Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks in opposition to this resolution by sharing the story of Marine First Lieutenant David Lewis from Spring, TX. Following participation in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M University, he was commissioned on August 10, 2001. He wanted to serve his country, and he found very quickly after he graduated that he would have that opportunity. Lieutenant Lewis has served two terms in Iraq, two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom I and II. During his second tour, on August 5, 2004, Lieutenant Lewis was badly wounded in Najaf, while leading his platoon of 35 Marines into conflict against a group of insurgents. A rocket- propelled grenade grazed off his helmet and exploded, leaving him blinded and severely wounded. He survived the blast, and following numerous surgeries after returning home, he has regained partial vision in one eye. He was awarded the Purple Heart, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with V for his service. But he still wanted to serve his country. He was frustrated by the negative image of the war portrayed by the media. So Lieutenant Lewis came to Washington and applied for a job on my staff. And I am very pleased to report that he is sitting with me on the floor today, a valuable member of my staff. Lieutenant Lewis, like so many of his brothers and sisters in the Armed Forces, has sacrificed for our country, none more than the three who were ambushed just last week and have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Private First Class Menchaca from Houston, TX, Private First Class Tucker from Madras, OR, and Specialist David Babineau from Springfield, MA. We are horrified by what we have heard of the deaths of Private First Class Menchaca and Private First Class Tucker. My thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families. But I cannot imagine anything worse than what has already happened to those two people and their families, along with Specialist Babineau and Lieutenant Lewis, I cannot imagine anything worse than for us to pass a resolution that says we are going to stop our commitment because we just can't take it anymore. It is like saying, the cause for which they have paid such a price really wasn't worth sticking with it. This war on terror must be won at all costs. If we step back and say we are willing to walk away because times are too tough, we have jeopardized the 2,502 who have given the ultimate sacrifice in this war on terror. Furthermore, we are giving away the security of future generations. We are saying that we are not going to protect freedom because it might be too tough. If we did this, the terrorists would surely be emboldened. They attacked us, according to Osama bin Laden, on 9/11 because of our reaction to previous attacks: The USS Cole, the bombings of our embassies in East Africa, Somalia, the bombing of Khobar Towers, and the first attacks on the World Trade Center. We treated it like this was going to be a criminal case, and we had to have justice in court. The terrorists got the message that America's attention span wouldn't last very long, not long enough certainly to see through an entire war on these people who would take away the freedom of our children. I cannot imagine telling the terrorists that if times get too tough, if you are too horrible, if you do things that we cannot even imagine because we are a civilized society, we are going to turn around and run away. I cannot imagine saying that America will not have the stamina to stand up and fight and win a war at all costs for the freedom of future generations. That is the message we would send to our enemies. What about the message we would send to our allies? You know, this resolution and previous resolutions have called on President Bush to get more international involvement in the war on terror. I know President Bush has tried to get international involvement, and we have international involvement. But what country would ever step up to the plate and be by the side of the United States of America in the future if we say: We are going to set a timetable, and if it gets too tough we are going to leave, but we sure appreciate your coming and being with us, until it gets too hard? That cannot be the role of the greatest country on Earth. If we show that kind of weakness, we will no longer have allies, and we will certainly have plenty of enemies. If we establish a timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq by the end of the year or by July of next year, we are handing the enemy our playbook. We would be saying that in 194 days our commitment is going to end. Why they picked 194 days to say that our attention span would last, I don't know. But it would be 194 days for the Government of Iraq to get up and going, for the security forces to be trained, 194 days to root out the insurgency, and 194 days to stand beside our allies and by the Government that is forming in Iraq. That is not the role of the United States of America. It has been mentioned on the floor that there is an opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday from an Iraqi adviser saying Iraq needs to learn from its mistakes and Iraq needs to stand on its own. No one wants Iraq to be able to stand on its own more than the United States of America. We have shown that. But does anyone in this body believe that Iraq is totally in control of Iraqis today? Does anyone believe there are not insurgents and agitators from other parts of the world? Al-Qaida? Iran? Other terrorist organizations that have come into Iraq for the specific purpose of destabilizing that country? If you do believe it is just Iraqis who are there and if everyone else leaves they will be able to settle their differences, then this resolution would be just fine. But that is just a fantasy. Of course there are insurgents from other parts of the world. Of course there is al-Qaida right in the middle of Iraq. The last thing the terrorists want is a stabilized Iraq. That is why they are fighting so hard. So we would say to this fledgling Government that has just been able to get on its feet but is still struggling, that has trained soldiers but not nearly enough because the insurgents continue to bomb their police headquarters and recruiting headquarters, we would say to them: We are going to leave you on your own and hope for the best. Can you imagine what would happen in Iraq if America says we are leaving at the end of this year, we are going to start to pull out troops, and then we are going to finish by July of next year or whatever date would be determined by the authors of this amendment? Who would be in control of Iraq? Anybody who believes that it would be Iraqis, with the condition they are in, is just not looking at the reality. So I cannot think of anything worse that I could say to the family of Private Menchaca, from Houston, TX, or his 18-year-old wife who is with her family, than--the very week that this young man paid a terrible price for a cause he believed in--that we are not really committed to the cause. I cannot imagine anything more disheartening to Lieutenant Lewis, who has already served twice in Iraq and wanted to come and do more for his country, than to say: I am glad you are committed, but the Senate just isn't there with you. No. No. The United States of America and the Senate representing the 50 States of this Nation must not pass a resolution that would walk away from our commitment to the cause of freedom for the citizens of the United States, because that is what is at stake here. It is not the Iraqi people alone in this fight. We are fighting terrorists on their turf. We have not had an attack in the United States of America because we have been vigilant in keeping them on their turf, containing them on their turf, and building up our homeland security at the same time. We must keep the word and the commitment of the greatest Nation on Earth, and we must keep the trust of the people that we are going to keep the will to fight for freedom for their children and their children's children. That is what is at stake in this resolution. I urge my colleagues to think of the consequences of cutting and running from a fight that is much bigger than the stabilization of Iraq. It is for the freedom and the way of life of Americans and our allies throughout the world. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was first elected to the Senate in 1993 in a special election to fill the remainder of Lloyd Bentsen's term. Bob Dole, like my predecessor Lloyd Bentsen, is a member of the ``Greatest Generation'' --the generation of men who never wavered in answering the call to duty, fighting in distant lands to protect the free world, and returning home to build the greatest Nation on Earth. Bob Dole epitomizes the ``Greatest Generation,'' not only for his heroic service in battle, but also for what he did when he came home, ultimately serving in the U.S. Senate. When I first arrived in Washington, Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas was the only other female Republican Senator. Fortunately, our leader Bob Dole understood the unique and important voice women brought to the Senate. He graciously welcomed me from the first day, and I enjoyed working with him as he ascended from minority leader to majority leader. He was great in both roles, and I appreciate the leadership and support he provided in my early days. One of my first discussions with Bob was committee assignments. I told him I wanted to serve on the Armed Services Committee, as there are more military members serving in Texas than any other State. I hoped to carry on the great tradition of helping our men and women in uniform like so many Texas Senators before me. He understood why this committee assignment was important to me and realized the unique perspective I would bring to the national discussion. I was the first woman to sit on this committee in over 30 years. Today, there are three women serving on the Armed Services Committee, including Bob's wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, who was elected after Bob retired from her home State of North Carolina. On the 10th anniversary of Bob Dole's retirement from the Senate, I am proud to honor him for his many accomplishments and tireless service to our country. While we all regretted to see him go, we are grateful for the legacy he left behind, and I hope we can carry it forward for generations to come. He was a giant during his time in this institution, and when the history of the Senate is written, I am confident that he will be fondly remembered as one of our great leaders.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia for allowing me to take this time to speak about the supplemental appropriations bill. I certainly want to start by saying that I think the authorization bill that is before us is a good bill that will authorize the spending for our troops in the field. I plan to speak separately on that later in the week. Today, I want to talk about the supplemental appropriations bill that the Senate will pass at 10 o'clock tomorrow because this is a very important emergency supplemental. Obviously, the majority of this bill, $70.4 billion, is for our military. It is to make sure that we support our men and women in the very important mission that we have asked them to do. I cannot imagine sending our troops into harm's way and not assuring that they have the equipment they need to do the job. So we are doing that in this bill--$70.4 billion for uparmoring of vehicles, for more aircraft, and the Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades that they so desperately need. I am going to take this opportunity to say what a tremendous achievement we have had this week with the death of Abu Mus'ab al- Zarqawi, the head of the operation in Iraq that was behind the heinous crimes on the streets of Iraq day after day after day that we have been seeing. The man who was the mastermind of those atrocities is now gone. It is a significant victory for the intelligence capabilities of our country and our military personnel who achieved this remarkable feat. I hope this will begin another phase in the stabilization of Iraq. Clearly we need to assure that our troops have what they need to do the job. Part of what is in this supplemental appropriations bill is money for training of Iraqi troops, because if we are going to stabilize Iraq, it is going to be with Iraqi security forces. That is what the Iraqis want, it is what we want, it is what our allies want, and it is certainly what the people of the world who believe in freedom want for the people of Iraq. The other part of the bill is one that is very important to my home State of Texas, as well as to Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and the other States that have suffered so much from hurricanes last season. We have never seen the ravages of a hurricane like we saw after Katrina and then Rita following so closely after that. This bill, for the first time, has begun to acknowledge the part that my home State of Texas played in this recovery effort. We had a situation we have never had before in the history of our country. The first hurricane, Hurricane Katrina, did not hit Texas, but Texas had a major part in the disaster recovery. That is because 500,000 people were moved from Louisiana to Texas almost overnight. It was the biggest migration from one State to another in our country's history. It has been a costly endeavor for the people of Texas, one which they have stood up and handled with grace beyond any imagination. But it is time that we reimburse the people of Texas because some of our communities are having to increase taxes to carry the burden, and that is not right. It was a natural disaster for which Texans stepped up to the plate, because we are a neighboring State, to try to handle, and now we have suffered the consequences. This bill helps us in that recovery effort. The first part that is so important for us is the equity in reimbursement rates for the communities hit by Hurricane Rita. Since Hurricane Rita hit in September of 2005, the counties on the Louisiana side of the Sabine River have been able to put up 10 percent, with a 90-percent Federal reimbursement. This has been very helpful to the people of Louisiana. But on the other side of the Sabine River, where the same hurricane hit, our counties have had to put up 25 percent of the cleanup. The result is that much debris has never been cleaned up. Furthermore, we have infrastructure that has not even begun to be repaired. Some counties, in doing the original cleanup, contemplated bankruptcy. They have talked now about having to raise the property tax rates to pay for the cleanup, and some have borrowed money and issued bonds to try to do the cleanup. Bond issues should never be used for that kind of an emergency or any kind of operational expenditure. Bonds are for capital expenditures. They knew that it was not good public policy, but they had no alternative because these are counties which are rural, not rich in property values, and it was a huge strain. In this bill, those 22 counties in East Texas will get the reimbursement rate that has been given on the Louisiana side. I am so grateful to the Senate for doing this in a way that does allow equity for the first time since last September. This has been such a relief to these counties. I have had calls from mayors and county judges who were almost giving up hope because they did not know how they would manage this crisis, and now they see light at the end of the tunnel. I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. I know the bill will pass. I particularly thank Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, Senator Collins, Senator Specter, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kennedy. It was these Senators who helped us get through the equity in reimbursement that will so help our East Texas counties. The other part of this hurricane relief bill is in the educational area. When we had half a million evacuees, we were looking at, of course, educating their children. After an initial enrollment of 43,000 children, mostly in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, some in the East Texas counties that also were hit by Rita, we did agree in a previous supplemental to reimburse these school districts. We authorized impact aid of $6,000 per student to cover the cost of education for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina. However, they were only able to do the reimbursement at a rate of $4,000. So these school districts were taking a hit of $2,000 per student. The current supplemental bridges that gap, which is a huge help for these communities. Just to give one an idea of the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Texas, it is normal to see a two-page ad in a newspaper that advertises polling locations for elections. One would see in any normal election in a county all of the polling places on election day. This newspaper I am holding up doesn't seem to look that unusual. It is a list of polling places for the New Orleans mayor's race. What is interesting is this is the Houston Chronicle. This same ad over two pages appeared in the Dallas Morning News. That is because the number of Katrina evacuees who were going to vote and did vote in the New Orleans mayor's race was significant enough, with a 500,000-person migration after that hurricane, to make a huge difference. There is also a picture on the front page of the Houston Chronicle just before that mayor's race with a billboard for New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin. We can tell just from these anecdotal pieces of evidence that this is an evacuation which is affecting Texas to a huge extent. The $235 million in this bill will help these school districts make up for the deficit they have been funding all year and, again, raising property taxes in Texas to pay for it will not now be necessary. We are going to monitor the enrollment of the number of schoolchildren in these school districts this fall to see if we have large numbers of displaced schoolchildren--because schools are not yet fully open in New Orleans--and we will come back and ask for more supplemental funds for the Katrina evacuees who are not planning to make a permanent home in Texas but are still in our education system. Because of the fairness of the conference committee--and I particularly mention Congressman Kevin Brady, Congressman Ted Poe, Congressman Hal Rogers, and Congressman Henry Bonilla for helping us put forward the case that needed to be made for Texas to show that we had to have some equity in the East Texas counties that were hit by Rita, as well as the educational community that was so affected by the evacuees who came to our State immediately after Katrina. This is going to go a long way toward helping them. We are also hoping to have some of the money for infrastructure reimbursement after Hurricane Rita that is also included in this bill, but it is at the discretion of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. This is a balanced bill. It is the first time we have been able to recognize that though a State wasn't hit by the first natural disaster, it nevertheless had a huge impact on the economy of the State. Our State stepped up to the plate, and this bill begins to equalize the burden our State has carried. I appreciate my colleagues listening to me. I appreciate their help in the original Senate bill. I appreciate the members of the conference committee who did so much to help, and I certainly appreciate the chairman, Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, Senator Collins, Senator Specter, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kennedy for helping us create the equity that will exist when this conference report is agreed to tomorrow. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, how much time is it remaining on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided in the following way: Senators Sessions for 3 minutes, Senator DeMint for 2 minutes 45 seconds, and Senator Hutchison for 2 minutes, and that each be notified of their time when they come to that limit.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we passed a bill in 2001 that actually started lowering the death tax for a 10-year period, and then it will come back in full force. When it comes back in full force, we are going to have up to a 55-percent tax on estates that are over $1 million. What does this mean? It means that if someone owns a farm where the property has appreciated but they cannot possibly produce enough on that farm to pay one lump sum on its value--55 percent of it--we would be breaking up family farms and ranches all over this country. That is what the death tax has been doing for years. In fact, America has the highest death tax in the world. We say we are a country of small businesses, of family-owned businesses, entrepreneurs who have started with nothing and built something, and yet we do the very thing that hurts those small businesses. In fact, they cannot pass to the next generation. Thirty percent of family businesses today pass to the second generation; 13 percent make it to the third generation. That is because the property owned in a business is worth much more in value than it produces. The death tax walks away from the American dream. The American dream is if you come to this country, if you work hard, you can give your children a better chance than you had. The American dream is that you can start with nothing and you can build something if you work hard and you have a good idea. But the death tax walks away from that because it breaks up that family business, it breaks up the ability to accumulate wealth, it interferes with freedom and the free enterprise in this country today. I hope we will not throw people out of jobs, as Senator DeMint just mentioned; that we will not prevent people from giving their kids a better chance than they had. Please vote for cloture today so that we can do the right thing for our country and promote small farms, family- owned businesses, and entrepreneurship once again.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I had originally thought I was going to have 5 minutes to speak. As I understand it, we are kind of running behind. I wondered if there is a 5-minute window that I could have perhaps after Senator Ensign speaks or at some point in this debate. Would 5 minutes be OK now?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would there be any time between now and the vote?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will not ask for that time. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have been debating for the last 2 weeks a bill that is going to change the course of our country. The debate has been good. We have had the ability to offer amendments. Yet, the bill has not changed to the degree it needs to change, to do the job that we must do to assure that we secure our borders. This bill has not yet changed to ensure that we have a temporary worker program that works, that does not discriminate against American workers, and that is fair. If this bill had gone through that process, we could then start dealing with the people who are here in a fair and responsible way. Mr. President, we have benefitted from the immigrants in our country for hundreds of years--people who come here legally and work hard. They make better lives for themselves and their families, and they contribute to our country in the process. They have assimilated into America the ``E Pluribus Unum'' motto: Out of many, one. That has been the factor that has brought us together for all of these years. In the last 10 years, we have watched as millions have ignored our laws. They have come into our country illegally, leaving those who have waited their turn, who have waited for the legal process to work, to wonder if, in fact, they would ever be rewarded for their correct behavior. After 9/11, we all knew that our security was at risk. We have been forced to reexamine the laws of our country as they relate to our borders. Yet nearly 5 years after our country was attacked by people who came in through a porous border, we still have a porous border. We need immigration reform, and we must do it right. There are some good points in this bill. Securing our borders is a part of this bill. I voted against the Budget Act point of order yesterday because I want to spend the money on border security, and it is going to cost money. But that is not the only part of this bill. The rest of the bill has caused an imbalance that cannot stand if we are to look at the big picture for our country. Edwin Meese, the former Attorney General of the United States, warned in a New York Times editorial op-ed that we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of 20 years ago when Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, granting amnesty to those who were in this country. We are in danger of making the same mistake today. Temporary workers are very important for our country. They provide U.S. companies with labor that keeps our economy thriving, and the workers have the opportunity to make better lives for themselves. We also need to make sure that we have some path for people who want to work in this country, but do not want to be citizens. It is important that we balance the rights of American workers' as we take this major step. The Hagel-Martinez guest worker program does grant amnesty, and it forces guest workers into a citizenship track after 6 years, even if that is not what the worker wants or what they intended. In the polls that I have seen, most of the people coming to this country to work do not want to give up allegiance to their home countries, and they still love America. They don't have hostility toward America because they are not citizens. The arguments that I have heard indicating that we want every temporary worker to be a citizen so that they will be loyal to our country, I believe does not hold water. You can be friendly to our country, appreciate and respect our country but not have to go into the citizenship track to do that. People have been doing it for a long time. We do not have the capability in this bill that I tried to put in it yesterday with my amendment that would allow another choice--a choice for people who do want to work in our country, go home, and who do not want the citizenship track. Mr. President, I will not be able to vote for the bill before us today, but I do hope I can vote for a bill that comes out of conference committee, one that will be balanced and one that represents the interests of the American people, as well as treating fairly the foreign workers who come to our country. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time until the Senator is finished with the rebuttal so I can close on my amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate that very much. I will yield to the Senator from Missouri to use the 5 minutes from the Senator from Massachusetts, and then I will wait if the Senator wishes to continue any kind of rebuttal, and then I will reserve my time until he is finished so I can close on my amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to take 10 minutes and then be notified when I have taken 10 minutes so I can reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, there is something missing from the debate that we have had so far. I do think that this debate has been productive. I think it has been civil. I think our differing views have been aired. And I think there has been a fair consideration of the bill on the floor of the Senate. But no one is talking about the underlying cause of the problem of illegal immigration in our country. What can we do about the root cause of the problem? Most of the people who are coming here--not counting the criminals-- the people who come here to do criminal acts, such as drug dealers and human traffickers, people who come into our country surreptitiously to become a part of a movement that would harm our citizens, those people are in a different category. They are criminals. They intend to be criminals. And one of the reasons we are trying to secure our borders is to keep people like that out of our country. But the vast majority of people who are coming across our borders are not people who wish to do us harm. They are people who come here to work, to do better for their families. They want a better life. They are people who want jobs. Their countries do not provide the number of jobs to absorb them into the system. So they go to a neighboring country--our country--to seek those jobs. Is this good for our country? I would say when people have to risk their lives to come here, it is not good for our country. Is it good for Mexico? It is certainly not good for another country to have a mass out-migration, especially because the people who want so much to work and to do better for themselves are the enterprising people of this society. If they had training, education, and opportunity, they would be able to add even more to the economy of Mexico. As it is, their U.S. earnings are the second largest economic producer in Mexico, second only to tourism. We need to start talking about how we can address the issue of jobs in our country, address the issue of illegal immigration as we protect our borders and as we protect the economy of our country, but also to try to do what is right for the people involved in this issue. I rise today, joined by my colleague, Senator Bond, to offer an amendment that is called the Secure Authorized Foreign Employee Visa Guest Worker Program. I am going to call it the SAFE visa. It is for people who want to work in our country but do not wish to be citizens of the United States. It is modeled after the Canadian guest worker program with Mexico that has been in place for over 30 years. Our amendment creates an additional guest worker program available to workers from NAFTA and CAFTA nations. It is a pilot program. It does not displace the guest worker program in the Hagel-Martinez bill. It is another option. It would be one that could be expedited to meet the demand of more workers in certain fields. It would also be something the employers would know is safe for them to hire based on this visa. The amendment seeks to create a new visa category for those individuals who want to enter and work in our country legally but do not seek a path to residency or citizenship in the United States because they want to remain citizens of their country of origin. They would be able to take the money that is earned here and use it to improve their living conditions and the living conditions in their country of origin. Any legislation addressing immigration must firmly address the safety and security needs of the United States. In a world where terrorists continue to seek to harm Americans, we must protect our citizens. We have every right to know who is in our country, who has crossed our borders, the nature, purpose, and length of the visit. We are negligent if we do not know those things. Everyone in the Senate and everyone with whom I talk with wants to secure our borders. I have visited with many of the Hispanic leaders in my home State. I have visited with my Hispanic-American supporters and friends. They all want to secure our borders. They are Americans. They are loyal Americans. They want to secure our borders. I have supported amendments throughout this debate to help secure our borders and to pay for these measures. When I came to the Senate 12 years ago, I started the process of doubling the Border Patrol because we had never sufficiently manned the border. We are still in the process of doing that. We are not nearly where we need to be. We must have a sovereign nation and control our borders. My proposed amendment will not strike any of the provisions of the underlying bill. It will not eliminate the H-2C visa program that has been put into the bill. Instead, it would be adopted so that workers and employers have a choice. The SAFE visa would be tamper proof so that an employer could look at this card, test it, and know it is valid. It would have either a fingerprint or an eye matrix that could not be duplicated, that immediately would let the employer know he or she is able to hire this person because that person is legal. The tamper-proof card enables us to have something employers could count on which is not the case today. Today, an employer is at peril because the employer will look at a Social Security card. It may look perfectly valid, but we all know there are many fraudulent cards out there in the market. The employer cannot be the policeman. There are employers who are doing the wrong thing who should be charged with doing the wrong thing, but there are many employers who try to do the right thing, but we do not have a tamper-proof visa that allows them to do that. Here are the guidelines in my amendment. All SAFE visa applicants would be required to apply while in their home countries. This would be a program generated in the home country. A guest worker would be subject to appropriate background checks and required to present proof of secured employment before receiving the SAFE visa. The employer would be responsible for withholding all standard payroll deductions so that all employees are on an equal footing. You would not put the foreign employee under the American employee, thereby giving an advantage to the foreign employee. Medicare withholdings for SAFE cardholders would go into a fund to pay for emergency health care provided to foreign workers. The SAFE visa holder would not be eligible for Medicare, and therefore the money that goes from the Medicare deduction would go into a fund to pay for uncompensated health care that would be provided to foreign workers in our country. This has been an issue for hospitals all across our country that are serving the illegal aliens in our country. They are not compensated. It is a burden on these hospitals which we can relieve with this program. The program would be structured for a maximum of 10 months per year of work. The person would then go home for 2 months and would be able to come back and renew his or her job on an annual basis. It would be like a driver's license but annually renewable. A SAFE visa holder could remain in the program as long as they continue to meet the qualifications. The visa would be terminated if the worker is unemployed for 60 or more consecutive days. The SAFE visa worker would not be eligible for Social Security Programs such as welfare or unemployment compensation. They would be able to take what is deducted from their paychecks for Social Security home with them when they retire from the SAFE visa program. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Bond.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4101.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 5 minutes to the cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Bond.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, I have 5 minutes remaining on my time which I wish to reserve for any rebuttal, and then I will be finished.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just clarify that the remaining amount of Senator Kennedy's time would go to Senator Sessions for questions, and then I would have 5 minutes after that to close; is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Alabama, and then I will use the remainder of my time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for letting us have the colloquy. It is so important that we recognize that we are in a system that does not work right now. We have 11 million people living under the radar screen. That is not good for them, and it is not good for our country. Since we had 9/11 and the wake-up call, we now know that we must secure our borders first. We must also not ignore the invaluable contributions made by immigrants. We are a country of immigrants, of course. Many of us in this body had parents or grandparents who were immigrants, who were the first to come to this country. They have known hardship. They have assimilated. That is a good thing. Why not have another option for people who would not want to go the citizenship route but who could work. Some of these temporary worker permits in the underlying bill are limited to 3 years or 6 years. The SAFE visa is not limited at all. As long as the person still qualifies and there is a willing employer, the employer can train someone and know that they will come every year and be able to keep that training. It is a 10-month program, but any employer can figure out that they would hire one group of workers in January and another in March, so they would have a full year employment if they don't have a seasonal business and the jobs they need to fill are not filled by Americans, which is also part of the amendment. But you could have people in this program for 10 years. They could then take their nest egg back home with them. They would be trained workers for the employer. So it is a win for everyone. If we are going to have a system that works, with secure borders, with a guest worker program that allows people to work and not seek citizenship, not be able to go into the social programs of our country, but people who will be well paid, well treated, and be able to build their nest egg with their Social Security deductions, we should offer that kind of opportunity side by side with the opportunity for citizenship which is a longer track. That is a system that can work for the long term. We cannot make the mistake of 1986, when we passed an amnesty bill and said: This is the last one. In 1986 we didn't provide a guest worker program going forward that worked. As a result, we have millions of people under the radar screen not having the protections of the American system. That is not good. It is not good for them, and it is not good for us. It furthermore sends a signal that if you come here illegally, you will be able to eventually become legal through amnesty. That is not an ordered system. An ordered system would be one in which we secure our borders, we have temporary worker programs that work, some with the citizenship track, some without, and then you deal with the people who are here illegally one time. You do it in a rational and responsible way, but you know you have a system in place that is going to work for the future. I don't expect to carry this amendment. I do expect that the airing of this view should have an impact on the conference committee that will meet to create a bill that I hope all of us will be proud to support. It will not be the bill that is going to leave the Senate floor this week. This is not the bill that will provide a long term solution. It is not the bill that is going to assure that we have economic viability in our country as well as safety and security and protection for American workers. We can get a good bill, but that bill will have to come out of conference. I hope that the Senate speaks with a strong voice that this should be part of the solution, that we should have an option for people who could get into the system within a year, who would have a tamper-proof visa, that they would be safe and the employer hiring them would be safe to trust, and that they would be able to make a living wage and go home and keep the citizenship of their country of origin, if they choose to do that. This is an option we should have. I hope we have a strong vote in the Senate so that this will become part of the solution to this issue that we must reach to get control of our borders and create a strong economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for my amendment from the American Farm Bureau be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, that is what is missing from this bill. Many countries have temporary worker programs with other countries that have worked very well. Many other countries even come across the ocean for temporary work. In many places you have temporary workers who go back and forth across international boundaries every day to work. In some countries it is considered that those workers are an underclass. I disagree with that. Having the ability to go back and forth, a circularity, is healthy. We want commerce with Mexico and Central and South America. We want to have the ability for people to work 3 months and go home for 2 weeks and then come back and work 3 months, whatever the employer and employee can work out, as long as it is basically 10 months here and 2 months at home. You can have exactly what Senator Bond just said. You can have the money going into the country of origin which Mexico wants. They want the ability for their people to work in the United States. But I don't think Mexico wants their good people to leave and become citizens of our country. Some will want to. That is available to them. But not every one of them wants to. And why should we force that, or why should we encourage it? If they want to go into the citizenship route, that is available. In fact, one of the arguments that was made by the Senator from Massachusetts is, are we going to create a permanent underclass of citizens? As long as you have the citizenship route, there is no underclass because the people who abide by the laws and decide to learn English and to do the things required for citizenship can get into the citizenship track. There are many people who might not want to do that, who would like to work but take their money home, maybe have their nest egg with them when they retire to start a business at home or to pass on to their children. We should have more options. That is what this amendment does. We should have a guest worker program in this bill that creates another option that is not now in the underlying bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely. If they decided to go into the SAFE visa program, they would make the decision they are not going on the citizenship track, but if they change their mind, they can withdraw from the SAFE visa program, take the Social Security that has been deducted from their salaries home with them, go back to their home country and get in line for the citizenship track.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is so important that we have the different options. It is important that we give the opportunity to people not to disrupt their families, to be able to go back and forth, if that is the option they would choose. Maybe they want to contribute in their home country, and they want to remain citizens. As long as you have the citizenship route for people who want the rigorous test of citizenship that goes with our country, then you should have two options on the table and people can choose. This is a country of entrepreneurs who want to have options, and we need programs that work.