely restricted the use of remaining stocks. And over the past 35 years, the United States has had a strong regulatory process that restricted the production and use of dangerous pesticides. Even prior to signing the POPs Convention, the United States prohibited the sale of all the POPs pesticides initially targeted by the convention. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the POPs Convention. Its ultimate goal is the safe management of hazardous chemicals. Over time, the convention will help bring an end to the production and use of dangerous pollutants around the world and to positively affect the U.S. environment and public health. Specifically, the convention requires all signatory nations to stop the production and use of 12 listed POPs, including DDT, PCBs and dioxins. Parties to the convention also agree to control sources of POPs by-products to reduce releases and provide for the safe handling and disposal of POPs in an environmentally sound manner. The convention includes a science-based procedure to allow other POPs to be added and provides technical and financial assistance to help developing countries manage and control POPs. In 1998, the United States and members of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) negotiated a regional protocol on POPs under the auspices of the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP). Informally, the agreement is called the LRTAP POPs Protocol. The goal of the protocol is to eliminate production and reduce emissions of POPs in North America and Europe. The LRTAP POPs Protocol was the basis for the POPs Convention. The two agreements are similar in purpose, except that the LRTAP treaty is regional and it does not include trade restrictions or the technical and financial assistance available to developing nations under the POPs Convention. Also, the LRTAP POPs Protocol includes four additional chemicals to the 12 listed in the POPs Convention. In 1998, the PIC Convention established an information-sharing process to promote cooperative efforts among the parties to the convention regarding trade in chemicals. The process is designed to help nations decide whether to allow a chemical to be imported. Basically, the PIC Convention provides for prior notification to potential importing countries by nations exporting chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in the exporting country. Countries exporting the chemicals listed in the convention must generally ensure that the importing country has consented to import the chemical. The bill we are introducing today would prohibit the sale, distribution, use, production or disposal of any listed POPs pesticides or LRTAP POPs pesticide. It would establish notice and reporting procedures to ensure the American public is aware of potential actions and decisions made by the parties to the conventions. The bill also would add new export reporting and labeling requirements to ensure compliance with U.S. obligations under the PIC Convention. In order for the United States to become a party to the conventions, the Senate must ratify the POPs and PIC Conventions. Congress also must pass implementing legislation. This bill does not include a ratification resolution and it does not amend the Toxic Substances Control Act. At this time, the United States is not a party to the conventions and does not have a seat at the negotiating table. This weak position hampers the ability of our technical experts and negotiators to protect our leadership role in international pesticide policy and regulation. Our observer-only status also limits our ability to participate in the critical decisions that affect U.S. businesses and economic interests and our environment and public health. The delay in ratifying the conventions serves to marginalize us. The U.S. delegation was unable to fully participate in the first meeting of parties to the POPs Convention held in May 2005 in Punta del Este, Uruguay. The next meeting of the parties to the POPs Convention is May 2006. I urge my colleagues to ratify the conventions and pass implementing legislation so that the United States can reclaim its rightful place as a world leader in the safe management of hazardous chemicals. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee on this matter.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill, the ``Disabled Veterans Sports and Special Events Promotion Act of 2005''. We discovered during World War II that sports and physical activity play a vital role in the rehabilitation of recently disabled military personnel. Young service members who had just returned from WWII and were undergoing rehabilitation were drawn to sports and other team activities. The appeal of sports for these veterans served as more than just a rehabilitation technique. In fact, sports served as a source of motivation as well as a path to a fuller life for young people in the aftermath of a disability. As would be expected, many of these veterans became exceptional athletes and sought opportunities for competition and excellence in the new world of competitive Paralympic sports. With the onset of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new generation of U.S. military personnel with disabilities has emerged. These newly-disabled men and women are young, ambitious, goal-oriented and in their physical prime. Sport, which played a fundamental role for returning veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, has the capacity to assist military personnel in adjusting to life with a disability. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and its Paralympic partners recognize the opportunity to play a key role in the lives of returning military personnel with newly acquired disabilities. The USOC Paralympic Military Program is a collaborative effort among the USOC, military installations and commands, Veterans' Affairs (VA) offices and programs, and Paralympic organizations nationwide that are conducting Paralympic sport programs for active duty military personnel and veterans who have physical disabilities. The Program has been established to enable severely injured service members and veterans to enhance their rehabilitation, readiness and lifestyle through participation in Paralympic sports. The Program is designed for recently injured service members, 2001 and after, Paralympic-eligible disabilities; however, other service members and veterans with physical disabilities who are able to engage in program activities are welcome. Paralympic-eligible disabilities are: amputations, visual impairments, Brain injuries affecting physical mobility, spinal cord injuries and, other mobility-impairing disabilities. This bill would establish within the Department of Veterans Affairs an Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events which would establish and carry out sports programs for disabled veterans. In addition, the office would arrange for the VA to sponsor sports programs for disabled veterans conducted by other groups if the Secretary detennines that the programs are consistent with the VA's goals and missions. The office would provide for, facilitate, and encourage disabled veterans to participate in these programs. Finally, the office will cooperate with the USOC and their Paralympic Military Program to promote participation of disabled veterans in the Paralympics. This bill allows those injured in service to our country the option to regain a healthy, active lifestyle through sport and competition. Competing in sports such as cycling, fencing, shooting, sled hockey, table tennis, and sitting volleyball gives these injured veterans the opportunity to rehabilitate their bodies and minds while competing at the highest level. It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill, we keep the people at the receiving end of our decisions and deliberations foremost in our minds. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my bill, the ``Disabled Veterans Sports and Special Events Promotion Act of 2005''. We discovered during World War II that sports and physical activity play a vital role in the rehabilitation of recently disabled military personnel. Young service members who had just returned from WWII and were undergoing rehabilitation were drawn to sports and other team activities. The appeal of sports for these veterans served as more than just a rehabilitation technique. In fact, sports served as a source of motivation as well as a path to a fuller life for young people in the aftermath of a disability. As would be expected, many of these veterans became exceptional athletes and sought opportunities for competition and excellence in the new world of competitive Paralympic sports. With the onset of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new generation of U.S. military personnel with disabilities has emerged. These newly-disabled men and women are young, ambitious, goal-oriented and in their physical prime. Sport, which played a fundamental role for returning veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, has the capacity to assist military personnel in adjusting to life with a disability. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and its Paralympic partners recognize the opportunity to play a key role in the lives of returning military personnel with newly acquired disabilities. The USOC Paralympic Military Program is a collaborative effort among the USOC, military installations and commands, Veterans' Affairs (VA) offices and programs, and Paralympic organizations nationwide that are conducting Paralympic sport programs for active duty military personnel and veterans who have physical disabilities. The Program has been established to enable severely injured service members and veterans to enhance their rehabilitation, readiness and lifestyle through participation in Paralympic sports. The Program is designed for recently injured service members, 2001 and after, Paralympic-eligible disabilities; however, other service members and veterans with physical disabilities who are able to engage in program activities are welcome. Paralympic-eligible disabilities are: amputations, visual impairments, Brain injuries affecting physical mobility, spinal cord injuries and, other mobility-impairing disabilities. This bill would establish within the Department of Veterans Affairs an Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events which would establish and carry out sports programs for disabled veterans. In addition, the office would arrange for the VA to sponsor sports programs for disabled veterans conducted by other groups if the Secretary detennines that the programs are consistent with the VA's goals and missions. The office would provide for, facilitate, and encourage disabled veterans to participate in these programs. Finally, the office will cooperate with the USOC and their Paralympic Military Program to promote participation of disabled veterans in the Paralympics. This bill allows those injured in service to our country the option to regain a healthy, active lifestyle through sport and competition. Competing in sports such as cycling, fencing, shooting, sled hockey, table tennis, and sitting volleyball gives these injured veterans the opportunity to rehabilitate their bodies and minds while competing at the highest level. It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill, we keep the people at the receiving end of our decisions and deliberations foremost in our minds. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate amendment No. 2582 offered by my good friend Senator Isakson to S. 1783, the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005. The retirement security of millions of Americans participating in single employer defined benefit pension plans depends on employers keeping their pension promises. Unfortunately, in recent years those promises have not been kept. Defaults of pension plans in the airline, steel and auto-parts industries have raised concerns about the health of existing plans and the possibility of a taxpayer bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC. The current system does not ensure that pension plans are adequately funded. When under-funded plans terminate, as several have done recently, they place an increasing strain on the pension insurance system. As of September 30, 2005 the PBGC showed a deficit of $22.8 billion for pension plans sponsored by a single employer. While the PBGC will be able to pay benefits for years to come, the solvency of the pension insurance system is in jeopardy. It is estimated that the PBGC will run out of cash within the next 20 years. The airline industry in particular has been faced with its own specific set of economic challenges. The attacks on September 11, 2001 coupled with a stock market decline and record oil prices have placed a significant burden on the airline industry, forcing them to make tough choices. The unfortunate reality of our current economic climate is that some businesses, particularly the airlines, are taking devastating financial losses as a result of unforeseen circumstances. As many of my colleagues know, Delta Airlines is headquartered in my home State of Georgia. Delta has a longstanding history of service to airline passengers throughout the world and has been a great corporate citizen for the State of Georgia. Delta's some 31,000 employees, like many other hardworking Americans, have devoted years to working for companies like Delta. We need to ensure that they receive the pension benefits they were promised and deserve. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this amendment would raise $14 million over the period 2006-2010 and $30 million in Federal revenues over the period 2006-2015. Changing the amortization period for airline pension plans such as Delta's, from 14 years to 20 years would take the burden off the PBGC while ensuring that the thousands of workers employed by the airline industry would receive the benefits that they have earned. This common sense amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, will not relieve the airlines of pension liability, nor will it prohibit airlines from meeting pension obligations sooner than 20 years. It discourages airlines from relying on the PBGC and the taxpayers' dollars by allowing them time to fulfill their pension obligations. This amendment complements the purpose of the overall pension reform bill by taking the necessary steps to ensure that American workers receive every penny they have earned, while holding companies accountable and simultaneously reducing the burden on the PBGC. American workers deserve the security of knowing that their pensions will be there when they retire. I also want to help ensure the job security of the employees of great companies like Delta, while allowing passengers and our economy to benefit from the continued use of our airlines. As we continue this debate, I am committed to passing meaningful pension reform.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Durbin amendment would not do that. Mine would.