Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen children. Today, they face deportation having exhausted all administrative remedies under our immigration system. The Fulop's story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief. The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May of 2000, when the Fulops eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15 year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star of his family. That same year their six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, she successfully underwent heart surgery, but. requires medical supervision to ensure her good health. The Fulop's youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being closely monitored by physicians. Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for permanent resident status. Due to large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had taken effect. Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulop's application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with U.S. citizen children and many positive factors in their favor. The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother is handicapped and they went to help remodel his home. The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry contractor and the owner and president of his own construction company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for 12 years and currently has three full-time employees. The couple is active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school and community.'' This is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief ceased to exist. The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on the children, all of whom were born here and who range from three years old to 19 years of age. Their eldest, Dennis, is a 4.0 honor student at Palomar Community College. His sister, Linda, has a 3.8 grade point average, is an honor student in high school, and is also taking one class at Palomar Community College. It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States given their many years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen children. I ask unanimous consent that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA. Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by her parents 16 years ago. Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is the only home they know. Six years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car collided with a truck on an isolated rural road. The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are U.S. citizens with two children of their own. They took the Marquez children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez children. Sadly, the Marquez family received bad legal representation. At the time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship that would result from deportation under such extraordinary circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect. Today, their younger brother Omar is on track to lawful permanent residence status as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration status. I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears on his way to being disbarred. I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family for much longer. Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia and Jose finished school and now work together in a pet grooming store in Redwood City, where Claudia is the store manager. They support themselves, and they are dedicated to their community and devoted to their family. In fact, last year Claudia became the legal guardian of her 14-year-old sister Maribel, who lives with her and Jose at their home in Redwood City. Omar, now 17 years old, continues to live with the Alcalas so as not to interrupt his studies at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Again, Maribel is a U.S. citizen, and Omar is eligible for a green card. Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there now? It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching separation. Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Claudia Rico.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our Nation's neediest students. Title I provides assistance to almost every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high numbers of low- income students, from preschool to high school. Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail. This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind.'' While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law. I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States as possible. During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill. Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds. In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures. What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.'' Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration. Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report. The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used-- to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report. The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: The lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met. This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country. Current law on Title I is much too vague. It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.'' Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous. The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used. Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting. I believe we should give the Department, States and districts a clearer guidance in law. This legislation would: Define Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensure that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received . . . for indirect instructional services.'' By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I distribution. Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide. Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. Developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments. Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: Business services relating to administering the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs. Buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development. My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: first, I believe that states must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service. I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them. If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens. It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is only about 9 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools. That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve. Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of federal funds to improve academic achievement. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that important goal. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a minimum wage increase that provides American workers a raise with no strings attached. It has been nearly a decade since the minimum wage was last increased. We can no longer afford to delay action, and millions of hard-working Americans deserve better. The Federal minimum wage today is only $5.15 per hour. Someone who works at this rate for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year takes home less than $11,000 annually far below the poverty line for families. Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour would impact nearly 13 million Americans, the majority of whom are women, 59 percent, and people of color, 40 percent. Eighty percent of those impacted would be adult workers, and most are full-time employees. The consequences of nearly a decade of inaction are clear. Almost 40 million Americans live in poverty, 13 million of whom are children. Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 would add nearly $4,400 to a minimum wage worker's annual income, representing, for many families, the difference between self-sufficiency or living below the poverty line. For most Americans, the choice is clear. In the last election, voters in six States Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Ohio supported initiatives to increase their State minimum wages. In fact, 29 States, nearly 60 percent, have a minimum wage above the Federal level. I am proud that my own State of California has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, at $7.50 per hour, increasing to $8.00 per hour next year. Many California cities and counties stipulate that workers must be paid a living wage, which in some cases guarantees an additional $3 or $4 per hour. There are two options before the Senate today. This body can act swiftly and stand behind nearly 13 million workers, Or we can delay action, by modifying the legislation before us to include $8.3 billion in tax breaks for small businesses. Packaging the minimum wage bill with these tax cuts is disadvantageous to businesses and minimum wage workers. Adding a tax package creates procedural hurdles that could significantly delay implementation of this wage increase. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes linking these small business tax breaks to this legislation because many of the tax provisions are only temporary extensions. They do not provide the long-term relief that businesses seek. Considering the package of small business tax cuts separately would facilitate a more robust discussion of how small businesses the primary job creators in this country can receive genuine relief from the rising costs of operations. Many small business owners would suffer no adverse impact if the minimum wage were increased. A recent Gallup Poll in the Sacramento Business Journal showed that 86 percent of small business owners surveyed do not believe that an increase in the minimum wage would harm their businesses. Nearly 75 percent of small business owners thought that a 10 percent minimum wage increase would have no impact on their businesses at all. More than half of those polled thought the minimum wage should actually be increased. The evidence shows that increasing the minimum wage does not adversely affect the economy. In fact, in Los Angeles and San Francisco, raising wages added stability to many businesses and the local economy. In San Francisco, turnover for home-care workers fell by 57 percent after the city implemented its living wage policies. The average job tenure of workers in fast food restaurants increased by 3.5 months. In Los Angeles, businesses affected by a living wage ordinance had one-third less turnover among low wage earners, and absenteeism declined. Higher wages improve worker loyalty and increase employee retention, while decreasing employee hiring and training costs. Let me be clear: I support many of the tax cuts for small businesses. I think they should be considered, with the proper offsets, as part of a separate revenue-neutral tax bill. But they should not be included in this must-pass minimum wage bill. Ensuring that all American workers receive fair pay for a hard day's work should not be a partisan issue. The House overwhelmingly passed this legislation by a vote of 315 to 116, with more than 80 Republicans crossing party lines to support this cause. Congress has increased the minimum wage nine times since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Only once, in 1996, was a minimum wage increase paired with tax cuts. The purchasing power of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. The cost of living is up 26 percent since the last minimum wage increase in 1997. It is unfair to punish hard working people and make them wait for an increase. We must not delay. We must not bog down this bill with procedural tactics. American workers deserve better. I urge my colleagues to do what is fair and just: Pass a clean minimum wage bill. Let's provide immediate relief to those who need it most. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Inouye, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, and Collins to close the SUV loophole. This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would increase the combined fleet average for all automobiles--SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars--from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2019. The high price of oil is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S. India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable. The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely. This legislation is an important first step to limit our Nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment. If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 2.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, almost the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. It would also prevent about 350 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from being emitted into our atmosphere by 2025. This is an 18 percent reduction, the equivalent of taking 60 million cars--or 50 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year. This bill would also save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs. CAFE standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars. Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles. The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2013 that passenger cars meet today. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks. In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said. With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so. As a first step, by model year 2010, passenger cars must meet an average fuel economy standard of 29.5 mpg, and SUVs and light trucks must meet 23.5 mpg. By way of comparison, passenger cars in model year 2005 averaged 30 mpg, light trucks averaged 21.8 mpg, and the overall combined fleet average is 25.2 mpg. The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore. We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming. We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States. Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water. Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea. Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were. Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe. It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer. The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy. And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector. The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly. Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent. On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year. The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the new Congress begins work, I am pleased to join with Senator Domenici in addressing one of the most serious and intractable problems facing the Nation--restoring the long- term fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare. Today we propose a bipartisan, independent and permanently existing commission to return these essential programs to solid financial footing for generations to come. Our legislation mandates the periodic, comprehensive review of Social Security and Medicare to ensure their present and future solvency. By a year from the date of enactment, it requires the Commission to devise and recommend to Congress and the President a benefit and revenue structure that allows Social Security and Medicare to become, once again, stable and effective. A key aspect of the bill is that its mission is ongoing indefinitely. Every five years the Commission returns with new recommendations--small tweaks or larger adjustments, whatever is necessary--to keep these entitlement programs in actuarial balance. Since 2005, the President, Congress and the Nation have stalemated over the issue of privatizing Social Security. The issue remains contentious. Recent press articles suggest the Administration would be prepared to drop carve out accounts as the price of overall reform. Meanwhile, the Social Security funding shortfall is projected to balloon to roughly $4.6 trillion over the next 75 years to pay all scheduled benefits. This unfunded obligation has increased by $600 billion alone over the last year. Medicare is in far worse shape, needing $11.3 trillion over the next seventy-five years to close the gap and remain in balance. The 2006 report from the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security is alarming to say the least. They describe the current path of spending for both as ``problematic'', ``unsustainable,'' ``severe'', and in ``poor fiscal shape.'' In sum the Trustees say that ``the problems of both programs are driven by inexorable demographics, and, in the case of Medicare, inexorable health care cost inflation, and are not likely to be ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.'' Simple numbers tell the story: growing cash flow deficits will exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 2018, and Social Security reserves will be overcome in 2040, according to the Trustees report. Our legislation takes a new approach and is bipartisan to the core. Instead of emphasizing the merits of one proposal over another, we wipe the slate clean. Fifteen experts, some of whom are Members of Congress from the committees of jurisdiction, are appointed. They take a full year to conduct town hall meetings nationwide, assess these trillion dollar programs from top to bottom, and rationalize their cost structure through intensive evaluation. We advocate an open process, where all American voices can be heard. We have learned in the last two years that these issues effectively surpass the Congress' and President's ability to reach a compromise. Relying strictly on elected officials to meet privately and out of the public view to negotiate a multi-trillion agreement I believe risks more failure. We have no demonstrated track record since 2005 of being able to achieve bipartisan consensus. And there are no new developments of late that suggest a different outcome than more partisan gridlock. I know Majority Leader Reid is instructing on certain members of the Senate to gather and discuss these issues in the coming months. I hope it works. But I basically share his outlook for the prospects of a bipartisan deal: ``It's a tremendous long shot. If you were a Las Vegas bookmaker, you'd put the odds pretty [long] for being able to do that.'' The Commission we propose would not be offering one-time solutions that get tossed aside and collect dust. Far from it: the Commission's detailed analysis, nonpartisan recommendations and findings are provided in writing and take the form of legislation that Congress formally considers. The Senate and House, in turn, through expedited legislative procedures, will hopefully be poised to amend if need be and then enact the changes into law. Compromise, in the form of increasing payroll tax revenues or other fees and cutting benefits, is the inevitable reality which we face. Senator Domenici and I are focused on creating a pathway to reach that compromise. We do not hold out, today, certain ideas that we believe Commission Members ought to consider. We rely on their independent expertise and motivation to derive what is best for the Nation. Then we let the chips fall where they may from there. The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said two years ago that we had little time to waste in fixing Social Security. He endorsed the notion of establishing a Commission, much like the one he led in 1983 that led to historic changes in the program. His congressional testimony bears repeating: This is not a hugely difficult problem to solve . . . And I guess what is missing is the fact that at this stage there has been a rather low interest in actually joining, in finding out where some of the agreements are, and I have a suspicion that when that occurs, that will happen. It may well be that some mechanism such as that which we employed in 1983 may be a useful mechanism to get groups together and find out where there are agreements. I tend to think what happens in these debates is nobody talks about what they agree about but only about what they differ about. And something has got to give soon because we do not have the choice of not resolving this issue. Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right that it is only a matter of time that we implement Social Security reform. That is because 48 million people, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, depend on it. And by 2050, an astounding 82 million Americans will receive this guaranteed benefit. For more than 20 percent of retirees, Social Security is it: their only source of income. For half of those 48 million, Social Security keeps them out of poverty. And for almost two-thirds, Social Security makes up more than half of their total income. 4.8 million widows and widowers rely on Social Security, as do 6.8 million disabled workers and 4 million children. The long-term challenges are significant. It is not a crisis, we have time to implement gradual reform over time, but we need to get started. While the current projected shortfall for Social Security amounts to about $4.6 trillion, the fact of the matter is that 100 percent of benefits can be paid until 2040 by some estimates (Social Security Administration) or 2046 by others (CBO). Beyond that time horizon, 73 percent of benefits can be paid. So the bottom line is, there is time, the know-how, and the resources to be able to maintain the current system, with phased adjustments occurring over many years to the Social Security Trust Fund. The key, of course, is coming to a rational consensus--Democrats and Republicans united--in the effort to make Social Security solvent from this day forward. Most budget experts agree that the Social Security problem pales in comparison to the enormous shortfall facing the Medicare Trust Fund (Part A)--over the next 75 years a total of $11.3 trillion. The various technical estimates are that Medicare is projected to become insolvent