Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know of no further requests for time on our side this evening so I am prepared to yield back, and I do, the 76 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I inquire of the Presiding Officer, the 76 minutes is for today's debate, as opposed to tomorrow's; correct?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his excellent statement. I appreciate the perspective he brings. Given his own experience as a U.S. Attorney, he has a special appreciation for that part of Judge Chertoff's career, and his endorsement will carry a lot of weight with our colleagues. How much time is remaining for the debate today?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and the ranking Democratic member on the committee for his statement. He has applied his usual good judgment in coming to the conclusion that Judge Chertoff deserves his support and in urging our colleagues to vote for him when the vote finally occurs tomorrow. The Senator from Alabama is seeking to speak on the nomination. I yield 15 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico wishes to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business on an issue unrelated to this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that he be so recognized but that the time he consumes be taken from the minority side on this debate.

Ms. COLLINS. My good friend from Michigan is one of the best debaters in the Chamber. He is a thoughtful Member. I suspect he may at one time in his career have been an extraordinary trial lawyer. However, we are not putting Judge Chertoff on trial. This is a confirmation hearing. This debate is not about the names of certain employees within the Justice Department. It is about whether we feel the need to challenge the sworn testimony of a distinguished public servant. Judge Chertoff has already told us, under oath, that he was not aware of any practices at Guantanamo that ``even approach torture.'' So what does my good friend from Michigan want to ask these Justice Department officials? The answer is, whether they talked to Michael Chertoff about interrogation techniques, the precise question that Judge Chertoff has already answered in the negative. There is no basis to doubt Judge Chertoff's sworn testimony before the committee. He has answered all of the questions over and over again. The only reason to get the names of these Justice Department employees is to challenge the veracity of his answers. There is no basis for that. There is nothing in his background, in his testimony, in his answers to us that should lead us to question him further about this unless there is new evidence that appears that suggests he was less than truthful with the committee. There is no such evidence. This issue is not related to his fitness to serve in this very important position. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I start my remarks by putting this debate in context. Senator Levin, with whom I proudly serve not only on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee but also on the Senate Armed Services Committee, catalogued some of the interrogation techniques used by certain DOD personnel that for many months have disturbed all of us. They have led us to hold hearings in the Armed Services Committee and they have led the Intelligence Committee to embark upon an investigation of the interrogation techniques used by certain CIA employees. But today's debate is about Michael Chertoff. It is about whether Michael Chertoff, who has repeatedly assured us by direct testimony under oath and in written responses to questions that he has had nothing to do with the interrogation policy, should be confirmed to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I want to make that very clear. The debate today is not about the interrogation policies, the techniques that led to abuses that disturb and concern us all. The debate today is about the fitness, the qualifications, and the character of Judge Michael Chertoff for this very important position. I turn to some of the testimony that Judge Chertoff gave in response to questions from Senator Levin and other members of the committee. I note that his testimony before the committee was sworn testimony. He was under oath, as are all of the nominees who come before our committee. As this chart shows, Judge Chertoff testified as follows: I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of Justice . . . if there were practices in Guantanamo that would be torture or anything even approaching torture. In response to another question, he said: I don't recall having any discussion about techniques that the Defense Department was using in Guantanamo other than simply the question of whether interrogations or questioning down there was effective or not. I was never informed or had no knowledge at the time . . . about any use of techniques in Guantanamo that were anything other than what I would describe as kind of plain vanilla. Again, in response to a posthearing question submitted for the record by Senator Levin: [T]he tenor of the discussion was what information was being furnished by detainees and whether detainees should be encouraged to