Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment establishes bad policy. Let me tell you why. I had the privilege of serving on the House Intelligence Committee for 2 years. I had the privilege of serving under Chairman Porter Goss in the House. I served side by side with now ranking member Jane Harman. We did an outstanding job in the House Intelligence Committee of conducting oversight work of the intelligence community worldwide. I have had the privilege of serving under the strong leadership of Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and, once again, they have led a terrific effort from an oversight perspective of the intelligence community, whether it is Iraq, whether it is North Korea, whether it is any other issue. They have done a great job in a bipartisan way. I have to commend all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We have asked the tough questions time and time again because that is our job. We are charged with the responsibility of conducting this oversight. Now to send this outside the Intelligence Committees establishes simply bad policy and moves the intelligence community in the wrong direction. I was a member of the Joint Inquiry Committee that was established last year between the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to look at 9/11. That Joint Inquiry Committee was unable to function properly because most of the real hard substantive issues are classified issues. No joint committee can really do their work without having the availability of classified information. The Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee have the availability of that classified information at their fingertips. That is the way the system is designed to work. That is the way it should work. That is the way it is working. It is working properly, and it is working in a very bipartisan way. Whatever the intelligence failures were involved in Iraq will be disclosed. Whatever the wrong things that were done will ultimately be disclosed. But it has to be done within the right framework. And that right framework is within the Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate. Again, I commend the strong, bipartisan leadership of Vice Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Roberts. They are leading us in the right way on this issue, and that is the way it needs to continue. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate considered amendment No. 1811 offered by Senator Corzine to lower the age at which members of the Reserve components can collect retirement pay from age 60 go age 55. This amendment had no offset and would have created a huge bill for the Department of Defense which we cannot afford to pay. For this reason, the floor manager of the bill raised a budget point of order against the amendment and I voted to uphold this point of order. I believe the Congress should carefully review pay and benefits for members of the Reserve components, including lowering the age at which reservists and guardsmen can receive retirement pay. These men and women provide an invaluable service to our Nation and we should provide them pay and benefits which recognize their contributions and help retain them as citizen soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, I believe there are several options we should consider for lowering the retirement age, and that we should consider this issue alongside other benefits in order to offer a complete package that makes sense and accomplishes the goals we are trying to achieve. The Iraqi supplemental is not the right context to undertake a careful review or make long- term changes in this area, and for this reason I opposed the amendment. As cochair of the Senate Reserve Caucus, these are issues that I take very seriously. I will continue to work with my colleagues in that caucus and in the Senate to ensure that we make wise financial decisions, and that our guardsmen and reservists receive the pay and benefits they deserve while recognizing their unique contribution to our Nation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. President. I say to Senators Bayh, Nelson, Graham, Collins, Snowe, and Ensign what a pleasure it is to work with all of you on this issue where we know we are doing the right thing for America and the American people as well as for the people of Iraq. I start out by saying that nobody, according to my political opponents, has been a stronger supporter of this administration and this President than this Senator from Georgia. I continue to support my President. I support his request for $87 billion in funding for Iraq. The only thing I disagree with the administration about is how we structure that funding. None of us disagrees about the fact that we need the $67 billion for the military operation in Iraq. But to take the remainder of the $20 billion and to put half of it in the form of a grant to tell the people of Iraq we are going to give you the money to go in and rebuild your infrastructure is certainly reasonable. To tell them also that we want you to make an investment in Iraq just like we as the American taxpayers are making an investment in Iraq is also reasonable. There are three reasons that I feel so strongly about this issue. Before I talk about those three reasons, I wish to address one issue on which I know our political enemies in the press, particularly in other parts of the world, are going to be attacking us as Members of the Senate tomorrow if this amendment does pass. That attack is going to be geared to saying: Here we go, we told you all along that the Americans came into Iraq because they wanted our oil. My friend from Oklahoma has already addressed this issue. What he has said is very clear; that is, the debt that Iraq now owes--it is listed on this chart that has been entered into the Record--there is no money left. No money is left to pay this debt. To say we went into Iraq for oil because we are asking the Iraqi people to make an investment in infrastructure is simply not true. There is no way you can say it is true. Let me get to my three reasons. First of all, should the American taxpayer invest money in Iraq so that the Iraqi people can have their infrastructure rebuilt and have their economy revitalized so that these debts can be repaid? My friend from Maine has already addressed this issue, and I think the answer is very clear. Second, if America is to invest in Iraq in rebuilding its infrastructure, is it unreasonable to ask the Iraqi people to share in that investment? What is going to happen when we start investing over there and start rebuilding their infrastructure? I can tell you what is going to happen--some of the same things we have already seen happen. We have seen pipelines attacked by the terrorist community in that part of the world. We have seen bombs blown up in front of the hotels in Baghdad. We have seen other entities, including Americans, attacked on a regular basis. When we rebuild the infrastructure, we can expect the terrorist community, which is alive and well in that part of the world, to continue to come out and attack those investments we are making. If the Iraqi people share in that investment, are they going to be more likely to help us in preventing those attacks and also in bringing the perpetrators of those attacks to justice? You bet they will. I think there is every reason in the world to ask them to make a joint investment with us. Third, my goal is that when the American presence in Iraq is gone, all of these debts are relieved. How do we best do that? Do we best do that by investing $20 billion and saying: OK, we are going to rebuild your infrastructure? You go out, and because your economy is back up and running, you take care of those debts. No. They are not going to leave them debt free if we do that. If the President goes to the donors conference next week or calls up President Putin or any of these other countries and says, Look, my country is owed $10 billion, we invested $10 billion to rebuild the infrastructure, if you forgive your debt, we will forgive our debt, does that give a moral leverage in what he would have if he went in and said, We put $20 billion in there, why don't you forgive your debt? Be a nice guy and forgive it? The nice guys have already spoken--Germany, France, and these other countries such as Russia have already spoken. They are not going to be nice guys. We simply can't expect that from them. We need to give the President the leverage he can use to go in and get these debts forgiven. When that happens--and I sincerely hope it does happen in the short term--then our $10 billion in the form of a loan is going to be converted to a grant, and it won't be repaid. That is what we are here debating tonight--whether or not we are going to give the President the right kind of leverage he needs to deal with these countries that sit in creditor status with Iraq today. What has been our investment in Iraq? Our investment has been whatever it costs us to this point in time. I don't know how many billions of dollars--maybe $100 billion. I don't know what it is. How much is it going to cost us in the future? It is going to cost us another $21 billion, or is it another $87 billion? That is going to get us through the next year. Next year we will be back here debating on another supplemental on continuing the effort in Iraq. All we are asking the Iraqi people to do is to take part of that $130 billion, $150 billion, or $170 billion--whatever it has been today--and share part of it with us; share $10 billion with us. Second, there is not a country on this chart, outside of the U.K., that has lost one life as a result of the conflict in Iraq and freeing and liberating the Iraqi people. As of today, we have lost 332 American lives--just as of today. A young soldier from Valdosta, GA, was found floating in a river. He apparently drowned over there. We have lost 332 brave American men and women. These countries, outside of the U.K., have lost none. They have made no investment of life in the freedom of Iraq. Let me close by answering my friend from Oklahoma, who is truly one of my dearest friends and a guy I respect so much. But when he says, from the standpoint of to whom we are going to lend this money, there is nobody to sign a note, what are we going to do with this $21 billion? Are we going to stand in a hotel window and throw it on the streets of Baghdad? Give me a break. There is somebody in place to give the money to. There is somebody in place to lend the money to. All you have to do is think about what we are going to do with the money. We are going to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq. There is somebody who owns that infrastructure. I don't care whether it is the former government or the Coalition Provisional Authority. There is an entity in place that is capable of signing a note. That is simply a very weak argument, to say that we don't have the legal capacity to make this loan. Again, I am very proud of the fact that we have come together in a bipartisan way to do what we think is right for the American people. Again, I am thankful for the leadership of Senator Bayh, Senator Collins, and Senator Ensign, who were so instrumental in this. I ask my colleagues to think seriously about this because it is maybe the most important vote we will make. The future of our children and grandchildren, particularly when it comes to rooting out terrorism around the world, may rest in this vote. I am very confident that the right vote is in support of this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Mother Teresa and to acknowledge her upcoming beatification of the Vatican. The process leading up to her beatification has been the shortest in modern history. In early 1999--less than 2 years after Mother Teresa's death--Pope John Paul II waived the normal 5-year waiting period and allowed the immediate opening of her canonization process. The rule has traditionally been used to allow for a more objective look at a person's life and achievements. However, the life and works of Mother Teresa were so astounding that Pope John Paul II was convinced that he did not need 5 years to objectively determine that she should be beatified. Mother Teresa, the ``Saint of the Gutters,'' was born in what is now Macedonia in 1910. She took her final vows as a nun in 1937, and in 1946, while riding a train to the mountain town of Darjeeling to recover from suspected tuberculosis, she received, as she says ``a call within a call'' from God to, ``serve Him among the poorest of the poor.'' And it is in this capacity that the world came to know of Mother Teresa's endless charity and love for all human life. She confronted this monumental task one hovel at a time. She created a religious order to help the aged, the poor, the hungry, the sick, and the disabled to live and die with dignity. She received approval from the Pope to establish the Missionaries of Charity, which focused much of its attention on giving comfort to the dying. The year before she died, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity were operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries. In addition, she opened schools, orphanages, and homes for the needy, as well as homes for AIDS victims, and hospices. Mother Teresa was a woman who fought passionately for dignity for all human life--from the leper on the streets of Calcutta, to the ailing AIDS victim in New York, to the unborn child inside a mother's womb. Her passion for protecting all human life was clear when she spoke to Members of Congress at the National Prayer Breakfast in February 1994. She said, I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? She continuously reminded people around the world of the plight of those weakest in the world; those least able to protect themselves. In 1979, she received the Nobel Peace Prize and accepted the award ``in the name of the hungry, the naked, the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the lepers, of all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared-for throughout society, people that have become a burden to society and are shunned by everyone.'' Mother Teresa touched the lives of those most in need in this world and she inspired others to service in every corner of the globe. Certainly the work she performed in her life was miraculous, and I have no doubt that those in need will continue to find solace and comfort in Mother Teresa and the continuing work that her missions still perform.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and recognize the U.S. Army Forces Command, headquartered at Fort McPherson, GA, as it celebrates 30 years of dedicated service to our great Nation. On July 1, 1973, U.S. Army Forces Command was formed as part of a Department of the Army initiative to reorganize its major headquarters and establish a professional, volunteer force. U.S. Army Forces Command is the Army's largest major command. It trains, mobilizes, and deploys ready land forces in support of operations worldwide. U.S. Army Forces Command units have been integral in fighting the global war on terrorism abroad as well as in defense of our homeland. These soldiers are deployed for our Nation in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sinai, Central and South America, and throughout the continental United States. Having conducted the largest mobilization of Army Reserve and National Guard forces since the Korean war in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom, U.S. Army Forces Command units have demonstrated the strong and seamless partnership that exists between the active and reserve components. Wherever U.S. Army Forces Command's soldiers and units deploy, they accomplish their mission with exemplary professionalism. U.S. Army Forces Command's soldiers across the globe are advancing the proud record of success achieved by earlier generations of American fighting men and women. I am extremely proud to have U.S. Army Forces Command headquartered in my State. I take this opportunity to commend them and ask my colleagues to join me in honoring their 30th anniversary and offer best wishes for many more years of proud service to our Nation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the L-1 Visa Reform Act which affects intracompany transferees seeking entry to the United States. Congress created the L-1 visa to allow international companies to move executives, managers, and other key personnel within the company and into the U.S. temporarily. The L-1 is an important tool for our multi-national corporations, however, some companies are making an end-run around the visa process by bringing in professional workers on L-1 visas and then outsourcing those workers to a third party company. In other words, some firms are using the so-called ``L-1 loophole'' to become the international equivalent of temp agencies, or ``job shops.'' As a result, American workers are being displaced by foreign workers who are brought to the U.S. essentially for their labor. This must stop--my legislation targets the problem, closes the loophole, and protects U.S. jobs from inappropriate use of the L-1 visa. The situation in question arises when a company with both foreign and U.S.-based operations obtains an L-1 visa to transfer a foreign employee who has ``specialized knowledge'' of the company's product or processes. The problem occurs only when an employee with specialized knowledge is placed offsite at the business location of a third party company. In this context, if the L-1 employee does not bring anything more than generic knowledge of the third party company's operations, the foreign worker is acting more like an H-1B professional than a true intracompany transferee. Outsourcing an L-1 worker in this way has resulted in American workers being displaced at the third party company. In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that American workers aren't losing their jobs to cheap foreign labor by those circumventing protections already in law. Several weeks ago I held a hearing on L-1 visa concerns in the Immigration Subcommittee. We heard from a full-range of witnesses--from a displaced worker and labor unions to small and large U.S. companies to business immigration experts. The hearing clearly demonstrated a problem exists, and the testimony of our witnesses directed attention to Congress' intent in creating the L-1 visa. The bill I am introducing today clarifies Congress' intent and restricts the inappropriate use of the L-1 visa. The bill does so without forcing unnecessary restrictions on the visa that would only result in adverse effects on legitimate L-1 users. The L-1 Visa Reform Act prevents companies from using the L-1 visa when an H-1B visa with its worker protections is appropriate. The legislation requires that any employee with specialized knowledge who is located offsite must, first, be controlled and supervised by the petitioning company and, second, be provided in connection with an exchange of products or services between the petitioning company and the third-party company. This will stop the practice of a consulting company bringing in foreign workers to send over to a manufacturer when the consulting company does nothing more than cut the foreign worker's paycheck once a month. Instead, the bill requires the third-party company to have a pre-existing business relationship with the petitioning company that is more than just supplying workers. In addition, the legislation requires companies to employ a worker for at least one year before sending the employee over on an L-1 intra- company transfer. One year is a reasonable amount of time to require an employee to have attained the specialized knowledge of the company's products, services or processes to qualify for the visa. The bill also mandates the Department of Homeland Security to maintain statistics differentiating between L-1 transferees who are managers and executives and those who are specialized knowledge employees. This will provide better accountability and fraud prevention when L-1 petitions are reviewed and approved. We need the best people in the world to come to the United States, to bring their skills and innovative ideas, and to support our business enterprises. The L-1 visa is an important tool to achieve these purposes. But we must ensure that American workers are not displaced by foreign workers, particularly when we have safeguards in place albeit a loophole in law. The L-1 Visa Reform Act will close that loophole for the benefit of U.S. workers and for U.S. businesses who use the visa as it is intended. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the L-1 Visa Reform Act which affects intracompany transferees seeking entry to the United States. Congress created the L-1 visa to allow international companies to move executives, managers, and other key personnel within the company and into the U.S. temporarily. The L-1 is an important tool for our multi-national corporations, however, some companies are making an end-run around the visa process by bringing in professional workers on L-1 visas and then outsourcing those workers to a third party company. In other words, some firms are using the so-called ``L-1 loophole'' to become the international equivalent of temp agencies, or ``job shops.'' As a result, American workers are being displaced by foreign workers who are brought to the U.S. essentially for their labor. This must stop--my legislation targets the problem, closes the loophole, and protects U.S. jobs from inappropriate use of the L-1 visa. The situation in question arises when a company with both foreign and U.S.-based operations obtains an L-1 visa to transfer a foreign employee who has ``specialized knowledge'' of the company's product or processes. The problem occurs only when an employee with specialized knowledge is placed offsite at the business location of a third party company. In this context, if the L-1 employee does not bring anything more than generic knowledge of the third party company's operations, the foreign worker is acting more like an H-1B professional than a true intracompany transferee. Outsourcing an L-1 worker in this way has resulted in American workers being displaced at the third party company. In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that American workers aren't losing their jobs to cheap foreign labor by those circumventing protections already in law. Several weeks ago I held a hearing on L-1 visa concerns in the Immigration Subcommittee. We heard from a full-range of witnesses--from a displaced worker and labor unions to small and large U.S. companies to business immigration experts. The hearing clearly demonstrated a problem exists, and the testimony of our witnesses directed attention to Congress' intent in creating the L-1 visa. The bill I am introducing today clarifies Congress' intent and restricts the inappropriate use of the L-1 visa. The bill does so without forcing unnecessary restrictions on the visa that would only result in adverse effects on legitimate L-1 users. The L-1 Visa Reform Act prevents companies from using the L-1 visa when an H-1B visa with its worker protections is appropriate. The legislation requires that any employee with specialized knowledge who is located offsite must, first, be controlled and supervised by the petitioning company and, second, be provided in connection with an exchange of products or services between the petitioning company and the third-party company. This will stop the practice of a consulting company bringing in foreign workers to send over to a manufacturer when the consulting company does nothing more than cut the foreign worker's paycheck once a month. Instead, the bill requires the third-party company to have a pre-existing business relationship with the petitioning company that is more than just supplying workers. In addition, the legislation requires companies to employ a worker for at least one year before sending the employee over on an L-1 intra- company transfer. One year is a reasonable amount of time to require an employee to have attained the specialized knowledge of the company's products, services or processes to qualify for the visa. The bill also mandates the Department of Homeland Security to maintain statistics differentiating between L-1 transferees who are managers and executives and those who are specialized knowledge employees. This will provide better accountability and fraud prevention when L-1 petitions are reviewed and approved. We need the best people in the world to come to the United States, to bring their skills and innovative ideas, and to support our business enterprises. The L-1 visa is an important tool to achieve these purposes. But we must ensure that American workers are not displaced by foreign workers, particularly when we have safeguards in place albeit a loophole in law. The L-1 Visa Reform Act will close that loophole for the benefit of U.S. workers and for U.S. businesses who use the visa as it is intended. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his kind comments, but most importantly I thank him for his strong leadership on the issue of energy and any number of other issues. In my years in the House I had the privilege of working with the Senator when he was chairman of the Budget Committee. What great leadership he provided, and he is carrying that forward as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy now. It is indeed a privilege and a pleasure to work very closely with him to make sure a strong energy policy is developed in the United States of America, something that is sorely lacking. Under the Senator's leadership we are going to make sure that happens. Before I make my comments relative to this amendment, though, I cannot help but take a minute to say to the Presiding Officer that as a grandfather twice over, I am very happy for the Chair and Diana. I will say if he thinks he is having fun today, every day gets more and more fun. Being the obnoxious grandparent I am, I would like to compare pictures with the Presiding Officer as he moves down the road. My pictures of little John and little Parker are something special that I hold very near and dear. I see the Chair already has his. So we will compare them early on. I rise today to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Senator Feinstein. I do not support this amendment for several reasons and I would like to take a few minutes to outline my concerns. The amendment offered contains four provisions, all of which will negatively affect our Nation's security and our ability to maintain a modern and safe nuclear weapons capability. This amendment prohibits our Nation's scientists from researching one of the foremost military challenges our Nation faces, which is an enemy using a hardened, deeply buried facility to protect weapons of mass destruction or carry out command and control operations. Our Nation has just begun exploring whether modified existing warheads might be effective in countering such targets. The underlying bill provides funds to conduct the second year of a 3-year feasibility study to see if existing weapons can be modified to address this critical threat. The bill allows the United States to simply explore--and I emphasize the word--the full range of weapons concepts that could offer a credible deterrent and response to new and emerging threats. It is imperative that our Nation continue to perform this research. It absolutely has to be done. The funding for advanced concepts that this amendment strikes will also prohibit our scientists from exploring and incorporating changes to our existing nuclear-related programs, including upgrades to safety and security measures that make our nuclear arsenal more reliable and safer. Advanced concepts are the ``idea machines'' for scientists and engineers at our national laboratories that allow them to take advantage of advancement in technology. Essentially, this amendment would restrict our scientists from doing their job, which is to improve the reliability and sustainability of our programs. The amendment also restricts funding for the improvement of our country's timeline to prepare for an underground nuclear test. Our goal is to reduce the timeline from the current threshold of 36 months to 18 months. The President could decide that a test is necessary to confirm a problem or test a fix to a problem involving the safety, security or reliability of a nuclear weapon in the stockpile. This administration has determined that, should such a test become necessary, the United States should not have to wait 3 years to address the problem in the stockpile. As our nuclear systems age, the necessity to conduct a test becomes more likely, should the President determine that it is in the national interest to do so. This amendment would make our Nation and our nuclear arsenal less, not more, secure. The last provision in this amendment would have the most drastic effect, I believe, to our Nation's security. For the first time in more than a decade, the United States will now be able to design and implement a program to manufacture a plutonium pit, an essential nuclear warhead component. The lack of this proficiency has seriously constrained our ability to maintain our nuclear stockpile. In fact, the Department of Energy, in 2002, indicated that the U.S. is the only nuclear power that lacks the ability to manufacture ``pits.'' All pits currently in the U.S. nuclear stockpile were made at the Rocky Flats Plant near Denver, CO, which opened in 1952. The Department of Energy halted pit manufacturing operations there in 1989. The administration has proposed a multi-year planning and design process that would result in a final decision on constructing a modern pit facility in 2011. If construction is approved, the proposed facility would begin full operation in 2020. The modern pit facility allows us to incorporate this capability into our nuclear weapons program and modernize our systems accordingly. Should this amendment pass, the United States' capabilities for ensuring a safe, reliable nuclear arsenal will continue to regress for several years. This amendment will prohibit the U.S. from taking advantage of the latest technology. Let me reiterate, the U.S. is not planning to resume testing; nor are we improving test readiness in order to develop new nuclear weapons. In fact, the U.S. is not planning to develop any new nuclear weapons at all. Our goal is to maintain a safe, secure, reliable, and effective nuclear weapons program, and for this reason I oppose the pending amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to the life of a great American hero and great Georgian. GEN Ray Davis passed away last week at the age of 88. Many will remember General Davis for his legacy of service, honor, and heroism. Most will remember General Davis as one of the most decorated marines in our Nation's history. I will remember him as a man of deep conviction who had a genuine concern for his family, community, and country, but mostly, I will remember him as my friend. President Truman awarded General Davis the Medal of Honor, the highest honor a soldier can receive, after the Korean War for his extraordinary heroism during the 1st Marine Division's historic battle of the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea. His leadership there secured a mountain pass, enabling the escape of two marine regiments that had been trapped for 5 days. To reach the regiments, then Lieutenant Colonel Davis led his men through the mountains in subzero temperatures through the night, battling vastly superior numbers, to eventually defeat the Chinese the next morning. The remaining epic 14-mile fighting march lasted 3 days. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the full text of General Davis's Medal of Honor citation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. After the Korean War, General Davis went on to command the 3rd Marine Division in Vietnam. In 1972 he retired as a four-star general, having served his country for 33 years. During his service, General Davis earned a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star, two Legions of Merit, two Silver Stars, two Distinguished Service Medals, the Navy Cross for his service in the Palua Islands operation, as well as the Medal of Honor. As an anecdote, our current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner, told me the other day that when he was Secretary of the Navy, he was responsible for seeing to the promotion of General Davis to full general. After his retirement he refused to fade from the scene and his tireless efforts on behalf of veterans nationwide led to the construction of the Korean War Memorial here in Washington, DC. General Davis made it a practice of keeping in touch with me with respect to issues regarding the Active Force as well as veterans on a regular basis. I noticed in my faxes I received last week that on the day before he died, he sent me a letter with an op ed he had written regarding a particular issue our Senate Armed Services Committee is dealing with on this very day. General Davis has been a constant source of encouragement and support to me over the years. I will miss him dearly. He is survived by his wife of 61 years, Willa Knox Davis, three children, seven grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. We who knew him have been blessed by his wisdom, humility, and, above all, his honor. Our thoughts and prayers will remain with his family as they remember and celebrate the extraordinary life of GEN Ray Davis.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah for letting me do this. I rise in support of the resolution offered by our colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions. I have always been a supporter of free-trade agreements, as long as those free-trade agreements were fair. My State has been a huge beneficiary of trade agreements. We are a strong economic factor in the United States. We want to continue to be, and we will continue to benefit from trade agreements as long as those agreements are fair. But there is a problem here tonight with the two agreements we are going to be voting on--the agreements with Singapore and Chile. We are in very difficult economic times in this country. As a result of those difficult economic times, we have seen unemployment in this country reach the level of 6 percent, and actually now a little above 6 percent. My State has suffered just as every other State around the country with our fair share of those unemployed individuals. Part of the displacement of those individuals is due to the immigration policies we have in effect in our country today, which allow people from other countries who want to come to America to work. We have always had an open-door policy, and we should continue to have an open-door policy, welcoming people from other countries to come to the U.S. to improve the quality of life for them and their families. At the same time, with that open-door policy, we should not have a policy that displaces American workers when the American workers want and need the jobs they are losing because of individuals coming into this country. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Judiciary Committee, I held a hearing this week on one of our visa programs. It is called the L-1 program whereby individuals can come into this country on a visa from anywhere around the world and be put in a position that supposedly is not being used to displace an American worker. As we found out at our hearing this week, it is happening over and over where the situation in the system is being taken advantage of, which results in abuses of that program that has the effect of displacing American workers. We are going to hold another hearing in that subcommittee in September on the H-1B program. This has been a very valuable program to our country and particularly the high-tech industry that needed, during the nineties, an increase in the caps under the H-1B program to accommodate the technicians they needed to operate their businesses successfully. What we found is that these individuals who come in under the L-1 and H-1B programs are being paid at lower rates than American workers they are displacing. With the slowdown in the economy and with the increase in unemployment, we are seeing that those H-1B and L-1 visa individuals who are coming into the United States are maintaining their jobs while Americans have been displaced. In part because of the abuses, the Americans, having been paid at a higher rate, are losing their jobs, and that is not right. Lo and behold, with an agreement that is supposed to be an economic stimulus creating trade with Chile and Singapore, what do we see but the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative negotiating as a part of these agreements with Chile and Singapore a policy change in our immigration law which now allows some 5,400 individuals from Singapore, and 1,400 individuals from Chile per year, over and above all of the limits which are presently in place under H-1B, L-1, and L-2, and every other visa program we have in place, to come into the United States with no provision in these trade agreements for any kind of attestation that these people will not be allowed to come in from Singapore and Chile if they are displacing American workers. That is not right. That is also not the function of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It is the function of the U.S. Congress to set policy when it comes to the immigration laws of this country. We should not allow the U.S. Trade Representative to usurp that power and that authority which is given to Congress. I rise tonight in strong support of the resolution offered by Senator Sessions. I think we need to send a shot across the bow telling the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that we are not going to let him usurp the authority and the power that is given to the Congress of the United States by law in our immigration policy. It is our obligation to set that policy and not the obligation of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. I have very grave concerns about these two agreements. I understand there are other agreements that are already being negotiated that have these same provisions in them. It was never the intention of any of us who voted to grant fast-track authority to the administration that the administration would be allowed to set immigration policy. It is wrong and it should not happen. Therefore, I strongly support the resolution of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Multi- employer Pension Security Act of 2003. This bill will strengthen and protect the defined pension benefits of thousands of workers. These workers have no other choice than to participate in the pension fund that their employer offers. However, it is not just the employees who need these plans to be reformed, but many employers realize that to be fiducially responsible that these reforms need to be made as well. Nearly 44 million working Americans participate in defined benefit pension plans. Of that amount, almost ten million people, approximately 25 percent of all those who have defined pensions, participate in multi-employer plans. Single-employer plans are completely managed under a different system. Although recent policy debate has focused primarily on single-employer plans, my reasoning in introducing this legislation today is to broaden the pension plan debate by dealing with the myriad of problems facing multi-employer pension plans. This bill, the ``Multi-employer Pension Security Act,'' will provide millions of active and retired workers who participate in these plans with the long-term security of knowing their promised benefits will be funded and safeguarded. This reform legislation is necessary and long overdue. The funding levels in single-employer pension plans have been greatly affected by stock market losses, a sluggish economy and record-low interest rates. These events have impacted multi-employer plans also. However, the issues affecting multi-employer plans are much broader than that. These plans operate under a fundamentally different structure. The main difference between single and multi-employer plans is that there is no minimum funding level required in multi-employer plans. Losses can mount until simply there is no more money and benefits cannot be paid to the participants in multi-employer pension plans. My bill will correct his deficiency in current law. This proposed legislation would address the lack of adequate funding standards existing within the multi-employer pension plan system. Also hardworking employees who participate in these multi-employer pension funds do not currently have the guarantee of insurance. When a multi- employer pension plan is defunct or goes bankrupt, there is no Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to rely on--because multi-employer plans do not fall under the guise of the PBGC structure. My bill will address that and give the folks participating in a multi-employer plan the same governmental oversight as provided to participants of single- employer plans. Again, I introduce the Multi-employer Pension Security Act today because we, as a nation, must tackle these issues now to prevent further deterioration of these plans and we must be willing to assure our constituents that their promised pensions are available to them as retirees currently and in the future. Single-employer plans must not be the only pension plan that Congress considers changes to because we are also responsible to the almost ten million Americans participating in multi-employer pension plans as well. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation. We must engage in a discussion that will lead to positive changes in multi-employer pension plans now.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Tax Act of 2003. This bill will promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax. The Fair Tax, commonly referred to as a national sales tax, is a necessary piece of tax reform that, should it pass, upon its inception would uproot our current unjust progressive tax code and replace it with a simpler, fairer one. I believe our antiquated tax code, that was implemented in 1913, and has since been modified numerous times, is overly complicated and desperately in need of an overhaul. We are well beyond rectifying the unfairness in our current system by tinkering around the edges. All Americans are in dire need of unbiased sweeping tax reform--and the fair tax is just that. The Fair Tax Act of 2003 would repeal the individual income tax, the corporate tax, capital gains taxes, all payroll taxes, the self- employment tax and the estate and gift taxes in lieu of a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. The eradication of these taxes will not only bring about equality within our tax system, it will also bring about simplicity. This bill will also provide for tax relief for business-to-business transactions. These transactions, including used product transactions which have already been taxed, are not subject to the sales tax, thereby abrogating any double taxation. Social Security and Medicare benefits would remain untouched under the Fair Tax bill. There would be no financial reductions to either one of these vital programs. Instead, the source of the trust fund revenue for these two programs would be replaced simply by a sales tax revenue instead of a payroll tax revenue. And lastly, under this bill, every American would receive a monthly rebate check equal to spending up to the Federal poverty level according to the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines. This rebate would ensure that no American pays taxes on the purchase of necessities. The Fair Tax creates a fairer, simpler code that allows every American the freedom to determine his or her own priorities and opportunities. Ronald Reagan once said, ``I believe we really can, however, say that God did give mankind virtually unlimited gifts to invent, produce and create. And for that reason alone, it would be wrong for governments to devise a tax structure or economic system that suppresses and denies those gifts.'' I couldn't agree more. And as long as we continue to operate under our current skewed tax code, we will continue to suppress and deny these unlimited gifts to the American people who would otherwise thrive boundlessly under the Fair Tax.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Tax Act of 2003. This bill will promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax. The Fair Tax, commonly referred to as a national sales tax, is a necessary piece of tax reform that, should it pass, upon its inception would uproot our current unjust progressive tax code and replace it with a simpler, fairer one. I believe our antiquated tax code, that was implemented in 1913, and has since been modified numerous times, is overly complicated and desperately in need of an overhaul. We are well beyond rectifying the unfairness in our current system by tinkering around the edges. All Americans are in dire need of unbiased sweeping tax reform--and the fair tax is just that. The Fair Tax Act of 2003 would repeal the individual income tax, the corporate tax, capital gains taxes, all payroll taxes, the self- employment tax and the estate and gift taxes in lieu of a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. The eradication of these taxes will not only bring about equality within our tax system, it will also bring about simplicity. This bill will also provide for tax relief for business-to-business transactions. These transactions, including used product transactions which have already been taxed, are not subject to the sales tax, thereby abrogating any double taxation. Social Security and Medicare benefits would remain untouched under the Fair Tax bill. There would be no financial reductions to either one of these vital programs. Instead, the source of the trust fund revenue for these two programs would be replaced simply by a sales tax revenue instead of a payroll tax revenue. And lastly, under this bill, every American would receive a monthly rebate check equal to spending up to the Federal poverty level according to the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines. This rebate would ensure that no American pays taxes on the purchase of necessities. The Fair Tax creates a fairer, simpler code that allows every American the freedom to determine his or her own priorities and opportunities. Ronald Reagan once said, ``I believe we really can, however, say that God did give mankind virtually unlimited gifts to invent, produce and create. And for that reason alone, it would be wrong for governments to devise a tax structure or economic system that suppresses and denies those gifts.'' I couldn't agree more. And as long as we continue to operate under our current skewed tax code, we will continue to suppress and deny these unlimited gifts to the American people who would otherwise thrive boundlessly under the Fair Tax.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Multi- employer Pension Security Act of 2003. This bill will strengthen and protect the defined pension benefits of thousands of workers. These workers have no other choice than to participate in the pension fund that their employer offers. However, it is not just the employees who need these plans to be reformed, but many employers realize that to be fiducially responsible that these reforms need to be made as well. Nearly 44 million working Americans participate in defined benefit pension plans. Of that amount, almost ten million people, approximately 25 percent of all those who have defined pensions, participate in multi-employer plans. Single-employer plans are completely managed under a different system. Although recent policy debate has focused primarily on single-employer plans, my reasoning in introducing this legislation today is to broaden the pension plan debate by dealing with the myriad of problems facing multi-employer pension plans. This bill, the ``Multi-employer Pension Security Act,'' will provide millions of active and retired workers who participate in these plans with the long-term security of knowing their promised benefits will be funded and safeguarded. This reform legislation is necessary and long overdue. The funding levels in single-employer pension plans have been greatly affected by stock market losses, a sluggish economy and record-low interest rates. These events have impacted multi-employer plans also. However, the issues affecting multi-employer plans are much broader than that. These plans operate under a fundamentally different structure. The main difference between single and multi-employer plans is that there is no minimum funding level required in multi-employer plans. Losses can mount until simply there is no more money and benefits cannot be paid to the participants in multi-employer pension plans. My bill will correct his deficiency in current law. This proposed legislation would address the lack of adequate funding standards existing within the multi-employer pension plan system. Also hardworking employees who participate in these multi-employer pension funds do not currently have the guarantee of insurance. When a multi- employer pension plan is defunct or goes bankrupt, there is no Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to rely on--because multi-employer plans do not fall under the guise of the PBGC structure. My bill will address that and give the folks participating in a multi-employer plan the same governmental oversight as provided to participants of single- employer plans. Again, I introduce the Multi-employer Pension Security Act today because we, as a nation, must tackle these issues now to prevent further deterioration of these plans and we must be willing to assure our constituents that their promised pensions are available to them as retirees currently and in the future. Single-employer plans must not be the only pension plan that Congress considers changes to because we are also responsible to the almost ten million Americans participating in multi-employer pension plans as well. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation. We must engage in a discussion that will lead to positive changes in multi-employer pension plans now.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cumberland Island National Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act. With the introduction of this important legislation, we will be able to better preserve and manage one of Georgia's unique islands. The purpose of this bill is to allow for more efficient management of the Cumberland Island National Seashore and to preserve the historical and ecological significance of the island. As one of Georgia's Golden Isles, Cumberland Island is truly a historical and ecological masterpiece encompassing 36,415 acres. The island contains a 5000-year history of human habitation that is inscribed into the natural landscape of the island. This history can be seen by visiting the early Indian burial grounds to the vast plantations that were once home to abundant corn, cotton, and rice fields, as well as the workers who tended the land. And we cannot forget about the rich ecological environment found on Cumberland Island. It is one that many sea turtles, marsh microorganisms, and abundant shore birds call home amongst the numerous dune fields, salt marshes, and maritime forest areas. These historic and natural resources are important elements of Cumberland Island's past, present, and future. As many of you know, I am an avid outdoorsman and conservationist. I am a supporter of sound wildlife management and the preservation of our Nation's unique and complex history. Another key point that I wish to make is that this history has been preserved for all of us to see and experience. Under the enactment of Public Law 97-250, 96 Stat. 709, in 1982, Congress designated approximately 8,840 acres of Cumberland Island as wilderness under the national wilderness preservation system and authorized an additional 11,718 acres to be designated as potential wilderness. Currently, the main road on the island passes through the designated wilderness area. Due to the location of the designated wilderness area, access to historic settlements such as: Plum Orchard Mansion and Dungeness, both former homes of Andrew Carnegie descendants; the First African Baptist Church established in 1893 and rebuilt in the 1930s; as well as the High Point/Half Moon Bluff historic district, is severely restricted. Such restrictions make it extremely difficult for visitors to experience this unique collection of Georgia's history and diverse ecology. I believe that history and nature can best be appreciated when one is given the opportunity to experience it first hand. It is vitally important for the unique history and ecology of Cumberland Island to be properly managed and protected so that many generations to come will be able to experience this beautiful treasure found in the State of Georgia. The nature and history of Cumberland Island needs to be preserved and managed in such a manner that will allow many generations to experience this golden treasure of Georgia. The Cumberland Island National Seashore Wilderness Boundary of 2003 will do just that. This bill will allow for greater access to key areas of the island by removing the Main Road, the Spur Road to Plum Orchard, as well as the North Cut Road from the previously designated wilderness area. Further, the bill allows for the addition of 210 acres to the wilderness area upon acquisition by the National Park Service. I should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest that we open this land to the public for further habitation and degradation of the area's natural history and ecological habitats. The purpose of this bill is very simple--I want to improve the management and preservation of Cumberland Island's history and diverse ecosystem so that others in the future will be able to experience and learn about the treasures of the Golden Isles and all that they represent. It is crucial that Cumberland Island's history and unique ecosystem is properly managed and protected. We want to ensure that these treasures are available to all of our Nation's citizens to experience and enjoy. This bill allows Congress to address this issue and to make the necessary changes so that Cumberland Island can remain as one of Georgia's treasured Golden Isles for many years to come.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cumberland Island National Seashore Wilderness Boundary Act. With the introduction of this important legislation, we will be able to better preserve and manage one of Georgia's unique islands. The purpose of this bill is to allow for more efficient management of the Cumberland Island National Seashore and to preserve the historical and ecological significance of the island. As one of Georgia's Golden Isles, Cumberland Island is truly a historical and ecological masterpiece encompassing 36,415 acres. The island contains a 5000-year history of human habitation that is inscribed into the natural landscape of the island. This history can be seen by visiting the early Indian burial grounds to the vast plantations that were once home to abundant corn, cotton, and rice fields, as well as the workers who tended the land. And we cannot forget about the rich ecological environment found on Cumberland Island. It is one that many sea turtles, marsh microorganisms, and abundant shore birds call home amongst the numerous dune fields, salt marshes, and maritime forest areas. These historic and natural resources are important elements of Cumberland Island's past, present, and future. As many of you know, I am an avid outdoorsman and conservationist. I am a supporter of sound wildlife management and the preservation of our Nation's unique and complex history. Another key point that I wish to make is that this history has been preserved for all of us to see and experience. Under the enactment of Public Law 97-250, 96 Stat. 709, in 1982, Congress designated approximately 8,840 acres of Cumberland Island as wilderness under the national wilderness preservation system and authorized an additional 11,718 acres to be designated as potential wilderness. Currently, the main road on the island passes through the designated wilderness area. Due to the location of the designated wilderness area, access to historic settlements such as: Plum Orchard Mansion and Dungeness, both former homes of Andrew Carnegie descendants; the First African Baptist Church established in 1893 and rebuilt in the 1930s; as well as the High Point/Half Moon Bluff historic district, is severely restricted. Such restrictions make it extremely difficult for visitors to experience this unique collection of Georgia's history and diverse ecology. I believe that history and nature can best be appreciated when one is given the opportunity to experience it first hand. It is vitally important for the unique history and ecology of Cumberland Island to be properly managed and protected so that many generations to come will be able to experience this beautiful treasure found in the State of Georgia. The nature and history of Cumberland Island needs to be preserved and managed in such a manner that will allow many generations to experience this golden treasure of Georgia. The Cumberland Island National Seashore Wilderness Boundary of 2003 will do just that. This bill will allow for greater access to key areas of the island by removing the Main Road, the Spur Road to Plum Orchard, as well as the North Cut Road from the previously designated wilderness area. Further, the bill allows for the addition of 210 acres to the wilderness area upon acquisition by the National Park Service. I should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest that we open this land to the public for further habitation and degradation of the area's natural history and ecological habitats. The purpose of this bill is very simple--I want to improve the management and preservation of Cumberland Island's history and diverse ecosystem so that others in the future will be able to experience and learn about the treasures of the Golden Isles and all that they represent. It is crucial that Cumberland Island's history and unique ecosystem is properly managed and protected. We want to ensure that these treasures are available to all of our Nation's citizens to experience and enjoy. This bill allows Congress to address this issue and to make the necessary changes so that Cumberland Island can remain as one of Georgia's treasured Golden Isles for many years to come.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for no more than 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I will have a lot more to say about it later.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight in response to the comments of my friend, the Senator from Florida, about the report that was issued today about September 11. There were a lot of innuendoes and direct statements by the Senator from Florida with respect to the administration, faults on the part of the administration leading up to September 11 and the connection of causation between the administration and some deficiencies with the administration and September 11. Nothing could be further from the truth. My friend from Florida made the comment that the lack of resources in our intelligence community played a big part in the intelligence deficiencies that allowed September 11 to happen. I agree with him 100 percent. What he failed to say is that this administration had been in office less than 8 months when September 11 happened. This administration had not even been through an appropriations cycle. It is this body and the House that made the appropriations over the last several years that, in fact, did lead to a decline in resources, with the leadership of the previous administration, that caused the resources not to be put in the right place, that allowed the problems within the intelligence community to arise. The Senator mentioned certain declassification, or failure to declassify certain aspects of the September 11 report that were not included in the report that was released today. Again, he is exactly right. But there is a reason for that. The public does have a right to know everything we can tell them about the facts leading up to September 11. But the intelligence community does not have the right and should not release information relative to sources and methods. The intelligence community is a very complex community. The intelligence community has human assets in place all around the world, gathering information from an intelligence standpoint that is important to saving the lives of Americans. In addition to that, we have methods of gathering intelligence that we simply cannot disclose and divulge to people we are gathering that intelligence from, or it will reduce or significantly lessen, or maybe even not allow us to gather information from them. So it is very important that we not release sources and methods. Last, let me say my friend made the comment about secrecy on the part of this administration, this President. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Secrecy is not the issue here, as set forth in that report that was released today. The real issue as set forth in that report is the protection of America and the protection of Americans. This administration had done everything within its power leading up to September 11 to make sure the intelligence community had the ability to gather intelligence and that the law enforcement community had the ability to interrupt and disrupt intelligence activity. Unfortunately, as was concluded in the report today--the Senator from Florida was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee that participated in that report--that report says that, in spite of everything, there is nothing that could have been done on the part of the intelligence community that would have prohibited September 11 from happening. What we need to be aware of and what the American people need to be aware of is that the intelligence community has learned a lesson from September 11, and we are moving forward to make sure our children and our grandchildren live in a safe and secure America just like we have enjoyed. We have a lot of recommendations within that report that are being followed today to make sure America is a safer place. While I commend the men and women--and I was part of it--who worked very hard to get that report together, there is a lot of information in that report that was not declassified and which should not be declassified so that we can have a safer and more secure America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for a Homeland Security mission at Ford Gordon. Fort Gordon has been recognized as possessing a number of homeland security resources.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senior Senator from Georgia for his question. Implementing a training mission at Fort Gordon would provide our country with the necessary combination of diverse military and civilian assets to better prepare us in the future from any threats to our national security. It is extremely important that we establish a homeland security mission, and for the record I would like to make it known that the committee has noted that this bill makes available $60 million for a competitive training grant program and I would encourage Fort Gordon to put in for an application for these available funds. I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia. corrections to senate report 108-86