far sooner than Social Security. In fact the most recent Medicare Trustees report confirms that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2018, yet the number of beneficiaries skyrockets upwards--from 42.7 million now, a number which will double by 2030--as the Baby Boom generation ages. Compounding the problem, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will rise to 11 percent of the gross domestic product by 2080, up from 3.21 percent of GDP in 2006. And the number of those paying into the system gets smaller and smaller: in 2000, 4 workers supported every Medicare beneficiary. That number shrinks to 2.4 workers per beneficiary by 2030. The plain truth is that surging health care costs need to come under control or Medicare faces a dire situation. Because the program is financed through payroll taxes on working Americans, and general tax revenue, the pressure is building now on working Americans, given the huge demographic changes we expect when Baby Boomers retire. In closing let me share one pertinent fact from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees and their 2006 report: ``to the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required.'' The time to act is now, and Senator Domenici and I believe that our legislation represents a reasonable and good faith step for curing what ills these vital safety net programs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Inouye, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, and Collins to close the SUV loophole. This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would increase the combined fleet average for all automobiles--SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars--from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2019. The high price of oil is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S. India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable. The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely. This legislation is an important first step to limit our Nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment. If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 2.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, almost the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. It would also prevent about 350 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from being emitted into our atmosphere by 2025. This is an 18 percent reduction, the equivalent of taking 60 million cars--or 50 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year. This bill would also save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs. CAFE standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars. Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles. The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2013 that passenger cars meet today. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks. In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said. With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so. As a first step, by model year 2010, passenger cars must meet an average fuel economy standard of 29.5 mpg, and SUVs and light trucks must meet 23.5 mpg. By way of comparison, passenger cars in model year 2005 averaged 30 mpg, light trucks averaged 21.8 mpg, and the overall combined fleet average is 25.2 mpg. The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore. We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming. We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States. Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water. Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea. Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were. Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe. It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer. The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy. And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector. The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly. Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent. On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year. The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the new Congress begins work, I am pleased to join with Senator Domenici in addressing one of the most serious and intractable problems facing the Nation--restoring the long- term fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare. Today we propose a bipartisan, independent and permanently existing commission to return these essential programs to solid financial footing for generations to come. Our legislation mandates the periodic, comprehensive review of Social Security and Medicare to ensure their present and future solvency. By a year from the date of enactment, it requires the Commission to devise and recommend to Congress and the President a benefit and revenue structure that allows Social Security and Medicare to become, once again, stable and effective. A key aspect of the bill is that its mission is ongoing indefinitely. Every five years the Commission returns with new recommendations--small tweaks or larger adjustments, whatever is necessary--to keep these entitlement programs in actuarial balance. Since 2005, the President, Congress and the Nation have stalemated over the issue of privatizing Social Security. The issue remains contentious. Recent press articles suggest the Administration would be prepared to drop carve out accounts as the price of overall reform. Meanwhile, the Social Security funding shortfall is projected to balloon to roughly $4.6 trillion over the next 75 years to pay all scheduled benefits. This unfunded obligation has increased by $600 billion alone over the last year. Medicare is in far worse shape, needing $11.3 trillion over the next seventy-five years to close the gap and remain in balance. The 2006 report from the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security is alarming to say the least. They describe the current path of spending for both as ``problematic'', ``unsustainable,'' ``severe'', and in ``poor fiscal shape.'' In sum the Trustees say that ``the problems of both programs are driven by inexorable demographics, and, in the case of Medicare, inexorable health care cost inflation, and are not likely to be ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.'' Simple numbers tell the story: growing cash flow deficits will exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 2018, and Social Security reserves will be overcome in 2040, according to the Trustees report. Our legislation takes a new approach and is bipartisan to the core. Instead of emphasizing the merits of one proposal over another, we wipe the slate clean. Fifteen experts, some of whom are Members of Congress from the committees of jurisdiction, are appointed. They take a full year to conduct town hall meetings nationwide, assess these trillion dollar programs from top to bottom, and rationalize their cost structure through intensive evaluation. We advocate an open process, where all American voices can be heard. We have learned in the last two years that these issues effectively surpass the Congress' and President's ability to reach a compromise. Relying strictly on elected officials to meet privately and out of the public view to negotiate a multi-trillion agreement I believe risks more failure. We have no demonstrated track record since 2005 of being able to achieve