talk by providing offers of favorable treatment in return for information. I recall no discussion of mistreatment of detainees. Mr. President, I quote from those responses because they are unambiguous. In addition, in the prehearing questions, Judge Chertoff stated unequivocally his opposition to torture, no matter where it might occur. Senator Levin has expressed his concern that the Department of Justice has refused to release information redacted from an e-mail discussing the interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. I do not believe the information Senator Levin seeks is relevant to the important issue at hand, the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. Nonetheless, let's review what we know about this e-mail. The first question that my colleagues might well ask about this e-mail is: Did Michael Chertoff write the e-mail? The answer to that question is no. Then my colleagues might say: Was the e-mail addressed to him? Again, I inform my colleagues that it was not. The answer is no. My colleagues might ask: Was he a recipient of this e-mail? Was he cc'd on it, or bcc'd on the e-mail? Again, the answer is no. Well then, you might ask: Was Michael Chertoff named in the e-mail? Again, the answer is no. In fact, you may ask: Had Michael Chertoff even seen the e-mail prior to the day of his nomination hearing? Again, the answer is no. Is it surprising that Judge Chertoff testified that he had never seen the e-mail prior to the day of the hearing? Again, the answer is no, it is not surprising at all because the e-mail was drafted a year after Judge Chertoff had left the Department. The real question, then, is what an unredacted copy of this e-mail could possibly add to our evaluation of Judge Chertoff's qualifications for the job of Secretary of Homeland Security? Senator Levin has said that since this e-mail refers to some discussions that may have taken place while Judge Chertoff was at the Department of Justice--even though the e-mail was written more than a year after he left the Department of Justice--Senator Levin says that if we got the names of the Criminal Division staff who met with the FBI regarding the interrogation techniques, we could attempt to question the officials mentioned in the e-mails in order to, and I am quoting Senator Levin, ``refresh Judge Chertoff's recollection of these matters.'' First, I must say that the contention that we would need to know the names and then go back and question Judge Chertoff in order to refresh his recollection is, in my judgment, demeaning to Judge Chertoff. He was straightforward in his testimony. He answered all the questions that were posed to him, both before the hearing, at the extensive hearing, and after the hearing. He was unequivocal in his testimony on this issue. As I have shown you with the previous posters, he said: I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of Justice if there were practices at Guantanamo that would be torture or anything even approaching torture. Second, the suggestion that we should question DOJ officials about Judge Chertoff's sworn testimony is one that I reject outright because what we are saying is that it assumes Judge Chertoff was not being candid with the committee. There is no evidence of that. There is no indication at all that he was not completely truthful and forthright with the committee. Judge Chertoff has already testified under oath. I see no reason why we should not take his testimony, his sworn testimony, at face value. This is particularly true when there is nothing in the e-mail that suggests his testimony was not accurate. We have no reason to believe it was not accurate. I would have to ask, have we become so cynical about the good people who are making extraordinary sacrifices to serve their country? If this is what the confirmation process is becoming all about, then I fear that very good people are going to say, No. They are going to say, It is not worth having my honesty questioned when all I am trying to do is to serve my country. I remind my colleagues that Judge Chertoff is giving up a lifetime appointment on one of the most prestigious courts in our country in order to answer the call to serve in one of the most difficult, the most thankless jobs in the Federal Government. It troubles me deeply that we have delayed his nomination, that there are some who are saying, No, I want to check on this testimony more, when there is no evidence to suggest that is warranted. We need a strong leader in place at the Department of Homeland Security. It has been 13 days since Secretary Ridge has vacated that position. We know the Department has problems--that there are management problems, there are policy challenges. We need to get the Secretary in place as soon as possible. He needs to be able to get his team in place to tackle the serious security issues and management challenges facing the Department. I think our country is very fortunate to have someone with the background, the experience, the intellect, the qualifications, and the integrity of Judge Chertoff who is willing to serve. I think we should have confirmed him last week, and I think we need to get him in place without further delay.

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

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank and commend the Senator from Florida for his ongoing concern and interest in the operations of FEMA. At the Senator's request, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has initiated an investigation into the FEMA expenditures in his State as well as some other States where similar issues have arisen. We are working very closely with the Inspector General in conducting that investigation. I appreciate the Senator's interest in requesting the committee to conduct this investigation. I note that the Senator's more recent concerns, in his discussions with Judge Chertoff, are yet another reason why it is so critical we get Judge Chertoff confirmed and in place. The Department of Homeland Security faces a myriad of management challenges, and we need a strong Secretary on the job as soon as possible. The hearing the committee held was almost 2 weeks ago. I think it is very unfortunate that we did not move ahead and confirm the nominee last week. I think the Senator from Florida has given yet another example of some of the challenges Judge Chertoff will face. So I appreciate the comments of the Senator, my colleague from Florida. We look forward to continuing to work with him on this investigation and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FEMA.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security. Based on my personal interview with him and his sworn testimony last week before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I am convinced that he has the character and the qualifications to excel in what is one of the most challenging and demanding positions in all of Government. Let me begin my remarks today by first expressing my gratitude to the person whom Judge Chertoff seeks to replace. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, Tom Ridge answered the call of service to his country. At a time when homeland security was little more than a concept, Tom Ridge stepped forward to begin the monumental task of making it a reality. He is a pioneer and a patriot. On behalf of all Americans, I thank Secretary Ridge and I wish him great success in his future endeavors. Judge Chertoff now steps forward to answer this call. The strengths and experience he brings are impressive. He has devoted a significant part of his life to public service as a Federal prosecutor in New Jersey, as head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, and now as a Federal judge. As the overwhelming vote for his judicial confirmation 2 years ago demonstrated, as well as the unanimous vote by the Homeland Security Committee, he is well respected on both sides of the aisle. Since 9/11, Judge Chertoff has established himself as the leading expert on the legal and national security issues surrounding the war on terrorism. The debate on this nomination will take place in the context of where the Department of Homeland Security currently stands and where we want it to go. For the context to be complete, however, it is important we also consider the environment into which the Department was born. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on our country on September 11, America was a nation determined to defeat terrorism, but we were still feeling our way toward an effective response. We knew from the start that protecting America from terrorism could not come at the cost of the freedoms that define us as Americans. In those perilous, uncertain days, however, the proper balance between the two seemed somewhat different than it does now in the relative comfort of today. Judge Chertoff recognizes the need for a constant reevaluation to maintain the proper balance between liberty and security. This is how he put it in a speech he gave at Rutgers Law School in 2003: Measures that are easily accepted in the sudden response to overwhelming crisis demand somewhat greater testing in the light of experience. In the heat of the battle, the decisionmaker has to rely on foresight because he has no hindsight. We should not, therefore, judge him in hindsight. But at the same time, when hindsight does become available, we would be foolish if we did not take advantage of the lessons for the future. As to the nature of that balance, here is what Judge Chertoff said in response to a question I posed to him during his confirmation hearing: I believe that we cannot live in liberty without security, but we would not want to live in security without liberty. Judge Chertoff does not just talk the talk of civil liberties; he has walked the walk. As both of my distinguished colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Corzine, pointed out when introducing this nominee to the committee, Michael Chertoff, as counsel to that State's legislature, played a key role in investigating allegations of racial profiling in traffic stops and in crafting legislation to address this important civil liberties issue. Nowhere is the tension between security and civil liberties more evident than in the matter of interrogating those detained in the war on terrorism. In his responses to our committee's written questions, Judge Chertoff made it absolutely clear that he believes torture is wrong, no matter where it occurs. His commitment to upholding the due process rights of those detained for immigration violations was unambiguous. His commitment to civil liberties is clear. At the same time, there is no doubt that he is a tough-minded enforcer of the law. As a Federal prosecutor, he built his strong reputation for aggressively fighting organized crime, corruption, and fraud in both the public and private sectors. His success in those fights was helped greatly by his willingness to work closely with agencies that are now part of the Department of Homeland Security, such as Customs and the Secret Service, as well as with first responders such as State and local police. In fact, on a recent trip to the Los Angeles area to study the security of our ports, I asked a wide variety of law enforcement officials what they thought of the nomination of Judge Chertoff. To a person, they enthusiastically endorsed his nomination. They felt his law enforcement background was precisely what the Department needs at this stage of this development. I also point out, as head of the criminal division at the Department of Justice in the aftermath of September 11, Michael Chertoff underwent a true trial by fire, managing a critical organization during a time of great stress. He knows what is needed to fight the war on terrorism, the importance of strategic planning, and the need to constantly improve information sharing and cooperation among agencies at all levels of Government. Our Nation will benefit greatly from these attributes and from the experiences he has had. The broad philosophy Judge Chertoff brings to this position is impressive, but so is his understanding of the myriad nuts-and-bolts issues that comprise Homeland Security. I was so impressed, when I questioned him in the first interview in my office, with his extraordinary knowledge of all facets of the Department and its programs and policies. Coming from a State that is a major transportation center, Judge Chertoff knows the dangers we face from land, air, and sea, and the specific dangers each mode of transportation presents. But as he made clear to my committee, he also knows if we devote an inordinate share of scarce resources to one transportation mode, it will only increase our vulnerabilities elsewhere. I note that is one of the challenges this Congress is going to face in allocating Homeland Security grant moneys. If we focus too much of the funding on large cities, inevitably it will be our smaller towns and communities that are exploited by terrorists. We should always remember that while their targets may be our large population centers, the terrorists who trained prior to the September 11 attacks did so in small communities throughout our country. Indeed, two of the terrorists on that terrible day started their journey of death and destruction from Portland, ME. Those are some of the challenges Judge Chertoff will face. What most impressed me was Judge Chertoff's answer to my question of why, having just attained a lifetime position at the pinnacle of his profession less than 2 years ago, a position as a judge on one of the most prestigious courts in our country, he would sacrifice all that he had gained to take on such a difficult job. I was so impressed with his response because it shows the measure of this man, his willingness to sacrifice for his country and his commitment to putting the needs of our Nation first before his own personal needs. Here is his answer: September 11 and the challenge it posed was, at least by my lights, the greatest challenge of my generation and it was one that touched me both personally and in my work at the Department of Justice. The call to serve in helping to protect America was the one call I could not decline. What inspiring words: The call to serve in helping to protect America was the one call I could not decline. Judge Chertoff stepped forward to answer the call of his country to serve in this difficult and demanding post and to give up a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. It is often pointed out that the job we are here to fill is so extraordinarily difficult because the stakes and the expectations are so high. We do not expect the Secretary of Transportation to eliminate all highway fatalities. We do not expect the Secretary of Labor to make layoffs obsolete. But the Secretary of Homeland Security is allowed no margin of error. In his statement to my committee, Judge Chertoff said he cannot promise such perfection. Indeed, no one can. But he did promise to work tirelessly and to do everything within the law to keep our Nation safe. That promise, combined with his character, qualifications, and extraordinary experience, makes it a privilege for me to enthusiastically present his nomination to my colleagues in the Senate. That background is also why I personally am very disappointed the Senate did not act last week to confirm this nominee. It has now been 13 days since Tom Ridge vacated the Office of Secretary of Homeland Security. It is an urgent task for the Senate to act to confirm his replacement as soon as possible. I am disappointed a small minority on the other side of the aisle has sought to delay this nomination, first by objecting to a prompt markup by the committee and now by asking for extended debate. I am pleased my colleagues recognized the need to move fairly quickly and agreed to a vote on this nominee last week. However, given the extraordinary qualifications of this nominee, his willingness to serve the country, the extraordinary demands of this job, and the urgent need for there to be a new Secretary in place as soon as possible, I simply do not understand the decision by a few of my colleagues--and only a few of my colleagues--on the other side of the aisle to hold up this nominee. I hope we can conclude the debate expeditiously. It is so important we confirm Judge Chertoff so he can begin the very hard work of taking over this Department and pursuing policies to help keep us safe and make us more secure. I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be equally charged.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for ernporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home state of Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height of the tourism season. On January 4, a mere three months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would immediately stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas already will have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by the simple fact of their later tourism season. Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and they can be avoided. Today, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski and Gregg, along with several other of my distinguished colleagues, in introducing the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last year, as well as legislation that I have introduced in the current Congress, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years. This legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the current system by limiting the number of H-2B visas that can be issued in the first 6 months of the fiscal year to no more than 33,000 visas, or one half of the total number of visas available under the cap. By allocating visas equally between each half of the year, employers across the country, operating both in the winter and summer seasons, will have a fair and equal Opportunity to hire these much-needed workers. In addition, this legislation includes important new anti-fraud provisions that will strengthen our ability to detect, prevent, and deter, fraud by those who would seek to abuse the H-2B program. These include sanctions for employers who are found to have misrepresented II If facts on an H-2B petition, and the creation of a Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee of $150 for each H-2B petition. Similar to anti-fraud fees charged in other visa categories, funds raised from this fee will be placed in an account with the U.S. Treasury and made available to the agencies involved in processing H-2B visas--CIS, the Department of Labor, and the Department of State--to educate and train employees to recognize and protect against fraud in the visa applicant process. I believe that this anti-fraud fee serves a worthy goal, and that the government agencies should have the resources they need to ensure the integrity of the H-2B visa application process. However, I am concerned about the impact that a fee of this size, in addition to the filing fees that employers already pay, may have on many smaller businesses. I intend to examine this issue further in order to ensure that smaller businesses are not unfairly impacted by this provision. We must act quickly on this legislation, or we will be too late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate solutions. In my home state of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the state's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an important role in this very important industry. Unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In Fiscal Year 2003, the last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer summer after summer. Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before CIS will process the visa applications. In Maine, as in other States, our state Department of Labor takes the lead in ensuring that employers have taken sufficient steps to try to find local workers to fill the positions. Unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many seasonal jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer. A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the state where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this happens, it is American workers that may lose their jobs. The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league baseball teams. It win affect small businesses and large, visitors and locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska. Mr. President, the shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to move forward. We must resist the tendency to let this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger debate about our Nation's immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our Nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act being introduced by Senator Mikulski today. This legislation offers a measured approach to provide needed relief to the many small businesses that have been struggling to find enough employees to operate during seasonal spikes in workload. Small businesses that are seasonal often need a large number of employees for a short portion of the year, but cannot afford to retain the same number of people as full-time, year-round employees. They instead must rely on temporary workers to fill the gap in their high season. In my home State of Maryland, for example, our seafood processors are busy in the summer and early fall, but have very little work in the winter. To accommodate this changing need, they hire college students and local residents as extra workers in the summer. But even with those workers they often find themselves short-staffed. So they turn to temporary employees who are willing to leave their home countries for a few months to come to the U.S. and work. Specifically, the bill being introduced today will allow anyone who has had an H-2B visa for one of the last 3 years to return this summer or next if an employer petitions for them to do so. Importantly, employers still must demonstrate that they have tried and failed to find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill these jobs before they file an H-2B visa application. In addition, the bill would ensure that our summer employers are not disadvantaged by allowing no more than half of the 66,000 visas to be allocated in the first half of the year. Finally, the bill imposes antifraud fees on employers who willfully misrepresent any statement on their H-2B petition and requires the Department of Homeland Security to file reports on the demographics of those utilizing the H-2B program. Any changes to our immigration laws must balance the interests of U.S. citizens and our economy while providing a fair, legal framework for those seeking to come to our Nation from other countries. For example, our current immigration laws already contain several general reasons an alien seeking admission into the United States may be denied entry: security and terrorist concerns, health-related grounds, criminal history, public charge, i.e., indigence, seeking to work without proper labor certification, illegal entry and/or immigration law violations, lack of proper documents, ineligibility for citizenship, and previous removal. Ensuring the safety of our country requires preserving these categories. This legislation would leave this existing framework intact. It simply provides a fair and equitable means of distributing a very scarce number of visas so that all employers who require extra assistance during one season of the year may obtain that assistance. We must resist the temptation to let the H-2B situation and the small businesses affected by it become entangled in the larger debate over immigration reform. Workers who use H-2B visas come to the U.S. for a temporary period of time and are required to leave when that time period has run. These workers respect our laws, work hard, provide services that benefit our economy, and then return to their families at the end of the season. For their sake and that of the small, seasonal businesses that rely on them, we need to resolve this H-2B crisis soon. Without this fix, our seafood processors cannot operate at full capacity. That becomes a problem for the rest of the seafood industry, including our watermen, who will be forced to curtail their fishing because of an insufficient number of locations to process their catches. In the end, the people who suffer are not the seafood processors or the temporary workers but the watermen who cannot feed their families. This bill provides the assistance necessary to keep our watermen, seafood processors, and a number of other industries such as landscapers, pool operators, and summer camps working at full capacity this summer. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for ernporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home state of Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height of the tourism season. On January 4, a mere three months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would immediately stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas already will have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by the simple fact of their later tourism season. Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and they can be avoided. Today, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski and Gregg, along with several other of my distinguished colleagues, in introducing the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last year, as well as legislation that I have introduced in the current Congress, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years. This legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the current system by limiting the number of H-2B visas that can be issued in the first 6 months of the fiscal year to no more than 33,000 visas, or one half of the total number of visas available under the cap. By allocating visas equally between each half of the year, employers across the country, operating both in the winter and summer seasons, will have a fair and equal Opportunity to hire these much-needed workers. In addition, this legislation includes important new anti-fraud provisions that will strengthen our ability to detect, prevent, and deter, fraud by those who would seek to abuse the H-2B program. These include sanctions for employers who are found to have misrepresented II If facts on an H-2B petition, and the creation of a Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee of $150 for each H-2B petition. Similar to anti-fraud fees charged in other visa categories, funds raised from this fee will be placed in an account with the U.S. Treasury and made available to the agencies involved in processing H-2B visas--CIS, the Department of Labor, and the Department of State--to educate and train employees to recognize and protect against fraud in the visa applicant process. I believe that this anti-fraud fee serves a worthy goal, and that the government agencies should have the resources they need to ensure the integrity of the H-2B visa application process. However, I am concerned about the impact that a fee of this size, in addition to the filing fees that employers already pay, may have on many smaller businesses. I intend to examine this issue further in order to ensure that smaller businesses are not unfairly impacted by this provision. We must act quickly on this legislation, or we will be too late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate solutions. In my home state of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the state's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an important role in this very important industry. Unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In Fiscal Year 2003, the last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer summer after summer. Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before CIS will process the visa applications. In Maine, as in other States, our state Department of Labor takes the lead in ensuring that employers have taken sufficient steps to try to find local workers to fill the positions. Unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many seasonal jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer. A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the state where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this happens, it is American workers that may lose their jobs. The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league baseball teams. It win affect small businesses and large, visitors and locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska. Mr. President, the shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to move forward. We must resist the tendency to let this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger debate about our Nation's immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our Nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act being introduced by Senator Mikulski today. This legislation offers a measured approach to provide needed relief to the many small businesses that have been struggling to find enough employees to operate during seasonal spikes in workload. Small businesses that are seasonal often need a large number of employees for a short portion of the year, but cannot afford to retain the same number of people as full-time, year-round employees. They instead must rely on temporary workers to fill the gap in their high season. In my home State of Maryland, for example, our seafood processors are busy in the summer and early fall, but have very little work in the winter. To accommodate this changing need, they hire college students and local residents as extra workers in the summer. But even with those workers they often find themselves short-staffed. So they turn to temporary employees who are willing to leave their home countries for a few months to come to the U.S. and work. Specifically, the bill being introduced today will allow anyone who has had an H-2B visa for one of the last 3 years to return this summer or next if an employer petitions for them to do so. Importantly, employers still must demonstrate that they have tried and failed to find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill these jobs before they file an H-2B visa application. In addition, the bill would ensure that our summer employers are not disadvantaged by allowing no more than half of the 66,000 visas to be allocated in the first half of the year. Finally, the bill imposes antifraud fees on employers who willfully misrepresent any statement on their H-2B petition and requires the Department of Homeland Security to file reports on the demographics of those utilizing the H-2B program. Any changes to our immigration laws must balance the interests of U.S. citizens and our economy while providing a fair, legal framework for those seeking to come to our Nation from other countries. For example, our current immigration laws already contain several general reasons an alien seeking admission into the United States may be denied entry: security and terrorist concerns, health-related grounds, criminal history, public charge, i.e., indigence, seeking to work without proper labor certification, illegal entry and/or immigration law violations, lack of proper documents, ineligibility for citizenship, and previous removal. Ensuring the safety of our country requires preserving these categories. This legislation would leave this existing framework intact. It simply provides a fair and equitable means of distributing a very scarce number of visas so that all employers who require extra assistance during one season of the year may obtain that assistance. We must resist the temptation to let the H-2B situation and the small businesses affected by it become entangled in the larger debate over immigration reform. Workers who use H-2B visas come to the U.S. for a temporary period of time and are required to leave when that time period has run. These workers respect our laws, work hard, provide services that benefit our economy, and then return to their families at the end of the season. For their sake and that of the small, seasonal businesses that rely on them, we need to resolve this H-2B crisis soon. Without this fix, our seafood processors cannot operate at full capacity. That becomes a problem for the rest of the seafood industry, including our watermen, who will be forced to curtail their fishing because of an insufficient number of locations to process their catches. In the end, the people who suffer are not the seafood processors or the temporary workers but the watermen who cannot feed their families. This bill provides the assistance necessary to keep our watermen, seafood processors, and a number of other industries such as landscapers, pool operators, and summer camps working at full capacity this summer. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Brunswick Naval Air Station, which is in my own home State of Maine, is a facility of great importance to our Nation's military. While I could reflect today upon the bravery and tenacity of the P-3 Orion pilots at Brunswick who have supported the global war on terrorism, today I share with my colleagues the significant benefits and strategic advantages that Brunswick Naval Air Station offers our efforts in the areas of homeland defense and maritime interdiction operations. As we look toward the future, and develop new tools to address future threats, we must ensure that these tools are located in facilities where their advanced capabilities can be fully utilized. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that a white paper, authored by Ralph Dean, one of Brunswick's great advocates, entitled Homeland Defense and Maritime Interdiction Operations, be printed in the Congressional Record. The white paper provides significant insight on the great advantages that Brunswick Naval Air Station offers.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 300 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Rural Home Health Payment Fairness Act to extend the additional payment for home health services in rural areas for 2 years. This 5 percent add-on payment is currently scheduled to sunset on April 1st of this year. Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled--and often technically complex--services that our Nation's home health caregivers provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes. I have accompanied several of Maine's caring home health nurses on their visits to some of their patients. I have seen first hand the difference that they are making for Maine's elderly. Surveys have shown that the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required to cover long distances between patients, higher transportation expenses, and other factors. Because of the longer travel times, rural caregivers are unable to make as many visits in a day as their urban counterparts. The Executive Director of the Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in Northern Maine, where I am from, tells me her agency covers 6,600 square miles with a population of only 73,000. Her costs are understandably much higher than other agencies' due to the long distances her staff must drive to see clients. Moreover, her staff is not able to see as many patients in one day as she would like. Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs, particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are spread over a much smaller number of patients and visits, increasing overall per-patient and per-visit costs. Moreover, in many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary caregivers for homebound beneficiaries with limited access to transportation. These rural patients often require more time and care than their urban counterparts, and are understandably more expensive for agencies to serve. If the extra rural payment is not extended, agencies may be forced to make decisions not to accept rural patients with greater care needs. That could translate into less access to health care for ill, homebound seniors. The result also would likely be that these seniors would be hospitalized more frequently and would have to seek care in nursing homes, adding considerable cost to the system. Failure to extend the rural add-on payment will only put more pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on very narrow margins and could force some of these agencies to close their doors altogether. Many home health agencies operating in rural areas are the only home health providers in large geographic areas. If any of these agencies were forced to close, the Medicare patients in that region could lose all their access to home care. The bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Feingold, Lugar, Bond, Landrieu, Burns, Murkowski, Thomas, Cochran, Santorum, Lincoln, Jeffords, Conrad and Leahy will help to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services they need. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Rural Home Health Payment Fairness Act to extend the additional payment for home health services in rural areas for 2 years. This 5 percent add-on payment is currently scheduled to sunset on April 1st of this year. Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled--and often technically complex--services that our Nation's home health caregivers provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes. I have accompanied several of Maine's caring home health nurses on their visits to some of their patients. I have seen first hand the difference that they are making for Maine's elderly. Surveys have shown that the delivery of home health services in rural areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the extra travel time required to cover long distances between patients, higher transportation expenses, and other factors. Because of the longer travel times, rural caregivers are unable to make as many visits in a day as their urban counterparts. The Executive Director of the Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in Northern Maine, where I am from, tells me her agency covers 6,600 square miles with a population of only 73,000. Her costs are understandably much higher than other agencies' due to the long distances her staff must drive to see clients. Moreover, her staff is not able to see as many patients in one day as she would like. Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher. Smaller agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs, particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are spread over a much smaller number of patients and visits, increasing overall per-patient and per-visit costs. Moreover, in many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary caregivers for homebound beneficiaries with limited access to transportation. These rural patients often require more time and care than their urban counterparts, and are understandably more expensive for agencies to serve. If the extra rural payment is not extended, agencies may be forced to make decisions not to accept rural patients with greater care needs. That could translate into less access to health care for ill, homebound seniors. The result also would likely be that these seniors would be hospitalized more frequently and would have to seek care in nursing homes, adding considerable cost to the system. Failure to extend the rural add-on payment will only put more pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on very narrow margins and could force some of these agencies to close their doors altogether. Many home health agencies operating in rural areas are the only home health providers in large geographic areas. If any of these agencies were forced to close, the Medicare patients in that region could lose all their access to home care. The bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today with Senators Feingold, Lugar, Bond, Landrieu, Burns, Murkowski, Thomas, Cochran, Santorum, Lincoln, Jeffords, Conrad and Leahy will help to ensure that Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home health services they need. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home State of Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height of the tourism season. On January 4, a mere 3 months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would immediately stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas will already have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by their later tourism season. Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and they can be avoided. This is why I am today introducing the Summer Operations and Seasonal Equity Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last year, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years. Ths legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the current system by requiring that no fewer than 12,000 visas be made available in each quarter of the fiscal year. By holding back a limited number of visas for use in each quarter, we will ensure that employers across the country, operating in all four seasons, have a fair and equal opportunity to hire these much- needed workers. We must act quickly on this legislation, however, or we will be too late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate solutions. In my home State of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the State's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an important role in this very important industry. This is because, unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In fiscal year 2003, the last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer summer after summer. Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before CIS will process the visa applications. Therefore, unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many of these jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer. A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the State where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this happens, it is American workers who may lose their jobs. The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league baseball teams. It will affect small businesses and large, visitors and locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska. The shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to move forward with this solution. We must resist the tendency to let this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger debate about our Nation's immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home State of Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height of the tourism season. On January 4, a mere 3 months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would immediately stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas will already have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by their later tourism season. Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and they can be avoided. This is why I am today introducing the Summer Operations and Seasonal Equity Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last year, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years. Ths legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the current system by requiring that no fewer than 12,000 visas be made available in each quarter of the fiscal year. By holding back a limited number of visas for use in each quarter, we will ensure that employers across the country, operating in all four seasons, have a fair and equal opportunity to hire these much- needed workers. We must act quickly on this legislation, however, or we will be too late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate solutions. In my home State of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the State's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an important role in this very important industry. This is because, unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In fiscal year 2003, the last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer summer after summer. Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before CIS will process the visa applications. Therefore, unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many of these jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer. A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the State where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this happens, it is American workers who may lose their jobs. The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league baseball teams. It will affect small businesses and large, visitors and locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska. The shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to move forward with this solution. We must resist the tendency to let this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger debate about our Nation's immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States. Judge Gonzales's story is truly inspirational. A man from humble beginnings--Humble, TX, to be precise--he grew up in a modest home built by his father and uncle where he lived with his parents and seven brothers and sisters with no hot water and no telephone. His parents were migrant workers who never even finished elementary school, but they believed in the American dream. They worked hard to give their children an education and to instill in them the American values of personal responsibility and hard work. At the age of 12, Alberto Gonzales had his first job selling soft drinks at Rice University football games where he dreamed of one day going to college. Through determination, intelligence, and hard work, he achieved his dream. He graduated from Rice University, the first in his family to earn a college degree, and went on to excel at Harvard Law School. Alberto Gonzales is a dedicated public servant. He has served his country in many capacities, including his service in the U.S. Air Force, as a judge on the Texas Supreme Court, and as Texas secretary of state. Judge Gonzales knows well that holding a public office involves a bond with the American people. He has proven himself as a man of integrity and with the highest professional qualifications. That is why Judge Gonzales has broad support from groups and individuals across our country. His nomination is supported by the Hispanic National Bar Association, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the FBI Agents Association, to name just a few of these groups. He also has bipartisan support from those who know him best, including leading Democrats, for example, Henry Cisneros, who served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Clinton. Mr. Cisneros, a former mayor of San Antonio, writes: In the 36 years that I have voted, I have supported and voted for only one Republican. That was when Alberto Gonzales ran for election to the Texas Supreme Court. I messaged friends about this uncommonly capable and serious man [and] I urged them to support his campaign. . . . He is now President Bush's nominee to be Attorney General of the United States and I urge his confirmation. I have had the personal opportunity to meet with Judge Gonzales to discuss many issues over the last few years on many different occasions. I have always found him to be a man who honored his commitments, who kept his promises. I know he is a leader who is dedicated to protecting America, to following the Constitution, and to applying the rule of law. The position of the Attorney General is as challenging a job as ever given the post-9/11 environment, but I am confident that as our Nation's chief law enforcement officer, Judge Gonzales will continue the progress we have made in fighting the war against terrorism, in combating crime, in strengthening the FBI, and in continuing to protect our cherished civil liberties. As Judge Gonzales himself said regarding his nomination: The American people expect and deserve a Department of Justice guided by the rule of law, and there should be no question regarding the Department's commitment to justice for every American. On this principle there can be no compromise. Alberto Gonzales, the man from Humble, is committed to ensuring justice for each and every American. He is committed to the rule of law. He deserves our confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for his confirmation. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico for allowing me to precede him.

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