bipartisan consensus. And there are no new developments of late that suggest a different outcome than more partisan gridlock. I know Majority Leader Reid is instructing on certain members of the Senate to gather and discuss these issues in the coming months. I hope it works. But I basically share his outlook for the prospects of a bipartisan deal: ``It's a tremendous long shot. If you were a Las Vegas bookmaker, you'd put the odds pretty [long] for being able to do that.'' The Commission we propose would not be offering one-time solutions that get tossed aside and collect dust. Far from it: the Commission's detailed analysis, nonpartisan recommendations and findings are provided in writing and take the form of legislation that Congress formally considers. The Senate and House, in turn, through expedited legislative procedures, will hopefully be poised to amend if need be and then enact the changes into law. Compromise, in the form of increasing payroll tax revenues or other fees and cutting benefits, is the inevitable reality which we face. Senator Domenici and I are focused on creating a pathway to reach that compromise. We do not hold out, today, certain ideas that we believe Commission Members ought to consider. We rely on their independent expertise and motivation to derive what is best for the Nation. Then we let the chips fall where they may from there. The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said two years ago that we had little time to waste in fixing Social Security. He endorsed the notion of establishing a Commission, much like the one he led in 1983 that led to historic changes in the program. His congressional testimony bears repeating: This is not a hugely difficult problem to solve . . . And I guess what is missing is the fact that at this stage there has been a rather low interest in actually joining, in finding out where some of the agreements are, and I have a suspicion that when that occurs, that will happen. It may well be that some mechanism such as that which we employed in 1983 may be a useful mechanism to get groups together and find out where there are agreements. I tend to think what happens in these debates is nobody talks about what they agree about but only about what they differ about. And something has got to give soon because we do not have the choice of not resolving this issue. Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right that it is only a matter of time that we implement Social Security reform. That is because 48 million people, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, depend on it. And by 2050, an astounding 82 million Americans will receive this guaranteed benefit. For more than 20 percent of retirees, Social Security is it: their only source of income. For half of those 48 million, Social Security keeps them out of poverty. And for almost two-thirds, Social Security makes up more than half of their total income. 4.8 million widows and widowers rely on Social Security, as do 6.8 million disabled workers and 4 million children. The long-term challenges are significant. It is not a crisis, we have time to implement gradual reform over time, but we need to get started. While the current projected shortfall for Social Security amounts to about $4.6 trillion, the fact of the matter is that 100 percent of benefits can be paid until 2040 by some estimates (Social Security Administration) or 2046 by others (CBO). Beyond that time horizon, 73 percent of benefits can be paid. So the bottom line is, there is time, the know-how, and the resources to be able to maintain the current system, with phased adjustments occurring over many years to the Social Security Trust Fund. The key, of course, is coming to a rational consensus--Democrats and Republicans united--in the effort to make Social Security solvent from this day forward. Most budget experts agree that the Social Security problem pales in comparison to the enormous shortfall facing the Medicare Trust Fund (Part A)--over the next 75 years a total of $11.3 trillion. The various technical estimates are that Medicare is projected to become insolvent far sooner than Social Security. In fact the most recent Medicare Trustees report confirms that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2018, yet the number of beneficiaries skyrockets upwards--from 42.7 million now, a number which will double by 2030--as the Baby Boom generation ages. Compounding the problem, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will rise to 11 percent of the gross domestic product by 2080, up from 3.21 percent of GDP in 2006. And the number of those paying into the system gets smaller and smaller: in 2000, 4 workers supported every Medicare beneficiary. That number shrinks to 2.4 workers per beneficiary by 2030. The plain truth is that surging health care costs need to come under control or Medicare faces a dire situation. Because the program is financed through payroll taxes on working Americans, and general tax revenue, the pressure is building now on working Americans, given the huge demographic changes we expect when Baby Boomers retire. In closing let me share one pertinent fact from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees and their 2006 report: ``to the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required.'' The time to act is now, and Senator Domenici and I believe that our legislation represents a reasonable and good faith step for curing what ills these vital safety net programs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there have been a variety of proposals for what has been called an Office of Public Integrity. The Senate voted 67 to 30 against one such proposal last year. Last time, Senators Johnson and Voinovich, the chairs of the Ethics Committee, stood in opposition. This time, the new chairs of the Ethics Committee, Senators Boxer and Cornyn, stand in opposition. I recognize the strong interest in this issue, especially by Senators Lieberman, Collins, Obama, Feingold, McCain, and others. I have spoken with Senator Obama about it. I have assured him that we would hold a hearing in the Rules Committee and that we would take a look at this proposal and what might or might not be done. I will vote against this amendment, and I will see that the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hold these hearings. They will focus on these proposals and ways of strengthening ethics enforcement in the Senate. Let me say this now. I do believe we need to take great care in how we do this. Yes, we need to reassure the public that those who run afoul of the Senate rules will be held accountable. But we must make sure this does not simply become a new tool used by political opponents who would seek to manipulate the political process by filing false claims. You can be sure that the minute a claim becomes public, without any verification as to its veracity, and is released to the public, that claim will be a 30-second spot in someone's campaign. That is not what we are about. We have to also ensure that we do not create an office--with a special prosecutor bound and determined to justify his or her existence by creating an atmosphere of ongoing investigation--that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. The Constitution provides: Each House of Congress may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. Our Founders knew the importance of this and placed it in article I. The challenge we face right now is how to do it right and ensure that the tough ethics rules we are putting in place will be vigorously overseen and enforced. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I propound a unanimous consent request, I would very much like to thank both leaders. I know this has been a difficult day. I think it has worked out, and I think that is to the good. I hope everyone else who has waited hour after hour understands that the leadership was in negotiations and there is a product of those negotiations. I, also, thank the ranking member with whom it has been a great pleasure for me to work. Members should know that we are new. Members should know that our staffs are new to the committee and that this is their first bill on the floor. I believe they have done an excellent job, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. It is a kind of baptism of fire, if you will. I say thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send a manager's package to the desk. It combines a number of technical corrections requested by the Parliamentarian, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Indian Affairs Committee. It is concurred in by both sides.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc, with the motions to reconsider laid on the table, and that the action thereupon appear separately in the Record. The amendments are: Vitter amendment No. 9; Ensign-Demint amendment No. 98; Coburn amendment No. 51; Feingold amendment No. 31; Feingold amendment No. 33; Durbin amendment No. 77; Obama amendment No. 41; Sanders amendment No. 57; and Coleman-Cardin amendment No. 39, as modified. I believe this has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senators Craig, Kennedy, Martinez, Boxer, Voinovich, and several others are once again introducing legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me and for the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I hope we will move it forward early in this Congress. The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike. It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this bill forward. The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation report a twenty percent decline in labor. The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to harvest the crops. The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year, according to the American Farm Bureau. California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single largest agricultural State in the Nation. California agriculture accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There are 76,500 farms that produce half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, cotton, just to name a few. Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them. The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit. Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come from foreign sources. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need. We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer. The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented workers to harvest their crops for them. In California alone, we rely on approximately one million undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent of the farm labor payroll. Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and harvest crops according to the season. We must come to terms with the fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS. The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest worker program. The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a ``blue card'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years. The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status. The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to the farm worker. The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year. Blue card workers would have to pay a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as they meet the agricultural work requirements. The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and identification card, which would permit them to work and travel. The total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year period and the program sunsets after 5 years. At the end of the required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card to become a legal permanent resident. There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that individual can be deported. Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500, cannot get a green card and can be deported. This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States. And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers they need. The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs. Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need it. AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system. The labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is replaced by an ``attestation'' process. The employer can file a fax-back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours. The interstate clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer file a job notification with the local office of the State Employment Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place in the local labor market area. Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf of members. The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting'' U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard. Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing available in the area of employment. Inbound and return transportation and subsistence is required on the same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than 100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to provide housing are excluded. The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to H-2A workers. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. Requirements are the same as current law. Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon filing. Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause and the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens who abandoned their work. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant. A new limited Federal right of action is available to foreign workers to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of limitations of 3 years is imposed. Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years. AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested. We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill. This is our opportunity to solve a real problem. I ask my colleagues to join this bipartisan coalition and support this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senators Craig, Kennedy, Martinez, Boxer, Voinovich, and several others are once again introducing legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me and for the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I hope we will move it forward early in this Congress. The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike. It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this bill forward. The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation report a twenty percent decline in labor. The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to harvest the crops. The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year, according to the American Farm Bureau. California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single largest agricultural State in the Nation. California agriculture accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There are 76,500 farms that produce half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, cotton, just to name a few. Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them. The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit. Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come from foreign sources. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need. We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer. The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented workers to harvest their crops for them. In California alone, we rely on approximately one million undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent of the farm labor payroll. Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and harvest crops according to the season. We must come to terms with the fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS. The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest worker program. The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a ``blue card'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years. The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status. The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to the farm worker. The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year. Blue card workers would have to pay a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as they meet the agricultural work requirements. The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and identification card, which would permit them to work and travel. The total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year period and the program sunsets after 5 years. At the end of the required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card to become a legal permanent resident. There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that individual can be deported. Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500, cannot get a green card and can be deported. This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States. And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers they need. The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs. Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need it. AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system. The labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is replaced by an ``attestation'' process. The employer can file a fax-back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours. The interstate clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer file a job notification with the local office of the State Employment Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place in the local labor market area. Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf of members. The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting'' U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard. Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing available in the area of employment. Inbound and return transportation and subsistence is required on the same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than 100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to provide housing are excluded. The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to H-2A workers. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. Requirements are the same as current law. Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon filing. Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause and the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens who abandoned their work. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant. A new limited Federal right of action is available to foreign workers to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of limitations of 3 years is imposed. Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years. AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested. We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill. This is our opportunity to solve a real problem. I ask my colleagues to join this bipartisan coalition and support this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So anyone who doesn't meet the specific confines of the Senator's bill would be forced to lose their job; is that correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair, on line 5, if you substituted ``lobbying'' for ``official,'' I think that would do it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, if I may, I thank the Senator. Perhaps our staffs can get together directly and take a look at this. I appreciate it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield, please?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to ask a couple of questions about the Vitter-Inhofe amendment, amendment No. 3. I think it is one thing if the amendment is prospective and doesn't affect people. I think it is another thing when it is retroactive. I believe our side would accept the amendment if it were, in fact, prospective. The amendment has a complicating factor in addition to that; that is, there is a prohibition against any official contact with any spouse of a Member who is a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. That is not any lobbying contact, it is official contact. Now, what is official contact? Does this mean the spouse, if he or she happens to have been a lobbyist for a substantial period of time, cannot attend the Supreme Court dinner which just took place? That could be interpreted as an official contact. Is it an official contact if the individual calls the scheduler of her husband's or his wife's office and asks for some information on the schedule? I am surprised-- and I didn't know this--that this amendment has the words ``official contact.'' You can be sure that even if it said: Well, it is not an official contact, that someone will make the argument: Oh yes, it is an official contact if you attend the Supreme Court dinner with your spouse. Again, I would repeat, this is retroactive legislation. We know it affects people in this body who have worked, helped support their families. I don't recall another time when we have enacted this kind of legislation. So it concerns me, and it concerns me if it is overly repressive, such as using the words ``official contact.'' I am puzzled as to why, when the majority leader offered that if it had a grandfather clause, we would accept it, it wasn't taken, unless the intent is essentially to sever people from their ability to have anything to do with this body, whether it is simply as a spouse or as a professional. So I have some concerns about this amendment, and I wanted to take this opportunity to express them, and hopefully the author will respond.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator. Mr. SALAZAR addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like to make a very few comments in response to the ranking member's comments, and then I know the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to speak on another matter, so I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized.